Breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy is associated with enrichment of non-silent mutations, mismatch repair deficiency signature and mucin mutations

Bastien Nguyen, David Venet, Hatem A Azim Jr, David Brown, Christine Desmedt, Matteo Lambertini, Samira Majjaj, Giancarlo Pruneri, Fedro Peccatori, Martine Piccart, Françoise Rothé, Christos Sotiriou, Bastien Nguyen, David Venet, Hatem A Azim Jr, David Brown, Christine Desmedt, Matteo Lambertini, Samira Majjaj, Giancarlo Pruneri, Fedro Peccatori, Martine Piccart, Françoise Rothé, Christos Sotiriou

Abstract

Breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy (BCP) is a rare and highly challenging disease. To investigate the impact of pregnancy on the biology of breast cancer, we conducted a comparative analysis of a cohort of BCP patients and non-pregnant control patients by integrating gene expression, copy number alterations and whole genome sequencing data. We showed that BCP exhibit unique molecular characteristics including an enrichment of non-silent mutations, a higher frequency of mutations in mucin gene family and an enrichment of mismatch repair deficiency mutational signature. This provides important insights into the biology of BCP and suggests that these features may be implicated in promoting tumor progression during pregnancy. In addition, it provides an unprecedented resource for further understanding the biology of breast cancer in young women and how pregnancy could modulate tumor biology.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Summary of the genome-wide copy number analysis of 87 controls and 38 BCP tumor samples. ac Comparison of cancer cell fraction, ploidy and fraction of genome altered between controls and BCP. d Comparison of the CNA frequencies of controls (blue) and BCP (pink). e Heatmap of 35 CNA breast cancer driver genes according to their alterations; controls (blue) and BCP (pink). P, p-value derived for the Mann–Whitney U test
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mutational landscape of individual BCP and controls. a Bar chart representing the absolute number of substitutions in BCP and controls, y-axis limited to 50,000 indicated by (*). b Bar chart representing the absolute number of non-silent mutations in BCP and controls (median: 20 vs. 12, P = 0.027, respectively). c Co-mutation plot showing genes harboring at least one non-silent mutation with a frequency of at least 5% across the whole cohort, and their corresponding frequencies in BCP and controls (right). d Proportion of breast cancer substitution signatures in each sample. Signatures are colored according to broad biological groups: 1 and 5 are associated with clock-like processes, 2 and 13 are APOBEC-related, 20 and 26 are associated with mismatch-repair deficiency, 3 and 8 are associated with homologous-recombination deficiency
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Enrichment of mucin mutations and upregulation in BCP. a Lollipop plots were generated using cBioPortal Mutation Mapper. Each lollipop denotes a unique missense mutation for MUC2, MUC17, and MUC20 in BCP. b MUCsig according to normal adult mouse mammary development (from pregnancy day 1 to involution day 2). c Comparison of MUCsig between controls and BCP. P, p-value derived for the Mann–Whitney U test
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Association of signature 20 with mutational load and clinical outcome. a Comparison of SNV mutational load between Sig20 negative and Sig20 positive tumors. b Comparison of MSH2 expression between Sig20 negative and Sig20 positive tumors. c Kaplan–Meier plot showing the difference in DFS between control patients (N = 18), BCP patients with Sig20 negative tumors (N = 22) and BCP patients with Sig20 positive tumors (N = 13). P, p-value derived for the Mann–Whitney U test

References

    1. Anderson JM. Mammary cancers and pregnancy. Br. Med. J. 1979;1:1124–1127. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.6171.1124.
    1. Loibl S, et al. Breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:1145. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2413.
    1. Azim HA, et al. The biological features and prognosis of breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy: a case-control study. Acta Oncol. 2012;51:653–661. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2011.636069.
    1. Azim HA, et al. Biology of breast cancer during pregnancy using genomic profiling. Endocr. Relat. Cancer. 2014;21:545–554. doi: 10.1530/ERC-14-0111.
    1. Popova T, et al. Genome Alteration Print (GAP): a tool to visualize and mine complex cancer genomic profiles obtained by SNP arrays. Genome Biol. 2009;10:R128. doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-11-r128.
    1. Mika T, et al. Molecular cytogenetics of primary breast cancer by CGH. Genes Chromosom. Cancer. 1998;21:177–184. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2264(199803)21:3<177::AID-GCC1>;2-X.
    1. Nik-Zainal S, et al. Landscape of somatic mutations in 560 breast cancer whole-genome sequences. Nature. 2016;534:1–20. doi: 10.1038/nature17676.
    1. Mermel CH, et al. GISTIC2.0 facilitates sensitive and confident localization of the targets of focal somatic copy-number alteration in human cancers. Genome Biol. 2011;12:R41. doi: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-4-r41.
    1. Mroz EA, Rocco JW. MATH, a novel measure of intratumor genetic heterogeneity, is high in poor-outcome classes of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral. Oncol. 2013;49:211–215. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2012.09.007.
    1. Forbes SA, et al. COSMIC: Somatic cancer genetics at high-resolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D777–D783. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw1121.
    1. Lawrence MS, et al. Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature. 2013;499:214–218. doi: 10.1038/nature12213.
    1. Hanisch FG. O-Glycosylation of the mucin type. Biol. Chem. 2001;382:143–149. doi: 10.1515/BC.2001.022.
    1. Anderson SM, Rudolph MC, McManaman JL, Neville MC. Key stages in mammary gland development. Secretory activation in the mammary gland: it’s not just about milk protein synthesis! Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9:204. doi: 10.1186/bcr1653.
    1. Alexandrov LB, et al. Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer. Nature. 2013;500:415–421. doi: 10.1038/nature12477.
    1. Jiricny J. The multifaceted mismatch-repair system. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2006;7:335–346. doi: 10.1038/nrm1907.
    1. Mukhopadhyay P, et al. Mucins in the pathogenesis of breast cancer: implications in diagnosis, prognosis and therapy. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2011;1815:224–240.
    1. Hollingsworth MA, Swanson BJ. Mucins in cancer: protection and control of the cell surface. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2004;4:45–60. doi: 10.1038/nrc1251.
    1. Alexandrov LB, et al. Clock-like mutational processes in human somatic cells. Nat. Genet. 2015;47:1402–1407. doi: 10.1038/ng.3441.
    1. Davies, H. et al. Whole-genome sequencing reveals breast cancers with mismatch repair deficiency. Cancer Res. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-1083 (2017).
    1. Le DT, et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015;372:2509–2520. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1500596.
    1. Rizvi NA, et al. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science. 2015;348:124–128. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa1348.
    1. Emens LA. Breast cancer immunotherapy: facts and hopes. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017;3001:2017.
    1. Huh SJ, et al. Age and pregnancy-associated dna methylation changes in mammary epithelial cells. Stem Cell Rep. 2015;4:297–311. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.12.009.
    1. Coates AS, et al. Tailoring therapies—improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Ann. Oncol. 2015;26:1533–1546. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv221.
    1. TCGA. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2012;487:61–70.
    1. Rosenthal R, McGranahan N, Herrero J, Taylor BS, Swanton C. deconstructSigs: delineating mutational processes in single tumors distinguishes DNA repair deficiencies and patterns of carcinoma evolution. Genome Biol. 2016;17:31. doi: 10.1186/s13059-016-0893-4.
    1. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B. 1995;57:289–300.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa