| Literature DB >> 24066160 |
Megan C Hanna1, Christina Go, Christine Roden, Robert T Jones, Panisa Pochanard, Ahmed Yasir Javed, Awais Javed, Chandrani Mondal, Emanuele Palescandolo, Paul Van Hummelen, Charles Hatton, Adam J Bass, Sung Min Chun, Deuk Chae Na, Tae-Im Kim, Se Jin Jang, Raymond U Osarogiagbon, William C Hahn, Matthew Meyerson, Levi A Garraway, Laura E MacConaill.
Abstract
It has been demonstrated for some cancers that the frequency of somatic oncogenic mutations may vary in ancestral populations. To determine whether key driver alterations might occur at different frequencies in colorectal cancer, we applied a high-throughput genotyping platform (OncoMap) to query 385 mutations across 33 known cancer genes in colorectal cancer DNA from 83 Asian, 149 Black and 195 White patients. We found that Asian patients had fewer canonical oncogenic mutations in the genes tested (60% vs Black 79% (P = 0.011) and White 77% (P = 0.015)), and that BRAF mutations occurred at a higher frequency in White patients (17% vs Asian 4% (P = 0.004) and Black 7% (P = 0.014)). These results suggest that the use of genomic approaches to elucidate the different ancestral determinants harbored by patient populations may help to more precisely and effectively treat colorectal cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24066160 PMCID: PMC3774610 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074950
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
OncoMapV3.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| ABL1 | 14 |
| AKT1 | 1 |
| AKT2 | 2 |
| APC | 12 |
| BRAF | 43 |
| CDK4 | 1 |
| CDKN2A | 10 |
| CSF1R | 6 |
| CTNNB1 | 31 |
| EGFR | 44 |
| ERBB2 | 6 |
| FGFR1 | 2 |
| FGFR2 | 6 |
| FGFR3 | 8 |
| FLT3 | 8 |
| HRAS | 12 |
| JAK2 | 1 |
| JAK3 | 3 |
| KIT | 25 |
| KRAS | 22 |
| MET | 6 |
| MLH1 | 1 |
| MYC | 6 |
| NRAS | 19 |
| PDGFRA | 17 |
| PIK3CA | 14 |
| PTEN | 14 |
| RB1 | 11 |
| RET | 13 |
| SRC | 1 |
| STK11 | 12 |
| TP53 | 7 |
| VHL | 7 |
|
|
|
Patient characteristics.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 35 | 87 | 102 | 224 |
|
| 47 | 59 | 91 | 197 | |
|
| 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | |
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
| 62 (33-87) | 62 (30-90) | 68 (36-90) | 65 (30-90) |
|
| 64 (43-84) | 62 (26-87) | 66 (22-91) | 64 (22-91) | |
|
|
| 11 (13%) | 3 (2%) | 14 (3%) | |
|
| 28 (34) | 26 (17%) | 21 (11%) | 75 (18%) | |
|
| 36 (43%) | 87 (58%) | 113 (58%) | 236 (55%) | |
|
| 4 (5%) | 19 (13%) | 38 (19%) | 60 (14%) | |
|
| 4 (5%) | 15 (10%) | 23 (12%) | 42 (10%) | |
|
|
| 33 (39%) | 37 (25%) | 41 (21%) | 111 (26%) |
|
| 22 (27%) | 67 (45%) | 119 (61%) | 208 (49%) | |
|
| 25 (30%) | 25 (17%) | 19 (10%) | 69 (16%) | |
|
| 3 (4%) | 20 (13%) | 16 (8%) | 39 (9%) |
Figure 1Mutation spectrum by tumor and gene.
A summary chart of all mutations in each group displays genes across in rows and patient tumors down in columns. The bottom row of each represents the total number of mutations per tumor as a heat map (0-5 mutations). Chart A displays Asian patients, chart B, Black patients and chart C, White patients. Chart D displays the distribution of all mutations for each cohort.
Gene mutations per patient population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AKT1 | 2 | 1% | 2 | 0.5% | ||||
| APC | 12 | 14% | 26 | 17% | 37 | 19% | 75 | 17.6% |
| BRAF | 3 | 4% | 10 | 7% | 33 | 17% | 46 | 10.8% |
| CTNNB1 | 2 | 2% | 2 | 1% | 3 | 2% | 7 | 1.6% |
| EGFR | 1 | 1% | 1 | 0.2% | ||||
| IDH1 | 1 | 1% | 0% | 1 | 0.2% | |||
| KRAS | 32 | 39% | 79 | 53% | 85 | 44% | 196 | 45.9% |
| MAP2K1 | 2 | 1% | 0% | 2 | 0.5% | |||
| MYC | 1 | 1% | 0% | 1 | 0.2% | |||
| NRAS | 3 | 4% | 1 | 1% | 7 | 4% | 11 | 2.6% |
| PIK3CA | 13 | 16% | 28 | 19% | 35 | 18% | 76 | 17.8% |
| PTEN | 3 | 2% | 5 | 3% | 8 | 1.9% | ||
| RB1 | 2 | 1% | 2 | 0.5% | ||||
| RET | 1 | 1% | 0% | 1 | 0.2% | |||
| TP53 | 17 | 20% | 20 | 13% | 36 | 18% | 73 | 17.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* No mutations were identified using the assays included in OncoMap
Patient characteristics for wild type and mutant BRAF.
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 64.7 | 13.9 | 72.3 | 11.2 | 65.5 | 13.9 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 194 | 51% | 30 | 65% | 224 | 52% | |
|
| 182 | 48% | 15 | 33% | 197 | 46% | |
|
| 5 | 1% | 1 | 2% | 6 | 1% | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| |||||||
|
| 80 | 21% | 3 | 5% | 83 | 19% | |
|
| 139 | 36% | 10 | 22% | 149 | 35% | |
|
| 163 | 43% | 33 | 73% | 195 | 46% | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| |||||||
|
| 14 | 4% | 0 | 0% | 14 | 3% | |
|
| 73 | 19% | 2 | 5% | 75 | 18% | |
|
| 208 | 55% | 28 | 65% | 236 | 55% | |
|
| 51 | 13% | 9 | 21% | 60 | 14% | |
|
| 38 | 10% | 4 | 9% | 42 | 10% | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| |||||||
|
| 102 | 34% | 9 | 21% | 111 | 26% | |
|
| 180 | 60% | 28 | 65% | 208 | 49% | |
|
| 66 | 22% | 3 | 7% | 69 | 16% | |
|
| 36 | 12% | 3 | 7% | 39 | 9% | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
Figure 2RAS/RAF family mutations by tumor and gene.
A summary chart of all RAS/RAF mutations in each patient group displays genes across in rows and tumors down in columns. The bottom row of each represents the total number of mutations per tumor as a heat map (0-5 mutations). Chart A displays Asian patients, chart B, Black patients and chart C, White patients.
Figure 3Hyper-mutated samples.
Represented here are the genes mutated in the 7 patient samples that each have four or more mutations. A, W and B represent tumors from Asian, Black or White tumors, respectively.