breast cancer Archives - Page 2 of 2 - Sanford Burnham Prebys
Institute News

5 things to know about immunotherapy and breast cancer

AuthorSusan Gammon
Date

September 30, 2019

If you follow news about medical breakthroughs, you have undoubtedly heard about immunotherapy to treat cancer.

This form of therapy is designed to prime the body’s own immune system to fight the disease head-on. For some cancers, such as melanoma and lung cancer, immunotherapy has helped patients who once had only a life expectancy of months now live for years. But does it work for other cancers?

We sat down with Svasti Haricharan, PhD, assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys and recipient of a Susan G. Komen Career Catalyst Award to discuss where we are with immunotherapy and breast cancer. Here are five things she wants us to know.

  1. As scientists, our job is to understand the biology of why immunotherapy works for some cancers but not others. Our goal is to develop approaches to expand the benefits of immunotherapy to as many patients as possible. With breast cancer, we are still in the early days, but there has been some success. Earlier this year a type of immunotherapy called an “immune checkpoint inhibitor” was approved to treat certain types of metastatic breast cancer. But immunotherapy doesn’t work—yet—for all breast cancers.
  2. No two breast cancers are alike. Even though two women with breast cancer may have the same size tumor, the individual characteristics of the tumor—the receptors, the genetics, even the way the tumor cells gather fuel to grow, can differ. Just as importantly, the way each woman’s body reacts to the growing cancer is predicated by her immune history: her exposure to immunological challenges, the strength of the immune response her body is capable of mounting, and how long she can sustain an immune response. These factors strongly influence the likelihood that a patient will respond to a specific therapy. The more we drill down on breast tumors, and the tricks they use to evade the immune system, the closer we get to outsmarting them.
  3. Today, immunotherapy seems to work best for triple negative breast cancer. Triple negative means three types of receptors—estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and HER2—are not expressed on the cancer cells. Cancers that express these receptors are easier to treat because these receptors can be targeted directly. We believe part of the reason why immunotherapy is effective for triple negative breast cancer is because these cells can grow rapidly and produce more neoantigens—altered tumor proteins that have not previously been recognized by the immune system. So, these tumors may already have immune cells infiltrating the tumor, and when unleashed via immunotherapy, they can readily attack the cancer. 
  4. Immunotherapy—at least the immune checkpoint agents that are used today—target a protein called PD-1 found on T cells, which are the immune cells that roam the body looking for disease. PD-L1 is another protein found on some normal and some cancer cells. When PD-1 attaches to PD-L1, T cells are queued to leave the cell alone and not attack it. We believe cancer cells use PD-L1 to protect themselves from the immune system, and that cancers with large amounts of PD-L1 are the most likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitors. It’s possible that testing breast tumors for PD-L1 levels will help identify more women likely to benefit from these drugs. 
  5. Collaboration is key. Although we like to think of scientists as having “Eureka” moments, the reality is that much of the progress we make is incremental. We painstakingly plan, control and execute experiments—gathering and analyzing data to open new avenues that can be tested in the clinic. Working alongside professionals who are responsible for patient outcomes is an important part of the research spectrum. Their input provides direction for our goal of achieving cures—and a means to evaluate if what started in the lab will work in the clinic. There are nearly 300 clinical trials currently ongoing that are testing immunotherapeutic approaches for breast cancer. The information we gather from these trials helps guide the future of what we do next in the laboratory. Advances will be made, and progress is on the horizon.
     
Institute News

5 takeaways from SBP Insights: Breast Cancer

AuthorMonica May
Date

October 29, 2018

Your sister, your friend, your neighbor. We all know someone affected by breast cancer. It remains the second most common cancer for American women. While less common, men can also get breast cancer. Treatment advances are being made, but we still have more work to do. Modern medicines don’t work for every patient. 

On October 25 the San Diego community visited Sanford Burnham Prebys Biomedical Research Institute (SBP) to hear three unique perspectives on breast cancer—a doctor, scientist and survivor—as part of the Institute’s ongoing SBP Insights series. These interactive events are designed to help the public better understand how research leads to better medicines—told from the perspectives of individuals who are at the front lines of this journey. 

Jorge Moscat, PhD, director and professor of SBP’s Cancer Metabolism and Signaling Networks Program provided a special introduction and Shaina Gross, president and CEO of Susan G. Komen San Diego moderated the discussion. The panelists were Brooke Emerling, PhD, assistant professor at SBP; Rebecca Shatsky, MD, breast cancer oncologist at Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health; and Helen Eckman, Ed.D., a breast cancer survivor, associate professor at Brandman University and SBP Community Advisory Board Member. 

“It was wonderful to learn about the collaboration between my oncologist and the research team at SBP. I knew that Dr. Shatsky was doing a research project on breast cancer, but not that she was also working with SBP,” says Cindy Goodman, an event attendee and supporter of SBP’s Fishman Fund, which provides grant funding to exceptional postdoctoral scholars. “For anyone who has to undergo treatment for breast cancer, the discussion clearly demonstrated that we are in the right place, at the right time, with the right people.”

After a brief presentation from each speaker, audience members were able to pose questions to the panel. Below are some of the key insights generated from the informational and at-times emotional discussion. 

  1. Trust your instincts. A doctor thought strange spots on Eckman’s mammogram were camera error and asked her to return in six months for a re-test. Her gut told her otherwise and she insisted on another mammogram right away—which found metastatic breast cancer. Shatsky echoed this advice, recommending that in addition to regular self-breast exams, pay attention to what is normal for your own body. Then you can spot when something is “off.”
  2. Most women don’t have a family history of breast cancer. Only 10 to 15 percent of breast cancer cases are due to inherited genes that increase breast cancer risk, such as BRCA 1 and BRCA 2. Breast cancer can occur in anyone.
  3. Every tumor is unique. Like us, our cancer is unique—both in terms of genetics and how it interacts with its environment. The panel agreed personalized medicines are the future of breast cancer treatment.
  4. Tomorrow’s breakthroughs stem from today’s research. Because of research, we now know that breast cancer isn’t one disease—but actually 25 different subtypes. And scientists can now work to find effective treatments for each. For example, Emerling is working on a potential targeted treatment for the triple negative subtype—which lacks hormone receptors and thus is difficult to treat.
  5. Cures come from collaboration. Communication between scientists and doctors will lead to breast cancer treatments. Indeed, Shatsky and Emerling are part of breast-cancer focused disease team at SBP. They noted the insights gained from these discussions are invaluable. 

The next SBP Insights focuses on heart disease and will be held on February 7, 2019. Visit: sbpdiscovery.org/insights

Institute News

SBP scientist awarded Susan G. Komen® and NIH grants to advance breast cancer research

AuthorMonica May
Date

October 25, 2018

Breast cancer remains the second most common cancer for American women. While treatment advances are being made, more research is needed. Current treatments don’t work for every woman.
 
Now, breast cancer researcher Svasti Haricharan, PhD, assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute (SBP), has been awarded more than half a million dollars in combined grants from Susan G. Komen® and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 

This funding will advance Haricharan’s breast cancer research—including developing a diagnostic test that could guide therapeutic options—and allow her to apply lessons from breast cancer to additional cancers. 

Susan G. Komen grant

The majority of women diagnosed with breast cancer have the estrogen-positive (ER-positive) form, meaning the tumor grows in response to estrogen. Hormone therapies (anti-estrogen drugs) that block estrogen—and thus stop the tumor from growing—are available. However, this treatment doesn’t work for 40 percent of women with ER-positive breast cancer. 

“Currently, doctors are unable to predict which ER-positive patients will respond to treatment—so an estrogen-blocking medicine is given, and a ‘wait and see’ approach is taken to see if the treatment will work,” says Haricharan. “However, if a woman doesn’t respond to treatment, during this time the tumor is instead still growing and may metastasize—when it becomes deadlier and even harder to treat. Knowing upfront if an individual will respond to treatment allows doctors to skip a treatment that won’t work and move immediately to prescribing a medicine that may be effective.” 

Haricharan’s previous work found that about one-third of women with ER-positive breast cancer who were treatment resistant had a mutation in DNA damage-repair genes—providing a potential biomarker that could predict who would respond to treatment. 

Luckily, an FDA-approved test that detects defects in DNA damage repair is currently available for colorectal cancer patients. The grant from Susan G. Komen enables Haricharan to evaluate whether this same test can be used to predict response to anti-estrogen drugs in ER-positive breast cancer patients. 

Additionally, research from Haricharan’s previous lab identified a medicine that is FDA approved for advanced or metastatic breast cancer patients and holds potential as a frontline breast cancer treatment (the first treatment prescribed by a doctor). The grant will allow her to bring these pieces of the puzzle together—developing a predictive test and evaluating a potential alternative treatment. 

“Because an FDA-approved test is already on the market, development of a breast cancer test to predict response to hormone therapy may be accelerated. I’d estimate my work could enable a commercially available test in less than five years—though of course a real-world assessment will be needed to obtain doctor and insurance-company approval,” says Haricharan. “Pairing a new test that can guide therapeutic options with a potential treatment would be an important advance for ER- positive breast cancer. I want to express my greatest thanks to Susan G. Komen for funding this important work.” 

NIH grant

Haricharan was also awarded a K22 grant from the NIH, which helps early-career scientists transition to independent research careers. This grant will allow her to apply insights from her breast cancer research to additional cancers. 

Studies have indicated there are links between the growth of colorectal and bladder tumors and estrogen response. While women are less frequently diagnosed with bladder cancer, they tend to have a greater risk of dying from the disease. In contrast, estrogen may have a protective effect on the development of colorectal cancers. 

The NIH grant will enable Haricharan to work to better understand the role DNA damage-repair mutations may play in response to standard-of-care treatment for ER-positive breast, colorectal and bladder cancers. Once this role has been established, the grant will help fund a search for effective targeted treatments.

“Both bladder and colorectal cancers are often caught at a late stage, when the cancer is harder to treat,” says Haricharan. “I hope that this research will ultimately yield tests that can predict response to treatment and guide treatment options for these deadly cancers.” 

Link to the NIH grant: A pan-cancer role for MUTL loss in inducing treatment resistance 

More information about the Susan G. Komen grant: Susan G. Komen Announces $26 Million Investment in New Research to Find Solutions for Aggressive and Metastatic Breast Cancers, and to Help Communities Most at Risk
 

Interested in keeping up with SBP’s latest discoveries, upcoming events and more? Subscribe to our monthly newsletter, Discoveries.

Institute News

Hearst Foundation’s new fellowship funds innovative research to fight breast cancer

AuthorJessica Moore
Date

October 20, 2016

Mark Goldberg, PhD, is working on a potential way to turn cancer stem cells into harmless cells. He and his advisor, Charles Spruck, PhD, assistant professor in the NCI-designated Cancer Center, are optimistic that they could turn this approach into new drugs that prevent breast cancer from returning.

Goldberg is supported by the first-ever research fellowship given by the David Whitmire Hearst Jr. Foundation. The funds were awarded specifically for this groundbreaking project.

“Breast cancer can spread to other organs very early, sometimes even before it’s detected,” said Spruck. “Those micrometastases—just one or a few cells—lie dormant for years, and are insensitive to anticancer drugs. Our goal is to switch those cells to a normal cell type that can’t generate a tumor.”

In as-yet unpublished research, Spruck’s lab recently discovered a protein that’s crucial for pre-cancerous cells to begin growing aggressively and out of control. Goldberg will use animal models of breast cancer to show that genetically inactivating this protein prevents secondary tumors from forming. The next step is to search for candidate drugs that inhibit the protein.

“If we find blockers of this protein that controls progression to malignancy, they could be given to breast cancer patients, after standard treatment has eradicated their primary tumor, to eliminate any remaining cancer stem cells,” added Spruck.

Goldberg’s background in bioengineering gives him a fresh perspective on cancer research. As a PhD student at Caltech, he designed implantable glucose and ion sensors using microfluidics and nanophotonics. That experience gives him a flexible, solutions-oriented approach to designing experiments.

“During Mark’s interview—the first time I met him—we came up with a really exciting way to apply what he was working on at Caltech to cancer research,” Spruck commented. “That kind of creative thinking and insight is invaluable—it’s why I hired him for this fellowship-supported spot.

“Because this research is so early-stage, it’s hard to get funded through traditional avenues. The Hearst Foundation fellowship allows us to get the evidence that this strategy works. That data will be key to getting the support we need for the drug discovery phase.” 

Institute News

She has a 1 in 8 chance of getting breast cancer

Authorsgammon
Date

October 5, 2015

October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, an annual campaign to increase knowledge and awareness of the disease. Have a look at some of the staggering statistics about breast cancer to understand why this is an important cause for so many people. Although tremendous advances have been made, there is still work to be done into the causes, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease.

Continue reading “She has a 1 in 8 chance of getting breast cancer”