E Castro1, S Jugurnauth-Little2, Q Karlsson2, F Al-Shahrour3, E Piñeiro-Yañez3, F Van de Poll4, D Leongamornlert2, T Dadaev2, K Govindasami2, M Guy2, R Eeles5, Z Kote-Jarai2. 1. Prostate Cancer Clinical Research Unit, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain Oncogenetics Team, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK ecastro@cnio.es. 2. Oncogenetics Team, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. 3. Translational Bioinformatics Unit, Clinical Research Programme, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain. 4. Prostate Cancer Clinical Research Unit, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain. 5. Oncogenetics Team, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Germline BRCA2 mutations are associated with poorer outcome prostate cancer (PCa) compared with sporadic tumours but this association remains to be characterised. In this study, we aim to assess if there is a signature set of copy number alterations (CNA) that could aid to the identification of BRCA2-mutated tumours and would assist us to understand their aggressive clinical behaviour. METHODS: High-resolution array comparative genomic hybridisation profiling of DNA from PCa and matched morphologically normal prostate samples from 9 BRCA2 germline mutation carriers and 16 non-carriers in combination with unsupervised analysis was used to define copy number features. RESULTS: PCa from BRCA2 germline mutation carriers (B2T) harbour significantly more CNA than non-carrier tumours (NCTs) (P = 14 × 10(-6)). A hundred and sixteen regions had a significantly different distribution with both false discovery rate (FDR) and P value <0.01, including CNA in the genomic region containing c-MYC that was present in 89% B2T versus 12.5% NCT (P = 3 × 10(-4)). Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at the BRCA2 locus was observed in 67% of B2T. Elevated CNA are already present in 50% of the morphologically normal prostate tissue from BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSION: The relative high amount of CNAs in morphologically normal prostate tissue of BRCA2 carriers implies a field effect and together with the observed LOH could be used as a marker of PCa risk in these men. Several features previously associated with poor PCa outcome have been found to be significantly more common in BRCA2-mutated PCa than in sporadic tumours and may help to explain their adverse prognosis and be of relevance for targeted therapies.
BACKGROUND: Germline BRCA2 mutations are associated with poorer outcome prostate cancer (PCa) compared with sporadic tumours but this association remains to be characterised. In this study, we aim to assess if there is a signature set of copy number alterations (CNA) that could aid to the identification of BRCA2-mutated tumours and would assist us to understand their aggressive clinical behaviour. METHODS: High-resolution array comparative genomic hybridisation profiling of DNA from PCa and matched morphologically normal prostate samples from 9 BRCA2 germline mutation carriers and 16 non-carriers in combination with unsupervised analysis was used to define copy number features. RESULTS: PCa from BRCA2 germline mutation carriers (B2T) harbour significantly more CNA than non-carrier tumours (NCTs) (P = 14 × 10(-6)). A hundred and sixteen regions had a significantly different distribution with both false discovery rate (FDR) and P value <0.01, including CNA in the genomic region containing c-MYC that was present in 89% B2T versus 12.5% NCT (P = 3 × 10(-4)). Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at the BRCA2 locus was observed in 67% of B2T. Elevated CNA are already present in 50% of the morphologically normal prostate tissue from BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSION: The relative high amount of CNAs in morphologically normal prostate tissue of BRCA2 carriers implies a field effect and together with the observed LOH could be used as a marker of PCa risk in these men. Several features previously associated with poor PCa outcome have been found to be significantly more common in BRCA2-mutated PCa than in sporadic tumours and may help to explain their adverse prognosis and be of relevance for targeted therapies.
Authors: Silvia Maifrede; Kayla Martin; Paulina Podszywalow-Bartnicka; Katherine Sullivan-Reed; Samantha K Langer; Reza Nejati; Yashodhara Dasgupta; Michael Hulse; Daniel Gritsyuk; Margaret Nieborowska-Skorska; Lena N Lupey-Green; Huaqing Zhao; Katarzyna Piwocka; Mariusz A Wasik; Italo Tempera; Tomasz Skorski Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Renea A Taylor; Michael Fraser; Julie Livingstone; Shadrielle Melijah G Espiritu; Heather Thorne; Vincent Huang; Winnie Lo; Yu-Jia Shiah; Takafumi N Yamaguchi; Ania Sliwinski; Sheri Horsburgh; Alice Meng; Lawrence E Heisler; Nancy Yu; Fouad Yousif; Melissa Papargiris; Mitchell G Lawrence; Lee Timms; Declan G Murphy; Mark Frydenberg; Julia F Hopkins; Damien Bolton; David Clouston; John D McPherson; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paul C Boutros; Gail P Risbridger; Robert G Bristow Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Haley Hieronymus; Rajmohan Murali; Amy Tin; Kamlesh Yadav; Wassim Abida; Henrik Moller; Daniel Berney; Howard Scher; Brett Carver; Peter Scardino; Nikolaus Schultz; Barry Taylor; Andrew Vickers; Jack Cuzick; Charles L Sawyers Journal: Elife Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Tang Tang; Lin-Ang Wang; Peng Wang; Dali Tong; Gaolei Liu; Jun Zhang; Nan Dai; Yao Zhang; Gang Yuan; Kyla Geary; Dianzheng Zhang; Qiuli Liu; Jun Jiang Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Maximilian Jenzer; Peter Keß; Cathleen Nientiedt; Volker Endris; Maximilian Kippenberger; Jonas Leichsenring; Fabian Stögbauer; Josh Haimes; Skyler Mishkin; Brian Kudlow; Adam Kaczorowski; Stefanie Zschäbitz; Anna-Lena Volckmar; Holger Sültmann; Dirk Jäger; Anette Duensing; Peter Schirmacher; Markus Hohenfellner; Carsten Grüllich; Albrecht Stenzinger; Stefan Duensing Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 6.968