Circulating tumour DNA analyses reveal novel resistance mechanisms to CDK inhibition in metastatic breast cancer

1. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 2011; 144(5): 646–674. 2. McAllister SS, Weinberg RA. The tumour-induced systemic environment as a critical regulator of cancer progression and metastasis. Nat Cell Biol 2014; 16(8): 717–727. 3. Guinney J, Dienstmann R, Wang X et al. The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nat Med 2015; 21(11): 1350–1356. 4. Huijbers A, Tollenaar RA, v Pelt GW et al. The proportion of tumorstroma as a strong prognosticator for stage II and III colon cancer patients: validation in the VICTOR trial. Ann Oncol 2013; 24(1): 179–185. 5. Park JH, Richards CH, McMillan DC et al. The relationship between tumour stroma percentage, the tumour microenvironment and survival in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2014; 25(3): 644–651. 6. Danielsen HE, Hveem TS, Domingo E et al. Prognostic markers for colorectal cancer: estimating ploidy and stroma. Ann Oncol 2018; 29(3): 616–623. 7. Dekker TJ, van de Velde CJ, van Pelt GW et al. Prognostic significance of the tumor-stroma ratio: validation study in node-negative premenopausal breast cancer patients from the EORTC perioperative chemotherapy (POP) trial (10854). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 139(2): 371–379. 8. Courrech Staal EF, Wouters MW, van Sandick JW et al. The stromal part of adenocarcinomas of the oesophagus: does it conceal targets for therapy? Eur J Cancer 2010; 46(4): 720–728. 9. Roxburgh CSD, McMillan DC. The role of the in situ local inflammatory response in predicting recurrence and survival in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 2012; 38(5): 451–466. 10. Galon J, Mlecnik B, Marliot F et al. Validation of the immunoscore (IM) as a prognostic marker in stage I/II/III colon cancer: results of a worldwide consortium-based analysis of 1,336 patients. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34(suppl): 3500. 11. Mlecnik B, Van den Eynde M, Bindea G et al. Comprehensive intrametastatic immune quantification and major impact of immunoscore on survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018; 110(1): 97–108. 12. Park JH, McMillan DC, Powell AG et al. Evaluation of a tumor microenvironment-based prognostic score in primary operable colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21(4): 882–888. 13. Hynes SO, Coleman HG, Kelly PJ et al. Back to the future: routine morphological assessment of the tumour microenvironment is prognostic in stage II/III colon cancer in a large population-based study. Histopathology 2017; 71(1): 12–26. 14. Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med 2015; 372(26): 2509–2520. 15. Roseweir AK, McMillan DC, Horgan PG, Edwards J. Colorectal cancer subtypes: translation to routine clinical pathology. Cancer Treat Rev 2017; 57: 1–7.

Circulating tumour DNA analyses reveal novel resistance mechanisms to CDK inhibition in metastatic breast cancer Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibition has been demonstrated to improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2À), hormone receptor positive (HRþ) in advanced breast cancer [1][2][3]. Palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib are orally bioavailable selective CDK 4/6 inhibitors. These small molecules likely bind the ATP-binding pocket within the CDK4/6 protein kinases thereby inhibiting phosphorylation of retinoblastoma tumour suppressor protein (Rb). In its hypophosphorylated state Rb remains bound to E2F thereby preventing progression through the G1-S-cell cycle checkpoint [4]. The mechanism behind the observed efficacy of CDK inhibition in metastatic breast cancer may relate to a dependence of HRþ breast cancer on CDK4/6 activity to override Rb mediated repression of cell cycle progression ( Figure 1) [5].
CDK4/6 inhibitors have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for initial endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with metastatic or advanced HRþ/HER2À breast cancer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor and for the treatment of endocrine therapy-resistant HRþ/HER2À advanced or metastatic breast cancer in combination with Fulvesterant (a selective estrogen receptor degrader) [6]. In December 2017 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has recommended CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with aromatase inhibition as a first-line option for treating locally advanced or metastatic HRþ/HER2À breast cancer [7]. Despite the success of the clinical studies that led to these recommendations, not all patients with HRþ breast cancer respond to CDK inhibition and a significant fraction progress within 2 years of initiation of treatment [1][2][3]. This underscores the need to identify mechanism of resistance to these targeted therapies to anticipate and target novel or subclonal resistance mechanisms driving breast cancer progression in these patients.
Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) describes molecules of cell-free DNA circulating in plasma that originate from a patient's tumour. ctDNA analyses by next-generation sequencing are demonstrating translational utility within clinical contexts ranging from non-invasive screening [8], tracking cancer burden and identifying residual disease in patients undergoing treatment of their disease [9][10][11] and identifying cancer associated mutations with therapeutic implications [12,13]. In this edition of Annals of Oncology Condorelli et al. [14] leverage the ability of ctDNA analysis to interrogate the mutational landscape of progressive metastatic cancer to highlight loss of Rb function as a potential resistance mechanism to CDK4/6 inhibition. They provide a case-series of three patients treated at different institutions, by separate investigators, who developed progressive metastatic breast cancer following treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors. In each case evidence of somatic alteration involving the RB1 gene was noted through plasma ctDNA analyses at the point of disease progression. In the first patient a frameshift event involving exon 8 of RB1 was observed that was predicted to result in a non-functioning truncated version of the protein. This event was not observed through NGS analysis of a liver biopsy acquired before CDK4/6 inhibition. In the second patient of the case-series four RB1 alterations were noted at progression on palbociclib that were not detectable before initiation of therapy. The variant with the highest allele frequency in plasma at progression (Chr13(GRCh37): g.48937094G>A) has been previously shown in lung cancer to result in loss of the Rb protein region responsible for the binding of Rb to E2Ftranscription factor complexes [15]. The final patient was observed to have a p.His483Tyr RB1 variant following ribociclib that is predicted to be deleterious.
This study is of interest for the following reasons. Firstly, it provides observational evidence of deleterious RB1 alterations potentially being selected at disease progression following intervention with CDK4/6 inhibitors in patients with metastatic breast cancer. These observations build on a previous in vivo investigation of CDK4/6 inhibitor resistance using patientderived tumour xenograft models that suggested Rb1 inactivation as a resistance mechanism to chronic CDK4/6 inhibition [16]. Secondly, this study provides an early glimpse into the potential of ctDNA panels to detect acquisition of actionable alterations in patients who experience disease progression on anticancer therapy. Such a resource could inform mechanisms underlying resistance across a range of systemic therapies. There are advantages to ctDNA analyses as a research tool to understand the biology of heavily treated metastatic disease. The non-invasive nature of ctDNA examination overcomes barriers to tissue acquisition in late stage disease that include poor patient health, increased risk from biopsy procedures and cost.
There are however caveats to consider regarding this caseseries. The number of patients described within the manuscript is small and there is no indication as to the frequency by which Rb1 alterations are detected at progression on CDK4/6 inhibition in this patient population. Additionally, patients 1 and 3 in the case-series were treated with two lines of therapy in between the biopsies showing lack of RB1 alterations and ctDNA analyses demonstrating acquired RB1 alterations-patient 1 received everolimus and exemstane before palbociclib and patient 2 received capecitabine and paclitaxel following ribociclib. Therefore, we cannot be certain that the acquisition of Rb1 alterations solely associate with selective pressure induced by CDK4/6 inhibition. Advancing the findings reported in this case-series will require a larger cohort to determine the incidence of Rb1 alterations as resistance mechanisms in patients with metastatic breast cancer on CDK4/6 inhibitors. Furthermore, more frequent ctDNA monitoring is necessary to follow the dynamics by which RB1 alterations emerge and ascertain the association of their emergence with disease progression.
Given this work, it is notable that CDK4/6 inhibition has recently been associated with increasing tumour cell antigen presentation through a mechanism involving downregulation of Rb1-E2F induced DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1) activity, increased expression of endogenous retroviral elements and type III interferon production [17]. This response to CDK4/6 inhibition was ameliorated by silencing of RB1 and therefore could conceivably underlie an immune predatory selection pressure toward selection of Rb1 altered populations whilst undergoing treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors. The fact that CDK4/6 inhibition has recently been shown to increase PD-L1 expression in mouse models of breast cancer provides a clear rationale for anti-PD1 treatment as a combination therapy with CDK4/6 inhibition before the emergence of Rb1 loss of function [18]. Uncovering the links between systemic hormones and oncogenic signaling in the pathogenesis of meningioma A number of risk factors have been associated with meningioma development including radiation exposure (radiation-induced meningioma), female gender, germline mutations, high body mass index and hormone exposure (Figure 1). The relationship between meningioma risk and sex hormones has been of keen interest for decades, sparked by several observations. The most important of these has been the finding of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor (PR) expression in a substantial portion of meningiomas [1,2]. In addition, a link between meningiomas and hormones has been supported by the skewed gender distribution of meningiomas [3]. Low-grade meningiomas develop two times more often in women than in men, and three times more