Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Albany Medical College Albany, NY
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Albany Medical College Albany, NY
description
Transcript of Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Albany Medical College Albany, NY
Comprehensive Genomic Profiling of Breast Cancer By Massively Parallel Sequencing
Reveals New Routes To Targeted Therapies
JS Ross, CE Sheehan A Parker, M Jarosz, S Downing, R Yelensky, D Lipson, P Stephens,
G Palmer, M Cronin
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Albany Medical CollegeAlbany, NY
Foundation Medicine, Inc.Cambridge, MA
Targeted Therapies for Cancer
Molecular profiling is driving many new targeted cancer therapeutics
Subset of analyzed targets listed; data from BioCentury Online Intelligence Database
• ~500 compounds hitting ~140 targets in development
• Growing number of newly identified potential targets
Background (1)
• Next Generation DNA Sequencing (NGS) has recently been applied to FFPE cancer biopsies and major resections (Ross JS et al. J Clin Oncol 29: 2011)
• Current Hot-Spot Genotyping only detects:– Mutations restricted to specific exons and codons
• NGS detects:– Whole exome mutations in numerous cancer related genes– Insertions and deletions– Translocations and fusions– Copy number alterations (amplifications)
Background (2)• Biomarker testing has driven the selection of therapy for breast
cancer for longer than any other solid tumor– ER/PR testing introduced in 1971– HER2 testing/trastuzumab approved in 1998– Oncotype DxTM mRNA profiling in 2004
• Currently, “hot-spot” DNA sequencing is driving the selection of targeted therapies for other solid tumors, but not for breast cancer:– EGFR genotyping for tyrosine kinase inhibitor use in NSCLC in 2005– KRAS genotyping for anti-EGFR antibody use in CRC in 2007– BRAF genotyping for BRAF inhibitor use in melanoma in 2011
• The emergence of comprehensive genomic profiling by NGS has led investigators to question whether more thorough gene sequencing techniques could discover potential targets for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer not currently searched for in current routine practice
Design
• DNA was extracted from 4 x 10 m FFPE sections from an initial study-set of 15 primary invasive ductal breast cancers
• The exons of 145 cancer-related genes were fully sequenced using the Illumina HiSeq 2000 (Illumina, San Diego, CA) and evaluated for point mutations, insertions/deletions (indels), specific genomic rearrangements and copy number alterations (CNA)
• A total of 606,676-bp content was sequenced and selected using solution phase hybridization, to an average coverage of 253×, with 84% of exons being sequenced at ≥100× coverage
• The NGS assay captures and sequences 2,574 coding exons representing 145 cancer-relevant genes (genes that are associated with cancer-related pathways, targeted therapy or prognosis), plus 37 introns from 14 genes that are frequently rearranged in cancer
• To maximize mutation-detection sensitivity in heterogeneous breast cancer specimens, the test was validated to detect base substitutions at a ≥10% mutant allele frequency with ≥99% sensitivity and to detect indels at a ≥20% mutant allele frequency with ≥95% sensitivity, with a false discovery rate of <1%
Cancer Genome Profiling Workflow
<14-21 days
Increasing Coverage To 500x Allows For >99% Sensitivity To Detect Mutant Alleles >5%, With No False Positive Mutation Calls
Sensitivity vs Allele Frequency at 500X Coverage (1Mb panel)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sens
itivi
ty (P
roba
bilit
y of
Fin
ding
Tru
e M
utati
ons
With
Zer
o Fa
lse
Posi
tives
)
Allele Frequency
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sens
itivi
ty (P
roba
bilit
y of
Fin
ding
Tru
e M
utati
ons
With
Zer
o Fa
lse
Positi
ves)
Allele Frequency
80X 0% Error
80X 0.5% Error
500X 0.5% Error
Deep coverage is required for clinical grade samples
5% 10%
Lower Coverage Misses Relevant Mutations
Mutant Allele frequency spectrum of known mutations found in a series of clinical samples
Fraction of mutations <5%
Fraction of mutations <10%
Fraction of mutations <20%
Fraction of mutations <25%
Fraction of mutations <50%
Fraction of mutations <100%
11% 32% 55% 67% 93% 100%
0-5%6-10%
11-15%
16-20%
21-25%
26-30%
31-35%
36-40%
41-45%
46-50%
51-55%
56-60%
61-65%
66-70%
71-75%
76-80%
81-85%
86-90%
91-95%
96-100%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Mutant Allele Frequency
Num
ber o
f Mut
ation
s
Genomic Alteration Categories
Highly Actionable“Page 1”
Actionable in Principle“Page 2”
Prognostic“Page 3”
Biologically Significant“Page 4”
Category A: Approved / standard alterations that predict sensitivity or resistance to approved / standard therapiesCategory B: Alterations that are inclusion or exclusion criteria for specific experimental therapies
Category C: Alterations with limited evidence that predict sensitivity or resistance to standard or experimental therapies
Category D: Alterations with prognostic or diagnostic utility
Category E: Alterations with clear biological significance in cancer (i.e. driver mutations) without clear clinical implications
Results (1)• 15/16 (94%) of the tumors revealed 33 total somatic
genomic alterations• Mean of 2.2 alterations per tumor with a range of 0 to 4
alterations per sample• Standard of care alterations consisted of 3(19%) tumors
with HER2 copy number increases• The NGS HER2 copy number measurements by NGS in the
HER2 amplified cases averaged 80% of the counted HER2 copies on FISH assessment of the same tumor block
• Genes co-amplified with HER2 included RARA
Results (2)• 10 (63%) of tumors harbored at least one alteration that potentially could have
led to clinical trials of novel targeted therapies including copy number increases for:– IGF-1R in 2 (13%) tumors (IGF-1R inhibitors)– MDM2 in 1 (6%) tumor (nutlins)– CCND1 in 3 (19%) tumors (CDK inhibitors)– CCNE1 in 1 (6%) tumor (CDK inhibitors) – CDK4 in 1 (6%) tumor (CDK inhibitors)– FGF1R in 1 (6%) tumor (FGF1R inhibitors)
• 5 (31%) of tumors had 1 or more PIK3CA mutations (PIK3CA and mTOR inhibitors)
• 6 (38%) of tumors had alterations classically associated with adverse clinical outcome including:– TP53 and PTEN mutations– HER2 copy number increases.
Comprehensive Genomic Profiling of Breast Cancers (n=15)Tumor Sample
Number of Alerations
Known and Likely Somatic Non-Synonymous Mutations (mutant allele frequency, sequence coverage depth) and Copy Number Gains (fold change over normal) Potential Actionability
AB_1 0 NoneAB_3 1 CDH1:NM_004360:c.2436_2439delTGAAG:frameshift(0.39,250) None
AB_17 2 MEN1_c.207_207delC_p.D70fs*49(0.04,196), MEN1:NM_130801:c.1322G>A_p.W441*(0.24,202) None
AB_19 4 SMARCA4_c.805delC_p.M272fs*31(0.03,95),
TP53:NM_001126112:c.1028_1028delT:frameshift(0.24,365),IRS2_gain(9x), IGF1R_gain(6x)
IGF-1R Inhibitors
AB_33 1 PTEN_c.370T>A_p.C124S(0.76,452) AB_35 2 PIK3CA_c.3140A>G_p.H1047R(0.42,455), TP53_c.332T>C_p.L111P(0.49,299) PIK3CA Inhibitors, mTOR Inhibitors
AB_49 1 TP53_c.809T>C_p.F270S(0.11,372) NoneAB_51 3 IGF1R_gain(18x), MDM2_gain(8x), CCND1_gain(4x) IGF-1R Inhibitors, Nutlins, CDK inhibitors
AB_65 2 PIK3CA_c.3140A>G_p.H1047R(0.26,300), TP53_c.488A>G_p.Y163C(0.28,232) PIK3CA Inhibitors, mTOR Inhibitors
AB_67 2 PIK3CA_c.3140A>G_p.H1047R(0.16,535), PIK3CA_c.316G>C_p.G106R(0.03,537) PIK3CA Inhibitors, mTOR Inhibitors
AB_81 2 ERBB2_gain(6x), CCNE1_gain(3x) Lapatinib, Trastuzumab, CDK Inhibitors
AB_83 1 CCND1_gain(4x) None
5014A 4 TP53_c.752T>G_p.I251S(0.34,489), ERBB2_gain(8x), MCL1_gain(5x), CDK4_gain(3x) Lapatinib, Trastuzumab, CDK inhibitors
5016A 4PIK3CA_c.3140A>T_p.H1047L(0.23,1549), TP53_c.396G>C_p.K132N(0.07,282),
PAK3:NM_001128166:c.414G>A_p.M138I(0.06,889), LRP1B:NM_018557:c.11762C>G_p.S3921*(0.23,1528)
PIK3CA Inhibitors, mTOR Inhibitors
5018A 3 PIK3CA_c.1616C>G_p.P539R(0.47,603), PIK3CA_c.3140A>G_p.H1047R(0.53,782),CCND1_gain(6x), FGFR1_gain(5x)
PIK3CA Inhibitors, mTOR Inhibitors, CDK inhibitors, FGFR1 inhibitors
Average: 2.2
Standard-of-care Plausibly Actionable (in trials) Resistance/Negative Predictors
Percentage Of Samples With Actionable Alterations Across Major Tissue Types (224 Total Cases)
N=94 N=76 N=31 N=29 N=24
Colorectal Lung(NSCLC) Prostate Breast Melanoma0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No Mutations FoundUnknown ActionabilityActionable Mutations
Tumor Type
Perc
ent o
f Cas
es
71% cases carried ≥1 plausibly actionable alterations32 % cases carried ≥2 plausibly actionable alterations
“Long Tail” Of Genomic Alterations Highlights Potential Benefits Of Comprehensive Profiling in Breast Cancer
*
Novel Genomic Alterations* Discovered in Breast Cancer by NGS in an Expanded Cohort
Total Number of Sequenced Breast Cancers
Total Number of Novel Alterations
Types of Novel Alterations
327 7 (2%) - Chromosomal Inversions (2)- In Frame Deletion (1)- Gene Truncation (1)- Chromosomal Rearrangement (1)- Tandem Duplications (2)
* Novel alterations discovered in tumor cell (somatic) sequence only as determined by comparison with the COSMIC database. Gene variants of undetermined significance which may represent germline variants are not included in this list.
ERBB2 RARA
HER2 Gene Copy Number Alteration Validation
Increased HER2 gene copies detected by NGS
HER2 FISH Positive Breast Invasive Duct Carcinoma Demonstrating High HER2 Copy Number HER2 Protein 3+ Expression by IHC
Clinical Dilemmas Potentially Resolved by NGS
• ER IHC+ with lack of benefit for hormonal therapy– ESR1 Mutation truncates estradiol binding site of the ER
receptor protein– “Functional assay” is negative
• HER2 IHC 3+ and FISH-– Activating mutation in the HER2 gene increases HER2
mRNA and HER2 receptor protein levels– No copy number increase
Conclusions• Deep massively parallel DNA sequencing of clinical breast
cancer samples uncovers an unexpectedly high frequency of genomic alterations that could influence therapy selection for breast cancer
• Deep sequencing of genomic DNA can provide a broad cancer-related gene survey at a depth of coverage that provides sensitive detection for all classes of genomic alterations, and when applied to breast cancer patients can reveal actionable genomic abnormalities that inform treatment decisions.