Early circulating tumor DNA dynamics and clonal selection with palbociclib and fulvestrant for breast cancer

Ben O'Leary, Sarah Hrebien, James P Morden, Matthew Beaney, Charlotte Fribbens, Xin Huang, Yuan Liu, Cynthia Huang Bartlett, Maria Koehler, Massimo Cristofanilli, Isaac Garcia-Murillas, Judith M Bliss, Nicholas C Turner, Ben O'Leary, Sarah Hrebien, James P Morden, Matthew Beaney, Charlotte Fribbens, Xin Huang, Yuan Liu, Cynthia Huang Bartlett, Maria Koehler, Massimo Cristofanilli, Isaac Garcia-Murillas, Judith M Bliss, Nicholas C Turner

Abstract

CDK4/6 inhibition substantially improves progression-free survival (PFS) for women with advanced estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, although there are no predictive biomarkers. Early changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) level may provide early response prediction, but the impact of tumor heterogeneity is unknown. Here we use plasma samples from patients in the randomized phase III PALOMA-3 study of CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib and fulvestrant for women with advanced breast cancer and show that relative change in PIK3CA ctDNA level after 15 days treatment strongly predicts PFS on palbociclib and fulvestrant (hazard ratio 3.94, log-rank p = 0.0013). ESR1 mutations selected by prior hormone therapy are shown to be frequently sub clonal, with ESR1 ctDNA dynamics offering limited prediction of clinical outcome. These results suggest that early ctDNA dynamics may provide a robust biomarker for CDK4/6 inhibitors, with early ctDNA dynamics demonstrating divergent response of tumor sub clones to treatment.

Conflict of interest statement

B.O’L. received research funding from Pfizer (Inst). M.B. purchased stock from Randox Laboratories. X.H., Y.L., C.H.B., and M.K. are Pfizer employees and have Pfizer stock. M.C. received honoraria from Agendia, Dompe Farmaceutici, Celgene, Pfizer and has a consulting or advisory role in Dompe Farmaceutici, Cynvenio Biosystems, and Newomics. J.M.B. received research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Janssen Cilag (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), and Clovis Oncology (Inst). N.C.T. has a consulting or advisory role in Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and received research funding from Pfizer (Inst), Roche (Inst), and AstraZeneca. The remaining authors declare no competing financial interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Palbociclib and fulvestrant suppresses ctDNA after two weeks of treatment. a CONSORT diagram of plasma samples analyzed from PALOMA-3 for PIK3CA mutation with droplet digital PCR assays. b Dynamics of PIK3CA mutant and wild-type DNA copies/ml between day 1 and day 15 of treatment, n = 73, median day15:day1 ratio for mutant 0.076, median ratio for wild-type 0.54, p < 0.0001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test. c Circulating DNA ratio day15 copies/ml relative to day 1 copies/ml (CDR15) for circulating PIK3CA mutation split by treatment. p value Mann–Whitney test comparison between treatments. Lines are at median
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
ESR1 mutant sub clones have different early ctDNA dynamics to PIK3CA mutations. a CONSORT diagram for samples from PALOMA-3 used for the ESR1 mutation analysis. b Dynamics of ESR1 mutant and wild-type DNA copies/ml between day 1 and day 15 of treatment, n = 65, median ratio for mutant 0.022, median ratio for wild-type 0.21, p value Wilcoxon signed-rank test. c Mutant ESR1 CDR15 split by treatment. p value Mann–Whitney test comparing treatments. d CDR15 for PIK3CA mutations vs ESR1 mutations in patients randomized to fulvestrant plus placebo. p value Mann–Whitney test. Line at median. e CDR15 for PIK3CA mutations vs ESR1 mutations in patients receiving palbociclib plus fulvestrant. p value Mann–Whitney test. Line at median
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Early PIK3CA ctDNA dynamics predict progression-free survival (PFS) on palbociclib and fulvestrant more strongly than ESR1 dynamics. a Kaplan–Meier plot for PFS of patients randomized to palbociclib and fulvestrant split by median PIK3CA CDR15. b Kaplan–Meier plot for PFS of patients randomized to palbociclib and fulvestrant split by median ESR1 CDR15. c Kaplan–Meier plot for PFS of patients receiving palbociclib and fulvestrant split by high or low PIK3CA CDR15 using an optimized cut-off calculated with Harrell’s c-index. q value log-rank test corrected for false discovery with Benjamini–Hochberg. d Kaplan–Meier plot for PFS of patients receiving palbociclib and fulvestrant split by high or low ESR1 CDR15 using an optimized cut-off calculated with Harrell’s c-index. q value log-rank test corrected for false discovery with Benjamini–Hochberg
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
ESR1 mutations may be sub clonal with distinct response to therapy. a Kaplan–Meier curves for PFS of patients with and without ESR1 mutations in day 1 baseline plasma randomized to placebo and fulvestrant in the PALOMA-3 trial, n = 151, updated from ref. . b Overlap of baseline plasma PIK3CA and ESR1 mutations. c Baseline day 1 allele fraction comparison of aggregate PIK3CA mutations and aggregate ESR1 mutations in patients with mutations detected in both genes, n = 35. d Comparison of CDR15 for PIK3CA mutation and ESR1 mutation in the same patient plasma samples, n = 25. The red dashed box highlights patients with loss of ESR1 mutation in plasma after 15 days treatment where PIK3CA mutation remained detectable
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Clonal composition at relapse is anticipated by early ctDNA dynamics. a Samples with PIK3CA and ESR1 mutations used in longitudinal clonal analysis. b Comparison of PIK3CA mutation and ESR1 mutation detection at end of treatment. p value two sample t test. c Spider plot for 37 patients with PIK3CA mutation in longitudinal clonality analysis. Mutant copies/ml normalized to day 1. Lines are colored as for the accompanying contingency table, patients with detectable end of treatment mutation colored blue and undetectable colored green. p value Fisher’s exact test. d Spider plot for 31 patients with ESR1 mutation in longitudinal clonality analysis. Mutant copies/ml are normalized to the value at day 1. Lines are colored as for the accompanying contingency table, patients with detectable end of treatment mutation colored red and undetectable colored purple. p value Fisher’s exact test

References

    1. Dawson SJ, et al. Analysis of circulating tumor DNA to monitor metastatic breast cancer. New Engl. J. Med. 2013;368:1199–1209. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1213261.
    1. Murtaza M, et al. Non-invasive analysis of acquired resistance to cancer therapy by sequencing of plasma DNA. Nature. 2013;497:108–112. doi: 10.1038/nature12065.
    1. Forshew T, et al. Noninvasive Identification and monitoring of cancer mutations by targeted deep sequencing of plasma DNA. Sci. Transl. Med. 2012;4:136ra168. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003726.
    1. Mok T, et al. Detection and dynamic changes of egfr mutations from circulating tumor DNA as a predictor of survival outcomes in NSCLC patients treated with first-line intercalated erlotinib and chemotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2015;21:3196–3203. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2594.
    1. Garcia-Murillas I, et al. Mutation tracking in circulating tumor DNA predicts relapse in early breast cancer. Sci. Transl. Med. 2015;7:302ra133. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aab0021.
    1. Douillard JY, et al. First-line gefitinib in Caucasian EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients: a phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study. Br. J. Cancer. 2014;110:55–62. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.721.
    1. Murtaza M, et al. Multifocal clonal evolution characterized using circulating tumour DNA in a case of metastatic breast cancer. Nat. Commun. 2015;6:8760. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9760.
    1. Tie J, et al. Circulating tumor DNA as an early marker of therapeutic response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2015;26:1715–1722. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv177.
    1. Garlan F, et al. Early evaluation of circulating tumor DNA as marker of therapeutic efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients (PLACOL study) Clin. Cancer Res. 2017;23:5416–5425. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-3155.
    1. Marchetti A, et al. Early prediction of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors by quantification of EGFR mutations in plasma of NSCLC patients. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2015;10:1437–1443. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000643.
    1. Schreuer M, et al. Quantitative assessment of BRAF V600 mutant circulating cell-free tumor DNA as a tool for therapeutic monitoring in metastatic melanoma patients treated with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. J. Transl. Med. 2016;14:95. doi: 10.1186/s12967-016-0852-6.
    1. Kato K, et al. Numerical indices based on circulating tumor DNA for the evaluation of therapeutic response and disease progression in lung cancer patients. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:29093. doi: 10.1038/srep29093.
    1. Imamura F, et al. Early responses of EGFR circulating tumor DNA to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in lung cancer treatment. Oncotarget. 2016;7:71782–71789. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.12373.
    1. Diaz LA, Bardelli A. Liquid biopsies: genotyping circulating tumor DNA. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014;32:579–586. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2011.
    1. Newman AM, et al. An ultrasensitive method for quantitating circulating tumor DNA with broad patient coverage. Nat. Med. 2014;20:548–554. doi: 10.1038/nm.3519.
    1. Abbosh, C. et al. Phylogenetic ctDNA analysis depicts early stage lung cancer evolution. Nature545, 446–451 (2017).
    1. Toy W, et al. ESR1 ligand-binding domain mutations in hormone-resistant breast cancer. Nat. Genet. 2013;45:1439–1445. doi: 10.1038/ng.2822.
    1. Fanning, S. W. et al. Estrogen receptor alpha somatic mutations Y537S and D538G confer breast cancer endocrine resistance by stabilizing the activating function-2 binding conformation. eLife5, e12792 (2016).
    1. Jeselsohn R, et al. Emergence of constitutively active estrogen receptor-alpha mutations in pretreated advanced estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2014;20:1757–1767. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2332.
    1. Schiavon G, et al. Analysis of ESR1 mutation in circulating tumor DNA demonstrates evolution during therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Sci. Transl. Med. 2015;7:313ra182. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aac7551.
    1. Fribbens C, et al. Plasma ESR1 mutations and the treatment of estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;34:2961–2968. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.3061.
    1. Chandarlapaty S, et al. Prevalence of ESR1 mutations in cell-free dna and outcomes in metastatic breast cancer: a secondary analysis of the bolero-2 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:1310–1315. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1279.
    1. Spoerke JM, et al. Heterogeneity and clinical significance of ESR1 mutations in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer patients receiving fulvestrant. Nat. Commun. 2016;7:11579. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11579.
    1. Finn RS, et al. Palbociclib and letrozole in advanced breast cancer. New Engl. J. Med. 2016;375:1925–1936. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1607303.
    1. Cristofanilli, M. et al. Fulvestrant plus palbociclib versus fulvestrant plus placebo for treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer that progressed on previous endocrine therapy (PALOMA-3): final analysis of the multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol.17 425–439 (2016).
    1. Hortobagyi GN, et al. Ribociclib as first-line therapy for HR-positive, advanced breast cancer. New Engl. J. Med. 2016;375:1738–1748. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1609709.
    1. O’Leary B, Finn RS, Turner NC. Treating cancer with selective CDK4/6 inhibitors. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2016;13:417–430. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.26.
    1. Gao J, et al. Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci. Signal. 2013;6:pl1. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2004088.
    1. Cerami E, et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov. 2012;2:401. doi: 10.1158/-12-0095.
    1. Pereira B, et al. The somatic mutation profiles of 2,433 breast cancers refine their genomic and transcriptomic landscapes. Nat. Commun. 2016;7:11479. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11479.
    1. Yates LR, et al. Subclonal diversification of primary breast cancer revealed by multiregion sequencing. Nat. Med. 2015;21:751–759. doi: 10.1038/nm.3886.
    1. Yates LR, et al. Genomic evolution of breast cancer metastasis and relapse. Cancer Cell. 2017;32:169–184.e167. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.07.005.
    1. Higgins MJ, et al. Detection of tumor PIK3CA status in metastatic breast cancer using peripheral blood. Clin. Cancer Res. 2012;18:3462–3469. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2696.
    1. Baselga J, et al. Buparlisib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (BELLE-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:904–916. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30376-5.
    1. Ciriello G, et al. Comprehensive molecular portraits of invasive lobular breast. Cancer Cell. 2015;163:506–519.
    1. Jeselsohn R, Buchwalter G, De Angelis C, Brown M, Schiff R. ESR1 mutations-a mechanism for acquired endocrine resistance in breast cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2015;12:573–583. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.117.
    1. Finn RS, et al. The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone as first-line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18): a randomised phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:25–35. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71159-3.
    1. Finn R, et al. PD 0332991, a selective cyclin D kinase 4/6 inhibitor, preferentially inhibits proliferation of luminal estrogen receptor-positive human breast cancer cell lines in vitro. Breast Cancer Res. 2009;11:R77. doi: 10.1186/bcr2419.
    1. Kinde I, Wu J, Papadopoulos N, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B. Detection and quantification of rare mutations with massively parallel sequencing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2011;108:9530–9535. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1105422108.
    1. Turner, N. C., et al. Palbociclib in hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 209–219 (2015).

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner