Skip to main content
International Journal of Molecular Medicine logoLink to International Journal of Molecular Medicine
. 2024 Oct 24;55(1):6. doi: 10.3892/ijmm.2024.5447

Advances in predicting breast cancer driver mutations: Tools for precision oncology (Review)

Wenhui Hao 1,*,, Barani Kumar Rajendran 2,*,, Tingting Cui 1, Jiayi Sun 1, Yingchun Zhao 1, Thirunavukkarasu Palaniyandi 3, Masilamani Selvam 4
PMCID: PMC11537269  PMID: 39450552

Abstract

In the modern era of medicine, prognosis and treatment, options for a number of cancer types including breast cancer have been improved by the identification of cancer-specific biomarkers. The availability of high-throughput sequencing and analysis platforms, the growth of publicly available cancer databases and molecular and histological profiling facilitate the development of new drugs through a precision medicine approach. However, only a fraction of patients with breast cancer with few actionable mutations typically benefit from the precision medicine approach. In the present review, the current development in breast cancer driver gene identification, actionable breast cancer mutations, as well as the available therapeutic options, challenges and applications of breast precision oncology are systematically described. Breast cancer driver mutation-based precision oncology helps to screen key drivers involved in disease development and progression, drug sensitivity and the genes responsible for drug resistance. Advances in precision oncology will provide more targeted therapeutic options for patients with breast cancer, improving disease-free survival and potentially leading to significant successes in breast cancer treatment in the near future. Identification of driver mutations has allowed new targeted therapeutic approaches in combination with standard chemo- and immunotherapies in breast cancer. Developing new driver mutation identification strategies will help to define new therapeutic targets and improve the overall and disease-free survival of patients with breast cancer through efficient medicine.

Key words: breast cancer, precision oncology, driver mutations, genomics, targeted therapy, cancer heterogeneity, onco-prediction, personalized medicine, immunotherapy

1. Introduction

Cancer initiation and progression is a long and complex biological phenomenon caused by any significant alterations in the genome, proteome and chromatin or in any other cellular levels. In total, 10-30% of breast cancer cases are genetically inherited, 5-10% of cases are strongly correlated with hereditary factors and nearly 5% of cases are caused by high penetrance gene mutations such as BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, CDH1, STK11 and LKB1 (1,2). Among these high-penetrance genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2 are the most crucial genes involved in the regulation of DNA repair, transcription and the cell cycle. Somatic/germline mutations in these two genes are associated with breast cancer and are considered the strongest susceptibility markers that have been identified, with a 45-80% life-time risk in breast cancer in various ethnic and generalized population levels (3-5). A number of these mutations are largely from somatic cells and the majority are neutral/passenger mutations, while certain mutations are more harmful (driver mutations) and give specific cellular advantage, leading to cell proliferation (6-8). Due to the increasing prevalence of high-throughput next-generation sequencing (whole genome, exome and targeted sequencing), the genomic information of thousands of tumors from various cancer types can help researchers to identify and characterize cancer samples in an easier and more robust way (9-11). Besides, increasing the amount of cancer sequencing data is also helpful to find ways to treat patients using multiple approaches. One such approach is driver gene mutation identification and treatment. To date, mutational recurrence in patients is a highly reliable gene marker for driver gene identification (12).

Most driver genes are cancer or subtype specific, so identification of specific cancer drivers is an important step in cancer therapy (13). Additionally, these driver mutations lead to structural and functional consequences that could lead to tumor heterogeneity and drug resistance (14-16). Thus, identifying key driver mutations is a prominent method for disease diagnosis and management. However, identifying those key players is cumbersome with insufficient tumor information (including low coverage and sequence bias), a complex tumor microenvironment, intra/inter-tumor heterogeneity and other biological issues (17). In recent years, several dedicated cancer biology studies have made numerous notable contributions including large cancer sequence depositories such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA; https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/), COSMIC database (https://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC; https://icgc.org/), and several versatile sequence analysis tools and servers (18). However, conventional treatments and their outcomes are highly limited due to the diversity of patient genome profiles (19,20). Hence, identification of patient-specific treatment plans (precision oncology) is in urgent need for cancer therapy (21,22).

A pharmacogenomics-based treatment strategy is the most advanced and effective. Genetic testing (including DNA sequencing technology) can identify specific mutational alterations related to cancer, which is most likely to be helpful in the development of a patient-specific treatment plan when the patient does not respond to standard therapy. However, chemotherapeutic agents with a narrow therapeutic window and adverse drug toxicities are life-threatening (23). Breast cancer targeted therapies generally target a specific gene or protein and show an improved biological response to the disease with minimal side effects. Precision cancer therapy makes clinical decisions based on the identification of targets using genomic/proteomics data (24). Therefore, cancer treatment will be improved by increasing the amount of tumor genomic data, including mutation, methylation and expression data (25). One of the standard precision oncology approaches is treating patients with cancer based on subtyping (26). Besides, targeting the most actionable, identified and reported driver gene mutations in several cancer samples will help to treat patients in the new paradigm of breast cancer precision medicine (27-29). Furthermore, several additional metrics are needed to further identify driver genes for understanding precision oncology treatment (Fig. 1). In the present review, several breast cancer-associated driver genes, existing strategies in driver gene identification, actionable targets, various existing challenges and applications of precision oncology in breast cancer prognosis and treatment are covered.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Flowchart illustrating the identification of breast cancer driver gene mutations and their role in precision oncology.

2. Computational identification of breast cancer driver mutations

The identification of breast cancer drivers is the initial step in targeted therapy. Cancer driver identification strategies are evolving, and several tools are being developed, including sequence-based cancer driver prediction tools such as MutSigCV (30), Mutation Set Enrichment Analysis (31), OncodriveFML (32), OncodriveCLUST (33), MuSiC2 (34) and ActiveDriver (35) Similarly, several tools have been developed to predict mutation consequences at the protein level including Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant (SIFT) (36), Polymorphism Phenotyping v2 (PolyPhen-2) (37), CanDrA (38), CHASM (39) and MutationAssessor (40). Several breast cancer drivers are identified and classified based on their occurrence in cancer, their histological and molecular functions and regulatory properties (41). Most cancer drivers have an oncogene, tumor suppressor or dual gene role (42). Even a single mutation in a driver gene may cause diverse effects and show differential tumorigenic and drug response potentials in patients with cancer (43).

Additionally, several computational programs and servers contribute to identifying key driver mutations for precision oncology. Along with germline mutations, numerous somatic variants are being detected by several efficient tools including MuTect (https://github.com/broadinstitute/mutect), VarScan (http://varscan.sourceforge.net/), GATK variant calling pipeline (https://software.broadinstitute.org/gatk/), Torrent variant caller (http://coolgenes.cahe.wsu.edu/ion-docs/Torrent-Variant-Caller-Plugin.html), DeepVariant (https://github.com/google/deepvariant) and Strelka (https://github.com/Illumina/strelka). These tools facilitate the identification of somatic mutations in a robust manner. HotSpot3D (https://github.com/ding-lab/hotspot3d), Cancer3D (http://cancer3d.org/), AlloDriver (https://mdl.shsmu.edu.cn/ALD/), SGDriver (44), CLUMPs (45) and 20/20+ (46) are being used to predict mutational impacts at the 3D structural and conformational level.

3. Actionable breast cancer driver mutations and the available drugs

Genome and proteome level data are screened for mutations and their corresponding protein level impacts are assessed using high-throughput technologies. However, only <10% of mutations are actionable, hence targeting only actionable mutations may not be beneficial in certain patients and thus lead to a poor response to therapy (47). Several public oncogenomic databases such as TCGA (48), IGC and cBioportal (www.cbioportal.org) provide large scale multi-level information that can be used in research to facilitate disease prognosis, prevention and drug discovery (49). Several targetable breast cancer mutations including oncogenic, truncating, amplifications and fusions have been identified, and these mutations and their corresponding U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs are listed in Table I and detailed information about key gene mutations and targeted drugs can be accessed using OncoKB, a data resource for precision oncology (www.oncokb.org).

Table I.

Key actionable breast cancer mutations and their FDA approved drugs.

Genes Mutations FDA approved drugs
NTRK1 G595R Larotrectinib
NTRK3 G623R Larotrectinib
BRAF K601, L597, G464, G469A, G469R and G469V PLX8394
CDK12 Truncating mutations Cemiplimab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab
CDKN2A Oncogenic mutations Ribociclib, palbociclib and abemaciclib
FGFR1 Oncogenic mutations BGJ398, AZD4547, erdafitinib and Debio1347
FGFR2 Oncogenic mutations Erdafitinib, BGJ398, AZD4547 and Debio1347
FGFR3 Oncogenic mutations Erdafitinib, Debio1347, BGJ398 and AZD4547
KRAS Oncogenic mutations Cobimetinib, trametinib and binimetinib
MET Fusions C rizotinib
MTOR Oncogenic mutations Temsirolimus and everolimus
NF1 Oncogenic mutations Trametinib and cobimetinib
PTEN Oncogenic mutations AZD8186 and GSK2636771
AKT1 E17K AZD5363
ERBB2 Oncogenic mutations Neratinib
ESR1 Oncogenic mutations Fulvestrant and AZD9496
PIK3CA Oncogenic mutations Fulvestrant + copanlisib
PIK3CA Oncogenic mutations GDC-0077
BRCA1 Oncogenic mutations Talazoparib
BRCA1 Oncogenic mutations Olaparib
BRCA2 Oncogenic mutations Talazoparib
BRCA2 Oncogenic mutations Olaparib
ERBB2 Amplification Trastuzumab + lapatinib (or each as a monotherapy), neratinib, ado-trastuzumab emtansine, pertuzumab + trastuzumab, trastuzumab + tucatinib + capecitabine and trastuzumab deruxtecan
NTRK1 Fusions Larotrectinib and entrectinib
NTRK2 Fusions Larotrectinib and entrectinib
NTRK3 Fusions Larotrectinib and entrectinib
PIK3CA Oncogenic mutations Alpelisib + ulvestrant

FDA, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Trastuzumab is a widely tested drug against breast cancer and understanding the action and resistance of this drug will help to develop new viable therapeutic approaches (50). Several key pathways such as the AKT, mTOR, PIK3CA and cell regulation pathways, and numerous variants of tyrosine kinase receptors are targeted for drug discovery and development. A study has demonstrated that the resistance mechanism of trastuzumab is potentially caused by the insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-1) receptor and mutation of IGF-1 shows a significant level of drug resistance against trastuzumab (51). A high percentage of somatic mutations in TP53, PI3KCA, PTEN and AKT have been identified in breast cancer. Several large level mutational landscape studies have paved the way to identify subgroup-specific sensitivities in these pathways (52,53). Of the hotspot mutations identified in the most commonly mutated gene, PIK3CA (~25%), 80-90% of mutations occur in exon9 (E545K/E542K) and three hotspot mutations occur in exon 20 (54).

4. Targetable kinase family driver mutations and multi-kinase inhibitors in breast cancer precision therapy

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is another proven significant target in several cancer types, and a number of inhibitors are designed and used for EGFR-specific gene mutations including gefitinib, erlotinib, trastuzumab and afatinib (55-58). Similarly, in breast cancer, the tyrosine-kinase activity domain of HER2 is prone to pathogenic mutations. Several key HER2 activating somatic mutations have been identified, including G309A, D769H/Y, V777L, P780ins, V842i and R896C (59). Tumors harboring the T798M HER2 mutation can be treated with kinase inhibitors such as lapatinib or trastuzumab (60). Similarly, other HER2 mutations including the L755S, T798I and L869R mutations and several duplication events including S310, V777 and Y772-A775dup are treated with neratinib (61-63). By contrast, a known EGFR inhibitor, gefitinib, showed differential response based on EGFR heterogeneity in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) (64). CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitors are administered to treat hormone receptor positive breast cancer. A study showed that, cyclin E1 gene amplification and RB transcriptional corepressor 1 (RB1) loss in T47D cell lines results in resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors, and multiple mutations in RB1 in metastatic breast cancer show resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors (65,66).

5. Precision oncology approaches for DNA repair defect mutations in breast cancer

Identification of DNA repair defects and their mutational events could help to identify personalized treatment strategies and targets. One such example is BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations or loss, which lead to deficiency in homologous recombination and genomic instability (1,67). BRCA1 mutations are proportionately higher in TNBC subtypes with several crucial gene mutations considered to be a major risk in young women and crucial for the scientific community for disease prevention and treatment (68). Therefore, identifying and characterizing BRCA1/2 functions and mutations may help to design personalized approaches to treat patients with breast cancer. Poly-(ADP ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP1) functions as a DNA damage sensor for both single and double-stranded DNA breaks and PARP2 is also responsible for base-excision DNA repair through homo and heterodimerization with PARP1; thus, these two proteins play a significant role in maintaining genomic stability through DNA repair mechanisms (69,70). Deleterious mutations in BRCA genes are highly sensitive to PARP1 inhibitors and DNA alkylating agents (71). PARP1 inhibitors intensely reduce DNA single and double-stranded breaks in BRCA1/2-deficient tumors, resulting in improved sensitivity to DNA damaging agents such as cisplatin and PARP1 inhibitors, which are typically administered in BRCA mutation-associated breast and ovarian cancer (72).

Trabectedin is another inhibitor recently approved in Europe and North Korea for the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas including breast, ovarian, prostate and other solid tumors. Trabectedin functions by targeting the minor grooves of DNA, bending the DNA toward the major grooves through which it increases therapeutic efficiency by blocking transcription coupled nucleotide excision repair machinery, leading to cell death (73-75). A previous study demonstrated that the PARP1 inhibitor, olaparib, combined with cediranib potentially inhibits homology-directed DNA repair via BRCA1/2 and RAD51 downregulation and significantly improves progression-free survival (76,77). A list of drugs used for DNA repair defects at various levels of clinical trials are listed in Table II (74,78-88). These inhibitors mainly target DNA repair pathways in BRCA1/2 mutant/deficient breast cancer.

Table II.

List of clinical studies in DNA repair defects mutations and their outcomes.

Interventions Trial ID Study name Status Cancer type/subtype
Cisplatin + rucaparib NCT01074970 PARP Inhibition for Triple Negative Breast Cancer (ER/PR/HER2)With BRCA1/2 Mutations Completed Breast Cancer
Gemcitabine + carboplatin + BSI-201 NCT00813956 A Phase 2 Study of Standard Chemotherapy Plus BSI-201 (a PARP Inhibitor) in the Neoadjuvant Treatment of Triple Negative Breast Cancer Completed Triple negative breast cancer
AZ2281 + carboplatin NCT01445418 AZD2281 Plus Carboplatin to Treat Breast and Ovarian Cancer Completed Breast and ovarian Cancer
AZD2171 + fulvestrant NCT00454805 AZD2171 in Addition to Fulvestrant in Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer Completed Advanced breast cancer
PARP inhibitor 2X-121 NCT03562832 Investigation of Anti-tumour Effect and Tolerability of the PARP Inhibitor 2X-121 in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Selected by the 2X-121 DRP Recruiting Metastatic breast cancer
Talazoparib NCT03990896 Evaluation of Talazoparib, a PARP Inhibitor, in Patients With Somatic BRCA Mutant Metastatic Breast Cancer: Genotyping Based Clinical Trial Recruiting Breast cancer
Rucaparib NCT03911453 Window of Opportunity Trial, PARP Inhibitor Rucaparib Affect on PD-L1 Expression in Triple Negative Breast Tumors Recruiting Breast cancer
Talazoparib + Sacituzumab Govitecan NCT04039230 Study to Evaluate Sacituzumab Govitecan in Combination With Talazoparib in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Recruiting Breast cancer
Niraparib + Trastuzumab NCT03368729 Niraparib in Combination With Trastuzumab in Metastatic HER2+ Breast Cancer Recruiting Metastatic breast+ cancer and HER2 breast carcinoma
Olaparib + Paclitaxel and Carboplatin NCT03150576 Platinum and Polyadenosine 5′Diphosphoribose Polymerisation (PARP) Inhibitor for Neoadjuvant Treatment of Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) and/or Germline BRCA (gBRCA) Positive Breast Cancer Recruiting Breast cancer
Lynparza NCT04041128 PARP Inhibition During Pre-surgical Window in Breast/Ovary Cancer Recruiting Ovarian and breast cancer

6. Targeting breast cancer driver mutations by immunotherapy

Several breast and other cancer drivers can be treated using different strategies, including combination therapy (double or triple combination), by targeting more than one genetic event (mutations/mutations plus copy number events or mutations plus upregulation), which improves antitumor potential (89-91). The efficacy of immunotherapies are tested with positive outcomes in both primary and metastatic tumors and are the most potent alternatives to the cytotoxic chemo- and radiotherapies (92). Immunotherapy enhances both progression-free and overall survival and prevents disease recurrence in patients with breast cancer by targeting specific genes or pathways. Checkpoint inhibition is a known approach used in cancer treatment, which targets certain checkpoint molecules such as programmed cell death protein 1, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and CTLA4 (93,94). Atezolizumab is an FDA approved PD-L1 antibody for the treatment of metastatic TNBC along with other cancer types (95). Trastuzumab is the first antibody used for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer with a gene amplification or upregulation of CD340 and HER2 (96). At present, several anti-HER2 inhibitors including afatinib, lapatinib, gefitinib and neratinib are used alone or in combination with several monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapeutic agents (97). A list of monoclonal antibodies and combined treatments administered for several breast cancer subtypes are listed in Table SI (88,98-122). In recent years, resistance against a number of monoclonal and combination therapies has been observed, hence antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have been established to overcome this drug resistance. A T-cell bispecific antibodies approach and an ADC-based FDA-approved drug combination (ado-trastuzumab emtansine) are the most constructive approaches for the treatment of patients with breast cancer (123).

7. Challenges and applications of precision oncology in breast cancer

Overall, ~10% of mutations in breast cancer are deemed actionable, highlighting a significant challenge in the realm of precision oncology. Several vital factors determine tumor growth, immune escape and survival. The T-cell response is the most crucial for identifying tumor cells from the normal cell population to produce antitumor immunity (124,125). This immunogenic potentials may vary from one breast cancer subtype to another (126). Drug efficacy is influenced not only by targeted genes but also by various factors, including genetic variability, individual drug performance and mutations that affect drug metabolism. For instance, cytochrome P450 (CYP) pathway members (including CYP3A4, CYP19A and CYP2D6) have been associated with metabolizing anticancer drugs (127). A recent study revealed that HER2+ breast cancer is more responsive to immunotherapy, but estrogen receptor-negative and HER2+ breast cancer has more immunogenic potential (128). Higher expression of estrogen may lower interferon-γ signaling and human leukocyte antigen gene complex-II expression, which facilitates tumor escape from immune action (129). Besides, estrogens are known to be a risk factor for breast cancer by enhancing several key oncogenic growth factors including EGF, IGF, vascular endothelial growth factor, fibroblast growth factor and their corresponding receptors. An estrogen-high tumor microenvironment plays an important immunosuppressive role for the survival of tumor cells in weak immunogenic tumor cells (98,130,131). Hence, targeting these genes and their active mutations may improve breast cancer prognosis and treatment. Similarly, the use of anti-estrogen therapies combined with aromatase inhibitors could be a better approach to improve the further response to immunotherapies (132).

8. Existing driver mutation prediction approaches and their challenges

The identification of somatic driver genes from germline variants is a crucial step in genomic oncology. In addition to several known germline variants, a growing number of vital somatic variants are being identified. Those somatic variants are validated through modern computational strategies and functional annotation resources including SIFT (36), Polyphen-2 (37), CHASM (39), Mutation Assessor (40), DbNSFP (133) and Mutation Taster (134). However, recent developments in high-throughput techniques and potential computational resources/tools have resulted in very few mutations being clinically actionable. There are major difficulties in differentiating driver from passenger mutations, a lack of strategies to validate genomic variants and challenges associating the clinical relevance of these mutations. Apart from single nucleotide polymorphism, several copy number variations, including copy-number gains and amplifications, and copy-number loss have been identified in breast cancer (135). BRCA1 is a well-known tumor suppressor gene in breast cancer and identifying the key driver genes in BRCA1-associated tumorigenesis will help to predict the road map of this cancer type. In a public sequence repository (cBioportal), ~80 BRCA1-mutated/deficient breast cancer types were found, and the majority of mutations belong to deleterious single nucleotide variations and copy number events, including homozygous deletions or amplifications. Among these mutations TP53 and MYC are the most commonly copy number altered driver genes in BRCA1-associated tumorigenesis and contributing to over 65 and 40% of cases respectively, highlighting their significant roles in cancer progression and potential for targeted therapies (136). The highest number of MYC driver mutations identified in BRCA1-associated tumors was in the TNBC subtype. Additionally, the amplification of MYC along with the copy number amplification of PIK3CA and the loss of copy number in RB1 and PTEN, supports MYC amplification and promotes breast tumorigenesis (137,138). However, due to a low number of cases in this cohort, it is challenging to determine the outcomes of these drivers.

9. Role of driver genes in breast cancer prognosis and the tumor microenvironment

Along with genomic data for the prediction of breast cancer driver genes, mRNA expression data plays a crucial role in predicting drivers in disease prognosis and their involvement in the tumor microenvironment (139). A recent study revealed a list of differentially expressed breast cancer driver genes to help predict disease prognosis and overall survival (140). The mRNA expression levels of the most enriched driver genes including DDX3X, BRD7, CCR7 and UBE2A are associated with a higher hazard ratio. Several key breast cancer drivers, in conjunction with the tumor microenvironment, significantly influence treatment response in patients with breast cancer. These drivers are responsible for tumor heterogeneity and for varied responses to drug (141). In precision oncology, high-throughput sequencing data including genomics, transcriptomics and proteomics data helps to predict the characteristics of patients and the tumor behavior at the genome/proteome level. Tumor heterogeneity is a prime cause for overall patient survival, disease-free survival and response to chemo- or immunotherapy.

10. Conclusions and future perspectives

The identification of driver mutations has allowed for new targeted therapeutic approaches in combination with standard chemo- and immunotherapies in breast cancer. Existing drugs for the identified actionable mutations in breast cancer are also used to treat other cancer types; however, whether these drugs are beneficial to other cancer types is still unclear. For example, trastuzumab, which targets HER2 amplification/upregulation, is beneficial to both breast and gastric cancer, while it shows no significant results in lung and ovarian cancer (142,143). Even with the developing modern applications in clinical trial design, challenges continue, including tumor cellularity, intra- and inter-tumor heterogeneity and the tumor microenvironment. Hence, identifying new strategies to overcome these challenges and identifying new therapeutic targets/biomarkers will help to improve the overall and disease-free survival of patients through efficient breast cancer medicine. The present review connects the current strategies with future approaches for identifying novel breast cancer drivers, aiming to aid researchers and ultimately benefit patients. Differential drug responses among breast cancer subtypes influence overall efficacy. Therefore, identifying new driver genes, novel susceptibility regions or loci, and alternative pathways will expedite the discovery of new therapeutic targets. The ultimate goal of breast cancer precision oncology is to identify more therapeutic targets and to increase the drug efficacy while reducing toxicity for patients.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary_Data.pdf (243.1KB, pdf)

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the Excellent Young Scientist Foundation of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China (grant no. 2022D01E52) and the Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (grant no. 2023D01C39).

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors' contributions

WH and BKR designed this study. WH generated the figure. BKR, WH, TP, JS, YZ, MMS and TC performed the background research. BKR and WH drafted and revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to editorial changes in the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Data authentication is not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  • 1.Harvey-Jones E, Raghunandan M, Robbez-Masson L, Magraner-Pardo L, Alaguthurai T, Yablonovitch A, Yen J, Xiao H, Brough R, Frankum J, et al. Longitudinal profiling identifies co-occurring BRCA1/2 reversions, TP53BP1, RIF1 and PAXIP1 mutations in PARP inhibitor resistant advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2024;35:364–380. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Waghela BN, Vaidya FU, Ranjan K, Chhipa AS, Tiwari BS, Pathak C. AGE-RAGE synergy influences programmed cell death signaling to promote cancer. Mol Cell Biochem. 2021;476:585–598. doi: 10.1007/s11010-020-03928-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ayers M, Lunceford J, Nebozhyn M, Murphy E, Loboda A, Kaufman DR, Albright A, Cheng JD, Kang SP, Shankaran V, et al. IFN-ү-related mRNA profile predicts clinical response to PD-1 blockade. J Clin Invest. 2017;127:2930–2940. doi: 10.1172/JCI91190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bhaskaran SP, Huang T, Rajendran BK, Guo M, Luo J, Qin Z, Zhao B, Chian J, Li S, Wang SM. Ethnic-specific BRCA1/2 variation within Asia population: evidence from over 78 000 cancer and 40 000 non-cancer cases of Indian, Chinese, Korean and Japanese populations. J Med Genet. 2021;58:752–759. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2020-107299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yuan H, Xiu L, Li N, Li Y, Wu L, Yao H. PARPis response and outcome of ovarian cancer patients with BRCA1/2 germline mutation and a history of breast cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2024;35:e51. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ranjan K, Pathak C. Expression of cFLIPL Determines the Basal Interaction of Bcl-2 With Beclin-1 and Regulates p53 Dependent Ubiquitination of Beclin-1 During Autophagic Stress. J Cell Biochem. 2016;117:1757–1768. doi: 10.1002/jcb.25474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ranjan K, Hedl M, Sinha S, Zhang X, Abraham C. Ubiquitination of ATF6 by disease-associated RNF186 promotes the innate receptor-induced unfolded protein response. J Clin Invest. 2021;131:e145472. doi: 10.1172/JCI145472. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Salvadores M, Supek F. Cell cycle gene alterations associate with a redistribution of mutation risk across chromosomal domains in human cancers. Nat Cancer. 2024;5:330–346. doi: 10.1038/s43018-023-00707-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Xie F, Guo W, Wang X, Zhou K, Guo S, Liu Y, Sun T, Li S, Xu Z, Yuan Q, et al. Mutational profiling of mitochondrial DNA reveals an epithelial ovarian cancer-specific evolutionary pattern contributing to high oxidative metabolism. Clin Transl Med. 2024;14:e1523. doi: 10.1002/ctm2.1523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zhu J, Yang J, Chen X, Wang Y, Wang X, Zhao M, Li G, Wang Y, Zhu Y, Yan F, et al. Integrated Bulk and Single-cell RNA sequencing data constructs and validates a prognostic model for non-small cell lung cancer. J Cancer. 2024;15:796–808. doi: 10.7150/jca.90768. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zhao H, Yu L, Wang L, Yin X, Liu K, Liu W, Lin S, Wang L. Integrated analysis of single-cell and bulk RNA sequencing data reveals immune-related lncRNA-mRNA prognostic signature in triple-negative breast cancer. Genes Dis. 2024;11:571–574. doi: 10.1016/j.gendis.2023.04.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Brown AL, Li M, Goncearenco A, Panchenko AR. Finding driver mutations in cancer: Elucidating the role of background mutational processes. PLoS Comput Biol. 2019;15:e1006981. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Li F, Gao L, Wang P, Hu Y. Identifying cancer specific driver modules using a network-based method. Molecules. 2018;23:1114. doi: 10.3390/molecules23051114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pala L, Sala I, Pagan E, De Pas T, Zattarin E, Catania C, Cocorocchio E, Rossi G, Laszlo D, Ceresoli G, et al. 'Heterogeneity of treatment effect on patients' long-term outcome according to pathological response type in neoadjuvant RCTs for breast cancer.'. Breast. 2024;73:103672. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2024.103672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Schade E. A differentform for the certification of cause of death. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1986;130:2310–2312. In Dutch. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dagogo-Jack I, Shaw AT. Tumour heterogeneity and resistance to cancer therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15:81–94. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Akinpelu A, Akinsipe T, Avila LA, Arnold RD, Mistriotis P. The impact of tumor microenvironment: unraveling the role of physical cues in breast cancer progression. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2024;43:823–844. doi: 10.1007/s10555-024-10166-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pabinger S, Dander A, Fischer M, Snajder R, Sperk M, Efremova M, Krabichler B, Speicher MR, Zschocke J, Trajanoski Z. A survey of tools for variant analysis of next-generation genome sequencing data. Brief Bioinform. 2014;15:256–278. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbs086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Phillips KA, Deverka PA, Sox HC, Khoury MJ, Sandy LG, Ginsburg GS, Tunis SR, Orlando LA, Douglas MP. Making genomic medicine evidence-based and patient-centered: A structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research. Genet Med. 2017;19:1081–1091. doi: 10.1038/gim.2017.21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ranjan K, Hedl M, Abraham C. The E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF186 and RNF186 risk variants regulate innate receptor-induced outcomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021;118:e2013500118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2013500118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Krebs K, Milani L. Translating pharmacogenomics into clinical decisions: Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Hum Genomics. 2019;13:39. doi: 10.1186/s40246-019-0229-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ding RB, Chen P, Rajendran BK, Lyu X, Wang H, Bao J, Zeng J, Hao W, Sun H, Wong AH, et al. Molecular landscape and subtype-specific therapeutic response of nasopharyngeal carcinoma revealed by integrative pharmacogenomics. Nat Commun. 2021;12:3046. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-23379-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nain P, Seth L, Bell AS, Raval P, Sharma G, Bethel M, Sharma G, Guha A. Chemotherapy in Pregnancy: Assessing the safety of adriamycin administration in pregnancy complicated by breast cancer. JACC Case Rep. 2023;28:102141. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2023.102141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dey N, Williams C, Leyland-Jones B, De P. Mutation matters in precision medicine: A future to believe in. Cancer Treat Rev. 2017;55:136–149. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rajendran BK, Deng CX. A comprehensive genomic meta-analysis identifies confirmatory role of OBSCN gene in breast tumorigenesis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:102263–102276. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.20404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tsuchida J, Rothman J, McDonald KA, Nagahashi M, Takabe K, Wakai T. Clinical target sequencing for precision medicine of breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2019;24:131–140. doi: 10.1007/s10147-018-1373-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ramage KS, Lock A, White JM, Ekins MG, Kiefel MJ, Avery VM, Davis RA. Semisynthesis and Cytotoxic Evaluation of an Ether Analogue Library Based on a Polyhalogenated Diphenyl Ether Scaffold Isolated from a Lamellodysidea Sponge. Mar Drugs. 2024;22:33. doi: 10.3390/md22010033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hyman DM, Taylor BS, Baselga J. Implementing Genome-Driven Oncology. Cell. 2017;168:584–599. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.12.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ranjan K, Pathak C. Expression of FADD and cFLIPL balances mitochondrial integrity and redox signaling to substantiate apoptotic cell death. Mol Cell Biochem. 2016;422:135–150. doi: 10.1007/s11010-016-2813-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lawrence MS, Stojanov P, Mermel CH, Robinson JT, Garraway LA, Golub TR, Meyerson M, Gabriel SB, Lander ES, Getz G. Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumour types. Nature. 2014;505:495–501. doi: 10.1038/nature12912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jia P, Wang Q, Chen Q, Hutchinson KE, Pao W, Zhao Z. MSEA: Detection and quantification of mutation hotspots through mutation set enrichment analysis. Genome Biol. 2014;15:489. doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0489-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mularoni L, Sabarinathan R, Deu-Pons J, Gonzalez-Perez A, Lopez-Bigas N. OncodriveFML: A general framework to identify coding and non-coding regions with cancer driver mutations. Genome Biol. 2016;17:128. doi: 10.1186/s13059-016-0994-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tamborero D, Gonzalez-Perez A, Lopez-Bigas N. OncodriveCLUST: Exploiting the positional clustering of somatic mutations to identify cancer genes. Bioinformatics. 2013;29:2238–2244. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Dees ND, Zhang Q, Kandoth C, Wendl MC, Schierding W, Koboldt DC, Mooney TB, Callaway MB, Dooling D, Mardis ER, et al. MuSiC: Identifying mutational significance in cancer genomes. Genome Res. 2012;22:1589–1598. doi: 10.1101/gr.134635.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Reimand J, Bader GD. Systematic analysis of somatic mutations in phosphorylation signaling predicts novel cancer drivers. Mol Syst Biol. 2013;9:637. doi: 10.1038/msb.2012.68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ng PC, Henikoff S. Accounting for human polymorphisms predicted to affect protein function. Genome Res. 2002;12:436–446. doi: 10.1101/gr.212802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Adzhubei I, Jordan DM, Sunyaev SR. Predicting functional effect of human missense mutations using PolyPhen-2. Curr Protoc Hum Genet Chapter. 2013;7 doi: 10.1002/0471142905.hg0720s76. Unit7 20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Carter H, Douville C, Stenson PD, Cooper DN, Karchin R. Identifying Mendelian disease genes with the variant effect scoring tool. BMC Genomics. 2013;14(Suppl 3):S3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-S3-S3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wong WC, Kim D, Carter H, Diekhans M, Ryan MC, Karchin R. CHASM and SNVBox: Toolkit for detecting biologically important single nucleotide mutations in cancer. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:2147–2148. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Reva B, Antipin Y, Sander C. Predicting the functional impact of protein mutations: application to cancer genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:e118. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rajendran BK, Deng CX. Characterization of potential driver mutations involved in human breast cancer by computational approaches. Oncotarget. 2017;8:50252–50272. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.17225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Shen L, Shi Q, Wang W. Double agents: Genes with both oncogenic and tumor-suppressor functions. Oncogenesis. 2018;7:25. doi: 10.1038/s41389-018-0034-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dong X, Huang D, Yi X, Zhang S, Wang Z, Yan B, Chung Sham P, Chen K, Jun Li M. Diversity spectrum analysis identifies mutation-specific effects of cancer driver genes. Commun Biol. 2020;3:6. doi: 10.1038/s42003-019-0736-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Zhao J, Cheng F, Zhao Z. SGDriver: A novel structural genomics-based approach to prioritize cancer related and potentially druggable somatic mutations. BMC Bioinformatics. 2015;16(suppl 15):P21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-16-S15-P21. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kamburov A, Lawrence MS, Polak P, Leshchiner I, Lage K, Golub TR, Lander ES, Getz G. Comprehensive assessment of cancer missense mutation clustering in protein structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:E5486–E5495. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1516373112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Tokheim CJ, Papadopoulos N, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B, Karchin R. Evaluating the evaluation of cancer driver genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:14330–14335. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1616440113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ipe J, Swart M, Burgess KS, Skaar TC. High-Throughput assays to assess the functional impact of genetic variants: A road towards genomic-driven medicine. Clin Transl Sci. 2017;10:67–77. doi: 10.1111/cts.12440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Cancer Genome Atlas Research N, Weinstein JN, Collisson EA, Mills GB, Shaw KR, Ozenberger BA, Ellrott K, Shmulevich I, Sander C, Stuart JM. The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project. Nat Genet. 2013;45:1113–1120. doi: 10.1038/ng.2764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Leyens L, Reumann M, Malats N, Brand A. Use of big data for drug development and for public and personal health and care. Genet Epidemiol. 2017;41:51–60. doi: 10.1002/gepi.22012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Pierobon M, Ramos C, Wong S, Hodge KA, Aldrich J, Byron S, Anthony SP, Robert NJ, Northfelt DW, Jahanzeb M, et al. Enrichment of PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway activation in hepatic metastases from breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:4919–4928. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Stratton MR, Campbell PJ, Futreal PA. The cancer genome. Nature. 2009;458:719–724. doi: 10.1038/nature07943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Cancer Genome Atlas Network Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2012;490:61–70. doi: 10.1038/nature11412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Korkaya H, Wicha M. Reprogramming of normal stem cells and cancer stem cells by the tumor microenvironment. Nat Rev Cancer. 2013;13:763–776. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Pipek O, Alpar D, Rusz O, Bodor C, Udvarnoki Z, Medgyes-Horvath A, Csabai I, Szallasi Z, Madaras L, Kahan Z, et al. Genomic Landscape of Normal and Breast Cancer Tissues in a Hungarian Pilot Cohort. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:8553. doi: 10.3390/ijms24108553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Nakai K, Hung MC, Yamaguchi H. A perspective on anti-EGFR therapies targeting triple-negative breast cancer. Am J Cancer Res. 2016;6:1609–1623. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Zhao S, Ma Y, Liu L, Fang J, Ma H, Feng G, Xie B, Zeng S, Chang J, Ren J, et al. Ningetinib plus gefitinib in EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer with MET and AXL dysregulations: A phase 1b clinical trial and biomarker analysis. Lung Cancer. 2024;188:107468. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2024.107468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Wu G, Chen Q, Lv D, Lin L, Huang J. Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma Patient with Complex Mutations on EGFR benefits from furmonertinib after acquiring gefitinib resistance: A case report. Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov. 2024;19:247–252. doi: 10.2174/1574892818666230316145232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Lewis GD, Li G, Guo J, Yu SF, Fields CT, Lee G, Zhang D, Dragovich PS, Pillow T, Wei B, et al. The HER2-directed antibody-drug conjugate DHES0815A in advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer: Preclinical characterization and phase 1 trial results. Nat Commun. 2024;15:466. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-44533-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Bose R, Kavuri SM, Searleman AC, Shen W, Shen D, Koboldt DC, Monsey J, Goel N, Aronson AB, Li S, et al. Activating HER2 mutations in HER2 gene amplification negative breast cancer. Cancer Discov. 2013;3:224–237. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Rexer BN, Ghosh R, Na rasanna A, Estrada MV, Chakrabarty A, Song Y, Engelman JA, Arteaga CL. Human breast cancer cells harboring a gatekeeper T798M mutation in HER2 overexpress EGFR ligands and are sensitive to dual inhibition of EGFR and HER2. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:5390–5401. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Ben-Baruch NE, Bose R, Kavuri SM, Ma CX, Ellis MJ. HER2-Mutated Breast Cancer Responds to Treatment With Single-Agent Neratinib, a Second-Generation HER2/EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13:1061–1064. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hanker AB, Brewer MR, Sheehan JH, Koch JP, Sliwoski GR, Nagy R, Lanman R, Berger MF, Hyman DM, Solit DB, et al. An Acquired HER2(T798I) Gatekeeper Mutation Induces Resistance to Neratinib in a Patient with HER2 mutant-driven breast cancer. Cancer Discov. 2017;7:575–585. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Hyman DM, Piha-Paul SA, Won H, Rodon J, Saura C, Shapiro GI, Juric D, Quinn DI, Moreno V, Doger B, et al. HER kinase inhibition in patients with HER2- and HER3-mutant cancers. Nature. 2018;554:189–194. doi: 10.1038/nature25475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Savage P, Blanchet-Cohen A, Revil T, Badescu D, Saleh SMI, Wang YC, Zuo D, Liu L, Bertos NR, Munoz-Ramos V, et al. A Targetable EGFR-Dependent tumor-initiating program in breast cancer. Cell Rep. 2017;21:1140–1149. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.10.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Herrera-Abreu MT, Palafox M, Asghar U, Rivas MA, Cutts RJ, Garcia-Murillas I, Pearson A, Guzman M, Rodriguez O, Grueso J, et al. Early Adaptation and Acquired Resistance to CDK4/6 Inhibition in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. Cancer Res. 2016;76:2301–2313. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-0728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Condorelli R, Spring L, O'Shaughnessy J, Lacroix L, Bailleux C, Scott V, Dubois J, Nagy RJ, Lanman RB, Iafrate AJ, et al. Polyclonal RB1 mutations and acquired resistance to CDK 4/6 inhibitors in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:640–645. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Woodward ER, Lalloo F, Forde C, Pugh S, Burghel GJ, Schlecht H, Harkness EF, Howell A, Howell SJ, Gandhi A, Evans DG. Germline testing of BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2 and CHEK2 c.1100delC in 1514 triple negative familial and isolated breast cancers from a single centre, with extended testing of ATM, RAD51C and RAD51D in over 400. J Med Genet. 2023;61:385–391. doi: 10.1136/jmg-2023-109671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Belli C, Duso BA, Ferraro E, Curigliano G. Homologous recombination deficiency in triple negative breast cancer. Breast. 2019;45:15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2019.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Miao K, Lei JH, Valecha MV, Zhang A, Xu J, Wang L, Lyu X, Chen S, Miao Z, Zhang X, et al. NOTCH1 activation compensates BRCA1 deficiency and promotes triple-negative breast cancer formation. Nat Commun. 2020;11:3256. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16936-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.McCann KE, Hurvitz SA. Advances in the use of PARP inhibitor therapy for breast cancer. Drugs Context. 2018;7:212540. doi: 10.7573/dic.212540. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Caron MC, Sharma AK, O'Sullivan J, Myler LR, Ferreira MT, Rodrigue A, Coulombe Y, Ethier C, Gagne JP, Langelier MF, et al. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 antagonizes DNA resection at double-strand breaks. Nat Commun. 2019;10:2954. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10741-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Bailly C, Thuru X, Quesnel B. Combined cytotoxic chemotherapy and immunotherapy of cancer: Modern times. NAR Cancer. 2020;2:zcaa002. doi: 10.1093/narcan/zcaa002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.van Kesteren Ch, de Vooght MM, Lopez-Lazaro L, Mathot RA, Schellens JH, Jimeno JM, Beijnen JH. Yondelis (trabectedin, ET-743): The development of an anticancer agent of marine origin. Anticancer Drugs. 2003;14:487–502. doi: 10.1097/00001813-200308000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Zelek L, Yovine A, Brain E, Turpin F, Taamma A, Riofrio M, Spielmann M, Jimeno J, Misset JL. A phase II study of Yondelis (trabectedin, ET-743) as a 24-h continuous intravenous infusion in pretreated advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2006;94:1610–1614. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Le Cesne A, Martin-Broto J, Grignani G. A review of the efficacy of trabectedin as second-line treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma. Future Oncol. 2022;18(30s):5–11. doi: 10.2217/fon-2022-0517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E, Xu B, Domchek SM, Masuda N, Delaloge S, Li W, Tung N, Armstrong A, et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a Germline BRCA Mutation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:523–533. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1706450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Pujade-Lauraine E, Ledermann JA, Selle F, Gebski V, Penson RT, Oza AM, Korach J, Huzarski T, Poveda A, Pignata S, et al. Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1274–1284. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30469-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Kalra M, Tong Y, Jones DR, Walsh T, Danso MA, Ma CX, Silverman P, King MC, Badve SS, Perkins SM, Miller KD. Cisplatin +/− rucaparib after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative or BRCA mutated breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2021;7:29. doi: 10.1038/s41523-021-00240-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Kaplan AR, Gueble SE, Liu Y, Oeck S, Kim H, Yun Z, Glazer PM. Cediranib suppresses homology-directed DNA repair through down-regulation of BRCA1/2 and RAD51. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11:eaav4508. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav4508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Telli ML, Jensen KC, Vinayak S, Kurian AW, Lipson JA, Flaherty PJ, Timms K, Abkevich V, Schackmann EA, Wapnir IL, et al. Phase II study of gemcitabine, carboplatin, and iniparib as neoadjuvant therapy for triple-negative and BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer with assessment of a tumor-based measure of genomic instability: PrECOG 0105. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1895–1901. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.0085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Shamseddine AI, Farhat FS. Platinum-based compounds for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Chemotherapy. 2011;57:468–487. doi: 10.1159/000334093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, Tutt AN, Johnson DA, Richardson TB, Santarosa M, Dillon KJ, Hickson I, Knights C, et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature. 2005;434:917–921. doi: 10.1038/nature03445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Bryant HE, Schultz N, Thomas HD, Parker KM, Flower D, Lopez E, Kyle S, Meuth M, Curtin NJ, Helleday T. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature. 2005;434:913–917. doi: 10.1038/nature03443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Hyams DM, Chan A, de Oliveira C, Snyder R, Vinholes J, Audeh MW, Alencar VM, Lombard J, Mookerjee B, Xu J, et al. Cediranib in combination with fulvestrant in hormone-sensitive metastatic breast cancer: A randomized Phase II study. Invest New Drugs. 2013;31:1345–1354. doi: 10.1007/s10637-013-9991-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J, Hurvitz SA, Goncalves A, Lee KH, Fehrenbacher L, Yerushalmi R, Mina LA, Martin M, et al. Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA Mutation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:753–763. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1802905. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Ettl J, Quek RGW, Lee KH, Rugo HS, Hurvitz S, Goncalves A, Fehrenbacher L, Yerushalmi R, Mina LA, Martin M, et al. Quality of life with talazoparib versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline BRCA1/2 mutation: patient-reported outcomes from the EMBRACA phase III trial. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:1939–1947. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Bindra RS, Gibson SL, Meng A, Westermark U, Jasin M, Pierce AJ, Bristow RG, Classon MK, Glazer PM. Hypoxia-induced down-regulation of BRCA1 expression by E2Fs. Cancer Res. 2005;65:11597–11604. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-2119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Kumar M, Ranjan K, Singh V, Pathak C, Pappachan A, Singh DD. Hydrophilic Acylated Surface Protein A (HASPA) of Leishmania donovani: Expression, Purification and Biophysico-Chemical Characterization. Protein J. 2017;36:343–351. doi: 10.1007/s10930-017-9726-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Liu ZB, Zhang L, Bian J, Jian J. Combination strategies of checkpoint immunotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 2020;13:2657–2666. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S240655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Kroemer G, Zitvogel L. Cancer immunotherapy in 2017: The breakthrough of the microbiota. Nat Rev Immunol. 2018;18:87–88. doi: 10.1038/nri.2018.4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Emens LA, Ascierto PA, Darcy PK, Demaria S, Eggermont AMM, Redmond WL, Seliger B, Marincola FM. Cancer immunotherapy: Opportunities and challenges in the rapidly evolving clinical landscape. Eur J Cancer. 2017;81:116–129. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.01.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Wang Y, Xu Z, Wu KL, Yu L, Wang C, Ding H, Gao Y, Sun H, Wu YH, Xia M, et al. Siglec-15/sialic acid axis as a central glyco-immune checkpoint in breast cancer bone metastasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2024;121:e2312929121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2312929121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Krasniqi E, Barchiesi G, Pizzuti L, Mazzotta M, Venuti A, Maugeri-Sacca M, Sanguineti G, Massimiani G, Sergi D, Carpano S, et al. Immunotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer: state of the art and future perspectives. J Hematol Oncol. 2019;12:111. doi: 10.1186/s13045-019-0798-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Pardoll DM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12:252–264. doi: 10.1038/nrc3239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Sharmni Vishnu K, Win TT, Aye SN, Basavaraj AK. Combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in the treatment of triple negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis on their efficacy and safety. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:1139. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-10225-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Darvin P, Toor SM, Sasidharan Nair V, Elkord E. Immune checkpoint inhibitors: Recent progress and potential biomarkers. Exp Mol Med. 2018;50:1–11. doi: 10.1038/s12276-018-0191-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Garcia-Aranda M, Redondo M. Immunotherapy: A challenge of breast cancer treatment. Cancers (Basel) 2019;11:1822. doi: 10.3390/cancers11121822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Garcia-Aranda M, Redondo M. Protein kinase targets in breast cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18:2543. doi: 10.3390/ijms18122543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Treilleux I, Blay JY, Bendriss-Vermare N, Ray-Coquard I, Bachelot T, Guastalla JP, Bremond A, Goddard S, Pin JJ, Barthelemy-Dubois C, Lebecque S. Dendritic cell infiltration and prognosis of early stage breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:7466–7474. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Bates GJ, Fox SB, Han C, Leek RD, Garcia JF, Harris AL, Banham AH. Quantification of regulatory T cells enables the identification of high-risk breast cancer patients and those at risk of late relapse. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5373–5380. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.05.9584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Gobert M, Treilleux I, Bendriss-Vermare N, Bachelot T, Goddard-Leon S, Arfi V, Biota C, Doffin AC, Durand I, Olive D, et al. Regulatory T cells recruited through CCL22/CCR4 are selectively activated in lymphoid infiltrates surrounding primary breast tumors and lead to an adverse clinical outcome. Cancer Res. 2009;69:2000–2009. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-2360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Mackall CL, Fleisher TA, Brown MR, Magrath IT, Shad AT, Horowitz ME, Wexler LH, Adde MA, McClure LL, Gress RE. Lymphocyte depletion during treatment with intensive chemotherapy for cancer. Blood. 1994;84:2221–2228. doi: 10.1182/blood.V84.7.2221.2221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Guckel B, Stumm S, Rentzsch C, Marme A, Mannhardt G, Wallwiener D. A CD80-transfected human breast cancer cell variant induces HER-2/neu-specific T cells in HLA-A*02-matched situations in vitro as well as in vivo. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2005;54:129–140. doi: 10.1007/s00262-004-0583-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Morse MA, Chaudhry A, Gabitzsch ES, Hobeika AC, Osada T, Clay TM, Amalfitano A, Burnett BK, Devi GR, Hsu DS, et al. Novel adenoviral vector induces T-cell responses despite anti-adenoviral neutralizing antibodies in colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2013;62:1293–1301. doi: 10.1007/s00262-013-1400-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Kouloulias VE, Dardoufas CE, Kouvaris JR, Gennatas CS, Polyzos AK, Gogas HJ, Sandilos PH, Uzunoglu NK, Malas EG, Vlahos LJ. Liposomal doxorubicin in conjunction with reirradiation and local hyperthermia treatment in recurrent breast cancer: A phase I/II trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:374–382. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Morse MA, Hobeika AC, Osada T, Serra D, Niedzwiecki D, Lyerly HK, Clay TM. Depletion of human regulatory T cells specifically enhances antigen-specific immune responses to cancer vaccines. Blood. 2008;112:610–618. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-01-135319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Meredith R, Torgue J, Shen S, Fisher DR, Banaga E, Bunch P, Morgan D, Fan J, Straughn JM., Jr Dose escalation and dosimetry of first-in-human α radioimmunotherapy with 212Pb-TCMC-trastuzumab. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1636–1642. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.114.143842. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Bernal-Estevez DA, Garcia O, Sanchez R, Parra-Lopez CA. Monitoring the responsiveness of T and antigen presenting cell compartments in breast cancer patients is useful to predict clinical tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:77. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3982-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Wiseman C, Presant C, Rao R, Smith J. Clinical responses to intralymphatic whole-cell melanoma vaccine augmented by in vitro incubation with alpha-interferon. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;690:388–391. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb44040.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Rosenberg SA, Yang JC, Sherry RM, Kammula US, Hughes MS, Phan GQ, Citrin DE, Restifo NP, Robbins PF, Wunderlich JR, et al. Durable complete responses in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic melanoma using T-cell transfer immunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:4550–4557. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Adams S, Kozhaya L, Martiniuk F, Meng TC, Chiriboga L, Liebes L, Hochman T, Shuman N, Axelrod D, Speyer J, et al. Topical TLR7 agonist imiquimod can induce immune-mediated rejection of skipn metastases in patients with breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:6748–6757. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Czerniecki BJ, Koski GK, Koldovsky U, Xu S, Cohen PA, Mick R, Nisenbaum H, Pasha T, Xu M, Fox KR, et al. Targeting HER-2/neu in early breast cancer development using dendritic cells with staged interleukin-12 burst secretion. Cancer Res. 2007;67:1842–1852. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-4038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Koski GK, Koldovsky U, Xu S, Mick R, Sharma A, Fitzpatrick E, Weinstein S, Nisenbaum H, Levine BL, Fox K, et al. A novel dendritic cell-based immunization approach for the induction of durable Th1-polarized anti-HER-2/neu responses in women with early breast cancer. J Immunother. 2012;35:54–65. doi: 10.1097/CJI.0b013e318235f512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Sharma A, Koldovsky U, Xu S, Mick R, Roses R, Fitzpatrick E, Weinstein S, Nisenbaum H, Levine BL, Fox K, et al. HER-2 pulsed dendritic cell vaccine can eliminate HER-2 expression and impact ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer. 2012;118:4354–4362. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Garnett CT, Schlom J, Hodge JW. Combination of docetaxel and recombinant vaccine enhances T-cell responses and antitumor activity: Effects of docetaxel on immune enhancement. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:3536–3544. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Mohebtash M, Tsang KY, Madan RA, Huen NY, Poole DJ, Jochems C, Jones J, Ferrara T, Heery CR, Arlen PM, et al. A pilot study of MUC-1/CEA/TRICOM poxviral-based vaccine in patients with metastatic breast and ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:7164–7173. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Hodge JW, Sabzevari H, Yafal AG, Gritz L, Lorenz MG, Schlom J. A triad of costimulatory molecules synergize to amplify T-cell activation. Cancer Res. 1999;59:5800–5807. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Berinstein NL, Karkada M, Morse MA, Nemunaitis JJ, Chatta G, Kaufman H, Odunsi K, Nigam R, Sammatur L, MacDonald LD, et al. First-in-man application of a novel therapeutic cancer vaccine formulation with the capacity to induce multi-functional T cell responses in ovarian, breast and prostate cancer patients. J Transl Med. 2012;10:156. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-10-156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Robbins PF, Eggensperger D, Qi CF, Schlom J. Definition of the expression of the human carcinoembryonic antigen and non-specific cross-reacting antigen in human breast and lung carcinomas. Int J Cancer. 1993;53:892–897. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910530604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Madan RA, Arlen PM, Gulley JL. PANVAC-VF: poxviral-based vaccine therapy targeting CEA and MUC1 in carcinoma. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2007;7:543–554. doi: 10.1517/14712598.7.4.543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Kwa M, Li X, Novik Y, Oratz R, Jhaveri K, Wu J, Gu P, Meyers M, Muggia F, Speyer J, et al. Serial immunological parameters in a phase II trial of exemestane and low-dose oral cyclophosphamide in advanced hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;168:57–67. doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4570-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Rios-Doria J, Durham N, Wetzel L, Rothstein R, Chesebrough J, Holoweckyj N, Zhao W, Leow CC, Hollingsworth R. Doxil synergizes with cancer immunotherapies to enhance antitumor responses in syngeneic mouse models. Neoplasia. 2015;17:661–670. doi: 10.1016/j.neo.2015.08.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Nejadmoghaddam MR, Minai-Tehrani A, Ghahremanzadeh R, Mahmoudi M, Dinarvand R, Zarnani AH. Antibody-Drug Conjugates: Possibilities and Challenges. Avicenna J Med Biotechnol. 2019;11:3–23. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Vonderheide RH, Domchek SM, Clark AS. Immunotherapy for breast cancer: What are we missing? Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:2640–2646. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Zhang X, Kim S, Hundal J, Herndon JM, Li S, Petti AA, Soysal SD, Li L, McLellan MD, Hoog J, et al. Breast cancer neoantigens can induce CD8(+) T-Cell responses and antitumor immunity. Cancer Immunol Res. 2017;5:516–523. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Ayoub NM, Al-Shami KM, Yaghan RJ. Immunotherapy for HER2-positive breast cancer: recent advances and combination therapeutic approaches. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 2019;11:53–69. doi: 10.2147/BCTT.S175360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Olopade OI, Grushko TA, Nanda R, Huo D. Advances in breast cancer: Pathways to personalized medicine. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:7988–7999. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Uma K, Jan FS. HER2 in breast cancer: A review and update. Adv Anat Pathol. 2014;21:100–107. doi: 10.1097/PAP.0000000000000015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Mostafa AA, Codner D, Hirasawa K, Komatsu Y, Young MN, Steimle V, Drover S. Activation of ERα signaling differentially modulates IFN-ү induced HLA-class II expression in breast cancer cells. PLoS One. 2014;9:e87377. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Rothenberger NJ, Somasundaram A, Stabile LP. The role of the estrogen pathway in the tumor microenvironment. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:611. doi: 10.3390/ijms19020611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Makhoul I, Atiq M, Alwbari A, Kieber-Emmons T. Breast cancer immunotherapy: An update. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 2018;12:1178223418774802. doi: 10.1177/1178223418774802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Johnston SR, Martin LA, Leary A, Head J, Dowsett M. Clinical strategies for rationale combinations of aromatase inhibitors with novel therapies for breast cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007;106:180–186. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2007.05.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Liu X, Li C, Mou C, Dong Y, Tu Y. dbNSFP v4: A comprehensive database of transcript-specific functional predictions and annotations for human nonsynonymous and splice-site SNVs. Genome Med. 2020;12:103. doi: 10.1186/s13073-020-00803-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Steinhaus R, Proft S, Schuelke M, Cooper DN, Schwarz JM, Seelow D. MutationTaster2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(W1):W446–W451. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Shahrouzi P, Forouz F, Mathelier A, Kristensen VN, Duijf PHG. Copy number alterations: A catastrophic orchestration of the breast cancer genome. Trends Mol Med. 2024;30:750–764. doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2024.04.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Annunziato S, de Ruiter JR, Henneman L, Brambillasca CS, Lutz C, Vaillant F, Ferrante F, Drenth AP, van der Burg E, Siteur B, et al. Comparative oncogenomics identifies combinations of driver genes and drug targets in BRCA1-mutated breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2019;10:397. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08301-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Kaysudu I, Gungul TB, Atici S, Yilmaz S, Bayram E, Guven G, Cizmecioglu NT, Sahin O, Yesiloz G, Haznedaroglu BZ, Cizmecioglu O. Cholesterol biogenesis is a PTEN-dependent actionable node for the treatment of endocrine therapy-refractory cancers. Cancer Sci. 2023;114:4365–4375. doi: 10.1111/cas.15960. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Lu Y, Dong K, Yang M, Liu J. Network pharmacology-based strategy to investigate the bioactive ingredients and molecular mechanism of Evodia rutaecarpa in colorectal cancer. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2023;23:433. doi: 10.1186/s12906-023-04254-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Pranav P, Palaniyandi T, Baskar G, Ravi M, Rajendran BK, Sivaji A, Ranganathan M. Gene expressions and their significance in organoid cultures obtained from breast cancer patient-derived biopsies. Acta Histochem. 2022;124:151910. doi: 10.1016/j.acthis.2022.151910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Du XW, Li G, Liu J, Zhang CY, Liu Q, Wang H, Chen TS. Comprehensive analysis of the cancer driver genes in breast cancer demonstrates their roles in cancer prognosis and tumor microenvironment. World J Surg Oncol. 2021;19:273. doi: 10.1186/s12957-021-02387-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Liu X, Jin G, Qian J, Yang H, Tang H, Meng X, Li Y. Digital gene expression profiling analysis and its application in the identification of genes associated with improved response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2018;16:82. doi: 10.1186/s12957-018-1380-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Martin V, Cappuzzo F, Mazzucchelli L, Frattini M. HER2 in solid tumors: More than 10 years under the microscope; where are we now? Future Oncol. 2014;10:1469–1486. doi: 10.2217/fon.14.19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, Fuchs H, Paton V, Bajamonde A, Fleming T, Eiermann W, Wolter J, Pegram M, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:783–792. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200103153441101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary_Data.pdf (243.1KB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


Articles from International Journal of Molecular Medicine are provided here courtesy of Spandidos Publications

RESOURCES