Abstract P1-07-09: A multi-OMIC analysis to explore the impact of “actionable” genomic alterations on protein pathway activation: Clinical implication for precision medicine in metastatic breast cancer

Background: While genomic alterations are central players in tumor progression, proteins are the targets for precision therapy. The degree by which “actionable” genomic alterations translate into activated/altered proteins and pathway is still under investigation. Using a multi-OMIC approach from the SideOut 2 metastatic breast cancer (MBC) trial, this study explored the concordance between selected “actionable” genomic alterations and protein expression/activation. Methods: Snap frozen biopsies from 29 MBC patients enrolled in a prospective phase II trial were used for this analysis. Exome WES and RNASeq data was processed using an in-house developed pipeline and identified amplification of CCND1 (6/29), FGFR1 (4/29), and FGF 3, 4, 5, and 19 (4/29) as some of most frequent “actionable” genomic alterations in our MBC cohort. Signaling analysis of the 29 cases was performed using Reverse Phase Protein Microarray coupled with Laser Capture Microdissection. Protein expression/phosphorylation was measured in a continuous scale and classified based on quartile distribution. Concordance between CCND1 amplification and Cyclin D1 expression, along with the activation of FOXM1 T600 and Rb S780, was explored. Amplification of the FGFR1 locus or its ligands was correlated with the level of activation/phosphorylation of FGFR1 Y653/654. Results: While Cyclin D1 protein expression was greater than the population mean for 4/6 (67%) patients with CCND1 amplification, only 2/6 (33%) patients with CCND1 amplification had Cyclin D1 level within the top quartile of the population (n=29). FOXM1 T600 activation was independent from CCND1 amplification, with high levels of FOXM1 T600 predominantly in the CCND1 wild-type population. Only 1/6 (17%) patients with CCND1 amplification had FOXM1 T600 level similar to the top quartile of the population while a second patient was above the population median. Activation of Rb S780 was above the population median, but below the top quartile, in 2/6 (33%) CCND1 amplified patients. Similarly, none of the patients with activation of FGFR Y653/654 equal to the top quartile harbored an FGFR1 amplification. Only 1/4 (25%) patients carrying an FGFR1 amplification had an activation of FGFR Y653/654 above the population median. Similarly, 1/4 (25%) patients with FGF ligand amplification showed FGFR Y653/654 level within the top quartile while three patients had FGFR Y653/654 activation below the population median. No significant results were found between proteomic (below/above the median) and genomic characteristics by Fisher test (p>0.05). Conclusion: Molecular genotyping of “actionable” cancer targets alone may be insufficient in predicting whether the actual drug target protein is expressed and/or activated in any given patient9s tumor. Although these results need further validation, the combination of genomic and proteomic data may represent a more informative approach for identifying real molecular drivers of individual lesions as well as “actionable” protein/phosphoprotein targets in the absence of genomic events. Multi-OMIC approaches may lead to more effective stratification in precision medicine trials. Citation Format: Pierobon M, Wong S, Reeded A, Anthony S, Robert N, Northfelt DW, Jahanzeb M, Vocila L, Wulfkuhle J, Dunetz B, Aldrich J, Byron S, Craig D, Liotta L, Carpten J, Petricoin EF. A multi-OMIC analysis to explore the impact of “actionable” genomic alterations on protein pathway activation: Clinical implication for precision medicine in metastatic breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-07-09.