BACKGROUND: In the current study, the authors present a comprehensive genomic profile (CGP)-based study of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) designed to detect clinically relevant genomic alterations (CRGAs). METHODS: DNA was extracted from 40 µm of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections from 295 consecutive cases of recurrent/metastatic UC. CGP was performed on hybridization-captured, adaptor ligation-based libraries to a mean coverage depth of 688X for all coding exons of 236 cancer-related genes plus 47 introns from 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer, using process-matched normal control samples as a reference. CRGAs were defined as GAs linked to drugs on the market or currently under evaluation in mechanism-driven clinical trials. RESULTS: All 295 patients assessed were classified with high-grade (International Society of Urological Pathology classification) and advanced stage (stage III/IV American Joint Committee on Cancer) disease, and 294 of 295 patients (99.7%) had at least 1 GA on CGP with a mean of 6.4 GAs per UC (61% substitutions/insertions/deletions, 37% copy number alterations, and 2% fusions). Furthermore, 275 patients (93%) had at least 1 CRGA involving 75 individual genes with a mean of 2.6 CRGAs per UC. The most common CRGAs involved cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) (34%), fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) (21%), phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) (20%), and ERBB2 (17%). FGFR3 GAs were diverse types and included 10% fusions. ERBB2 GAs were equally divided between amplifications and substitutions. ERBB2 substitutions were predominantly within the extracellular domain and were highly enriched in patients with micropapillary UC (38% of 32 cases vs 5% of 263 nonmicropapillary UC cases; P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Using a CGP assay capable of detecting all classes of GA simultaneously, an extraordinarily high frequency of CRGA was identified in a large series of patients with advanced UC. Cancer 2016;122:702-711.
BACKGROUND: In the current study, the authors present a comprehensive genomic profile (CGP)-based study of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) designed to detect clinically relevant genomic alterations (CRGAs). METHODS: DNA was extracted from 40 µm of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections from 295 consecutive cases of recurrent/metastatic UC. CGP was performed on hybridization-captured, adaptor ligation-based libraries to a mean coverage depth of 688X for all coding exons of 236 cancer-related genes plus 47 introns from 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer, using process-matched normal control samples as a reference. CRGAs were defined as GAs linked to drugs on the market or currently under evaluation in mechanism-driven clinical trials. RESULTS: All 295 patients assessed were classified with high-grade (International Society of Urological Pathology classification) and advanced stage (stage III/IV American Joint Committee on Cancer) disease, and 294 of 295 patients (99.7%) had at least 1 GA on CGP with a mean of 6.4 GAs per UC (61% substitutions/insertions/deletions, 37% copy number alterations, and 2% fusions). Furthermore, 275 patients (93%) had at least 1 CRGA involving 75 individual genes with a mean of 2.6 CRGAs per UC. The most common CRGAs involved cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) (34%), fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 (FGFR3) (21%), phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) (20%), and ERBB2 (17%). FGFR3 GAs were diverse types and included 10% fusions. ERBB2 GAs were equally divided between amplifications and substitutions. ERBB2 substitutions were predominantly within the extracellular domain and were highly enriched in patients with micropapillary UC (38% of 32 cases vs 5% of 263 nonmicropapillary UC cases; P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Using a CGP assay capable of detecting all classes of GA simultaneously, an extraordinarily high frequency of CRGA was identified in a large series of patients with advanced UC. Cancer 2016;122:702-711.
Authors: Benjamin A Weinberg; Kyle Gowen; Thomas K Lee; Sai-Hong Ignatius Ou; Robert Bristow; Lauren Krill; M Isabel Almira-Suarez; Siraj M Ali; Vincent A Miller; Stephen V Liu; Samuel J Klempner Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-02-13
Authors: Neeraj Agarwal; Sumanta K Pal; Andrew W Hahn; Roberto H Nussenzveig; Gregory R Pond; Sumati V Gupta; Jue Wang; Mehmet A Bilen; Gurudatta Naik; Pooja Ghatalia; Christopher J Hoimes; Dharmesh Gopalakrishnan; Pedro C Barata; Alexandra Drakaki; Bishoy M Faltas; Lesli A Kiedrowski; Richard B Lanman; Rebecca J Nagy; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Kenneth M Boucher; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Guru Sonpavde; Petros Grivas Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Giorgio Ivan Russo; Nicolò Musso; Arturo Lo Giudice; Maria Giovanna Asmundo; Marina Di Mauro; Paolo G Bonacci; Mariacristina Massimino; Dalida Bivona; Stefania Stefani; Elisabetta Pricoco; Matteo Ferro; Massimo Camarda; Sebastiano Cimino; Giuseppe Morgia; Rosario Caltabiano; Giuseppe Broggi Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 4.322
Authors: Chieh-Yu Lin; Atif Saleem; Henning Stehr; James L Zehnder; Benjamin A Pinsky; Christian A Kunder Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Sumanta K Pal; Dean Bajorin; Nazli Dizman; Jean Hoffman-Censits; David I Quinn; Daniel P Petrylak; Matthew D Galsky; Ulka Vaishampayan; Ugo De Giorgi; Sumati Gupta; Howard A Burris; Harris S Soifer; Gary Li; Hao Wang; Carl L Dambkowski; Susan Moran; Siamak Daneshmand; Jonathan E Rosenberg Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sumati Gupta; Daniel J Albertson; Timothy J Parnell; Andrew Butterfield; Alexis Weston; Lisa M Pappas; Brian Dalley; John M O'Shea; William T Lowrance; Bradley R Cairns; Joshua D Schiffman; Sunil Sharma Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 6.261