Abstract
De novo metastatic breast cancer (dnMBC) represents a minority of MBC cases, and as
such, its genomics are poorly understood. Characterizing the genomics of dnMBC represents
an opportunity to delineate metastatic drivers in the absence of treatment selection.
In this review, we first summarize the literature of the genomics of MBC which showed
that MBCs have greater mutational burden than early stage, treatment naïve breast
cancers. We then turn to recent studies that have sought to focus on dnMBC. We propose
that understanding genomic differences between dnMBC and relapsed MBC can inform treatment
choices. Finally, we discuss translational strategies to better dissect the genomics
of dnMBC.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic and PersonalSubscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical Breast CancerAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Twenty-years experience with de novo metastatic breast cancer.Int J Cancer. 2015; 137: 1417-1426
- Trends in Metastatic Breast and Prostate Cancer–Lessons in Cancer Dynamics.N Engl J Med. 2015; 373: 1685-1687
- Differential presentation and survival of de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer over time: 1990–2010.Breast Cancer Res and Treat. 2018; 167: 579-590
- Prognosis of metastatic breast cancer: are there differences between patients with de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer?.Br J of Cancer. 2015; 112: 1445-1451
- Primary and secondary distant metastatic breast cancer: two sides of the same coin.Breast. 2014; 23: 26-32
- Survival differences among women with de novo stage IV and relapsed breast cancer.Ann Oncol. 2010; 21: 2169-2174
- Survival with metastatic breast cancer based on initial presentation, de novo versus relapsed.Breast Cancer Res and Treat. 2017; 161: 549-556
- Survival and disease characteristics of de novo versus recurrent metastatic breast cancer in a cohort of young patients.Br J Cancer. 2020; 122: 1618-1629
- Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing.N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 883-892
- Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer.J Clin Invest. 2013; 123: 4918-4922
- Mutational Profile of Metastatic Breast Cancers: A Retrospective Analysis.PLoS Med. 2016; 13e1002201
- The Genomic Landscape of Endocrine-Resistant Advanced Breast Cancers.Cancer Cell. 2018; 34 (e426): 427-438
- Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets (MSK-IMPACT): A Hybridization Capture-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Clinical Assay for Solid Tumor Molecular Oncology.J Mol Diagn. 2015; 17: 251-264
- Genomic characterization of metastatic breast cancers.Nature. 2019; 569: 560-564
- Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer.Nature. 2013; 500: 415-421
- Genomic and transcriptomic analyses of breast cancer primaries and matched metastases in AURORA, the Breast International Group (BIG) molecular screening initiative.Cancer Discov. 2021; 11: 2796-2811
- Prognosis of metastatic breast cancer: are there differences between patients with de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer?.Br J Cancer. 2015; 112: 1445-1451
- Differential presentation and survival of de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer over time: 1990-2010.Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 167: 579-590
- Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for patients with de novo versus recurrent HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 145: 725-734
- Why Has Breast Cancer Screening Failed to Decrease the Incidence of de Novo Stage IV Disease?.Cancers (Basel). 2019; 11: 500
- Breast-Cancer Tumor Size, Overdiagnosis, and Mammography Screening Effectiveness.N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1438-1447
- Genomic landscape of de novo stage IV breast cancer.J of Clin Oncol. 2019; 37 (1022–1022)
- Down-regulation of MHC class II expression through inhibition of CIITA transcription by lytic transactivator Zta during Epstein-Barr virus reactivation.J Immunol. 2009; 182: 1799-1809
- The clinicomolecular landscape of de novo versus relapsed stage IV metastatic breast cancer.Exp Mol Pathol. 2020; 114104404
- The Difference in Prognostic Outcomes Between De Novo Stage IV and Recurrent Metastatic Patients with Hormone Receptor-positive, HER2-negative Breast Cancer.In Vivo. 2018; 32: 353-358
- Relapsed and De Novo Metastatic HER2-positive Breast Cancer Treated With Trastuzumab: Tumor Genotypes and Clinical Measures Associated With Patient Outcome.Clin Breast Cancer. 2019; 19 (e114): 113-125
- Updated results from MONALEESA-2, a phase III trial of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.Ann Oncol. 2018; 29: 1541-1547
- Ribociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole alone in patients with de novo HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer in the randomized MONALEESA-2 trial.Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 168: 127-134
- Palbociclib and Letrozole in Advanced Breast Cancer.N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1925-1936
- Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FALCON): an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.Lancet. 2016; 388: 2997-3005
- Mouse models of metastasis: progress and prospects.Dis Model Mech. 2017; 10: 1061-1074
Approval Package for: ApplicationNumber 207103Orig1s004. Food and Drug Administration Accessed on March 31, 2017
- Tumor mutational burden standardization initiatives: Recommendations for consistent tumor mutational burden assessment in clinical samples to guide immunotherapy treatment decisions.Genes Chromos Cancer. 2019; 58: 578-588
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: November 26, 2021
Accepted:
November 21,
2021
Received in revised form:
October 14,
2021
Received:
September 30,
2020
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
