Lei Wei1, Jianmin Wang1, Erika Lampert2, Simon Schlanger2, Adam D DePriest3, Qiang Hu1, Eduardo Cortes Gomez1, Mitsuko Murakam1, Sean T Glenn3, Jeffrey Conroy4, Carl Morrison5, Gissou Azabdaftari5, James L Mohler6, Song Liu1, Hannelore V Heemers7. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 2. Department of Cancer Biology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Department of Cancer Genetics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 4. Center for Personalized Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 6. Department of Urology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 7. Department of Cancer Biology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: heemerh@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing is revealing genomic heterogeneity in localized prostate cancer (CaP). Incomplete sampling of CaP multiclonality has limited the implications for molecular subtyping, stratification, and systemic treatment. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of genomic and transcriptomic diversity within and among intraprostatic CaP foci on CaP molecular taxonomy, predictors of progression, and actionable therapeutic targets. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Four consecutive patients with clinically localized National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- or high-risk CaP who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy underwent radical prostatectomy at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in June-July 2014. Presurgical information on CaP content and a customized tissue procurement procedure were used to isolate nonmicroscopic and noncontiguous CaP foci in radical prostatectomy specimens. Three cores were obtained from the index lesion and one core from smaller lesions. RNA and DNA were extracted simultaneously from 26 cores with ≥90% CaP content and analyzed using whole-exome sequencing, single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays, and RNA sequencing. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Somatic mutations, copy number alternations, gene expression, gene fusions, and phylogeny were defined. The impact of genomic alterations on CaP molecular classification, gene sets measured in Oncotype DX, Prolaris, and Decipher assays, and androgen receptor activity among CaP cores was determined. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There was considerable variability in genomic alterations among CaP cores, and between RNA- and DNA-based platforms. Heterogeneity was found in molecular grouping of individual CaP foci and the activity of gene sets underlying the assays for risk stratification and androgen receptor activity, and was validated in independent genomic data sets. Determination of the implications for clinical decision-making requires follow-up studies. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic make-up varies widely among CaP foci, so care should be taken when making treatment decisions based on a single biopsy or index lesions. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the molecular composition of individual cancers in a patient's prostate. We found a lot of genetic diversity among these cancers, and concluded that information from a single cancer biopsy is not sufficient to guide treatment decisions.
BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing is revealing genomic heterogeneity in localized prostate cancer (CaP). Incomplete sampling of CaP multiclonality has limited the implications for molecular subtyping, stratification, and systemic treatment. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of genomic and transcriptomic diversity within and among intraprostatic CaP foci on CaP molecular taxonomy, predictors of progression, and actionable therapeutic targets. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Four consecutive patients with clinically localized National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- or high-risk CaP who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy underwent radical prostatectomy at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in June-July 2014. Presurgical information on CaP content and a customized tissue procurement procedure were used to isolate nonmicroscopic and noncontiguous CaP foci in radical prostatectomy specimens. Three cores were obtained from the index lesion and one core from smaller lesions. RNA and DNA were extracted simultaneously from 26 cores with ≥90% CaP content and analyzed using whole-exome sequencing, single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays, and RNA sequencing. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Somatic mutations, copy number alternations, gene expression, gene fusions, and phylogeny were defined. The impact of genomic alterations on CaP molecular classification, gene sets measured in Oncotype DX, Prolaris, and Decipher assays, and androgen receptor activity among CaP cores was determined. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There was considerable variability in genomic alterations among CaP cores, and between RNA- and DNA-based platforms. Heterogeneity was found in molecular grouping of individual CaP foci and the activity of gene sets underlying the assays for risk stratification and androgen receptor activity, and was validated in independent genomic data sets. Determination of the implications for clinical decision-making requires follow-up studies. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic make-up varies widely among CaP foci, so care should be taken when making treatment decisions based on a single biopsy or index lesions. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the molecular composition of individual cancers in a patient's prostate. We found a lot of genetic diversity among these cancers, and concluded that information from a single cancer biopsy is not sufficient to guide treatment decisions.
Authors: Johan Lindberg; Daniel Klevebring; Wennuan Liu; Mårten Neiman; Jianfeng Xu; Peter Wiklund; Fredrik Wiklund; Ian G Mills; Lars Egevad; Henrik Grönberg Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-03-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Zhengyan Kan; Bijay S Jaiswal; Jeremy Stinson; Vasantharajan Janakiraman; Deepali Bhatt; Howard M Stern; Peng Yue; Peter M Haverty; Richard Bourgon; Jianbiao Zheng; Martin Moorhead; Subhra Chaudhuri; Lynn P Tomsho; Brock A Peters; Kanan Pujara; Shaun Cordes; David P Davis; Victoria E H Carlton; Wenlin Yuan; Li Li; Weiru Wang; Charles Eigenbrot; Joshua S Kaminker; David A Eberhard; Paul Waring; Stephan C Schuster; Zora Modrusan; Zemin Zhang; David Stokoe; Frederic J de Sauvage; Malek Faham; Somasekar Seshagiri Journal: Nature Date: 2010-07-28 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Peter J Boström; Anders S Bjartell; James W F Catto; Scott E Eggener; Hans Lilja; Stacy Loeb; Jack Schalken; Thorsten Schlomm; Matthew R Cooperberg Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Farzana A Faisal; Debasish Sundi; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Voleak Choeurng; Mohammed Alshalalfa; Ashley E Ross; Eric Klein; Robert Den; Adam Dicker; Nicholas Erho; Elai Davicioni; Tamara L Lotan; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel E Spratt; Michael J Evans; Brian J Davis; Michael G Doran; Man Xia Lee; Neel Shah; John Wongvipat; Kathryn E Carnazza; George G Klee; William Polkinghorn; Donald J Tindall; Jason S Lewis; Charles L Sawyers Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-10-02 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Dan Robinson; Eliezer M Van Allen; Yi-Mi Wu; Nikolaus Schultz; Robert J Lonigro; Juan-Miguel Mosquera; Bruce Montgomery; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Colin C Pritchard; Gerhardt Attard; Himisha Beltran; Wassim Abida; Robert K Bradley; Jake Vinson; Xuhong Cao; Pankaj Vats; Lakshmi P Kunju; Maha Hussain; Felix Y Feng; Scott A Tomlins; Kathleen A Cooney; David C Smith; Christine Brennan; Javed Siddiqui; Rohit Mehra; Yu Chen; Dana E Rathkopf; Michael J Morris; Stephen B Solomon; Jeremy C Durack; Victor E Reuter; Anuradha Gopalan; Jianjiong Gao; Massimo Loda; Rosina T Lis; Michaela Bowden; Stephen P Balk; Glenn Gaviola; Carrie Sougnez; Manaswi Gupta; Evan Y Yu; Elahe A Mostaghel; Heather H Cheng; Hyojeong Mulcahy; Lawrence D True; Stephen R Plymate; Heidi Dvinge; Roberta Ferraldeschi; Penny Flohr; Susana Miranda; Zafeiris Zafeiriou; Nina Tunariu; Joaquin Mateo; Raquel Perez-Lopez; Francesca Demichelis; Brian D Robinson; Marc Schiffman; David M Nanus; Scott T Tagawa; Alexandros Sigaras; Kenneth W Eng; Olivier Elemento; Andrea Sboner; Elisabeth I Heath; Howard I Scher; Kenneth J Pienta; Philip Kantoff; Johann S de Bono; Mark A Rubin; Peter S Nelson; Levi A Garraway; Charles L Sawyers; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: Cell Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Michael F Berger; Michael S Lawrence; Francesca Demichelis; Yotam Drier; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrey Y Sivachenko; Andrea Sboner; Raquel Esgueva; Dorothee Pflueger; Carrie Sougnez; Robert Onofrio; Scott L Carter; Kyung Park; Lukas Habegger; Lauren Ambrogio; Timothy Fennell; Melissa Parkin; Gordon Saksena; Douglas Voet; Alex H Ramos; Trevor J Pugh; Jane Wilkinson; Sheila Fisher; Wendy Winckler; Scott Mahan; Kristin Ardlie; Jennifer Baldwin; Jonathan W Simons; Naoki Kitabayashi; Theresa Y MacDonald; Philip W Kantoff; Lynda Chin; Stacey B Gabriel; Mark B Gerstein; Todd R Golub; Matthew Meyerson; Ashutosh Tewari; Eric S Lander; Gad Getz; Mark A Rubin; Levi A Garraway Journal: Nature Date: 2011-02-10 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Akash Kumar; Ilsa Coleman; Colm Morrissey; Xiaotun Zhang; Lawrence D True; Roman Gulati; Ruth Etzioni; Hamid Bolouri; Bruce Montgomery; Thomas White; Jared M Lucas; Lisha G Brown; Ruth F Dumpit; Navonil DeSarkar; Celestia Higano; Evan Y Yu; Roger Coleman; Nikolaus Schultz; Min Fang; Paul H Lange; Jay Shendure; Robert L Vessella; Peter S Nelson Journal: Nat Med Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Michael C Haffner; Wilbert Zwart; Martine P Roudier; Lawrence D True; William G Nelson; Jonathan I Epstein; Angelo M De Marzo; Peter S Nelson; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 14.432