Breast cancer patients with Luminal A disease generally have a good prognosis, but among this patient group are patients with good prognosis that are currently overtreated with adjuvant chemotherapy, and also patients that have a bad prognosis and should be given more aggressive treatment. There is no available method for subclassification of this patient group. Here we present a DNA methylation signature (SAM40) that segregates Luminal A patients based on prognosis, and identify one good prognosis group and one bad prognosis group. The prognostic impact of SAM40 was validated in four independent patient cohorts. Being able to subdivide the Luminal A patients may give the two-sided benefit of identifying one subgroup that may benefit from a more aggressive treatment than what is given today, and importantly, identifying a subgroup that may benefit from less treatment.

Background: Metabolomic characterization of tumours can potentially improve prediction of cancer prognosis and treatment response. Here, we describe efforts to validate previous metabolomic findings using a historical cohort of breast cancer patients and discuss challenges with using older biobanks collected with non-standardized sampling procedures. Methods: In total, 100 primary breast cancer samples were analysed by high-resolution magic angle spinning magnetic resonance spectroscopy (HR MAS MRS) and subsequently examined by histology. Metabolomic profiles were related to the presence of cancer tissue, hormone receptor status, T-stage, N-stage, and survival. RNA integrity number (RIN) and metabolomic profiles were compared with an ongoing breast cancer biobank. Results: The 100 samples had a median RIN of 4.3, while the ongoing biobank had a significantly higher median RIN of 6.3 (p = 5.86 × 10−7). A low RIN was associated with changes in choline-containing metabolites and creatine, and the samples in the older biobank showed metabolic differences previously associated with tissue degradation. The association between metabolomic profile and oestrogen receptor status was in accordance with previous findings, however, with a lower classification accuracy. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of standardized biobanking procedures in breast cancer metabolomics studies.

Somatic copy number alterations are a frequent sign of genome instability in cancer. A precise characterization of the genome architecture would reveal underlying instability mechanisms and provide an instrument for outcome prediction and treatment guidance. Here we show that the local spatial behavior of copy number profiles conveys important information about this architecture. Six filters were defined to characterize regional traits in copy number profiles, and the resulting Copy Aberration Regional Mapping Analysis (CARMA) algorithm was applied to tumors in four breast cancer cohorts (n = 2919). The derived motifs represent a layer of information that complements established molecular classifications of breast cancer. A score reflecting presence or absence of motifs provided a highly significant independent prognostic predictor. Results were consistent between cohorts. The nonsitespecific occurrence of the detected patterns suggests that CARMA captures underlying replication and repair defects and could have a future potential in treatment stratification.

Tumor evolution is dependent on and constrained by the genotypes emerging from genome instability. We hypothesized that non-site-specific copy number motifs would correlate with underlying replication defects and also with tumor and patient fate. Six feature detectors were defined to characterize and score the local spatial behaviour of a copy number profile. By accumulating scores across genomic regions, a low-dimensional representation of the tumor genome was obtained. The proposed Copy Aberration Regional Mapping Analysis (CARMA) algorithm was applied to 2384 breast tumors from three breast cancer cohorts, revealing distinct copy number motifs in established molecular subtypes. A prognostic index combining the features predicted breast cancer specific survival better than both the genomic instability index (GII) and all commonly used clinical stratifications. CARMA offers effective comparison of tumor subgroups and extracts biologically and clinically relevant features from allele-specific copy number profiles.