Molecular profiles of genomically high risk ER+ HER2- breast cancer tumors classified as functionally basal or luminal B by the 80-gene signature.
Authors: O'Shaughnessy Joyce , Kaklamani Virginia G. , Yuan Yuan , Barone Julie , Diab Sami , Crozier Jennifer A. , Whitworth Pat W. , Tedesco Karen L. , Maganini Robert , Layeequr Rahman Rakhshanda , Encarnacion Carlos A. , Haan Josien , Truitt Amy Michelle , Menicucci Andrea , Audeh William ,   FLEX Investigators' Group
Published: June 2021

563 Background: The 80-gene signature (BluePrint/BP) classifies early-stage breast cancers based on functional molecular pathways as luminal, HER2, or Basal-type. In the NBRST study, 13% of immunochemistry (IHC) defined ER+ HER2- cancers reclassified as Basal-type by the BP assay (ER+ Basal), and these had worse prognosis but responded better to neoadjuvant chemotherapy than ER+ HER2- cancers classified as genomically luminal-type. The 70-gene risk of recurrence signature (MammaPrint/MP) further stratifies luminal-type cancers into low risk luminal A or high risk (HR) luminal B. HR cancers can be further stratified into High 1 (H1) or High 2 (H2), and the I-SPY2 trial has shown higher pCR rates in ER+ cancers classified as H2. Here, we investigated biological differences among ER+ Basal, ER- Basal, H1 luminal B, and H2 luminal B cancers by full transcriptome analysis. Methods: From the FLEX Study (NCT03053193), 1501 breast cancers with known IHC ER status were classified by MP and BP: 103 ER+ Basal, 210 ER- Basal and 1188 luminal B (H1 n=1034, H2 n=154). Clinical factors were assessed by either the Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests; ANOVA or t test were used to analyze age. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were detected using Limma and pathway analyses were performed with GSEA. DEGs with a fold change >2 and FDR < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Basal-type cancers (ER+/ER-) were larger and higher grade than luminal B cancers. Clustering analysis showed similar transcriptional profiles between ER+ Basal and ER- Basal cancers, distinct from luminal B cancers. Few DEGs were detected between ER+ Basal and ER- Basal cancers, and significantly more DEGs were found between ER+ Basal and luminal B cancers. Only three upregulated genes were detected in ER+ Basal compared to ER- Basal cancers: ESR1 and two immune-related genes ( FDCSP and LTF). Enrichment analysis of DEGs indicated increased immune activation and cell proliferation in ER+ Basal and ER- Basal cancers, and decreased estrogen response between ER+ Basal and luminal B cancers. Enrichment analysis between luminal B H1 and H2 cancers showed H2 cancers had higher immune activation and cell proliferation and lower estrogen response. Conclusions: Reclassification by BP of IHC defined ER+ HER2- cancers identified a subgroup of ER+ cancers that are biologically closer to ER- Basal than luminal-type cancers. Significant differences in response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy that have been seen between ER+ Basal and luminal B breast cancers lend support to the clinical importance of these findings. These data explain the poor prognosis observed in patients with ER+ Basal cancers and suggest that optimized chemotherapy, such as that for triple negative cancer, might be of benefit. BP provides clinically actionable information beyond pathological subtyping, which may guide neoadjuvant treatment recommendations. Clinical trial information: NCT03053193.