Clinical Cancer Research

Purpose: To compare the clinical features, natural history, and outcomes for women with “triple-negative” breast cancer with women with other types of breast cancer.

Experimental Design: We studied a cohort of 1,601 patients with breast cancer, diagnosed between January 1987 and December 1997 at Women's College Hospital in Toronto. Triple-negative breast cancers were defined as those that were estrogen receptor negative, progesterone receptor negative, and HER2neu negative. The prognostic significance of triple-negative breast cancer was explored.

Results: The median follow-up time of the 1,601 women was 8.1 years. One hundred and eighty of 1,601 patients (11.2%) had triple-negative breast cancer. Compared with other women with breast cancer, those with triple-negative breast cancer had an increased likelihood of distant recurrence (hazard ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-3.5; P < 0.0001) and death (hazard ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-4.5; P < 0.001) within 5 years of diagnosis but not thereafter. The pattern of recurrence was also qualitatively different; among the triple-negative group, the risk of distant recurrence peaked at ∼3 years and declined rapidly thereafter. Among the “other” group, the recurrence risk seemed to be constant over the period of follow-up.

Conclusions: Triple-negative breast cancers have a more aggressive clinical course than other forms of breast cancer, but the adverse effect is transient.

Cancer nanotherapeutics are rapidly progressing and are being implemented to solve several limitations of conventional drug delivery systems such as nonspecific biodistribution and targeting, lack of water solubility, poor oral bioavailability, and low therapeutic indices. To improve the biodistribution of cancer drugs, nanoparticles have been designed for optimal size and surface characteristics to increase their circulation time in the bloodstream. They are also able to carry their loaded active drugs to cancer cells by selectively using the unique pathophysiology of tumors, such as their enhanced permeability and retention effect and the tumor microenvironment. In addition to this passive targeting mechanism, active targeting strategies using ligands or antibodies directed against selected tumor targets amplify the specificity of these therapeutic nanoparticles. Drug resistance, another obstacle that impedes the efficacy of both molecularly targeted and conventional chemotherapeutic agents, might also be overcome, or at least reduced, using nanoparticles. Nanoparticles have the ability to accumulate in cells without being recognized by P-glycoprotein, one of the main mediators of multidrug resistance, resulting in the increased intracellular concentration of drugs. Multifunctional and multiplex nanoparticles are now being actively investigated and are on the horizon as the next generation of nanoparticles, facilitating personalized and tailored cancer treatment.

Purpose: Expression profiling studies classified breast carcinomas into estrogen receptor (ER)+/luminal, normal breast-like, HER2 overexpressing, and basal-like groups, with the latter two associated with poor outcomes. Currently, there exist clinical assays that identify ER+/luminal and HER2-overexpressing tumors, and we sought to develop a clinical assay for breast basal-like tumors.

Experimental Design: To identify an immunohistochemical profile for breast basal-like tumors, we collected a series of known basal-like tumors and tested them for protein patterns that are characteristic of this subtype. Next, we examined the significance of these protein patterns using tissue microarrays and evaluated the prognostic significance of these findings.

Results: Using a panel of 21 basal-like tumors, which was determined using gene expression profiles, we saw that this subtype was typically immunohistochemically negative for estrogen receptor and HER2 but positive for basal cytokeratins, HER1, and/or c-KIT. Using breast carcinoma tissue microarrays representing 930 patients with 17.4-year mean follow-up, basal cytokeratin expression was associated with low disease-specific survival. HER1 expression was observed in 54% of cases positive for basal cytokeratins (versus 11% of negative cases) and was associated with poor survival independent of nodal status and size. c-KIT expression was more common in basal-like tumors than in other breast cancers but did not influence prognosis.

Conclusions: A panel of four antibodies (ER, HER1, HER2, and cytokeratin 5/6) can accurately identify basal-like tumors using standard available clinical tools and shows high specificity. These studies show that many basal-like tumors express HER1, which suggests candidate drugs for evaluation in these patients.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy, precision, and linearity of the CellSearch system and evaluate the number of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) per 7.5 mL of blood in healthy subjects, patients with nonmalignant diseases, and patients with a variety of metastatic carcinomas.

Experimental Design: The CellSearch system was used to enumerate CTCs in 7.5 mL of blood. Blood samples spiked with cells from tumor cell lines were used to establish analytical accuracy, reproducibility, and linearity. Prevalence of CTCs was determined in blood from 199 patients with nonmalignant diseases, 964 patients with metastatic carcinomas, and 145 healthy donors.

Results: Enumeration of spiked tumor cells was linear over the range of 5 to 1,142 cells, with an average recovery of ≥85% at each spike level. Only 1 of the 344 (0.3%) healthy and nonmalignant disease subjects had ≥2 CTCs per 7.5 mL of blood. In 2,183 blood samples from 964 metastatic carcinoma patients, CTCs ranged from 0 to 23,618 CTCs per 7.5 mL (mean, 60 ± 693 CTCs per 7.5 mL), and 36% (781 of 2,183) of the specimens had ≥2 CTCs. Detection of ≥2 CTCs occurred at the following rates: 57% (107 of 188) of prostate cancers, 37% (489 of 1,316) of breast cancers, 37% (20 of 53) of ovarian cancers, 30% (99 of 333) of colorectal cancers, 20% (34 of 168) of lung cancers, and 26% (32 of 125) of other cancers.

Conclusions: The CellSearch system can be standardized across multiple laboratories and may be used to determine the clinical utility of CTCs. CTCs are extremely rare in healthy subjects and patients with nonmalignant diseases but present in various metastatic carcinomas with a wide range of frequencies.

Purpose: All patients with EGF receptor (EGFR)–mutant lung cancers eventually develop acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Smaller series have identified various mechanisms of resistance, but systematic evaluation of a large number of patients to definitively establish the frequency of various mechanisms has not been conducted.

Experimental Design: Patients with lung adenocarcinomas and acquired resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib enrolled onto a prospective biopsy protocol and underwent a rebiopsy after the development of acquired resistance. Histology was reviewed. Samples underwent genotyping for mutations in EGFR, AKT1, BRAF, ERBB2, KRAS, MEK1, NRAS and PIK3CA, and FISH for MET and HER2.

Results: Adequate tumor samples for molecular analysis were obtained in 155 patients. Ninety-eight had second-site EGFR T790M mutations [63%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 55%–70%] and four had small cell transformation (3%, 95% CI, 0%–6%). MET amplification was seen in 4 of 75 (5%; 95% CI, 1%–13%). HER2 amplification was seen in 3 of 24 (13%; 95% CI, 3%–32%). We did not detect any acquired mutations in PIK3CA, AKT1, BRAF, ERBB2, KRAS, MEK1, or NRAS (0 of 88, 0%; 95% CI, 0%–4%). Overlap among mechanisms of acquired resistance was seen in 4%.

Conclusions: This is the largest series reporting mechanisms of acquired resistance to EGFR-TKI therapy. We identified EGFR T790M as the most common mechanism of acquired resistance, whereas MET amplification, HER2 amplification, and small cell histologic transformation occur less frequently. More comprehensive methods to characterize molecular alterations in this setting are needed to improve our understanding of acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs. Clin Cancer Res; 19(8); 2240–7. ©2013 AACR.

Purpose: A method for enumerating circulating tumor cells (CTC) has received regulatory clearance. The primary objective of this prospective study was to establish the relationship between posttreatment CTC count and overall survival (OS) in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Secondary objectives included determining the prognostic utility of CTC measurement before initiating therapy, and the relationship of CTC to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) changes and OS at these and other time points.

Experimental Design: Blood was drawn from CRPC patients with progressive disease starting a new line of chemotherapy before treatment and monthly thereafter. Patients were stratified into predetermined Favorable or Unfavorable groups (<5 and ≥5 CTC/7.5mL).

Results: Two hundred thirty-one of 276 enrolled patients (84%) were evaluable. Patients with Unfavorable pretreatment CTC (57%) had shorter OS (median OS, 11.5 versus 21.7 months; Cox hazard ratio, 3.3; P < 0.0001). Unfavorable posttreatment CTC counts also predicted shorter OS at 2 to 5, 6 to 8, 9 to 12, and 13 to 20 weeks (median OS, 6.7-9.5 versus 19.6-20.7 months; Cox hazard ratio, 3.6-6.5; P < 0.0001). CTC counts predicted OS better than PSA decrement algorithms at all time points; area under the receiver operator curve for CTC was 81% to 87% and 58% to 68% for 30% PSA reduction (P = 0.0218). Prognosis for patients with (a) Unfavorable baseline CTC who converted to Favorable CTC improved (6.8 to 21.3 months); (b) Favorable baseline CTC who converted to Unfavorable worsened (>26 to 9.3 months).

Conclusions: CTC are the most accurate and independent predictor of OS in CRPC. These data led to Food and Drug Administration clearance of this assay for the evaluation of CRPC.

Purpose: Gene expression analysis identifies several breast cancer subtypes. We examined the relationship of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response to outcome among these breast cancer subtypes.

Experimental Design: We used immunohistochemical profiles [human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+)/hormone receptor–negative for HER2+/estrogen receptor–negative (ER−), hormone receptor and HER2− for basal-like, hormone receptor–positive for luminal] to subtype a prospectively maintained data set of patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant anthracycline-based (doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide, AC) chemotherapy. We analyzed each subtype for clinical and pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and examined the relationship of response to distant disease–free survival and overall survival.

Results: Of the 107 patients tested, 34 (32%) were basal-like, 11 (10%) were HER2+/ER−, and 62 (58%) were luminal. After neoadjuvant AC, 75% received subsequent chemotherapy and all received endocrine therapy if hormone receptor–positive. The chemotherapy regimen and pretreatment stage did not differ by subtype. Clinical response to AC was higher among the HER2+/ER− (70%) and basal-like (85%) than the luminal subtypes (47%; P < 0.0001). Pathologic complete response occurred in 36% of HER2+/ER−, 27% of basal-like, and 7% of luminal subtypes (P = 0.01). Despite initial chemosensitivity, patients with the basal-like and HER2+/ER− subtypes had worse distant disease–free survival (P = 0.04) and overall survival (P = 0.02) than those with the luminal subtypes. Regardless of subtype, only 2 of 17 patients with pathologic complete response relapsed. The worse outcome among basal-like and HER+/ER− subtypes was due to higher relapse among those with residual disease (P = 0.003).

Conclusions: Basal-like and HER2+/ER− subtypes are more sensitive to anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy than luminal breast cancers. Patients that had pathologic complete response to chemotherapy had a good prognosis regardless of subtype. The poorer prognosis of basal-like and HER2+/ER− breast cancers could be explained by a higher likelihood of relapse in those patients in whom pathologic complete response was not achieved.

Purpose: The study aim to identify novel molecular subtypes of ovarian cancer by gene expression profiling with linkage to clinical and pathologic features.

Experimental Design: Microarray gene expression profiling was done on 285 serous and endometrioid tumors of the ovary, peritoneum, and fallopian tube. K-means clustering was applied to identify robust molecular subtypes. Statistical analysis identified differentially expressed genes, pathways, and gene ontologies. Laser capture microdissection, pathology review, and immunohistochemistry validated the array-based findings. Patient survival within k-means groups was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models. Class prediction validated k-means groups in an independent dataset. A semisupervised survival analysis of the array data was used to compare against unsupervised clustering results.

Results: Optimal clustering of array data identified six molecular subtypes. Two subtypes represented predominantly serous low malignant potential and low-grade endometrioid subtypes, respectively. The remaining four subtypes represented higher grade and advanced stage cancers of serous and endometrioid morphology. A novel subtype of high-grade serous cancers reflected a mesenchymal cell type, characterized by overexpression of N-cadherin and P-cadherin and low expression of differentiation markers, including CA125 and MUC1. A poor prognosis subtype was defined by a reactive stroma gene expression signature, correlating with extensive desmoplasia in such samples. A similar poor prognosis signature could be found using a semisupervised analysis. Each subtype displayed distinct levels and patterns of immune cell infiltration. Class prediction identified similar subtypes in an independent ovarian dataset with similar prognostic trends.

Conclusion: Gene expression profiling identified molecular subtypes of ovarian cancer of biological and clinical importance.

Purpose: Basal-like breast cancer is associated with high grade, poor prognosis, and younger patient age. Clinically, a triple-negative phenotype definition [estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2, all negative] is commonly used to identify such cases. EGFR and cytokeratin 5/6 are readily available positive markers of basal-like breast cancer applicable to standard pathology specimens. This study directly compares the prognostic significance between three- and five-biomarker surrogate panels to define intrinsic breast cancer subtypes, using a large clinically annotated series of breast tumors.

Experimental Design: Four thousand forty-six invasive breast cancers were assembled into tissue microarrays. All had staging, pathology, treatment, and outcome information; median follow-up was 12.5 years. Cox regression analyses and likelihood ratio tests compared the prognostic significance for breast cancer death-specific survival (BCSS) of the two immunohistochemical panels.

Results: Among 3,744 interpretable cases, 17% were basal using the triple-negative definition (10-year BCSS, 6 7%) and 9% were basal using the five-marker method (10-year BCSS, 62%). Likelihood ratio tests of multivariable Cox models including standard clinical variables show that the five-marker panel is significantly more prognostic than the three-marker panel. The poor prognosis of triple-negative phenotype is conferred almost entirely by those tumors positive for basal markers. Among triple-negative patients treated with adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy, the additional positive basal markers identified a cohort of patients with significantly worse outcome.

Conclusions: The expanded surrogate immunopanel of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human HER-2, EGFR, and cytokeratin 5/6 provides a more specific definition of basal-like breast cancer that better predicts breast cancer survival.

Macroautophagy (autophagy) is a lysosomal degradation pathway for the breakdown of intracellular proteins and organelles. Although constitutive autophagy is a homeostatic mechanism for intracellular recycling and metabolic regulation, autophagy is also stress responsive, in which it is important for the removal of damaged proteins and organelles. Autophagy thereby confers stress tolerance, limits damage, and sustains viability under adverse conditions. Autophagy is a tumor-suppression mechanism, yet it enables tumor cell survival in stress. Reconciling how loss of a prosurvival function can promote tumorigenesis, emerging evidence suggests that preservation of cellular fitness by autophagy may be key to tumor suppression. As autophagy is such a fundamental process, establishing how the functional status of autophagy influences tumorigenesis and treatment response is important. This is especially critical as many current cancer therapeutics activate autophagy. Therefore, efforts to understand and modulate the autophagy pathway will provide new approaches to cancer therapy and prevention. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(17):5308–16)