Marjorie G Zauderer1, Matthew Bott, Robert McMillan, Camelia S Sima, Valerie Rusch, Lee M Krug, Marc Ladanyi. 1. *Department of Medicine, Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; †Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York; ‡Departments of Pathology, §Surgery, ‖Epidemiology and Biostatistics, ¶Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Genomic studies of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have recently identified frequent mutations in the BRCA-associated protein 1(BAP1) gene. In uveal melanoma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma, BAP1 mutations are associated with poor outcomes but their clinical significance in MPM is unknown. We therefore undertook this study to define the characteristics of patients whose MPM tumors harbor somatic BAP1 mutation and to examine the relationship between BAP1 mutation and survival. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 121 patients with MPM tumors diagnosed between 1991 and 2009 tested for BAP1 mutation, and extracted the following information: age at diagnosis, sex, histology, stage, smoking status, asbestos exposure, family or personal history of malignancy, and treatment including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation as well as survival status. RESULTS: Twenty-four of the 121 tumors (20%) harbored somatic BAP1 mutations. The percentage of current or former smokers among cases with BAP1 mutations was significantly higher than in BAP1 wild-type cases, (75% versus 42%; p = 0.006). However, the types of nucleotide substitutions in BAP1 did not suggest that this association was because of a causative role of smoking in BAP1 mutations. No other clinical feature was significantly different among those with and without BAP1 mutations in their MPM. There was also no difference in survival according to somatic BAP1 mutation status. CONCLUSION: There is no apparent distinct clinical phenotype for MPM with somatic BAP1 mutation. The significance of the more frequent history of smoking among patients with BAP1-mutated MPM warrants further study.
INTRODUCTION: Genomic studies of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have recently identified frequent mutations in the BRCA-associated protein 1(BAP1) gene. In uveal melanoma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma, BAP1 mutations are associated with poor outcomes but their clinical significance in MPM is unknown. We therefore undertook this study to define the characteristics of patients whose MPM tumors harbor somatic BAP1 mutation and to examine the relationship between BAP1 mutation and survival. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 121 patients with MPM tumors diagnosed between 1991 and 2009 tested for BAP1 mutation, and extracted the following information: age at diagnosis, sex, histology, stage, smoking status, asbestos exposure, family or personal history of malignancy, and treatment including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation as well as survival status. RESULTS: Twenty-four of the 121 tumors (20%) harbored somatic BAP1 mutations. The percentage of current or former smokers among cases with BAP1 mutations was significantly higher than in BAP1 wild-type cases, (75% versus 42%; p = 0.006). However, the types of nucleotide substitutions in BAP1 did not suggest that this association was because of a causative role of smoking in BAP1 mutations. No other clinical feature was significantly different among those with and without BAP1 mutations in their MPM. There was also no difference in survival according to somatic BAP1 mutation status. CONCLUSION: There is no apparent distinct clinical phenotype for MPM with somatic BAP1 mutation. The significance of the more frequent history of smoking among patients with BAP1-mutated MPM warrants further study.
Authors: Mohamed H Abdel-Rahman; Robert Pilarski; Colleen M Cebulla; James B Massengill; Benjamin N Christopher; Getachew Boru; Peter Hovland; Frederick H Davidorf Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Johanna C Scheuermann; Andrés Gaytán de Ayala Alonso; Katarzyna Oktaba; Nga Ly-Hartig; Robert K McGinty; Sven Fraterman; Matthias Wilm; Tom W Muir; Jürg Müller Journal: Nature Date: 2010-05-02 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: J William Harbour; Michael D Onken; Elisha D O Roberson; Shenghui Duan; Li Cao; Lori A Worley; M Laurin Council; Katie A Matatall; Cynthia Helms; Anne M Bowcock Journal: Science Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Marc Ladanyi; Marjorie G Zauderer; Lee M Krug; Tatsuo Ito; Robert McMillan; Matthew Bott; Filippo Giancotti Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Thomas Wiesner; Anna C Obenauf; Rajmohan Murali; Isabella Fried; Klaus G Griewank; Peter Ulz; Christian Windpassinger; Werner Wackernagel; Shea Loy; Ingrid Wolf; Agnes Viale; Alex E Lash; Mono Pirun; Nicholas D Socci; Arno Rütten; Gabriele Palmedo; David Abramson; Kenneth Offit; Arthur Ott; Jürgen C Becker; Lorenzo Cerroni; Heinz Kutzner; Boris C Bastian; Michael R Speicher Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2011-08-28 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Ching-Ni Jenny Njauw; Ivana Kim; Adriano Piris; Michele Gabree; Michael Taylor; Anne Marie Lane; Margaret M DeAngelis; Evangelos Gragoudas; Lyn M Duncan; Hensin Tsao Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Samuel Peña-Llopis; Silvia Vega-Rubín-de-Celis; Arnold Liao; Nan Leng; Andrea Pavía-Jiménez; Shanshan Wang; Toshinari Yamasaki; Leah Zhrebker; Sharanya Sivanand; Patrick Spence; Lisa Kinch; Tina Hambuch; Suneer Jain; Yair Lotan; Vitaly Margulis; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Pia Banerji Summerour; Wareef Kabbani; S W Wendy Wong; Nick Grishin; Marc Laurent; Xian-Jin Xie; Christian D Haudenschild; Mark T Ross; David R Bentley; Payal Kapur; James Brugarolas Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2012-06-10 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Aatur D Singhi; Alyssa M Krasinskas; Haroon A Choudry; David L Bartlett; James F Pingpank; Herbert J Zeh; Alyssa Luvison; Kimberly Fuhrer; Nathan Bahary; Raja R Seethala; Sanja Dacic Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 7.842