Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 159, Issue 3, pp 481–488 | Cite as

Genomic profiling of breast cancer in African-American women using MammaPrint

  • Raquel A. Nunes
  • Lynette Wray
  • Mihriye Mete
  • Pia Herbolsheimer
  • Karen L. Smith
  • Lana Bijelic
  • Marc E. Boisvert
  • Sandra M. Swain
Clinical trial

Abstract

Breast cancer in African-American females (AAF) has a less favorable outcome than that in Caucasians. More information is needed regarding its biology. We evaluated gene expression in tumors from AAF presenting with early stage or locally advanced breast cancer using MammaPrint®, BluePrint ® (molecular subtype) and TargetPrint ® [estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) mRNA levels]. Genomic information was correlated with clinical and pathologic characteristics and Oncotype DX® Recurrence Score® (RS). One hundred Patients were enrolled, 1 not evaluable by BluePrint. The median age was 60 years (range 22–98), and eighty-four (84 %) patients had stage I or II disease. High Risk MammaPrint was present in 66 % of patients and in 52 % of patients with stage I disease. High Risk MammaPrint was associated with young age (p = 0.02), high grade (p < 0.0001), HER2 expression (p = 0.016), and triple-negative phenotype (p < 0.001). Sixty-four tumors (65 %) were Luminal type (47 % of these were classified as High Risk), 26 (26 %) were Basal type, and 9 (9 %) HER2 type. Twenty-two cancers were triple negative (TN) by IHC and 19 (90 %) Basal type. Among the 15 tumors HER2 positive by IHC/FISH, 8 (53 %) were HER2 type by BluePrint. Eleven tumors with ER expression of 1–9 % were ER negative by TargetPrint and none of these was Luminal type. None of the seven tumors HER2 positive by IHC/FISH but negative by TargetPrint was HER type. RS results were available in 29 patients: two had High Risk both by RS and MammaPrint; eight had intermediate RS, with four High Risk by MammaPrint; 19 had a low RS, with eight High Risk by MammaPrint. AAF with stage I to III breast cancer often present with High Risk disease. Molecular heterogeneity is present within TN, HER2-positive, and ER-positive breast cancer. RS and MammaPrint offer different prognostic information.

Keywords

Breast cancer Genomic profiling Molecular subtype MammaPrint BluePrint TargetPrint 

Notes

Acknowledgments

MammaPrint, BluePrint, and TargetPrint tests were provided by Agendia. The biostatistical support was provided by the Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science (GHUCCTS). This study was supported in part by The Safeway Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2015) Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 65(1):5–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wheeler SB, Reeder-Hayes KE, Carey LA (2013) Disparities in breast cancer treatment and outcomes: biological, social, and health system determinants and opportunities for research. Oncologist 18(9):986–993CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albain KS et al (2009) Racial disparities in cancer survival among randomized clinical trials patients of the Southwest Oncology Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(14):984–992CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wojcik BE, Spinks MK, Optenberg SA (1998) Breast carcinoma survival analysis for African American and white women in an equal-access health care system. Cancer 82(7):1310–1318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Brien KM et al (2010) Intrinsic breast tumor subtypes, race, and long-term survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. Clin Cancer Res 16(24):6100–6110CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perou CM et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747–752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sorlie T et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(19):10869–10874CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sotiriou C, Pusztai L (2009) Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 360(8):790–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carey LA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295(21):2492–2502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harris LN et al (2016) Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol 34(10):1134–1150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sapino A et al (2014) MammaPrint molecular diagnostics on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. J Mol Diagn 16(2):190–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glas AM et al (2006) Converting a breast cancer microarray signature into a high-throughput diagnostic test. BMC Genom 7:278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buyse M et al (2006) Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(17):1183–1192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krijgsman O et al (2012) A diagnostic gene profile for molecular subtyping of breast cancer associated with treatment response. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133(1):37–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bayraktar S et al (2014) Molecular subtyping predicts pathologic tumor response in early-stage breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel plus capecitabine with or without trastuzumab chemotherapy. Med Oncol 31(10):163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keenan T et al (2015) Comparison of the genomic landscape between primary breast cancer in African American versus white women and the association of racial differences with tumor recurrence. J Clin Oncol 33(31):3621–3627CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sweeney C et al (2014) Intrinsic subtypes from PAM50 gene expression assay in a population-based breast cancer cohort: differences by age, race, and tumor characteristics. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 23(5):714–724CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huo D et al (2009) Population differences in breast cancer: survey in indigenous African women reveals over-representation of triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(27):4515–4521CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van de Vijver MJ et al (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(25):1999–2009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mook S et al (2010) The 70-gene prognosis signature predicts early metastasis in breast cancer patients between 55 and 70 years of age. Ann Oncol 21(4):717–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drukker CA et al (2013) A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int J Cancer 133(4):929–936CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cardoso F, van’t Veer LJ, Bogaerts J, Slaets L, Viale G, Delaloge S, Pierga J-Y, Brain E, Causeret S, DeLorenzi M, Glas AM, Golfinopoulos V, Goulioti T, Knox S, Matos E, Meulemans B, Neijenhuis PA, Nitz U, Passalacqua R, Ravdin P, Rubio IT, Saghatchian M, Smilde TJ, Sotiriou C, Stork L, Straehle C, Thomas G, Thompson AM, van der Hoeven JM, Vuylsteke P, Bernards R, Tryfonidis K, Rutgers E, Piccart M (2016) 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 375(8):717–729CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Albain KS et al (2010) Potential biologic causes of the racial survival disparity in adjuvant trials of ER-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol (Meet Abstr) 28(15_suppl):511Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sparano JA et al (2012) Race and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer outcomes in a randomized chemotherapy trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 104(5):406–414CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prat A et al (2015) Clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Breast 24(Suppl 2):S26–S35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Perou CM (2011) Molecular stratification of triple-negative breast cancers. Oncologist 16(Suppl 1):61–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lehmann BD et al (2011) Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest 121(7):2750–2767CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carey LA et al (2016) Molecular heterogeneity and response to neoadjuvant human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 targeting in CALGB 40601, a randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel plus trastuzumab with or without lapatinib. J Clin Oncol 34(6):542–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pogue-Geile KL et al (2015) Intrinsic subtypes, PIK3CA mutation, and the degree of benefit from adjuvant trastuzumab in the NSABP B-31 trial. J Clin Oncol 33(12):1340–1347CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iwamoto T et al (2012) Estrogen receptor (ER) mRNA and ER-related gene expression in breast cancers that are 1–10 % ER-positive by immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol 30(7):729–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hammond ME et al (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(16):2784–2795CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wolff AC et al (2013) Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31(31):3997–4013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Clough K et al (2012) Abstract P6-07-03: risk classification of early stage breast cancer as assessed by MammaPrint and Oncotype DX genomic assays. Cancer Res 72(24 Supplement):P6-07-03CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bartlett JM et al (2016) Comparing breast cancer multiparameter tests in the OPTIMA prelim trial: no test is more equal than the others. J Natl Cancer Inst 108(9)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Curtis C et al (2012) The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 486(7403):346–352PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington Cancer InstituteMedStar Washington Hospital CenterWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.MedStar Health Research InstituteUniversity Town CenterHyattsvilleUSA
  3. 3.Breast and Ovarian Cancer ProgramJohns Hopkins UniversityWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Surgical OncologyInova Fairfax HospitalFalls ChurchUSA
  5. 5.Georgetown University Medical CenterWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations