Karthik V Giridhar, Ethan S Sokol, Peter T Vedell, Jason P Sinnwell, Aakash Desai, Tufia C Haddad, Ciara C O’Sullivan, Roberto A Leon-Ferre, Siddhartha Yadav, Kostandinos Sideras, Brenda Ernst, Minetta C Liu, Abe Eyman Casey, Xiaojia Tang, Zoe Fleischmann, Karthikeyan Murugesan, Krishna R Kalari, Matthew P Goetz
Background: FGFR dysregulation is observed in multiple cancers and targeting FGFR is an emerging therapeutic strategy with FDA approved treatments in bladder and cholangiocarcinoma. Here we examined the prevalence of FGFR mutations, fusions, and high-level amplifications in breast cancer, stratified by receptor subtype and local/metastatic status, in both Foundation Medicine (FM) and institutional Mayo Clinic (MC) cohorts.
Methods: For the FM cohort, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) examining at least 324 genes for all classes of alterations, including FGFR1-4 was carried out for 32,048 breast cancers during the course of routine clinical care in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified lab (Foundation Medicine Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA). Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was determined on up to 1.1 Mb, microsatellite instability high (MSI-High) was determined on up to 114 loci and predicted ancestry from >10,000 SNPs. Estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2 status were available for a subset of FM samples. Additionally, 131 patients with metastatic breast cancer from a subset of patients at three Mayo Clinic sites (MC cohort) with clinical characteristics and cancer-panel DNA sequencing data from a CLIA-certified lab (Tempus, Chicago, IL) were included.
Results: In the FM cohort, the prevalence of FGFR1-4 high-level amplification (CN≥10) was 10.1%, while mutations (1.5%) and fusions (0.72%) were rare. Most amplifications occurred in FGFR1 (9.2%); most fusions and mutations occurred in FGFR2 (0.46%, 0.77%). FGFR alteration prevalence was highest in ER+/HER2- subtype (14.4%) and lowest in HER2+ disease (7.7%). FGFR alterations were more common in IDC (11.7%) than ILC (7.7%), p<3E-08. FGFR alterations were more prevalent in the metastatic setting relative to breast-biopsied disease (13.6% v 10.1%; OR = 1.4; p=2E-17), especially in the HER2+ (OR =1.9, p=0.004) and ER-/HER2- (OR = 1.9, p = 0.05) disease; no enrichment was seen in the ER+/HER2- metastases (OR =1.0, p = 1). FGFR amplifications were observed at a higher prevalence in patients with predicted East Asian ancestry, relative to patients with European ancestry (12.1% v 10.0%; p = 0.03). Overall, the most common activating mutations in FGFR were FGFR2 N549K (n=85), FGFR1 N546K (n=78), FGFR4 V510M (n=28), FGFR2 K659E (n=28), FGFR4 V510L (n=20), and FGFR2 Y375C (n=15). The most common recurrent fusions were FGFR3:TACC3 (n=36), FGFR2:TACC2 (n=17), FGFR1:TACC1 (n=9), FGFR1:BAG4 (n=6), and FGFR2:ATE1 (n=5). In patients with FGFR amplifications, the most frequently cooccurring alterations were ZNF703 (78.4%), TP53 (51.5%), CCND1 (36.1%), FGF3/4/19 (32.9 – 34.4%), PIK3CA (30.7%), MYC (29.6%), ESR1 (17.2%), EMSY (16.3%), and PTEN (10.6%). Significant co-occurrence was observed for a number of genes including FGF3/4/19, CDK4, and CDK8 (all OR>2, p<1E-07); mutual exclusivity was observed with PIK3R1, BRCA1, and BRCA2 (all OR <0.5, p<4E-13), among other genes. In the 131 metastatic tumors from MC, the prevalence of FGFR1-4 high-level amplifications was 19.8% [FGFR1 (12.4%), FGFR2 (7.4%), and FGFR3 (0.8%)]. The prevalence of high-level FGFR amplifications did not differ by clinical subtypes: HR-/HER2- (7/31), HR+/HER2- (15/79), and HER2+ (2/11), p=0.68.
Conclusions: High-level FGFR amplifications are observed in >11% of breast cancers, especially the ER+/HER2- subtype, while mutations/fusions are rare. These data support the ongoing studies evaluating targeted therapies for FGFR amplified ER + breast cancer. Correlations with clinical information (MC cohort) and associations with actionable alterations are ongoing and may inform potential combination strategies.
VIEW THE PUBLICATION