Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Oct;9(10):103731.
doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103731. Epub 2024 Oct 1.

Genomic and clinical landscape of metastatic hormone receptors-positive breast cancers carrying ESR1 alterations

Affiliations

Genomic and clinical landscape of metastatic hormone receptors-positive breast cancers carrying ESR1 alterations

L Boscolo Bielo et al. ESMO Open. 2024 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Somatic genetic alterations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene (ESR1) are enriched in endocrine therapy-resistant, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Herein, we investigated and compared the clinical and genomic landscape of ESR1-mutant (ESR1MUT) and ESR1 wild type (ESR1WT) ER+/ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)- mBCs.

Methods: Clinical and genomic data were retrieved from cBioPortal using the publicly-available MSK MetTropism dataset. Metastatic, ER+/HER2- mBC samples were included in the analysis. Only oncogenic and likely oncogenic alterations according to OncoKB were included. Statistical analyses were carried out using alpha level of 0.05, with a false discovery rate threshold of 10% for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method.

Results: Among 679 samples, 136 ESR1MUT among 131 tumors were found (19.2%). The frequency of ESR1MUT was higher in ductal versus lobular mBC (21.2% versus 13.8%, P = 0.052) and enriched in liver metastasis compared with other sites (22.5% versus 12.7%; q = 0.02). Compared with ESR1WT mBC, ESR1MUT tumors showed higher fraction of genome altered (FGA) {[0.28 interquartile range (IQR), 0.15-0.43] versus 0.22 (0.11-0.38); P = 0.04} and tumor mutational burden (TMB) [4.89 (IQR 3.46-6.85) versus 3.92 (2.59-6.05) mut/Mb; P = 0.001]. Tumors harboring p.E380X alterations showed higher TMB compared with those with H11-12 alterations [8.24 (IQR 5.06-15.3) versus 4.89 (IQR 3.46-6.75) mut/Mb; P = 0.01]. Genetic alterations of TP53 were enriched in ESR1WT tumors (36% versus 14%) [odds ratio (OR) 3.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88-5.64, q = 0.001]. Considering signaling pathways, ESR1MUT tumors showed a lower occurrence of TP53 (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.74; q = 0.003) and MAPK (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11-0.65; q = 0.009) alterations. TP53 (q < 0.001), CDH1 (q < 0.001), and ERBB2 (q < 0.001) demonstrated mutual exclusivity with ESR1MUT.

Conclusions: ER+/HER2- mBCs carrying ESR1MUT exhibit a divergent genomic background, characterized by a lower prevalence of TP53 and MAPK pathway alterations. Less common ESR1 alterations falling outside the H11-H12 region seem to occur in tumors with higher TMB, deserving further investigation to understand their potential actionability.

Keywords: ESR1; breast cancer; genomic analysis; next-generation sequencing; precision medicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Proportion of ESR1MUTaccording to metastatic site, type of ESR1 mutations, and driver genes among ESR1-mutated and ESR1 wild-type tumors. (A) Sampled sites with proportion of ESR1MUT detected by each site (shown in red). (B) Spectrum of ESR1MUT detected among 679 ER+ mBC. (C) Oncoprints of driver genes in breast cancer among ESR1WT and ESR1MUT tumors. CTD, C-terminal domain; DBD, DNA-binding domain; ER, estrogen receptor; FGA, fraction of genome altered; LBD, ligand binding domain; mBC, metastatic breast cancer; MUT, mutant; NTD, N-terminal domain; TMB, tumor mutational burden; WT, wild-type.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Enrichment gene alteration analysis among ESR1-mutated and ESR1 wild-type tumors. (A) Different distribution of gene-level genomic alterations among ESR1MUT and ESR1WT tumors. (B) Different distribution of pathway-level genetic alterations among ESR1MUT and ESR1WT tumors. (C) Groupwise comparisons of mutual exclusivity of selected list of genes from included in the MAPK, RTK, PI3K-AKT-mTOR, and transcription factors pathways. (D) Proportion of detected genetic biomarkers with approved biomarker-matched targeted therapy available among ESR1MUT (in yellow) and ESR1WT (in gray) tumors. NTRK1/2/3 fusions, RET fusions and MSI-H not displayed as no case was observed. MUT, mutant; WT, wild-type.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Genomic signatures among ESR1-mutated and ESR1 wild-type tumors, and across classes of ESR1 mutations. (A) Comparison of tumor mutational burden and (B) fraction genome altered among ESR1MUT and ESR1WT tumors. Comparison of tumor mutational burden (C) and fraction genome altered (D) across different class of ESR1 mutations. MUT, mutant; WT, wild-type.

References

    1. Burstein H.J. Systemic therapy for estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(26):2557–2570. - PubMed
    1. Yu F., Bender W. The mechanism of tamoxifen in breast cancer prevention. Breast Cancer Res. 2001;3(suppl 1):A74. - PubMed
    1. Osborne C.K., Wakeling A., Nicholson R.I. Fulvestrant: an oestrogen receptor antagonist with a novel mechanism of action. Br J Cancer. 2004;90(suppl 1):S2–S6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Emons G., Schally A.V. The use of luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonists and antagonists in gynaecological cancers. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(7):1364–1379. - PubMed
    1. Miller W. Aromatase inhibitors: mechanism of action and role in the treatment of breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 2003;30:3–11. - PubMed