Next Article in Journal
Genetic Mapping of Genotype-by-Ploidy Effects in Arabidopsis thaliana
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Death-Associated Protein Kinase-1 in Cell Homeostasis-Related Processes
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of the Origin of Emiratis as Inferred from a Family Study Based on HLA-A, -C, -B, -DRB1, and -DQB1 Genes
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Breast Cancer with Brain Metastasis: Molecular Insights and Clinical Management

by
Mariia Ivanova
1,†,
Francesca Maria Porta
1,2,†,
Federica Giugliano
3,4,
Chiara Frascarelli
1,3,
Elham Sajjadi
1,3,
Konstantinos Venetis
1,
Giulia Cursano
1,
Giovanni Mazzarol
1,
Elena Guerini-Rocco
1,3,
Giuseppe Curigliano
3,4,
Carmen Criscitiello
3,4,* and
Nicola Fusco
1,3,*
1
Division of Pathology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy
2
School of Pathology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy
3
Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy
4
Division of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapies, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Genes 2023, 14(6), 1160; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14061160
Submission received: 2 May 2023 / Revised: 16 May 2023 / Accepted: 23 May 2023 / Published: 26 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genotyping and Prognostic Markers in Cancers)

Abstract

:
Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy worldwide and the leading cause of cancer-related death among women. Brain metastases are a primary contributor to mortality, as they often go undetected until late stages due to their dormant nature. Moreover, the clinical management of brain metastases is complicated by the relevant issue of blood-brain barrier penetration. The molecular pathways involved in the formation, progression, and colonization of primary breast tumors and subsequent brain metastases are diverse, posing significant hurdles due to the heterogeneous nature of breast cancer subtypes. Despite advancements in primary breast cancer treatments, the prognosis for patients with brain metastases remains poor. In this review, we aim to highlight the biological mechanisms of breast cancer brain metastases by evaluating multi-step genetic pathways and to discuss currently available and emerging treatment strategies to propose a prospective overview of the management of this complex disease.

1. Introduction

Breast cancer (BC) is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy worldwide and the leading cause of cancer-related death in the female population [1]. Significant improvements in diagnosis and treatment strategies have substantially enhanced the management of these patients [2]. However, when the tumors have progressed to an advanced stage, the outcome remains poor, with a 5-year relative survival rate of 31% for de-novo metastatic BC (MBC) [3,4]. The most common anatomical sites of BC metastatic deposits include bone, liver, lung, and brain, with the latter being one of the major causes of mortality [5,6,7]. Of note, brain metastases (BMs) are more frequent in patients with HER2+ or triple-negative BC (TNBC) [3,6,8].
Patients with intracranial disease require multidisciplinary therapeutic approaches, including surgery, radiation, and pharmacological therapies [9,10]. Among these, medical treatments are particularly challenging due to the presence of the blood–brain barrier (BBB), which may limit the successful access to the central nervous system (CNS) of bioactive compounds [11]. Due to the complex crosstalk between the tumor and neural microenvironment, it is paramount to dissect the molecular mechanisms of BC with BMs. This would allow for the optimization of the existing systemic treatments and the critical development of novel and more effective strategies.
In this review article, we provide an overview of the biological mechanisms underlying the development of BMs in patients with BC along with the currently available and emerging medical pharmacological treatment options based on known molecular mechanisms.

2. Biological Mechanisms of Brain Metastasis

Systemic metastases are the result of a multi-stage process that involves the detachment of the neoplastic cells from the primary tumor mass, and their migration through the local mesenchyme into the blood and lymphatic vessels [12]. This process requires reciprocal interactions between tumor cells and host tissues that involve epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), changes in adhesion, proteolysis, invasion, and angiogenesis [13,14].
In BC, these events are linked to the alteration of the Wnt signaling pathway and inactivation of cadherin 1 (CDH1) [15,16,17]. Once neoplastic cells reach the peritumoral microenvironment, their survival relies on the so-called intravasation, which is the ability to invade the systemic circulation and reach distant anatomical sites [18]. The brain is a richly vascularized organ and is therefore exposed to a high amount of circulating tumor cells, provided that they can cross the BBB [19]. This barrier is composed of a layer of specialized endothelial cells expressing a specific subset of membrane transporters and pumps that allow tight regulation of the brain microenvironment and are impermeable to most foreign agents [20]. Astrocytes further contribute to the regulation of the BBB by forming a second basement membrane around brain capillaries through their cytoplasmic foot processes [21]. Still, some BC cells can cross the BBB and invade the brain parenchyma.
Colonization of the brain by BC starts with the adhesion of the circulating tumor cells to the capillary endothelium [22,23]. Upregulation of the membrane glycosyl-transferase ST6GALNAC5 has been demonstrated to play an important role in this process [24]. Its expression is normally restricted to the brain, but BC neoplastic cells that acquire the ability to synthesize it have an increased ability to cross the BBB and invade the brain parenchyma [25]. In addition, β4 integrin signaling promotes tumor endothelial adhesion and extravasation by enhancing vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression, activated by hypoxia, which promotes vascular remodeling and increased permeability [26,27,28]. After the BBB has been breached, reactive astrocytes activated by contact with cancer cells initiate an anti-tumoral response by secreting plasminogen activators [29]. In the early phases of the anti-tumoral response, this promotes the activation of plasmin, which in turn is responsible for the elimination of neoplastic cells [30]. However, some tumor cells can escape by producing anti-plasminogen activator serpins [31]. In the later phases of metastasis growth, reactive astrocytes have a tumor-promoting effect through the creation of a microenvironment that favors metastasis progression [32]. The summary of BC BM biological mechanisms is represented in Figure 1.

2.1. JAK/STAT Signaling Pathway

Reactive astrocytes following BM are characterized by activation of the JAK/STAT signaling pathway that promotes tissue repair and scar formation following brain injury [33]. Astrocytes expressing pSTAT3 increase the recruitment of CD74+ microglia-macrophages, which in turn induces the activation of the macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) [34,35]. The activation of the CD74-MIF axis has an immunosuppressive effect on peritumoral microglia macrophages, creating a metastasis-favorable microenvironment [36]. In addition, STAT3+ astrocytes have an immune suppressive effect by inducing the expression of programmed cell death–1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death–1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) [37,38,39,40,41]. Furthermore, BC BM has been observed to be highly immunogenic, with high levels of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) frequently reported within the tumor and the surrounding stroma [42,43].

2.2. Immune Checkpoints Mechanisms

A study of 233 patients with solid tumors of various origins and concurrent BM has demonstrated PD-L1 expression in 23.6% of BMs, wherein 18% (19 cases) showed PD-L1 expression in both the primary tumor and the BM (22C3 anti-PD-L1 antibody, Dako Agilent) [44]. Interestingly, authors have also shown that IHC evaluation of CD8 (a co-receptor for the T-cell receptor) resulted in its expression being associated with higher PD-L1 expression, both in the primary tumor and BM, which confirms the ongoing lymphocytic reaction in the BM microenvironment [44]. Significant correlations were identified between the infiltration of CD8-positive lymphocytes in primary tumors and the BM characteristics, with a higher incidence of multiple BMs observed in cases with lower levels of CD8 infiltration in the primary tumors. [44,45]. Griguolo et al. have also confirmed that TNBC BMs showed a significantly higher percentage of intra-tumoral CD8+ cells and a higher density of CD163+ M2-polarized microglia/macrophages within the HER2-negative BC BMs, associating the latter with a worse prognosis, but identifying another potential therapeutic target to be explored [46]. The authors emphasize that, paradoxically, in both TNBC BMs and HR+/HER2− BC BMs, the interaction between CD163+ microglia/macrophages and T lymphocytes was associated with a better outcome [46]. A study by Noh et al. exploring the evolution of the tumor microenvironment in BC BM found that a lower CD8+ T cell count, low CD86+ M1 macrophage count, and high M2/M1 macrophage ratio in the BC BM compared to the primary tumor were related to unfavorable clinical outcomes [47]. Furthermore, Giannoudis et al. have conducted an analysis of 55 samples consisting of 26 paired primary BCs and their BMs, assessing TILs and mRNA expression [48]. Authors have demonstrated a significant reduction of TILs in BC BMs in comparison to primary BCs, with an 11.5% high-TILs count in primary tumors (>40% stromal TILs) versus only 3.8% in BC BMs [48]. A total of 112 immune-related gene levels were found to decrease in BC BMs compared to primary BCs, including PD-L1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) (false discovery rate < 0.01, log2 fold-change > 1.5), which are involved in cytokine–chemokine signaling, immune cells migration, matrix remodeling, and metastasis [48]. CTLA-4 is one of the fundamental immunosuppressive cytokines, mainly activated on T-cells, which suppresses the immune response, and potentially prevents cancer cells from being attacked by the immune system. CTLA-4 genetic variants have been shown to play a role in BC progression, presenting a prognostic value [49] and making CTLA-4 a potentially attractive target for BC immunotherapeutic approach development, wherein the evaluation of its mutations may become markers for genomics-based precision medicine and effective BC treatment [50]. The depletion of T-cell response could be driven by ARG2 (Arginase 2) upregulation, which was found in BC BMs and confirmed immunohistochemically (ARG2 protein expression was associated with worse breast–brain metastasis-free survival (p = 0.027) and OS (p = 0.019)), so ARG2 could be another potential marker of BC distant metastasis and a therapeutic target in BC BM, as proposed by authors [50]. The model of mouse mammary carcinoma by Sham et al. has provided an analysis of EMT cell lines, wherein tumor cells acquired resistance to radiotherapy, changing their phenotype and causing them to acquire higher migratory and survival rates, which in turn represents a higher metastatic potential [14]. The authors performed a next-generation sequencing (NGS) to explore underlying genes responsible for EMT cell culture and found upregulation of PDL-1, AXL, GAS6, and APCDD1, which are believed to contribute to radioresistance acquisition through the JAK/STAT/PI3K pathway [14]. Based on this hypothesis, the authors determined the levels of PD-1 and CTLA-4 proteins expression, as they are known to be associated with the JAK/STAT/PI3K pathway [51]. Indeed, these proteins were confirmed to be overexpressed in the EMT cell line by Western blot [14]. The immune microenvironment has a profound influence on the outcome of patients with BMS from BC, with a significantly poorer prognosis in tumors with increased PD1/PDL1 expression [46]. However, these patients could benefit from targeted immune therapy [52,53].

2.3. PI3K-Akt Signaling Pathway

The activation of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-protein kinase B (Akt) signaling pathway has been observed in a large proportion of BCs with BM [54,55]. Activation of this pathway leads to a more aggressive phenotype of neoplastic cells, with increased survivability, proliferation, and angiogenetic potential [56,57]. Patients with BMs harboring activation of the PI3K-Akt signaling pathway have a worse outcome compared to patients with the same-stage disease and lower PI3K-Akt activity [54]. In addition, it contributes to the modulation of the peritumoral immune microenvironment through the activation of immunosuppressive regulators such as PD-1 and CTLA-4 [39]. Interestingly, a functional link has been reported between the PI3K and STAT3, where a synergistic interaction of the two pathways has been observed in murine neoplastic cells [58]. This crosstalk is mediated by the cytoplasmic tyrosine-protein kinase BMX, a member of the TEC kinase family known to be a STAT3 phosphorylator [59,60]. TEC kinases, including BMX, are in turn activated by PI3K, with a positive effect on STAT3 activation [61]. This inter-dependency is further demonstrated by the fact that PI3K inhibition significantly reduces STAT3 phosphorylation and activation [62].
Another important component activating the PI3K-AKT pathway is HER2-HER3 dimerization [63], which plays a central role in the biology of BC with BM [54,57,64,65]. Patients with HER2+ disease are at increased risk of developing BMs [3,8,66], with HER2 overexpression often preserved at the metastatic site, and associated with the overexpression of HER3 [63], a coreceptor that forms heterodimers with HER2, thus playing a role in the neoplastic transformation of HER2-enriched BCs [67]. This provides a further therapeutic perspective on patients with BMs from BC, as HER3 inhibitors are available and have been proven to be effective in increasing the sensitivity to PI3K inhibitors [68].

2.4. PTEN

Another frequent occurrence in BC BM is the loss of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) [69]. This event has been observed to be more frequent in BM compared to dissemination to other organs, suggesting a role of the local microenvironment in inducing this alteration [70]. This mechanism has indeed been demonstrated to depend on epigenetic regulation through micro-RNAs (miRNAs) secretion by astrocytes [71]. In addition, PTEN loss also induces the secretion of cytokine–chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2), which is responsible for the creation of a pro-inflammatory microenvironment [72], and recruitment of ionized calcium-binding adapter molecule 1 (Iba1)+ myeloid cells that reduce apoptosis and promote growth in neoplastic cells [71].

3. Patients at High Risk

Numerous achievements in medical treatment have improved overall disease control in this population. Nevertheless, in clinical practice, the rate of intracranial progression, while extracranial disease appears to be under control, is growing [73]. BMs are more frequently observed in HER2+ and TNBC subtypes [73,74]. In addition to the abovementioned risk of a certain molecular subtype, a young age at the initial diagnosis, larger tumor size, higher histologic grade, higher tumor stage, high proliferation Ki67 index, presence of lung metastases, and BRCA1 phenotype increase the risk of BM in BC patients [73,74,75].
TNBC-derived BMs have been reported to arise earlier compared to those of other molecular subtypes, with a significantly shorter survival, a median overall survival (OS) of roughly six months and the worst BC-specific survival and OS [74].
A survival analysis of 83 HER2-positive metastatic BC patients found that hormone-negative tumors and larger BMs were related to a poorer prognosis, as well as the use of single-agent chemotherapy with trastuzumab, and the use of only one type of anti-HER2 agent after trastuzumab resulted in a poor prognosis [76]. These data are supported by a previous study of 228 HER2-positive BC patients, of whom 51 had BMs and a poor prognosis due to the lack of effective treatments for BM [73].
Hormone status, as an unequivocal pillar of BC patients’ assessment, has given some insights into BM development risk. Estrogen supplementation to premenopausal levels can enhance the risk of BM in TNBC patients [74]. Estrogen-treated astrocytes have been demonstrated to activate epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in premenopausal women via epidermal growth factor receptor EGFR ligand overexpression, and play an important role in promoting invasion and BM colonization. The paracrine effect of estrogen may promote metastases, whereas estrogen deprivation has been shown to significantly lower brain metastatic load in triple-negative EGFR + tumors [77].
Progesterone, having an impact on mammary epithelial cell proliferation and differentiation, is also a risk factor for BC. In TNBC, progesterone has been demonstrated to reduce TNBC cell proliferation, progression, and BM via the membrane progesterone receptor α, suggesting the progesterone-mPRα pathway as a target [78].
Epigenetic changes have also been considered significant in the evolution of BC. A meta-analysis of epigenetic genes identified the enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) as a key driver of TNBC. TNBC cells with increased EZH2 expression were more likely to metastasize, whereas inhibition of EZH2 activity reduced tumor spread and metastasis [79]. Highly expressed TNBC-specific transcription factor Engrailed 1 (EN1) is linked to the regulation of genes related to neurogenesis. Its high expression has been found to correlate with short overall survival and increased risk of developing brain metastases in patients with TNBC, which describes EN1 as a prognostic marker and a potential therapeutic target [80].
Resent research has focused on novel predictive biomarkers identification, to improve high-risk patients’ stratification. The investigation of insulin resistance markers and fasting triglyceride–glucose (TyG) indices in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs suggests that the TyG index could be used as a predictive biomarker at the time of diagnosis for the risk of time to BM, with a need for prospective studies confirming these data [81].

4. Targeting Therapies for Breast Cancer Patients with Brain Metastasis

According to the latest ASCO-SNO-ASTRO guidelines, surgery with subsequent radiotherapy on the operated field may be offered for patients with one brain mass without primary cancer diagnosis or for large tumors with mass effect. Local treatment with radiotherapy is reasonable for symptomatic BMs, regardless of the systemic therapy administration [82]. There is not one recommended sequence for patients receiving both local treatments and systemic therapy [83]. Medical treatments for BC are mainly based on hormone receptor and HER2 status, while some novel target therapies are available depending on the tumor molecular profile [7,82,84]. Pharmacological approaches for patients harboring encephalic disease do not differ from patients who do not, except for HER2-positive BC, for which guidelines providing a specific treatment algorithm have been provided [85].

4.1. HR+/HER2−—Breast Cancer

Local treatments (surgery and radiation therapy) remain the gold standard for BMs from HR-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2−) BC [82,83]. Existing practice guidelines for MBC treatment recommend sequential endocrine/targeted therapy until the exhaustion of available agents, before systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy administration [83,86,87]. Although BMs in HR+/HER2− BC show a lower incidence compared to HER2+ and TNBC subtypes, endocrine therapy has been found to be beneficial for both CNS and systemic management [83,88]. Indeed, tamoxifen and its metabolites have been reported to achieve effective concentrations in the CNS [89]. First-line treatment for this population is based on endocrine therapy plus cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, namely palbociclib, ribociclib, or abemaciclib [90]. These three agents are capable of crossing the BBB, but there is a lack of clinical data to inform a CNS-specific response rate. Indeed, no data on CNS outcomes are available for ribociclib and palbociclib [83]. Regarding abemaciclib, a single-arm phase II clinical trial did not meet its primary endpoint of intracranial overall response rate in HR-positive BC with BMs, although the drug achieved an excellent concentration in cerebrospinal fluid. It is worth noting that palbociclib has been shown to be effective in BMs of different tumor types, including BC, and to harbor a CDK4/6 alteration [91]. Companion endocrine therapy for CDK4/6 inhibitors could be represented by fulvestrant or letrozole. Elacestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader approved by the FDA, could be an option for patients harboring an ESR1 mutation after CDK4/6 exposure [92]. However, no data on CNS efficacy are available for this drug at the time of writing.
Furthermore, preclinical data have shown that the serine/threonine protein kinase AKT (protein kinase B) inhibitor capivasertib is active in combination with fulvestrant, providing the basis for future studies [93]. Given the promising results of the phase II FAKTION trial (NCT01992952) [94,95], capivasertib was further investigated in the phase III CAPItello-291 trial (NCT04305496), with results recently reported at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2022 [96]. Although patients with BMs were included, results in this subgroup are pending.
Another crucial pathway in BC is the PI3K/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling, wherein activating PIK3CA mutations, occurring in about 40% of hormone receptor HR+/HER2− MBCs, are driver events for tumorigenesis and tumor progression [57]. This pathway has been successfully targeted by the α-selective PIK3CA inhibitor alpelisib [55], with a manageable safety profile (mainly diarrhea and hyperglycemia). The incidence of BMs is particularly high among patients with HR+/HER2− BC patients carrying a PIK3CA mutation [97], and one report has shown a gain of PIK3CA mutation in BM samples despite its absence in a primary BC [98]. Real-world evidence suggests that alpelisib may have CNS activity [99]. However, the low number of cases reported justifies the need for additional investigations to prospectively evaluate alpelisib efficacy in patients with BC BM [100].

4.2. Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Among the three main BC subtypes, TNBC is characterized by a limited therapeutic armamentarium [101]. However, this scenario is rapidly expanding thanks to innovative options based on the characterization of individual tumor molecular profiles [102,103,104,105]. At the moment, the treatment strategy for most TNBCs relies on chemotherapy, immunotherapy (if PD-L1 is positive), and target therapy with poly (adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) based on germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2) status. [85,106,107,108]. In patients with MBC harboring a gBRCA1/2 pathogenetic variant, the two PARPis, talazoparib and olaparib, showed a benefit in survival outcomes [109]. Regarding BMs, a higher frequency of BMs is reported in this population. In the EMBRACA trial (NCT01945775), talazoparib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than standard-of-care chemotherapy; this was also found in the subgroup of patients with CNS metastases [110]. However, the final overall survival analysis was not statistically significant [111]. It is worth noting that the enrolled population comprised both TNBC and HR+ BC; no specific analysis for BMs in each subgroup is available, given the limited number of patients with BMs enrolled in the study (about 15%). The same concern could be raised for the OlympiAD trial, although in this study no specific subgroup analysis for BMs is available [112]. In these studies, PARPis have shown mainly hematological and gastrointestinal toxicity.
On the other hand, immunotherapy has demonstrated potential intracranial efficacy among patients with MBC [113,114]. Indeed, recent studies demonstrated that TNBCs exhibit higher PD-L1 expression than other BC subtypes, which is associated with remarkable genomic instability and higher immune infiltration [115]. The role of the immune microenvironment and PD-L1 expression in the brain and metastatic brain tumors is poorly understood [46,48]. Chehade and colleagues have studied 59 immunotherapy-naïve BC patients with BMs in a single-center retrospective cohort study, wherein 15.3% had PD-L1+ BM, with the highest proportion (25%) among those with TNBC (SP142 antibody, Ventana) [52]. In this study, the concordance in PD-L1 expression between primary BC and BM in TNBC specifically could not be studied due to small sample sizes, but authors emphasize that PD-L1 expression has previously been reported to be higher in the primary tumor compared to metastatic sites (63.7% vs. 42.2%, p < 0.0001), specifically in TNBC [52,116]. Hence, it was proposed that PD-L1 staining should be performed both on the primary and metastatic tumor to maximize the opportunity for ICI therapy administration [116].
Focusing on clinical data, the combination of chemotherapy and pembrolizumab improved overall survival with manageable safety in patients with PD-L1+ (CPS ≥ 10) advanced TNBC in the phase III KEYNOTE-355b study [117]. In this study, only a few patients with BMs were enrolled; thus, it is not possible to derive any conclusion [118,119]. The IMPASSION-130 trial (NCT03483012) has demonstrated a benefit of atezolizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel for TNBC treatment; however, no progression-free survival (PFS) benefit for BM patients has been observed, although this population had a relatively small representation (6.3%) [120].

4.3. HER2+ Breast Cancer

In HER2+ BC subtypes, one of the primary therapeutic targets is human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), overexpressed in about 20% of cases [121]. Interestingly, some studies demonstrated that several primary BCs, originally negative for HER2, developed HER2 positivity after metastasizing to the brain [122]. HER2− and EGFR-targeted therapies are being evaluated and used in the clinic and/or evaluated in clinical trials for BC patients with BM treatment [123]. The results of the phase III trial CLEOPATRA (NCT00567190) in HER2+ MBC patients have demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free and overall survival with the administration of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel over placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel [124]. Swain et al. have carried out exploratory analyses of the incidence and time to development of CNS metastases in the same patients’ cohort, revealing that pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel delay the onset of CNS disease compared with placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel [125], maintaining this effect for more than 8 years of median follow-up [126]. Another phase III study, TH3RESA (NCT01419197), compared the effect of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) administration with other treatments of the physician’s choice in patients with HER2+ metastatic BC, showing that T-DM1 reduces the risk of disease progression in patients with BMs at baseline [127]. This effect was confirmed by a more recent KAMILLA study (NCT01702571), wherein T-DM1 demonstrated CNS-specific benefit in patients with HER2+ BC with BMs [128], supporting the manageable safety profile and use of T-DM1 in advanced BC [129].
The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled HER2CLIMB clinical trial (NCT02614794) compared a small-molecule highly selective for HER2 oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), tucatinib, versus placebo in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic BC previously treated with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and T-DM1, which resulted in tucatinib’s approval by the FDA in 2020, also applicable for BC patients with BMs [130]. The objective response rate was doubled by the addition of tucatinib to trastuzumab and capecitabine in HER2+ BC patients with BMs, reducing the risk of intracranial progression or death by two-thirds, and reducing the risk of death by nearly half [131]. Peculiar adverse events of the combination with tucatinib included diarrhea, palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, nausea, fatigue, vomiting and elevated aminotransferase levels.
An irreversible oral pan-ERBB inhibitor targeting HER1, HER2, and HER4, pyrotinib, has been demonstrated to be another promising agent for the treatment of HER2+ metastatic BC; however, there are no data on cohort stratification of the type of metastasis available [9].
The novel biparatopic anti-HER2 antibody–tubulin conjugate (bHER2-ATC) has been investigated in a preclinical murine BC model with BMs, showing the increased uptake of the agent by endocytosis and suggesting a possible effective mechanism of brain penetration [132].
Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) has shown durable antitumor activity in pretreated patients with HER2-positive MBC, and its efficacy in patients with leptomeningeal disease and active BM (BMs) is under evaluation. In the single-arm phase II TUXEDO-1 trial, T-DXd showed a high intracranial response rate in patients with HER2-positive BC and newly diagnosed untreated BMs or BMs progressing after previous local therapy. Two patients (13.3%) had a complete intracranial response, nine (60%) had a partial intracranial response and three (20%) had stable disease, with a best overall intracranial response rate of 73.3% (95%CI 48.1–89.1%), maintained over treatment duration. The DEBBRAH trial aimed to assess T-DXd in patients with HER2-positive or HER2-low MBC and BMs. This five-cohort, phase II study (NCT04420598) enrolled patients with pretreated HER2-positive or HER2-low MBC with stable, untreated, or progressing BMs and/or leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Authors reported findings from HER2-positive MBC patients with non-progressing BMs after local therapy (n = 8; cohort 1), asymptomatic untreated BMs (n = 4; cohort 2), or progressing BMs after local therapy (n = 9; cohort 3). Among patients with measurable intracranial or extracranial lesions at baseline, the ORR was 66.7% (12 out of 18 patients; 95%CI, 41.0–86.7); 80.0% (95%CI, 28.4–99.5) in cohort 1, 50.0% (95%CI, 6.7–93.2) in cohort 2, and 66.7% (95%CI, 29.9–92.5) in cohort 3. All responders had partial responses. T-DXd showed intracranial activity with a good safety profile and maintained the quality of life in these patients [133,134]. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal and hematological in nature, but clinicians should be aware of the incidence of drug-related interstitial lung disease in the management of these patients. Currently, ASCO-SNO-ASTRO Guidelines recommend that patients with HER2+ BC with asymptomatic BMs, who have progressed on previous trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and/or trastuzumab emtansine-based therapy, may be given the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine. The evidence suggests a possible benefit of postponing local therapy using these agents until evidence of intracranial progression is seen [10,14].

5. Future Perspectives

Although individuals with BC BMs are mostly disproportionately underrepresented in pertinent clinical trials, the research target therapies’ spectrum amplification is ongoing. One of the remaining challenges in metastatic BC treatment is its lower efficacy in a BM setting due to the presence of the BBB, since most antitumor drugs do not cross the blood–brain barrier [52,53]. The summary of actual BC brain metastasis targeting agents and their corresponding clinical trials is given in Supplementary Table S1; in Supplementary Table S2, only trials that were complete at the time of writing were reported.
Further investigations in the genomic landscape of BC are widening with the increasing availability of next-generation sequencing. This has led to the recognition of BC, and TNBC in particular, as a heterogeneous disease both clinically and molecularly, with different prognostic and therapeutic implications, which also complicates the prediction of the risk of metastasis [6,85]. Continuous efforts are being made to standardize present molecular assays and develop more reliable and reproducible testing for hormone receptor and HER2 gene expression so that the categorization of molecular subtypes can be more effective [98]. Molecular profiling is an essential prognosis determinant in the field of solid tumors in terms of understanding the nature of the disease and response to treatment [135]. One of the biggest analyses of the genomic landscape in a retrospective cohort study of 733 BC BM and 10,772 primary BC specimens revealed that BMs were enriched in genomic alterations of TP53 (72.0%, 528/733), ERBB2 (25.6%, 188/733), RAD21 (14.1%, 103/733), NF1 (9.0%, 66/733), BRCA1 (7.8%, 57/733), and ESR1 (6.3%,46/733) (p < 0.05) [98]. The authors further suggest that both surgical specimens and cerebrospinal fluid are suitable and may be used for comprehensive genomic profiling in the research of novel therapeutic strategies [98].
Novel biomarkers research refers to the targeting of human trophoblastic cell surface antigen 2 (TROP-2), a transmembrane calcium signal transducer expressed on the membrane surface of epithelial cells in multiple tumors [136]. The monoclonal antibody sacituzumab govitecan, targeting TROP-2, is currently under investigation in a phase II clinical trial by the Southwest Oncology Group (NCT04647916) in patients with HER2-negative BC with BMs. The primary objective is the assessment of the intracranial objective response rate; the secondary objectives are OS, PFS, safety, and the tolerability of the drug. Additionally, the trial aims to evaluate patients by stratifying them by hormone-receptor subtype [137].
Datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) is another potential drug within the group of antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs), targeting TROP2 [138]. Its effect has been specifically studied in the TNBC and HR+ HER2-negative forms of advanced BC, demonstrating a substantial clinical benefit; however, no data on BMs specifically are present [138,139].
Another promising developing treatment option is nanotherapy. This approach consists of intravenous drug delivery, conjugating nanoparticles to therapeutic agents, and targeting overexpressed antigens or receptors [20]. The nanocarriers possess unique advantages, having a high drug-loading capacity and the ability to protect the enclosed agent from rapid clearance, forming a solid concentration gradient that enhances vascular permeability [9]. This therapy has been effective in brain cancer; however, the evidence on BC BMs is scarce and further investigations are warranted [9]. Screening is a critical issue in patients with early BC, wherein specifically the screening for asymptomatic BM is currently unjustified; hence, there is an urgent need for appropriate guidelines establishment [140].
Moreover, the multidisciplinary management of BMs should evolve according to the new acquisitions in terms of new drugs. Clinicians are rethinking the role of radiotherapy, investigating new possible ways to imbricate radiation and systemic treatment, for example postponing radiation if a new treatment with a high intracranial efficacy should be started (for example, tucatinib or T-DXd). However, evidence in this field is lacking, and data from real-world studies are awaited.

6. Concluding Remarks

Identification of novel targetable biomarkers that might help establish treatment targets or prognosis indicators is ongoing, suggesting that the terminology for BC may also be revised in favor of guided therapy assistance and further characterization of the TNBC and other subtypes heterogeneity [105,141]. A significant clinical burden and an unmet need for more effective therapy in these high-risk BC patients are highlighted by the fact that TNBCs have a greater cumulative rate and more propensity for brain metastasis with the shortest DFS, compared to other BC subtypes [102]. Our knowledge of the incidence and CNS-specific effectiveness of systemic therapy in the high-risk TNBC patient population is limited since clinical studies frequently do not capture BMs and there is a pitfall present in asymptomatic BM screening rarity [8,140]. Research on TNBC, therefore, has to be enhanced and should increasingly focus on finding novel treatment targets. Due to the high incidence of BM among patients with metastatic HER2+ and TNBC, studies to determine the value of screening for BM should be undertaken in these subgroups [73,140]. Given the high prevalence of clinically relevant genomic alterations in patients with BC and BMs, comprehensive genomic profiling of the primary tumor tissue, as well as metastatic tissue in the brain or cerebrospinal fluid specimen, is suggested [98,142]. Epigenetic remodeling may be new emerging opportunity for these high-risk patients [74]. Prospectively, the development of combination therapy focusing on various cell types and adaptive immune response phases is foreseen [48]. The limitations of most available studies represent the low number of patients and the overall BC with BM cohort underrepresentation, resulting in a need for large multi-center studies to continue exploring the risk factors of BMs and the prognoses of these patients.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/genes14061160/s1, Table S1: Breast cancer brain metastasis targeting agents and corresponding clinical trials.; Table S2: Breast cancer brain metastasis targeting agents and corresponding complete clinical trials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.F. and C.C.; methodology, E.G.-R., G.C. (Giuseppe Curigliano), N.F. and C.C.; software, M.I., F.G. and C.F.; literature review, M.I., F.M.P., E.S., N.F. and C.C.; resources, N.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.I. and F.M.P.; writing—review and editing, E.S., K.V., G.C. (Giulia Cursano), G.M., E.G.-R., G.C. (Giuseppe Curigliano), N.F. and C.C.; visualization, M.I., F.G. and C.F.; supervision, N.F. and C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

M.I. was supported by Fondazione Umberto Veronesi. K.V. was supported by Fondazione IEO—MONZINO. This work was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health with Ricerca Corrente 5 × 1000 funds.

Conflicts of Interest

E.G.-R. has relevant relationships (advisory fees, honoraria, travel accommodation and expenses, grants and non-financial support) with AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novartis, Roche, and Thermo Fisher Scientific unrelated to the current work. G.C. (Giuseppe Curigliano) reports funding from AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Merck; consulting fees from BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daichii Sankyo, Merck, Seagen, Ellipsis; honoraria from Pfizer, Lilly; support for attending meetings from Roche, Pfizer. N.F. has received honoraria for consulting, advisory role, speaker bureau, travel, and/or research grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Menarini, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Gilead, Diaceutics, Adicet Bio, Sermonix, Reply, Leica Biosystems. C.C. served in an advisory/consultancy capacity on the role/speaker bureau for Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Seagen and MSD, all outside the purview of the submitted work. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Agostinetto, E.; Gligorov, J.; Piccart, M. Systemic therapy for early-stage breast cancer: Learning from the past to build the future. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2022, 19, 763–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Wang, R.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, X.; Liao, X.; He, J.; Niu, L. The Clinicopathological features and survival outcomes of patients with different metastatic sites in stage IV breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. SEER*Explorer: An Interactive Website for SEER Cancer Statistics. Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer. Available online: https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer/ (accessed on 29 April 2023).
  5. Venetis, K.; Piciotti, R.; Sajjadi, E.; Invernizzi, M.; Morganti, S.; Criscitiello, C.; Fusco, N. Breast Cancer with Bone Metastasis: Molecular Insights and Clinical Management. Cells 2021, 10, 1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fan, J.-H.; Zhang, S.; Yang, H.; Yi, Z.-B.; Ouyang, Q.-C.; Yan, M.; Wang, X.-J.; Hu, X.-C.; Jiang, Z.-F.; Huang, T.; et al. Molecular subtypes predict the preferential site of distant metastasis in advanced breast cancer: A nationwide retrospective study. Front. Oncol. 2023, 13, 978985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Suh, J.H.; Kotecha, R.; Chao, S.T.; Ahluwalia, M.S.; Sahgal, A.; Chang, E.L. Current approaches to the management of brain metastases. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 17, 279–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kuksis, M.; Gao, Y.; Tran, W.; Hoey, C.; Kiss, A.; Komorowski, A.S.; Dhaliwal, A.J.; Sahgal, A.; Das, S.; Chan, K.K.; et al. The incidence of brain metastases among patients with metastatic breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuro Oncol. 2021, 23, 894–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, Y.; Ye, F.; Liang, Y.; Yang, Q. Breast cancer brain metastasis: Insight into molecular mechanisms and therapeutic strategies. Br. J. Cancer 2021, 125, 1056–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ren, D.; Cheng, H.; Wang, X.; Vishnoi, M.; Teh, B.S.; Rostomily, R.; Chang, J.; Wong, S.T.; Zhao, H. Emerging treatment strategies for breast cancer brain metastasis: From translational therapeutics to real-world experience. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 2020, 12, 1758835920936151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mohammad, A.S.; Adkins, C.E.; Shah, N.; Aljammal, R.; Griffith, J.I.G.; Tallman, R.M.; Jarrell, K.L.; Lockman, P.R. Permeability changes and effect of chemotherapy in brain adjacent to tumor in an experimental model of metastatic brain tumor from breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chambers, A.F.; Groom, A.C.; MacDonald, I.C. Dissemination and growth of cancer cells in metastatic sites. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2002, 2, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Loh, C.Y.; Chai, J.Y.; Tang, T.F.; Wong, W.F.; Sethi, G.; Shanmugam, M.K.; Chong, P.P.; Looi, C.Y. The E-Cadherin and N-Cadherin Switch in Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition: Signaling, Therapeutic Implications, and Challenges. Cells 2019, 8, 1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sham, N.F.R.; Hasani, N.A.H.; Hasan, N.; Karim, M.K.A.; Fuad, S.; Hasbullah, H.H.; Ibahim, M.J. Acquired radioresistance in EMT6 mouse mammary carcinoma cell line is mediated by CTLA-4 and PD-1 through JAK/STAT/PI3K pathway. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 3108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Corso, G.; Figueiredo, J.; La Vecchia, C.; Veronesi, P.; Pravettoni, G.; Macis, D.; Karam, R.; Lo Gullo, R.; Provenzano, E.; Toesca, A.; et al. Hereditary lobular breast cancer with an emphasis on E-cadherin genetic defect. J. Med. Genet. 2018, 55, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Porta, F.M.; Blanco, M.C.; Ivanova, M.; Fusco, N.; Guerini-Rocco, E. Pathology and Somatic Alterations in Hereditary Lobular Breast Cancers. In Hereditary Gastric and Breast Cancer Syndrome: CDH1: One Genotype with Multiple Phenotypes; Corso, G., Veronesi, P., Roviello, F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 167–180. [Google Scholar]
  17. Corso, G.; Montagna, G.; Figueiredo, J.; La Vecchia, C.; Fumagalli Romario, U.; Fernandes, M.S.; Seixas, S.; Roviello, F.; Trovato, C.; Guerini-Rocco, E.; et al. Hereditary Gastric and Breast Cancer Syndromes Related to CDH1 Germline Mutation: A Multidisciplinary Clinical Review. Cancers 2020, 12, 1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wyckoff, J.B.; Jones, J.G.; Condeelis, J.S.; Segall, J.E. A critical step in metastasis: In vivo analysis of intravasation at the primary tumor. Cancer Res. 2000, 60, 2504–2511. [Google Scholar]
  19. Abbott, N.J.; Patabendige, A.A.; Dolman, D.E.; Yusof, S.R.; Begley, D.J. Structure and function of the blood-brain barrier. Neurobiol. Dis. 2010, 37, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, S.; Deng, G.; Liu, F.; Peng, B.; Bao, Y.; Du, F.; Chen, A.T.; Liu, J.; Chen, Z.; Ma, J.; et al. Autocatalytic Delivery of Brain Tumor-Targeting, Size-Shrinkable Nanoparticles for Treatment of Breast Cancer Brain Metastases. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 1910651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Achrol, A.S.; Rennert, R.C.; Anders, C.; Soffietti, R.; Ahluwalia, M.S.; Nayak, L.; Peters, S.; Arvold, N.D.; Harsh, G.R.; Steeg, P.S.; et al. Brain metastases. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 2019, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Invernizzi, M.; Corti, C.; Lopez, G.; Michelotti, A.; Despini, L.; Gambini, D.; Lorenzini, D.; Guerini-Rocco, E.; Maggi, S.; Noale, M.; et al. Lymphovascular invasion and extranodal tumour extension are risk indicators of breast cancer related lymphoedema: An observational retrospective study with long-term follow-up. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jensen, M.R.; Simonsen, L.; Karlsmark, T.; Bülow, J. Microvascular filtration is increased in the forearms of patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema. J. Appl. Physiol. 2013, 114, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Okajima, T.; Fukumoto, S.; Ito, H.; Kiso, M.; Hirabayashi, Y.; Urano, T.; Furukawa, K. Molecular cloning of brain-specific GD1alpha synthase (ST6GalNAc V) containing CAG/Glutamine repeats. J. Biol. Chem. 1999, 274, 30557–30562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bos, P.D.; Zhang, X.H.; Nadal, C.; Shu, W.; Gomis, R.R.; Nguyen, D.X.; Minn, A.J.; van de Vijver, M.J.; Gerald, W.L.; Foekens, J.A.; et al. Genes that mediate breast cancer metastasis to the brain. Nature 2009, 459, 1005–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Fan, J.; Cai, B.; Zeng, M.; Hao, Y.; Giancotti, F.G.; Fu, B.M. Integrin β4 signaling promotes mammary tumor cell adhesion to brain microvascular endothelium by inducing ErbB2-mediated secretion of VEGF. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2011, 39, 2223–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Hosaka, K.; Andersson, P.; Wang, J.; Tholander, F.; Cao, Z.; Morikawa, H.; Tegnér, J.; Yang, Y.; et al. VEGF-B promotes cancer metastasis through a VEGF-A-independent mechanism and serves as a marker of poor prognosis for cancer patients. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, E2900–E2909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Invernizzi, M.; Lopez, G.; Michelotti, A.; Venetis, K.; Sajjadi, E.; De Mattos-Arruda, L.; Ghidini, M.; Runza, L.; de Sire, A.; Boldorini, R.; et al. Integrating Biological Advances into the Clinical Management of Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Le, D.M.; Besson, A.; Fogg, D.K.; Choi, K.S.; Waisman, D.M.; Goodyer, C.G.; Rewcastle, B.; Yong, V.W. Exploitation of astrocytes by glioma cells to facilitate invasiveness: A mechanism involving matrix metalloproteinase-2 and the urokinase-type plasminogen activator-plasmin cascade. J. Neurosci. 2003, 23, 4034–4043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wasilewski, D.; Priego, N.; Fustero-Torre, C.; Valiente, M. Reactive Astrocytes in Brain Metastasis. Front. Oncol. 2017, 7, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Valiente, M.; Obenauf, A.C.; Jin, X.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, X.H.; Lee, D.J.; Chaft, J.E.; Kris, M.G.; Huse, J.T.; Brogi, E.; et al. Serpins promote cancer cell survival and vascular co-option in brain metastasis. Cell 2014, 156, 1002–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wu, K.; Fukuda, K.; Xing, F.; Zhang, Y.; Sharma, S.; Liu, Y.; Chan, M.D.; Zhou, X.; Qasem, S.A.; Pochampally, R.; et al. Roles of the cyclooxygenase 2 matrix metalloproteinase 1 pathway in brain metastasis of breast cancer. J. Biol. Chem. 2015, 290, 9842–9854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Anderson, M.A.; Burda, J.E.; Ren, Y.; Ao, Y.; O’Shea, T.M.; Kawaguchi, R.; Coppola, G.; Khakh, B.S.; Deming, T.J.; Sofroniew, M.V. Astrocyte scar formation aids central nervous system axon regeneration. Nature 2016, 532, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Leng, L.; Metz, C.N.; Fang, Y.; Xu, J.; Donnelly, S.; Baugh, J.; Delohery, T.; Chen, Y.; Mitchell, R.A.; Bucala, R. MIF signal transduction initiated by binding to CD74. J. Exp. Med. 2003, 197, 1467–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sajjadi, E.; Gaudioso, G.; Terrasi, A.; Boggio, F.; Venetis, K.; Ivanova, M.; Bertolasi, L.; Lopez, G.; Runza, L.; Premoli, A.; et al. Osteoclast-like stromal giant cells in breast cancer likely belong to the spectrum of immunosuppressive tumor-associated macrophages. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2022, 9, 894247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ghoochani, A.; Schwarz, M.A.; Yakubov, E.; Engelhorn, T.; Doerfler, A.; Buchfelder, M.; Bucala, R.; Savaskan, N.E.; Eyüpoglu, I.Y. MIF-CD74 signaling impedes microglial M1 polarization and facilitates brain tumorigenesis. Oncogene 2016, 35, 6246–6261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Priego, N.; Zhu, L.; Monteiro, C.; Mulders, M.; Wasilewski, D.; Bindeman, W.; Doglio, L.; Martínez, L.; Martínez-Saez, E.; Ramón, Y.; et al. STAT3 labels a subpopulation of reactive astrocytes required for brain metastasis. Nat. Med. 2018, 24, 1024–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Garcia-Diaz, A.; Shin, D.S.; Moreno, B.H.; Saco, J.; Escuin-Ordinas, H.; Rodriguez, G.A.; Zaretsky, J.M.; Sun, L.; Hugo, W.; Wang, X.; et al. Interferon Receptor Signaling Pathways Regulating PD-L1 and PD-L2 Expression. Cell Rep. 2017, 19, 1189–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hosonaga, M.; Saya, H.; Arima, Y. Molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying brain metastasis of breast cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2020, 39, 711–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Antonarelli, G.; Pieri, V.; Porta, F.M.; Fusco, N.; Finocchiaro, G.; Curigliano, G.; Criscitiello, C. Targeting Post-Translational Modifications to Improve Combinatorial Therapies in Breast Cancer: The Role of Fucosylation. Cells 2023, 12, 840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Criscitiello, C.; Guerini-Rocco, E.; Viale, G.; Fumagalli, C.; Sajjadi, E.; Venetis, K.; Piciotti, R.; Invernizzi, M.; Malapelle, U.; Fusco, N. Immunotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients: A Focus on the Use of the Currently Available Biomarkers in Oncology. Anticancer Agents Med. Chem. 2022, 22, 787–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Duchnowska, R.; Pęksa, R.; Radecka, B.; Mandat, T.; Trojanowski, T.; Jarosz, B.; Czartoryska-Arłukowicz, B.; Olszewski, W.P.; Och, W.; Kalinka-Warzocha, E.; et al. Immune response in breast cancer brain metastases and their microenvironment: The role of the PD-1/PD-L axis. Breast Cancer Res. 2016, 18, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Venetis, K.; Sajjadi, E.; Peccatori, F.A.; Guerini-Rocco, E.; Fusco, N. Immune plasticity in pregnancy-associated breast cancer tumorigenesis. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Camy, F.; Karpathiou, G.; Dumollard, J.M.; Magne, N.; Perrot, J.L.; Vassal, F.; Picot, T.; Mobarki, M.; Forest, F.; Casteillo, F.; et al. Brain metastasis PD-L1 and CD8 expression is dependent on primary tumor type and its PD-L1 and CD8 status. J. Immunother. Cancer 2020, 8, e000597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Zou, W.; Luo, X.; Gao, M.; Yu, C.; Wan, X.; Yu, S.; Wu, Y.; Wang, A.; Fenical, W.; Wei, Z.; et al. Optimization of Cancer Immunotherapy on the Basis of PD-L1 Distribution and Function. Br. J. Pharm. 2023, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Griguolo, G.; Tosi, A.; Dieci, M.V.; Fineberg, S.; Rossi, V.; Ventura, A.; Bottosso, M.; Bauchet, L.; Miglietta, F.; Jacob, J.; et al. A comprehensive profiling of the immune microenvironment of breast cancer brain metastases. Neuro Oncol. 2022, 24, 2146–2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Noh, M.G.; Kim, S.S.; Kim, Y.J.; Jung, T.Y.; Jung, S.; Rhee, J.H.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, J.S.; Cho, J.H.; Moon, K.S.; et al. Evolution of the Tumor Microenvironment toward Immune-Suppressive Seclusion during Brain Metastasis of Breast Cancer: Implications for Targeted Therapy. Cancers 2021, 13, 4895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Giannoudis, A.; Varešlija, D.; Sharma, V.; Zakaria, R.; Platt-Higgins, A.; Rudland, P.S.; Jenkinson, M.D.; Young, L.S.; Palmieri, C. Characterisation of the immune microenvironment of primary breast cancer and brain metastasis reveals depleted T-cell response associated to ARG2 expression. ESMO Open 2022, 7, 100636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wu, J.; Li, L.; Chen, J.; Liu, Y.; Xu, J.; Peng, Z. Clinical value of CTLA4 combined with clinicopathological factors in evaluating the prognosis of breast cancer. Gland. Surg. 2020, 9, 1328–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chang, H.Y.; Liu, C.Y.; Lo, Y.L.; Chiou, S.H.; Lu, K.H.; Lee, M.C.; Wang, Y.H. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 polymorphisms and breast cancer susceptibility: Evidence from a meta-analysis. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2023, 86, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Le Mercier, I.; Lines, J.L.; Noelle, R.J. Beyond CTLA-4 and PD-1, the Generation Z of Negative Checkpoint Regulators. Front. Immunol. 2015, 6, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chehade, R.; Qazi, M.A.; Ennis, M.; Sahgal, A.; Das, S.; Nofech-Mozes, S.; Jerzak, K.J. PD-L1 expression in breast cancer brain metastases. Neuro Oncol. Adv. 2022, 4, vdac154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Goldberg, S.B.; Gettinger, S.N.; Mahajan, A.; Chiang, A.C.; Herbst, R.S.; Sznol, M.; Tsiouris, A.J.; Cohen, J.; Vortmeyer, A.; Jilaveanu, L.; et al. Pembrolizumab for patients with melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer and untreated brain metastases: Early analysis of a non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 976–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Blazquez, R.; Wlochowitz, D.; Wolff, A.; Seitz, S.; Wachter, A.; Perera-Bel, J.; Bleckmann, A.; Beißbarth, T.; Salinas, G.; Riemenschneider, M.J.; et al. PI3K: A master regulator of brain metastasis-promoting macrophages/microglia. Glia 2018, 66, 2438–2455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fusco, N.; Malapelle, U.; Fassan, M.; Marchiò, C.; Buglioni, S.; Zupo, S.; Criscitiello, C.; Vigneri, P.; Dei Tos, A.P.; Maiorano, E.; et al. PIK3CA Mutations as a Molecular Target for Hormone Receptor-positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rascio, F.; Spadaccino, F.; Rocchetti, M.T.; Castellano, G.; Stallone, G.; Netti, G.S.; Ranieri, E. The Pathogenic Role of PI3K/AKT Pathway in Cancer Onset and Drug Resistance: An Updated Review. Cancers 2021, 13, 3949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Venetis, K.; Pepe, F.; Munzone, E.; Sajjadi, E.; Russo, G.; Pisapia, P.; Ivanova, M.; Bonizzi, G.; Vacirca, D.; Rappa, A.; et al. Analytical Performance of Next-Generation Sequencing and RT-PCR on Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tumor Tissues for PIK3CA Testing in HR+/HER2− Breast Cancer. Cells 2022, 11, 3545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Vogt, P.K.; Hart, J.R. PI3K and STAT3: A new alliance. Cancer Discov. 2011, 1, 481–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Guryanova, O.A.; Wu, Q.; Cheng, L.; Lathia, J.D.; Huang, Z.; Yang, J.; MacSwords, J.; Eyler, C.E.; McLendon, R.E.; Heddleston, J.M.; et al. Nonreceptor tyrosine kinase BMX maintains self-renewal and tumorigenic potential of glioblastoma stem cells by activating STAT3. Cancer Cell 2011, 19, 498–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fusco, N.; Guerini-Rocco, E.; Augello, C.; Terrasi, A.; Ercoli, G.; Fumagalli, C.; Vacirca, D.; Braidotti, P.; Parafioriti, A.; Jaconi, M.; et al. Recurrent NAB2-STAT6 gene fusions and oestrogen receptor-alpha expression in pulmonary adenofibromas. Histopathology 2017, 70, 906–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jiang, X.; Borgesi, R.A.; McKnight, N.C.; Kaur, R.; Carpenter, C.L.; Balk, S.P. Activation of nonreceptor tyrosine kinase Bmx/Etk mediated by phosphoinositide 3-kinase, epidermal growth factor receptor, and ErbB3 in prostate cancer cells. J. Biol. Chem. 2007, 282, 32689–32698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hart, J.R.; Liao, L.; Yates, J.R.; Vogt, P.K. Essential role of Stat3 in PI3K-induced oncogenic transformation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 13247–13252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lee-Hoeflich, S.T.; Crocker, L.; Yao, E.; Pham, T.; Munroe, X.; Hoeflich, K.P.; Sliwkowski, M.X.; Stern, H.M. A central role for HER3 in HER2-amplified breast cancer: Implications for targeted therapy. Cancer Res. 2008, 68, 5878–5887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Adamo, B.; Deal, A.M.; Burrows, E.; Geradts, J.; Hamilton, E.; Blackwell, K.L.; Livasy, C.; Fritchie, K.; Prat, A.; Harrell, J.C.; et al. Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase pathway activation in breast cancer brain metastases. Breast Cancer Res. 2011, 13, R125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Venetis, K.; Crimini, E.; Sajjadi, E.; Corti, C.; Guerini-Rocco, E.; Viale, G.; Curigliano, G.; Criscitiello, C.; Fusco, N. HER2 low, ultra-low, and novel complementary biomarkers: Expanding the spectrum of HER2 positivity in breast cancer. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2022, 9, 834651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Sajjadi, E.; Venetis, K.; Piciotti, R.; Gambini, D.; Blundo, C.; Runza, L.; Ferrero, S.; Guerini-Rocco, E.; Fusco, N. Combined analysis of PTEN, HER2, and hormone receptors status: Remodeling breast cancer risk profiling. BMC Cancer 2021, 21, 1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pinkas-Kramarski, R.; Soussan, L.; Waterman, H.; Levkowitz, G.; Alroy, I.; Klapper, L.; Lavi, S.; Seger, R.; Ratzkin, B.J.; Sela, M.; et al. Diversification of Neu differentiation factor and epidermal growth factor signaling by combinatorial receptor interactions. EMBO J. 1996, 15, 2452–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kodack, D.P.; Askoxylakis, V.; Ferraro, G.B.; Sheng, Q.; Badeaux, M.; Goel, S.; Qi, X.; Shankaraiah, R.; Cao, Z.A.; Ramjiawan, R.R.; et al. The brain microenvironment mediates resistance in luminal breast cancer to PI3K inhibition through HER3 activation. Sci. Transl. Med. 2017, 9, eaal4682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fusco, N.; Sajjadi, E.; Venetis, K.; Gaudioso, G.; Lopez, G.; Corti, C.; Rocco, E.G.; Criscitiello, C.; Malapelle, U.; Invernizzi, M. PTEN Alterations and Their Role in Cancer Management: Are We Making Headway on Precision Medicine? Genes 2020, 11, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lopez, G.; Noale, M.; Corti, C.; Gaudioso, G.; Sajjadi, E.; Venetis, K.; Gambini, D.; Runza, L.; Costanza, J.; Pesenti, C.; et al. PTEN Expression as a Complementary Biomarker for Mismatch Repair Testing in Breast Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, L.; Zhang, S.; Yao, J.; Lowery, F.J.; Zhang, Q.; Huang, W.C.; Li, P.; Li, M.; Wang, X.; Zhang, C.; et al. Microenvironment-induced PTEN loss by exosomal microRNA primes brain metastasis outgrowth. Nature 2015, 527, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Conti, I.; Rollins, B.J. CCL2 (monocyte chemoattractant protein-1) and cancer. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2004, 14, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cai, S.L.; Wang, Z.H.; Chen, X.G.; Han, L.; Gong, G.X.; Chen, Y.P.; Lin, X.Q.; Ma, T.; Chen, H.D. Risk Factors of Brain Metastasis and Prognosis in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Single-Institution Retrospective Analysis from China. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 905065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chhichholiya, Y.; Ruthuparna, M.; Velagaleti, H.; Munshi, A. Brain metastasis in breast cancer: Focus on genes and signaling pathways involved, blood-brain barrier and treatment strategies. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2023, 25, 1218–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Marif Murad, K.; Muhammad, H.A.; Aziz Muhammad, H.; Arif, S.O.; Ali Mohammed, S.; Ahmad Mohammed, K.; Salih Ali, J.; Muhammed Muhsin, B.; Othman Saeed, N.; Star Majeed, S.; et al. Brain Metastasis from Breast Cancer: Risk factors and radiotherapy perspective from a tertiary Middle Eastern facility. Gulf J. Oncol. 2021, 1, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
  76. Dogan, I.; Kizildag, I.; Özkurt, S.; Ibis, K.; Vatansever, S.; Saip, P.; Aydiner, A. Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Who Had Developed Brain Metastasis in the Treatment Process. Oncology 2023, 101, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sartorius, C.A.; Hanna, C.T.; Gril, B.; Cruz, H.; Serkova, N.J.; Huber, K.M.; Kabos, P.; Schedin, T.B.; Borges, V.F.; Steeg, P.S.; et al. Estrogen promotes the brain metastatic colonization of triple negative breast cancer cells via an astrocyte-mediated paracrine mechanism. Oncogene 2016, 35, 2881–2892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhou, L.; Zhou, W.; Zhang, H.; Hu, Y.; Yu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, P.; Xia, W. Progesterone suppresses triple-negative breast cancer growth and metastasis to the brain via membrane progesterone receptor α. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2017, 40, 755–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yomtoubian, S.; Lee, S.B.; Verma, A.; Izzo, F.; Markowitz, G.; Choi, H.; Cerchietti, L.; Vahdat, L.; Brown, K.A.; Andreopoulou, E.; et al. Inhibition of EZH2 Catalytic Activity Selectively Targets a Metastatic Subpopulation in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Cell Rep. 2020, 30, 755–770.e756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Peluffo, G.; Subedee, A.; Harper, N.W.; Kingston, N.; Jovanović, B.; Flores, F.; Stevens, L.E.; Beca, F.; Trinh, A.; Chilamakuri, C.S.R.; et al. EN1 Is a Transcriptional Dependency in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Associated with Brain Metastasis. Cancer Res. 2019, 79, 4173–4183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Karadag, I.; Karakaya, S.; Akkan, T.; Demir, B.; Alkurt, E.G.; Dogan, M. The Potential Prognostic Marker TyG Index Predicts Time to Brain Metastasis at HER2 Positive Breast Cancer. Cancer Manag. Res. 2023, 15, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Vogelbaum, M.A.; Brown, P.D.; Messersmith, H.; Brastianos, P.K.; Burri, S.; Cahill, D.; Dunn, I.F.; Gaspar, L.E.; Gatson, N.T.N.; Gondi, V.; et al. Treatment for Brain Metastases: ASCO-SNO-ASTRO Guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2022, 40, 492–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Jusino, S.; Fadul, C.E.; Dillon, P. Systematic review of the management of brain metastases from hormone receptor positive breast cancer. J. Neuro Oncol. 2023, 162, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Huo, X.; Shen, G.; Wang, T.; Li, J.; Xie, Q.; Liu, Z.; Wang, M.; Zhao, F.; Ren, D.; Zhao, J. Treatment options for patients with human epidermal growth factor 2-positive breast cancer brain metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Oncol. 2023, 13, 1003565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Gennari, A.; André, F.; Barrios, C.H.; Cortés, J.; de Azambuja, E.; DeMichele, A.; Dent, R.; Fenlon, D.; Gligorov, J.; Hurvitz, S.A.; et al. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer☆. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 1475–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Lin, N.U.; Gaspar, L.E.; Soffietti, R. Breast Cancer in the Central Nervous System: Multidisciplinary Considerations and Management. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2017, 37, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Lopez, G.; Costanza, J.; Colleoni, M.; Fontana, L.; Ferrero, S.; Miozzo, M.; Fusco, N. Molecular Insights into the Classification of Luminal Breast Cancers: The Genomic Heterogeneity of Progesterone-Negative Tumors. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Grizzi, G.; Ghidini, M.; Botticelli, A.; Tomasello, G.; Ghidini, A.; Grossi, F.; Fusco, N.; Cabiddu, M.; Savio, T.; Petrelli, F. Strategies for Increasing the Effectiveness of Aromatase Inhibitors in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: An Evidence-Based Review on Current Options. Cancer Manag. Res. 2020, 12, 675–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Gil-Gil, M.J.; Martinez-Garcia, M.; Sierra, A.; Conesa, G.; del Barco, S.; González-Jimenez, S.; Villà, S. Breast cancer brain metastases: A review of the literature and a current multidisciplinary management guideline. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2014, 16, 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Piezzo, M.; Chiodini, P.; Riemma, M.; Cocco, S.; Caputo, R.; Cianniello, D.; Di Gioia, G.; Di Lauro, V.; Rella, F.D.; Fusco, G.; et al. Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival of CDK 4/6 Inhibitors Plus Endocrine Therapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 6400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Brastianos, P.K.; Kim, A.E.; Wang, N.; Lee, E.Q.; Ligibel, J.; Cohen, J.V.; Chukwueke, U.N.; Mahar, M.; Oh, K.; White, M.D.; et al. Palbociclib demonstrates intracranial activity in progressive brain metastases harboring cyclin-dependent kinase pathway alterations. Nat. Cancer 2021, 2, 498–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bidard, F.C.; Kaklamani, V.G.; Neven, P.; Streich, G.; Montero, A.J.; Forget, F.; Mouret-Reynier, M.A.; Sohn, J.H.; Taylor, D.; Harnden, K.K.; et al. Elacestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) Versus Standard Endocrine Therapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From the Randomized Phase III EMERALD Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2022, 40, 3246–3256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Robertson, J.F.R.; Bondarenko, I.M.; Trishkina, E.; Dvorkin, M.; Panasci, L.; Manikhas, A.; Shparyk, Y.; Cardona-Huerta, S.; Cheung, K.L.; Philco-Salas, M.J.; et al. Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FALCON): An international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2016, 388, 2997–3005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Jones, R.H.; Casbard, A.; Carucci, M.; Cox, C.; Butler, R.; Alchami, F.; Madden, T.-A.; Bale, C.; Bezecny, P.; Joffe, J.; et al. Fulvestrant plus capivasertib versus placebo after relapse or progression on an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic, oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (FAKTION): A multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Howell, S.J.; Casbard, A.; Carucci, M.; Ingarfield, K.; Butler, R.; Morgan, S.; Meissner, M.; Bale, C.; Bezecny, P.; Moon, S.; et al. Fulvestrant plus capivasertib versus placebo after relapse or progression on an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic, oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (FAKTION): Overall survival, updated progression-free survival, and expanded biomarker analysis from a randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022, 23, 851–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Turner, N.; Oliveira, M.; Howell, S.J.; Dalenc, F.; Cortés, J.; Gomez, H.; Hu, X.; Jhaveri, K.; Loibl, S.; Murillo, S.M.; et al. Abstract GS3-04: GS3-04 Capivasertib and fulvestrant for patients with aromatase inhibitor-resistant hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer: Results from the Phase III CAPItello-291 trial. Cancer Res. 2023, 83, GS3-04. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Fitzgerald, D.M.; Muzikansky, A.; Pinto, C.; Henderson, L.; Walmsley, C.; Allen, R.; Ferraro, G.B.; Isakoff, S.; Moy, B.; Oh, K.; et al. Association between PIK3CA mutation status and development of brain metastases in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30, v110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Huang, R.S.P.; Haberberger, J.; McGregor, K.; Mata, D.A.; Decker, B.; Hiemenz, M.C.; Lechpammer, M.; Danziger, N.; Schiavone, K.; Creeden, J.; et al. Clinicopathologic and Genomic Landscape of Breast Carcinoma Brain Metastases. Oncologist 2021, 26, 835–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Miller, J.; Armgardt, E.; Svoboda, A. The efficacy and safety of alpelisib in breast cancer: A real-world analysis. J. Oncol. Pharm. Pract. 2022, 10781552221096413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Batalini, F.; Moulder, S.L.; Winer, E.P.; Rugo, H.S.; Lin, N.U.; Wulf, G.M. Response of Brain Metastases from PIK3CA-Mutant Breast Cancer to Alpelisib. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2020, 4, PO.19.00403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Derakhshan, F.; Reis-Filho, J.S. Pathogenesis of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Annu. Rev. Pathol. 2022, 17, 181–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Luo, Z.; Wu, S.; Zhou, J.; Xu, W.; Xu, Q.; Lu, L.; Xie, C.; Liu, Y.; Lu, W. All-stage targeted therapy for the brain metastasis from triple-negative breast cancer. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2023, 13, 359–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Corso, G.; D’Ecclesiis, O.; Magnoni, F.; Mazzotta, E.; Conforti, F.; Veronesi, P.; Sajjadi, E.; Venetis, K.; Fusco, N.; Gandini, S. Metaplastic breast cancers and triple-negative breast cancers of no special type: Are they prognostically different? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 2022, 31, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Corti, C.; Venetis, K.; Sajjadi, E.; Zattoni, L.; Curigliano, G.; Fusco, N. CAR-T cell therapy for triple-negative breast cancer and other solid tumors: Preclinical and clinical progress. Expert. Opin. Investig. Drugs 2022, 31, 593–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Fusco, N.; Sajjadi, E.; Venetis, K.; Ivanova, M.; Andaloro, S.; Guerini-Rocco, E.; Montagna, E.; Caldarella, P.; Veronesi, P.; Colleoni, M.; et al. Low-risk triple-negative breast cancers: Clinico-pathological and molecular features. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2022, 172, 103643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Loibl, S.; Poortmans, P.; Morrow, M.; Denkert, C.; Curigliano, G. Breast cancer. Lancet 2021, 397, 1750–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Lord, C.J.; Ashworth, A. PARP inhibitors: Synthetic lethality in the clinic. Science 2017, 355, 1152–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. di Mauro, P.; Schivardi, G.; Pedersini, R.; Laini, L.; Esposito, A.; Amoroso, V.; Laganà, M.; Grisanti, S.; Cosentini, D.; Berruti, A. Sacituzumab govitecan and radiotherapy in metastatic, triple-negative, and BRCA-mutant breast cancer patient with active brain metastases: A case report. Front. Oncol. 2023, 13, 1139372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Garber, H.R.; Raghavendra, A.S.; Lehner, M.; Qiao, W.; Gutierrez-Barrera, A.M.; Tripathy, D.; Arun, B.; Ibrahim, N.K. Incidence and impact of brain metastasis in patients with hereditary BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutated invasive breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer 2022, 8, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Litton, J.K.; Rugo, H.S.; Ettl, J.; Hurvitz, S.A.; Gonçalves, A.; Lee, K.H.; Fehrenbacher, L.; Yerushalmi, R.; Mina, L.A.; Martin, M.; et al. Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA Mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 753–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Litton, J.K.; Hurvitz, S.A.; Mina, L.A.; Rugo, H.S.; Lee, K.H.; Gonçalves, A.; Diab, S.; Woodward, N.; Goodwin, A.; Yerushalmi, R.; et al. Talazoparib versus chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: Final overall survival results from the EMBRACA trial. Ann. Oncol. 2020, 31, 1526–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Senkus, E.; Delaloge, S.; Domchek, S.M.; Conte, P.; Im, S.A.; Xu, B.; Armstrong, A.; Masuda, N.; Fielding, A.; Robson, M.; et al. Olaparib efficacy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: Subgroup analyses from the phase III OlympiAD trial. Int. J. Cancer 2023, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Adams, S.; Schmid, P.; Rugo, H.S.; Winer, E.P.; Loirat, D.; Awada, A.; Cescon, D.W.; Iwata, H.; Campone, M.; Nanda, R.; et al. Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: Cohort A of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study. Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Agostinetto, E.; Losurdo, A.; Nader-Marta, G.; Santoro, A.; Punie, K.; Barroso, R.; Popovic, L.; Solinas, C.; Kok, M.; de Azambuja, E.; et al. Progress and pitfalls in the use of immunotherapy for patients with triple negative breast cancer. Expert. Opin. Investig. Drugs 2022, 31, 567–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Miles, D.; Gligorov, J.; André, F.; Cameron, D.; Schneeweiss, A.; Barrios, C.; Xu, B.; Wardley, A.; Kaen, D.; Andrade, L.; et al. Primary results from IMpassion131, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase III trial of first-line paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab for unresectable locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 994–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Rozenblit, M.; Huang, R.; Danziger, N.; Hegde, P.; Alexander, B.; Ramkissoon, S.; Blenman, K.; Ross, J.S.; Rimm, D.L.; Pusztai, L. Comparison of PD-L1 protein expression between primary tumors and metastatic lesions in triple negative breast cancers. J. Immunother. Cancer 2020, 8, e001558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sajjadi, E.; Venetis, K.; Scatena, C.; Fusco, N. Biomarkers for precision immunotherapy in the metastatic setting: Hope or reality? Ecancermedicalscience 2020, 14, 1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Cortes, J.; Cescon, D.W.; Rugo, H.S. KEYNOTE-355: Randomized, double-blind, phase III study of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus placebo + chemotherapy for previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Cortes, J.; Rugo, H.S.; Cescon, D.W.; Im, S.-A.; Yusof, M.M.; Gallardo, C.; Lipatov, O.; Barrios, C.H.; Perez-Garcia, J.; Iwata, H.; et al. Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 387, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kadamkulam Syriac, A.; Nandu, N.S.; Leone, J.P. Central Nervous System Metastases from Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Current Treatments and Future Prospective. Breast Cancer (Dove Med. Press) 2022, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Wolff, A.C.; Hammond, M.E.H.; Allison, K.H.; Harvey, B.E.; McShane, L.M.; Dowsett, M. HER2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update Summary. J. Oncol. Pract. 2018, 14, 437–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Hohensee, I.; Lamszus, K.; Riethdorf, S.; Meyer-Staeckling, S.; Glatzel, M.; Matschke, J.; Witzel, I.; Westphal, M.; Brandt, B.; Müller, V.; et al. Frequent Genetic Alterations in EGFR- and HER2-Driven Pathways in Breast Cancer Brain Metastases. Am. J. Pathol. 2013, 183, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Sirkisoon, S.R.; Carpenter, R.L.; Rimkus, T.; Miller, L.; Metheny-Barlow, L.; Lo, H.-W. EGFR and HER2 signaling in breast cancer brain metastasis. FBE 2016, 8, 245–263. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  124. Swain, S.M.; Kim, S.B.; Cortés, J.; Ro, J.; Semiglazov, V.; Campone, M.; Ciruelos, E.; Ferrero, J.M.; Schneeweiss, A.; Knott, A.; et al. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (CLEOPATRA study): Overall survival results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2013, 14, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Swain, S.M.; Baselga, J.; Miles, D.; Im, Y.H.; Quah, C.; Lee, L.F.; Cortés, J. Incidence of central nervous system metastases in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer treated with pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel: Results from the randomized phase III study CLEOPATRA. Ann. Oncol. 2014, 25, 1116–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Swain, S.M.; Miles, D.; Kim, S.-B.; Im, Y.-H.; Im, S.-A.; Semiglazov, V.; Ciruelos, E.; Schneeweiss, A.; Loi, S.; Monturus, E.; et al. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (CLEOPATRA): End-of-study results from a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 519–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Krop, I.E.; Kim, S.-B.; Martin, A.G.; LoRusso, P.M.; Ferrero, J.-M.; Badovinac-Crnjevic, T.; Hoersch, S.; Smitt, M.; Wildiers, H. Trastuzumab emtansine versus treatment of physician’s choice in patients with previously treated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (TH3RESA): Final overall survival results from a randomised open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, 743–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Montemurro, F.; Delaloge, S.; Barrios, C.H.; Wuerstlein, R.; Anton, A.; Brain, E.; Hatschek, T.; Kelly, C.M.; Peña-Murillo, C.; Yilmaz, M.; et al. Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and brain metastases: Exploratory final analysis of cohort 1 from KAMILLA, a single-arm phase IIIb clinical trial(☆). Ann. Oncol. 2020, 31, 1350–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Wuerstlein, R.; Ellis, P.; Montemurro, F.; Antón Torres, A.; Delaloge, S.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, X.; Wang, S.; Shao, Z.; Li, H.; et al. Final results of the global and Asia cohorts of KAMILLA, a phase IIIB safety trial of trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. ESMO Open 2022, 7, 100561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Murthy, R.K.; Loi, S.; Okines, A.; Paplomata, E.; Hamilton, E.; Hurvitz, S.A.; Lin, N.U.; Borges, V.; Abramson, V.; Anders, C.; et al. Tucatinib, Trastuzumab, and Capecitabine for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Lin, N.U.; Borges, V.; Anders, C.; Murthy, R.K.; Paplomata, E.; Hamilton, E.; Hurvitz, S.; Loi, S.; Okines, A.; Abramson, V.; et al. Intracranial Efficacy and Survival with Tucatinib Plus Trastuzumab and Capecitabine for Previously Treated HER2-Positive Breast Cancer With Brain Metastases in the HER2CLIMB Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 2610–2619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Gril, B.; Wei, D.; Zimmer, A.S.; Robinson, C.; Khan, I.; Difilippantonio, S.; Overstreet, M.G.; Steeg, P.S. HER2 antibody-drug conjugate controls growth of breast cancer brain metastases in hematogenous xenograft models, with heterogeneous blood-tumor barrier penetration unlinked to a passive marker. Neuro Oncol. 2020, 22, 1625–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Pérez-García, J.M.; Vaz Batista, M.; Cortez, P.; Ruiz-Borrego, M.; Cejalvo, J.M.; de la Haba-Rodriguez, J.; Garrigós, L.; Racca, F.; Servitja, S.; Blanch, S.; et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with central nervous system involvement from HER2-positive breast cancer: The DEBBRAH trial. Neuro Oncol. 2023, 25, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Bartsch, R.; Berghoff, A.S.; Furtner, J.; Marhold, M.; Bergen, E.S.; Roider-Schur, S.; Starzer, A.M.; Forstner, H.; Rottenmanner, B.; Dieckmann, K.; et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in HER2-positive breast cancer with brain metastases: A single-arm, phase 2 trial. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 1840–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. De Ieso, P.B.; Schick, U.; Rosenfelder, N.; Mohammed, K.; Ross, G.M. Breast cancer brain metastases—A 12 year review of treatment outcomes. Breast 2015, 24, 426–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Lombardi, P.; Filetti, M.; Falcone, R.; Altamura, V.; Paroni Sterbini, F.; Bria, E.; Fabi, A.; Giannarelli, D.; Scambia, G.; Daniele, G. Overview of Trop-2 in Cancer: From Pre-Clinical Studies to Future Directions in Clinical Settings. Cancers 2023, 15, 1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Sakach, E.; Sacks, R.; Kalinsky, K. Trop-2 as a Therapeutic Target in Breast Cancer. Cancers 2022, 14, 5936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Corti, C.; Antonarelli, G.; Valenza, C.; Nicolò, E.; Rugo, H.; Cortés, J.; Harbeck, N.; Carey, L.A.; Criscitiello, C.; Curigliano, G. Histology-agnostic approvals for antibody-drug conjugates in solid tumours: Is the time ripe? Eur. J. Cancer 2022, 171, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Corti, C.; Boscolo Bielo, L.; Schianca, A.C.; Salimbeni, B.T.; Criscitiello, C.; Curigliano, G. Future potential targets of antibody-drug conjugates in breast cancer. Breast 2023, 69, 312–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Komorowski, A.S.; Warner, E.; MacKay, H.J.; Sahgal, A.; Pritchard, K.I.; Jerzak, K.J. Incidence of Brain Metastases in Nonmetastatic and Metastatic Breast Cancer: Is There a Role for Screening? Clin. Breast Cancer 2020, 20, e54–e64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Bou Zerdan, M.; Ghorayeb, T.; Saliba, F.; Allam, S.; Bou Zerdan, M.; Yaghi, M.; Bilani, N.; Jaafar, R.; Nahleh, Z. Triple Negative Breast Cancer: Updates on Classification and Treatment in 2021. Cancers 2022, 14, 1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Huang, R.S.P.; Li, X.; Haberberger, J.; Sokol, E.; Severson, E.; Duncan, D.L.; Hemmerich, A.; Edgerly, C.; Williams, E.; Elvin, J.; et al. Biomarkers in Breast Cancer: An Integrated Analysis of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling and PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry Biomarkers in 312 Patients with Breast Cancer. Oncologist 2020, 25, 943–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Graphical summary of biological mechanisms involved in brain metastasis development for breast cancer patients. TILs, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes; JAK/STAT, Janus kinase signal transducer and activator of transcription; HER2/HER3, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/human epidermal growth factor receptor 3; PI3K/AKT/PTEN, phosphoinositide 3—kinase-protein kinase B (Akt)—phosphatase and tensin homolog.
Figure 1. Graphical summary of biological mechanisms involved in brain metastasis development for breast cancer patients. TILs, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes; JAK/STAT, Janus kinase signal transducer and activator of transcription; HER2/HER3, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/human epidermal growth factor receptor 3; PI3K/AKT/PTEN, phosphoinositide 3—kinase-protein kinase B (Akt)—phosphatase and tensin homolog.
Genes 14 01160 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ivanova, M.; Porta, F.M.; Giugliano, F.; Frascarelli, C.; Sajjadi, E.; Venetis, K.; Cursano, G.; Mazzarol, G.; Guerini-Rocco, E.; Curigliano, G.; et al. Breast Cancer with Brain Metastasis: Molecular Insights and Clinical Management. Genes 2023, 14, 1160. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14061160

AMA Style

Ivanova M, Porta FM, Giugliano F, Frascarelli C, Sajjadi E, Venetis K, Cursano G, Mazzarol G, Guerini-Rocco E, Curigliano G, et al. Breast Cancer with Brain Metastasis: Molecular Insights and Clinical Management. Genes. 2023; 14(6):1160. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14061160

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ivanova, Mariia, Francesca Maria Porta, Federica Giugliano, Chiara Frascarelli, Elham Sajjadi, Konstantinos Venetis, Giulia Cursano, Giovanni Mazzarol, Elena Guerini-Rocco, Giuseppe Curigliano, and et al. 2023. "Breast Cancer with Brain Metastasis: Molecular Insights and Clinical Management" Genes 14, no. 6: 1160. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14061160

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop