Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Andrew Tutt is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Andrew Tutt.


Nature | 2005

Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy.

Hannah Farmer; Nuala McCabe; Christopher J. Lord; Andrew Tutt; Damian A. Johnson; Tobias B. Richardson; Manuela Santarosa; Krystyna J. Dillon; Ian Hickson; Charlotte Knights; Niall Morrison Barr Martin; Graeme Cameron Murray Smith; Alan Ashworth

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are important for DNA double-strand break repair by homologous recombination, and mutations in these genes predispose to breast and other cancers. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) is an enzyme involved in base excision repair, a key pathway in the repair of DNA single-strand breaks. We show here that BRCA1 or BRCA2 dysfunction unexpectedly and profoundly sensitizes cells to the inhibition of PARP enzymatic activity, resulting in chromosomal instability, cell cycle arrest and subsequent apoptosis. This seems to be because the inhibition of PARP leads to the persistence of DNA lesions normally repaired by homologous recombination. These results illustrate how different pathways cooperate to repair damage, and suggest that the targeted inhibition of particular DNA repair pathways may allow the design of specific and less toxic therapies for cancer.


Nature | 2013

Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer

Ludmil B. Alexandrov; Serena Nik-Zainal; David C. Wedge; Samuel Aparicio; Sam Behjati; Andrew V. Biankin; Graham R. Bignell; Niccolo Bolli; Åke Borg; Anne Lise Børresen-Dale; Sandrine Boyault; Birgit Burkhardt; Adam Butler; Carlos Caldas; Helen Davies; Christine Desmedt; Roland Eils; Jórunn Erla Eyfjörd; John A. Foekens; Mel Greaves; Fumie Hosoda; Barbara Hutter; Tomislav Ilicic; Sandrine Imbeaud; Marcin Imielinsk; Natalie Jäger; David T. W. Jones; David Jones; Stian Knappskog; Marcel Kool

All cancers are caused by somatic mutations; however, understanding of the biological processes generating these mutations is limited. The catalogue of somatic mutations from a cancer genome bears the signatures of the mutational processes that have been operative. Here we analysed 4,938,362 mutations from 7,042 cancers and extracted more than 20 distinct mutational signatures. Some are present in many cancer types, notably a signature attributed to the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases, whereas others are confined to a single cancer class. Certain signatures are associated with age of the patient at cancer diagnosis, known mutagenic exposures or defects in DNA maintenance, but many are of cryptic origin. In addition to these genome-wide mutational signatures, hypermutation localized to small genomic regions, ‘kataegis’, is found in many cancer types. The results reveal the diversity of mutational processes underlying the development of cancer, with potential implications for understanding of cancer aetiology, prevention and therapy.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2009

Inhibition of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase in Tumors from BRCA Mutation Carriers

Peter C.C. Fong; David S. Boss; Timothy A. Yap; Andrew Tutt; Peijun Wu; Marja Mergui-Roelvink; Peter S. Mortimer; Helen Swaisland; Alan Lau; Alan Ashworth; James Carmichael; Stan B. Kaye; Johann S. de Bono

BACKGROUND The inhibition of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) is a potential synthetic lethal therapeutic strategy for the treatment of cancers with specific DNA-repair defects, including those arising in carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. We conducted a clinical evaluation in humans of olaparib (AZD2281), a novel, potent, orally active PARP inhibitor. METHODS This was a phase 1 trial that included the analysis of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of olaparib. Selection was aimed at having a study population enriched in carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. RESULTS We enrolled and treated 60 patients; 22 were carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and 1 had a strong family history of BRCA-associated cancer but declined to undergo mutational testing. The olaparib dose and schedule were increased from 10 mg daily for 2 of every 3 weeks to 600 mg twice daily continuously. Reversible dose-limiting toxicity was seen in one of eight patients receiving 400 mg twice daily (grade 3 mood alteration and fatigue) and two of five patients receiving 600 mg twice daily (grade 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 somnolence). This led us to enroll another cohort, consisting only of carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, to receive olaparib at a dose of 200 mg twice daily. Other adverse effects included mild gastrointestinal symptoms. There was no obvious increase in adverse effects seen in the mutation carriers. Pharmacokinetic data indicated rapid absorption and elimination; pharmacodynamic studies confirmed PARP inhibition in surrogate samples (of peripheral-blood mononuclear cells and plucked eyebrow-hair follicles) and tumor tissue. Objective antitumor activity was reported only in mutation carriers, all of whom had ovarian, breast, or prostate cancer and had received multiple treatment regimens. CONCLUSIONS Olaparib has few of the adverse effects of conventional chemotherapy, inhibits PARP, and has antitumor activity in cancer associated with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00516373.)


The Lancet | 2010

Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer: a proof-of-concept trial

Andrew Tutt; Mark E. Robson; Judy Garber; Susan M. Domchek; M. William Audeh; Jeffrey N. Weitzel; Michael Friedlander; Banu Arun; Niklas Loman; Rita K. Schmutzler; Andrew M Wardley; Gillian Mitchell; Helena Earl; Mark Wickens; James Carmichael

BACKGROUND Olaparib, a novel, orally active poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, induced synthetic lethality in BRCA-deficient cells. A maximum tolerated dose and initial signal of efficacy in BRCA-deficient ovarian cancers have been reported. We therefore assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of olaparib alone in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer. METHODS Women (aged >or=18 years) with confirmed BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent, advanced breast cancer were assigned to two sequential cohorts in a phase 2 study undertaken in 16 centres in Australia, Germany, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the USA. The first cohort (n=27) was given continuous oral olaparib at the maximum tolerated dose (400 mg twice daily), and the second (n=27) was given a lower dose (100 mg twice daily). The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00494234. FINDINGS Patients had been given a median of three previous chemotherapy regimens (range 1-5 in cohort 1, and 2-4 in cohort 2). ORR was 11 (41%) of 27 patients (95% CI 25-59) in the cohort assigned to 400 mg twice daily, and six (22%) of 27 (11-41) in the cohort assigned to 100 mg twice daily. Toxicities were mainly at low grades. The most frequent causally related adverse events in the cohort given 400 mg twice daily were fatigue (grade 1 or 2, 11 [41%]; grade 3 or 4, four [15%]), nausea (grade 1 or 2, 11 [41%]; grade 3 or 4, four [15%]), vomiting (grade 1 or 2, three [11%]; grade 3 or 4, three [11%]), and anaemia (grade 1 or 2, one [4%]; grade 3 or 4, three [11%]). The most frequent causally related adverse events in the cohort given 100 mg twice daily were nausea (grade 1 or 2, 11 [41%]; none grade 3 or 4) and fatigue (grade 1 or 2, seven [26%]; grade 3 or 4, one [4%]). INTERPRETATION The results of this study provide positive proof of concept for PARP inhibition in BRCA-deficient breast cancers and shows a favourable therapeutic index for a novel targeted treatment strategy in patients with tumours that have genetic loss of function of BRCA1-associated or BRCA2-associated DNA repair. Toxicity in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations was similar to that reported previously in those without such mutations. FUNDING AstraZeneca.


Annals of Oncology | 2013

Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013

A. Goldhirsch; E P Winer; A S Coates; R D Gelber; M Piccart-Gebhart; B. Thürlimann; H.-J. Senn; Kathy S. Albain; Fabrice Andre; Jonas Bergh; Hervé Bonnefoi; Denisse Bretel-Morales; Harold J. Burstein; Fatima Cardoso; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Alan S. Coates; Marco Colleoni; Alberto Costa; Giuseppe Curigliano; Nancy E. Davidson; Angelo Di Leo; Bent Ejlertsen; John F Forbes; Richard D. Gelber; Michael Gnant; Aron Goldhirsch; Pamela J. Goodwin; Paul E. Goss; Jay R. Harris; Daniel F. Hayes

The 13th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference (2013) Expert Panel reviewed and endorsed substantial new evidence on aspects of the local and regional therapies for early breast cancer, supporting less extensive surgery to the axilla and shorter durations of radiation therapy. It refined its earlier approach to the classification and management of luminal disease in the absence of amplification or overexpression of the Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor 2 (HER2) oncogene, while retaining essentially unchanged recommendations for the systemic adjuvant therapy of HER2-positive and ‘triple-negative’ disease. The Panel again accepted that conventional clinico-pathological factors provided a surrogate subtype classification, while noting that in those areas of the world where multi-gene molecular assays are readily available many clinicians prefer to base chemotherapy decisions for patients with luminal disease on these genomic results rather than the surrogate subtype definitions. Several multi-gene molecular assays were recognized as providing accurate and reproducible prognostic information, and in some cases prediction of response to chemotherapy. Cost and availability preclude their application in many environments at the present time. Broad treatment recommendations are presented. Such recommendations do not imply that each Panel member agrees: indeed, among more than 100 questions, only one (trastuzumab duration) commanded 100% agreement. The various recommendations in fact carried differing degrees of support, as reflected in the nuanced wording of the text below and in the votes recorded in supplementary Appendix S1, available at Annals of Oncology online. Detailed decisions on treatment will as always involve clinical consideration of disease extent, host factors, patient preferences and social and economic constraints.


Nature | 2012

The landscape of cancer genes and mutational processes in breast cancer

Philip Stephens; Patrick Tarpey; Helen Davies; Peter Van Loo; Christopher Greenman; David C. Wedge; Serena Nik-Zainal; Sancha Martin; Ignacio Varela; Graham R. Bignell; Lucy R. Yates; Elli Papaemmanuil; David Beare; Adam Butler; Angela Cheverton; John Gamble; Jonathan Hinton; Mingming Jia; Alagu Jayakumar; David Jones; Calli Latimer; King Wai Lau; Stuart McLaren; David J. McBride; Andrew Menzies; Laura Mudie; Keiran Raine; Roland Rad; Michael Spencer Chapman; Jon W. Teague

All cancers carry somatic mutations in their genomes. A subset, known as driver mutations, confer clonal selective advantage on cancer cells and are causally implicated in oncogenesis, and the remainder are passenger mutations. The driver mutations and mutational processes operative in breast cancer have not yet been comprehensively explored. Here we examine the genomes of 100 tumours for somatic copy number changes and mutations in the coding exons of protein-coding genes. The number of somatic mutations varied markedly between individual tumours. We found strong correlations between mutation number, age at which cancer was diagnosed and cancer histological grade, and observed multiple mutational signatures, including one present in about ten per cent of tumours characterized by numerous mutations of cytosine at TpC dinucleotides. Driver mutations were identified in several new cancer genes including AKT2, ARID1B, CASP8, CDKN1B, MAP3K1, MAP3K13, NCOR1, SMARCD1 and TBX3. Among the 100 tumours, we found driver mutations in at least 40 cancer genes and 73 different combinations of mutated cancer genes. The results highlight the substantial genetic diversity underlying this common disease.


Cell | 2012

Mutational processes molding the genomes of 21 breast cancers.

Serena Nik-Zainal; Ludmil B. Alexandrov; David C. Wedge; Peter Van Loo; Christopher Greenman; Keiran Raine; David Jones; Jonathan Hinton; John D Marshall; Lucy Stebbings; Andrew Menzies; Sancha Martin; Kenric Leung; Lina Chen; Catherine Leroy; Manasa Ramakrishna; Richard Rance; King Wai Lau; Laura Mudie; Ignacio Varela; David J. McBride; Graham R. Bignell; Susanna L. Cooke; Adam Shlien; John Gamble; Ian Whitmore; Mark Maddison; Patrick Tarpey; Helen Davies; Elli Papaemmanuil

Summary All cancers carry somatic mutations. The patterns of mutation in cancer genomes reflect the DNA damage and repair processes to which cancer cells and their precursors have been exposed. To explore these mechanisms further, we generated catalogs of somatic mutation from 21 breast cancers and applied mathematical methods to extract mutational signatures of the underlying processes. Multiple distinct single- and double-nucleotide substitution signatures were discernible. Cancers with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations exhibited a characteristic combination of substitution mutation signatures and a distinctive profile of deletions. Complex relationships between somatic mutation prevalence and transcription were detected. A remarkable phenomenon of localized hypermutation, termed “kataegis,” was observed. Regions of kataegis differed between cancers but usually colocalized with somatic rearrangements. Base substitutions in these regions were almost exclusively of cytosine at TpC dinucleotides. The mechanisms underlying most of these mutational signatures are unknown. However, a role for the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases is proposed. PaperClip


Cell | 2012

The Life History of 21 Breast Cancers

Serena Nik-Zainal; Peter Van Loo; David C. Wedge; Ludmil B. Alexandrov; Christopher Greenman; King Wai Lau; Keiran Raine; David Jones; John Marshall; Manasa Ramakrishna; Adam Shlien; Susanna L. Cooke; Jonathan Hinton; Andrew Menzies; Lucy Stebbings; Catherine Leroy; Mingming Jia; Richard Rance; Laura Mudie; Stephen Gamble; Philip Stephens; Stuart McLaren; Patrick Tarpey; Elli Papaemmanuil; Helen Davies; Ignacio Varela; David J. McBride; Graham R. Bignell; Kenric Leung; Adam Butler

Summary Cancer evolves dynamically as clonal expansions supersede one another driven by shifting selective pressures, mutational processes, and disrupted cancer genes. These processes mark the genome, such that a cancers life history is encrypted in the somatic mutations present. We developed algorithms to decipher this narrative and applied them to 21 breast cancers. Mutational processes evolve across a cancers lifespan, with many emerging late but contributing extensive genetic variation. Subclonal diversification is prominent, and most mutations are found in just a fraction of tumor cells. Every tumor has a dominant subclonal lineage, representing more than 50% of tumor cells. Minimal expansion of these subclones occurs until many hundreds to thousands of mutations have accumulated, implying the existence of long-lived, quiescent cell lineages capable of substantial proliferation upon acquisition of enabling genomic changes. Expansion of the dominant subclone to an appreciable mass may therefore represent the final rate-limiting step in a breast cancers development, triggering diagnosis. PaperClip


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2007

Definition of Clinically Distinct Molecular Subtypes in Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Carcinomas Through Genomic Grade

Sherene Loi; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Christine Desmedt; Françoise Lallemand; Andrew Tutt; Cheryl Gillet; Paul Ellis; Adrian L. Harris; Jonas Bergh; John A. Foekens; J.G.M. Klijn; Denis Larsimont; Marc Buyse; Gianluca Bontempi; Mauro Delorenzi; Martine Piccart; Christos Sotiriou

PURPOSE A number of microarray studies have reported distinct molecular profiles of breast cancers (BC), such as basal-like, ErbB2-like, and two to three luminal-like subtypes. These were associated with different clinical outcomes. However, although the basal and the ErbB2 subtypes are repeatedly recognized, identification of estrogen receptor (ER) -positive subtypes has been inconsistent. Therefore, refinement of their molecular definition is needed. MATERIALS AND METHODS We have previously reported a gene expression grade index (GGI), which defines histologic grade based on gene expression profiles. Using this algorithm, we assigned ER-positive BC to either high-or low-genomic grade subgroups and compared these with previously reported ER-positive molecular classifications. As further validation, we classified 666 ER-positive samples into subtypes and assessed their clinical outcome. RESULTS Two ER-positive molecular subgroups (high and low genomic grade) could be defined using the GGI. Despite tracking a single biologic pathway, these were highly comparable to the previously described luminal A and B classification and significantly correlated to the risk groups produced using the 21-gene recurrence score. The two subtypes were associated with statistically distinct clinical outcome in both systemically untreated and tamoxifen-treated populations. CONCLUSION The use of genomic grade can identify two clinically distinct ER-positive molecular subtypes in a simple and highly reproducible manner across multiple data sets. This study emphasizes the important role of proliferation-related genes in predicting prognosis in ER-positive BC.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2010

Poly(ADP)-Ribose Polymerase Inhibition: Frequent Durable Responses in BRCA Carrier Ovarian Cancer Correlating With Platinum-Free Interval

Peter C.C. Fong; Timothy A. Yap; David S. Boss; Craig P. Carden; Marja Mergui-Roelvink; Charlie Gourley; Jacques De Grève; Jan Lubinski; Susan Shanley; Christina Messiou; Roger A'Hern; Andrew Tutt; Alan Ashworth; John Stone; James Carmichael; Jan H. M. Schellens; Johann S. de Bono; Stan B. Kaye

PURPOSE Selective tumor cell cytotoxicity can be achieved through a synthetic lethal strategy using poly(ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in whom tumor cells have defective homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair. Platinum-based chemotherapy responses correlate with HR DNA repair capacity. Olaparib is a potent, oral PARP inhibitor that is well tolerated, with antitumor activity in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer were treated with olaparib within a dose-escalation and single-stage expansion of a phase I trial. Antitumor activity was subsequently correlated with platinum sensitivity. RESULTS Fifty patients were treated: 48 had germline BRCA1/2 mutations; one had a BRCA2 germline sequence change of unknown significance, and another had a strong family history of BRCA1/2-associated cancers who declined mutation testing. Of the 50 patients, 13 had platinum-sensitive disease, 24 had platinum-resistant disease, and 13 had platinum-refractory disease (according to platinum-free interval). Twenty (40%; 95% CI, 26% to 55%) achieved Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) complete or partial responses and/or tumor marker (CA125) responses, and three (6.0%) maintained RECIST disease stabilization for more than 4 months, giving an overall clinical benefit rate of 46% (95% CI, 32% to 61%). Median response duration was 28 weeks. There was a significant association between the clinical benefit rate and platinum-free interval across the platinum-sensitive, resistant, and refractory subgroups (69%, 45%, and 23%, respectively). Post hoc analyses indicated associations between platinum sensitivity and extent of olaparib response (radiologic change, P = .001; CA125 change, P = .002). CONCLUSION Olaparib has antitumor activity in BRCA1/2 mutation ovarian cancer, which is associated with platinum sensitivity.

Collaboration


Dive into the Andrew Tutt's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Alan Ashworth

University of California

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Christopher J. Lord

Institute of Cancer Research

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge