Defining transcriptomic profiles of early-stage mucinous breast cancers: A FLEX sub study.
Authors: Sivapiragasam Abirami , Denley Ryan Christopher , Brufsky Adam , Rehmus Esther Hoogland , O'Shaughnessy Joyce , Crozier Jennifer A. , Diab Sami , Barone Julie , Yeager Jill , Menon Priya , Kuilman Midas M. , Samraj Lavanya , Blumencranz Lisa Eileen , Audeh M. William ,   FLEX Investigators' Group
Published: June 2022

3134

Background: Mucinous breast cancer (MuBC) is a rare subtype of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) that accounts for less than 2% of all breast cancers and is associated with a favorable prognosis. Since MuBCs are rare in clinical trials, current treatment guidelines are extrapolated from IDC-no special type (IDC-NST). To provide better understanding of MuBCs and factors contributing to their clinical behavior, we examined the transcriptomic profiles of MuBCs in our FLEX study. Methods: The prospective, observational FLEX Study (NCT03053193) includes stage I-III breast cancer patients who receive MammaPrint (MP)/BluePrint (BP) testing and consent to full transcriptome and clinical data collection. For this study, histologically confirmed MuBCs (n = 102) in the FLEX database were included. All patients examined were ER+/HER2- by immunohistochemistry and Luminal by BP. MuBC was compared with IDC matched for Age, MP, and BP index (n = 97). Differential gene expression analyses (DGEA) were performed with R package ‘limma’ and differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were considered significant if they had an adjusted p < 0.05 and fold change ≥ 2. Results: DGEA comparing MuBC (n = 102) with IDC (n = 97) revealed 60 DEGs, regardless of the genomic risk, of which 42 genes were upregulated and 18 were downregulated in MuBC relative to IDC. Genes associated with MuBC, such as MUC2, TFF1, CARTPT were among the upregulated genes. Of the 102 MuBC patients, 56 were Luminal A (MP Low Risk-LR) and 46 were Luminal B (MP High Risk-HR) by MammaPrint and BluePrint. Comparison of LR MuBC with LR IDC revealed 111 DEGs. Functional enrichment showed upregulation of pathways involved in estrogen response (early & late) and androgen response and a downregulation of the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) and E2F pathways in LR MuBC compared to LR IDC. DGEA between HR MuBC and HR IDC revealed only 22 DEGs with immune pathways being downregulated in HR MuBC. DGEA comparing LR MuBC with HR MuBC resulted in 63 DEGs, indicating LR and HR MuBC are biologically distinct types. Interestingly in LR MuBC, the tumor suppressor marker SCUBE2 is upregulated. Over expression of SCUBE2 is associated with better prognosis. Conclusions: Although MuBCs are often expected to have low clinical risk, MP revealed that half of the MuBCs examined in this study were MP High Risk (Luminal B). MP low risk MuBC is biologically different from MP low risk IDC, and downregulation of E2F and EMT pathways might lead to favorable prognoses in MP low risk MuBC. MP high risk MuBC showed limited DEGs compared to high-risk IDCs indicating these tumor types are highly genomically similar and likely to benefit from chemotherapy. The downregulation of immune pathways in MP high risk MuBC may lead to immune surveillance escape resulting in metastasis and further investigation is needed. Clinical trial information: NCT03053193.