Abstract
Purpose: The advent of next-generation sequencing technologies has enabled the identification of several activating mutations of Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2) among various cancers. However, the significance of infrequent mutations has not been fully investigated. Herein, we comprehensively assessed the functional significance of the ERBB2 mutations in a high-throughput manner.
Experimental Design: We evaluated the transforming activities and drug sensitivities of 55 nonsynonymous ERBB2 mutations using the mixed-all-nominated-in-one (MANO) method.
Results: G776V, G778_S779insG, and L841V were newly revealed to be activating mutations. Although afatinib, neratinib, and osimertinib were shown to be effective against most of the ERBB2 mutations, only osimertinib demonstrated good efficacy against L755P and L755S mutations, the most common mutations in breast cancer. In contrast, afatinib and neratinib were predicted to be more effective than other inhibitors for the A775_776insYVMA mutation, the most frequent ERBB2 mutation in lung cancer. We surveyed the prevalence of concurrent ERBB2 mutation with gene amplification and found that approximately 30% of ERBB2-amplified urothelial carcinomas simultaneously carried ERBB2 mutations, altering their sensitivity to trastuzumab, an mAb against ERBB2. Furthermore, the MANO method was applied to evaluate the functional significance of 17 compound mutations within ERBB2 reported in the COSMIC database, revealing that compound mutations involving L755S were sensitive to osimertinib but insensitive to afatinib and neratinib.
Conclusions: Several ERBB2 mutations showed varying sensitivities to ERBB2-targeted inhibitors. Our comprehensive assessment of ERBB2 mutations offers a fundamental database to help customize therapy for ERBB2-driven cancers.
We identified several ERBB2 mutations as activating mutations related to tumorigenesis. In addition, our comprehensive evaluation revealed that several ERBB2 mutations showed varying sensitivities to ERBB2-targeted inhibitors, and thus, the functional significance of each variant should be interpreted precisely to design the best treatment for each patient. Clin Cancer Res; 24(20); 5112–22. ©2018 AACR.
This article is featured in Highlights of This Issue, p. 4913
The development of next-generation sequencing technologies has identified many Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2) mutations across a wide range of cancers. Several ERBB2 mutations are known to be activating mutations, but many other mutations are still variants of unknown significance. Moreover, only a few studies have examined the sensitivity of the ERBB2 mutations to drugs. In this study, we comprehensively assessed the transforming activities and drug sensitivities of 55 nonsynonymous ERBB2 mutations in a high-throughput manner using the mixed-all-nominated-in-one (MANO) method. We identified several ERBB2 mutations as activating mutations related to tumorigenesis and revealed that several ERBB2 mutations showed varying sensitivities to ERBB2-targeted inhibitors. Thus, the functional significance of each variant should be interpreted precisely to design the best treatment for each patient, and the MANO method might be beneficial for the determination of the best treatment for cancers harboring ERBB2 mutations.
Introduction
Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2) is a member of the ErbB tyrosine receptor family, which also includes EGFR, ERBB3, and ERBB4. ERBB2 dimerizes with itself or other ErbB members to activate two major downstream signaling pathways: PI3K–AKT and MEK–ERK (1). ERBB2 gene amplification occurs in a wide variety of human cancers (2–4). ERBB2-targeted therapies, such as trastuzumab, lapatinib, and pertuzumab, have improved outcomes in patients with ERBB2 amplification-positive cancers (5–7), and these drugs have been approved by the FDA against ERBB2-positive gastric and breast cancers (8, 9). ERBB2 mutations were first reported in 2% to 4% of lung adenocarcinomas (10), and cancer genome resequencing with next-generation sequencing technologies has identified many ERBB2 mutations across a variety of cancers, such as breast, lung, gastric, colorectal, liver, ovarian, and urothelial cancers (11–16).
Some ERBB2 mutations are known to be activating mutations that induce oncogenic transformation (11, 17), but many other mutations are still variants of unknown significance (VUS; refs. 16, 18). In fact, although over 300 ERBB2 nonsynonymous mutations are reported in the COSMIC database (http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic/), only 74 of these are annotated in the OncoKB database (http://oncokb.org/). Furthermore, only a few studies have examined the sensitivity of these mutations to drugs (11, 18, 19). Phase I and II clinical trials have shown that irreversible ErbB receptor family inhibitors, such as afatinib, neratinib, and dacomitinib, are effective for tumors expressing ERBB2 mutations (20–22). Recently, the efficacy of neratinib monotherapy was tested across 21 cancer types in the SUMMIT trial (23), and the greatest clinical activity was observed in breast cancer (objective response rate at week 8, 32%). Moreover, a recent study has demonstrated osimertinib, a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) against EGFR T790M, as a potential ERBB2-targeting agent (24). However, there has been no large clinical trial of afatinib or osimertinib conducted for ERBB2 mutation–positive cancers. Moreover, recent studies have also reported the emergence of ERBB2 K753E or L755S mutation after trastuzumab treatment or of ERBB2 T798I mutation after neratinib treatment, suggesting that acquired secondary mutations may be a mechanism of resistance to ERBB2-targeted inhibitors (25, 26).
Herein, we searched for nonsynonymous ERBB2 mutations that are recurrently reported in the COSMIC database (v78) and comprehensively evaluated their transforming activity and drug sensitivity in a high-throughput manner using the mixed-all-nominated-in-one (MANO) method, which was recently developed in our laboratory (27). This method is beneficial in that it enables the assessment of not only the oncogenic potential but also the drug sensitivity of hundreds of gene mutations within a short period of time in a competitive manner with positive and negative controls.
Materials and Methods
Cell lines
Human embryonic kidney (HEK) 293T cells and 3T3 cells were purchased from the ATCC and cultured in DMEM-F12 supplemented with 10% FBS, 2 mmol/L glutamine, and 1% penicillin/streptomycin (all from Thermo Fisher Scientific). Ba/F3 cells were maintained in RPMI1640 medium (Thermo Fisher Scientific) supplemented with 10% FBS, 2 mmol/L glutamine, 1% penicillin/streptomycin, and mouse IL3 (20 U/mL; Sigma).
Establishment of retroviral vector with random barcodes
The pcx5 vector was created by inserting random 6-bp DNA barcode sequences upstream of the start codon of the genes of interest into the pcx4 vector (28). The full-length wild-type cDNAs of human EGFR and ERBB2 were cloned into the pcx5 vector. Plasmids encoding EGFR and ERRB2 mutations were developed using the QuikChange II Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kit (Agilent Technologies) with mutation-specific primers. The plasmids were sequenced with the BigDye Terminator version 3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems) and analyzed with a 3730 ABI capillary electrophoresis system, with confirmation by Sanger sequencing that the plasmids harboring different ERBB2 mutants carried different 6-bp barcodes.
Virus production and infection
The recombinant plasmids were transduced together with packaging plasmids (Takara Bio) into HEK293T cells to achieve recombinant retroviral particles. The 3T3 cells were infected in 12-well plates with ecotropic recombinant retroviruses using 4-μg/mL Polybrene (Sigma-Aldrich) for 24 hours. Ba/F3 cells were plated in retronectin-coated (Takara Bio) 12-well plates and infected with the retroviruses in RPMI1640 medium containing 20 U/mL IL3.
Focus formation assay
For the focus formation assay, 3T3 cells expressing various ERBB2 mutants were cultured in DMEM-F12 supplemented with 5% bovine calf serum for 2 weeks. The cells were then stained with Giemsa solution.
The MANO method
Schematic representation of the MANO method is shown in Supplementary Fig. S1. This method uses a retroviral vector that enables the stable integration of individual genes into the genome of assay cells (such as mouse 3T3 fibroblasts or the IL3-dependent, murine pro–B-cell line Ba/F3) along with 6-basepair (bp) barcode sequences. Individually transduced assay cells are subsequently pooled and cultured in a competitive manner to evaluate their transforming potential or drug sensitivity, either in vitro or in vivo. At the end of expansion period, genomic DNA was obtained from cell lysates using the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen), followed by amplification by PCR using primers 5′-TGGAAAGGACCTTACACAGTCCTG-3′ and 5′-GACTCGTTGAAGGGTAGACTAGTC-3′. The obtained products were purified using AMPure beads (Beckman Coulter), and the sequencing libraries were prepared using the NEB NextUltra DNA Library Prep Kit (NEB) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The library quality was evaluated using a Qubit 2.0 fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and the Agilent 2200 TapeStation system. The library was sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq using the Reagent Kit V2 (300 cycles), and 150-bp paired-end reads were created. The barcode sequence 5′-CTAGACTGCCXXXXXXGGATCACTCT-3′ (where X denotes any nucleotide) was included in the sequencing results, and the number of each barcode in each mutant was quantified.
Functional annotation of ERBB2 mutations using the MANO method
3T3 cells expressing various ERBB2 mutants were mixed 2 days after mutant infection of the cells. The mixed cell population was maintained in DMEM-F12 with 10% FBS for 12 days. Ba/F3 cells harboring different ERBB2 mutants were mixed in a similar manner and cultured in RPMI1640 medium without IL3. Cell pellets were stored every 3 days, and the experiment was carried out in triplicate in both cell lines. We determined the time when cells were mixed as day 0, and cell mixtures obtained on day 0 were used as the reference control for scaling each cell clone signal: the signal from each cell pellet collected every 3 days was evaluated as 100 × (average read number across replicates)/(average read number of the mixed cell population on day 0). The fold change in the ratio of ERBB2-mutant cell number on day 12 relative to day 0 was compared with that of wild-type ERBB2 cell number to perform paired t test. ERBB2 mutants whose fold changes increased significantly (P < 0.05) were regarded as activating mutants.
Inhibitor assays using the MANO method
Ba/F3 cells expressing each EGFR or ERBB2 mutant were cultured in RPMI1640 medium without IL3. The transformed Ba/F3 cells, which showed IL3-independent growth, were mixed in equal amounts and incubated for 72 hours with the indicated concentrations of each inhibitor: trastuzumab (1 ng/mL to 100 μg/mL), lapatinib (0.1 nmol/L–10 μmol/L), sapitinib (0.1 nmol/L–10 μmol/L), afatinib (0.01 nmol/L–1 μmol/L), neratinib (0.01 nmol/L–1 μmol/L), and osimertinib (0.1 nmol/L–10 μmol/L). The experiment was conducted in triplicate. We calculated the number of each barcode using the MANO method. Considering the different doubling times of the transduced cells, DMSO-treated cell mixtures were used as the reference control for scaling each cell clone signal. The relative growth inhibition of each cell clone was calculated as 100 × (average read number across triplicates)/(average read number of the DMSO control). Six ERBB2-targeted drugs used in the inhibitor assay were purchased commercially: trastuzumab (Chugai Pharmaceutical Co.), lapatinib (LC Laboratories), sapitinib (Selleckchem), afatinib (LC Laboratories), neratinib (LC Laboratories), and osimertinib (LC Laboratories).
Alamar Blue cell viability assay
The transformed Ba/F3 cells expressing each EGFR or ERBB2 mutant were cultivated in 96-well plates (with 100 μL of culture medium/well) in RPMI1640 medium without IL3, and each ERBB2 inhibitor was added at different concentrations: trastuzumab (1 ng/mL–100 μg/mL), afatinib (0.01 nmol/L–1 μmol/L), neratinib (0.01 nmol/L–1 μmol/L), and osimertinib (0.1 nmol/L–10 μmol/L). Next, 10 μL of Alamar Blue (Thermo Fisher Scientific) was added to the plates 72 hours after exposure to these inhibitors, and the fluorescence was measured (excitation 530 nm, emission 590 nm) at the indicated times (29). Wells without cells were used as negative controls, and survival data were graphically analyzed using GraphPad Prism software version 7.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software Inc.).
The In Vivo MANO method
Individually transduced 3T3 cell clones were mixed in equal numbers, and 3.0 × 106 cells of the mixture (i.e., 0.5 × 105 cells from each of the 60 cell clones) were subcutaneously injected into 6-week-old female nude mice according to the animal use protocol reviewed and approved by the University of Tokyo Animal Care and Use Committee. All drugs were dissolved in 2% DMSO, 30% polyethylene glycol 300 (Sigma Aldrich), and sterile ultrapure water. Tumor size was evaluated every 2 days by caliper measurements, and the average tumor volume was calculated using the formula 1/2 × (large diameter) × (small diameter)2. The tumors were resected and mechanically homogenized using a gentleMACS Dissociator (Miltenyi Biotec) according to the “homogenization of tissue for total RNA isolation” protocol set forth by the manufacturer. The relative abundance of each cell clone was calculated using the MANO method.
Xenograft tumor assays
For xenograft generation, 1.0 × 106 3T3 cells expressing the ERBB2 L755P were subcutaneously injected into 6-week-old female nude mice. The mice were treated every 2 days by an intraperitoneal injection of either vehicle control, afatinib at low doses (8 mg/kg body weight), afatinib at high doses (40 mg/kg body weight), osimertinib at low doses (8 mg/kg body weight), or osimertinib at high doses (20 mg/kg body weight; n = 5 mice for each group). All drugs were dissolved in 2% DMSO, 30% polyethylene glycol 300, and sterile ultrapure water. The average tumor volume in each group was calculated using the formula 1/2 × (large diameter) × (small diameter)2.
Pharmacokinetic studies
Serial blood samples were collected at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours after intraperitoneal injection of single doses (n = 3 mice for each group). Each sample was spiked with crizotinib (LC Laboratories) as an internal standard and processed by acetonitrile protein precipitation. The samples were then analyzed using a validated high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method. Drug-to-internal standard peak area ratios for the standards were used to create a calibration curve. Plasma concentrations of the samples were quantified by comparing the ratios for each sample with those in the relevant calibration curve. The lower limit of quantification was 5 and 10 ng/mL for afatinib and osimertinib, respectively.
Statistical analysis
Statistical significance was evaluated using Student t test for comparisons between two mutants in vitro (each ERBB2 mutant vs. wild-type ERBB2). Statistical comparisons between two groups in vivo (DMSO/vehicle vs. each ERBB2-targeted drug) were conducted using one-way ANOVA with a Dunnett multiple comparisons test. For all comparisons, P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Spectrum of ERBB2 mutations identified in the COSMIC database
In the COSMIC database, a total of 55 nonsynonymous mutations in ERBB2 are reported as recurrent mutations (Supplementary Table S1). Comparing similarities and differences of ERBB2 mutations reported recurrently in the COSMIC, TCGA, MSK-IMPACT, or Cancer Hotspots database (30, 31), the COSMIC database stored the largest number of mutations among all databases (Supplementary Fig. S2; Supplementary Table S2A). Because we prioritized recurrently reported mutations to evaluate the significance, we determined to use the COSMIC database rather than the OncoKB database for this study. The 55 recurrent mutations in the COSMIC database are found across various cancer subtypes, and such mutations are most frequently reported in lung cancer, followed by breast and bladder urothelial carcinoma (Fig. 1A). We then examined the location of these mutations in the ERBB2 protein structure (Fig. 1B). The 55 mutations included 16 mutations in the ectodomain, two mutations in the juxtamembrane domain, 29 mutations in the intracellular tyrosine kinase domain, and eight mutations in the C-terminal domain. Note that E770_A771insAYVM and A775_G776insYVMA mutations lead to the identical amino acid changes causing YVMA duplication. The most frequent ERBB2 mutation in lung cancer was A775_G776insYVMA, while L755S mutations constituted approximately 40% of ERBB2 mutations in breast cancer.
We next analyzed the datasets of TCGA and MSK-IMPACT (30) stored in cBioPortal (http://www.cbioportal.org) to determine the combined status of ERBB2 mutations with gene amplification in each type of cancer (Supplementary Tables S2B–S2D). Mutations and amplifications of ERBB2 were observed at a similar frequency in the two datasets (Supplementary Fig. S3). The frequency of ERBB2 mutations was highest in bladder urothelial carcinoma followed by esophageal and cervical cancers, whereas that of amplification was highest in esophageal cancer followed by stomach and breast cancers. It is notable that a certain number of tumors carried both ERBB2 mutation and amplification (Supplementary Table S2E). In particular, approximately 30% of bladder urothelial carcinomas carried simultaneous ERBB2 amplification and mutation.
Functional annotation of somatic ERBB2 mutations
To assess the transforming activity of ERBB2 mutations, we used the MANO method to calculate the temporal changes in the relative proportions of 3T3 and Ba/F3 cells harboring each ERBB2 mutant in the entire cell culture population from day 0 to 12 (Supplementary Fig. S4; Supplementary Table S3). The fold changes in the read counts on day 12 were then normalized to those on day 0 (Fig. 1C; Supplementary Fig. S5). As shown in Fig. 1D, 18 ERBB2 mutants were evaluated as activating mutants in both cell lines, in which G776V, G778_S779insG, and L841V were newly shown activating mutants. In parallel with the MANO method, we also assessed the transforming potential of ERBB2 mutants using the focus formation assay and obtained similar results to those obtained with the MANO method (Supplementary Fig. S6).
Evaluation of the sensitivity of ERBB2 mutants to ERBB2-targeted drugs in vitro
To evaluate the drug sensitivity of ERBB2 mutants, we treated the mixture of Ba/F3 cells expressing 57 different types of mutations with six different targeted drugs (small compounds and an antibody) at various concentrations. We excluded Ba/F3 cells harboring GFP, A775G, or E914K from this analysis because these cells did not show IL3-independent growth. As shown in Fig. 2A and Supplementary Table S4, wild-type ERBB2 was sensitive to all six drugs. Whereas EGFR L858R was sensitive to afatinib, neratinib, and osimertinib, EGFR T790M_L858R was sensitive only to osimertinib, and EGFR T790M_C797S was resistant to all six drugs. These results confirmed the validity of the MANO method. Most of the ectodomain and the C-terminal domain ERBB2 mutants conferred sensitivity to trastuzumab, whereas most of the tyrosine kinase domain mutations were resistant to the antibody. Furthermore, L755P/S mutants were evaluated as resistant to lapatinib, which was compatible with the findings of previous studies (32, 33). E770_A771insAYVM, A775_776insYVMA, G776>LC, G776>VC, S779_P780insVGS, and V842I mutations were also resistant to lapatinib. Several ERBB2 mutants were insensitive to sapitinib (IC50 > 100 nmol/L) in this study. Afatinib and neratinib revealed similar sensitivities to most of the mutations, and they were partially insensitive to the L755P mutation. Considering the IC50 values of Ba/F3 cells expressing EGFR T790M_L858R (5.8 nmol/L), wild-type EGFR (752 nmol/L), and wild-type ERBB2 (10.4 nmol/L) in previous studies (24, 34), osimertinib was effective against most of the ERBB2 mutants including the L755P mutation. However, this drug was less effective against exon 20 insertions such as E770_A771insAYVM and A775_776insYVMA than it was against other mutations.
The Alamar Blue cell viability assay was performed to precisely determine the sensitivity of the ERBB2 mutants to afatinib, neratinib, and osimertinib (Fig. 2B). EGFR L858R was sensitive to all three drugs, and well-known TKI-resistant mutations (ERBB2 T798I_C805S, and EGFR T790M_C797S) were shown to be resistant to all the drugs, confirming the validity of our test. The IC50 values of afatinib and neratinib against ERBB2 L755P were 8.94 and 7.03 nmol/L, respectively, and were higher than those against TKI-sensitive mutations such as V777. Osimertinib, in contrast, demonstrated a high IC50 value against ERBB2 A775_776insYVMA (170 nmol/L) compared with the other ERBB2 mutants, including L755P. Then, the IC50 values of these drugs for EGFR mutations were tested because afatinib and osimertinib are commonly used drugs for EGFR mutation–positive lung cancer (Supplementary Fig. S7). As reported previously (27, 35), the IC50 values of afatinib and neratinib against ERBB2 exon 20 insertions were lower than those against EGFR exon 20 insertions. In contrast, the IC50 value of osimertinib against ERBB2 A775_776insYVMA was similar to that against EGFR V769_D770insASV and higher than those against other EGFR exon 20 insertions.
Evaluation of the sensitivity of ERBB2 mutants to ERBB2-targeted drugs in vivo
We next measured the effectiveness of each ERBB2 inhibitor in vivo. 3T3 cells expressing 60 different genes, including GFP, wild-type or mutant forms of ERBB2, or EGFR mutants (listed in Supplementary Table S1), were pooled and injected en bloc into nude mice. The mice were treated every 2 days with an intraperitoneal injection of either vehicle control, lapatinib (100 mg/kg body weight), afatinib (40 mg/kg body weight), neratinib (40 mg/kg body weight), or osimertinib (20 mg/kg body weight) for 12 days (n = 10 mice for each group). We did not examine trastuzumab or sapitinib in vivo for further analysis because in vitro experiments using the MANO method showed that the two drugs have weak efficacy against many ERBB2 mutants and were not considered promising treatment for cancers harboring those mutations. Tumor volumes decreased significantly by day 12 in the group treated with any inhibitor but lapatinib compared with those in the control group (Fig. 3A). The tumors were excised from the mice on day 12, and the relative percentage of each cell clone was quantitated using the MANO method. The fold changes in read numbers in the control group on day 12 compared with day 0 are shown in Supplementary Fig. S8 and Supplementary Table S5.
In the vehicle-treated group, 13 mutant cell clones accounted for more than 1% of the total reads and were thus considered evaluable. We then compared the relative proportions treated with each inhibitor of these 13 mutant cell clones to those of the vehicle control group. As shown in Fig. 3B and Supplementary Table S6, lapatinib was effective against ERBB2 V777L and L841V. The relative proportion of cell clones expressing ERBB2 mutants decreased significantly in the group treated with afatinib and neratinib, whereas that of the cell clones expressing the TKI-resistant EGFR mutants (T790M_L858R and T790M_C797S) increased. In contrast, the proportion of cell clones harboring E770_A771insAYVM and A775_776insYVMA was increased significantly in the group treated with osimertinib.
Although cell clones carrying the L755P mutation demonstrated a significant decrease when they were treated with afatinib and neratinib in vivo, these mutations were shown to be less sensitive to the two drugs in vitro. Therefore, we further explored the in vivo antitumor efficacy of afatinib and osimertinib against the xenograft of L755P. As shown in Fig. 3C, a low dose of afatinib (8 mg/kg) could not inhibit tumor growth, whereas a similar dose of osimertinib (8 mg/kg) demonstrated a significant inhibitory effect on tumor growth to an extent similar to high-dose afatinib (40 mg/kg) and high-dose osimertinib (20 mg/kg). The pharmacokinetics of these two drugs were monitored to ensure the validity of the drug concentration used in the in vivo assays. The geometric mean plasma concentration–time profile after single doses of low-dose osimertinib (Cmax = 230 nmol/L) was similar to that of the clinical standard dose of osimertinib (36, 37). In contrast, the plasma concentrations of low-dose afatinib (Cmax = 343 nmol/L) were relatively higher than those of the clinical standard dose of afatinib (Supplementary Fig. S9; refs. 38, 39).
Detection and analysis of ERBB2 compound mutations
EGFR compound mutations, defined as multiple mutations in the EGFR gene, constitute 14% to 30% of all EGFR mutations (27, 40, 41). We expected that similar compound mutations might also exist in ERBB2 and indeed found 15 types of ERBB2 compound mutations in the COSMIC database (Supplementary Table S7A). S310F is most frequently found in the compound mutation form (Fig. 4A), with six compound mutations in 33 samples analyzed by whole-exome or RNA sequencing. ERBB2 compound mutations were identified in many cancer types (Supplementary Table S7B), the most common of which was breast cancer (six cases), followed by bladder urothelial carcinoma (five cases).
We then evaluated the transforming potential of these compound mutations using the focus formation assay (Supplementary Fig. S10) and the MANO method (Supplementary Fig. S11). The transforming potential of such compound mutations tends to be stronger than that of simple mutations, and 13 of the 17 ERBB2 compound mutations were evaluated to confer transforming activities in both 3T3 and Ba/F3 cells (Supplementary Fig. S12A and S12B). We then assessed the drug sensitivity of the ERBB2 compound mutations using the MANO method (Fig. 4B) and the Alamar Blue cell viability assay (Fig. 4C). We excluded Ba/F3 cells harboring GFP, G135E, or D277H from the analysis because these cells did not show IL3-independent growth. Interestingly, three compound mutations involving L755S were shown to be sensitive to osimertinib (IC50 < 50 nmol/L) but less sensitive to afatinib or neratinib (IC50 > 5 nmol/L). Interestingly, the sensitivity of the compound mutations to trastuzumab was generally between those of the two single mutations (Supplementary Fig. S13).
Drug sensitivity profile of ERBB2 mutations
A summary of the estimated drug sensitivities is shown in Fig. 5. On the basis of this evaluation, trastuzumab and lapatinib were effective against most of the ERBB2 ectodomain mutations, but several mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain were shown to confer resistance against the two drugs. Although there was no definitive resistant mutation to sapitinib, many of the ERBB2 mutations were partially insensitive to sapitinib. Afatinib and neratinib showed good efficacy for most of the ERBB2 mutations, but they were less effective against several mutations, including L755P/S. Osimertinib, however, seems to be a good candidate drug against L755 mutations, whereas it showed lower efficacy against E770_A771insAYVM and A775_776insYVMA.
Discussion
The current findings revealed that most of the ERBB2 mutations with transforming potential in both 3T3 and Ba/F3 cells were located in the tyrosine kinase domain (16/18 mutations, 89%). Our data (Fig. 5) and those of previous preclinical studies (42, 43) further suggest that trastuzumab and lapatinib may not be preferable for the treatment of cancers with several ERBB2-activating mutations. This suggestion is also supported by the MyPathway basket trial, showing that only four of 36 patients (11%) with cancers harboring ERBB2 mutations had objective responses to treatment with trastuzumab plus pertuzumab (44). Moreover, assessments of both mutation and amplification of ERBB2 are likely to be of great clinical relevance, especially in bladder urothelial carcinoma, because concurrent mutations/amplification may reduce the efficacy of trastuzumab and lapatinib (45). In fact, among 41 patients with both ERBB2 amplification and mutation in the MSK-IMPACT dataset, 19 (46.3%) and 12 (29.2%) patients had ERBB2 mutations that were resistant to trastuzumab and lapatinib, respectively.
Although afatinib, neratinib, and osimertinib were found to be effective against most of the ERBB2 mutants analyzed in this study, several ERBB2 mutants, such as L755 mutations and exon 20 insertions, showed different sensitivities to the three drugs. Whereas some studies have suggested that afatinib and neratinib are effective against L755S (11, 18, 46), our in vitro study showed that the IC50 values of the two drugs against L755P/S mutations were relatively higher than those against other ERBB2 mutants. Moreover, a low-dose treatment with afatinib (8 mg/kg) could not inhibit the in vivo growth of the tumors with ERBB2(L755P). In the SUMMIT trial, the median best percentage change from baseline in breast cancers harboring the L755S mutation was lower than those in breast cancers with other ERBB2 mutations, including S310, V777, and exon 20 insertions. The MutHER trial also showed that the clinical benefit of neratinib for patients with ERBB2(L755S) was poor (one partial response, one stable disease <24 weeks, and four progressive disease; ref. 47). In contrast, osimertinib demonstrated better efficacy against the L755 mutations in this study. We found that the osimertinib IC50 values against L755 mutations were lower than those against wild-type EGFR and similar to those against TKI-sensitizing ERBB2 mutations, such as S310F and V777L. Our in vivo study also showed that low-dose osimertinib (8 mg/kg) could inhibit the growth of tumors with the L755P mutation, compared with low-dose afatinib (8 mg/kg) treatment. Osimertinib, therefore, may be a candidate drug for cancers carrying the L755 mutation. Importantly, in addition to the most frequent de novo mutation in breast cancers, the L755S mutation has recently been reported to be an acquired mutation that is resistant to trastuzumab treatment (25). However, considering that osimertinib as well as afatinib could not completely inhibit the progression of tumors expressing the L755P mutant in vivo, whether osimertinib would be a promising treatment for patients with cancers harboring the L755 mutant is still controversial and should be assessed in further clinical trials.
It should be noted, however, that osimertinib is likely ineffective against E770_A771insAYVM and A775_776insYVMA (IC50 >100 nmol/L). In fact, one patient was shown to acquire the ERBB2(A775_776insYVMA) mutation after receiving osimertinib for EGFR mutant–positive lung cancer in the AURA study (48). In contrast, neratinib may be effective against these mutations because the IC50 was less than 2 nmol/L, whereas the IC50 against EGFR exon 20 insertions was 16 to 96 nmol/L based on our evaluation. However, the efficacy of neratinib against ERBB2 exon 20 insertions should be interpreted with caution considering that the IC50 values against wild-type ERBB2 and EGFR were both reduced (0.3 and 0.7 nmol/L). According to the SUMMIT study, neratinib was effective against ERBB2 exon 20 insertions in breast cancers but not in lung cancers. The same is true for afatinib treatment. Although afatinib showed efficacy against tumors driven by the ERBB2(A775_776insYVMA) mutation in some preclinical studies (17, 35), the clinical benefit of afatinib for patients with lung cancers harboring the ERBB2(A775_776insYVMA) mutation remains unclear (49). These results may suggest that neratinib or afatinib treatment for cancers harboring ERBB2 exon 20 insertions may be dependent on the tumor origin and should be evaluated in larger cohort studies.
To our knowledge, this report is the first to comprehensively evaluate ERBB2 compound mutations, although a few ERBB2 compound mutations have been reported previously (50). Our study showed that 6.1% (MSK-IMPACT dataset) and 8.1% (TCGA dataset) of ERBB2 mutant–positive patients had compound mutations. Our study further discovered that each compound mutation had a varying degree of sensitivity to each ERBB2-targeted drug. For instance, the simple mutation of S310F was sensitive to trastuzumab and lapatinib, whereas the compound mutation of S310F and L755S was resistant to both drugs. The transforming potential of ERBB2 compound mutations was generally stronger than that of simple mutations, suggesting that the compound mutations contributed an advantage to tumor growth.
Potential limitations of this study include the following points. First, retroviral transduction of ERBB2 mutations into cell lines results in elevated ERBB2 protein overexpression compared with endogenous ERRB2 expression. The evaluation of transforming potential is complicated because overexpression of wild-type ERBB2 itself confers some transforming activity. Therefore, we compared the transforming potential of ERBB2 mutants with that of wild-type ERBB2 in this study. Second, our preclinical data are not yet completely supported by clinical data. Like the SUMMIT trial, the sensitivities of different types of ERBB2 mutations to ERBB2-targeted inhibitors, including osimertinib, should be evaluated in open basket–type clinical trials. Third, we were unable to determine whether ERBB2 compound mutations occur in cis or trans because the two mutations are located in different exons far away from each other in the genome, making the assessment technically difficult. We previously reported that all EGFR compound mutations are present in the cis allele (27), and thus, ERBB2 compound mutations may also exist in a similar manner. Fourth, because the drugs used in vivo were administered intraperitoneally but not orally, plasma concentrations achieved in mice were higher than those in humans as shown in Supplementary Fig. S9 (36, 38). Therefore, we should be careful of applying the results to humans. Finally, our study did not take into account other gene mutations such as PIK3CA and ERBB3 mutations that possibly cooccur in cancers harboring ERBB2 mutations and can affect drug sensitivity (23, 47).
In conclusion, a comprehensive evaluation of ERBB2 mutations was successfully performed using the MANO method. In particular, osimertinib was first evaluated for the treatment of ERBB2-positive cancer and might be effective against most of the ERBB2 mutants including the L755 mutants, which are the most common in breast cancer and acquired resistant mutations after trastuzumab or lapatinib treatment. Therefore, the efficacy of osimertinib treatment against these ERBB2 mutants should be evaluated in future clinical trials. Given that recent studies have reported several acquired ERBB2 mutations after treatment with ERBB2-targeted drugs, it has become increasingly important to evaluate the significance of ERBB2 mutations, including minor mutations, amplifications with mutations, or compound mutations. Therefore, the MANO method may become a beneficial approach for the functional evaluation of ERBB2 mutants, enabling determination of the best treatment for cancers harboring ERBB2 mutations. However, our preclinical data obtained in this study are not validated by clinical data, and thus must be confirmed in further investigations of large-scale clinical studies.
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
Authors' Contributions
Conception and design: M. Nagano, S. Kohsaka, H. Mano
Development of methodology: M. Nagano, S. Kohsaka
Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): M. Nagano, S. Kohsaka, K. Saka
Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): M. Nagano, S. Kohsaka, T. Ueno, S. Kojima
Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: M. Nagano, S. Kohsaka, H. Iwase, M. Kawazu, H. Mano
Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): M. Nagano, S. Kohsaka, M. Kawazu
Study supervision: S. Kohsaka, H. Mano
Acknowledgments
The authors thank A. Maruyama for technical assistance. This study was financially supported in part through grants from the Leading Advanced Projects for Medical Innovation (LEAP) under grant number JP17am0001001, the Practical Research for Innovative Cancer Control under grant number JP17ck0106252, and the Project for Cancer Research And Therapeutic Evolution (P-CREATE) under grant number JP17cm0106502 from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, AMED.
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.