Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Predictive Biomarkers and Personalized Medicine

Effect of Aromatase Inhibition on Functional Gene Modules in Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer and Their Relationship with Antiproliferative Response

Qiong Gao, Neill Patani, Anita K. Dunbier, Zara Ghazoui, Marketa Zvelebil, Lesley-Ann Martin and Mitch Dowsett
Qiong Gao
1Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research; 2Academic Department of Biochemistry, Royal Marsden Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; and 3Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neill Patani
1Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research; 2Academic Department of Biochemistry, Royal Marsden Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; and 3Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anita K. Dunbier
1Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research; 2Academic Department of Biochemistry, Royal Marsden Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; and 3Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
1Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research; 2Academic Department of Biochemistry, Royal Marsden Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; and 3Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zara Ghazoui
1Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research; 2Academic Department of Biochemistry, Royal Marsden Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; and 3Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marketa Zvelebil
1Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research; 2Academic Department of Biochemistry, Royal Marsden Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; and 3Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lesley-Ann Martin
1Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research; 2Academic Department of Biochemistry, Royal Marsden Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; and 3Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mitch Dowsett
1Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research; 2Academic Department of Biochemistry, Royal Marsden Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; and 3Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
1Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research; 2Academic Department of Biochemistry, Royal Marsden Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; and 3Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2602 Published May 2014
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate potential associations between gene modules representing key biologic processes and response to aromatase inhibitors (AI) in estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer.

Patients and Methods: Paired gene expression and Ki67 protein expression were available from 69 postmenopausal women with ER+ early breast cancer, at baseline and 2 weeks post-anastrozole treatment, in the presurgical setting. Functional gene modules (n = 26) were retrieved from published studies and their module scores were computed before and after elimination of proliferation-associated genes (PAG). Ki67 and module scores were assessed at baseline and 2 weeks post-anastrozole. Unsupervised clustering was used to assess associations between modules and Ki67.

Results: Proliferation-based modules were highly correlated with Ki67 expression both pretreatment and on-treatment. At baseline with and without PAGs, Ki67 expression was significantly inversely correlated with ERG, ESR1.2, SET, and PIK3CA modules. Modules measuring estrogen signaling strongly predicted antiproliferative response to therapy with and without PAGs. Baseline expression of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-I) module predicted a poor change in Ki67-implicating genes within the module as involved in de novo resistance to AIs. High expression of Immune.2.STAT1 module pretreatment predicted poor antiproliferative response to therapy. A significant association between estrogen-regulated genes modules (ESR1, ESR1-2, SET, and ERG) was evident post AI.

Conclusions: Multiple processes and pathways are affected by AI treatment in ER+ breast cancer. Modules closely associated with ESR1 expression were predictive of good antiproliferative response to AIs, but modules representing immune activity and IGF-I/MAPK were predictive of poor Ki67 response, supporting their therapeutic targeting in combination with AIs. Clin Cancer Res; 20(9); 2485–94. ©2014 AACR.

Translational Relevance

Response and resistance to endocrine therapy in estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer is poorly understood. Using gene expression and Ki67 data from patients treated with the aromatase inhibitor (AI) anastrozole in the presurgical setting, we interrogated key biologic processes represented by gene modules (n = 26). Proliferation (CIN70, GGI, AURKA, and Gene70) and estrogen-responsive pathways (ESR1.1, ESR1.2, and SET) were profoundly reduced by anastrozole treatment, as were signaling pathways PTEN, CASP3, E2F3, MYC, AKT/mTOR, and IGF-I. In contrast, PIK3CA, MAPK, Stroma.2-PLAU, Stroma.1, and Immune.1 expression module scores were significantly increased by treatment, suggesting that the pathways relevant to resistance are upregulated at this early time point. A significant association between estrogen-regulated modules (ESR1, ESR1-2, SET, and ERG) was evident post AI and may be indicators of late relapse. These observations reveal that different processes and pathways are affected differently with AI treatment between patients with ER+ breast cancer, emphasizing the importance of tumor heterogeneity.

Introduction

About 75% to 80% of patients with breast cancer at primary diagnosis present with breast tumors that are hormone receptor positive disease (1). The standard of care for these patients is endocrine treatment, such as tamoxifen, which competes with estrogen for the estrogen receptor (ER), or aromatase inhibitors (AI) that block the conversion of androgen to estrogen. The clinical efficacy of AIs is superior to that of tamoxifen for the treatment of postmenopausal women with ER-positive (ER+) breast cancer in both the adjuvant and metastatic setting (2). Neoadjuvant endocrine therapies, in particular AIs, are also effective at downstaging breast tumors and facilitating breast conservation in many postmenopausal patients (3).

Gene expression profiling has revealed the high degree of heterogeneity in breast cancer and the impact that particular molecular attributes can have on clinical outcome (4, 5). In particular, analyses of global gene expression profiles have revealed that breast cancer may be characterized as a collection of biologically distinct subgroups defined by “intrinsic” molecular markers. The principal subgroups include (i) luminal cancers, which are mainly ERα+, (ii) tumors characterized by amplification/overexpression of the HER2 gene, and (iii) basal-like cancers in which hormone receptors and HER2 are generally absent but basal cytokeratins are expressed. In addition to subtype-associated differences in prognosis and response to treatment, molecular differences within subtypes are increasingly being considered as contributors to the diversity of treatment response. The luminal group is generally divided into two subgroups: luminal A tumors characterized by greater expression of estrogen-regulated genes and markers associated with luminal breast epithelial cells; and luminal B in which these features are less apparent and there is greater expression of proliferation-associated genes (PAG).

Despite the efficacy of endocrine therapy in patients with ER+ breast cancer, approximately 25% of patients recur within 10 years after receiving 5 years of tamoxifen (6). Although the molecular events underpinning the efficacy of endocrine therapies are not fully understood (7, 8), it is clear that downregulation of proliferation plays a major role. Uncontrolled proliferation is a hallmark feature of tumor progression and in breast cancer this is most frequently assessed by immunohistochemical assessment of Ki67 (9). This marker has been used to assess prognosis, predict sensitivity or resistance to endocrine therapy, and serve as a dynamic biomarker of treatment efficacy in samples taken before, during, and after neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (10). Ki67 is suppressed to a variable extent by AIs in the large majority of breast cancer and overall by a mean of approximately 75% after 2 weeks, increasing to >80% after 12 to 16 weeks (11); the degree of Ki67 suppression by endocrine agents has been found to predict their efficacy as adjuvant therapy. Despite this focus of investigation on proliferation, it is known that many genes not associated with proliferation are also affected by estrogen deprivation (12). It seems likely that these other effects may contribute to the overall impact of AIs on clinical outcome. Preoperative neoadjuvant therapy provides a unique setting for characterizing such biologic changes in tumors and the molecular features that affect the changes.

To summate the activity of biologic processes/pathways relevant to cancer, a number of gene modules have been derived, including those that represent Wnt, SRC, Ras, Myc, E2F3, PTEN loss (13, 14), activation of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-I; ref. 15), mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK; ref. 16), AKT/mTOR pathways (17), and PIK3CA mutations (18). Key biologic processes in breast cancer have also formed the basis of functional gene signatures (19), including tumor invasion (Stroma-PLAU), immune response (Immune-STAT1), angiogenesis (VEGF), apoptosis (CASP3), proliferation (AURKA), ER signaling (ESR1), and HER2 signaling (ERBB2). Prognostic gene modules such as genomic grade index (GGI; ref. 5), Gene70 (20), and a signature that has been reported to recapitulate deficiency in DNA-repair mechanisms and chromosomal instability (CIN70; ref. 21) have also been described. These gene modules provide an opportunity to characterize the functional heterogeneity of ER+ tumors and to study the potential impact of AI therapy on key biologic processes that may contribute to clinical benefit.

The primary objective of this study was to determine systematically whether baseline expression of 26 published gene modules predicted for antiproliferative response in ER+ tumors with matched global gene expression data and Ki67 measurements, before and after 2 weeks of neoadjuvant anastrozole. Given that many of these gene modules contain PAGs, we first assessed the specific contribution of the PAGs to the correlations of the gene signatures with changes in Ki67. Second, we correlated the pretreatment expression of the individual gene modules with the change in Ki67 after 2 weeks of anastrozole therapy. Third, the effect of AI treatment on the gene modules was assessed and finally, the associations of the gene modules with Ki67 were determined before and after treatment, as well as their changes resulting from treatment.

Materials and Methods

Presurgical study of anastrozole

Pre- and on-treatment (week 2) core biopsies were available from postmenopausal women recruited into the anastrozole (1 mg/day)-only arm of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II neoadjuvant trial of anastrozole alone or with gefitinib in early breast cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00255463). This anastrozole-treated subgroup constitutes the Functional Aromatase Inhibitor Molecular Study (FAIMoS). Sample acquisition, storage, and RNA extraction was done as previously described (12). Following exclusions, paired samples were available from 81 patients treated for 2 weeks, of which 69 patients had corresponding Ki67 protein expression pre- and post treatment. A detailed CONSORT diagram is shown in Supplementary Fig. S1. These patients were used in the following analyses. Patient demographics are shown in Supplementary Table S2.

Gene expression data and probe annotation

Gene expression profiles were generated on the Illumina HumanWG-6 v2 Expression BeadChip. Illumina raw data were extracted using the BeadStudio software and were transformed and normalized using variance-stabilizing transformation and robust spline normalization method in the Lumi package in R (http://www.bioconductor.org). Probes were discarded if they were not detected in any of the 69 paired samples (detection P > 0.01), resulting in 53.7% (26,163/48,701) of the probes remaining for the downstream data analysis. A corresponding annotation file, HumanWG-6_V2_0_R4_11223189_A, was retrieved from the manufacturer's website (http://www.switchtoi.com/annotationfiles.ilmn). Gene expression data from this study were deposited by the authors of reference (12) and are available on http://synapse.sagebase.org/#Dataset:16243 (22).

Gene modules

Twenty-six publicly available gene modules representing potentially important biologic processes in breast cancer were assessed: (i) ER signaling and estrogen-regulated modules: ESR1.1, ESR1.2, sensitivity to endocrine therapy index (SET; refs. 19, 23, 24), and ERG (12); (ii) growth factor receptors and cytoplasmic signaling–related modules: IGF-I, obesity, MAPK (15, 16, 25), SRC, betacatenin, RAS (13), ERBB2, VEGF (19), PIK3CA (PIK3CA-GS; ref. 18), PTEN loss (14), and AKT/mTOR (17); (iii) cell cycle–related module: MYC (13); (iv) apoptosis and cell survival signaling related module: CASP3 (19); (v) proliferation-based modules: CIN70 (21), GGI (5), AURKA (19), Gene70 (20), and E2F3 (13); (vi) tumor invasion: Stroma.1 (26) and Stroma.2-PLAU (Stroma.2; ref. 19); (vii) immune response: Immune.1 (27) and Immune.2-STAT1 (Immune.2; ref. 19).

Composition and mapping of the gene modules

EntrezGeneIDs were used as gene identifiers in all selected modules with the exception of the ESR1.1 module (23), in which the UniGeneID was used. In this instance, we converted to EntrezGeneID using the ROCK database (www.rock.icr.ac.uk; ref. 28). The HumanWG-6_V2 annotation file was used to map the EntrezGeneIDs to the corresponding Illumina probe IDs. When multiple probes mapped to the same EntrezGeneID, the probe with the highest variance across pre- and posttreatment samples was selected to represent the gene. Genes were discarded from further analysis if they were not mapped to either the annotation file or the expression data.

PAGs

As Ki67 was used as the comparator with each of the gene modules, we hypothesized that PAGs, that occur in and dominate the behavior of many gene modules, may influence the representation of the key features in the respective process. To address this, three gene sets were identified, which were associated with proliferation: (i) genes functionally associated with cell-cycle progression and cell division according to Gene Ontology annotations (29), (ii) cycling genes (genes showing cell cycle stage-specific expression; ref. 29, 30), and (iii) tumor-based “proliferation cluster” genes (belonging to a ‘proliferation cluster’ defined in human breast cancer expression datasets; refs. 19, 29, 31). This process identified a total of 1,178 PAGs (Supplementary Table S3).

Computation of module scores

For each sample, a gene module score was calculated according to the expression of the relevant genes in the FAIMoS sample, as previously described (19, 32, 33). Embedded Image where n is the number of genes in a module, Xi represents the normalized gene expression in the test sample from the FAIMoS study, and gene-specific weights Wi are equal to +1 or −1 according to the direction of their association with the phenotype in the original publication. Data retrieved from publicly available datasets and the gene-set lists used in the study are detailed in Supplementary Table S4.

Data analysis

All analyses were performed using R version 2.14.1 (http://www.r-project.org/). P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Reported P values are two-sided. Unadjusted P values are shown but because large numbers of statistical analyses have been performed, we have additionally shown adjusted P values to aid in their cautious interpretation by using R function p.adjust.methods (i.e., False discovery rate, FDR).

The effect of the 2-week AI treatment on log2 Ki67 and gene modules was tested using Wilcoxon signed rank test based on the changes in expression. Geometric mean of intensity (G) was calculated as: Embedded Image and G is the anti of Embedded Image, where Xi represents the gene expression intensity or Ki67 protein level. The %Δ of geometric mean of intensity in a module and in Ki67 was defined as Embedded Image

To study the associations of Ki67 and the twenty-six gene modules together with the impact of removing the PAGs, we performed (i) Spearman rank correlation between Ki67 and gene modules and (ii) pvclust (34) to visualize the degree of association between Ki67 and gene modules.

Both approaches were performed using log2 Ki67 protein level and the expression module scores (i) at the baseline, (ii) in their response to estrogen deprivation, and (iii) posttreatment with and without PAGs. Here, Embedded Image and Embedded Image were used for Ki67 pretreatment and posttreatment protein level respectively, and the 2-week protein level change in Ki67 was defined as Embedded Image.

The R package pvclust, which calculates P values for each cluster using bootstrap resampling was used to assess the stability of the clusters. Two types of P values are available from this package: approximately unbiased (AU) P value and bootstrap probability (BP) value. The AU P value uses the multiscale bootstrap resampling methodology for calculating its P value and is superior to the BP P value calculated by the ordinary bootstrap resampling method. Hence, the AU method was used for these analyses and P values were reported as percentage (%), cluster with P value greater than 95% representing significantly associated modules.

To test the presence of clusters, we used the Ward method and correlation-based dissimilarity matrix with the parameters set to 10,000 bootstrap replicates, and the relative sample sizes set from 0.5 to 1.4 (default setting), with incremental steps of 0.1 to determine AU P value. In the data matrices, rows correspond to patients/samples, columns correspond to Embedded Image/gene module scores, and the values were centered and scaled via R function scale.

Results

Effect of removal of PAGs on gene modules

As proliferation has been strongly associated with the predictive and prognostic utility of gene modules (35), we took the strategy of analyzing the endocrine responsiveness of the gene modules with and without PAGs (with the exception of the AURKA module given that its primary purpose was to represent proliferation; Supplementary Table S5). Analysis of the PAGs showed that they not only changed significantly with AI, but their change was significantly concordant with changes in Ki67 (Supplementary Table S6).

Pretreatment associations of gene modules and Ki67 with and without the PAGs

Associations between the gene modules and Ki67 at baseline were assessed using pvclust. GGI, which mainly quantifies tumor proliferation, was in a significantly correlated cluster with AURKA, CIN70, PTEN loss, and Gene70 modules (AU P = 98%; Fig. 1A). Removal of the PAGs from these five gene modules resulted in the loss of the significance of the association with Gene70 and PTEN (Fig. 1B). Gene modules measuring estrogen signaling (ESR1.1, ESR1.2, and SET) and obesity with IGF-I remained significantly correlated in the absence or presence of PAGs. Another notable significant clustering was between AKT/mTOR, ERBB2, and VEGF, but this was disrupted by removal of the PAGs. In general, functionally related biologic processes were in highly correlated clusters.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Cluster dendrogram pretreatment includes PAGs (A), excluding PAGs (B); cluster dendrogram of changes in expression after treatment includes PAGs (C), excluding PAGs (D); cluster dendrogram of posttreatment includes PAGs (E), excluding PAGs (F). The cluster stability analysis of the unsupervised hierarchical clustering uses pvclust to calculate the AU P value. The AU P values are reported as percentage (%) in red. Clusters representing significantly associated modules (i.e., those clusters with greater than 95% significance) are shown by the red rectangle. Gene module scores and Ki67 protein expression at pretreatment, posttreatment, and change in the treatment were used for this analysis.

At baseline, with and without PAGs, baseline Ki67 protein expression was significantly positively correlated with the following modules: GGI, CIN70, AURKA, PTEN, Gene70, IGF-I, obesity, ERBB2, and RAS, and inversely correlated with ERG, ESR1.2, SET, and PIK3CA gene modules (Supplementary Table S7A and S7B). The significance of these associations with the proliferation-based modules, GGI, CIN70, AURKA, PTEN, and Gene70, became weaker after eliminating PAGs, whereas the relationship of Ki67 with the remaining modules, IGF-I, obesity, ERBB2, RAS, ERG, ESR1.2, SET, and PIK3CA was unaffected.

Correlation of pretreatment gene modules with change in Ki67

To assess the effect of the gene modules at predicting antiproliferative response to AI therapy, we compared baseline expression of each gene module versus the change (Δ) in Ki67 as a marker of response (Table 1), in which a negative ρ indicates a positive relationship of the module or metagene with Ki67 response to AI therapy, because the response is a reduction in Ki67. We found that the ER signaling module scores (ESR1.1, SET, and ESR1.2) were significantly associated with the reduction in Ki67 (unadjusted P <0.005, 0.04, and <0.05, respectively). In contrast, Immune.2.STAT1, Gene70, and IGF-I baseline module scores were significantly negatively associated with change in Ki67, indicating that the higher the module score, the smaller the antiproliferative response. This inverse correlation became stronger when PAGs were removed from the Gene70 and GGI modules. The ESR1.1 and Immune.2.STAT1 modules remained significant (adjusted P < 0.05) after adjustment for multiple testing. ρ values for the relationship of obesity, Stroma.2.PLAU and MAPK modules with change in Ki67 were all positive, but with 0.05 < unadjusted P < 0.10.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Spearman correlation between individual pretreatment module score and change in Ki67 protein expression, Embedded Image

Dynamic expression changes in gene modules and Ki67 in response to 2 weeks of AI treatment

Fourteen gene module scores (including PAGs) were significantly decreased after 2 weeks of anastrozole therapy, although none to the same magnitude as the single immunohistochemistry marker Ki67 (Table 2). The ERG module showed the most significant change in response to therapy. CIN70, GGI, AURKA, and the Gene70 module, which mainly quantify tumor proliferation, were each profoundly reduced by anastrozole. For CIN70, GGI, AURKA, and ERG, the P values for the change were all relatively similar to that for Ki67 at c.10−12. Modules representing SET, PTEN, CASP3, E2F3, MYC, ESR1.1, ESR1.2, AKT/mTOR, and IGF-I were also all significantly suppressed but at a lesser magnitude by estrogen deprivation. In contrast, MAPK, Stroma.2.PLAU, Stroma.1, and Immune.1 expression module scores were significantly increased by anastrozole treatment. When the PAGs were removed from the gene modules, the change in expression was significantly reduced in each of the proliferation-based modules. In particular, Gene70 was profoundly affected and was no longer significantly suppressed by AI treatment. However, removal of the PAGs from the remaining gene modules namely ERG, ESR1.1 ESR1.2, SET, MYC, MAPK, Stroma.2.PLAU, and Stroma1 had no significant impact.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Dynamic changes in expression of Gene modules and Ki67 in response to the 2 weeks' AI treatment

Associations of changes in gene modules and changes in Ki67 with and without PAGs

Assessment of the interconnectivity of the changes in the modules during treatment was strikingly different. ERBB2 with VEGF, Strom.1 with Strom.2.PLAU, and ESR1.1 with ESR1.2 and SET remained in their significantly associated cluster irrespective of the presence of PAGs (Fig. 1C & D). However, removal of the PAGs resulted in a strong association between IGF-I, obesity, MAPK, Src, and betacatenin, also, between changes in PTEN loss, E2F3, CASP3, AKT/mTOR, and CIN70. Notably, this was not a result of shared genes between the modules (Supplementary Table S8).

The change in expression of the ERG module was significantly correlated with the change in Ki67 protein level. Similar correlations with Ki67 were evident for the modules CIN70, GGI, AURKA, AKT/mTOR, PTEN, Gene70, and E2F3. However, these associations became weaker or even non-existent after removal of the PAGs from these modules, indicating that the previous correlations were partially dependent on the colinearity provided by the PAGs within those modules (Supplementary Table S9A and S9B).

Posttreatment associations of gene modules and Ki67 with and without the PAGs

After 2 weeks of treatment, the gene modules were clustered mainly into five pathway-associated clusters as follows (Fig. 1E & F): (i) ER signaling cluster consisting of ESR1-1, ESR1-2, SET, and ERG was evident (AU P ≥ 97%); of note, these modules shared only two genes (NAT1, TFF1); (ii) cell proliferation related cluster; (iii) growth factor receptors and cytoplasmic signaling–related cluster, which contained IGF-I, obesity, MAPK, RAS, ERBB2, VEGF, betacatenin, and SRC gene modules; (iv) tumor invasion cluster (Strom.1, Strom.2.PLAU); and (v) a significantly correlated immune response cluster (Immune.1, Immune.2.STAT1).

Interestingly, in these on-treatment samples, removal of the PAGs had no significant impact on the clustering. This is likely due to the suppression of proliferation in most samples by the AI. Of note, with and without PAGs, the PIK3CA module was not highly associated with any of the clusters, despite its module score being significantly positively correlated with ERG module score (unadjusted P = 0.007 and 0.004 respectively), weak but significantly inversely correlated with obesity module score (unadjusted P = 0.013 and 0.024, respectively; Supplementary Table S10A and S10B).

Posttreatment Ki67 values were significantly positively associated with the proliferation-based modules (Gene70, AURKA, CIN70, and GGI), PTEN, IGF-I, AKT/mTOR, RAS, and Immune.2.STAT1 with and without PAGs, despite the decreased proliferation. However, weak but significant negative correlations were evident between 2-week Ki67 values with expression module scores ESR1.1 (with and without PAGs, unadjusted P = 0.027 and 0.036, respectively). Two-week Ki67 was significantly positively associated with CASP3 and E2F3 only when PAGs were present in modules (unadjusted P = 0.014 and 0.025, respectively), and the statistical significance was lost in both cases when PAGs were removed from the modules (unadjusted P = 0.062 and 0.317, respectively; Supplementary Table S10A and S10B).

Discussion

The goal to predict those patients most likely to gain benefit from or be resistant to endocrine therapy remains a major clinical challenge. Investigations in the neoadjuvant setting are favored for study of mechanisms. In the current study, we used the change in Ki67 as the index of response. Although pathologic complete response (pCR) is a validated endpoint for chemotherapy in ER− or HER2+ disease, it is not a valuable endpoint in ER+ disease, whether this is treated with endocrine therapy or chemotherapy (36, 37). Consistent with this, in the clinical trial from which the data discussed were derived, no patient showed pCR on any arm of the trial (11). In contrast, the change in Ki67 is a widely accepted biomarker of endocrine treatment efficacy (9, 38).

Over the last decade, a vast amount of gene expression data has been generated and used to develop gene modules or metagenes that represent numerous individual pathways or processes. Some are either prognostic or predictive of response to therapy. In the current study, for the first time, we assessed the ability of 26 publicly available gene expression modules encompassing a number of processes associated with tumor biology, to predict Ki67 response to an AI. We also assessed the impact of AI treatment on their expression.

As expected, gene modules based around proliferation (GGI, Gene70, CIN70, and AURKA) correlated strongly with the proliferation marker Ki67. The differences in the correlation of many of the modules with one another, when PAGs were removed, emphasize the influence of proliferation features in many of them and also the importance of their removal, to consider the biologic importance of the modules and represented processes in relation to highly antiproliferative agents, such as AIs. The observation that removal of PAGs had little impact on clustering in the on-treatment samples in which proliferation was markedly reduced suggests the effectiveness of this subtractive approach.

At baseline, expression of the ERG module, consisting of estrogen-regulated genes, showed a trend toward predicting a change in Ki67 as a marker of response to therapy. In addition, the ERG module scores were the most significantly reduced after the 2 weeks' AI treatment. This latter observation supports the constituent genes of the ERG module as being highly estrogen dependent and their baseline expression, as somewhat indicative of endocrine responsiveness. However, it should be noted that this gene signature was originally derived from this cohort of patients (8).

The ESR1.1, ESR1.2, and the SET modules were generated using an association-based approach in which all genes highly correlated with and including ESR1 expression were included (19, 23, 24). In this study, we found that high baseline module scores of these gene signatures predicted good Ki67 response to AI therapy more strongly than the ERG module, indicating that ER-associated rather than estrogen-regulated genes are more important for predicting response to AIs.

The IGF, together with its receptor (IGF-IR), has been strongly implicated in endocrine resistance via hyperactivation of both the PI3K and MAPK pathways, leading to the ability of tumors to circumvent the need for steroid hormones (15, 39, 40). This is consistent with high IGF modules scores being associated with poor response to anastrozole. Furthermore, the MAPK module provided similar trend when PAGs were removed from the module. Not surprisingly, association studies between the gene modules showed that IGF-I was correlated with both the obesity and MAPK gene modules as well as with the obesity module itself, showing a trend to association with poor Ki67 response. This last observation is particularly notable given the recent evidence for obesity being associated with reduced benefit from AIs relative to that from tamoxifen (25).

The PIK3CA-GS (18) showed that at baseline the module was significantly inversely correlated with Ki67, IGF-I, MYC, E2F3, PTEN loss, and gene modules indicative of proliferation. This suggests the lower the PIK3CA-GS signature score the greater the pathway activity, but does not predict change in Ki67, consistent with our recent data on PIK3CA mutations, having no impact on Ki67 response in these same samples (41). One explanation for this observation is that the PIK3CA-GS was derived from a PIK3CA exon 20 mutation. As such, the gene signature may have greatest relevance in selecting patients most likely to respond to PI3K/mTOR inhibition. A recent retrospective study (42) of patients receiving the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in combination with letrozole in the neoadjuvant setting showed, surprisingly, that PIK3CA mutations did not predict for response to the combination or either agent but the PI3KCA-GS was able to identify those patients with ER+ breast cancer who gained benefit from the combination.

One of the most striking observations was that Immune.2.STAT1 predicted poor Ki67 response to anastrozole. This is consistent with our recent report showing that immune-related genes are highly predictive of poor antiproliferative response to AIs (12). This is further supported by the recently published article by Tsang and colleagues (43), which showed that higher lymphocytic infiltration correlated with poor prognosis in ER+ patients. The data suggest that patients showing evidence of high immune-related gene expression and/or lymphocytic infiltration may be candidates for treatment with immune-modulators in combination with an AI. It is, however, in stark contrast with that seen for response to chemotherapy in which high expression of these immune modules was associated with a significantly better outcome in two independent studies (19, 27). A dynamic network of positive and negative regulatory cytokines, which influence not only the type of response but also the amplitude of that response, modulates the immune system. For instance, the immune system has conflicting roles in tumor progression, on the one hand suppressing tumor growth, whereas on the other, providing a proproliferative environment by generating a source of growth factor cues. Hence, one explanation for this result could be that chemotherapy destroys not only the tumor, but also immune-associated cells, whereas endocrine therapy impacts more on cross-talk between the tumor and the immune system. This hypothesis is supported to some extent by recent data, which suggest that letrozole can decrease recruitment of regulatory T cells, which are known to dampen the immune response (44).

Despite these distinct correlations between the E2F3 signature and other modules, no correlation was found between E2F3 and Ki67 protein expression at the baseline, in the presence or absence of the PAGs. This contrasts with a previous study (45), which suggested that an E2F3 module, consisting of 24 non-cell-cycle genes, was significantly associated with Ki67 protein expression at baseline. Furthermore, the authors suggested the expression signature of E2F3 activation in ER+ tumors maybe linked with resistance to AI-induced estrogen deprivation. One potential explanation for these conflicting observations is that 13 of the 24 genes within the E2F3 signature (45) are known PAGs, accounting for the strong correlation with Ki67 protein levels (45).

The biology of breast cancer does not seem conducive to the identification of robust predictive signatures. The molecular mechanisms underpinning resistance to targeted therapeutics may be confined to the functional alteration of key genes, which may not necessarily influence global gene expression profiles. Another important caveat is that resistance mechanisms, such as gene mutations and epigenetic modifications, may be beyond the perception of gene expression analysis, limiting the identification of potentially important predictive alterations (46–48). The heterogeneity of breast cancer also raises the possibility that resistance may emerge through selection of nonmodal subpopulations, which are unable to be discerned by the composite nature of microarray-based analyses (49, 50). Technological advances have the potential to address some of these shortfalls; in particular, the advent of next-generation sequencing technology provides the opportunity for DNA and RNA aberrations to be integrated with transcriptional profiling.

In conclusion, the molecular response to AI treatment varies greatly between patients, consistent with the variable clinical benefit, as a result of tumor heterogeneity. Multiple processes and pathways are affected by AI treatment in ER+ breast cancer; however, reduced proliferation seems to be the dominant process. As expected, those modules most closely associated with ESR1 expression were predictive of good antiproliferative response to AIs. Of note, modules representing immune activity and IGF-I/MAPK were predictive of poor Ki67 response to therapy, supporting our earlier study (8) and highlighting their potential utility as biomarkers.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

M. Dowsett has received commercial research grants and speakers bureau honoraria from AstraZeneca. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: Q. Gao, L.-A. Martin, M. Dowsett

Development of methodology: Q. Gao, N. Patani, Z. Ghazoui

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): N. Patani, A.K. Dunbier, M. Dowsett

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): Q. Gao, N. Patani, A.K. Dunbier, Z. Ghazoui, M. Zvelebil, L.-A. Martin, M. Dowsett

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: Q. Gao, N. Patani, A.K. Dunbier, Z. Ghazoui, L.-A. Martin, M. Dowsett

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): Q. Gao, Z. Ghazoui

Study supervision: L.-A. Martin, M. Dowsett

Grant Support

This work was supported by the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre and The Mary-Jean Mitchell Green Foundation, and The National Health Service provided funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden Hospital.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Clinical Cancer Research Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received October 3, 2013.
  • Revision received February 19, 2014.
  • Accepted February 20, 2014.
  • ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    ASCO. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Available from: http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/breast-cancer/diagnosis.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Smith IE,
    2. Dowsett M
    . Aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2431–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Chia YH,
    2. Ellis MJ,
    3. Ma CX
    . Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in primary breast cancer: indications and use as a research tool. Br J Cancer 2010;103:759–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Sorlie T,
    2. Perou CM,
    3. Tibshirani R,
    4. Aas T,
    5. Geisler S,
    6. Johnsen H,
    7. et al.
    Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:10869–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Sotiriou C,
    2. Wirapati P,
    3. Loi S,
    4. Harris A,
    5. Fox S,
    6. Smeds J,
    7. et al.
    Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:262–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Davies C,
    2. Godwin J,
    3. Gray R,
    4. Clarke M,
    5. Cutter D,
    6. Darby S,
    7. et al.
    Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2011;378:771–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ali S,
    2. Coombes RC
    . Endocrine-responsive breast cancer and strategies for combating resistance. Nat Rev Cancer 2002;2:101–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Musgrove EA,
    2. Sutherland RL
    . Biological determinants of endocrine resistance in breast cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2009;9:631–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Dowsett M,
    2. Nielsen TO,
    3. A'Hern R,
    4. Bartlett J,
    5. Coombes RC,
    6. Cuzick J,
    7. et al.
    Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1656–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Dowsett M,
    2. Smith IE,
    3. Ebbs SR,
    4. Dixon JM,
    5. Skene A,
    6. A'Hern R,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic value of Ki67 expression after short-term presurgical endocrine therapy for primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:167–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Smith IE,
    2. Walsh G,
    3. Skene A,
    4. Llombart A,
    5. Mayordomo JI,
    6. Detre S,
    7. et al.
    A phase II placebo-controlled trial of neoadjuvant anastrozole alone or with gefitinib in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3816–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Dunbier AK,
    2. Ghazoui Z,
    3. Anderson H,
    4. Salter J,
    5. Nerurkar A,
    6. Osin P,
    7. et al.
    Molecular profiling of aromatase inhibitor-treated post-menopausal breast tumors identifies immune-related correlates of resistance. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:2775–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Bild AH,
    2. Yao G,
    3. Chang JT,
    4. Wang Q,
    5. Potti A,
    6. Chasse D,
    7. et al.
    Oncogenic pathway signatures in human cancers as a guide to targeted therapies. Nature 2006;439:353–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Saal LH,
    2. Johansson P,
    3. Holm K,
    4. Gruvberger-Saal SK,
    5. She QB,
    6. Maurer M,
    7. et al.
    Poor prognosis in carcinoma is associated with a gene expression signature of aberrant PTEN tumor suppressor pathway activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007;104:7564–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Creighton CJ,
    2. Casa A,
    3. Lazard Z,
    4. Huang S,
    5. Tsimelzon A,
    6. Hilsenbeck SG,
    7. et al.
    Insulin-like growth factor-I activates gene transcription programs strongly associated with poor breast cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4078–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Creighton CJ,
    2. Hilger AM,
    3. Murthy S,
    4. Rae JM,
    5. Chinnaiyan AM,
    6. El-Ashry D
    . Activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase in estrogen receptor alpha-positive breast cancer cells in vitro induces an in vivo molecular phenotype of estrogen receptor alpha-negative human breast tumors. Cancer Res 2006;66:3903–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Majumder PK,
    2. Febbo PG,
    3. Bikoff R,
    4. Berger R,
    5. Xue Q,
    6. McMahon LM,
    7. et al.
    mTOR inhibition reverses Akt-dependent prostate intraepithelial neoplasia through regulation of apoptotic and HIF-1-dependent pathways. Nat Med 2004;10:594–601.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Loi S,
    2. Haibe-Kains B,
    3. Majjaj S,
    4. Lallemand F,
    5. Durbecq V,
    6. Larsimont D,
    7. et al.
    PIK3CA mutations associated with gene signature of low mTORC1 signaling and better outcomes in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:10208–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Desmedt C,
    2. Haibe-Kains B,
    3. Wirapati P,
    4. Buyse M,
    5. Larsimont D,
    6. Bontempi G,
    7. et al.
    Biological processes associated with breast cancer clinical outcome depend on the molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:5158–65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. van ‘t Veer LJ,
    2. Dai H,
    3. van de Vijver MJ,
    4. He YD,
    5. Hart AA,
    6. Mao M,
    7. et al.
    Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002;415:530–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Carter SL,
    2. Eklund AC,
    3. Kohane IS,
    4. Harris LN,
    5. Szallasi Z
    . A signature of chromosomal instability inferred from gene expression profiles predicts clinical outcome in multiple human cancers. Nat Genet 2006;38:1043–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Dunbier A
    . Available from: http://synapse.sagebase.org/#Dataset:16243.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Mackay A,
    2. Urruticoechea A,
    3. Dixon JM,
    4. Dexter T,
    5. Fenwick K,
    6. Ashworth A,
    7. et al.
    Molecular response to aromatase inhibitor treatment in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2007;9:R37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Symmans WF,
    2. Hatzis C,
    3. Sotiriou C,
    4. Andre F,
    5. Peintinger F,
    6. Regitnig P,
    7. et al.
    Genomic index of sensitivity to endocrine therapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4111–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Creighton CJ,
    2. Sada YH,
    3. Zhang Y,
    4. Tsimelzon A,
    5. Wong H,
    6. Dave B,
    7. et al.
    A gene transcription signature of obesity in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;132:993–1000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Farmer P,
    2. Bonnefoi H,
    3. Anderle P,
    4. Cameron D,
    5. Wirapati P,
    6. Becette V,
    7. et al.
    A stroma-related gene signature predicts resistance to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Nat Med 2009;15:68–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Teschendorff AE,
    2. Miremadi A,
    3. Pinder SE,
    4. Ellis IO,
    5. Caldas C
    . An immune response gene expression module identifies a good prognosis subtype in estrogen receptor negative breast cancer. Genome biol 2007;8:R157.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Ur-Rehman S,
    2. Gao Q,
    3. Mitsopoulos C,
    4. Zvelebil M
    . ROCK: a resource for integrative breast cancer data analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;139:907–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Ben-Porath I,
    2. Thomson MW,
    3. Carey VJ,
    4. Ge R,
    5. Bell GW,
    6. Regev A,
    7. et al.
    An embryonic stem cell-like gene expression signature in poorly differentiated aggressive human tumors. Nat Genet 2008;40:499–507.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Whitfield ML,
    2. Sherlock G,
    3. Saldanha AJ,
    4. Murray JI,
    5. Ball CA,
    6. Alexander KE,
    7. et al.
    Identification of genes periodically expressed in the human cell cycle and their expression in tumors. Mol Biol Cell 2002;13:1977–2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Hu Z,
    2. Fan C,
    3. Oh DS,
    4. Marron JS,
    5. He X,
    6. Qaqish BF,
    7. et al.
    The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC genomics 2006;7:96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Ignatiadis M,
    2. Singhal SK,
    3. Desmedt C,
    4. Haibe-Kains B,
    5. Criscitiello C,
    6. Andre F,
    7. et al.
    Gene modules and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer subtypes: a pooled analysis. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:1996–2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Wirapati P,
    2. Sotiriou C,
    3. Kunkel S,
    4. Farmer P,
    5. Pradervand S,
    6. Haibe-Kains B,
    7. et al.
    Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res 2008;10:R65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Suzuki R,
    2. Shimodaira H
    . Pvclust: an R package for assessing the uncertainty in hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics 2006;22:1540–2.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Venet D,
    2. Dumont JE,
    3. Detours V
    . Most random gene expression signatures are significantly associated with breast cancer outcome. PLoS Comput Biol 2011;7:e1002240.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Kaufmann M,
    2. von Minckwitz G,
    3. Mamounas EP,
    4. Cameron D,
    5. Carey LA,
    6. Cristofanilli M,
    7. et al.
    Recommendations from an international consensus conference on the current status and future of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:1508–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. von Minckwitz G,
    2. Untch M,
    3. Blohmer JU,
    4. Costa SD,
    5. Eidtmann H,
    6. Fasching PA,
    7. et al.
    Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:1796–804.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Ellis MJ,
    2. Suman VJ,
    3. Hoog J,
    4. Lin L,
    5. Snider J,
    6. Prat A,
    7. et al.
    Randomized phase II neoadjuvant comparison between letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-rich stage 2 to 3 breast cancer: clinical and biomarker outcomes and predictive value of the baseline PAM50-based intrinsic subtype–ACOSOG Z1031. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2342–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Drury SC,
    2. Detre S,
    3. Leary A,
    4. Salter J,
    5. Reis-Filho J,
    6. Barbashina V,
    7. et al.
    Changes in breast cancer biomarkers in the IGF1R/PI3K pathway in recurrent breast cancer after tamoxifen treatment. Endocr Relat Cancer 2011;18:565–77.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Johnston SR,
    2. Dowsett M
    . Aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer: lessons from the laboratory. Nat Rev Cancer 2003;3:821–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Segal C,
    2. Lopez-Knowles E,
    3. Patel V,
    4. Garcia-Murillas I,
    5. Turner N,
    6. Martin L,
    7. et al.
    Relationship of PIK3CA mutation and PI3K pathway activity with antiproliferative response to anastrazole in ER positive breast cancer. Annals of Oncology 2013;24 Suppl 3: iii–30.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    1. Loi S,
    2. Michiels S,
    3. Baselga J,
    4. Bartlett JM,
    5. Singhal SK,
    6. Sabine VS,
    7. et al.
    PIK3CA genotype and a PIK3CA mutation-related gene signature and response to everolimus and letrozole in estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e53292.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Tsang JY,
    2. Hui SW,
    3. Ni YB,
    4. Chan SK,
    5. Yamaguchi R,
    6. Kwong A,
    7. et al.
    Lymphocytic infiltrate is associated with favorable biomarkers profile in HER2-overexpressing breast cancers and adverse biomarker profile in ER-positive breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014;143:1–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Generali D,
    2. Bates G,
    3. Berruti A,
    4. Brizzi MP,
    5. Campo L,
    6. Bonardi S,
    7. et al.
    Immunomodulation of FOXP3 +regulatory T cells by the aromatase inhibitor letrozole in breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:1046–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Miller TW,
    2. Balko JM,
    3. Fox EM,
    4. Ghazoui Z,
    5. Dunbier A,
    6. Anderson H,
    7. et al.
    ERalpha-dependent E2F transcription can mediate resistance to estrogen deprivation in human breast cancer. Cancer Discov 2011;1:338–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Ding L,
    2. Ellis MJ,
    3. Li S,
    4. Larson DE,
    5. Chen K,
    6. Wallis JW,
    7. et al.
    Genome remodelling in a basal-like breast cancer metastasis and xenograft. Nature 2010;464:999–1005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Weigelt B,
    2. Pusztai L,
    3. Ashworth A,
    4. Reis-Filho JS
    . Challenges translating breast cancer gene signatures into the clinic. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012;9:58–64.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Creighton CJ,
    2. Fu X,
    3. Hennessy BT,
    4. Casa AJ,
    5. Zhang Y,
    6. Gonzalez-Angulo AM,
    7. et al.
    Proteomic and transcriptomic profiling reveals a link between the PI3K pathway and lower estrogen-receptor (ER) levels and activity in ER+ breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2010;12:R40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Borst P,
    2. Wessels L
    . Do predictive signatures really predict response to cancer chemotherapy? Cell Cycle 2010;9:4836–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Colombo PE,
    2. Milanezi F,
    3. Weigelt B,
    4. Reis-Filho JS
    . Microarrays in the 2010s: the contribution of microarray-based gene expression profiling to breast cancer classification, prognostication and prediction. Breast Cancer Res 2011;13:212.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 20 (9)
May 2014
Volume 20, Issue 9
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effect of Aromatase Inhibition on Functional Gene Modules in Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer and Their Relationship with Antiproliferative Response
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effect of Aromatase Inhibition on Functional Gene Modules in Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer and Their Relationship with Antiproliferative Response
Qiong Gao, Neill Patani, Anita K. Dunbier, Zara Ghazoui, Marketa Zvelebil, Lesley-Ann Martin and Mitch Dowsett
Clin Cancer Res May 1 2014 (20) (9) 2485-2494; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2602

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Effect of Aromatase Inhibition on Functional Gene Modules in Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer and Their Relationship with Antiproliferative Response
Qiong Gao, Neill Patani, Anita K. Dunbier, Zara Ghazoui, Marketa Zvelebil, Lesley-Ann Martin and Mitch Dowsett
Clin Cancer Res May 1 2014 (20) (9) 2485-2494; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2602
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Grant Support
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Aromatase in Lung Adenocarcinomas with EGFR Mutations
  • Four-Gene Blood Panel Predicts Survival after Tremelimumab
  • miR-31-3p Expression and PFS in Patients with mCRC
Show more Predictive Biomarkers and Personalized Medicine
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement