Advertisement

Genomic Characterization of De Novo Metastatic Breast Cancer

  • Samyukta Mullangi
    Affiliations
    Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

    Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
    Search for articles by this author
  • Neil Vasan
    Correspondence
    Address for correspondence: Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 1130 St. Nicholas Avenue, New York, NY 10032.
    Affiliations
    Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY

    Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
    Search for articles by this author
Published:November 26, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2021.11.005

      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 & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Breast Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Cortesi L
        • Toss A
        • Cirilli C
        • et al.
        Twenty-years experience with de novo metastatic breast cancer.
        Int J Cancer. 2015; 137: 1417-1426
        • Welch HG
        • Gorski DH
        • Albertsen PC.
        Trends in Metastatic Breast and Prostate Cancer–Lessons in Cancer Dynamics.
        N Engl J Med. 2015; 373: 1685-1687
        • Malmgren JA
        • Mayer M
        • Atwood MK
        • Kaplan HG.
        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
        • Lobbezoo DJA
        • van Kampen RJW
        • Voogd AC
        • et al.
        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
        • Guth U
        • Magaton I
        • Huang DJ
        • Fisher R
        • Schotzau A
        • Vetter M.
        Primary and secondary distant metastatic breast cancer: two sides of the same coin.
        Breast. 2014; 23: 26-32
        • Dawood S
        • Broglio K
        • Ensor J
        • Hortobagyi GN
        • Giordano SH.
        Survival differences among women with de novo stage IV and relapsed breast cancer.
        Ann Oncol. 2010; 21: 2169-2174
        • den Brok WD
        • Speers CH
        • Gondara L
        • Baxter E
        • Tyldesley SK
        • Lohrisch CA.
        Survival with metastatic breast cancer based on initial presentation, de novo versus relapsed.
        Breast Cancer Res and Treat. 2017; 161: 549-556
        • McKenzie HS
        • Maishman T
        • Simmonds P
        • et al.
        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
        • Gerlinger M
        • Rowan AJ
        • Horswell S
        • et al.
        Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 883-892
        • Haffner MC
        • Mosbruger T
        • Esopi DM
        • et al.
        Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer.
        J Clin Invest. 2013; 123: 4918-4922
        • Lefebvre C
        • Bachelot T
        • Filleron T
        • et al.
        Mutational Profile of Metastatic Breast Cancers: A Retrospective Analysis.
        PLoS Med. 2016; 13e1002201
        • Razavi P
        • Chang MT
        • Xu G
        • et al.
        The Genomic Landscape of Endocrine-Resistant Advanced Breast Cancers.
        Cancer Cell. 2018; 34 (e426): 427-438
        • Cheng DT
        • Mitchell TN
        • Zehir A
        • et al.
        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
        • Bertucci F
        • Ng CKY
        • Patsouris A
        • et al.
        Genomic characterization of metastatic breast cancers.
        Nature. 2019; 569: 560-564
        • Alexandrov LB
        • Nik-Zainal S
        • Wedge DC
        • et al.
        Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer.
        Nature. 2013; 500: 415-421
        • Aftimos P
        • Oliveira M
        • Irrthum A
        • et al.
        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
        • Lobbezoo DJ
        • van Kampen RJ
        • Voogd AC
        • et al.
        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
        • Malmgren JA
        • Mayer M
        • Atwood MK
        • Kaplan HG.
        Differential presentation and survival of de novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer over time: 1990-2010.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 167: 579-590
        • Yardley DA
        • Kaufman PA
        • Brufsky A
        • et al.
        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
        • Heller DR
        • Chiu AS
        • Farrell K
        • Killelea BK
        • Lannin DR.
        Why Has Breast Cancer Screening Failed to Decrease the Incidence of de Novo Stage IV Disease?.
        Cancers (Basel). 2019; 11: 500
        • Welch HG
        • Prorok PC
        • O'Malley AJ
        • Kramer BS.
        Breast-Cancer Tumor Size, Overdiagnosis, and Mammography Screening Effectiveness.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1438-1447
        • Garrido-Castro AC
        • Spurr L
        • Hughes ME
        • et al.
        Genomic landscape of de novo stage IV breast cancer.
        J of Clin Oncol. 2019; 37 (1022–1022)
        • Li D
        • Qian L
        • Chen C
        • et al.
        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
        • Seltzer S
        • Corrigan M
        • O'Reilly S
        The clinicomolecular landscape of de novo versus relapsed stage IV metastatic breast cancer.
        Exp Mol Pathol. 2020; 114104404
        • Yamamura J
        • Kamigaki S
        • Fujita J
        • Osato H
        • Komoike Y.
        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
        • Kotoula V
        • Tsakiri K
        • Koliou GA
        • et al.
        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
        • Hortobagyi GN
        • Stemmer SM
        • Burris HA
        • et al.
        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
        • O'Shaughnessy J
        • Petrakova K
        • Sonke GS
        • et al.
        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
        • Finn RS
        • Martin M
        • Rugo HS
        • et al.
        Palbociclib and Letrozole in Advanced Breast Cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1925-1936
        • Robertson JFR
        • Bondarenko IM
        • Trishkina E
        • et al.
        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
        • Gomez-Cuadrado L
        • Tracey N
        • Ma R
        • Qian B
        • Brunton VG.
        Mouse models of metastasis: progress and prospects.
        Dis Model Mech. 2017; 10: 1061-1074
      1. Approval Package for: ApplicationNumber 207103Orig1s004. Food and Drug Administration Accessed on March 31, 2017

        • Stenzinger A
        • Allen JD
        • Maas J
        • et al.
        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