Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Sep 4;15(9):e0238262. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238262

Association between tumor mutation profile and clinical outcomes among Hispanic Latina women with triple-negative breast cancer

Alexander Philipovskiy 1,*, Alok K Dwivedi 2, Roberto Gamez 3, Richard McCallum 4, Debabrata Mukherjee 5, Zeina Nahleh 6, Renato J Aguilera 7, Sumit Gaur 1
Editor: Nandini Dey8
PMCID: PMC7473586  PMID: 32886682

Abstract

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents 15%–20% of all breast cancer types. It is more common among African American (AA) and Hispanic-Latina (HL) women. The biology of TNBC in HL women has been poorly characterized, but some data suggest that the molecular drivers of breast cancer might differ. There are no clinical tools to aid medical oncologists with decisions regarding appropriate individualized therapy, and no way to predict long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to characterize individual patient gene mutation profiles and to identify the relationship with clinical outcomes. We collected formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumors (FFPE) from women with TNBC. We analyzed the gene mutation profiles of the collected tumors and compared the results with individual patient’s clinical histories and outcomes. Of 25 patients with TNBC, 24 (96%) identified as HL. Twenty-one (84%) had stage III–IV disease. The most commonly mutated genes were TP53, NOTCH1, NOTCH2, NOTCH3, AKT, MEP3K, PIK3CA, and EGFR. Compared with other international cancer databases, our study demonstrated statistically significant higher frequencies of these genes among HL women. Additionally, a worse clinical course was observed among patients whose tumors had mutations in NOTCH genes and PIK3CA. This study is the first to identify the most common genetic alterations among HL women with TNBC. Our data strongly support the notion that molecular drivers of breast cancer could differ in HL women compared with other ethnic backgrounds. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the biological mechanisms behind NOTCH gene and PIK3CA mutations may lead to a new treatment approach.

Introduction

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by a lack of steroid hormone receptor expression, such as estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR), and also by the absence or low expression of the tyrosine kinase receptor HER2. It represents approximately 15%–20% of all newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in the United States [1]. Typically, TNBC has an aggressive natural course characterized by the rapid development of chemotherapy resistance, higher recurrence rates, and poor outcomes. Because of the lack of targetable receptors, chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with TNBC.

In the past decades, significant progress had been achieved in understanding the biology of TNBC [2, 3]. TNBC is a heterogenic disease that can be additionally subdivided into at least four distinct subtypes based on tumor gene expression profiles. These subtypes are characterized by different clinical courses and resistance to chemotherapy [25]. The basal-like subtype 1 (BL-1) is usually characterized by a better progression-free survival (PFS) rate compared with the other subtypes. Pathological features of BL-1 tumors include high tumor grade and high Ki-67 proliferation index (>85%). Importantly, the BL-1 subtype is highly sensitive to chemotherapy, with a response rate approaching 60%. In contrast, the BL-2 subtype is clinically characterized by the worst PFS and early metastasis. BL-2 has the same pathological features as BL-1 but is resistant to conventional chemotherapy. Two other subtypes, mesenchymal subtype (M) and luminal androgen receptor subtype (LAR), are characterized by a relatively low Ki-67 index (<50%) and an indolent clinical course with very modest sensitivity to chemotherapy, and a response rate of 10%–20% [4]. Several studies have evaluated the role of numerous genetic alterations as prognostic markers for outcomes (BRCA1/BRCA2 and PIK3CA/AKT/MTOR) and/or predictive markers for chemotherapy resistance (TP53/PIK3CA/AKT/MTOR, and AR) [6, 7]. Molecular profiling is a very promising tool to predict individual tumor response to chemotherapy. However, such an approach has not yet been validated in prospective clinical trials.

To date, there is no reliable tool to predict individual tumor response or resistance to chemotherapy and/or patients’ outcomes other than direct response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an accepted surrogate marker for favorable outcomes in patients with early-stage disease [8]. More recently, a tumor genetic profiling tool was described as a possible approach to predict the pCR to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (BA100) [9]. A robust predictive tool that can provide physicians with important information about tumor aggressiveness and enable individualization of treatment approaches would be highly desirable, especially for metastatic TNBC (mTNBC). It would be ideal, for instance, to identify which tumors are more chemoresistant and thus potentially require a multi-agent chemotherapy regimen while avoiding overtreatment in patients with less aggressive tumors. Furthermore, identifying unique targets that might be more prevalent in specific subtypes of TNBC or certain patient populations may help in developing novel and more personalized treatment approaches for mTNBC patients.

In this study, we sought to understand the prevalence of potentially targetable mutations in a group of HL women with TNBC. Notable differences in the incidence and mortality of breast cancer have been suggested among various racial and ethnic groups [10]. The age-adjusted incidence of breast cancer per 100,000 is around 128 for non-Hispanic white (NHW) women, 125 for African American (AA) women, and 92 for (HL) women [1, 11]. Importantly, multiple studies suggest that the prevalence of TNBC among HL women is slightly higher compared with NHW, approaching 23.1% [1215]. Additionally, the onset of the disease occurs in women approximately 11 years younger than the average age reported for NHW and AA women [1, 11], while the overall breast cancer incidence among AA and HL populations has continued to grow [1]. It is unclear whether there are underlying biological and genetic drivers of breast cancer that are more prevalent in HL women [16]. Specifically, there is a gap in our knowledge regarding the genetic mutation profiles of different racial/ethnic subgroups because few studies have addressed genetic diversity among HL women, especially those with mTNBC.

This study aimed to characterize the mutational profile of TNBC tumors in a HL population and its association with treatment response, and to identify whether there are recurrent mutations that could contribute to future therapeutic targeted studies.

Materials and methods

Patient population

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso (TTUHSC EP) Institutional Review Board before the commencement of the study. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, written informed consent was not required. All data/tissue samples were fully anonymized. In this study we retrospectively reviewed the clinical databases of the Texas Tech Breast Care Center and the University Medical Center in El Paso, Texas, from January 2012 to December 2019 to identify all patients with a diagnosis of stage II–IV TNBC who received treatment at our institution. Only newly registered cases were extracted from the databases. Any patients with incomplete data on outcomes such as overall survival (OS) or progression free survival (PFS) were excluded from the study.

Pathologic assessment

Pathological diagnosis, hormonal status (ER and PR), and HER2 status were determined during the initial evaluation and before chemotherapy. Standard immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was used to determine hormonal receptor status. All tumors with less than 1% stained cells were considered to have a negative hormonal receptor status. HER2 status was evaluated by IHC staining only if it scored 0 or 1+. For specimens that scored 2+, fluorescence in situ hybridization was used for confirmation of HER2 negativity.

Tumor genome sequencing

For this study, we retrospectively collected and analyzed the whole genome sequencing data (Foundation Medicine, FoundationoneCDX Cambridge, MA, USA) of 25 female patients with TNBC who were treated at the Texas Tech Breast Care Center from 2012 to 2019. Briefly, patients’ DNA was extracted from FFPE samples. The assay employed a single DNA extraction method from routine FFPE biopsy or surgical resection specimens, 50–1000 ng of which underwent whole genome shotgun library construction and hybridization-based capture of all coding exons from 309 cancer-related genes, one promoter region, one non-coding (ncRNA), and select intronic regions from 34 commonly rearranged genes, 21 of which also include the coding exons. In total, the assay detected alterations in 324 genes. Using Illumina® HiSeq 4000 (Illumina, Inc. San Diego, CA, USA) platform-hybrid capture, selected libraries were sequenced to high uniform depth (targeting >500× median coverage with >99% of exons at >100× coverage). Sequence data were then processed using a customized analysis pipeline designed to detect all classes of genomic alterations, including base substitutions, indels, copy number alterations (amplifications and homozygous gene deletions), and selected genomic rearrangements (for details go to: https://assets.ctfassets.net/vhribv12lmne/4ZHUEfEiI8iOCk2Q6saGcU/b69f05b7fc06bf73e0aa1a6f2bee982b/F1CDx_TechInfo_10-09.pdf.

Comparing our data with international databases

We compared the frequency of cancer gene mutations discovered in our study with previously published databases TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas), METABRIC (Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium), and COSMIC (Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer), as well as Chinese [17], and Thai studies [18] using z-tests for proportions. The data were downloaded from the cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics (https://www.cbioportal.org/study/summary?id=brca_metabric). TCGA cohort consisted of cancer genome data from primary breast cancer patients in the United States (https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/projects?filters=%7B%22op%22%3A%22and%22%2C%22content%22%3A%5B%7B%22op%22%3A%22in%22%2C%22content%22%3A%7B%22field%22%3A%22projects.primary_site%22%2C%22value%22%3A%5B%22breast%22%5D%7D%7D%2C%7B%22op%22%3A%22in%22%2C%22content%22%3A%7B%22field%22%3A%22projects.program.name%22%2C%22value%22%3A%5B%22TCGA%22%5D%7D%7D%5D%7D). METABRIC cohort data were collected from primary breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom and Canada [19]. The COSMIC database is from the Cancer Genome Project at the Sanger Institute (https://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic/download). Cancer gene mutation data from TCGA database were selected only from breast invasive ductal carcinoma that was classified as PAM50 basal subtype, which is closely related to the triple-negative subtype of breast cancer, while data from METABRIC and COSMIC databases were selected from samples with negative ER, PR, and HER2, similar to this study.

Mutation classification

Different mutations in TP53 were classified to predict the effect on p53 protein function [20] by searching for missense mutations in the DNA-binding domain (DBD) and outside the DBD, as well as non-missense mutations (including splice, frameshift, and nonsense mutations).

Outcome measures and statistical analysis

The primary clinical outcomes included PFS and OS. The PFS was defined from the date of treatment to the date of recurrence or last follow-up whereas the OS was defined from the date of treatment to the date of mortality or last follow up. Continuous variables were characterized using mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum, and maximum values, while categorical variables were summarized using frequency and percentages. The expression of each gene was categorized as present (1) or not present (0). The number of chemotherapy cycles was counted as well as the number of genes that were expressed per patient. The associations between gene groups and baseline characteristics were assessed using Fisher’s exact test or unpaired t-test depending on the type of variable. The associations between gene groups and age at diagnosis and advanced stage were assessed using Fisher’s exact test. A variable cluster analysis for categorical variables was performed to identify the clustering among the gene groups and related cluster scores. The optimum number of clusters was determined using the aggregation plot and mean adjusted Rand criteria, which indicated that the three clusters retained maximum variability in the data based on the genes. Unadjusted Cox regression analyses were conducted to determine the effect of each gene on the risk of mortality and recurrence. The results of Cox analyses were summarized with a hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and P-value. P-values less than 5% were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA 15.1 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

We collected formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumors from 25 patients treated at our institution from 2012 to 2019. All patients had a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of stages II–IV TNBC and were treated at our institution and met the eligibility criteria. All tumor biopsies were performed before the treatment. Patients’ demographic and clinical tumor characteristics are shown in Table 1. The majority of patients were postmenopausal at diagnosis, with an average age of 55.2 years. Twenty-four patients were HL (n = 24), and one patient was NHW. The majority of patients had stage 4 disease (84%) at the time of diagnosis. All selected patients received at least one line of chemotherapy, and seven (28%) received >2 lines of chemotherapy. Thirteen patients had a tumor proportion score (TPS) of more than 1%, and six patients received combined immunotherapy with chemotherapy (atezolizumab 840 mg D1, 15 Q21 days and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 day 1, 8, and 15 Q 21 days cycle) at some point during their treatment. The most commonly mutated genes among HL women with TNBC were TP53, NOTCH genes, AKT, MAP3K1, EGFR, PIK3CA, and PTEN (Table 2).

Table 1. Summary of demographic and clinicopathological characteristics of patients.

Characteristics N (%)
Average age at diagnosis average 56
Ethnicity/race
Hispanic Latino 24 (94)
African American 0
Non-Hispanic white 1 (6)
Other 0
Histology
Invasive ductal carcinoma 25 (100)
Mixed/other 0
Clinical stage
IIIc/IV 4 (16)
IV 21(84)
Chemotherapy lines
2 13 (52)
3+ 7 (28)

Table 2. Proportions of the 10 most commonly mutated genes in Hispanic Latino women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer at TTUHSC El Paso compared with other databases.

TTUHSC TCGA COSMIC METABRIC (Chinese study) (Thai study)
Mutated (n = 25) (n = 93) (n = 407) (n = 159) (n = 465) (n = 116)
Gene % (P-value) % (P-value) % (P-value) % (P-value) % (P-value) % (P-value)
TP53 100 82.8 (0.025) 51 (<0.0001) 81.8 (0.02) 74 (0.003) 75.9 (0.006)
NOTCH 44 --- 2 (<0.0001) 6.3 (<0.0001) --- ---
AKT 28 --- 1 (<0.0001) 2.5 (<0.0001) --- ---
MAP3K1 28 --- n/r 2.5 (<0.0001) --- ---
PIK3CA 20 8.6 (0.106) 10 (0.114) 13.8 (0.415) 18 (0.8) 23.3 (0.721)
EGFR 20 --- 2 (<0.0001) 1.9 (<0.0001) --- ---
PTEN 16 1.08 (0.001) 4 (0.006) 6.3 (0.089) 6 (0.048) 11.2 (0.504)

Data comparison with other breast cancer databases

To demonstrate the diversity of tumor gene expression profiles, we further compared our data with more extensive international cancer databases such as METABRIC, COSMIC, and TCGA (with predominant NHW, and a small portion of AA women), and studies from China and Thailand (Asian population). Compared with the same tumor gene mutation frequencies from TCGA, COSMIC, METABRIC, and Chinese and Thai cohorts, HL patients with mTNBC had significantly higher mutation frequencies in TP53, NOTCH genes, AKT, MAP3K1, and EGFR (Table 2).

Driver gene analysis

We examined the most frequently mutated genes to identify potential genes of interest. We first examined for genes mutated in multiple samples and found that 10 genes were mutated in at least 16% of the samples. TP53 was the most frequently mutated gene, with variants found in 25 samples. The majority of the mutations were missense (single base substitution) at 76%, followed by frameshift mutations at 20%, and complete loss of TP53 at 4%. The majority of TP53 mutations (72%) were distributed in the DBD area in clusters within exons 5–8. One mutation was detected in exon 4. The rest of the mutations were distributed in exons 9–10 (Fig 1). Because TP53 mutations were detected in all patients in our study, it was impossible to identify correlations with the outcomes. The previous data suggest that the prognostic effect of TP53 was only limited to ER-positive breast cancer, particularly to worse outcomes in luminal B breast cancer [21]. In our study, however, we identified at least a trend for better outcomes for patients with TP53 mutations in the tetrameric domain (exons 8–10). We also identified two most frequently mutated hotspots in TP53, at Y220C and I195T. Interestingly, the mutation in Y220C was described previously in patients with breast cancer and was associated with relatively favorable outcomes [22].

Fig 1. Mutational spectrum of TP53 in mTNBC.

Fig 1

The figure showed protein domains and the positions of specific mutations. A green dot indicated a missense mutation; and a blue dot indicated frameshift mutation.

The second most common mutation observed in our study was in NOTCH genes, which encode transmembrane receptors that are highly conserved from invertebrates to mammals. In our study, we detected NOTCH gene mutations in 44% of analyzed tissue samples. Among all patients with mutated NOTCH genes, the most common alteration was in NOTCH3 in 66.6% of patients, while the other types, NOTCH1 and NOTCH2, were altered in 25% and 8.4%, respectively. Most alterations in NOTCH1, NOTCH2, and NOTCH3 were located in the intracellular domain (58%), while one alteration was an amplification of NOTCH2, and the remaining mutations were located in the extracellular domain (Fig 2). All mutations in NOTCH genes were VUS except in three patients with rearrangements in exon 25, and in introns 24 and 18–26. At present, no data have described the role of any particular mutation in cancer progression. However, multiple studies showed that the most commonly mutated region in many types of cancer is the intracellular domain [2325]. Interestingly, in the same studies, the authors demonstrated that the most common mutation in the intracellular domain was an activating mutation. However, the majority of mutations in the extracellular domain in NOTCH have been associated with a wide range of congenital disorders, such as bicuspid aortic valve, Alagille syndrome (a multisystemic disorder with cardiac, liver, ocular, and skeletal abnormalities), and cerebral arteriopathy [26].

Fig 2. Mutational spectrum of Notch mTNBC.

Fig 2

The figure showed protein domains and the positions of specific mutations. A green dot indicated a missense mutation; and a blue dot indicated frameshift mutation.

The next most frequently mutated genes in the HL population were MAP3K1 (28%), AKT1/AKT2 (28%), EGFR, and PIK3CA (20%). Interestingly the frequency of mutations in AKT, MAP3K, and EGFR was significantly higher in the HL population compared with the patient populations reported in other databases. However, the mutations in PIK3CA and PTEN were in the same range (Table 2).

Cluster analysis of specific variables

In our study, we demonstrated that mutations in TP53 were present in all analyzed tissue samples—that is, 25 of the 25 samples (100%) containing a mutation. We did not identify any association between TP53 and clinical outcomes or resistance to chemotherapy. The next most common mutation was in the NOTCH pathway, in 12 out of 25 samples. To understand the possible role of the most commonly mutated genes, such as NOTCH genes, AKT, MAP3K1, EGFR, PIK3CA, and PTEN and their association with outcomes and chemotherapy resistance, we performed a cluster analysis of specific variables (Table 3). The aggregation plot and Rand criteria indicated that three clusters retained maximum variability in the data based on genes. Our data revealed three clusters of genes: Cluster 1 included only NOTCH genes, Cluster 2 included three genes (PTEN, AKT, and NF1), and Cluster 3 included three genes (EGFR, PIK3CA, and MAP3K1). The most representative gene for Cluster 2 was identified as PTEN, and MAP3K1 in Cluster 3 (Table 3).

Table 3. Identification of cluster-specific variables.

Cluster Cluster size Mutated genes Factor loading Unique variances
1 1 NOTCH 1.00 1.00
2 2 PTEN 0.097 0.991
AKT −0.425 0.819
3 3 EGFR 0.845 0.285
PIK3CA 0.866 0.248
MAP3K1 0.059 0.996

Factor loading: Presents the weight associated with each gene mutation within a cluster and is used for determining cluster score. Unique variance: A low value of unique variance associated with a gene mutation indicates a better predictive performance of that gene within a cluster. Cluster size: Provides the number of gene mutations within a cluster.

Associations between genes and cluster of genes with PFS and OS

Patients with an increased number of gene mutations among 10 considered genes were associated with an increased risk of death (HR = 1.17, P = 0.017) and PFS (HR = 1.08, P = 0.09). Among identified clusters of gene mutations, Cluster 1 (NOTCH) showed significantly worse PFS among patients (HR 8.23, P = 0.002). Although not statistically significant, the presence of NOTCH gene mutations also increased the risk of death (HR = 3.89, P = 0.11). Cluster 3 (MAP3K1, PIK3CA, EGFR) was associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR = 3.80, P = 0.007). Our data demonstrated that the presence of either Cluster 1 (NOTCH) or Cluster 3 (MAP3K1, PIK3CA, EGFR) was strongly associated with OS (P = 0.027) as well as PFS (P = 0.044). Furthermore, patients with more mutated genes (NOTCH genes, EGFR, PIK3CA, MAP3K1) had a significantly higher risk of mortality (HR = 5.38, P = 0.004) as well as PFS (HR = 1.70, P = 0.039). Among individual genes, NOTCH genes (HR = 3.89, P = 0.11), PIK3CA (HR = 10.52, P = 0.003), MAP3K1 (HR = 2.77, P = 0.19), and EGFR (HR = 3.61, P = 0.10) tended to be associated with an increased risk of mortality (Table 4).

Table 4. Univariate Cox regression of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

OS PFS
Variable HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value
Age at diagnosis 0.94 (0.89, 1.00) 0.06 0.96 (0.92, 1.01) 0.144
Number of all genes 1.17(1.03, 1.34) 0.017 1.08 (0.98, 1.18) 0.092
Presence of any genes (NOTCH, EGFR, PIK3CA, MAP3K1) 50% vs. 100% 0.027 3.91 (1.04, 14.75) 0.044
Number of genes(NOTCH, EGFR, PIK3CA, MAP3K1) 5.38(1.72, 16.83) 0.004 1.70 (1.03, 2.82) 0.039
Factor 1 (NOTCH) 3.89 (0.75, 20.23) 0.106 8.23 (2.11, 32.02) 0.002
Factor 2 (PTEN, AKT2, NF1) 0.59 (0.04, 7.76) 0.688 1.11 (0.16, 7.87) 0.0914
Factor 3 (EGFR, PIK3CA, MAP3K1) 3.80 (1.44, 10.05) 0.007 1.35(0.61, 3.02) 0.458
PIK3CA 10.52 (2.23, 49.51) 0.003 2.00 (0.61, 6.59) 0.254
MAP3K1 2.77 (0.60, 12.74) 0.19 1.18 (0.32, 4.44) 0.797
EGFR 3.61 (0.79, 16.3) 0.096 1.11 (0.31, 4.06) 0.869
AKT 1.03 (0.19, 5.34) 0.971 1.76 (0.56, 5.58) 0.336
PTEN 0.79 (0.09, 6.6) 0.829 1.92 (0.5, 7.31) 0.338

Discussion

In this study, we analyzed the individual tumor gene mutation profiles and their associations with clinical outcomes (PFS, OS) of HL women with TNBC. We identified a statistically significant frequency of mutations in some oncogenes. Notably, the most frequent mutation was in the TP53 gene (100%). Besides TP53 alterations, HL women in this study had tumors with significantly higher mutation rates in NOTCH, AKT, EGFR, and MAP3K compared with historical data from NHW, AA, and Asian women (Table 2). Our findings suggest that breast cancer driver mutations could be exceptionally different among different racial or ethnic groups, which could potentially explain some of the differences seen in the clinical outcomes between HL and other groups including NHW.

TNBC represents a heterogeneous subtype of breast cancer with adverse clinical outcomes and inconsistent responses to current therapy, particularly in advanced-stage disease [3, 4, 8]. Data from previous studies revealed that the spectrum of mutation profiles is diverse between each patient and also differs amongst racial and ethnic groups [10, 17, 18, 27, 28]. Although there are multiple explanations for the diverse genomic landscape of TNBC patients, ethnicity could have a significant role in this discrepancy. In this study, we identified mutations in TP53 in all analyzed tissue samples.

TP53 is widely considered to be a guardian of the genome because of its critical function in maintaining genome integrity, regulating the cell cycle, and initiating apoptosis. Multiple studies reported the frequency of TP53 mutation in human breast cancer ranged from 50% to 82% [1721].

This study represents a step forward in the field because the mutational profile of breast cancer in HL women has not been extensively analyzed to date, and limited data exist to enable a comparison with our results. Nevertheless, we identified two smaller studies (n = 19) from Northeast Mexico and another study from the National Cancer Institute of Mexico in Mexico City (n = 12) that analyzed data from a similar population of patients [29]. Importantly, the Northeast Mexico study reported the same frequency of TP53 mutations (at 100%), supporting our findings [29]. The second study from the National Cancer Institute of Mexico showed the frequency of TP53 mutations to be only 54% [30]. This difference might be explained by the inclusion of only patients with early-stage TNBC in the study from the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, unlike our study and the Northeast Mexico study. TP53 is one of the most commonly mutated genes in multiple types of human cancer [21]. However, the frequency of TP53 mutations significantly varies among different cancer types. For instance, TCGA database reported the highest frequency of TP53 mutations in uterine cancer (90%), followed by 83% of mutations in NSCLC, ovarian, and esophageal cancer, 80% in colorectal cancer, and 72% in HNSCC.

In contrast, mutations are infrequent in thyroid cancer, occurring in only 2% of cases, followed by renal cell carcinoma and germ-cell tumors in approximately 1%, and 0.6%, respectively. While numerous published data demonstrated poor clinical outcomes for patients with mutated TP53, the exact role of TP53 mutations in oncogenesis remains controversial [21]. Multiple theories describe the probable role of mutated p53 in oncogenesis. For instance, mutated p53 protein might serve as a negative inhibitor compared with wild-type p53 and therefore allow the proliferation of tumor cells [21]. Another theory suggests that mutated p53 gains a novel function, a “tumor transforming function,” which gives tumor cells an advantage in uncontrolled proliferation [31]. This is based on the fact that the most common type of TP53 alternation is a so-called missense mutation (62%). In the results, one amino acid (from the native protein) was replaced by a different amino acid (mutated protein). This can lead to the formation of abnormal p53 protein that can be functional and stably expressed in the tumor cells and might have a role in oncogenesis.

Over the past few decades, multiple compounds have been tested in clinical trials that target TP53 by reactivating the mutated p53 protein and converting it to a conformation with wild-type properties, but at present, this approach remains experimental and no approved treatment option is available to address TP53 mutation or loss [32]. Some promising compounds, especially AZD1775, APR-246, and COTI-2, have been found to exhibit anticancer activity in preclinical models of breast cancer [3335].

In summary, TP53 was found as the predominant mutation in HL women with mTNBC in this study, with missense mutations occurring in the DNA-binding domain. On the basis of our data and the currently available literature, including the Northeast Mexico study, we propose to further evaluate mutations in TP53 as a likely driver mutation in HL women with TNBC. Additionally, because TP53 mutations were detected in all patients in our study, and because of the small sample size, which was a limitation in our study, it was not feasible to identify correlations with the outcomes and chemotherapy resistance. However, TP53 alterations are likely to have an important role in oncogenesis, and, along with the other mutations, might contribute to aggressive tumor behavior.

The second most common genetic alteration we noted in our HL patient population was mutations in the NOTCH pathway (44%). The NOTCH pathway regulates cell-fate decisions during embryogenesis [35]. NOTCH protein serves as a receptor for membrane-bound ligands Jagged 1, Jagged 2, and Delta 1. NOTCH receptors act in response to the ligands expressed by adjacent cells to regulate cell-fate specification, differentiation, proliferation, and survival [36, 37]. Multiple studies in the past have demonstrated upregulated expression of NOTCH receptors and their ligands in various human malignancies, such as colon, head and neck, lung, and breast cancer [23, 38, 39]. It was demonstrated in vitro that mutated NOTCH promotes the epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) of MCF-10 cells and also protects transformed cells from p53-mediated apoptosis [40].

Furthermore, activated NOTCH pathway has an essential role in breast cancer cell migration and invasion [41]. A possible mechanism is NOTCH-mediated EMT. EMT occurs during tumor progression when cells from a primary epithelial tumor change phenotype, becoming mesenchymal, and disseminate as single metastatic cells to invade other organs. EMT may also be involved in the dedifferentiation program that leads to malignant carcinoma. Activation of endogenous NOTCH receptors in human endothelial cells was associated with EMT in endothelial cells, and upregulation of NOTCH in the MCF7 cell line promoted migratory transformation.

A meta-analysis of 3867 breast cancer patients demonstrated significantly worse OS and PFS in patients with upregulated NOTCH1. Among those patients, the most common subtype of breast cancer was the basal subtype [42]. In our study, we demonstrated significantly worse PFS among women with a mutated NOTCH pathway (HR 8.23; P = 0.002; Table 4). Importantly, mutations in NOTCH pathways were not described in HL women with TNBC in the current literature, and it was also quite a rare breast cancer mutation in the METABRIC, COSMIC, and TCGA databases (Table 2). Additional data about the role of a mutated NOTCH pathway in TNBC was reported in European and Chinese studies. For instance, Wang et al. described the prevalence of NOTCH4 pathway activation among Chinese women with TNBC. The authors demonstrated that the NOTCH4 pathway was upregulated in 55.6% of Chinese women with TNBC and was associated with a higher rate of recurrence [43]. Another study from Italy demonstrated that a higher level of NOTCH1 expression is characteristic of a subclass of TNBC with poor outcomes. Patients with tumors expressing high levels of NOTCH1 had worse OS compared with patients with low levels of expression (5-year survival rate was 49% versus 64%) [39]. Our data and data from other studies demonstrated that the alteration of the NOTCH signaling pathway in TNBC is a critical event in tumorigenesis, and it is another possible driver mutation for this type of tumor [39, 40].

At present, there is limited data describing the role of any particular NOTCH mutation in cancer progression. Some data suggest that the majority of mutations in NOTCH are located in the intracellular domain. In one study, the majority of the intracellular mutations were activating mutations [44]. However, the majority of mutations in the extracellular domain of NOTCH have been associated with a wide range of congenital disorders [26].

Selective targeting of the mutated NOTCH pathway is a very attractive and promising treatment modality for such patients. NOTCH inhibitors and gamma-secretase inhibitors (GSIs) may be potential therapeutic approaches in the case of NOTCH-activating mutations [24, 39]. In theory, GSIs prevent proteolytic cleavage by inhibiting GSI activity and inhibiting the interaction of Jagged1 and NOTCH, thereby preventing endothelial activation [39]. NOTCH crosstalk between tumor cells, stromal cells, and endothelial cells regulates the interaction of NOTCH ligands on tumor cells with receptors on endothelial cells. Promising data were obtained in phase I/II clinical trials [4548]. However, because of the high level of severe gastrointestinal toxicity from GSI treatment, multiple clinical trials have been postponed or terminated.

Another common mutation detected in our study was in the MAP3K1 pathway. MAP3K1 is a serine/threonine-protein kinase that acts as an essential upstream activator of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling in response to stress. It was previously reported that an inactivating mutation in MAP3K1, together with one of its downstream substrates encoded by MAP2K4, was more prevalent in the luminal A subtype of breast cancer [49]. Moreover, it was previously demonstrated that MAP3K1 plays a role in cell migration and survival [50]. Interestingly, mutations in MAP3K1/MAP2K4 are more prevalent in breast, prostate, and stomach cancer, and less common in other types of cancers [51]. There are no targeted therapies available to address genomic alterations in MAP3K1 to date, but this area could be the basis for future research.

In our study, the frequency of PIK3CA and PTEN mutations was 20%, which is similar to other published breast cancer studies. The frequency of AKT1/AKT2 mutations was 28%, which is significantly higher compared with other databases. Interestingly, some research suggests that PIK3CA and AKT1 are mutually exclusive, but both can co-exist with PTEN mutations [52]. Mutations in PTEN were reported in multiple human malignancies in the past. Inactivation of PTEN leads to uncontrolled activation of the PIK3 pathway and cell proliferation. The most common mechanisms of PTEN inactivation are somatic mutations and monoallelic or biallelic deletion of the PTEN gene. However, some other mechanisms have been suggested, such as epigenetic silencing through promoter methylation, accelerated protein degradation, and post-translational modification [53, 54]. Interestingly, loss of PTEN heterozygosity was reported in 40%–50% of breast tumors, but functional inactivation of PTEN was reported in only 5%–10% of BC cases. The most common reported mechanism of PTEN inactivation is frameshift mutation [54]. As for other solid tumors, epigenetic mechanisms of PTEN modulation have also been reported for breast cancer [55].

Importantly, our study demonstrated significantly worse OS among patients with PIK3CA mutations (Table 4). However, we did not identify any major PIK3CA hotspot mutations among our patient population. PIK3CA/AKT/PTEN pathway mutations are usually enriched in hormonal receptor-positive tumors at 29%–45%, with slightly lower frequency in TNBC (TCGA).

The exact mechanism of the interaction between the PIK3K/APT/PTEN and NOTCH pathways is not well understood. Some recent data suggest that one mechanism may be connected with the downregulation of PTEN by activated NOTCH [56]. In some malignancies such as acute T-cell lymphoblastic leukemia, activation of the PI3K/AKT pathway downstream of NOTCH1 signaling promotes cell proliferation at multiple levels and has an important role in T-cell transformation [56, 57]. Analysis of the transcriptional responses of GSI-sensitive PTEN wild-type glioblastoma cells to NOTCH inhibition showed significant upregulation of PTEN expression. The authors demonstrated one possible mechanism of PTEN downregulation in vitro, which was mediated by HES1-a transcriptional repressor directly controlled by NOTCH [57].

Mutations in PIK3CA/AKT/PTEN were evaluated as a potential target for appropriate inhibitors. For instance, in a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial, LOTUS, the combination of weekly paclitaxel with ipatasertib (AKT inhibitor) significantly improved PFS from 4.9 to 6.2 months in patients with mTNBC [58]. In a PAKT randomized- placebo-controlled clinical trial, another AKT inhibitor, capivasertib, was tested in combination with paclitaxel as first-line therapy in patients with mTNBC and demonstrated significantly better PFS and OS for patients with an altered PIK3CA/AKT/PTEN pathway [59].

Recently, the FDA granted approved for alpelisib, a new PI3K inhibitor, in combination with fulvestrant for patients with metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer based on the positive results of the SOLAR-1 trial. The study demonstrated significant activity of alpelisib in PIK3CA-mutant HR+/HER2− breast cancer compared with the placebo. The combination of fulvestrant with alpelisib improved PFS compared with fulvestrant with placebo (11 vs. 5.7 months, HR = 0.65) and ORR (26.6 vs. 12.8%) [60]. The BELLE-2 trial of endocrine-resistant HR+ breast cancer evaluated the combination of the pan-PI3K inhibitor buparlisib with fulvestrant. It demonstrated significantly increased PFS (7.0 vs. 3.2 months) and ORR (18% vs. 4%) with fulvestrant compared with placebo in patients with PIK3CA mutations [61]. Unfortunately, an attempt to adopt the same principle for the treatment of mTNBC was quite discouraging [62]. Although preclinical data suggest the efficacy of all PI3K/AKT/PTEN inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapy, current clinical evidence indicates that only AKT targeting in TNBC has the most efficiency in pathway-aberrant tumors. Of course, it will be essential to evaluate AKT inhibitors in future phase III trials as well as the combination of PI3K/AKT/PTEN inhibitors with immunotherapy.

In summary, in this study, we identified prevalent TNBC tumor mutations in HL patients, which could contribute useful information to the genomic landscape of breast cancer and provide more evidence to support the role of TP53, NOTCH, MAP3K, AKT, and PIK3CA in breast carcinogenesis.

This study had three significant limitations. First, we only enrolled patients from the area of El Paso in Texas, USA, Las Cruz in New Mexico, USA, and Juarez, Mexico. Thus, the data may not represent the entire HL population with mTNBC. Second, the small sample size and short follow-up period might compromise the observed, clinically meaningful association between genomic alterations and clinical outcomes and thus an investigation with a larger sample size is warranted in the future. Third, genomic sequencing was performed only on tumor DNA extracted from FFPE samples. It has been recognized that the quality of DNA from FFPE is lower than that of fresh samples and potentially causes variant call discrepancies. In this study, we focused on the list of cancer-associated genes and applied a variant call only when genomic regions had sufficient sequencing depth. This approach has been shown to minimize erroneous variant calls, improve precision, and enable acceptable correlations with matched normal-tumor pair sequencing. Nevertheless, comparison of our data with previously published studies could be limited by differences in study designs and data analysis methods.

Conclusions

This study represents one of the first studies of HL women with mTNBC focusing on distinctive genomic alterations. Significantly higher mutation frequencies were noted in several cancer-associated genes, notably TP53, NOTCH, AKT, EGFR, MAP3K, and PIK3CA. Importantly the presence of mutations in NOTCH and PIK3CA, individually or in combination, was associated with worse outcomes (OS as well as PFS). These results support the genomic heterogeneity between NHW, AA, Asian, and HL individuals, and, if confirmed in larger trials, could contribute to improvements in the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for these patients.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Sean Connery, Luis Alvarado, Brenda Castillio, and Rosalinda Heydarian for their efforts in the article preparation. We also thank H. Nikki March, PhD, from Edanz Group (https://en-author-services.edanzgroup.com/) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

RJA was supported by a Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) program grant (2U54MD007592) to the Border Biomedical Research Center (BBRC) at UTEP from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, a component of the National Institutes of Health. Funding was also provided by Texas Tech University Medical Sciences Center Department of Internal Medicine Seed Founding program 2018–2019.

References

  • 1.DeSantis CE, Ma J, Gaudet MM, Newman LA, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69: 438–451. 10.3322/caac.21583 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X, Sanders ME, Chakravarthy AB, Shyr Y, et al. Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest. 2011; 121: 2750–2767. 10.1172/JCI45014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lehmann BD, Jovanovic B, Chen X, Estrada MV, Johnson KN, Shyr Y, et al. Refinement of triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtypes: Implications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy selection. PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0157368 10.1371/journal.pone.0157368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Masuda H, Baggerly KA, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Differential response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among 7 triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19: 5533–5540. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0799 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Isakoff SJ. Triple-negative breast cancer: role of specific chemotherapy agents. Cancer J. 2010; 16: 53–61. 10.1097/PPO.0b013e3181d24ff7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shi Y, Jin J, Ji W, Guan X. Therapeutic landscape in mutational triple negative breast cancer. Mol Cancer. 2018; 17: 99 10.1186/s12943-018-0850-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sporikova Z, Koudelakova V, Trojanec R, Hajduch M. Genetic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018; 18: e841–e850. 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.07.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Philipovskiy A, Corral J, Dwivedi KA, Heydarian R, Gaur S. Efficacy of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in Hispanic/Latino (H/L) women with local or locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In Vivo. 2019; 33: 1227–1234. 10.21873/invivo.11594 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fournier MV, Goodwin EC, Chen J, Obenauer JC, Tannenbaum SH, Brufsky AM. A predictor of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy stratifies triple-negative breast cancer patients with high risk of recurrence. Sci Rep. 2019; 9: 14863 10.1038/s41598-019-51335-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Iqbal J, Ginsburg O, Rochon PA, Sun P, Narod SA. Differences in breast cancer stage at diagnosis and cancer-specific survival by race and ethnicity in the United States. JAMA. 2015; 313: 165–173. 10.1001/jama.2014.17322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69: 7–34. 10.3322/caac.21551 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Serrano-Gomez SJ, Fejerman L, Zabaleta J. Breast Cancer in Latinas: A Focus on Intrinsic Subtypes Distribution. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018; 27: 3–10. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0420 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lara-Medina F, Pérez-Sánchez V, Saavedra-Pérez D, Blake-Cerda M, Arce C, Motola-Kuba D, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer in Hispanic patients: high prevalence, poor prognosis, and association with menopausal status, body mass index, and parity. Cancer. 2011; 117: 3658–3669. 10.1002/cncr.25961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Serrano-Gomez SJ, Sanabria-Salas MC, Hernández-Suarez G, García O, Silva C, Romero A, et al. High prevalence of luminal B breast cancer intrinsic subtype in Colombian women. Carcinogenesis. 2016; 37: 669–676. 10.1093/carcin/bgw043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Vallejos CS, Gómez HL, Cruz WR, Pinto JA, Dyer RR, Velarde R, et al. Breast cancer classification according to immunohistochemistry markers: subtypes and association with clinicopathologic variables in a peruvian hospital database. Clin Breast Cancer. 2010; 10: 294–300. 10.3816/CBC.2010.n.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Philipovskiy A, Campbell A, Heydarian R, Castillo B, Dwivedi AK, McCallum R, et al. Adherence to adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy among postmenopausal Hispanic/Latino women with breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 2020; 40: 857–864. 10.21873/anticanres.14018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jiang YZ, Ma D, Suo C, Shi J, Xue M, Hu X, et al. Genomic and transcriptomic landscape of triple-negative breast cancers: Subtypes and treatment strategies. Cancer Cell. 2019; 35: 428–440 e5. 10.1016/j.ccell.2019.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Niyomnaitham S, Parinyanitikul N, Roothumnong E, Jinda W, Samarnthai N, Atikankul T, et al. Tumor mutational profile of triple negative breast cancer patients in Thailand revealed distinctive genetic alteration in chromatin remodeling gene. PeerJ. 2019; 7: e6501 10.7717/peerj.6501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pereira B, Chin SF, Rueda OM, Vollan HK, Provenzano E, Bardwell HA, et al. The somatic mutation profiles of 2,433 breast cancers refines their genomic and transcriptomic landscapes. Nat Commun. 2016; 7: 11479 10.1038/ncomms11479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Olivier M, Langerod A, Carrieri P, Bergh J, Klaar S, Eyfjord J, et al. The clinical value of somatic TP53 gene mutations in 1,794 patients with breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2006; 12: 1157–1167. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wang X, Sun Q. TP53 mutations, expression and interaction networks in human cancers. Oncotarget. 2017; 8: 624–643. 10.18632/oncotarget.13483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Meissner T, Mark A, Williams C, Berdel WE, Wiebe S, Kerkhoff A, et al. Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer patient with TP53 tumor mutation experienced 11 months progression-free survival on bortezomib monotherapy without adverse events after ending standard treatments with grade 3 adverse events. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud. 2017; 3 10.1101/mcs.a001677 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Miele L, Golde T, Osborne B. Notch signaling in cancer. Curr Mol Med. 2006; 6: 905–918. 10.2174/156652406779010830 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mollen EWJ, Ient J, Tjan-Heijnen VCG, Boersma LJ, Miele L, Smidt ML, et al. Moving breast cancer therapy up a Notch. Front Oncol. 2018; 8: 518 10.3389/fonc.2018.00518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wang K, Zhang Q, Li D, Ching K, Zhang C, Zheng X, et al. PEST domain mutations in Notch receptors comprise an oncogenic driver segment in triple-negative breast cancer sensitive to a gamma-secretase inhibitor. Clin Cancer Res. 2015; 21: 1487–1496. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Meester JAN, Verstraeten A, Alaerts M, Schepers D, Van Laer L, Loeys BL. Overlapping but distinct roles for NOTCH receptors in human cardiovascular disease. Clin Genet. 2019; 95: 85–94. 10.1111/cge.13382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Garrido-Castro AC, Lin NU, Polyak K. Insights into molecular classifications of triple-negative breast cancer: Improving patient selection for treatment. Cancer Discov. 2019; 9: 176–198. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1177 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Abramson VG, Lehmann BD, Ballinger TJ, Pietenpol JA. Subtyping of triple-negative breast cancer: implications for therapy. Cancer. 2015; 121: 8–16. 10.1002/cncr.28914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Uscanga-Perales GI, Santuario-Facio SK, Sanchez-Dominguez CN, Cardona-Huerta S, Munoz-Maldonado GE, Ruiz-Flores P, et al. Genetic alterations of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women from Northeastern Mexico. Oncol Lett. 2019; 17: 3581–3588. 10.3892/ol.2019.9984 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Vaca-Paniagua F, Alvarez-Gomez RM, Maldonado-Martinez HA, et al. Revealing the Molecular Portrait of triple-negative breast tumors in an understudied population through omics analysis of formalin-fixed and paraffin—embedded tissue. PLOS one. 2015: May 10.1371/journal.pone.0126762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Stein Y, Rotter V, Aloni-Grinstein R. Gain-of-function mutant p53: All the roads lead to tumorigenesis. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20 10.3390/ijms20246197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kogan S, Carpizo D. Pharmacological targeting of mutant p53. Transl Cancer Res. 2016; 5: 698–706. 10.21037/tcr.2016.11.74 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bykov VJ, Wiman KG. Mutant p53 reactivation by small molecules makes its way to the clinic. FEBS Lett. 2014; 588: 2622–2627. 10.1016/j.febslet.2014.04.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bi S, Wei Q, Zhao Z, Chen L, Wang C, Xie S. Wee1 inhibitor AZD1775 effectively inhibits the malignant phenotypes of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in vitro and in vivo. Front Pharmacol. 2019; 10: 864 10.3389/fphar.2019.00864 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Maleki Vareki S, Salim KY, Danter WR, Koropatnick J. Novel anti-cancer drug COTI-2 synergizes with therapeutic agents and does not induce resistance or exhibit cross-resistance in human cancer cell lines. PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0191766 10.1371/journal.pone.0191766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Simpson P. Developmental genetics. The Notch connection. Nature. 1995; 375: 736–737. 10.1038/375736a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Borggrefe T, Oswald F. The Notch signaling pathway: transcriptional regulation at Notch target genes. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2009; 66: 1631–1646. 10.1007/s00018-009-8668-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ma J, Xia J, Miele L, Sarkar FH, Wang Z. Notch signaling pathway in pancreatic cancer progression. Pancreat Disord Ther. 2013; 3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Miele L. Rational targeting of Notch signaling in breast cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2008; 8: 1197–1202. 10.1586/14737140.8.8.1197 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Stylianou S, Clarke RB, Brennan K. Aberrant activation of notch signaling in human breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2006; 66: 1517–1525. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Guo S, Liu M, Gonzalez-Perez RR. Role of Notch and its oncogenic signaling crosstalk in breast cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2011; 1815: 197–213. 10.1016/j.bbcan.2010.12.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Yuan X, Zhang M, Wu H, Xu H, Han N, Chu Q, et al. Expression of Notch1 correlates with breast cancer progression and prognosis. PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0131689 10.1371/journal.pone.0131689 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wang JW, Wei XL, Dou XW, Huang WH, Du CW, Zhang GJ. The association between Notch4 expression, and clinicopathological characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with breast cancer. Oncol Lett. 2018; 15: 8749–8755. 10.3892/ol.2018.8442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ferrarotto R, Mitani Y, Diao L, Guijarro I, Wang J, Zweidler-McKay P, et al. Activating NOTCH1 mutations define a distinct subgroup of patients with adenoid cystic carcinoma who have poor prognosis, propensity to bone and liver metastasis, and potential responsiveness to Notch1 inhibitors. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35: 352–360. 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.5264 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Knoechel B, Bhatt A, Pan L, Pedamallu CS, Severson E, Gutierrez A, et al. Complete hematologic response of early T-cell progenitor acute lymphoblastic leukemia to the gamma-secretase inhibitor BMS-906024: genetic and epigenetic findings in an outlier case. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud. 2015; 1: a000539 10.1101/mcs.a000539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gavai AV, Quesnelle C, Norris D, Han WC, Gill P, Shan W, et al. Discovery of clinical candidate BMS-906024: A potent pan-Notch inhibitor for the treatment of leukemia and solid tumors. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2015; 6: 523–527. 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.5b00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Locatelli MA, Aftimos P, Dees EC, LoRusso PM, Pegram MD, Awada A, et al. Phase I study of the gamma secretase inhibitor PF-03084014 in combination with docetaxel in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2017; 8: 2320–2328. 10.18632/oncotarget.13727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Schott AF, Landis MD, Dontu G, Griffith KA, Layman RM, Krop I, et al. Preclinical and clinical studies of gamma secretase inhibitors with docetaxel on human breast tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19: 1512–1524. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ellis MJ, Ding L, Shen D, Luo J, Suman VJ, Wallis JW, et al. Whole-genome analysis informs breast cancer response to aromatase inhibition. Nature. 2012; 486: 353–360. 10.1038/nature11143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Zhao M, Howard EW, Parris AB, Guo Z, Zhao Q, Yang X. Alcohol promotes migration and invasion of triple-negative breast cancer cells through activation of p38 MAPK and JNK. Mol Carcinog. 2017; 56: 849–862. 10.1002/mc.22538 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Xue Z, Vis DJ, Bruna A, Sustic T, van Wageningen S, Batra AS, et al. MAP3K1 and MAP2K4 mutations are associated with sensitivity to MEK inhibitors in multiple cancer models. Cell Res. 2018; 28: 719–729. 10.1038/s41422-018-0044-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Pascual J, Turner NC. Targeting the PI3-kinase pathway in triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2019; 30: 1051–1060. 10.1093/annonc/mdz133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Leslie NR, Spinelli L, Tibarewal P, Zilidis G, Weerasinghe N, Lim JC, et al. Indirect mechanisms of carcinogenesis via downregulation of PTEN function. Adv Enzyme Regul. 2010; 50: 112–118. 10.1016/j.advenzreg.2009.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Coughlin CM, Johnston DS, Strahs A, Burczynski ME, Bacus S, Hill J, et al. Approaches and limitations of phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase pathway activation status as a predictive biomarker in the clinical development of targeted therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010; 124: 1–11. 10.1007/s10549-010-1108-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Li J, Yen C, Liaw D, Podsypanina K, Bose S, Wang SI, et al. PTEN, a putative protein tyrosine phosphatase gene mutated in human brain, breast, and prostate cancer. Science. 1997; 275: 1943–1947. 10.1126/science.275.5308.1943 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Palomero T, Ferrando A. Oncogenic NOTCH1 control of MYC and PI3K: challenges and opportunities for anti-NOTCH1 therapy in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias and lymphomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14: 5314–5317. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4864 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Saito N, Hirai N, Aoki K, Suzuki R, Fujita S, Nakayama H, et al. The oncogene addiction switch from NOTCH to PI3K requires simultaneous targeting of NOTCH and PI3K pathway inhibition in glioblastoma. Cancers (Basel). 2019; 11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kim SB, Dent R, Im SA, Espie M, Blau S, Tan AR, et al. Ipatasertib plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (LOTUS): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18: 1360–1372. 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30450-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Schmid P, Abraham J, Chan S, Wheatley D, Brunt AM, Nemsadze G, et al. Capivasertib plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: The PAKT trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020; 38: 423–433. 10.1200/JCO.19.00368 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Andre F, Ciruelos E, Rubovszky G, Campone M, Loibl S, Rugo HS, et al. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380: 1929–1940. 10.1056/NEJMoa1813904 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Baselga J, Im SA, Iwata H, Cortes J, De Laurentiis M, Jiang Z, et al. Buparlisib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (BELLE-2): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18: 904–916. 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30376-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Martin M, Chan A, Dirix L, O'Shaughnessy J, Hegg R, Manikhas A, et al. A randomized adaptive phase II/III study of buparlisib, a pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, combined with paclitaxel for the treatment of HER2- advanced breast cancer (BELLE-4). Ann Oncol. 2017; 28: 313–320. 10.1093/annonc/mdw562 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nandini Dey

17 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-15204

Association between tumor mutation profile and clinical outcomes among Hispanic Latina women with triple-negative breast cancer.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Philipovskiy,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please respond to each and every comments (major and minor) to satisfy both the reviewers. Please consider increasing the sample size as the strength of the data (conclusion based on it) depends to the size of the cohort.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 01 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nandini Dey, MS., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data/tissue samples  were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. We noticed minor instances of text overlap with the following previous publication(s), which need to be addressed:

(1) http://atlasgeneticsoncology.org/Genes/NOTCH1ID30ch9q34

(2) https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1372666-overview?cc=aHR0cDovL2VtZWRpY2luZS5tZWRzY2FwZS5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZS8xMzcyNjY2LW92ZXJ2aWV3&cookieCheck=1

(3) https://peerj.com/articles/6501/

The text that needs to be addressed involves the Discussion section.

In your revision please ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

4. Please provide the accession numbers or specific weblinks to the specific datasets obtained from public databases analyzed in this study.

5. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

6. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

7. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a nice and important MS in the era of precision medicine especially with TNBC where no obvious biomarker(s) is available for targeted therapy. Hispanic women's with TNBC-specific genomic data is rare. In this aspect this is an important article. But it needs few revisions.

Critical comments:

1. Sample size is small. Is it possible to add more samples either from parent institute or from their collaborative institute?

2. It is always better if authors provide some germline alterations data along with somatic alterations?

3. All ECD mutations of NOTCH1 are in VUS or not? Please specify it.

4. Authors may provide data of INPP4B (one of the important phosphates in the PI3K pathway) and its frequency of alterations in TNBC is almost 30% (Nature 2012). It is good for the readers if authors will add some data.

5. Their data showed PTEN mutation rate is 16%. Mutation per se it is high compared to regular TNBC data ( Nature 2012 and Cancer Discovery 2013). But total alterations (mutation/silencing/loss) it is more than 30%. Please discuss this issue in the discussion section.

6. Table 3 needs some description.

7. Discussion is way to long. For example, authors may take out the paragraph of TP53 inhibitor part, same for NOTCH and EMT section as well as BELLE2 trial data.

7. Authors may provide the overlap of alterations of PI3K pathway and NOTCH genes. It will strengthen the MS.

8. Authors mentioned AKT mutations was 26%. Is it AKT1 or AKT2 or AKT3? Please specify.

Minor comments;

Typo error

Need some figure legend for Figure 1 and 2.

Reviewer #2: This is a very important and timely manuscript. The tumor mutation profiles and outcomes among Hispanic women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is under studied. Authors put together a very good manuscript using Hispanic-Latina (HL) TNBC patients data. I do have some comments and suggestions to make this manuscript comprehensive. These are as follows:

Abstract:

This sentence needs to be revised: “The aim of the study was to characterize individual patient gene expression profiles and to identify the relationship with clinical outcomes”. They have done mutational analysis.

Need some references in Introduction section:

e.g.

Importantly, multiple studies suggest that the prevalence of TNBC among HL women can be slightly higher compared to NHW, approaching 23.1%. Also, the onset of the disease occurs at age approximately 11 years younger than the average age reported for NHW and AA women.

Methods:

It is mentioned that patients were stage II-IV. Please confirm metastatic status of all samples.

Please clarify the rationale of selecting 24 HL out of 25 TNBC patients.

Describe the control samples used for this study.

Results:

Authors described Notch1-3. How about Notch 4? In the discussion section, authors talked about the role of Notch 4 from another paper.

Table: 1

Tell us about the effect of Immunotherapy treatments. Which immunotherapy was used and which combinations?

Table 3: Rationale for the three clusters.

Discussion:

We all know the importance of p53 in TNBC and other breast cancers. This manuscript talks extensively on Notch mutations. I would like to see the Notch expression compared to other HL patients in the cited paper (17 and 25).

Many GSI related clinical trials have been postponed or terminated. Please address those as well. One of the major issues of GSI is that it causes severe intestinal toxicity; more importantly, Notch is required for T cell functions as well.

Spelling check : Innovatibe, datat

Need references: “Nevertheless, we identified two smaller studies (n=19) from Northeast Mexico, and another study from the National Cancer Institute of Mexico in Mexico City (n=12) analyzing datat from a similar population of patients”.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 4;15(9):e0238262. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238262.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Aug 2020

Response to the academic editor

Dear Dr. Nandini Dey

Thank you very much for your review of our paper. We greatly appreciate the time you have spent on your careful review of our manuscript. We are grateful for your thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which have helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Please find our responses below (reviewers’ comments are in italics):

Editor: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Reply: We apologies for this error; it has been corrected.

Editor: 2. In the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data/tissue samples were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Reply: We appreciate your recommendation and have added an appropriate statement (lines 103–104).

Editor: 3. We noticed minor instances of text overlap with the following previous publication(s), which need to be addressed:

(1) http://atlasgeneticsoncology.org/Genes/NOTCH1ID30ch9q34

(2) https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1372666-overview?cc=aHR0cDovL2VtZWRpY2luZS5tZWRzY2FwZS5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZS8xMzcyNjY2LW92ZXJ2aWV3&cookieCheck=1

Reply: We apologies for this error, but we are not quite sure which part of our paper is similar to the abovementioned links, is it possible to clarify and we will be more than happy to address.

(3)https://peerj.com/articles/6501/

this link was appropriately cited (lines 523-525) 18.Niyomnaitham S, Parinyanitikul N, Roothumnong E, Jinda W, Samarnthai N, Atikankul T, et al. Tumor mutational profile of triple negative breast cancer patients in Thailand revealed distinctive genetic alteration in chromatin remodeling gene. PeerJ. 2019; 7: e6501. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6501.

Editor: 4. Please provide the accession numbers or specific weblinks to the specific datasets obtained from public databases analyzed in this study.

Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added appropriate links (lines 134, 136-139, 141).

Editor: 5. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

• The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

• A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

• A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

Reply: We appreciate your recommendation, and an appropriate revision was requested from the Edanz Group (https://en-author-services.edanzgroup.com/) and performed by H. Nikki March, Ph.D.

Editor: 6. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in yo

Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, we have addressed that error. (lines 171-175)

Editor: 7. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

Reply: We appreciate your recommendation, the ORCID for the corresponding author is ORCID 0000-0002-7065-9578,

Response to reviewer #1

Reviewer #1: This is a nice and important MS in the era of precision medicine especially with TNBC where no obvious biomarker(s) is available for targeted therapy. Hispanic women's with TNBC-specific genomic data is rare. In this aspect this is an important article. But it needs few revisions.

Reply: Thank you very much for your positive feedback on our paper. We greatly appreciate the time you have spent on your careful review of our manuscript. We are grateful for your thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which have helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Please find our responses below (reviewers’ comments are in italics):

Critical comments:

Sample size is small. Is it possible to add more samples either from parent institute or from their collaborative institute?

Reply: We appreciate your remark concerning the sample size in our study. It is very difficult to include additional patients in the current study because of its retrospective nature and the specific outcomes that we analyzed, such as progression-free and overall survival, as well as the specific population of patients.

We are currently planning a prospective study and aim to recruit a larger group of patients in the future.

It is always better if authors provide some germline alterations data along with somatic alterations?

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We routinely test all appropriate cases for germline mutations. However, not all patients in the study were eligible based on the current criteria recommended by the NCCN. Among tested patients, the only one had a BRCA1 germline mutation, while three others had variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in CDKN2A, NBN, and MSH6. Therefore, we did not include this information in our manuscript. However, if Reviewer #1 would recommend the inclusion of this information, then we would be more than happy to do so.

All ECD mutations of NOTCH1 are in VUS or not? Please specify it.

Reply: Apologies for this error, this has been corrected (lines 197–198). All mutations in NOTCH1 were VUS except one patient with a rearrangement in exon 25.

Authors may provide data of INPP4B (one of the important phosphates in the PI3K pathway) and its frequency of alterations in TNBC is almost 30% (Nature 2012). It is good for the readers if authors will add some data.

Reply: Interestingly, in contrast to the study published in Nature in 2012 that was mentioned in our report, only one patient had an INPP4B mutation, which might support our general theory about different driver mutations or mechanisms in cancer progression among HL women.

Their data showed PTEN mutation rate is 16%. Mutation per se it is high compared to regular TNBC data ( Nature 2012 and Cancer Discovery 2013). But total alterations (mutation/silencing/loss) it is more than 30%. Please discuss this issue in the discussion section.

Reply: We appreciate your recommendation and have added a paragraph discussing PTEN to the revised manuscript. (lines 421–442).

Table 3 needs some description.

Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added a description for Table 3 to the footnote as well as to the main text (lines 155–157 and 215), as follows:

Factor loading: Presents the weight associated with each gene mutation within a cluster and is used for determining cluster score. Unique variance: A low value of unique variance associated with a gene mutation indicates a better predictive performance of that gene within a cluster. Cluster size: Provides the number of gene mutations within a cluster.

Discussion is way to long. For example, authors may take out the paragraph of TP53 inhibitor part, same for NOTCH and EMT section as well as BELLE2 trial data.

Reply: We agree with your point and have removed the abovementioned paragraphs from the Discussion.

Authors may provide the overlap of alterations of PI3K pathway and NOTCH genes. It will strengthen the MS.

Reply: We appreciate your recommendation and have added a paragraph discussing the possible interplay between the PIK3/ATK/PTEN and NOTCH pathways (lines 440–446).

Authors mentioned AKT mutations was 26%. Is it AKT1 or AKT2 or AKT3? Please specify.

Reply: Thank you for requesting further clarification. In our study, we only detected mutations in AKT1 (four patients) and AKT2 (three patients) (lines 206, 419).

Minor comments:

Typo error

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed and addressed this.

Need some figure legend for Figure 1 and 2.

Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added legends to Figure 1 and 2.

Response to reviewer # 2

Thank you very much for your positive feedback on our paper. We greatly appreciate the time you have spent in your careful review of our manuscript. We are grateful for your thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which have greatly improved the quality of this paper. Please find our responses below (reviewers’ comments are in italics):

Reviewer #2: This is a very important and timely manuscript. The tumor mutation profiles and outcomes among Hispanic women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is under studied. Authors put together a very good manuscript using Hispanic-Latina (HL) TNBC patients data. I do have some comments and suggestions to make this manuscript comprehensive. These are as follows:

Abstract:

This sentence needs to be revised: “The aim of the study was to characterize individual patient gene expression profiles and to identify the relationship with clinical outcomes”. They have done mutational analysis.

Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, we have revised this sentence (line 34).

Need some references in Introduction section: Importantly, multiple studies suggest that the prevalence of TNBC among HL women can be slightly higher compared to NHW, approaching 23.1%. Also, the onset of the disease occurs at age approximately 11 years younger than the average age reported for NHW and AA women.

Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added additional references [12-14], and [1, 11] to support our statement.

Methods: It is mentioned that patients were stage II-IV. Please confirm metastatic status of all samples. Please clarify the rationale of selecting 24 HL out of 25 TNBC patients. Describe the control samples used for this study.

Reply: In this study, we included patients with newly diagnosed stage IV (metastatic) TNBC, as well patients who were initially diagnosed with stages II–III and who progressed to stage IV during the 12-month observation period after the definitive treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy). We did not have any control samples in the study because the original study was designed as a retrospective study without any interventions. We only compared HL patients with TNBC from national and international databases. We analyzed the tumor mutation profile of all 25 patients and highlighted that one patient was not HL.

Results:

Authors described Notch1-3. How about Notch 4? In the discussion section, authors talked about the role of Notch 4 from another paper.

Reply: We did not detect any NOTCH4 mutations in our patient population.

Table: 1

Tell us about the effect of Immunotherapy treatments. Which immunotherapy was used and which combinations?

Reply: Since we did not observe any statistically significant difference in PFS or OS following immunotherapy, and also because the sample size was too small for further analyses, we decided to remove this information from Table 1. For eligible patients, we used a standard of care treatment protocol (IMpassion 130 randomized phase III clinical trial) approved by the FDA on 03/08/2019: combined chemotherapy nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 D1;8;15 Q 21 days cycle with anti-PDL-1 agent atezolizumab 840 mg D1;15 Q21 days(line 174).

Table 3: Rationale for the three clusters.

Reply: We performed a variable cluster analysis for categorical variables and determined the number of clusters using an aggregation plot and mean adjusted Rand criteria, which indicated that three clusters retained maximum variability in the data based on the genes. This was a very useful analysis in this study, as several mutated genes might interact with each other. By cluster analysis, we were able to evaluate the joint effect of two or more gene mutations on overall survival and progression-free survival. We have added this information to the revised manuscript(lines 157–160).

Discussion: We all know the importance of p53 in TNBC and other breast cancers. This manuscript talks extensively on Notch mutations. I would like to see the Notch expression compared to other HL patients in the cited paper (17 and 25).

Reply: Thank you for this important point. However, in our study, we did not perform gene expression analysis. Therefore, we were unable to compare our data with published studies. Furthermore, we did not find any data for Notch expression in Hispanic or Asian patients in Jiang Z et al. (Genomic and Transcriptomic Landscape of Triple-Negative Breast Cancers: Subtypes and Treatment Strategies.) (ref 17). In addition, in Wang K et al., while the authors described activating mutations in NOTCH1, NOTCH2, and NOTCH3 and extensively discussed in vitro experimental data as well performing as some comparisons with TCGA database, they did not analyze and/or discuss any data for HL.

Many GSI related clinical trials have been postponed or terminated. Please address those as well. One of the major issues of GSI is that it causes severe intestinal toxicity; more importantly, Notch is required for T cell functions as well.

Reply: We agree with your remark, and have added a relevant sentence dealing with this issue to the revised manuscript (line 409). We also decided to remove the discussion about Notch inhibition in clinical trials. Unfortunately, the results of multiple phase I trials showed some disappointments of Notch pathway inhibition. These issues were not only because of GI toxicity but also because of low response rates.

Furthermore, among multiple previous studies, only a few showed some efficacy of Notch inhibition. In 2019, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to AL101 for the treatment of patients with adenoid cystic carcinoma with activating mutations in Notch. A phase II study (ACCURACY) is still recruiting patients.

Spelling check:

Innovatibe,datat

Reply: The suggested corrections have been made and a draft of the revised manuscript has been edited by a native English editor.

Need references: “Nevertheless, we identified two smaller studies (n=19) from Northeast Mexico, and another study from the National Cancer Institute of Mexico in Mexico City (n=12) analyzing data from a similar population of patients”.

Reply: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added these references to the revised manuscript ([29] and [30]).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Philipovskiy-Response_reviewer_2_final.docx

Decision Letter 1

Nandini Dey

6 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-15204R1

Association between tumor mutation profile and clinical outcomes among Hispanic Latina women with triple-negative breast cancer.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Philipovskiy,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please state in the discussion of the MS acknowledging that the low sample size is one of the limitations of the study, and thus an investigation with a larger sample size is warranted in the future.

=================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 20 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nandini Dey, MS., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 4;15(9):e0238262. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238262.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


10 Aug 2020

Response to the academic editor:

Dear Dr. Philipovskiy,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please state in the discussion of the MS acknowledging that the low sample size is one of the limitations of the study, and thus an investigation with a larger sample size is warranted in the future.

================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 20 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Dear Dr. Nandini Dey,

Reply: We appreciate your remark concerning the sample size in our study. As you recommend, we have added an appropriate statement (lines 440-442).

Sincerely,

Alexander Philipovskiy

Attachment

Submitted filename: Philipovskiy-Response_reviewer_2_final.docx

Decision Letter 2

Nandini Dey

13 Aug 2020

Association between tumor mutation profile and clinical outcomes among Hispanic Latina women with triple-negative breast cancer.

PONE-D-20-15204R2

Dear Dr. Philipovskiy,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nandini Dey, MS., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Nandini Dey

24 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-15204R2

Association between tumor mutation profile and clinical outcomes among Hispanic Latina women with triple-negative breast cancer

Dear Dr. Philipovskiy:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nandini Dey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Philipovskiy-Response_reviewer_2_final.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Philipovskiy-Response_reviewer_2_final.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES