Abstract
In 2000, more than two decades ago, genome-wide gene expression profiling became available and thereafter led to the dissection of cancer biology across almost all entities [1–3]. First, the molecular portraits based on RNA expression profiling (termed “heat maps”) were used in breast cancer to identify luminal, ERBB2-positive, and basal tumors. Interestingly, these subtypes not only elucidated the underlying biology but also directly suggested targeted treatment intervention with luminal tumors being hormone-dependent, ERBB2-positive tumors exposing the transmembrane receptor Her-2/neu and basal tumors lacking homogenous expression of typical targeted treatment options, with the latter being termed “triple negative” later on. Interestingly, genome-wide mutation analysis later on revealed that the luminal subtype, while bearing most mutations (such as PIK3CA) exhibited lowest immunogenicity and frequently absence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. In contrast, the basal subtype turned out to have lowest rate of classical oncogens, but was dominated by loss-of-function mutation of p53 [4], while almost half of basal tumors being infiltrated by large amounts of immune cells. This led to the assumption that hormone regulation affects immune cell recognition and three biological axes (hormone, immune, and proliferation axis) were built up for breast cancer as being the coordinates of the biological universe of breast cancer [5, 6]. The therapeutic implication of these fundamental insights were further explored and validated the distinct sensitivity towards antihormonal treatment, ERBB2 targeting, and chemotherapy. Interestingly, the hormone-insensitive, highly proliferating basal and ERBB2-positive tumors with higher amounts of immune cell infiltrates did respond best to neoadjuvant treatment with superior outcome [7]. As one consequence, the concept arose to develop RNA-based vaccination concepts in the post-neoadjuvant situation of triple negative breast cancer not responding to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by targeting individual neo-epitope patterns [8], which has been investigated in the subsequent “Merit” trial with positive proof of concept [9]. In line with this, the first approval of checkpoint therapy treatment in breast cancer happened in the triple negative breast cancer subtype [10].
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
In 2000, more than two decades ago, genome-wide gene expression profiling became available and thereafter led to the dissection of cancer biology across almost all entities [1,2,3]. First, the molecular portraits based on RNA expression profiling (termed “heat maps”) were used in breast cancer to identify luminal, ERBB2-positive, and basal tumors. Interestingly, these subtypes not only elucidated the underlying biology but also directly suggested targeted treatment intervention with luminal tumors being hormone-dependent, ERBB2-positive tumors exposing the transmembrane receptor Her-2/neu and basal tumors lacking homogenous expression of typical targeted treatment options, with the latter being termed “triple negative” later on. Interestingly, genome-wide mutation analysis later on revealed that the luminal subtype, while bearing most mutations (such as PIK3CA) exhibited lowest immunogenicity and frequently absence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. In contrast, the basal subtype turned out to have lowest rate of classical oncogens, but was dominated by loss-of-function mutation of p53 [4], while almost half of basal tumors being infiltrated by large amounts of immune cells. This led to the assumption that hormone regulation affects immune cell recognition and three biological axes (hormone, immune, and proliferation axis) were built up for breast cancer as being the coordinates of the biological universe of breast cancer [5, 6]. The therapeutic implication of these fundamental insights were further explored and validated the distinct sensitivity towards antihormonal treatment, ERBB2 targeting, and chemotherapy. Interestingly, the hormone-insensitive, highly proliferating basal and ERBB2-positive tumors with higher amounts of immune cell infiltrates did respond best to neoadjuvant treatment with superior outcome [7]. As one consequence, the concept arose to develop RNA-based vaccination concepts in the post-neoadjuvant situation of triple negative breast cancer not responding to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by targeting individual neo-epitope patterns [8], which has been investigated in the subsequent “Merit” trial with positive proof of concept [9]. In line with this, the first approval of checkpoint therapy treatment in breast cancer happened in the triple negative breast cancer subtype [10].
Almost 10 years after their first description in 2000, the molecular subtypes of breast cancer became integral part for patient stratification in breast cancer by semiquantitative recapitulation using conventional immune histochemistry methods [11] or by molecular methods using standard PCR methods to quantify key targets after RNA extraction from routinely fixed tissues using the in vitro diagnostic “MammaTyper®” test system [12,13,14].
As a next step, this new IVD technology was validated in other disease entities in which molecular subtyping initially identified in breast cancer just started to be recognized as being potentially hormone-driven such as ovarian cancer [15, 16], lung cancer, [17, 18] and bladder cancer [19,20,21].
Importantly the quantitative determination or the main drug targets in breast cancer, that is, estrogen receptor (= ESR1, gene name) and the receptor-tyrosine kinase HER-2/neu (= ERBB2; gene name) revealed that only high mRNA overexpression of the targets is associated with addiction to the target and respective response and efficacy to the treatment. As one example in the NSABP B14 breast cancer trial comparing 5-year tamoxifen vs. placebo in ER-positive tumors by IHC, only tumors with high ESR1 mRNA expression did benefit from the antihormonal treatment, while immunohistochemical staining failed to be predictive [22]. Moreover, the large NSABP P1 prevention trial validated that the benefit of Tamoxifen treatment was restricted to the prevention of very high ESR1 mRNA expression [21]. Similarly, for ERBB2 targeting by the two antibodies Tratuzumab and Pertuzumab within the neoadjuvant TRYPHAENA trial, a large translational program revealed that ERBB2 overexpression remained to be the only marker for patient selection of anti-ERBB2 treatments and therapy benefit prediction [23]. Apparently molecular in vitro diagnostics in breast cancer teaches us that it is the quantitation of the treatment target which is of utmost importance for therapy guidance and precision of treatment efficacy prediction.
Moreover, this directly leads to one of the hallmarks of in vivo diagnostics/theranostics, which presumes that uptake of radioactive ligands is strongly correlated to receptor density on the surface tissue. We therefore evaluated whether the surface expression of SSTR2 receptors as determined by semiquantitative IHC and fully quantitative PCR methods in vitro might be related to the uptake of SSTR2 ligands (DOTA-TOC, DOTA-NOC and DOTA-TATE) in patients suffering neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors [24]. It turned out that conventional IHC methods by immune reactivity score (IRS) only trended to predict uptake as determined by positive correlation with SUV mean (c = 0.39 p = 0.11). In contrast quantitative, molecular assessment of SSTR2 mRNA expression by PCR correlated very strongly with SUV mean (c = 0.85 p < 0.001) and equally well as SUV max itself did correlate with SUV mean (c = 0.90 p < 0.001). This demonstrates as proof-of-principle that target assessment by molecular in vitro and in vivo methods being quantitative by nature do perfectly fit for patient selection for imaging and potentially subsequent radionuclide treatment approaches.
However, tumor response to radionuclide treatments does not only dependent on total uptake, but also on tumor biological aspects such as intrinsic and neoplastic DNA repair capacity, proliferation status, hormone dependence, and tumor microenvironment. Precision oncology approaches have to take these complex interactions into account to improve completeness of therapy responses and thereby support long-term survival. As one example, the biology of the Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) in prostate cancer might serve as being one of the most advanced radionuclide therapies. PSMA is a transmembrane glycoprotein, whose expression on prostate epithelium is of functional importance for cell migration and chromosome stability [25] and inversely regulated by androgens with increased activity found in tumor cells that become androgen-independent [26]. Superior efficacy of radioligand PSMA treatment (177Lu-PSMA-617) compared to standard of care in castration-resistant, metastatic prostate cancer previously treated with at least one androgen-receptor-pathway inhibitor and one or two taxane regimens and who had PSMA-positive gallium-68 (68Ga)-labeled PSMA-11 positron-emission tomographic-computed tomographic scans has been demonstrated [27]. Median overall survival reached 15.3 month for PSMA-targeted therapy versus 11.3 months for standard of care (Hazard ratio 0.62 p < 0.0001). Systematic review emphasizes clinical benefit for this radioligand therapy with 46% of patients achieving a reduction in PSA values >50% (and 75% had a decrease in PSA levels posttreatment) and an overall clinical benefit rate of 75.5% (37.2% of patients with PR and 38.3% SD) [28]. However, despite clear superiority over standard treatment, this study shows that singular radionuclide treatment still has limited efficacy in metastatic prostate cancer, as most patients progress and die of the disease. Molecular tissue analysis of repair genes such as BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2 may be one causal role for resistance or response to PSMA targeting with loss DNA-damage “recognition and signaling” genes resulting in resistance and loss of DNA-damage “repair” (such as BRCA2) being associated with increased radiosensitivity [29]. Interestingly, such “BRCAness” might be induced by PARP inhibition as has been shown in model systems [30]. Moreover, hormone receptors and signaling pathways (PTEN, AKT, PI3K, CDK1) contribute to development of resistance towards PARP inhibition [31], while PARP2 interacts with AR signaling, which in turn regulates PSMA expression. The multitude of functional interaction demonstrates that there is need of precise dissection of gene alteration, target quantitation and pathway pattern analytics in vitro to allow precise, multimodal approaches and adjusted therapy sequences, which combine radionuclide therapies with antihormonal, immune/vaccination therapies and simultaneous multitargeting by upcoming Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC). However, these therapeutic, multimodal approaches should in turn be monitored by molecular means again combining in vitro and in vivo approaches based on molecular assessment of tissue, urine, and blood diagnostics and pre- versus post-treatment imaging. Ultimately, these approaches shall not only be designed to govern direct tumor cell killing, but rather provoke systemic, longer lasting immune effects, that allow long-term survival. Most recently, we could show that long-term survival in metastatic NSCLC treated with first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy could be predicted after first cycle by quantitation of dynamic changes of immune cell mRNA signatures from peripheral blood pre- versus post-treatment [32]. Such approaches provide new early outcome indicators and may therefore be helpful to accelerate adopted precision oncology strategies and underline the importance of inducing immune responses in the advanced treatment settings. In summary, molecular research in the past decades pave the way for fundamentally new insights and treatment approaches with combined molecular in vitro and in vivo diagnostics emerging as the impartible basis of upcoming, multimodal therapy approaches in precision oncology.
References
Sorlie T, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:10869–74.
Perou CM, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747–52.
Sorlie T. Molecular portraits of breast cancer: tumor subtypes as distinct disease entities. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40:2667–75.
The cancer genome atlas research network (TCGA). Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumors. Nature. 2012;490(61):61–70.
Schmidt M, Böhm D, von Törne C, et al. The humoral immune system has a key prognostic impact in node-negative breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2008;68(13):5405–13.
Schmidt M, Hengstler JG, von Törne C, et al. Coordinates in the universe of node-negative breast cancer revisited. Cancer Res. 2009;69(7):2695–8.
Denkert C, Loibl S, Noske A, et al. Tumor-associated lymphocytes as an independent predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):105–13.
Wirtz RM, Sahin U. 3rd generation gene signatures—genome wide sequencing and subtype specific characteristics. Annual Meeting of the german society of gynecology. 2013.
Schmidt M, et al. T-cell responses induced by an individualized neoantigen specific immune therapy in post (neo)adjuvant patients with triple negative breast cancer. ESMO. 2020;31:S276.
Schmid P, et al. Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(22):2108–21.
Goldhirsch A, et al. Strategies for subtypes—dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2011. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1736–47.
Wirtz RM, Sihto H, Isola J, Heikkilä P, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, Auvinen P, Turpeenniemi-Hujanen T, Jyrkkiö S, Lakis S, Schlombs K, Laible M, Weber S, Eidt S, Sahin U, Joensuu H. Biological subtyping of early breast cancer: a study comparing RT-qPCR with immunohistochemistry. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;157(3):437–46.
Laible M, Schlombs K, Kaiser K, Veltrup E, Herlein S, Lakis S, Stöhr R, Eidt S, Hartmann A, Wirtz RM, Sahin U. Technical validation of an RT-qPCR in vitro diagnostic test system for the determination of breast cancer molecular subtypes by quantification of ERBB2, ESR1, PGR and MKI67 mRNA levels from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded breast tumor specimens. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:398.
Laible M, Hartmann K, Gürtler C, Anzeneder T, Wirtz R, Weber S, Keller T, Sahin U, Rees M, Ramaswamy A. Impact of molecular subtypes on the prediction of distant recurrence in estrogen receptor (ER) positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative breast cancer upon five years of endocrine therapy. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):694.
Darb-Esfahani S, Wirtz RM, Sinn BV, Budczies J, Noske A, Weichert W, Faggad A, Scharff S, Sehouli J, Oskay-Ozcelik G, Zamagni C, De Iaco P, Martoni A, Dietel M, Denkert C. Estrogen receptor 1 mRNA is a prognostic factor in ovarian carcinoma: determination by kinetic PCR in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2009;16(4):1229–39.
Zamagni C, Wirtz RM, De Iaco P, Rosati M, Veltrup E, Rosati F, Capizzi E, Cacciari N, Alboni C, Bernardi A, Massari F, Quercia S, D'Errico Grigioni A, Dietel M, Sehouli J, Denkert C, Martoni AA. Oestrogen receptor 1 mRNA is a prognostic factor in ovarian cancer patients treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy: determination by array and kinetic PCR in fresh tissue biopsies. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2009;16(4):1241–9.
Brueckl WM, Al-Batran SE, Ficker JH, Claas S, Atmaca A, Hartmann A, Rieker RJ, Wirtz RM. Prognostic and predictive value of estrogen receptor 1 expression in completely resected non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Cancer. 2013;133(8):1825–31.
Atmaca A, Al-Batran SE, Wirtz RM, Werner D, Zirlik S, Wiest G, Eschbach C, Claas S, Hartmann A, Ficker JH, Jäger E, Brueckl WM. The validation of estrogen receptor 1 mRNA expression as a predictor of outcome in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Cancer. 2014;134(10):2314–21.
Wirtz RM, Fritz V, Stöhr R, Hartmann A. Molecular classification of bladder cancer possible similarities to breast cancer. Pathologe. 2016;37(1):52–60.
Breyer J, Wirtz RM, Otto W, Laible M, Schlombs K, Erben P, Kriegmair MC, Stoehr R, Eidt S, Denzinger S, Burger M, Hartmann A. Predictive value of molecular subtyping in NMIBC by RT-qPCR of ERBB2, ESR1, PGR and MKI67 from formalin fixed TUR biopsies. Oncotarget. 2017;8(40):67684–95.
Kriegmair MC, Wirtz RM, Worst TS, Breyer J, Ritter M, Keck B, Boehmer C, Otto W, Eckstein M, Weis CA, Hartmann A, Bolenz C, Erben P. Prognostic value of molecular breast cancer subtypes based on Her2, ESR1, PGR and Ki67 mRNA-expression in muscle invasive bladder cancer. Transl Oncol. 2018;11(2):467–76.
Kim C, Tang G, Pogue-Geile KL, Costantino JP, Baehner FL, Baker J, Cronin MT, Watson D, Shak S, Bohn OL, Fumagalli D, Taniyama Y, Lee A, Reilly ML, Vogel VG, McCaskill-Stevens W, Ford LG, Geyer CE Jr, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N, Paik S. Estrogen receptor (ESR1) mRNA expression and benefit from tamoxifen in the treatment and prevention of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(31):4160–7.
Schneeweiss A, Chia S, Hegg R, Tausch C, Deb R, Ratnayake J, McNally V, Ross G, Kiermaier A, Cortés J. Evaluating the predictive value of biomarkers for efficacy outcomes in response to pertuzumab- and trastuzumab-based therapy: an exploratory analysis of the TRYPHAENA study. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(4):R73.
Kaemmerer D, Wirtz RM, Fischer EK, Hommann M, Sänger J, Prasad V, Specht E, Baum RP, Schulz S, Lupp A. Analysis of somatostatin receptor 2A immunohistochemistry, RT-qPCR, and in vivo PET/CT data in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm. Pancreas. 2015;44(4):648–54.
Rajasekaran SA, Christiansen JJ, Schmid I, Oshima E, Ryazantsev S, Sakamoto K, Weinstein J, Rao NP, Rajasekaran K. Prostate-specific membrane antigen associates with anaphase-promoting complex and induces chromosomal instability. Mol Cancer Ther. 2008;7:2142–51.
Chang SS. Overview of prostate-specific membrane antigen. Rev Urol. 2004;6(Suppl. 10):S13–8.
Sartor O, de Bono J, Chi KN, Fizazi K, Herrmann K, Rahbar K, Tagawa ST, Nordquist LT, Vaishampayan N, El-Haddad G, Park CH, Beer TM, Armour A, Pérez-Contreras WJ, DeSilvio M, Kpamegan E, Gericke G, Messmann RA, Morris MJ, Krause BJ, VISION investigators. Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(12):1091–103.
Yadav MP, Ballal S, Sahoo RK, Dwivedi SN, Bal C. Radioligand therapy with (177)Lu-PSMA for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213:275–85.
Kratochwil C, Giesel FL, Heussel CP, Kazdal D, Endris V, Nientiedt C, Bruchertseifer F, Kippenberger M, Rathke H, Leichsenring J, Hohenfellner M, Morgenstern A, Haberkorn U, Duensing S, Stenzinger A. Patients resistant against PSMA-targeting α-radiation therapy often harbor mutations in DNA damage-repair-associated genes. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(5):683–8.
Bourton EC, Ahorner PA, Plowman PN, Zahir SA, Al-Ali H, Parris CN. The PARP-1 inhibitor olaparib suppresses BRCA1 protein levels, increases apoptosis and causes radiation hypersensitivity in BRCA1+/− lymphoblastoid cells. J Cancer. 2017;8:4048–56.
Ku SY, Gleave ME, Beltran H. Towards precision oncology in advanced prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2019;16:645–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-019-0237-8.
Brueckl NF, Wirtz RM, Reich FPM, Veltrup E, Zeitler G, Meyer C, Wuerflein D, Ficker JH, Eidt S, Brueckl WM. Predictive value of mRNA expression and dynamic changes from immune related biomarkers in liquid biopsies before and after start of pembrolizumab in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021;10:4106; (accepted for publication).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wirtz, R.M. (2024). Molecular In Vitro and In Vivo Diagnostics as the Impartible Basis of Multimodal Therapy Approaches in Precision Oncology. In: Prasad, V. (eds) Beyond Becquerel and Biology to Precision Radiomolecular Oncology: Festschrift in Honor of Richard P. Baum. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33533-4_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33533-4_36
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-33532-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-33533-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)