Drug-Resistant Brain Metastases: A Role for Pharmacology, … · VIEWS 1124 | CANCER DISCOVERY...
5
VIEWS 1124 | CANCER DISCOVERY NOVEMBER 2015 www.aacrjournals.org IN THE SPOTLIGHT Drug-Resistant Brain Metastases: A Role for Pharmacology, Tumor Evolution, and Too-Late Therapy Thomas Stricker 1,2 and Carlos L. Arteaga 2,3,4 1 Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt Uni- versity School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 2 Center for Cancer Tar- geted Therapies, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 3 Department of Medicine, Van- derbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 4 Department of Cancer Biology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. Corresponding Authors: Carlos L. Arteaga, Vanderbilt University, 2220 Pierce Avenue, 771 PRB, Nashville, TN 37232. Phone: 615-936-0975; Fax: 615-936-1790; E-mail: [email protected]; and Thomas Stricker, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, MCN CC3309, 1161 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37232. Phone: 615-343-4008; E-mail: thomas. [email protected] doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-1166 ©2015 American Association for Cancer Research. Summary: Two recent studies report deep molecular profiling of matched brain metastases and primary tumors. In both studies, somatic alterations in the brain metastases were frequently discordant with those in the primary tumor, suggesting divergent evolution at metastatic sites and raising questions about the use of biomarkers in patients in clinical trials with targeted therapies. Cancer Discov; 5(11); 1124–6. ©2015 AACR. See related article by Brastianos and colleagues, p. 1164 (2). Brain metastases are one of the most deadly complications of malignancy, and their treatment remains difficult. Two recent articles in Cancer Discovery report deep molecular pro- filing of matched brain metastases and primary tumors. The first study by Paik and colleagues (1) of 79 stage IV squamous cell lung cancers (SqCLC) used exon capture/next-generation sequencing (NGS) and identified two major subtypes: tumors with FGFR1 amplification and tumors with alterations in the PI3K pathway, comprising PIK3CA mutations and loss of the tumor suppressor PTEN. In total, 61% of patients’ tumors harbored a somatic alteration in either FGFR or the PI3K pathway, aberrations both potentially targetable with drugs in clinical development. Primary cancers that gave rise to brain metastases exhibited truncal loss of PTEN . There were no clonal differences in PTEN loss or PIK3CA mutations between primary tumors and brain metastases. Interestingly, patients with SqCLC with alterations in the PI3K pathway exhibited a higher metastatic burden and incidence of brain metastases and, importantly, a strikingly shorter overall sur- vival compared with patients without these aberrations. In the second study, in this issue of Cancer Discovery , Brastianos and colleagues (2) performed whole-exome sequencing (WES) of 86 matched brain metastases and primary tumors, mainly breast, lung, and renal cell cancers. Fifty-three percent of brain metastases harbored somatic alterations not detected in the matched primary tumor, many of them associated with sensi- tivity to targeted therapies either approved or in development. Temporally and spatially distinct brain metastases from the same patients were genetically homogenous, whereas extracra- nial metastases were highly divergent from brain metastases. Using computational methods that integrate somatic muta- tions and copy-number alterations to estimate the cancer cell fraction harboring each mutation, the authors identified branched evolution in all clonally related matched biopsies, where all metastatic and primary tumor sites share a common ancestor yet continue to evolve independently. Indeed, both of these studies showed that brain metas- tases and their matched primary tumor are clonally related, yet genetically diverse. In Paik and colleagues (1), trios (brain metastasis, primary tumor, and normal tissue) from 6 patients with SqCLC were subjected to WES. Brastianos and colleagues (2) interrogated DNA from 86 trios, also with WES. Mutations for the primary and metastases were identified separately by comparison with the matched nor- mal DNA; then the mutations present in the metastasis and the primary tumor were compared with each other. In most cases, the primary tumor and the metastasis shared a “trunk” of mutations, but sites harbored their own subset of unique mutations. Thus, although the primary tumor and metasta- sis had some shared history, the metastasis diverged from the primary tumor early in their natural history and then both tumors evolved independently. Brastianos and colleagues leveraged copy number from whole-exome data plus muta- tion allele frequency to estimate the fraction of tumor cells containing each mutation, dubbed the cancer cell fraction (CCF). A CCF of 1.0 means that all tumor cells contain the mutation. The shared truncal mutations had a CCF of 1.0 in both the primary tumor and the brain metastasis. However, both tumor sites harbored mutations with a CCF of 1.0 that were unique to each site, suggesting that all cancer cells in each respective tumor have these mutations. These mutations must have arisen after the brain metastasis and the primary tumor diverged and then grew to dominate each respective site. Importantly, mutations unique to the brain metastases with a CCF of 1.0 were not detected in the primary tumor, not even as a subclonal mutation or a rare population. This is an important result, as it suggests that the primary tumor and the metastasis diverged early and, from then on, followed separate evolutionary histories. Research. on August 21, 2020. © 2015 American Association for Cancer cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from Research. on August 21, 2020. © 2015 American Association for Cancer cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from Research. on August 21, 2020. © 2015 American Association for Cancer cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Transcript of Drug-Resistant Brain Metastases: A Role for Pharmacology, … · VIEWS 1124 | CANCER DISCOVERY...
VIEWS
1124 | CANCER DISCOVERY NOVEMBER 2015 www.aacrjournals.org
IN THE SPOTLIGHT
Drug-Resistant Brain Metastases: A Role for Pharmacology, Tumor Evolution, and Too-Late Therapy Thomas Stricker 1,2 and Carlos L. Arteaga 2,3,4
1 Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt Uni-versity School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 2 Center for Cancer Tar-geted Therapies, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 3 Department of Medicine, Van-derbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. 4 Department of Cancer Biology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. Corresponding Authors: Carlos L. Arteaga, Vanderbilt University, 2220 Pierce Avenue, 771 PRB, Nashville, TN 37232. Phone: 615-936-0975; Fax: 615-936-1790; E-mail: [email protected] ; and Thomas Stricker, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, MCN CC3309, 1161 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37232. Phone: 615-343-4008; E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-1166 ©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.
Summary : Two recent studies report deep molecular profi ling of matched brain metastases and primary tumors. In both studies, somatic alterations in the brain metastases were frequently discordant with those in the primary tumor, suggesting divergent evolution at metastatic sites and raising questions about the use of biomarkers in patients in clinical trials with targeted therapies. Cancer Discov; 5(11); 1124–6. ©2015 AACR.
See related article by Brastianos and colleagues, p. 1164 (2).
Brain metastases are one of the most deadly complications of malignancy, and their treatment remains diffi cult. Two recent articles in Cancer Discovery report deep molecular pro-fi ling of matched brain metastases and primary tumors. The fi rst study by Paik and colleagues ( 1 ) of 79 stage IV squamous cell lung cancers (SqCLC) used exon capture/next-generation sequencing (NGS) and identifi ed two major subtypes: tumors with FGFR1 amplifi cation and tumors with alterations in the PI3K pathway, comprising PIK3CA mutations and loss of the tumor suppressor PTEN . In total, 61% of patients’ tumors harbored a somatic alteration in either FGFR or the PI3K pathway, aberrations both potentially targetable with drugs in clinical development. Primary cancers that gave rise to brain metastases exhibited truncal loss of PTEN . There were no clonal differences in PTEN loss or PIK3CA mutations between primary tumors and brain metastases. Interestingly, patients with SqCLC with alterations in the PI3K pathway exhibited a higher metastatic burden and incidence of brain metastases and, importantly, a strikingly shorter overall sur-vival compared with patients without these aberrations. In the second study, in this issue of Cancer Discovery , Brastianos and colleagues ( 2 ) performed whole-exome sequencing (WES) of 86 matched brain metastases and primary tumors, mainly breast, lung, and renal cell cancers. Fifty-three percent of brain metastases harbored somatic alterations not detected in the matched primary tumor, many of them associated with sensi-tivity to targeted therapies either approved or in development.
Temporally and spatially distinct brain metastases from the same patients were genetically homogenous, whereas extracra-nial metastases were highly divergent from brain metastases. Using computational methods that integrate somatic muta-tions and copy-number alterations to estimate the cancer cell fraction harboring each mutation, the authors identifi ed branched evolution in all clonally related matched biopsies, where all metastatic and primary tumor sites share a common ancestor yet continue to evolve independently.
Indeed, both of these studies showed that brain metas-tases and their matched primary tumor are clonally related, yet genetically diverse. In Paik and colleagues (1), trios (brain metastasis, primary tumor, and normal tissue) from 6 patients with SqCLC were subjected to WES. Brastianos and colleagues (2) interrogated DNA from 86 trios, also with WES. Mutations for the primary and metastases were identifi ed separately by comparison with the matched nor-mal DNA; then the mutations present in the metastasis and the primary tumor were compared with each other. In most cases, the primary tumor and the metastasis shared a “trunk” of mutations, but sites harbored their own subset of unique mutations. Thus, although the primary tumor and metasta-sis had some shared history, the metastasis diverged from the primary tumor early in their natural history and then both tumors evolved independently. Brastianos and colleagues leveraged copy number from whole-exome data plus muta-tion allele frequency to estimate the fraction of tumor cells containing each mutation, dubbed the cancer cell fraction (CCF). A CCF of 1.0 means that all tumor cells contain the mutation. The shared truncal mutations had a CCF of 1.0 in both the primary tumor and the brain metastasis. However, both tumor sites harbored mutations with a CCF of 1.0 that were unique to each site, suggesting that all cancer cells in each respective tumor have these mutations. These mutations must have arisen after the brain metastasis and the primary tumor diverged and then grew to dominate each respective site. Importantly, mutations unique to the brain metastases with a CCF of 1.0 were not detected in the primary tumor , not even as a subclonal mutation or a rare population. This is an important result, as it suggests that the primary tumor and the metastasis diverged early and, from then on, followed separate evolutionary histories.
Research. on August 21, 2020. © 2015 American Association for Cancercancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Research. on August 21, 2020. © 2015 American Association for Cancercancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Research. on August 21, 2020. © 2015 American Association for Cancercancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
VIEWS
NOVEMBER 2015 CANCER DISCOVERY | 1125
This analysis critically depends on adequate and deep sampling of the primary tumor, because it is possible that a rare subclone is already present in it but is not detected. Brastianos and colleagues (2) calculated the minimum CCF of mutations in each primary sample for which they had a detection power ≥95%. In most cases, this number was sig-nificantly <10%. For example, in a mouse model of lung can-cer, a rare metastasis-founding subclone was detected when a large percentage of the tumor was available for sampling (3). A limitation of these studies is the inability to sample many different regions of the tumor. Indeed, several studies where multiregion sampling and sequencing were performed have demonstrated that unique mutations can be detected in different regions of the primary tumor (4, 5). In these studies, however, CCFs were not estimated. Consistent with the results from these two recent studies, in the few samples tested, the metastasis shared truncal mutations with the pri-mary, but also had a unique set of private mutations as well.
The large cohort of Brastianos and colleagues (2) allowed comparison of brain with extracranial metastases in the same patient as well as comparison of multiple metastases resected at different times from different sites in the brain. Both intralesional heterogeneity (by sampling multiple areas of the same brain metastasis) and interlesional heterogeneity were evaluated in a small subset of patients. All brain metas-tases from the same patient shared mutations that were not present in the primary tumor, suggesting a role for the brain microenvironment in regulating metastatic tropism and/or brain-specific evolutionary branching. Of potential impor-tance for the treatment of these patients, almost all clinically relevant mutations were shared among brain metastases. These included alterations known to be sensitive to ERBB receptor, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, FGFR, MAPK, and CDK inhibi-tors. In eight cases that also had an extracranial metasta-sis, this metastasis had a variable relationship to the brain metastasis. In most cases, although the extracranial and brain metastasis and primary tumor were clearly related, each had private mutations, suggesting that profiling primary tumor and extracranial metastases would be insufficient to predict the profile of brain metastases.
Selection pressures such as chemotherapy or targeted ther-apies can enrich for subclones within heterogeneous tumors with intrinsic or acquired drug resistance (6, 7). In turn, these subclones can dominate a tumor mass and drive tumor pro-gression. The two studies discussed herein are small and do not provide systematic information on prior treatment. It is interesting, however, that several brain metastases in patients with HER2-amplified breast cancer treated with trastuzumab exhibited additional alterations in HER2 (mutation), EGFR, and PIK3CA that were not detected in the primary tumor. All these lesions are known to confer resistance to trastuzumab (8). These findings challenge the notion that brain metastases are drug resistant for purely “pharmacologic” reasons, i.e., poor drug penetration of the blood–brain barrier. They sug-gest, first, drug-specific mechanisms of acquired resistance and, second, the need to always molecularly profile these lesions. Actionable mutations identified in brain metastases would assist in the selection of targeted drugs that can be used after resection of these metastases and/or stereotactic radiotherapy in order to control residual microscopic disease
in the central nervous system (CNS). In Paik and colleagues (1), all brain metastases exhibited heterozygous loss of PTEN and had a pattern of gene expression consistent with PTEN loss. Almost all of these patients had been previously treated with chemotherapy. These observations coupled with the markedly poor outcome of SqCLC with PI3K pathway altera-tions suggest that aberrant PI3K signaling is involved in resist-ance to chemotherapy and cancer progression in the brain and other metastatic sites. Randomized adjuvant trials with PI3K inhibitors in patients with PI3K-mutant SqSLC using time to recurrence in the brain as one endpoint may determine if altered PI3K signaling is causal to brain metastases.
The shared truncal (clonal) mutations provide additional molecular evidence to what has been established clinically, that subclinical micrometastases are present in the CNS at the time of diagnosis of an early surgically resected cancer. If these were pathogenic to the cancer, postsurgical (adjuvant) systemic therapies that penetrate the brain with drugs targeting those truncal mutations could eliminate these micrometastases. This is important because current drug development and diagnostic approaches using NGS for genotype-specific trials only consider the presence or absence of a driver mutation but do not take into account their clonal or subclonal frequency. Although this makes intuitive sense, we recognize that therapeutically targeting a clonally dominant, truncal driver has not yet been shown to be a more effective drug development strategy (9). If important for treatment decisions, quantification of this heterogeneity and clonality could have a major impact in the development of companion diagnostics for genotype-specific drugs (10). Of note, the Deciphering Anti-tumor Response With Intratumor Heterogeneity (DARWIN) trial will test whether targeting a clonally dominant driver event results in a better outcome compared with targeting the same driver mutation when present subclonally. The two studies discussed herein provide additional rationale for studies like the DARWIN trial.
Both of these studies were conducted in tumors from patients with stage IV solid tumors for whom currently there are no curative therapies. Although targeted therapies may induce a clinical response in patients with metastatic dis-ease selected based on a genomic alteration in their tumor, these responses are transient. The primary tumor–metastasis and intermetastatic heterogeneity reported in the studies by Paik and colleagues (1) and Brastianos and colleagues (2) has been associated with multiple mechanisms of intrinsic and acquired drug resistance and supports the transient responses (or inefficacy) seen with single-agent–targeted therapies. These studies also reinforce the concept of target-ing truncal events with neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy before micrometastases become clinically apparent (the definition of stage IV incurable cancer) and before there is time for evolutionary divergence, which promotes tumor growth at metastatic sites and drug resistance.
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of InterestC.L. Arteaga is a consultant for Genentech. No potential conflicts
of interest were disclosed by the other authors.
Published online November 2, 2015.
Research. on August 21, 2020. © 2015 American Association for Cancercancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
VIEWS
1126 | CANCER DISCOVERY NOVEMBER 2015 www.aacrjournals.org
REFERENCES 1. Paik PK, Shen R, Won H, Rekhtman N, Wang L, Sima CS, et al.
Next-generation sequencing of stage IV squamous cell lung cancers reveals an association of PI3K aberrations and evidence of clonal heterogeneity in patients with brain metastases. Cancer Discov 2015;5:610–21.
2. Brastianos PK, Carter SL, Santagata S, Cahill DP, Taylor-Weiner A, Jones RT, et al. Genomic characterization of brain metastases reveals branched evolution and potential therapeutic targets. Cancer Discov 2015;5:1164–77.
3. McFadden DG, Papagiannakopoulos T, Taylor-Weiner A, Stewart C, Carter SL, Cibulskis K, et al. Genetic and clonal dissection of murine small cell lung carcinoma progression by genome sequencing. Cell 2014;156:1298–311.
4. de Bruin EC, McGranahan N, Mitter R, Salm M, Wedge DC, Yates L, et al. Spatial and temporal diversity in genomic instabil-ity processes defines lung cancer evolution. Science 2014;346: 251–6.
5. Gerlinger M, Horswell S, Larkin J, Rowan AJ, Salm MP, Varela I, et al. Genomic architecture and evolution of clear cell renal cell carcinomas defined by multiregion sequencing. Nat Genet 2014;46:225–33.
6. Johnson BE, Mazor T, Hong C, Barnes M, Aihara K, McLean CY, et al. Mutational analysis reveals the origin and therapy-driven evolution of recurrent glioma. Science 2014;343:189–93.
7. Kreso A, O’Brien CA, van Galen P, Gan OI, Notta F, Brown AMK, et al. Variable clonal repopulation dynamics influence chemotherapy response in colorectal cancer. Science 2013;339:543–8.
8. Arteaga CL, Engelman JA. ERBB receptors: from oncogene discovery to basic science to mechanism-based cancer therapeutics. Cancer Cell 2014;25:282–303.
9. Yap TA, Gerlinger M, Futreal PA, Pusztai L, Swanton C. Intratu-mor heterogeneity: seeing the wood for the trees. Sci Transl Med 2012;4:127ps110.
10. Gulati S, Martinez P, Joshi T, Birkbak NJ, Santos CR, Rowan AJ, et al. Systematic evaluation of the prognostic impact and intratumour heterogeneity of clear cell renal cell carcinoma biomarkers. Eur Urol 2014;66:936–48.
Research. on August 21, 2020. © 2015 American Association for Cancercancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
302 | CANCER DISCOVERY FEBRUARY 2019 www.aacrjournals.org
Correction: Drug-Resistant Brain Metastases: A Role for Pharmacology, Tumor Evolution, and Too-Late Therapy Thomas Stricker and Carlos L. Arteaga
In the original version of this article (1), the stated disclosure of the author Carlos L. Arteaga is incorrect. The error has been corrected in the latest online HTML and PDF versions of the article. The authors regret this error.
REFERENCE1. Stricker T, Arteaga CL. Drug-resistant brain metastases: a role for pharmacology, tumor evolution, and too-late
therapy. Cancer Discov 2015;5:1124–6.
CORRECTION
doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1514©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.
Published first February 8, 2019.
2015;5:1124-1126. Cancer Discov Thomas Stricker and Carlos L. Arteaga Tumor Evolution, and Too-Late TherapyDrug-Resistant Brain Metastases: A Role for Pharmacology,
Updated version
http://cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org/content/5/11/1124
Access the most recent version of this article at:
Cited articles
http://cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org/content/5/11/1124.full#ref-list-1
This article cites 10 articles, 5 of which you can access for free at:
Citing articles
http://cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org/content/5/11/1124.full#related-urls
This article has been cited by 1 HighWire-hosted articles. Access the articles at:
E-mail alerts related to this article or journal.Sign up to receive free email-alerts
SubscriptionsReprints and
To order reprints of this article or to subscribe to the journal, contact the AACR Publications
Permissions
Rightslink site. Click on "Request Permissions" which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center's (CCC)
.http://cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org/content/5/11/1124To request permission to re-use all or part of this article, use this link
Research. on August 21, 2020. © 2015 American Association for Cancercancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
![Generalized metastases of uterine adenosarcoma with … of... · 2021. 1. 13. · metastases to distant organs have been reported [4–7]. Here, we present a case of distant metastases](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/60e10cf8433e8455c1505374/generalized-metastases-of-uterine-adenosarcoma-with-of-2021-1-13-metastases.jpg)
