Advertisement
Biology of Human Tumors

Diverse BRCA1 and BRCA2 Reversion Mutations in Circulating Cell-Free DNA of Therapy-Resistant Breast or Ovarian Cancer

Britta Weigelt, Iñaki Comino-Méndez, Ino de Bruijn, Lei Tian, Jane L. Meisel, Isaac García-Murillas, Charlotte Fribbens, Ros Cutts, Luciano G. Martelotto, Charlotte K.Y. Ng, Raymond S. Lim, Pier Selenica, Salvatore Piscuoglio, Carol Aghajanian, Larry Norton, Rajmohan Murali, David M. Hyman, Laetitia Borsu, Maria E. Arcila, Jason Konner, Jorge S. Reis-Filho, Roger A. Greenberg, Mark E. Robson and Nicholas C. Turner
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0544 Published November 2017

Abstract

Purpose: Resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy or PARP inhibition in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers may occur through somatic reversion mutations or intragenic deletions that restore BRCA1 or BRCA2 function. We assessed whether BRCA1/2 reversion mutations could be identified in circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) of patients with ovarian or breast cancer previously treated with platinum and/or PARP inhibitors.

Experimental Design: cfDNA from 24 prospectively accrued patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, including 19 patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer and five patients with platinum and/or PARP inhibitor pretreated metastatic breast cancer, was subjected to massively parallel sequencing targeting all exons of 141 genes and all exons and introns of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Functional studies were performed to assess the impact of the putative BRCA1/2 reversion mutations on BRCA1/2 function.

Results: Diverse and often polyclonal putative BRCA1 or BRCA2 reversion mutations were identified in cfDNA from four patients with ovarian cancer (21%) and from two patients with breast cancer (40%). BRCA2 reversion mutations were detected in cfDNA prior to PARP inhibitor treatment in a patient with breast cancer who did not respond to treatment and were enriched in plasma samples after PARP inhibitor therapy. Foci formation and immunoprecipitation assays suggest that a subset of the putative reversion mutations restored BRCA1/2 function.

Conclusions: Putative BRCA1/2 reversion mutations can be detected by cfDNA sequencing analysis in patients with ovarian and breast cancer. Our findings warrant further investigation of cfDNA sequencing to identify putative BRCA1/2 reversion mutations and to aid the selection of patients for PARP inhibition therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 23(21); 6708–20. ©2017 AACR.

Translational Relevance

Ovarian and breast cancers in women with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are highly sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors. In this exploratory, hypothesis-generating study, we provide evidence that BRCA1/2 reversion mutations, which, based on preclinical studies would be anticipated to cause resistance to PARP inhibitors, are detectable in a subset of patients with ovarian and breast cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and/or PARP inhibitors. Given that these putative reversion mutations can be polyclonal within a patient and present frequently at low variant allele frequencies, very high sensitivity cfDNA assays are required to detect these reversion mutations and may help determine which patients with ovarian and breast cancer are unlikely to benefit from PARP inhibition.

Introduction

BRCA1 and BRCA2 play pivotal roles in homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair, and germline mutations affecting these genes result in an increased risk of early breast and ovarian cancer development (1). Complete loss of BRCA1 or BRCA2 function results in lack of HR repair of DNA double-strand breaks (1). Cancer cells arising in germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers lose the wild-type allele, and, as a consequence, lose competent HR due to biallelic inactivation of BRCA1 or BRCA2. In this context, DNA double-strand breaks are repaired by error-prone mechanisms, such as nonhomologous end joining (2–4). Tumors harboring defective HR DNA repair have been shown to be sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy and inhibitors of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) (5, 6), given that these agents induce double-strand breaks either directly or through the stalling and subsequent collapse of replication forks. BRCA1 or BRCA2 breast and ovarian cancers are reported to be sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy and PARP inhibition (7–10), with platinum-based chemotherapy serving as the mainstay of treatment of patients with ovarian cancer. Several PARP inhibitors have recently been approved for the treatment of advanced BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutant ovarian cancer (11) and are in phase III clinical trials for patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutant breast cancer (12). Importantly, several mechanisms of resistance to these agents have been reported in preclinical models and in clinical studies (3, 4). One mechanism of resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors is in the form of reversion mutations or intragenic deletions that restore the open reading frame of the original germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, resulting in a functional protein with reacquisition of competent HR DNA repair (13–15).

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) found in the plasma of cancer patients has been shown to constitute a source of tumor-derived DNA that can be employed for the analysis of sequencing-based biomarkers (16). Although ctDNA frequently comprises only a small fraction of total circulating cell-free (cf)DNA and varies according to disease burden and between cancer types (17), it is possible to detect much of the entire repertoire of somatic genetic alterations found in primary tumors or metastatic disease in cfDNA samples if high-depth sequencing approaches are employed (18–20). In addition, multiclonal BRCA2 reversion mutations associated with resistance to PARP inhibitors have been identified in cfDNA from two metastatic prostate cancer patients with germline BRCA2 mutations (21).

The aims of this exploratory, hypothesis-generating study were to define whether putative BRCA1/2 reversion mutations can be detected in the cfDNA of patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 ovarian and breast cancer resistant or refractory to platinum-based chemotherapy or PARP inhibitors, to determine whether the putative BRCA1/2 reversion mutations found in these patients could have an impact on BRCA1/2 function, and to develop analysis techniques that could potentially be employed in the implementation of biomarkers for future patient selection.

Materials and Methods

Patient cohorts

Nineteen patients with ovarian cancer and five patients with breast cancer were prospectively accrued for this study. Inclusion criteria for the patients with ovarian cancer encompassed proven BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations, stage III or IV disease resistant or refractory to platinum-based chemotherapy, and availability of archived cancer tissue (Table 1). Patients with any other concurrent stage III/IV cancer were excluded. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC; New York, NY; IRB #13-128), and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Radiologic recurrence within 6 months of last platinum administration was defined as resistant disease, whereas unresponsiveness to or progression during platinum therapy was defined as refractory disease (22). Peripheral blood samples (EDTA tubes) were collected at the time of scheduled chemotherapy following relapse or progression. Of the 19 patients with ovarian cancer included, 18 had high-grade serous, and one had endometrioid ovarian cancer (Table 1). Inclusion criteria for the patients with breast cancer entailed proven BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations, metastatic disease, and prior treatment with platinum chemotherapy and/or PARP inhibitors. Samples were collected under studies approved by multicenter research ethics committees (ref. nos. 10/H0805/50 and 11/LO1595) in the United Kingdom. Peripheral blood samples (EDTA tubes) were collected upon disease progression, and serially after intervening therapy at subsequent disease progression (Table 2). This study is compliant with the Declaration of Helsinki.

View this table:
Table 1.

Clinicopathologic characteristics of patients with ovarian cancer included in this study

View this table:
Table 2.

Clinicopathologic characteristics of patients with breast cancer included in this study

cfDNA extraction from plasma

To avoid sample issues related to the stability of EDTA cfDNA, blood samples collected in EDTA tubes were processed within 2 hours of sample collection, centrifuged, and plasma samples were stored at −80°C until DNA extraction as described previously (20). DNA was extracted from plasma using the QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer's instructions as described previously (16, 20). DNA was quantified using the Qubit Fluorometer (Invitrogen, Thermo Fisher Scientific).

DNA extraction from peripheral blood leukocytes and tissue

Representative formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections of all ovarian tumors and of core biopsies of metastases from the patients with advanced breast cancer obtained at diagnosis (patient 1109 patient) and at recurrence (patient L031) were stained with nuclear fast red and microdissected with a sterile needle under a stereomicroscope (Olympus SZ61) to ensure >80% of tumor cell content, as described previously (23). In nine ovarian cancer cases, histologically distinct regions of the primary tumor or distinct anatomical sites, including omental implants were available and microdissected [median of 1 (range, 1–4) anatomically distinct regions per case]. Genomic DNA was extracted from tumor samples and peripheral blood leukocytes using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen) and quantified using the Qubit Fluorometer, as described previously (23, 24).

Targeted capture massively parallel sequencing

Tumor DNA from patients with ovarian cancer, cfDNA from patients with ovarian and breast cancer, and their respective germline DNA were subjected to targeted massively parallel sequencing in the MSKCC Integrated Genomics Operation (IGO) as described previously (24, 25) using a custom panel of baits encompassing all exons and introns of BRCA1 and BRCA2, and all exons of 141 additional genes reported to be involved in DNA repair, drug resistance, resistance to PARP inhibitors/platinum salts, and genes recurrently mutated in ovarian cancer, including TP53 (Supplementary Table S1; refs. 26–28). In addition, baits tiling common SNPs were included to allow for copy number analysis (25). Serial plasma samples from breast cancer patients L031 and 1109 were subjected also to MSK-IMPACT sequencing targeting 410 key cancer genes, as described previously (25, 29). Sequence data were analyzed as described previously (Supplementary Methods; refs. 24, 29), and in addition, variants in the cfDNAs and tumors were assessed using the SAMtools mpileup tool (30) and Varscan 2 (31). Sequence data are available at the Sequence Read Archive (SRP100525).

Identification of putative BRCA1/2 reversion mutations and intragenic deletions

Putative somatic reversion mutations or intragenic deletions were defined as somatic genetic alterations that would result in a restoration of the open reading frame of BRCA1 or BRCA2 in the cfDNA from a patient harboring a known germline mutation affecting BRCA1 or BRCA2, respectively. To identify putative reversion mutations and intragenic deletions, we extracted all reads from BRCA1 or BRCA2 (i.e., the gene affected by the germline mutation in a given case). Among these reads, we used SAMtools mpileup tool (30) to search for (i) somatic small insertions and deletions (indels) that would restore the reading frame of BRCA1/2 in patients with germline indels; (ii) somatic single-nucleotide variants (SNV) that restore the BRCA1/2 reference allele in patients with germline point mutations; and (iii) intragenic deletions that delete the BRCA1/2 germline mutation and result in restoration of the open reading frame. For SNVs and indels, single reads supporting a mutation were also examined owing to the limited fraction of ctDNA in total plasma cfDNA.

To account for potential large intragenic deletions (>40 bp) that may not be aligned as single reads by BWA (32), we further included clipped reads aligning to multiple locations and spanning the germline mutation as putative intragenic deletions. All putative large intragenic deletions were visually inspected using the Integrated Genomics Viewer (33).

All putative BRCA1/2 reversion mutations and intragenic deletions were annotated using Oncotator (34), in conjunction with the respective BRCA1/2 germline mutation. The cDNA changes predicted by Oncotator were applied consecutively to the BRCA1/2 cDNA transcripts and translated into amino acids. We further inferred the Levenshtein distance, which denotes the number of insertions, deletions, and substitutions required to change one protein into the other (35). Each of the germline mutant and putative reversion mutant BRCA1/2 proteins was annotated with their respective Levenshtein distance to the wild-type BRCA1/2 protein. Any of the putative reversion mutations that differed in this metric compared with the germline mutation were flagged for manual review. Scripts to aid in the search of reversion mutations and compare their protein sequences are available online (36).

Quantification of tumor DNA in total plasma DNA

To ascertain the fraction of tumor ctDNA in the cfDNA obtained from plasma of patients with ovarian cancer, we employed (i) the TP53 variant allele fractions (VAF) of the ovarian tumors given that TP53 mutations are present, clonal and truncal in >97% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSOC; refs. 37, 38); (ii) the tumor ploidy, local TP53 copy number, and tumor purity based on FACETS (39) and ABSOLUTE (40); and (iii) the TP53 VAF from plasma. If TP53 mutations were not identified in cfDNA, a distinct clonal mutation was employed for analysis. The fraction of ctDNA in cfDNA could not be defined in cases where only subclonal mutations from the ovarian tumor were detected in the respective cfDNA.

Given the lack of matched tumor tissue from the metastatic breast cancers subjected to targeted massively parallel sequencing, a different approach was employed to infer the fraction of ctDNA in total plasma DNA. The cfDNA was quantified on a Bio-Rad QX100 droplet (d)PCR using ribonuclease P (RNase P) as a reference, as described previously (20). At least two negative control wells without DNA were included in each run. The amount of amplifiable RNase P DNA and the number of RNase P copies were calculated using the Poisson distribution in QuantaSoft (Bio-Rad) and used together with the highest VAF identified by targeted massively parallel sequencing in the cfDNAs of the patients with breast cancer to infer the fraction of ctDNA in cfDNA.

Droplet PCR

The putative c.85delG BRCA1 reversion mutation identified by massively parallel sequencing in case OCT15 was validated using the Raindrop dPCR system (RainDance Technologies) as described previously (41). Droplet PCR (dPCR) conditions were optimized as described previously (20), and assay sensitivity was tested using BRCA1 wild-type DNA library spiked in with a BRCA1 c.85delG-mutant synthetic oligonucleotide. Massively parallel sequencing libraries from the ovarian tumor samples and plasma DNA samples of case OCT15 were loaded onto the RainDrop Source instrument for droplet generation for amplification (forward 5′-ACTTTGTGGAGACAGGTT-3′, reverse 5′-TGAGCCTCATTTATTTTCTTTT-3′ PCR primers), and loaded onto the Raindrop Sense instrument for droplet counting and fluorescence intensity readout as described previously (41). Libraries from germline DNA spiked in with 10, 100, and 1,000 c.85delG BRCA1 synthetic oligonucleotide molecules were included in the run as controls and for gating purposes. Data were analyzed using the RainDrop Analyst data analysis software.

Targeted amplicon resequencing

The putative BRCA2 reversion mutations and the somatic SPEN and TGFBR1 mutations identified by massively parallel sequencing were validated in three plasma samples from case L031 using targeted amplicon resequencing. In case 1109, three somatic variants affecting FAT3, ERCC4 and KDM5C were validated together with the putative BRCA2 reversion mutations identified in the posttreatment plasma sample and in a tumor metastasis core biopsy affecting the liver obtained prior to treatment. At least 10 ng of plasma DNA, microdissected tumor DNA and matching peripheral blood leukocyte-derived germline DNA were amplified using Taq Hifi polymerase (Ion AmpliSeq Library Kit 2.0, Thermo Fisher Scientific), and libraries were prepared using the NEBNext Ultra II DNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina (New England BioLabs). As controls, matched normal DNA from cases 1109 and L031 and plasma DNA from two unrelated patients with advanced breast cancer not treated with PARP inhibitors or platinum-based chemotherapy and two tumor DNA samples obtained from unrelated breast cancer core biopsies were included. PCR conditions and primers are available on request. The quality and quantity of the amplification was tested using the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer and the KAPA Library Quantification Kit for Illumina(Kapa Biosystems), respectively. Amplicon resequencing of the putative BRCA2 reversion mutations in the cfDNA samples of L031 and 1109 was performed twice independently, using an Illumina HiSeq2500 (first run) and an Illumina MiniSeq (Mid output kit; second run). Sequence data analyses are described in the Supplementary Methods. Only BRCA2 reversion mutations present in plasma DNA with zero counts in the germline control and in the unrelated control samples were considered validated.

Cell lines

293T cells and U2OS cells were obtained from the ATCC in 2008 and 2015, respectively. The identities of the cell lines were confirmed by short tandem repeat profiling after receipt as described previously (42) and tested for mycoplasma infection using a PCR-based assay (ATCC) following the manufacturer's instructions (latest test in 2016). The cells were passaged no more than 20 to 25 times after thawing.

BRCA1 foci formation

The U2OS double-strand break (DSB) reporter system was employed to define the ability of putative BRCA1 somatic reversion mutations to recognize DSBs, as described previously (Supplementary Methods; refs. 43–45).

BRCA2 interaction with PALB2 and RAD51

293T cells were transfected with pCDNA-HA-BRCA2 plasmids(i.e., wild-type HA-BRCA2, germline c.407delA HA-BRCA2del407 and putative reversion c.402_413delTCTAAATTCTTG HA-BRCA2REV) for 72 hours and lysed in lysis buffer (0.5% NP40, 25 mmol/L Tris pH 7.5, 450 mmol/L NaCl, 0.5 mmol/L EDTA and proteinase inhibitors). The cell lysates were then incubated with anti-HA agarose beads (Sigma). After three washes with wash buffer (0.5% NP40, 25 mmol/L Tris pH 7.5, 150 mmol/L NaCl, 0.5 mmol/L EDTA), the beads were boiled in SDS sampling buffer, followed by Western blotting with antibodies against HA (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), PALB2 (Novus Biologicals), and RAD51(Santa Cruz Biotechnology).

Results

BRCA1 reversion mutations in ctDNA from patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer

We developed a targeted capture sequencing assay comprising the coding regions of 141 genes and all intronic and exonic regions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (Supplementary Table S1). We first established the potential of the assay for detecting ctDNA in patients with ovarian cancer, as prior studies suggested low rates of mutation detection in ctDNA of patients with ovarian cancer (46). Massively parallel sequencing analysis of germline DNA from peripheral blood leukocytes, microdissected tumor and plasma DNA of 19 cases (BRCA1, n = 12; BRCA2, n = 7), using previously validated methods (18, 20), yielded median depths of coverage of 1,569× (range, 852×–2,272×), 823× (range, 272×–2,328×) and 1,978× (range, 1,287×–4,157×), respectively (Supplementary Table S2). Given that somatic TP53 mutations are present in >97% of all HGSOCs and that the vast majority of these mutations are clonal (i.e., bioinformatically inferred to be present in virtually all cancer cells within a sample) and truncal (i.e., present as clonal mutations in all samples analyzed; refs. 37, 38), we reasoned that the TP53-mutant allele fractions in cfDNA from patients with HGSOC could be employed to ascertain indirectly the fraction of tumor DNA in the total plasma DNA. In all 19 ovarian cancers sequenced, clonal TP53 mutations were detected (Supplementary Table S2, Supplementary Fig. S1). In nine cases, multiple anatomically distinct areas of the ovarian cancer were microdissected and/or peritoneal implants and/or metastatic sites were available and sequenced separately; the TP53 mutations in these nine cases with multiregion sequencing were found to be clonal and truncal (Supplementary Table S2; Supplementary Fig. S1). Other somatic mutations detected in the 19 ovarian cancers studied here included NF1, ERCC4, RB1 and CHEK2 (Supplementary Table S2; Supplementary Fig. S1).

Analysis of the cfDNA from these patients revealed the presence of the same somatic TP53 mutation identified in the tumors from the respective patients with ovarian cancer in 15 of 19 cases (79%). TP53 VAFs in the plasma DNA ranged from 0.06% to 32.7% (Supplementary Fig. S1; Supplementary Table S2), and only in 4 samples, these TP53 mutations were identified using our standard bioinformatics pipeline. In three cases (OCT1, OCT5, OCT12), none of the clonal TP53 mutations present in the tumors were detected in the plasma, but other somatic mutations were identified, including RB1, NF1 and FAT3 mutations (Supplementary Fig. S1). In one case (OCT3), neither the clonal TP53 nor the subclonal NF1 somatic mutations present in the primary ovarian cancer were detected in the cfDNA (Supplementary Table S2; Supplementary Fig. S1). Overall, our assay identified ctDNA in plasma of 95% (18/19) patients with advanced ovarian cancer, and the median percentage of ctDNA in cfDNA was found to be 0.31% (range, 0%–32.74%; Table 1).

Having demonstrated the high sensitivity to detect ctDNA with our assay, we investigated whether putative BRCA1/2 reversion mutations could be detected in cfDNA. Using a conservative bioinformatics strategy (see Materials and Methods), six putative somatic BRCA1 reversion mutations in four patients OCT1, OCT5, OCT10 and OCT15 were identified with VAFs ranging from 0.0314% to 0.0850% (Fig. 1; Supplementary Fig. S2; Supplementary Table S3). Four of the six putative reversion mutations were flanked by microhomology sequences (Supplementary Table S3). Using dPCR (20) and spiked-in synthetic c.85delG oligonucleotides as controls, we detected the putative somatic c.85delC BRCA1 reversion mutation in the cfDNA of patient OCT15 (Fig. 2A), which harbored a germline BRCA1 c.68-69delAG mutation. In contrast, however, analysis of the pretreatment primary tumors from the ovary and fallopian tube as well as a peritoneal implant of patient OCT15 showed no reliably detectable BRCA1 reversion mutations (Fig. 2A). Validation of the reversion mutations in the other cases was not possible given that no or insufficient amounts of residual plasma DNA were available.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

BRCA1 open reading frame–restoring somatic mutations identified in cfDNA derived from patients with ovarian cancer with BRCA1 germline mutations resistant/refractory to platinum-based chemotherapy. Representation of the BRCA1 protein (top). Nucleotide and amino acid sequences for the affected genomic location shown are based on ENSEMBL transcript no. ENST00000357654.3. Representation of the predicted nucleotide and protein sequences for BRCA1 wild-type (WT), germline mutation, and putative reversion mutations from ovarian cancer patient OCT5 (top) and OCT15 (bottom). These three putative BRCA1 reversion mutations were found to restore the BRCA1 open reading frame. Additional putative BRCA1 reversion mutations are shown in Supplementary Fig. S2. Predicted protein lengths are shown in bold. Light blue, base triplets affected by a mutation; red, aberrant amino acids produced by a given mutation; green arrows, restored open reading frames. AA, amino acid; ORF, open reading frame; WT, wild-type.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Validation of putative BRCA1 reversion mutation using dPCR and IR-induced BRCA1 foci formation. A, Validation of the putative BRCA1 c.85delG reversion mutation in cfDNA and tissue samples from patient OCT15 harboring a BRCA1 c.68-69delAG germline mutation using dPCR. Massively parallel sequencing libraries of germline DNA spiked in with 10, 100, and 1,000 BRCA1 c.85delG synthetic oligonucleotide molecules were used as controls and for BRCA1 c.85delG mutant gating (top). Massively parallel sequencing libraries from the plasma DNA (top right) and from three anatomically distinct ovarian tumor samples (i.e., ovary, peritoneum and fallopian tube; bottom) of case OCT15 were tested. The somatic BRCA1 c.85delG mutation was confirmed in the cfDNA but was not detected in the pretreatment ovarian cancer tissues. B, U2OS cells were transfected with pcDNA-BRCA1(Δ510-1283) and BRCA1-mutant plasmids (BRCA1 germline and/or respective putative BRCA1 reversion mutations of cases OCT1, OCT5, OCT10, and OCT15) or wild-type (WT) BRCA1 as control for 48 hours (see Materials and Methods). Following 8 Gy irradiation (IR), BRCA1 foci formation was assessed using immunofluorescence. Arrows indicate the BRCA1 reversion mutations partially restoring BRCA1 foci formation.

To ascertain whether these putative somatic BRCA1 reversion mutations would restore the ability to recognize double-strand breaks, we employed the U2OS-DSB reporter system (43–45). Following 8 Gy of ionizing irradiation, we observed that three putative BRCA1 somatic reversion mutations, all of which were flanked by microhomology sequences, namely c.108delC(OCT5), c.113delA and c.85delC (both OCT15), resulted in an induction of BRCA1 foci to levels higher than those observed in U2OS cells expressing the respective germline BRCA1 mutation (Fig. 2B). We therefore demonstrated that ctDNA sequencing can detect putative BRCA1 reversion mutations, and that these mutations may restore BRCA1 function in in vitro assays.

BRCA2 reversion mutations in ctDNA from patients with breast cancer previously treated with platinum salts and/or PARP inhibitors

We next defined whether somatic reversion mutations would be detected in ctDNA of PARP inhibitor- and/or platinum-resistant advanced breast cancer patients harboring BRCA1 (n = 1) or BRCA2 (n = 4) germline mutations. Germline DNA extracted from peripheral blood leukocytes and a single (n = 2) or two sequential (n = 3) plasma DNA samples per patient were sequenced with the same custom targeted capture sequencing assay described above to a median depth of coverage of 537× (range, 457×–630×) and 1,646× (range, 1,163×–3,153×), respectively (Supplementary Table S2). In all cfDNA samples analyzed, somatic mutations were identified (VAFs, 2.38%–54.54%), including somatic TP53 mutations in two cases (Supplementary Table S2; Supplementary Fig. S3). Although the amount of cfDNA obtained per mL of plasma was similar between the breast and ovarian cancers studied here [breast median 7.8 ng cfDNA/mL plasma (range, 5.0 ng–87 ng) vs. ovarian median 12.0 ng cfDNA/mL plasma (range, 4.8 ng–32.4 ng), P = 0.2905, Mann–Whitney U test], the percentage of ctDNA was significantly higher in breast compared with ovarian cancer patients (breast median 12.7% (range, 5.2%–54.5%) vs. ovarian 0.31% (range, 0%–32.74%, P < 0.0005, Mann–Whitney U test, Tables 1 and 2]. It should be noted, however, that the methods for the quantification of ctDNA percentage in cfDNA applied to the breast and ovarian cancer samples differed, and these methodologic differences may at least in part explain the distinct levels of ctDNA in cfDNA between the two groups. Despite this important caveat and consistent with the notion that the percentage of ctDNA in cfDNA was higher in the patients with breast cancer than in the patients with ovarian cancer studied here, SNVs and indels in the cfDNA of the patients with metastatic breast cancer were identified using our standard bioinformatics approach, whereas these were detectable using the standard bioinformatics approach in the cfDNA of only four of 19 patients with breast cancer.

Analysis of the sequencing data further revealed the presence of multiple putative somatic reversion mutations in two of the BRCA2 germline mutation carriers (L031 and 1109) at VAFs ranging from 0.0549% to 0.2273% (Fig. 3; Supplementary Table S3). To validate the multiple polyclonal BRCA2 mutations, we developed an orthogonal amplicon sequencing strategy (see Materials and Methods), which was employed twice independently and confirmed the presence of all detected reversion mutations, and identified six additional putative BRCA2 reversion mutations in the cfDNA of cases L031 and 1109 (Fig. 3; Supplementary Table S3), with no detected mutations in controls (see Materials and Methods). In the plasma sample taken after carboplatin and PARP inhibitor treatment from patient 1109, harboring a c.750_753GACAdel germline mutation, up to nine distinct putative BRCA2 reversion mutations were identified suggesting polyclonality at resistance (Fig. 3A; Supplementary Table S3). Validated putative somatic reversion mutations were confirmed to restore the reading frame of BRCA2 and were flanked by (micro) homology sequences (Supplementary Table S3). All of the reversion mutations preserved the BRC repeats, which have been shown to be essential for HR DNA repair of double-strand breaks (1, 13).

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

BRCA2 open reading frame–restoring somatic mutations identified in cfDNA derived from patients with breast cancer with BRCA2 germline mutations after platinum-based chemotherapy. Representation of the BRCA2 protein (top). Nucleotide and amino acid sequences for the affected genomic location shown are based on ENSEMBL transcript no. ENST00000380152.7. Representation of the predicted nucleotide and protein sequences for the BRCA2 wild-type (WT), germline alteration, and putative reversion mutations from patients A, 1109 and B, L031 are shown. The putative BRCA2 reversion mutations presented in this figure were validated independently using targeted amplicon resequencing. Predicted protein lengths are shown in bold. Light blue, base triplets affected by a mutation; red, aberrant amino acids produced by a given mutation are marked. Gaps represent the germline and somatic BRCA2 reversion mutations identified. Four putative BRCA2 reversion mutations were found to colocalize with the germline alteration, which is underlined in red in the reversion mutation sequences on the left. Insertions are highlighted by green squares. Green arrows indicate the restored open reading frames. AA, amino acid; ORF, open reading frame; WT, wild-type.

We next sought to define whether the putative BRCA2 reversion mutation identified in the cfDNA would be present in the matched tumor tissue. We obtained a tumor biopsy sample at initial diagnosis prior to carboplatin/PARP inhibitor treatment from case 1109 and a tumor sample at recurrence (i.e., synchronously with plasma sample 3) from case L031. The quality of DNA obtained from the L031 tumor biopsy was suboptimal and the targeted amplicon sequencing approach failed in this sample. Targeted amplicon sequencing of the initial diagnosis tumor sample from case 1109 confirmed the presence of the somatic FAT3, ERCC4 and KDM5C mutations identified in the cfDNA, with VAFs ranging from 16% to 55.6% (Supplementary Table S3); however, none of the putative BRCA2 reversion mutations identified in cfDNA could be detected in the tumor tissue biopsy. This suggested that reversion mutations were selected by therapy and were not detectable in the biopsied tumor prior to therapy.

Analysis of serial plasma DNA samples from one patient (L031) confirmed the presence of the putative BRCA2 reversion mutations after carboplatin treatment and prior to treatment with the PARP inhibitor talazoparib (Supplementary Table S3). The patient did not respond to talazoparib, with a differential response with some lesions unequivocally progressing. A decrease in the VAFs of the somatic putative BRCA2 reversion mutation c.402_413delTCTAAATTCTTG immediately after treatment reflected lower levels of ctDNA in the cfDNA at that time point (with a decrease in tumor-specific SPEN and TGFBR1 mutations; Fig. 4A; Supplementary Fig. S4). After subsequent treatment, a novel c.389_406delTTTCCTGTCCACTTCTAA putative BRCA2 reversion mutation, inferred to restore the open reading frame of the BRCA2 protein and initially detected at minimal levels, increased, suggesting a greater diversity in BRCA2 reversion mutations post-PARP inhibitor therapy (Fig. 4A; Supplementary Fig. S4). These results mirrored the progression of the disease and evidence of PARP inhibitor resistance in the patient.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Serial analysis of putative BRCA2 reversion mutations in cfDNA samples from breast cancer patient L031, and the interaction between reversion-mutant BRCA2, PALB2 and RAD51. A, CT images during the course of therapy of breast cancer patient L031 demonstrating the initial response and subsequent progression of the lesions. Plasma samples were obtained before and after treatment with the PARP inhibitor talazoparib and after capecitabine therapy (top). Mutant allele frequencies of two somatic BRCA2 reversion mutations identified by targeted massively parallel sequencing were assessed in two independent analyses in the plasma samples pre- and post-PARP inhibitor treatment using targeted amplicon sequencing. B, 293T cells transfected with HA-BRCA2 wild-type (WT), HA-BRCA2 c.407delA germline mutant (GM) and HA-BRCA2 c.402_413delTCTAAATTCTTG somatic reversion-mutant plasmids (Rev). Western blot analysis performed using an anti-HA antibody revealed that the HA-BRCA2Rev was translated into mutant protein (predicted 3414AA) with a molecular weight similar to that of the wild-type protein (3418AA). The HA-BRCA2GM protein length is predicted to be 150AA. Immunoprecipitation of HA-BRCA2Rev and wild-type HA-BRCA2 revealed that HA-BRCA2Rev protein displays proficient interactions with PALB2 and RAD51 similar to that of the wild-type BRCA2 protein. AA, amino acid.

To ascertain whether the putative somatic BRCA2 reversion mutation identified in case L031 would show interaction with PALB2 and RAD51, we expressed full-length BRCA2, the c.407delA patient-specific germline BRCA2 mutation, and the c.402_413delTCTAAATTCTTG putative BRCA2 reversion mutation in 293T cells. We observed that the BRCA2 reversion mutation but not the BRCA2 c.407delA germline mutation displayed an intact interaction with PALB2 and RAD51, which was at similar levels as those detected with the wild-type BRCA2 protein (Fig. 4B).

Discussion

BRCA1 and BRCA2 reversion mutations have been documented as potential mechanisms of resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors in cell line models and patient samples (4, 13, 14, 21, 46). Here, we report on the detection of putative BRCA1 and BRCA2 reversion somatic mutations in the cfDNA of platinum-based chemotherapy and/or PARP inhibitor–resistant/refractory ovarian and breast cancer patients harboring germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations. We have observed these putative mutations in the cfDNA of 21% (4/19) of platinum resistant/refractory ovarian cancer patients, and 40% (2/5) of platinum and/or PARP inhibitors pretreated patients with breast cancer, suggesting that reversion mutations may not be uncommon in patients following platinum-based chemotherapy and/or PARP inhibition. The putative reversion mutations in the form of small indels restored the reading frame before the aberrant stop codon produced by the germline mutation and may have resulted in reacquisition of the DNA repair functions of BRCA1 or BRCA2 (Figs. 1 and 3). Consistent with this notion, in vitro studies revealed that three of the putative somatic BRCA1 reversion mutations identified by targeted capture sequencing of cfDNA restored, at least in part, the ability of cells to elicit BRCA1 foci following ionizing ration treatment. In addition, one of the putative BRCA2 mutations tested in vitro was found to restore the interaction with its partners PALB2 and RAD51. These putative reversion mutations could not be detected in the tumor tissue samples obtained at primary diagnosis, suggesting selection by therapy. No adequate tumor tissue was available contemporaneously with the cfDNA sample to define the frequency of these putative alterations in the resistant/refractory tumors.

Consistent with a recent report describing polyclonal reversion mutations in the cfDNA of two patients with BRCA2 prostate cancer treated with PARP inhibitors (21), our findings suggest that polyclonal reversion mutations may also be found in cfDNA of patients with BRCA1/2 ovarian and breast cancer treated with platinum-based therapy and/or PARP inhibitors, in particular in BRCA2 cancers. Importantly, however, all mutations were detected at very low allele frequencies in plasma, with more than one mutation present in 67% (4/6) of patients with reversion mutations. In two patients with BRCA2 breast cancer with disease progression after platinum-based chemotherapy and PARP inhibitor therapy, multiple concurrent somatic reversion mutations were detected by targeted capture sequencing and validated using orthogonal sequencing methods. Moreover, in one patient, the mutant allele fractions in plasma DNA increased after PARP inhibitor treatment and resistance development. These observations are consistent with the notion that resistance to targeted therapies may be polyclonal in a given patient with cancer (e.g., polyclonal ESR1 mutations as a mechanism of resistance to aromatase inhibition; ref. 47), even in therapeutic strategies based on synthetically lethal approaches. It should be noted that the VAFs of the putative reversion mutations identified in the cfDNA of subjects included here was low. Importantly, however, these VAFs were frequently similar to the allele fractions of TP53 and/or other mutations (Supplementary Table S3) and consistent with the estimated ctDNA content (Table 1), suggesting that at least, in a subset of patients, these putative reversion mutations were clonally dominant at the time of sample collection. Moreover, it is most likely that similar to other targeted therapy resistance (e.g., EGFR inhibitors in EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer), resistance to platinum-based therapy and PARP inhibition may be multifactorial in a single patient (e.g., polyclonal reversion mutations and/or other mechanisms of resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy or PARP inhibitors being present in distinct subclones within a tumor), or that these putative reversion mutations may cause resistance not only in a cell autonomous manner, but also through a bystander effect.

The presence of multiple reversion mutations within a given BRCA1 or BRCA2 patient may result from the strong selective pressures imposed by platinum-based or PARP inhibitor therapy and the type of DNA repair defects cancer cells with defective BRCA1 and BRCA2 display. Consistent with this hypothesis and the more frequent reporting of polyclonal reversion mutations in BRCA2 cancer (e.g., PARP inhibitor resistant BRCA2-deficient pancreatic cancer cell line and in tumor tissue of patients with BRCA2 ovarian cancer; refs. 13, 48), loss of BRCA2 function results in defective DNA repair of double-strand breaks, as induced by platinum or PARP inhibition, and are repaired preferentially through single-strand annealing and nonhomologous end joining (1, 2). Given the selective pressure these agents provide in the context of BRCA2-deficient cells, multiple intragenic deletions could eliminate the site of the germline BRCA2 mutation and restore the open reading frame without the loss of domains essential for BRCA2 function. In contrast, nonhomologous end joining is the preferential mechanism of repair of DNA double-strand breaks in BRCA1 breast cancers (1, 2), which may be associated with a lower likelihood of multiple reversion events given the constraints of how a given germline mutation could be reversed and the maintenance of BRCA1 domains essential for its function in HR DNA repair. Further studies on the polyclonality of BRCA2 reversion mutations are required to clarify the mechanist basis of these observations.

Our exploratory, hypothesis-generating study has several limitations. Although we focused on BRCA1 and BRCA2 patients with advanced ovarian and breast cancer and performed high-depth sequencing of cfDNA, we did not detect somatic mutations in the cfDNA samples from one patient, and detected them in others at very low levels, which suggests that in a subset of platinum-based chemotherapy resistant/refractory ovarian cancer patients, the levels of tumor DNA in plasma may be limited. In fact, recent studies have found that somatic mutations, including BRCA1/2 reversion mutations, can be detected at higher allele frequencies in ascites of patients with ovarian cancer (46, 49). Second, the bioinformatics approaches employed for the identification of somatic reversion mutations were able to nominate putative somatic reversion mutations, which were successfully validated using orthogonal methods. Owing to the nature of the sequencing performed (Illumina, 100 bp reads), however, we would be unable to detect with a similar sensitivity large deletions that would result in reversion of the germline mutations. Therefore, our study may underestimate the frequency of somatic reversion mutations in the patient population analyzed. Third, we were unable to accrue tumor tissue synchronously collected with the cfDNA samples; therefore, we were unable to validate the presence of the putative reversion mutations in tumors. Fourth, the putative BRCA1 and BRCA2 reversion mutations identified in cfDNA were not tested by direct sequencing, given that the VAFs would be beyond the detection limits of Sanger sequencing. We did, however, validate these putative reversion mutations with orthogonal sequencing approaches and using distinct sequencing libraries, minimizing the likelihood of the putative reversion mutations described here constituting sequencing artifacts. Finally, owing to its small sample size, further studies are required to define the prevalence of BRCA1/2 reversion mutations detected in cfDNA and to test whether they are causative of and predict the lack of therapeutic efficacy to platinum-based chemotherapy or PARP inhibitors, ideally in the context of a prospective clinical trial or through the reanalysis of materials of a sufficiently powered prospective clinical trial.

Despite these limitations, our study, in conjunction with recent studies (21, 46), broadens the potential applications of cfDNA sequencing for the identification of somatic BRCA1 and BRCA2 reversion mutations. Further studies are warranted to define the prevalence of these reversion mutations in larger populations of patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 ovarian and breast cancer treated with PARP inhibitors and/or platinum-based chemotherapy, to define the chronology of the emergence of these mutations and the biological impact of their potential polyclonal nature, and to ascertain their role as predictive biomarkers for these therapeutic agents.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

C. Aghajanian is a consultant/advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cerulean, Clovis, Mateon Therapeutics, and VentiRx. D.M. Hyman reports receiving commercial research grants from AstraZeneca, Loxo Oncology, and PUMA Biotechology and is a consultant/advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Atara Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, and CytomX. N.C. Turner is a consultant/advisory board member for Pfizer. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: B. Weigelt, J.L. Meisel, D.M. Hyman, J.S. Reis-Filho, M.E. Robson, N.C. Turner

Development of methodology: B. Weigelt, I. Comino-Méndez, I. de Bruijn, J.L. Meisel, C.K.Y. Ng, S. Piscuoglio, M.E. Arcila, J.S. Reis-Filho, R.A. Greenberg, N.C. Turner

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): B. Weigelt, I. Comino-Méndez, L. Tian, J.L. Meisel, I. García-Murillas, C. Fribbens, L.G. Martelotto, C. Aghajanian, L. Norton, D.M. Hyman, L. Borsu, M.E. Arcila, N.C. Turner

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): B. Weigelt, I. Comino-Méndez, I. de Bruijn, L. Tian, R. Cutts, C.K.Y. Ng, R.S. Lim, P. Selenica, S. Piscuoglio, C. Aghajanian, R. Murali, M.E. Arcila, J. Konner, J.S. Reis-Filho, M.E. Robson, N.C. Turner

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: B. Weigelt, I. Comino-Méndez, I. de Bruijn, J.L. Meisel, C. Fribbens, L.G. Martelotto, C. Aghajanian, L. Norton, R. Murali, D.M. Hyman, M.E. Arcila, J. Konner, J.S. Reis-Filho, M.E. Robson, N.C. Turner

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): I. Comino-Méndez, I. de Bruijn

Study supervision: B. Weigelt, J.S. Reis-Filho, M.E. Robson

Grant Support

Research reported in this publication was supported in part by a Basser Team Science Award by the Basser Center for BRCA, Breast Cancer Now with support from the Mary-Jean Mitchell Green Foundation, National Institute for Health Research funding to the Royal Marsden and Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre, Meredith Israel Thomas Fund, Wooden Nickel Foundation, and a Cancer Center Support Grant of the NIH/NCI (grant no. P30CA008748). J.L. Meisel was supported by an American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Young Investigator Award (Conquer Cancer Foundation). S. Piscuoglio was funded in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Ambizione grant number PZ00P3_168165), L. Borsu in part by the NIH (P01-CA129243), and J.S. Reis-Filho in part by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

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.

Acknowledgments

We thank Julie Intrieri (MSKCC) for assistance with the dPCR assays.

Footnotes

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

  • Received February 22, 2017.
  • Revision received May 24, 2017.
  • Accepted July 28, 2017.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Roy R,
    2. Chun J,
    3. Powell SN
    . BRCA1 and BRCA2: different roles in a common pathway of genome protection. Nat Rev Cancer 2011;12:68–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Gudmundsdottir K,
    2. Ashworth A
    . The roles of BRCA1 and BRCA2 and associated proteins in the maintenance of genomic stability. Oncogene 2006;25:5864–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lord CJ,
    2. Ashworth A
    . BRCAness revisited. Nat Rev Cancer 2016;16:110–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Lord CJ,
    2. Ashworth A
    . Mechanisms of resistance to therapies targeting BRCA-mutant cancers. Nat Med 2013;19:1381–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bryant HE,
    2. Schultz N,
    3. Thomas HD,
    4. Parker KM,
    5. Flower D,
    6. Lopez E,
    7. et al.
    Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature 2005;434:913–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Farmer H,
    2. McCabe N,
    3. Lord CJ,
    4. Tutt AN,
    5. Johnson DA,
    6. Richardson TB,
    7. et al.
    Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 2005;434:917–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Fong PC,
    2. Boss DS,
    3. Yap TA,
    4. Tutt A,
    5. Wu P,
    6. Mergui-Roelvink M,
    7. et al.
    Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N Engl J Med 2009;361:123–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Audeh MW,
    2. Carmichael J,
    3. Penson RT,
    4. Friedlander M,
    5. Powell B,
    6. Bell-McGuinn KM,
    7. et al.
    Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent ovarian cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet 2010;376:245–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Tutt A,
    2. Robson M,
    3. Garber JE,
    4. Domchek SM,
    5. Audeh MW,
    6. Weitzel JN,
    7. et al.
    Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet 2010;376:235–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Lord CJ,
    2. Tutt AN,
    3. Ashworth A
    . Synthetic lethality and cancer therapy: lessons learned from the development of PARP inhibitors. Annu Rev Med 2015;66:455–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. McLachlan J,
    2. George A,
    3. Banerjee S
    . The current status of PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer. Tumori 2016;102:433–40.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Dizdar O,
    2. Arslan C,
    3. Altundag K
    . Advances in PARP inhibitors for the treatment of breast cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2015;16:2751–8.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Edwards SL,
    2. Brough R,
    3. Lord CJ,
    4. Natrajan R,
    5. Vatcheva R,
    6. Levine DA,
    7. et al.
    Resistance to therapy caused by intragenic deletion in BRCA2. Nature 2008;451:1111–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Sakai W,
    2. Swisher EM,
    3. Karlan BY,
    4. Agarwal MK,
    5. Higgins J,
    6. Friedman C,
    7. et al.
    Secondary mutations as a mechanism of cisplatin resistance in BRCA2-mutated cancers. Nature 2008;451:1116–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Dhillon KK,
    2. Swisher EM,
    3. Taniguchi T
    . Secondary mutations of BRCA1/2 and drug resistance. Cancer Sci 2011;102:663–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. De Mattos-Arruda L,
    2. Cortes J,
    3. Santarpia L,
    4. Vivancos A,
    5. Tabernero J,
    6. Reis-Filho JS,
    7. et al.
    Circulating tumour cells and cell-free DNA as tools for managing breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2013;10:377–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Bettegowda C,
    2. Sausen M,
    3. Leary RJ,
    4. Kinde I,
    5. Wang Y,
    6. Agrawal N,
    7. et al.
    Detection of circulating tumor DNA in early- and late-stage human malignancies. Sci Transl Med 2014;6:224ra24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. De Mattos-Arruda L,
    2. Weigelt B,
    3. Cortes J,
    4. Won HH,
    5. Ng CK,
    6. Nuciforo P,
    7. et al.
    Capturing intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity by de novo mutation profiling of circulating cell-free tumor DNA: a proof-of-principle. Ann Oncol 2014;25:1729–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Murtaza M,
    2. Dawson SJ,
    3. Tsui DW,
    4. Gale D,
    5. Forshew T,
    6. Piskorz AM,
    7. et al.
    Non-invasive analysis of acquired resistance to cancer therapy by sequencing of plasma DNA. Nature 2013;497:108–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Garcia-Murillas I,
    2. Schiavon G,
    3. Weigelt B,
    4. Ng C,
    5. Hrebien S,
    6. Cutts RJ,
    7. et al.
    Mutation tracking in circulating tumor DNA predicts relapse in early breast cancer. Sci Transl Med 2015;7:302ra133.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Quigley D,
    2. Alumkal JJ,
    3. Wyatt AW,
    4. Kothari V,
    5. Foye A,
    6. Lloyd P,
    7. et al.
    Analysis of circulating cell-free DNA identifies multi-clonal heterogeneity of BRCA2 reversion mutations associated with resistance to PARP inhibitors. Cancer Discov 2017 Apr 27. [Epub ahead of print].
  22. 22.↵
    1. Bookman MA
    . Extending the platinum-free interval in recurrent ovarian cancer: the role of topotecan in second-line chemotherapy. Oncologist 1999;4:87–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Ng CK,
    2. Piscuoglio S,
    3. Geyer FC,
    4. Burke KA,
    5. Pareja F,
    6. Eberle C,
    7. et al.
    The landscape of somatic genetic alterations in metaplastic breast carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23:3859–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Piscuoglio S,
    2. Ng CK,
    3. Murray MP,
    4. Guerini-Rocco E,
    5. Martelotto LG,
    6. Geyer FC,
    7. et al.
    The genomic landscape of male breast cancers. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22:4045–56.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Cheng DT,
    2. Mitchell TN,
    3. Zehir A,
    4. Shah RH,
    5. Benayed R,
    6. Syed A,
    7. et al.
    Memorial sloan kettering-integrated mutation profiling of actionable cancer targets (MSK-IMPACT): a hybridization capture-based next-generation sequencing clinical assay for solid tumor molecular oncology. J Mol Diagn 2015;17:251–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Brown JS,
    2. O'Carrigan B,
    3. Jackson SP,
    4. Yap TA
    . Targeting DNA Repair in Cancer: Beyond PARP Inhibitors. Cancer Discov 2017;7:20–37.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 2011;474:609–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Wang D,
    2. Lippard SJ
    . Cellular processing of platinum anticancer drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005;4:307–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Schultheis AM,
    2. Ng CK,
    3. De Filippo MR,
    4. Piscuoglio S,
    5. Macedo GS,
    6. Gatius S,
    7. et al.
    Massively parallel sequencing-based clonality analysis of synchronous endometrioid endometrial and ovarian carcinomas. J Natl Cancer Inst 2016;108:djv427.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Li H,
    2. Handsaker B,
    3. Wysoker A,
    4. Fennell T,
    5. Ruan J,
    6. Homer N,
    7. et al.
    The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 2009;25:2078–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Koboldt DC,
    2. Zhang Q,
    3. Larson DE,
    4. Shen D,
    5. McLellan MD,
    6. Lin L,
    7. et al.
    VarScan 2: somatic mutation and copy number alteration discovery in cancer by exome sequencing. Genome Res 2012;22:568–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Li H,
    2. Durbin R
    . Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2009;25:1754–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Robinson JT,
    2. Thorvaldsdottir H,
    3. Winckler W,
    4. Guttman M,
    5. Lander ES,
    6. Getz G,
    7. et al.
    Integrative genomics viewer. Nat Biotechnol 2011;29:24–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Ramos AH,
    2. Lichtenstein L,
    3. Gupta M,
    4. Lawrence MS,
    5. Pugh TJ,
    6. Saksena G,
    7. et al.
    Oncotator: cancer variant annotation tool. Hum Mutat 2015;36:E2423–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Levenshtein VI
    . Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 1966;10:707–10.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    GitHub. REVMUT - REVertant MUTation Find & Verify. Available from: https://github.com/inodb/revmut.
  37. 37.↵
    The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 2011;474:609–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. McPherson A,
    2. Roth A,
    3. Laks E,
    4. Masud T,
    5. Bashashati A,
    6. Zhang AW,
    7. et al.
    Divergent modes of clonal spread and intraperitoneal mixing in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Nat Genet 2016;48:758–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Shen R,
    2. Seshan VE
    . FACETS: allele-specific copy number and clonal heterogeneity analysis tool for high-throughput DNA sequencing. Nucleic Acids Res 2016;44:e131.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Carter SL,
    2. Cibulskis K,
    3. Helman E,
    4. McKenna A,
    5. Shen H,
    6. Zack T,
    7. et al.
    Absolute quantification of somatic DNA alterations in human cancer. Nat Biotechnol 2012;30:413–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Borsu L,
    2. Intrieri J,
    3. Thampi L,
    4. Yu H,
    5. Riely G,
    6. Nafa K,
    7. et al.
    Clinical application of picodroplet digital PCR technology for rapid detection of EGFR T790M in next-generation sequencing libraries and DNA from limited tumor samples. J Mol Diagn 2016;18:903–11.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    1. Weigelt B,
    2. Warne PH,
    3. Lambros MB,
    4. Reis-Filho JS,
    5. Downward J
    . PI3K pathway dependencies in endometrioid endometrial cancer cell lines. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:3533–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Abbott DW,
    2. Thompson ME,
    3. Robinson-Benion C,
    4. Tomlinson G,
    5. Jensen RA,
    6. Holt JT
    . BRCA1 expression restores radiation resistance in BRCA1-defective cancer cells through enhancement of transcription-coupled DNA repair. J Biol Chem 1999;274:18808–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Sawyer SL,
    2. Tian L,
    3. Kahkonen M,
    4. Schwartzentruber J,
    5. Kircher M,
    6. University of Washington Centre for Mendelian G
    7. et al.
    Biallelic mutations in BRCA1 cause a new Fanconi anemia subtype. Cancer Discov 2015;5:135–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Tang J,
    2. Cho NW,
    3. Cui G,
    4. Manion EM,
    5. Shanbhag NM,
    6. Botuyan MV,
    7. et al.
    Acetylation limits 53BP1 association with damaged chromatin to promote homologous recombination. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2013;20:317–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Christie EL,
    2. Fereday S,
    3. Doig K,
    4. Pattnaik S,
    5. Dawson SJ,
    6. Bowtell DDL
    . Reversion of BRCA1/2 germline mutations detected in circulating tumor DNA from patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:1274–80.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    1. Fribbens C,
    2. O'Leary B,
    3. Kilburn L,
    4. Hrebien S,
    5. Garcia-Murillas I,
    6. Beaney M,
    7. et al.
    Plasma ESR1 mutations and the treatment of estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:2961–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Patch AM,
    2. Christie EL,
    3. Etemadmoghadam D,
    4. Garsed DW,
    5. George J,
    6. Fereday S,
    7. et al.
    Whole-genome characterization of chemoresistant ovarian cancer. Nature 2015;521:489–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Choi YJ,
    2. Rhee JK,
    3. Hur SY,
    4. Kim MS,
    5. Lee SH,
    6. Chung YJ,
    7. et al.
    Intraindividual genomic heterogeneity of high-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary and clinical utility of ascitic cancer cells for mutation profiling. J Pathol 2017;241:57–66.
    OpenUrl
View Abstract
Back to top
View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Diverse BRCA1 and BRCA2 Reversion Mutations in Circulating Cell-Free DNA of Therapy-Resistant Breast or Ovarian Cancer
Britta Weigelt, Iñaki Comino-Méndez, Ino de Bruijn, Lei Tian, Jane L. Meisel, Isaac García-Murillas, Charlotte Fribbens, Ros Cutts, Luciano G. Martelotto, Charlotte K.Y. Ng, Raymond S. Lim, Pier Selenica, Salvatore Piscuoglio, Carol Aghajanian, Larry Norton, Rajmohan Murali, David M. Hyman, Laetitia Borsu, Maria E. Arcila, Jason Konner, Jorge S. Reis-Filho, Roger A. Greenberg, Mark E. Robson and Nicholas C. Turner
Clin Cancer Res November 1 2017 (23) (21) 6708-6720; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0544
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Advertisement