Increased frequency of ESR1 mutation in metastatic breast cancer by dosing selective estrogen receptor modulator followed by aromatase inhibitor
- Authors:
- Published online on: May 22, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11669
- Pages: 1231-1238
-
Copyright: © Takeshima et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Abstract
Introduction
Estrogen receptor (ER), which is encoded in the estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) gene, belongs to the nuclear hormone receptor family (1) and the ESR1 gene is located on chromosome 6 (6q25.1) and includes 8 exons (2). ER is expressed in over 60% of breast cancers (3) and consists of two activation function domains, AF1/2, a DNA binding domain and a hinge domain, and a ligand-binding domain (LBD) (4). ER functions as a ligand-dependent transcription factor, and ligand binding to the LBD leads to activation of gene transcription, resulting in breast cancer progression (5,6). Adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) inhibiting ER-induced breast cancer progression reduces local recurrence and mortality in patients with ER-positive early breast cancer (3,7). Similarly, ET with aromatase inhibitors (AIs), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) serves an important role in the treatment of patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (1). However, a number of patients with ER-positive MBC have intrinsic ET resistance or acquire resistance following response to ET, and eventually almost all patients with MBC develop resistance to ET (8). ET resistance mechanisms include upregulation of the steroid receptor coactivator-3, human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) or nuclear factor κB and activator protein 1 (9–11). Cyclin D1 gene amplification frequently occurs in ER-positive breast cancer and overexpression of Cyclin D1 leads to ET resistance in ER-positive breast cancer (12,13). A number of previous studies indicated that LBD mutations (i.e., Tyr537Ser and Asp538Gly) in ESR1 gene were induced by long-term ET and resulted in acquired ET resistance independently of estrogen levels, as well as poor outcomes in patients with MBC (14–18). Knowledge of the associations between the development of ESR1 mutation and patient clinicopathological characteristics may guide the decision-making process of MBC treatment, including ET. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the association between the development of ESR1 mutation and the clinicopathologic characteristics of patients with MBC.
Materials and methods
Clinical samples
Patients with MBC who had received treatment for primary ER-positive breast cancer and were followed-up at Keio University Hospital between January 2012 and December 2015 were enrolled in this study; during that period, 24 biopsy samples from the metastatic sites were available for analysis. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were as follows: Metastatic samples with ≥100× sequence coverage on next generation sequence (NGS) were included, while samples <100× sequence coverage were excluded from the present study. Metastatic samples were evaluated by NGS, with a level of sequence coverage of >100-fold, to detect the LBD mutations of the ESR1 gene and validate these ER mutations in patients with MBC. The 24 metastatic site samples were assessed, and two were excluded from NGS due to low sequence coverage. Thus, a total of 22 metastatic samples were evaluated in the present study. The Allred score was used to assess the receptor status at metastatic sites (19). The clinical data, including the ET administered and clinical outcomes, were obtained from all patients. The study protocol and the opt-out informed consent procedure were approved by the Ethics Review Board of Keio University Hospital and conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was acquired from the patients by opt-out procedure prior to the beginning of the study.
DNA extraction
Using the biopsy samples from the MBC patients, unstained 10-µm thick formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) blocks were obtained. Tumor tissue was collected from the two blocks and placed in 1.5 ml microtubes. Genomic DNA was extracted using a NucleoSpin DNA FFPE XS isolation kit (Takara Bio, Inc.). DNA was quantified by Qubit 3.0 Fluorometer using the Qubit dsDNA HS Assay kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.), according to the manufacturer's instructions, and adjusted to a final concentration of 20 ng/µl.
Target amplification and sequencing
For target amplification of the mutation hotspot in the LBD of the ESR1 gene, PCR of the extracted genomic DNA was performed using custom primers and ligating Illumina read1 and read2 sequences (Illumina, Inc.). The second PCR primer pairs were used to ligate the Illumina adaptor and index sequence to the first PCR products. The target amplification PCR primer sequences were as follows: Forward, 5′-ACACTCTTTCCCTACACGACGCTCTTCCGATCTGGCTCGGGTTGGCTCTAAA-3′ and reverse, 5′-GTGACTGGAGTTCAGACGTGTGCTCTTCCGATCTTAGTGGGCGCATGTAGGC-3′. The second PCR primer sequences were as follows: Forward, 5′-AATGATACGGCGACCACCGAGATCTACACTCTTTCCCTACACGACGCTCTTCCGATCT-3′ and reverse, 5′-CAAGCAGAAGACGGCATACGAGATNNNNNNGTGACTGGAGTTCAGACGTGTGCTCTTCCGATCT-3′ (NNN NNN: Index sequence). These sequences refer to ESR1. Fig. 1 demonstrates the target amplification PCR primer pairs and the second PCR primer pairs. In a 10-µl reaction buffer that contained 5 mM deoxynucleotide triphosphate mix, 0.25 µM of each custom made primer and 0.2 µl Herculase II Fusion DNA polymerase (Agilent Technologies, Inc.), 20 ng of the genomic DNA underwent amplification for 20 cycles of 10 sec at 98°C, 30 sec at 55°C and 30 sec at 72°C. The amplicon, which was 1 µl of the PCR product diluted 10 times, was marked in a second PCR with molecular indices for Illumina Miseq, using TrueSeq DNA HT Sample Kits (Illumina, Inc.). The second amplification was performed as aforementioned.
DNA libraries were formed from the second PCR products, which were purified using the Agencourt AMPure XP reagent, according to the manufacturer's instructions (Beckman Coulter, Inc.) and quantified by the method described above. The library was sequenced on the Miseq instrument on the paired-end mode with the Miseq Reagent kit v3 (Illumina, Inc.) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The sequence data were mapped to the reference human genome (hg19) using BWA aligner [version 0.7.16a-r1181; (20)], SAMtools [version 1.6; (21)] and Picard (http://sourceforge.net/projects/picard). Local alignment and quality score calibration were performed according to the Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) best practice (22). Single nucleotide variants were called using the ‘HaplotypeCaller’ tool in GATK. All variants were annotated using snpEff (23) and reviewed by the Integrative Genomics Viewer (24). Variants were filtered using dbSNP_138 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP). GRCh37.75 in the Ensembl genome browser (http://www.ensembl.org) was used as the reference genome of annotation.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed with R commander (version 2.4-1) based on R (version 3.3.3; http://cran.r-project.org/) and with EZR, which is a modified version of the R commander (25). Among the continuous variables, age followed a normal distribution as determined by the Shapiro-Wilk test; thus, it was presented as the mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using the independent two-sample Student's t-test. The other continuous variables were expressed as the median (range) and evaluated by the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Categorical variables were analyzed by the Fisher's exact test. The correlation between two continuous variables was evaluated by calculating Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.
Results
Baseline characteristics and detection of ESR1 mutations in patients with MBC
The baseline characteristics of the 22 patients with MBC are presented in Table I. The mean age of the patients at the start of treatment was 54 years. The TNM stage of primary breast cancer was I in 7 (32%) patients, IIA in 9 (41%) patients, IIB in 4 (18) patients, IIIB in 1 (5%) patient and IV in 1 (5%) patient. The histologic type of primary lesion was invasive ductal carcinoma in 21 (95%) patients and invasive lobular carcinoma in 1 (5%) patient. The Progesterone receptor (PgR) and HER2 status of the primary tumor was positive in 21 (95%) and four (18%) patients, respectively; HER2 status was unknown in one case.
As presented in Table II, ESR1 mutation at the metastatic site was observed in 14 (64%) of the 22 patients. A total of four ESR1 mutations were identified including 1610A>C, 1626G>T, 1607T>G and 1642C>T, which led to amino acid mutations Tyr537Ser in 10 (45%) patients, Glu542Asp in 2 (9%) patients, Leu536Arg in 1 (5%) patient and Arg548Cys in 1 (5%) patient, respectively. The range of allele mutation frequency was 2–99%.
ESR1 mutation and the clinical characteristics of patients with MBC
The ER Allred score of the primary tumor was positive by immunohistochemical staining in all 22 patients prior to this study (19). Of the 22 samples, 21 and 17 were positive for ER and PgR, respectively (unavailable in 1 sample). The metastatic biopsy site was the liver in 7 (32%) patients, skin in 6 (27%) patients, lymph node in 4 (18%) patients, lung in 3 (14%) patients, bone in 1 (5%) patient and muscle in 1 (5%) patient.
Among the 22 patients with MBC, including one with stage IV cancer, 19 patients received at least one ET agent prior to the metastatic site biopsy; ESR1 mutation was detected in 13 patients, but it was not detected in 6 patients. Of the 21 patients with MBC (excluding the patient with stage IV MBC), 16 patients received ET in an adjuvant setting, which was complete in 10 cases and incomplete in 6 cases. An incomplete adjuvant setting was defined as recurrence of breast cancer within five years of treatment. Among the 16 patients who received ET in the adjuvant setting, ESR1 mutation was detected in 2 of 6 patients who received AIs, in 8 of 9 patients who received SERMs and in 1 patient who received both AI and SERM. Between the recurrence and the biopsy of the metastatic site, 7 of 8 patients who received AIs developed ESR1 mutation. ESR1 mutation was identified in all 5 patients who received SERM in the adjuvant setting followed by AI in the metastatic setting, as well as in 2 of 3 patients who did not receive SERM in adjuvant setting followed by AI in the metastatic setting. In addition, 7 of 8 patients who had no ESR1 mutation did not receive any ET for metastasis. The patient with stage IV MBC, who was administered AIs until the biopsy of the metastatic site, developed ESR1 mutation. These results are presented in Table III.
Association between ESR1 mutation and clinicopathological characteristics in 22 patients with MBC
Considering the total period between the beginning of treatment and the biopsy of the metastatic site in 22 patients with MBC, the SERM intake period was significantly longer in patients with ESR1 mutation compared with that in patients with wild-type ESR1 (26 vs. 0 months; P=0.01). The total interval of treatment with AI and AI/ SERM was not significantly different between patients with ESR1 mutation and those without ESR1 mutation (P=0.92 and P=0.13, respectively; Table IV).
 | Table IV.Association between estrogen receptor 1 gene mutation and clinicopathologic data in 22 patients with metastatic breast cancer. |
Considering the treatment period from recurrence to biopsy of the metastatic site in 21 patients with MBC, after excluding the stage IV case, the AI intake period was significantly longer in patients with ESR1 mutation than in those without ESR1 mutation (5 vs. 0 months; P=0.04; Table IV). However, there were no significant differences in the treatment period with SERM or AI/ SERM between patients with and without ESR1 mutation (P=0.83 and P=0.05, respectively).
The age at the time of treatment initiation was significantly lower in patients with mutant ESR1 compared with that in patients without mutant ESR1 (49±11 vs. 63±12 years; P=0.01; Table IV). There were no significant differences in the primary TNM stage, histologic type, PgR and HER2 status of primary tumor between the two patient groups. The number of administered ETs tended to be higher in patients with ESR1 mutation compared with that in those without ESR1 mutation, but the difference was not significant (1.5 vs. 0, respectively; P=0.06; Table IV). The number of ETs administered to the patients from recurrence to biopsy was not significantly different between the two patient groups (1 vs. 0; P=0.10). The age at the time of the initiating treatment was associated with the SERM intake period (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, −0.45; P=0.03; Table IV).
Discussion
In the present study on a cohort of patients with MBC, the presence of LBD mutations in the ESR1 gene was detected by targeted NGS, and its association with patient clinicopathologic characteristics was assessed. The frequency of ESR1 mutations in metastatic samples was 64% in this study and varied between 13 and 55% among published studies that also used NGS (14–16,26). Compared with previous studies, the present study had a higher frequency of ESR1 mutations and a lower number of administered ETs. This study demonstrated that there was no association between the number of administered ET and the development of ESR1 mutation. Two previous studies have demonstrated an association between ET exposure and the prevalence of mutated ESR1 (26,27), although the number of previously administered ET was not clarified.
In the current study, the ESR1 mutations Leu536Arg, Tyr537Ser, Glu542Asp and Arg548Cys were detected. The Tyr537Ser and Arg548Cys mutations have been demonstrated to induce estrogen-independent activity of the ER, leading to ET resistance (15,28). In addition, bioinformatics analysis has indicated that an Arg548Cys mutation in the ER is deleterious (29). Similarly, amino acid mutations in Leu536 have been reported to increase the estrogen-independent activity of the ER (30), and Toy et al (15) identified the Leu536Arg mutation in the ER, but they did not investigate its function. The impact of the Glu542Asp alteration on the ER function remains unknown and further investigation is needed (31). Therefore, the detected ER mutations in this study, with the exception of Glu542Asp, may induce a ligand-independent ER activation resulting in ET resistance. It is important to determine the changes of ESR1 alterations between primary and metastatic tumor; however, in this study, the ESR1 mutations of the primary lesion were not investigated because primary breast cancers have very rare ESR1 mutation, which has been reported in previous studies, including The Cancer Atlas data (32–34).
A number of previous studies on patients with MBC have demonstrated that compared with wild-type ESR1, ESR1 mutation led to worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (35,36). However, in the present study, ESR1 mutation had no adverse impact on the outcomes of patients with MBC (data not shown). The small cohort used in the present study limited the statistical power to assess the impact on the outcomes of patients with MBC.
This may be due to the Glu542Asp mutation, which was detected in 2 patients with MBC in this study, having no negative effect on the patients' outcomes. The present study revealed that prolonged AI treatment for metastasis had a significant impact on the development of ESR1 mutation and that patients with MBC who received AIs in an adjuvant setting exhibited low rates of ESR1 mutation. A number of previous studies reported that mutated ESR1 rarely occurred during adjuvant therapy with AI, but its prevalence was high during recurrence treatment with AI (17,35). The results of the present study appeared to support these studies. Previous studies have also demonstrated the superior effects of fulvestrant on the PFS and OS compared with those of anastrozole in patients with endocrine-sensitive MBC (37,38). Furthermore, the addition of palbociclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, to letrozole or fulvestrant improved the PFS in patients with MBC (39,40). Of note, it was reported that palbociclib combined with fulvestrant improved the PFS irrespective of the ESR1 mutation status in patients with MBC (41) and that palbociclib plus letrozole did not prevent the development of ESR1 mutation in a small cohort of patients with MBC who received the combination treatment (42). These results suggest that the assessment of dynamic changes of the ESR1 mutation status using minimally invasive procedures such as liquid biopsy in patients with MBC who receive CDK4/6 inhibitors may be of importance for investigating acquired resistance to these drugs.
The results of the present study demonstrated that the total period of SERM treatment was associated with the emergence of ESR1 mutation. To the best of our knowledge, the effects of SERM on ESR1 mutation have not been fully clarified to date. Among patients with MBC who received tamoxifen alone, ESR1 mutation was not detected in all 22 patients in a study by Schiavon et al (17), but it was detected in 4 out of 11 patients in a study by Takeshita et al (43). The present study demonstrated that the frequency rate of ESR1 alteration in patients who received adjuvant-SERM followed by metastatic AI treatment was higher compared with that in patients who received no adjuvant-SERM followed by metastatic AI. The association of SERM with ESR1 mutation that was identified in this study may be explained by the finding that most of the patients with mutated ESR who received AIs for metastasis had been administered SERMs in an adjuvant setting. Administration of SERM in an adjuvant setting may have been used as a compelling indication for the use of AI for metastasis; therefore, SERM for adjuvant setting, followed by AI for metastasis, may increase the frequency of ESR1 mutations. However, this result needs to be clarified and verified in a future study.
The present study revealed that age at the time of treatment initiation for breast cancer was significantly associated with the development of ESR1 mutation and the total duration of SERM treatment. These associations may be due to the premenopausal status of the majority of patients with MBC who received SERM in an adjuvant setting and AI in a metastatic setting, leading to the subsequent development of ESR1 mutation. To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have demonstrated an association between age at the time of treatment initiation for breast cancer and the occurrence of ESR1 gene mutation.
This study had several limitations, including the retrospective design using a small cohort from a single institute. In addition, the effects of SERD on ESR1 mutations were not analyzed, as only three patients with MBC received SERD, and no multivariate analysis was performed due to the small cohort. The small cohort of this study limited the statistical power to assess the association between ESR1 mutation and clinicopathological features in patients with MBC.
In conclusion, the results of the present study demonstrated that SERM in an adjuvant setting followed by AI for metastasis may increase the frequency of ESR1 mutation, and that age at the time of treatment onset for breast cancer may be significantly associated with the development of ESR1 mutation. Further studies are needed to confirm and validate these findings.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. Kazuhiro Miyao at the Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine (Tokyo, Japan) for his excellent technical assistance and helpful insights on DNA extraction and next generation sequencing.
Funding
The present study was supported by a grant-in-aid from the Japan Society for the Promotion Science (grant no. 16K10474 to MT).
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Authors' contributions
KT, TH, TS, MT and YK conceived and designed this study. HM, AN and TY performed the experiments and collected clinical data from the patients. KT analyzed data and drafted the manuscript. All authors revised the manuscript and approved the final version.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study protocol, including the opt-out informed consent procedure, was approved by the Ethics Review Board of Keio University Hospital (approval no. 20150439) and conformed to Declaration of Helsinki.
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
TH and YK received lecture fee and research funding from Pfizer Inc., Novartis Pharma K.K., and AstraZeneca. All other authors confirm that they have no competing interests.
Glossary
Abbreviations
Abbreviations:
|
AI |
aromatase inhibitor |
|
ER |
estrogen receptor |
|
ET |
endocrine therapy |
|
LBD |
ligand-binding domain |
|
MBC |
metastatic breast cancer |
|
NGS |
next generation sequencing |
|
OS |
overall survival |
|
PFS |
progression-free survival |
|
PgR |
progesterone receptor |
|
SERD |
selective estrogen receptor degrader |
|
SERM |
selective estrogen receptor modulator |
References
|
Olefsky JM: Nuclear receptor minireview series. J Biol Chem. 276:36863–36864. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Gianluca A, Flavia P and Paolo M: Update on Mechanisms of Hormone Action: Focus on Metabolism, Growth and Reproduction. Tech; Rijeka, Croatia: pp. 71–73. 2011 | |
|
Tamoxifen for early breast cancer, . An overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Lancet. 351:1451–1467. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ruff M, Gangloff M, Wurtz JM and Moras D: Estrogen receptor transcription and transactivation: Structure-function relationship in DNA- and ligand-binding domains of estrogen receptors. Breast Cancer Res. 2:353–359. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kojetin DJ, Burris TP, Jensen EV and Khan SA: Implications of the binding of tamoxifen to the coactivator recognition site of the estrogen receptor. Endocr Relat Cancer. 15:851–870. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Heldring N, Pike A, Andersson S, Matthews J, Cheng G, Hartman J, Tujague M, Ström A, Treuter E, Warner M and Gustafsson JA: Estrogen receptors: How do they signal and what are their targets. Physiol Rev. 87:905–931. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, Coates AS and Senn HJ: Meeting highlights: International Consensus Panel on the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer. Seventh International Conference on Adjuvant Therapy of Primary Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 19:3817–3827. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Pritchard KI: Endocrine therapy: Is the first generation of targeted drugs the last? J Intern Med. 274:144–152. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Osborne CK, Bardou V, Hopp TA, Chamness GC, Hilsenbeck SG, Fuqua SA, Wong J, Allred DC, Clark GM and Schiff R: Role of the estrogen receptor coactivator AIB1 (SRC-3) and HER-2/neu in tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 95:353–361. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Schiff R, Massarweh SA, Shou J, Bharwani L, Mohsin SK and Osborne CK: Cross-talk between estrogen receptor and growth factor pathways as a molecular target for overcoming endocrine resistance. Clin Cancer Res. 10 (Suppl):S331–S336. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Zhou Y, Yau C, Gray JW, Chew K, Dairkee SH, Moore DH, Eppenberger U, Eppenberger-Castori S and Benz CC: Enhanced NF kappa B and AP-1 transcriptional activity associated with antiestrogen resistant breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 7:592007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Thangavel C, Dean JL, Ertel A, Knudsen KE, Aldaz CM, Witkiewicz AK, Clarke R and Knudsen ES: Therapeutically activating RB: Reestablishing cell cycle control in endocrine therapy-resistant breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer. 18:333–345. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Witkiewicz AK and Knudsen ES: Retinoblastoma tumor suppressor pathway in breast cancer: Prognosis, precision medicine, and therapeutic interventions. Breast Cancer Res. 16:2072014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Robinson DR, Wu YM, Vats P, Su F, Lonigro RJ, Cao X, Kalyana-Sundaram S, Wang R, Ning Y, Hodges L, et al: Activating ESR1 mutations in hormone-resistant metastatic breast cancer. Nat Genet. 45:1446–1451. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Toy W, Shen Y, Won H, Green B, Sakr RA, Will M, Li Z, Gala K, Fanning S, King TA, et al: ESR1 ligand-binding domain mutations in hormone-resistant breast cancer. Nat Genet. 45:1439–1445. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Merenbakh-Lamin K, Ben-Baruch N, Yeheskel A, Dvir A, Soussan-Gutman L, Jeselsohn R, Yelensky R, Brown M, Miller VA, Sarid D, et al: D538G mutation in estrogen receptor-α: A novel mechanism for acquired endocrine resistance in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 73:6856–6864. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Schiavon G, Hrebien S, Garcia-Murillas I, Cutts RJ, Pearson A, Tarazona N, Fenwick K, Kozarewa I, Lopez-Knowles E, Ribas R, et al: Analysis of ESR1 mutation in circulating tumor DNA demonstrates evolution during therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Sci Transl Med. 7:313ra1822015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Reinert T, Saad ED, Barrios CH and Bines J: Clinical implications of ESR1 mutations in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Front Oncol. 7:262017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M and Clark GM: Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol. 11:155–168. 1998.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Li H and Durbin R: Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 25:1754–1760. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, Marth G, Abecasis G and Durbin R; 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup, : The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 25:2078–2079. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
DePristo MA, Banks E, Poplin R, Garimella KV, Maguire JR, Hartl C, Philippakis AA, del Angel G, Rivas MA, Hanna M, et al: A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data. Nat Genet. 43:491–498. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Cingolani P, Platts A, Wang le L, Coon M, Nguyen T, Wang L, Land SJ, Lu X and Ruden DM: A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly (Austin). 6:80–92. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Robinson JT, Thorvaldsdóttir H, Winckler W, Guttman M, Lander ES, Getz G and Mesirov JP: Integrative genomics viewer. Nat Biotechnol. 29:24–26. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kanda Y: Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 48:452–458. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Jeselsohn R, Yelensky R, Buchwalter G, Frampton G, Meric-Bernstam F, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Ferrer-Lozano J, Perez-Fidalgo JA, Cristofanilli M, Gómez H, et al: Emergence of constitutively active estrogen receptor-α mutations in pretreated advanced estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 20:1757–1767. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Takeshita T, Yamamoto Y, Yamamoto-Ibusuki M, Tomiguchi M, Sueta A, Murakami K, Omoto Y and Iwase H: Comparison of ESR1 mutations in tumor tissue and matched plasma samples from metastatic breast cancer patients. Transl Oncol. 10:766–771. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Li B, Liu L, Fu X, Zhou WQ, Zou DT, Zhao XY, Cai YN, Tu HB, Liu QC and Chen YY: A novel mutation of estrogen receptor gene detected in girls with precocious puberty. Yi Chuan Xue Bao. 32:1011–1017. 2005.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Rebaï M and Rebaï A: In silico characterization of functional SNP within the oestrogen receptor gene. J Genet. 95:865–874. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Zhao C, Koide A, Abrams J, Deighton-Collins S, Martinez A, Schwartz JA, Koide S and Skafar DF: Mutation of Leu-536 in human estrogen receptor-alpha alters the coupling between ligand binding, transcription activation, and receptor conformation. J Biol Chem. 278:27278–27286. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Chung JH, Pavlick D, Hartmaier R, Schrock AB, Young L, Forcier B, Ye P, Levin MK, Goldberg M, Burris H, et al: Hybrid capture-based genomic profiling of circulating tumor DNA from patients with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 28:2866–2873. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Karnik PS, Kulkarni S, Liu XP, Budd GT and Bukowski RM: Estrogen receptor mutations in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer. Cancer Res. 54:349–353. 1994.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Roodi N, Bailey LR, Kao WY, Verrier CS, Yee CJ, Dupont WD and Parl FF: Estrogen receptor gene analysis in estrogen receptor-positive and receptor-negative primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 87:446–451. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Cancer Genome Atlas Network: Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 490:61–70. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Chandarlapaty S, Chen D, He W, Sung P, Samoila A, You D, Bhatt T, Patel P, Voi M, Gnant M, et al: Prevalence of ESR1 mutations in cell-free DNA and outcomes in metastatic breast cancer: A secondary analysis of the BOLERO-2 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2:1310–1315. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Clatot F, Perdrix A, Augusto L, Beaussire L, Delacour J, Calbrix C, Sefrioui D, Viailly PJ, Bubenheim M, Moldovan C, et al: Kinetics, prognostic and predictive values of ESR1 circulating mutations in metastatic breast cancer patients progressing on aromatase inhibitor. Oncotarget. 7:74448–74459. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Robertson JFR, Bondarenko IM, Trishkina E, Dvorkin M, Panasci L, Manikhas A, Shparyk Y, Cardona-Huerta S, Cheung KL, Philco-Salas MJ, et al: Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FALCON): An international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 388:2997–3005. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ellis MJ, Llombart-Cussac A, Feltl D, Dewar JA, Jasiówka M, Hewson N, Rukazenkov Y and Robertson JF: Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for the First-line treatment of advanced breast cancer: Overall survival analysis from the phase II FIRST study. J Clin Oncol. 33:3781–3787. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Finn RS, Crown JP, Lang I, Boer K, Bondarenko IM, Kulyk SO, Ettl J, Patel R, Pinter T, Schmidt M, et al: The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone as first-line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18): A randomised phase 2 study. Lancet Oncoly. 16:25–35. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Turner NC, Ro J, André F, Loi S, Verma S, Iwata H, Harbeck N, Loibl S, Huang Bartlett C, Zhang K, et al: Palbociclib in hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 373:209–219. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Fribbens C, O'Leary B, Kilburn L, Hrebien S, Garcia-Murillas I, Beaney M, Cristofanilli M, Andre F, Loi S, Loibl S, et al: Plasma ESR1 mutations and the treatment of estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 34:2961–2968. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Gyanchandani R, Kota KJ, Jonnalagadda AR, Minteer T, Knapick BA, Oesterreich S, Brufsky AM, Lee AV and Puhalla SL: Detection of ESR1 mutations in circulating cell-free DNA from patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with palbociclib and letrozole. Oncotarget. 8:66901–66911. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Takeshita T, Yamamoto Y, Yamamoto-Ibusuki M, Inao T, Sueta A, Fujiwara S, Omoto Y and Iwase H: Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction assay for screening of ESR1 mutations in 325 breast cancer specimens. Transl Res. 166:540–553.e2. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI |
