| Literature DB >> 26934441 |
Janani Vigneswaran1, Yi-Hung Carol Tan2, Septimiu D Murgu3, Brian M Won2, Kathryn Alexa Patton4, Victoria M Villaflor2, Philip C Hoffman2, Thomas Hensing2, D Kyle Hogarth3, Renuka Malik5, Heber MacMahon6, Jeffrey Mueller7, Cassie A Simon8, Wickii T Vigneswaran9, Christopher H Wigfield9, Mark K Ferguson9, Aliya N Husain7, Everett E Vokes2, Ravi Salgia10.
Abstract
This study reviews extensive genetic analysis in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in order to: describe how targetable mutation genes interrelate with the genes identified as variants of unknown significance; assess the percentage of patients with a potentially targetable genetic alterations; evaluate the percentage of patients who had concurrent alterations, previously considered to be mutually exclusive; and characterize the molecular subset of KRAS. Thoracic Oncology Research Program Databases at the University of Chicago provided patient demographics, pathology, and results of genetic testing. 364 patients including 289 adenocarcinoma underwent genotype testing by various platforms such as FoundationOne, Caris Molecular Intelligence, and Response Genetics Inc. For the entire adenocarcinoma cohort, 25% of patients were African Americans; 90% of KRAS mutations were detected in smokers, including current and former smokers; 46% of EGFR and 61% of ALK alterations were detected in never smokers. 99.4% of patients, whose samples were analyzed by next-generation sequencing (NGS), had genetic alterations identified with an average of 10.8 alterations/tumor throughout different tumor subtypes. However, mutations were not mutually exclusive. NGS in this study identified potentially targetable genetic alterations in the majority of patients tested, detected concurrent alterations and provided information on variants of unknown significance at this time but potentially targetable in the future.Entities:
Keywords: genetic testing; genomic alteration; next-generation sequencing; non-small cell lung cancer
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26934441 PMCID: PMC4951336 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.7739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Summary of the demographic characteristics, histology, and molecular markers from specimens analyzed by FoundationOne
| Total | EGFR | KRAS | ALK | ROS1 | RAF1 | RET | ERBB2 | PIK3CA | MET | CBL | FGF totals | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| %(#) | %(#) | %(#) | %(#) | %(#) | %(#) | %(#) | %(#) | %(#) | %(#) | %(#) | %(#) | |
| N = | (160) | (34) | (44) | (11) | (1) | (3) | (16) | (5) | (19) | (11) | (10) | (54) |
| Male | 49% (79) | 41% (14) | 39% (17) | 45% (5) | 0% (−) | 67% (2) | 56% (9) | 60% (3) | 74% (14) | 64% (7) | 40% (4) | 52% (28) |
| Female | 51% (81) | 59% (20) | 61% (27) | 55% (6) | 100% (1) | 33% (1) | 44% (7) | 40% (2) | 26% (5) | 36% (4) | 60% (6) | 48% (26) |
| Mean | (62.1) | (63.1) | (64.1) | (55.4) | (52.1) | (64.8) | (62.4) | (66.2) | (66.4) | (67.7) | (66.3) | |
| White | 63% (101) | 41% (14) | 70% (31) | 91% (10) | 100% (1) | 67% (2) | 56% (9) | 60% (3) | 68% (13) | 36% (4) | 60% (6) | 61% (33) |
| Black | 26% (42) | 41% (14) | 25% (11) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 33% (1) | 31% (5) | 20% (1) | 21% (4) | 27% (3) | 30% (3) | 28% (15) |
| Asian | 6% (10) | 18% (6) | 2% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 13% (2) | 20% (1) | 11% (2) | 18% (2) | 10% (1) | 11% (6) |
| Other | 2% (3) | 0% (−) | 2% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 9% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) |
| Unknown | 2% (3) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 9% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 9% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) |
| Smoker | 78% (125) | 62% (21) | 91% (40) | 55% (6) | 0% (−) | 100% (3) | 81% (13) | 60% (2) | 79% (15) | 82% (9) | 90% (9) | 85% (46) |
| Never Smoker | 22% (35) | 38% (13) | 9% (4) | 45% (5) | 100% (1) | 0% (−) | 19% (3) | 40% (2) | 21% (4) | 18% (2) | 10% (1) | 15% (8) |
| AD | 75% (120) | 82% (28) | 89% (39) | 82% (9) | 100% (1) | 67% (2) | 81% (13) | 100% (5) | 63% (12) | 55% (6) | 80% (8) | 76% (41) |
| SCC | 9% (15) | 3% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 33% (1) | 13% (2) | 0% (−) | 37% (7) | 18% (2) | 0% (−) | 11% (6) |
| NSCLC, NOS | 4% (7) | 3% (1) | 2% (1) | 9% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 9% (1) | 10% (1) | 6% (3) |
| LCC | 3% (4) | 9% (3) | 5% (2) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 9% (1) | 0% (−) | 4% (2) |
| Other | 8% (3) | 3% (1) | 5% (2) | 9% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 6% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 9% (1) | 10% (1) | 4% (2) |
AD: Adenocarcinoma, SCC: Squamous cell carcinoma, LCC: Large cell carcinoma, NOS: Not otherwise specified
Figure 1Number of adenocarcinoma samples with genetic alteration classified by cell signaling pathway
Genetic alterations from NGS reports were classified by cell signaling pathway, such as RAS/MAPK, RTK/GFs, PI3K/mTOR, p53, Wnt pathways, and cell cycling. The ordinate indicated number of adenocarcinoma samples with alterations. RTK/GFs: Receptor tyrosine kinase/Growth factors.
Figure 2NSCLC adenocarcinoma patients' genetic alterations detected by NGS
In all the patient samples tested, 23.3% of EGFR, 32.5% of KRAS, 7.5% of ALK, 0.8% of ROS1, 1.7% of RAF1, 10.8% of RET, 4.2% of ERBB2, 10.0% of PIK3CA, 5.0% of MET, 6.7% of CBL, and 12.5% of BRAF alteration were detected.
Figure 3Gene and gene alteration correlation
Genetic alteration was detected by NGS. Gene and gene alteration correlation is shown in A. A summary of a number of additional mutations (ordinate) coexisting with a specific genetic (abscissa) defect was observed. Samples that had B. KRAS, C. EGFR, and D. ALK were further analyzed respectively. The pie charts show the percentage of samples of each different gene alteration coexisted. Mutations were not mutually exclusive.
Summary of the demographic characteristics of adenocarcinoma samples from EGFR, KRAS, and ALK tested specimens analyzed by FoundationOne, Caris Molecular Intelligence, and Response Genetics
| Total | EGFR | EGFR | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % (#) | Wild Type | Alteration | Amplification | Exon19del | L858R | T790M | L861Q | S768I | G719X | G719A | D770_N77Ins G | N771_P772Ins NN | Other | |
| N = | (289) | (191) | (57) | (7) | (18) | (15) | (4) | (1) | (3) | (3) | (1) | (1) | (1) | (7) |
| Male | 40% (116) | 41% (78) | 33% (19) | 29% (2) | 11% (2) | 47% (7) | 50% (2) | 100% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 100% (1) | 0% (−) | 57% (4) |
| Female | 60% (173) | 59% (113) | 67% (38) | 71% (5) | 89% (16) | 53% (8) | 50% (2) | 0% (−) | 100% (3) | 100% (3) | 100% (1) | 0% (−) | 100% (1) | 43% (3) |
| Mean | (62.4) | (63.1) | (62.6) | (65.1) | (65.2) | (67.9) | (59.7) | (53.5) | (64.8) | (68.3) | (54.5) | (41.1) | (51.9) | (59.5) |
| White | 65% (187) | 70% (134) | 42% (24) | 43% (3) | 33% (6) | 33% (5) | 75% (3) | 100% (1) | 100% (3) | 0% (−) | 100% (1) | 100% (1) | 0% (−) | 71% (5) |
| Black | 25% (73) | 23% (43) | 39% (22) | 57% (4) | 56% (10) | 13% (2) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 100% (3) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 100% (1) | 29% (2) |
| Asian | 8% (22) | 5% (9) | 18% (10) | 0% (−) | 11% (2) | 47% (7) | 25% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) |
| Other | 1% (3) | 1% (2) | 2% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 7% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) |
| Unknown | 1% (3) | 1% (2) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) |
| Smoker | 73% (211) | 80% (153) | 54% (31) | 71% (5) | 50% (9) | 33% (5) | 75% (3) | 0% (−) | 67% (2) | 67% (2) | 100% (1) | 100% (1) | 100% (1) | 71% (5) |
| Never Smoker | 27% (78) | 20% (38) | 46% (26) | 29% (2) | 50% (9) | 67% (10) | 25% (1) | 100% (1) | 33% (1) | 33% (1) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 0% (−) | 29% (2) |
Figure 4Genomic alteration in the entire cohort of adenocarcinoma samples
A. EGFR alteration. 23% of the EGFR tested samples showed genetic alteration. EGFR exon 19 deletion and gene amplification showed in majority of the samples. B. KRAS alteration. 25% of KRAS tested samples showed genetic alteration and 40% of these KRAS alteration samples had G12C mutation. C. ALK alteration. 9% of ALK tested samples showed genetic alteration and 83% of these ALK alteration samples had EML4-ALK rearrangements.