BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women worldwide. The objective of this study was to describe the most common oncogenic mutations in cervical cancers and to explore genomic differences between the 2 most common histologic subtypes: adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS: A high-throughput genotyping platform, termed Oncomap, was used to interrogate 80 cervical tumors for 1250 known mutations in 139 cancer genes. Samples were analyzed using a mass spectrometry-based genotyping platform and were validated using orthogonal chemistry. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations were further validated by massive parallel sequencing. Human papilloma virus (HPV) genotyping also was performed. RESULTS: Validated mutations were detected in 48 of 80 tumors (60%) examined. The highest mutation rates were in the genes phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, catalytic subunit α (PIK3CA) (31.3%); Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) (8.8%); and EGFR (3.8%). PIK3CA mutation rates did not differ significantly between adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas (25% vs 37.5%, respectively; P = .33). In contrast, KRAS mutations were identified only in adenocarcinomas (17.5% vs 0%; P = .01), and a novel EGFR mutation was detected only in squamous cell carcinomas (0% vs 7.5%; P = .24). There were no associations between HPV-16 or HPV-18 and somatic mutations or overall survival. In adjusted analyses, PIK3CA mutations were associated with shorter survival (67.1 months vs 90.3 months; hazard ratio, 9.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.8-29.5 months; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Cervical cancers harbor high rates of potentially targetable oncogenic mutations. In addition, cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma have distinct molecular profiles, suggesting that clinical outcomes may be improved with the use of more tailored treatment strategies, including PI3K and MEK inhibitors.
BACKGROUND:Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women worldwide. The objective of this study was to describe the most common oncogenic mutations in cervical cancers and to explore genomic differences between the 2 most common histologic subtypes: adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. METHODS: A high-throughput genotyping platform, termed Oncomap, was used to interrogate 80 cervical tumors for 1250 known mutations in 139 cancer genes. Samples were analyzed using a mass spectrometry-based genotyping platform and were validated using orthogonal chemistry. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations were further validated by massive parallel sequencing. Human papilloma virus (HPV) genotyping also was performed. RESULTS: Validated mutations were detected in 48 of 80 tumors (60%) examined. The highest mutation rates were in the genes phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, catalytic subunit α (PIK3CA) (31.3%); Kirsten ratsarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) (8.8%); and EGFR (3.8%). PIK3CA mutation rates did not differ significantly between adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas (25% vs 37.5%, respectively; P = .33). In contrast, KRAS mutations were identified only in adenocarcinomas (17.5% vs 0%; P = .01), and a novel EGFR mutation was detected only in squamous cell carcinomas (0% vs 7.5%; P = .24). There were no associations between HPV-16 or HPV-18 and somatic mutations or overall survival. In adjusted analyses, PIK3CA mutations were associated with shorter survival (67.1 months vs 90.3 months; hazard ratio, 9.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.8-29.5 months; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Cervical cancers harbor high rates of potentially targetable oncogenic mutations. In addition, cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma have distinct molecular profiles, suggesting that clinical outcomes may be improved with the use of more tailored treatment strategies, including PI3K and MEK inhibitors.
Authors: Woo Dae Kang; Cheol Hong Kim; Moon Kyoung Cho; Jong Woon Kim; Hye Yon Cho; Yoon Ha Kim; Ho Sun Choi; Seok Mo Kim Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-02-21 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: S M Schwartz; J R Daling; K A Shera; M M Madeleine; B McKnight; D A Galloway; P L Porter; J K McDougall Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Filip Janku; Jennifer J Wheler; Aung Naing; Gerald S Falchook; David S Hong; Vanda M Stepanek; Siqing Fu; Sarina A Piha-Paul; J Jack Lee; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: John B McIntyre; Jackson S Wu; Peter S Craighead; Tien Phan; Martin Köbel; Susan P Lees-Miller; Prafull Ghatage; Anthony M Magliocco; Corinne M Doll Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-12-22 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Xiaoyun Liao; Teppei Morikawa; Paul Lochhead; Yu Imamura; Aya Kuchiba; Mai Yamauchi; Katsuhiko Nosho; Zhi Rong Qian; Reiko Nishihara; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Charles S Fuchs; Shuji Ogino Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Peter G Rose; James J Java; Charles W Whitney; Frederick B Stehman; Rachelle Lanciano; Gillian M Thomas Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-08-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Wen Bu; Zhenyu Liu; Weiyu Jiang; Chandandeep Nagi; Shixia Huang; Dean P Edwards; Eunji Jo; Qianxing Mo; Chad J Creighton; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Andrew D Leavitt; Michael T Lewis; Stephen T C Wong; Yi Li Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Renske D M Steenbergen; Peter J F Snijders; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Sanja Stevanović; Lindsey M Draper; Michelle M Langhan; Tracy E Campbell; Mei Li Kwong; John R Wunderlich; Mark E Dudley; James C Yang; Richard M Sherry; Udai S Kammula; Nicholas P Restifo; Steven A Rosenberg; Christian S Hinrichs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 44.544