BACKGROUND: NCCN states that chemotherapies for advanced esophageal and gastric cancers may be used interchangeably. Biomarkers from gastroesophageal cancer patients were interrogated to identify actionable alterations with therapeutic implications. METHODS: 666 gastric and 640 esophageal cancer cases referred to Caris Life Sciences between 2009 thru 2013 were evaluated. Specific testing was performed, which included a combination of sequencing (Sanger, NGS) and protein expression (IHC). RESULTS: In the complete cohort (n = 1306), 30 of 45 genes tested harbored mutations; highest rates were seen in TP53 (54%), APC (10%), SMAD4 (5.9%), KRAS (5.9%), and PIK3CA (5.1%). IHC of TOP2A was high in 76% of cases, TOPO1 in 51% and SPARC in 25%; low IHC of ERCC1 was seen in 65%, RRM1 in 62%, TS in 61% and MGMT in 45%, indicating potential benefit from epirubicin, irinotecan, nab-paclitaxel, platinum-based agents, gemcitabine, 5FU/capecitabine and temozolomide, respectively. In the HER2+ cohort (n = 88), 50% of patients demonstrated possible benefit from a combination of trastuzumab with 5FU/capecitabine based on concurrent low TS, 53% with irinotecan (high TOPO1), 63% with cisplatin (low ERCC1) and 55% with gemcitabine (low RRM1). Subgroup analysis by tumor origin demonstrated significant differences in actionable biomarker profiles with HER2 (13% vs. 4.6%), SPARC (34% vs. 15%), TOP2A (86% vs. 67%), and TOPO1 (55% vs. 46%) in esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma cases respectively (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A comprehensive multiplatform biomarker analysis suggested significant biomarker differences between gastric and esophageal cancers. These results can assist in the development of future clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: NCCN states that chemotherapies for advanced esophageal and gastric cancers may be used interchangeably. Biomarkers from gastroesophageal cancerpatients were interrogated to identify actionable alterations with therapeutic implications. METHODS: 666 gastric and 640 esophageal cancer cases referred to Caris Life Sciences between 2009 thru 2013 were evaluated. Specific testing was performed, which included a combination of sequencing (Sanger, NGS) and protein expression (IHC). RESULTS: In the complete cohort (n = 1306), 30 of 45 genes tested harbored mutations; highest rates were seen in TP53 (54%), APC (10%), SMAD4 (5.9%), KRAS (5.9%), and PIK3CA (5.1%). IHC of TOP2A was high in 76% of cases, TOPO1 in 51% and SPARC in 25%; low IHC of ERCC1 was seen in 65%, RRM1 in 62%, TS in 61% and MGMT in 45%, indicating potential benefit from epirubicin, irinotecan, nab-paclitaxel, platinum-based agents, gemcitabine, 5FU/capecitabine and temozolomide, respectively. In the HER2+ cohort (n = 88), 50% of patients demonstrated possible benefit from a combination of trastuzumab with 5FU/capecitabine based on concurrent low TS, 53% with irinotecan (high TOPO1), 63% with cisplatin (low ERCC1) and 55% with gemcitabine (low RRM1). Subgroup analysis by tumor origin demonstrated significant differences in actionable biomarker profiles with HER2 (13% vs. 4.6%), SPARC (34% vs. 15%), TOP2A (86% vs. 67%), and TOPO1 (55% vs. 46%) in esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma cases respectively (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A comprehensive multiplatform biomarker analysis suggested significant biomarker differences between gastric and esophageal cancers. These results can assist in the development of future clinical trials.
Authors: Daniel D Von Hoff; Joseph J Stephenson; Peter Rosen; David M Loesch; Mitesh J Borad; Stephen Anthony; Gayle Jameson; Susan Brown; Nina Cantafio; Donald A Richards; Tom R Fitch; Ernesto Wasserman; Cristian Fernandez; Sylvan Green; William Sutherland; Michael Bittner; Arlet Alarcon; David Mallery; Robert Penny Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-10-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John T Miura; Fabian M Johnston; James Thomas; Ben George; Dan Eastwood; Susan Tsai; Kathleen K Christians; Kiran K Turaga; T Clark Gamblin Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: M Tanner; M Hollmén; T T Junttila; A I Kapanen; S Tommola; Y Soini; H Helin; J Salo; H Joensuu; E Sihvo; K Elenius; J Isola Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: S M De Lange; C J van Groeningen; J R Kroep; A Van Bochove; J F Snijders; G J Peters; H M Pinedo; G Giaccone Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: David Cunningham; William H Allum; Sally P Stenning; Jeremy N Thompson; Cornelis J H Van de Velde; Marianne Nicolson; J Howard Scarffe; Fiona J Lofts; Stephen J Falk; Timothy J Iveson; David B Smith; Ruth E Langley; Monica Verma; Simon Weeden; Yu Jo Chua Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-07-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ryan C Fields; Christopher A Maher; Jessica M Silva-Fisher; Ha X Dang; Nicole M White; Matthew S Strand; Bradley A Krasnick; Emily B Rozycki; Gejae G L Jeffers; Julie G Grossman; Maureen K Highkin; Cynthia Tang; Christopher R Cabanski; Abdallah Eteleeb; Jacqueline Mudd; S Peter Goedegebuure; Jingqin Luo; Elaine R Mardis; Richard K Wilson; Timothy J Ley; Albert C Lockhart Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Heike Loeser; Simon Schallenberg; Thomas Zander; Alexander Quaas; Moritz von Winterfeld; Lars Tharun; Hakan Alakus; Arnulf Hölscher; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Reinhard Buettner Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-12-11