Submit a comment
Abstract
Germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers have elevated young-onset breast cancer risk. To define the pretreatment genomic landscapes of young-onset gBRCA-associated breast cancer, we evaluated 136 treatment-naïve tumors diagnosed before age 50 (92.6% ≤40): gBRCA1 86(63.2%); gBRCA2 50(36.8%) in the prospective POSH study, and 66 noncarriers from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Using whole exome sequencing, we analyzed somatic variation, allele-specific loss of heterozygosity (asLOH), homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and single-base substitution signatures (SBS). gBRCA1(93%) and gBRCA2(96%) breast cancers had high rates of asLOH, but differed significantly in average HRD scores (57.4 ± 1.3 vs 43.7 ± 1.5, P < 0.0001) and median SBS composition (%): SBS1 (aging-associated) 12.9 vs 7.3, P = 0.013; SBS18 (reactive oxygen species [ROS]-associated) 1.4 vs 0, P = 0.007; and SBS3 (HRD-associated) 27.3 vs 42.6, P = 0.002. Compared to gBRCA2 tumors, gBRCA1 tumors with asLOH were significantly enriched for alterations in Hallmark ROS, DNA repair, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways. In ER-positive, HER2-negative tumors from gBRCA1/2 carriers compared to noncarriers, we found significant enrichment of RB1 (OR:6.3;95%CI:2.8–15.4;padj = 0.001), TP53 (OR:4.6;95%CI:1.9–12.1;padj = 0.017), FAT1 (OR:3.9;95%CI:1.84–8.7;padj = 0.013), and MYC (OR:4.0;95%CI:1.8–9.1;padj = 0.017) SNV/indels/CNVs, associated with CDK4/6i resistance. Together, these findings demonstrate significant differences between gBRCA1 and gBRCA2-associated breast cancers, and preexisting CDK4/6i resistance mechanisms supporting prospective trials with individualized therapy for gBRCA1 vs gBRCA2 carriers, and comparing PARPi to CDK4/6i for ER-positive gBRCA1/2-associated breast cancer.
Authors
Mwangala P. Akamandisa, Mingyi Xia, Wilson Cheah, Bradley Wubbenhorst, Kurt P. D'Andrea, Mengyao Fan, Jake S. Shilan, Dana Pueschl, Anupma Nayak, Hayley McKenzie, William Tapper, Ellen R. Copson, Ramsey I. Cutress, Susan M. Domchek, Diana M. Eccles, Katherine L. Nathanson
Guidelines
The Editorial Board will only consider comments that are deemed relevant and of interest to readers. The Journal will not post data that have not been subjected to peer review; or a comment that is essentially a reiteration of another comment.
- Comments appear on the Journal’s website and are linked from the original article’s web page.
- Authors are notified by email if their comments are posted.
- The Journal reserves the right to edit comments for length and clarity.
- No appeals will be considered.
- Comments are not indexed in PubMed.
Specific requirements
- Maximum length, 400 words
- Entered as plain text or HTML
- Author’s name and email address, to be posted with the comment
- Declaration of all potential conflicts of interest (even if these are not ultimately posted); see the Journal’s conflict-of-interest policy
- Comments may not include figures
