Background: The inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) protein Survivin and its splice variants are differentially expressed in breast cancer tissues. Our previous work showed Survivin is released from tumor cells via small membrane-bound vesicles called exosomes. We, therefore, hypothesize that analysis of serum exosomal Survivin and its splice variants may provide a novel biomarker for early diagnosis of breast cancer. Methods: We collected sera from forty breast cancer patients and ten control patients who were disease free for 5 years after treatment. In addition, twenty-three paired breast cancer tumor tissues from those same 40 patients were analyzed for splice variants. Serum levels of Survivin were analyzed using ELISA and exosomes were isolated from this serum using the commercially available ExoQuick kit, with subsequent Western blots and immunohistochemistry performed. Results: Survivin levels were significantly higher in all the breast cancer samples compared to controls (p < 0.05) with exosome amounts significantly higher in cancer patient sera compared to controls (p < 0.01). While Survivin and Survivin-∆Ex3 splice variant expression and localization was identical in serum exosomes, differential expression of Survivin-2B protein existed in the exosomes. Similarly, Survivin and Survivin-∆Ex3 proteins were the predominant forms detected in all of the breast cancer tissues evaluated in this study, whereas a more variable expression of Survivin-2B level was found at different cancer stages. Conclusion: In this study we show for the first time that like Survivin, the Survivin splice variants are also exosomally packaged in the breast cancer patients’ sera, mimicking the survivin splice variant pattern that we also report in breast cancer tissues. Differential expression of exosomal-Survivin, particularly Survivin-2B, may serve as a diagnostic and/or prognostic marker, a “liquid biopsy” if you will, in early breast cancer patients. Furthermore, a more thorough understanding of the role of this prominent antiapoptotic pathway could lead to the development of potential therapeutics for breast cancer patients.

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive breast cancer with historically poor outcomes, primarily due to the lack of effective targeted therapies. The tumor molecular heterogeneity of TNBC has been well recognized, yet molecular subtype driven therapy remains lacking. While neoadjuvant anthracycline and taxane-based chemotherapy remains the standard of care for early stage TNBC, the optimal chemotherapy regimen is debatable. The addition of carboplatin to anthracycline, cyclophosphamide, and taxane (ACT) regimen is associated with improved complete pathologic response (pCR). Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations significantly increase pCR in TNBC. Increased tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TILs) or the presence of DNA repair deficiency (DRD) mutation is associated with increased pCR. Other targets, such as poly-ADP-ribosyl polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase/Protein Kinase B/mammalian target of rapamycin (PI3K-AKT-mTOR) pathway inhibitors, are being evaluated in the neoadjuvant setting. This review examines recent progress in neoadjuvant therapy of TNBC, including platinum, ICI, PARPi, phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) pathway targeted therapies, and novel tumor microenvironment (TME) targeted therapy, in addition to biomarkers for the prediction of pCR.

Purpose: Emerging data suggest immune checkpoint inhibitors have reduced efficacy in heavily pretreated triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC), but underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. To better understand the phenotypic evolution of TNBCs, we studied the genomic and transcriptomic profiles of paired tumors from patients with TNBC. Experimental Design: We collected paired primary and metastatic TNBC specimens from 43 patients and performed targeted exome sequencing and whole-transcriptome sequencing. From these efforts, we ascertained somatic mutation profiles, tumor mutational burden (TMB), TNBC molecular subtypes, and immune-related gene expression patterns. Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (stromal TIL), recurrence-free survival, and overall survival were also analyzed. Results: We observed a typical TNBC mutational landscape with minimal shifts in copy number or TMB over time. However, there were notable TNBC molecular subtype shifts, including increases in the Lehmann/Pietenpol-defined basal-like 1 (BL1, 11.4%–22.6%) and mesenchymal (M, 11.4%–22.6%) phenotypes, and a decrease in the immunomodulatory phenotype (IM, 31.4%–3.2%). The Burstein-defined basal-like immune-activated phenotype was also decreased (BLIA, 42.2%–17.2%). Among downregulated genes from metastases, we saw enrichment of immune-related Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathways and gene ontology (GO) terms, and decreased expression of immunomodulatory gene signatures (P < 0.03) and percent stromal TILs (P = 0.03). There was no clear association between stromal TILs and survival. Conclusions: We observed few mutational shifts, but largely consistent transcriptomic shifts in longitudinally paired TNBCs. Transcriptomic and IHC analyses revealed significantly reduced immune-activating gene expression signatures and TILs in recurrent TNBCs. These data may explain the observed lack of efficacy of immunotherapeutic agents in heavily pretreated TNBCs. Further studies are ongoing to better understand these initial observations. See related commentary by Savas and Loi, p. 526

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is aggressive with limited treatment options upon recurrence. Molecular discordance between primary and metastatic TNBC has been observed, but the degree of biological heterogeneity has not been fully explored. Furthermore, genomic evolution through treatment is poorly understood. In this study, we aim to characterize the genomic changes between paired primary and metastatic TNBCs through transcriptomic and genomic profiling, and to identify genomic alterations which may contribute to chemotherapy resistance. Genomic alterations and mRNA expression of 10 paired primary and metastatic TNBCs were determined through targeted sequencing, microarray analysis, and RNA sequencing. Commonly mutated genes, as well as differentially expressed and co-expressed genes were identified. We further explored the clinical relevance of differentially expressed genes between primary and metastatic tumors to patient survival using large public datasets. Through gene expression profiling, we observed a shift in TNBC subtype classifications between primary and metastatic TNBCs. A panel of eight cancer driver genes (CCNE1, TPX2, ELF3, FANCL, JAK2, GSK3B, CEP76, and SYK) were differentially expressed in recurrent TNBCs, and were also overexpressed in TCGA and METABRIC. CCNE1 and TPX2 were co-overexpressed in TNBCs. DNA mutation profiling showed that multiple mutations occurred in genes comprising a number of potentially targetable pathways including PI3K/AKT/mTOR, RAS/MAPK, cell cycle, and growth factor receptor signaling, reaffirming the wide heterogeneity of mechanisms driving TNBC. CCNE1 amplification was associated with poor overall survival in patients with metastatic TNBC. CCNE1 amplification may confer resistance to chemotherapy and is associated with poor overall survival in TNBC.

CDK4/6 inhibitors modulate immune response in breast cancer. This phase I/II trial was designed to test the safety and efficacy of palbociclib, pembrolizumab and letrozole in women with hormone receptor positive (HR⁺) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2^-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Women with stage IV HR⁺ HER2^- MBC were enrolled and treated with palbociclib, pembrolizumab and letrozole. Primary end-points were safety, tolerability and efficacy. Between November 2016 and July 2020, 23 patients were enrolled with 20 evaluable for response, including 4 patients in cohort 1 and 16 patients in cohort 2. Cohort 1 median age was 48 years (33-70) and cohort 2 median age was 55 (37-75). Cohort 1 closed early due to limited accrual. Grade III-IV adverse events were neutropenia (83%), leucopaenia (65%), thrombocytopenia (17%) and elevated liver enzymes (17%). In cohort 1, 50% achieved a partial response (PR) and 50% had stable disease (SD). In cohort 2, 31% achieved complete response (CR), 25% had PR and 31% had SD by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Median progression-free survival was 25.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.3, not reached) and median overall survival was 36.9 months (95% CI 36.9, not reached) in cohort 2 with a median follow-up of 24.8 months (95% CI 17.1, not reached). A correlative immune biomarker analysis was published separately. The combination of palbociclib, pembrolizumab and letrozole is well tolerated, and a complete response rate of 31% was identified in HR⁺ MBC patients who received this combination as front-line therapy. Confirmatory trials are required to better understand the immune-priming effects of CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Lessons Learned The combination of enobosarm and pembrolizumab was well tolerated and showed a modest clinical benefit rate of 25% at 16 weeks. Future trials investigating androgen receptor‐targeted therapy in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors are warranted. Background Luminal androgen receptor (LAR) is a distinct molecular subtype of triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC) defined by overexpression of androgen receptor (AR). AR targeted therapy has shown modest activity in AR‐positive (AR⁺⁾ TNBC. Enobosarm (GTx‐024) is a nonsteroidal selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) that demonstrates preclinical and clinical activity in AR⁺ breast cancer. The current study was designed to explore the safety and efficacy of the combination of enobosarm and pembrolizumab in patients with AR⁺ metastatic TNBC (mTNBC). Methods This study was an open‐label phase II study for AR⁺ (≥10%, 1+ by IHC) mTNBC. Eligible patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks and enobosarm 18 mg oral daily. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety of enobosarm plus pembrolizumab and determine the response rate. Peripheral blood, tumor biopsies, and stool samples were collected for correlative analysis. Results The trial was stopped early due to the withdrawal of GTx‐024 drug supply. Eighteen patients were enrolled and 16 were evaluable for responses. Median age was 64 (range 36–81) years. The combination was well tolerated with only a few grade 3 adverse events: one dry skin, one diarrhea, and one musculoskeletal ache. The responses were: 1/16 (6%) complete response (CR), 1/16 (6%) partial response (PR), 2/16 (13%) stable disease (SD), and 12/16 (75%) progressive disease (PD). Response rate (RR) was 2/16 (13%). Clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks was 4/16 (25%). Median follow‐up was 24.9 months (95% CI [17.5, 30.9]). Progression‐free survival (PFS) was 2.6 months (95% CI [1.9, 3.1]) and overall survival (OS) was 25.5 months (95% CI [10.4, NR]). Conclusion The combination of enobosarm and pembrolizumab was well tolerated with a modest clinical benefit rate of 25% at 16 weeks in heavily pretreated AR⁺ TNBC without pre‐selected PD‐L1. Future clinical trials combining AR targeted therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) for AR⁺ TNBC warrant investigation.