↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of FGFR targeting in breast cancer through interrogation of patient-derived models

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research, August 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of FGFR targeting in breast cancer through interrogation of patient-derived models
Published in
Breast Cancer Research, August 2021
DOI 10.1186/s13058-021-01461-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole J. Chew, Terry C. C. Lim Kam Sian, Elizabeth V. Nguyen, Sung-Young Shin, Jessica Yang, Mun N. Hui, Niantao Deng, Catriona A. McLean, Alana L. Welm, Elgene Lim, Peter Gregory, Tim Nottle, Tali Lang, Melissa Vereker, Gary Richardson, Genevieve Kerr, Diana Micati, Thierry Jardé, Helen E. Abud, Rachel S. Lee, Alex Swarbrick, Roger J. Daly

Abstract

Particular breast cancer subtypes pose a clinical challenge due to limited targeted therapeutic options and/or poor responses to the existing targeted therapies. While cell lines provide useful pre-clinical models, patient-derived xenografts (PDX) and organoids (PDO) provide significant advantages, including maintenance of genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity, 3D architecture and for PDX, tumor-stroma interactions. In this study, we applied an integrated multi-omic approach across panels of breast cancer PDXs and PDOs in order to identify candidate therapeutic targets, with a major focus on specific FGFRs. MS-based phosphoproteomics, RNAseq, WES and Western blotting were used to characterize aberrantly activated protein kinases and effects of specific FGFR inhibitors. PDX and PDO were treated with the selective tyrosine kinase inhibitors AZD4547 (FGFR1-3) and BLU9931 (FGFR4). FGFR4 expression in cancer tissue samples and PDOs was assessed by immunohistochemistry. METABRIC and TCGA datasets were interrogated to identify specific FGFR alterations and their association with breast cancer subtype and patient survival. Phosphoproteomic profiling across 18 triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) and 1 luminal B PDX revealed considerable heterogeneity in kinase activation, but 1/3 of PDX exhibited enhanced phosphorylation of FGFR1, FGFR2 or FGFR4. One TNBC PDX with high FGFR2 activation was exquisitely sensitive to AZD4547. Integrated 'omic analysis revealed a novel FGFR2-SKI fusion that comprised the majority of FGFR2 joined to the C-terminal region of SKI containing the coiled-coil domains. High FGFR4 phosphorylation characterized a luminal B PDX model and treatment with BLU9931 significantly decreased tumor growth. Phosphoproteomic and transcriptomic analyses confirmed on-target action of the two anti-FGFR drugs and also revealed novel effects on the spliceosome, metabolism and extracellular matrix (AZD4547) and RIG-I-like and NOD-like receptor signaling (BLU9931). Interrogation of public datasets revealed FGFR2 amplification, fusion or mutation in TNBC and other breast cancer subtypes, while FGFR4 overexpression and amplification occurred in all breast cancer subtypes and were associated with poor prognosis. Characterization of a PDO panel identified a luminal A PDO with high FGFR4 expression that was sensitive to BLU9931 treatment, further highlighting FGFR4 as a potential therapeutic target. This work highlights how patient-derived models of human breast cancer provide powerful platforms for therapeutic target identification and analysis of drug action, and also the potential of specific FGFRs, including FGFR4, as targets for precision treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 13 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Linguistics 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 August 2021.
All research outputs
#4,758,908
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research
#545
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,058
of 438,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research
#6
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.