Abstract PO4-14-07: Genomic and immune profiling of breast cancer brain metastases
Authors: Van Swearingen Amanda , Lee Marissa , Rogers Layne , Sibley Alexander , Shi Pixu , Qin Xiaodi , Goodin Michael , Owzar Kouros , Anders Carey 
Published: May 2024

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BrM) arising from breast cancer (BC) are an increasing consequence of advanced disease, with up to half of patients (pts) with metastatic HER2+ or triple negative breast cancer experiencing central nervous system (CNS) recurrence. The genomic alterations driving CNS recurrence, along with contribution of the immune microenvironment, particularly by BC subtype remains unclear.
METHODS: We characterized BrM from a cohort of n=42 BC pts by sequencing whole-exome DNA and total RNA libraries from frozen (n=31) and FFPE (n=34) BCBrM, FFPE extracranial (ECT, n=12) and blood DNA (n=26) tissues from the Duke Brain Tumor Biorepository. Analyses conducted and planned include inference of PAM50 intrinsic subtypes, somatic mutations, copy number alterations, immune cell type decompositions by CIBERSORTx, differential RNA expression, driver analysis, and associations with clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: PAM50 subtypes across 31 frozen BrM were 23% Luminal (Lum) A, 13% LumB, 33% HER2-enriched, 27% Basal-like, 3% Normal-like. For 34 FFPE BrM, 15% were LumA, 24% LumB, 33% HER2-enriched, 24% Basal-like, 3% Normal-like. Across 26 paired FFPE and frozen BrM, subtype discrepancy was seen in 23% (6) cases of which frozen to FFPE classification differed: 3 LumA to LumB, 1 LumB to LumA, 1 Normal to LumB, and 1 Basal to LumB. Among 10 paired FFPE BrM and ECT, subtype concordance was observed in 70%. Discordance was seen in 1 case each for ECT to BrM: LumB to HER2, LumB to LumA, Basal to Normal-like. WES demonstrated frequent copy number alterations (CNA) in clinically-relevant genes including TGFB1, NOTCH1, CDK4, and ERBB3, in both BrM and ECT. For pts with matched blood, ERBB3 CNA (gain and loss) were more commonly found in FFPE BrM (7/19, 37%) compared to ECT (1/8, 13%). Among BrM, the most frequently altered clinically-relevant genes included TP53 (~75%), PTEN, EGFR, RB1, PIK3CA, NF1 and ESR1 (all ≤15%); in ECT, TP53 (67%), BRCA2, FBXW7, and ATM (all ≤33%). PI3K pathway genes (e.g. PTEN, PIK3CA) alterations were exclusive to BrM. One pt’s ECT showed an ATM mutation that was not observed in the paired BrM. Conversely, BRAF and CCND2 mutations were observed in BrM, but not ECT for 1 pt each. Inferring the relative abundance of immune populations in frozen BrM illustrated that 23% were CD4+ resting memory T cells, 25% M2 tumor-permissive macrophages, 13% M0 macrophages; M1 tumor-inhibiting macrophages were only 2%. When comparing immune cell populations between FFPE BrM and ECT, ECT had more M1 macrophages (Chi-sq 4.23, P = 0.04), while other immune cell populations were of similar relative abundance. Immune cell fractions did not vary by subtype in BrM or ECT with one exception: M2 macrophages were lower in Basal compared to LumB tissues (frozen BrM: Chi-sq = 9.28, P = 0.05; FFPE BrM: Chi-sq = 4.61, P = 0.33; FFPE EC: Chi-sq = 9.78, P = 0.04). In n=8 pt-matched FFPE BrM/ECT, hallmark pathways upregulated in BrM included MYC and E2F targets and oxidative phosphorylation, while those with lower expression in BrM included epithelial-mesenchymal transition, interferon gamma response, and JAK-STAT signaling.
CONCLUSION: This analysis showed moderate discrepancy in subtype call of BrM by tissue preparation (frozen vs. FFPE), with LumB classification showing the highest discrepancy, and more commonly called in FFPE tissues. Subtype concordance between ECT and BrM was relatively high. Analysis of CNA illustrated deletions and amplifications in targetable genes, notably ERBB3 preferentially in BrM compared to ECT. Mutational analysis identified targetable alterations exclusive to BrM; this knowledge could lead to BrM-targeted treatments. Inferred immune cell populations illustrated a tumor permissive microenvironment in BrM. Therapeutic strategies repolarizing macrophages toward a tumor-inhibiting phenotype in BrM are warranted. Analyses of associations between genomic data and clinical outcomes, as well as driver analyses, are ongoing.
Citation Format: Amanda Van Swearingen, Marissa Lee, Layne Rogers, Alexander Sibley, Pixu Shi, Xiaodi Qin, Michael Goodin, Kouros Owzar, Carey Anders. Genomic and immune profiling of breast cancer brain metastases [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO4-14-07.