Despite improvements in early detection and treatment, cancer remains a major cause of mortality. Death from cancer is largely due to metastasis, which results in spreading of tumor cells to other parts of the body. The metastatic process is poorly understood, is often unpredictable, and usually results in incurable disease. There are no therapies specifically designed to target metastases or to block the metastatic process. Development and pre-clinical testing of new cancer therapies is limited by the scarcity of in vivo models that authentically reproduce human tumor growth and metastatic progression. Here, we report development of novel models for breast tumor growth and metastasis, which exist in the form of transplantable tumors derived directly from patients. These tumor grafts not only represent the diversity of human breast cancer, but also maintain essential features of the original patients’ tumors, including histopathology, clinical markers, hormone responsiveness, and metastasis to specific sites. Genomic features, such as gene expression profiles and DNA copy number variants, are also well maintained between the original specimens and the tumor grafts. We found that co-engraftment of primary human mesenchymal stem cells with tumor grafts helps to maintain the phenotypic stability of the tumors, and increases tumor growth by promoting angiogenesis and reducing necrosis. Remarkably, tumor engraftment is also a prognostic indicator of disease outcome: newly diagnosed women whose primary breast tumor successfully engrafted in mouse mammary glands had significantly reduced survival compared to patients whose tumors did not engraft. Thus, orthotopic breast tumor grafting marks a first step toward personalized medicine by replicating the diversity of human breast cancer through patient-centric models for tumor growth, metastasis, drug efficacy, and prognosis.

Background

Multivariate assays (MVAs) for assisting clinical decisions are becoming commonly available, but due to complexity, are often considered a high-risk approach. A key concern is that uncertainty on the assay's final results is not well understood. This study focuses on developing a process to characterize error introduced in the MVA's results from the intrinsic error in the laboratory process: sample preparation and measurement of the contributing factors, such as gene expression.

Methods

Using the PAM50 Breast Cancer Intrinsic Classifier, we show how to characterize error within an MVA, and how these errors may affect results reported to clinicians. First we estimated the error distribution for measured factors within the PAM50 assay by performing repeated measures on four archetypal samples representative of the major breast cancer tumor subtypes. Then, using the error distributions and the original archetypal sample data, we used Monte Carlo simulations to generate a sufficient number of simulated samples. The effect of these errors on the PAM50 tumor subtype classification was estimated by measuring subtype reproducibility after classifying all simulated samples. Subtype reproducibility was measured as the percentage of simulated samples classified identically to the parent sample. The simulation was thereafter repeated on a large, independent data set of samples from the GEICAM 9906 clinical trial. Simulated samples from the GEICAM sample set were used to explore a more realistic scenario where, unlike archetypal samples, many samples are not easily classified.

Results

All simulated samples derived from the archetypal samples were classified identically to the parent sample. Subtypes for simulated samples from the GEICAM set were also highly reproducible, but there were a non-negligible number of samples that exhibit significant variability in their classification.

Conclusions

We have developed a general methodology to estimate the effects of intrinsic errors within MVAs. We have applied the method to the PAM50 assay, showing that the PAM50 results are resilient to intrinsic errors within the assay, but also finding that in non-archetypal samples, experimental errors can lead to quite different classification of a tumor. Finally we propose a way to provide the uncertainty information in a usable way for clinicians.

Purpose

To compare clinical, immunohistochemical and gene expression models of prognosis applicable to formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded blocks in a large series of estrogen receptor positive breast cancers, from patients uniformly treated with adjuvant tamoxifen.

Methods

qRT-PCR assays for 50 genes identifying intrinsic breast cancer subtypes were completed on 786 specimens linked to clinical (median followup 11.7 years) and immunohistochemical (ER, PR, HER2, Ki67) data. Performance of predefined intrinsic subtype and Risk-Of-Relapse scores was assessed using multivariable Cox models and Kaplan-Meier analysis. Harrell’s C index was used to compare fixed models trained in independent data sets, including proliferation signatures.

Results

Despite clinical ER positivity, 10% of cases were assigned to non-Luminal subtypes. qRT-PCR signatures for proliferation genes gave more prognostic information than clinical assays for hormone receptors or Ki67. In Cox models incorporating standard prognostic variables, hazard ratios for breast cancer disease specific survival over the first 5 years of followup, relative to the most common Luminal A subtype, are 1.99 (95% CI: 1.09–3.64) for Luminal B, 3.65 (1.64–8.16) for HER2-enriched and 17.71 (1.71–183.33) for the basal like subtype. For node-negative disease, PAM50 qRT-PCR based risk assignment weighted for tumor size and proliferation identifies a group with >95% 10 yr survival without chemotherapy. In node positive disease, PAM50-based prognostic models were also superior.

Conclusion

The PAM50 gene expression test for intrinsic biological subtype can be applied to large series of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded breast cancers, and gives more prognostic information than clinical factors and immunohistochemistry using standard cutpoints.

Purpose

To improve on current standards for breast cancer prognosis and prediction of chemotherapy benefit by developing a risk model that incorporates the gene expression–based “intrinsic” subtypes luminal A, luminal B, HER2-enriched, and basal-like.

Methods

A 50-gene subtype predictor was developed using microarray and quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction data from 189 prototype samples. Test sets from 761 patients (no systemic therapy) were evaluated for prognosis, and 133 patients were evaluated for prediction of pathologic complete response (pCR) to a taxane and anthracycline regimen.

Results

The intrinsic subtypes as discrete entities showed prognostic significance (P = 2.26E-12) and remained significant in multivariable analyses that incorporated standard parameters (estrogen receptor status, histologic grade, tumor size, and node status). A prognostic model for node-negative breast cancer was built using intrinsic subtype and clinical information. The C-index estimate for the combined model (subtype and tumor size) was a significant improvement on either the clinicopathologic model or subtype model alone. The intrinsic subtype model predicted neoadjuvant chemotherapy efficacy with a negative predictive value for pCR of 97%.

Conclusion

Diagnosis by intrinsic subtype adds significant prognostic and predictive information to standard parameters for patients with breast cancer. The prognostic properties of the continuous risk score will be of value for the management of node-negative breast cancers. The subtypes and risk score can also be used to assess the likelihood of efficacy from neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Background

Many methodologies have been used in research to identify the “intrinsic” subtypes of breast cancer commonly known as Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2-Enriched (HER2-E) and Basal-like. The PAM50 gene set is often used for gene expression-based subtyping; however, surrogate subtyping using panels of immunohistochemical (IHC) markers are still widely used clinically. Discrepancies between these methods may lead to different treatment decisions.

Methods

We used the PAM50 RT-qPCR assay to expression profile 814 tumors from the GEICAM/9906 phase III clinical trial that enrolled women with locally advanced primary invasive breast cancer. All samples were scored at a single site by IHC for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and Her2/neu (HER2) protein expression. Equivocal HER2 cases were confirmed by chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH). Single gene scores by IHC/CISH were compared with RT-qPCR continuous gene expression values and “intrinsic” subtype assignment by the PAM50. High, medium, and low expression for ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and proliferation were selected using quartile cut-points from the continuous RT-qPCR data across the PAM50 subtype assignments.

Results

ESR1, PGR, and ERBB2 gene expression had high agreement with established binary IHC cut-points (area under the curve (AUC) ≥ 0.9). Estrogen receptor positivity by IHC was strongly associated with Luminal (A and B) subtypes (92%), but only 75% of ER negative tumors were classified into the HER2-E and Basal-like subtypes. Luminal A tumors more frequently expressed PR than Luminal B (94% vs 74%) and Luminal A tumors were less likely to have high proliferation (11% vs 77%). Seventy-seven percent (30/39) of ER-/HER2+ tumors by IHC were classified as the HER2-E subtype. Triple negative tumors were mainly comprised of Basal-like (57%) and HER2-E (30%) subtypes. Single gene scoring for ESR1, PGR, and ERBB2 was more prognostic than the corresponding IHC markers as shown in a multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

The standard immunohistochemical panel for breast cancer (ER, PR, and HER2) does not adequately identify the PAM50 gene expression subtypes. Although there is high agreement between biomarker scoring by protein immunohistochemistry and gene expression, the gene expression determinations for ESR1 and ERBB2 status was more prognostic.