Willis S, Sun Y, Abramovitz M, Fei T, Young B, Lin X, Ni M, Achua J, Regan MM, Gray KP, Gray R, Wang V, Long B, Kammler R, Sparano JA, Williams C, Goldstein LJ, Salgado R, Loi S, Pruneri G, Viale G, Brown M, and Leyland-Jones B
Purpose: Identification of single-gene biomarkers that are prognostic of outcome can shed new insights on the molecular mechanisms that drive breast cancer and other cancers., Methods: Exploratory analysis of 20,464 single-gene messenger RNAs (mRNAs) in the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) discovery cohort indicates that low expression of FGD3 mRNA is prognostic for poor outcome. Prognostic significance of faciogenital dysplasia 3 (FGD3), SUSD3, and other single-gene proliferation markers was evaluated in breast cancer and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohorts., Results: A meta-analysis of Cox regression of FGD3 mRNA as a continuous variable for overall survival of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive samples in METABRIC discovery, METABRIC validation, TCGA breast cancer, and Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Women With Breast Cancer (E2197) cohorts resulted in a combined hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.75), indicating better outcome with high expression. In the ER-negative samples, the combined meta-analysis HR was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.82), suggesting that FGD3 is prognostic regardless of ER status. The potential of FGD3 as a biomarker for freedom from recurrence was evaluated in the Breast International Group 1-98 (BIG 1-98; Letrozole or Tamoxifen in Treating Postmenopausal Women With Breast Cancer) study (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93) for breast cancer-free interval. In the Hungarian Academy of Science (HAS) breast cancer cohort, splitting on the median had an HR of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.58) for recurrence-free survival. A comparison of the Stouffer P value in five ER-positive cohorts showed that FGD3 ( P = 3.8 E-14 ) outperformed MKI67 ( P = 1.06 E-8 ) and AURKA ( P = 2.61 E-5 ). A comparison of the Stouffer P value in four ER-negative cohorts showed that FGD3 ( P = 3.88 E-5 ) outperformed MKI67 ( P = .477) and AURKA ( P = .820)., Conclusion: FGD3 was previously shown to inhibit cell migration. FGD3 mRNA is regulated by ESR1 and is associated with favorable outcome in six distinct breast cancer cohorts and four TCGA cancer cohorts. This suggests that FGD3 is an important clinical biomarker., Competing Interests: The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or po.ascopubs.org/site/ifc. Scooter WillisNo relationship to discloseYuliang SunNo relationship to discloseMark AbramovitzNo relationship to discloseTeng FeiNo relationship to discloseBrandon YoungNo relationship to discloseXiaoqian LinNo relationship to discloseMin NiNo relationship to discloseJustin AchuaEmployment: Avera Mckennan HospitalMeredith M. ReganConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Ipsen (Inst) Research Funding: Veridex (Inst), OncoGenex (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Merck (Inst), Ferring (Inst), Celgene (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), Ipsen (Inst)Kathryn P. GrayStock and Other Ownership Interests: MDGNRobert GrayResearch Funding: Abbott Molecular, Agios, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, ImClone Systems, Janssen-Ortho, Kanisa, Millennium, Nodality, Onyx, OSI Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sequenta, Syndax, NovartisVictoria WangNo relationship to discloseBradley LongNo relationship to discloseRoswitha KammlerNo relationship to discloseJoseph A. SparanoStock and Other Ownership Interests: Metastat Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Celldex, Pfizer, Prescient Therapeutics, Juno Therapeutics, Merrimack Research Funding: Prescient Therapeutics (Inst), Deciphera (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Merck (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Merrimack (Inst)Casey WilliamsResearch Funding: Takeda (Inst), Tesaro (Inst)Lori J. GoldsteinHonoraria: Genentech, Roche Pharma AG, Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Glenmark Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Dompé Farmaceutici, Roche Pharma AG, Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca Research Funding: Merck (Inst), Genentech (Inst) Other Relationship: Roche Pharma AGRoberto SalgadoTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: RocheSherene LoiResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Merck (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst) Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: PI3K pathway gene signature granted by the European and US patent offices (Inst)Giancarlo PruneriNo relationship to discloseGiuseppe VialeHonoraria: MSD Oncology Consulting or Advisory Role: Dako, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, CelgeneMyles BrownConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, GTx Research Funding: Novartis Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property:: As part of my work at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute I have made invention disclosures and the institute is filing patents on technology related to endocrine resistance in breast cancer and improved CRISPR dual sgRNA library design. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: GTxBrian Leyland-JonesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Progenix, Puma Biotechnology, Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, ARIAD, Zogenix Consulting or Advisory Role: GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen Speakers’ Bureau: Genentech, Exelixis Research Funding: Takeda, Tesaro Expert Testimony: Amgen, (© 2017 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)