70
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    3
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Circulating tumour DNA profiling reveals heterogeneity of EGFR inhibitor resistance mechanisms in lung cancer patients

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) analysis facilitates studies of tumour heterogeneity. Here we employ CAPP-Seq ctDNA analysis to study resistance mechanisms in 43 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor rociletinib. We observe multiple resistance mechanisms in 46% of patients after treatment with first-line inhibitors, indicating frequent intra-patient heterogeneity. Rociletinib resistance recurrently involves MET, EGFR, PIK3CA, ERRB2, KRAS and RB1. We describe a novel EGFR L798I mutation and find that EGFR C797S, which arises in ∼33% of patients after osimertinib treatment, occurs in <3% after rociletinib. Increased MET copy number is the most frequent rociletinib resistance mechanism in this cohort and patients with multiple pre-existing mechanisms (T790M and MET) experience inferior responses. Similarly, rociletinib-resistant xenografts develop MET amplification that can be overcome with the MET inhibitor crizotinib. These results underscore the importance of tumour heterogeneity in NSCLC and the utility of ctDNA-based resistance mechanism assessment.

          Abstract

          EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer is routinely treated with EGFR inhibitors, although resistance inevitably develops. Here, the authors sequence circulating tumour DNA and show that resistance to the third-generation inhibitor rociletinib is heterogeneous and recurrently involves somatic alterations of MET, EGFR, PIK3CA, ERRB2, and KRAS.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from "never smokers" and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib.

          Somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase (TK) domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene are reportedly associated with sensitivity of lung cancers to gefitinib (Iressa), kinase inhibitor. In-frame deletions occur in exon 19, whereas point mutations occur frequently in codon 858 (exon 21). We found from sequencing the EGFR TK domain that 7 of 10 gefitinib-sensitive tumors had similar types of alterations; no mutations were found in eight gefitinib-refractory tumors (P = 0.004). Five of seven tumors sensitive to erlotinib (Tarceva), a related kinase inhibitor for which the clinically relevant target is undocumented, had analogous somatic mutations, as opposed to none of 10 erlotinib-refractory tumors (P = 0.003). Because most mutation-positive tumors were adenocarcinomas from patients who smoked <100 cigarettes in a lifetime ("never smokers"), we screened EGFR exons 2-28 in 15 adenocarcinomas resected from untreated never smokers. Seven tumors had TK domain mutations, in contrast to 4 of 81 non-small cell lung cancers resected from untreated former or current smokers (P = 0.0001). Immunoblotting of lysates from cells transiently transfected with various EGFR constructs demonstrated that, compared to wild-type protein, an exon 19 deletion mutant induced diminished levels of phosphotyrosine, whereas the phosphorylation at tyrosine 1092 of an exon 21 point mutant was inhibited at 10-fold lower concentrations of drug. Collectively, these data show that adenocarcinomas from never smokers comprise a distinct subset of lung cancers, frequently containing mutations within the TK domain of EGFR that are associated with gefitinib and erlotinib sensitivity.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            KRAS Mutations and Primary Resistance of Lung Adenocarcinomas to Gefitinib or Erlotinib

            Introduction Genes of the ERBB family encode receptor tyrosine kinases that mediate cellular responses to growth signals. Somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domains of two ERBB genes, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and HER2, have been found in a proportion of lung adenocarcinomas [1,2,3,4]. For EGFR, mutations are associated with sensitivity to the small-molecule kinase inhibitors gefitinib (Iressa) [1,2,3] and erlotinib (Tarceva) [3]. ERBB signaling pathways include downstream GTPases encoded by RAS genes. Some 15%–30% of lung adenocarcinomas contain activating mutations in the RAS family member KRAS. These mutations are most frequently found in codons 12 and 13 in exon 2 [5,6], and may be associated with unfavorable outcomes [7]. Interestingly, EGFR and KRAS mutations are rarely found in the same tumors, suggesting that they have functionally equivalent roles in lung tumorigenesis ([8]; M. Meyerson, personal communication). Furthermore, EGFR mutations are common in tumors from patients who have smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their lifetimes (“never smokers”) [3], while KRAS mutations more commonly occur in individuals with a history of substantial cigarette use [9]. We sought to determine whether KRAS mutations could also be used to predict primary sensitivity or resistance to gefitinib or erlotinib. We systematically evaluated 60 lung adenocarcinomas from patients with known responses to either of these drugs for the presence of mutations in EGFR (exons 18 through 21) and KRAS2 (exon 2). Here, we show that mutations in KRAS are associated with primary resistance to single-agent gefitinib or erlotinib. Our results suggest that a determination of mutational status for both EGFR and KRAS may help define which patients are likely to benefit from receiving gefitinib or erlotinib. Methods Tissue Procurement Tumor specimens were obtained through protocols approved by the institutional review board of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, as previously described [3] (see Protocols S1–S3). Tumor material, obtained from patients prior to kinase inhibitor treatment for lung cancer, was collected retrospectively for patients on gefitinib, who received 250 mg or 500 mg orally once daily (n = 24), and prospectively for patients on erlotinib, who received 150 mg orally once daily (n = 36). The latter cohort of patients was part of a clinical trial of erlotinib for patients with bronchioloalveolar carcinoma. The analysis presented here includes specimens we previously reported on (n = 17 for gefitinib and n = 17 for erlotinib) [3]. All specimens were reviewed by a single reference pathologist (M. F. Z.). Imaging studies were assessed by a single reference radiologist (R. T. H.), who graded responses according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) [10]. Both observers were blinded to patient outcomes. Eight of nine patients with tumors sensitive to gefitinib had objective partial responses as defined by RECIST, i.e., at least a 30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the sum measured at baseline. The ninth patient had marked clinical improvement, as ascertained by two independent reviewing physicians and manifested by lessened dyspnea and cancer-related pain. However, this individual had radiographic lesions (pleural and bone metastases) that were deemed nonmeasurable by RECIST criteria. As erlotinib-treated patients were all in a clinical trial, all had disease measurable using RECIST guidelines. For both drugs in this study, tumors were considered refractory if they did not undergo sufficient shrinkage to qualify for partial response. This definition includes patients whose “best overall response” was either progression of disease (n = 26) or stable disease (n = 12) as defined by RECIST. No patients had a complete response. Mutational Analyses of EGFR and KRAS in Lung Tumors Genomic DNA was extracted from tumors embedded in paraffin blocks, except for tumor 109T, which was a fresh-frozen tumor specimen. Primers for EGFR analyses (exons 18–21) were as published [3]. For KRAS analyses, the following nested primer sets for exon 2 were used: huKRAS2 ex2F, 5′- GAATGGTCCTGCACCAGTAA-3′; huKRAS2 ex2R, 5′- GTGTGACATGTTCTAATATAGTCA-3′; huKRAS2 ex2Fint, 5′- GTCCTGCACCAGTAATATGC-3′; and huKRAS2 ex2Rint, 5′- ATGTTCTAATATAGTCACATTTTC-3′. For both EGFR and KRAS, PCR was performed using the HotStarTaq Master Mix Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, California, United States), as per manufacturer's instructions. Use of this method often obviated the need for nested PCR sets. All sequencing reactions were performed in both forward and reverse directions, and all mutations were confirmed by PCR amplification of an independent DNA isolate. In 12 cases, exon 19 deletions were also studied by length analysis of fluorescently labeled PCR products on a capillary electrophoresis device, using the following primers: EGFR-Ex19-FWD1, 5′- GCACCATCTCACAATTGCCAGTTA-3′, and EGFR-Ex19-REV1, 5′-Fam- AAAAGGTGGGCCTGAGGTTCA-3′. Using serial dilutions of DNA from the H1650 non-small-cell lung cancer cell line (exon 19 deletion-positive [11]), this assay detects the mutant allele when H1650 DNA comprises 6% or more of the total DNA tested, compared to a sensitivity of 12% for direct sequencing. These same cases were also screened for the exon 21 L858R mutation by a PCR–restriction fragment length polymorphism assay, based on a new Sau96I restriction site created by the L858R mutation (2,573T→G). The Sau96I-digested fluorescently labeled PCR products were analyzed by capillary electrophoresis, and the following primers were used: EGFR-Ex21-FWD1, 5′- CCTCACAGCAGGGTCTTCTCTGT-3′, and EGFR-Ex21-REV1, 5′-Fam- TCAGGAAAATGCTGGCTGACCTA-3′. Using serial dilutions of DNA from the H1975 cell line (L858R-positive [11]), this assay detects the mutant allele when H1975 DNA comprises 3% or more of the total DNA tested, compared to a sensitivity of 6% for direct sequencing (Q. Pan, W. Pao, and M. Ladanyi, unpublished data). Statistics Fisher's Exact Test was used to calculate p-values, and confidence intervals were calculated using Statistics with Confidence software [12]. Results We identified 60 lung adenocarcinomas from individual patients with tumors shown to be sensitive or refractory to single-agent gefitinib or erlotinib and evaluated these tumors for mutations in EGFR and KRAS. Collectively, nine of 38 (24%) tumors refractory to either kinase inhibitor had KRAS mutations, while zero of 21 (0%) drug-sensitive tumors had such mutations (p = 0.02) (Table 1). The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for these observations are 13%–39% and 0%–16%, respectively. Conversely, 17 of 22 (77%) tumors sensitive to either kinase inhibitor had EGFR mutations, in contrast to zero of 38 (0%) drug-resistant tumors (p = 6.8 × 10−11). The 95% CIs for these observed response rates are 57%–90% and 0%–9%, respectively. All 17 tumors with EGFR mutations responded to gefitinib or erlotinib, while all nine tumors with KRAS mutations did not (p = 3.2 × 10−7). Correlation of EGFR and KRAS mutational status with drug and treatment response is detailed in Table 1. The spectrum of KRAS mutations is shown in Figure 1 and Table 2. Results with gefitinib and erlotinib were similar overall. However, the incidence of KRAS mutations in the patients treated with erlotinib was low, probably because of the fact that all patients treated with this drug had bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, which rarely has RAS mutations [13]. Alternatively, our analyses involving only exon 2 of KRAS2 may have missed some RAS mutations. However, in our analysis of the exonic regions encoding the first 100 amino acids of KRAS in 110 surgically resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancers, we have found 18 mutations, and all were in either codon 12 or codon 13, encoded by exon 2 (W. Pao, R. Wilson, H. Varmus, unpublished data). Another possibility is that the erlotinib-treated tumors have mutations in other RAS genes, since a minority of RAS mutations in lung cancer have been reported to occur in N- or HRAS [5,6]. Discussion These results have important clinical implications. First, they extend previous data from our group and others showing that lung adenocarcinomas containing EGFR mutations are associated with sensitivity to gefitinib or erlotinib (17 of 17 in this series; 100% observed response rate; 95% CI, 82%–100%). Second, these data show that tumors with KRAS exon 2 mutations (n = 9) are associated with a lack of response to these kinase inhibitors (0% observed response rate; 95% CI, 0%–30%). Third, no drug-sensitive tumors had KRAS exon 2 mutations (n = 21). Whether KRAS mutational status can be used to predict responses to gefitinib or erlotinib in patients whose tumors have wild-type EGFR sequence is still under investigation: our analysis comparing response rates for tumors with neither EGFR nor KRAS mutations versus tumors with wild-type EGFR but mutated KRAS does not reach statistical significance (five of 22 versus zero of nine; p = 0.29). Nevertheless, these findings suggest that patients whose lung adenocarcinomas have KRAS mutations will not experience significant tumor regression with either drug. The incidence of EGFR mutations in tumors responsive to EGFR kinase inhibitors has varied from 71% to 100% ([1,2,3] and this paper). Thus, at this point, patients whose tumors test negative for EGFR mutations should not necessarily be precluded from treatment with either gefitinib or erlotinib. Data presented here suggest that clinical decisions regarding the use of these agents in patients with lung adenocarcinomas might be improved in the future by pre-treatment mutational profiling of both EGFR and KRAS. These findings warrant validation in large prospective trials using standardized mutation detection techniques. Supporting Information Protocol S1 Preclinical Studies of Blood, Urine, Bone Marrow, and Tissues Collected from Patients with Thoracic Malignancies (32 KB PDF). Click here for additional data file. Protocol S2 Multicenter Phase II Trial of OSI-774 (Erlotinib, Tarceva) in Patients with Advanced Bronchioloalveolar Cell Lung Cancer (1.9 MB PDF). Click here for additional data file. Protocol S3 Protocol Approval Letters (60 KB PDF). Click here for additional data file. Accession Numbers The LocusLink (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/LocusLink/) accession number for the KRAS2 sequence discussed in this paper is 3845; the GenBank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/) accession number for the KRAS2 sequence discussed in this paper is NT_009714.16. Patient Summary Background Two drugs, gefitinib (Iressa) and erlotinib (Tarceva), have been developed that can make lung cancers smaller in some patients. The drugs work by blocking the effect of a molecule called the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which relays instructions to cells to grow and divide. Recently, researchers found that these drugs most effectively shrink tumors that have acquired abnormal variations (mutations) in the EGFR gene. These mutations somehow allow tumor cells to escape normal safety mechanisms that keep cells from growing out of control. Some lung cancers also have mutations in another gene called KRAS. Interestingly, KRAS mutations and EGFR mutations are rarely ever found in the same tumor. Why Was This Study Done? Unfortunately, EGFR mutations are only found in a minority of patients with lung cancer. This means that gefitinib or erlotinib might be given to a lot of patients who may not benefit from this treatment. Ideally, the drugs would be given only to patients who we know will benefit from them. This study examined whether studying the KRAS gene (to see if it had a mutation) could help predict which patients had tumors that would respond well to the drugs. What Did the Researchers Do? They took 60 lung cancer samples from patients who had been treated with one of the drugs and either responded (that is, their tumors shrunk in size) or not, and tested whether the tumors had normal or abnormal KRAS. What Did They Find? Tumors that got significantly smaller while treated with gefitinib or erlotinib (a total of 22) had a normal KRAS gene. Most of these tumors had EGFR mutations. Conversely, tumors that had abnormal KRAS (a total of nine) did not shrink while treated with gefitinib or erlotinib. What Does This Mean? Both gefitinib and erlotinib are expensive and have side effects. Testing for EGFR and KRAS mutations is relatively straightforward, and one could test for abnormalities in both genes first and then decide which patients should be treated with either of the two drugs. What Next? Before doing EGFR and KRAS tests on a routine basis and taking the results into account when making a decision about who should be treated with gefitinib or erlotinib, larger studies need to be done to see whether the results reported here hold up. More Information Online US Food and Drug Administration information page on Iressa: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/iressa/iressaQ&A.htm Cancer Research UK information page about erlotinib: http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=10296
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Epidermal growth factor receptor gene and protein and gefitinib sensitivity in non-small-cell lung cancer.

              Gefitinib is a selective inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase, which is overexpressed in many cancers, including non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We carried out a clinical study to compare the relationship between EGFR gene copy number, EGFR protein expression, EGFR mutations, and Akt activation status as predictive markers for gefitinib therapy in advanced NSCLC. Tumors from 102 NSCLC patients treated daily with 250 mg of gefitinib were evaluated for EGFR status by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), DNA sequencing, and immunohistochemistry and for Akt activation status (phospho-Akt [P-Akt]) by immunohistochemistry. Time to progression, overall survival, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method; groups were compared using the log-rank test. Risk factors associated with survival were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression modeling and multivariable analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. Amplification or high polysomy of the EGFR gene (seen in 33 of 102 patients) and high protein expression (seen in 58 of 98 patients) were statistically significantly associated with better response (36% versus 3%, mean difference = 34%, 95% CI = 16.6 to 50.3; P<.001), disease control rate (67% versus 26%, mean difference = 40.6%, 95% CI = 21.5 to 59.7; P<.001), time to progression (9.0 versus 2.5 months, mean difference = 6.5 months, 95% CI = 2.8 to 10.3; P<.001), and survival (18.7 versus 7.0 months, mean difference = 11.7 months, 95% CI = 2.1 to 21.4; P = .03). EGFR mutations (seen in 15 of 89 patients) were also statistically significantly related to response and time to progression, but the association with survival was not statistically significant, and 40% of the patients with mutation had progressive disease. In multivariable analysis, only high EGFR gene copy number remained statistically significantly associated with better survival (hazard ratio = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.82). Independent of EGFR assessment method, EGFR+/P-Akt+ patients had a statistically significantly better outcome than EGFR-, P-Akt-, or EGFR+/P-Akt- patients. High EGFR gene copy number identified by FISH may be an effective molecular predictor for gefitinib efficacy in advanced NSCLC.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nat Commun
                Nat Commun
                Nature Communications
                Nature Publishing Group
                2041-1723
                10 June 2016
                2016
                : 7
                : 11815
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University , Stanford, California 94305, USA
                [2 ]Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University , Stanford, California 94305, USA
                [3 ]Clovis Oncology, Inc. , San Francisco, California 94158, USA
                [4 ]Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University , Stanford, California 94305, USA
                [5 ]Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University , Stanford, California 94305, USA
                [6 ]Molecular Graphics and Computation Facility, College of Chemistry, University of California , Berkeley, California 94720, USA
                [7 ]The Ohio State University , Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
                [8 ]Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine , Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA
                [9 ]David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles , Los Angeles, California 90095, USA
                [10 ]Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA
                [11 ]Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University , Stanford, California 94305, USA
                [12 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University , Stanford, California 94305, USA
                Author notes
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5153-5625
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2032-0581
                Article
                ncomms11815
                10.1038/ncomms11815
                4906406
                27283993
                44b635c8-cd76-4eeb-a52e-c9e1de020254
                Copyright © 2016, Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 18 March 2016
                : 03 May 2016
                Categories
                Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article