James L Chen1,2, Tanios Bekaii-Saab3, Daniel H Ahn1,3, Milind Javle4, Chul W Ahn5, Apurva Jain4, Sameh Mikhail1, Anne M Noonan1, Kristen Ciombor, Christina Wu1, Rachna T Shroff4. 1. Division of Medical Oncology, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 3. Mayo Clinic, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 4. Division of Cancer Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 5. Department of Clinical Sciences, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are uncommon and are associated with a dismal prognosis. Combinations of gemcitabine and platinum chemotherapy (gemcitabine and platinum-based therapy [GP]) form the standard approach for treating advanced BTC. To characterize the spectrum of mutations and to identify potential biomarkers for a GP response in BTC, this study evaluated the genomic landscape and assessed whether mutations affecting DNA repair were associated with GP resistance. METHODS: Pretreatment, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples from 183 BTC patients treated with GP were analyzed. Cox regression models were used to determine the association between mutations, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: When genes with an incidence > 10% were considered, no individual gene was independently predictive of a GP response. In patients with unresectable BTC who received GP as their first-line therapy, the joint status of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A), tumor protein 53 (TP53), and AT-rich interaction domain 1A (ARID1A) was associated with PFS (P = .0004) and OS (P ≤ .0001). Patients with mutations in CDKN2A and TP53 were identified as a poor-prognosis cohort with a median PFS of 2.63 months and a median OS of 5.22 months. Patients with mutant ARID1A, regardless of the single-mutation status of TP53 or CDKN2A, had similar outcomes. A patient who exhibited mutations in all 3 genes had a median PFS of 20.37 months, and OS was not reached. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest exploratory analysis of this kind for BTC, 3 prevalent, mutually exclusive mutations represent distinct patient cohorts. These mutations are prognostic and may represent a predictive biomarker for a GP response. Prospective studies to validate these findings are needed, and they should include the incorporation of therapies that exploit the genomic instability observed with these mutations in BTC. Cancer 2016;122:3657-66.
BACKGROUND:Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are uncommon and are associated with a dismal prognosis. Combinations of gemcitabine and platinum chemotherapy (gemcitabine and platinum-based therapy [GP]) form the standard approach for treating advanced BTC. To characterize the spectrum of mutations and to identify potential biomarkers for a GP response in BTC, this study evaluated the genomic landscape and assessed whether mutations affecting DNA repair were associated with GP resistance. METHODS: Pretreatment, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples from 183 BTC patients treated with GP were analyzed. Cox regression models were used to determine the association between mutations, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: When genes with an incidence > 10% were considered, no individual gene was independently predictive of a GP response. In patients with unresectable BTC who received GP as their first-line therapy, the joint status of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A), tumor protein 53 (TP53), and AT-rich interaction domain 1A (ARID1A) was associated with PFS (P = .0004) and OS (P ≤ .0001). Patients with mutations in CDKN2A and TP53 were identified as a poor-prognosis cohort with a median PFS of 2.63 months and a median OS of 5.22 months. Patients with mutant ARID1A, regardless of the single-mutation status of TP53 or CDKN2A, had similar outcomes. A patient who exhibited mutations in all 3 genes had a median PFS of 20.37 months, and OS was not reached. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest exploratory analysis of this kind for BTC, 3 prevalent, mutually exclusive mutations represent distinct patient cohorts. These mutations are prognostic and may represent a predictive biomarker for a GP response. Prospective studies to validate these findings are needed, and they should include the incorporation of therapies that exploit the genomic instability observed with these mutations in BTC. Cancer 2016;122:3657-66.
Authors: Juan Valle; Harpreet Wasan; Daniel H Palmer; David Cunningham; Alan Anthoney; Anthony Maraveyas; Srinivasan Madhusudan; Tim Iveson; Sharon Hughes; Stephen P Pereira; Michael Roughton; John Bridgewater Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Asif Rashid; Takashi Ueki; Yu-Tang Gao; Patrick Scott Houlihan; Charita Wallace; Bing-Sheng Wang; Ming-Chang Shen; Jie Deng; Ann W Hsing Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jianfeng Shen; Yang Peng; Leizhen Wei; Wei Zhang; Lin Yang; Li Lan; Prabodh Kapoor; Zhenlin Ju; Qianxing Mo; Ie-Ming Shih; Ivan P Uray; Xiangwei Wu; Powel H Brown; Xuetong Shen; Gordon B Mills; Guang Peng Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Daniela Sia; Bojan Losic; Agrin Moeini; Laia Cabellos; Ke Hao; Kate Revill; Dennis Bonal; Oriana Miltiadous; Zhongyang Zhang; Yujin Hoshida; Helena Cornella; Mireia Castillo-Martin; Roser Pinyol; Yumi Kasai; Sasan Roayaie; Swan N Thung; Josep Fuster; Myron E Schwartz; Samuel Waxman; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; Eric Schadt; Vincenzo Mazzaferro; Josep M Llovet Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Yuchen Jiao; Timothy M Pawlik; Robert A Anders; Florin M Selaru; Mirte M Streppel; Donald J Lucas; Noushin Niknafs; Violeta Beleva Guthrie; Anirban Maitra; Pedram Argani; G Johan A Offerhaus; Juan Carlos Roa; Lewis R Roberts; Gregory J Gores; Irinel Popescu; Sorin T Alexandrescu; Simona Dima; Matteo Fassan; Michele Simbolo; Andrea Mafficini; Paola Capelli; Rita T Lawlor; Andrea Ruzzenente; Alfredo Guglielmi; Giampaolo Tortora; Filippo de Braud; Aldo Scarpa; William Jarnagin; David Klimstra; Rachel Karchin; Victor E Velculescu; Ralph H Hruban; Bert Vogelstein; Kenneth W Kinzler; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Laura D Wood Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-11-03 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Kimberly C Wiegand; Bryan T Hennessy; Samuel Leung; Yemin Wang; Zhenlin Ju; Mollianne McGahren; Steve E Kalloger; Sarah Finlayson; Katherine Stemke-Hale; Yiling Lu; Fan Zhang; Michael S Anglesio; Blake Gilks; Gordon B Mills; David G Huntsman; Mark S Carey Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Hannah Maynard; Zsofia K Stadler; Michael F Berger; David B Solit; Michele Ly; Maeve A Lowery; Diana Mandelker; Liying Zhang; Emmett Jordan; Imane El Dika; Yelena Kemel; Marc Ladanyi; Mark E Robson; Eileen M O'Reilly; Ghassan K Abou-Alfa Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David K Lau; Rebecca Y Tay; Yvonne H Yeung; Fiona Chionh; Jennifer Mooi; Carmel Murone; Effie Skrinos; Timothy J Price; John M Mariadason; Niall C Tebbutt Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Florian Moik; Jakob M Riedl; Thomas Winder; Angelika Terbuch; Christopher H Rossmann; Joanna Szkandera; Thomas Bauernhofer; Anne-Katrin Kasparek; Renate Schaberl-Moser; Andreas Reicher; Felix Prinz; Martin Pichler; Herbert Stöger; Michael Stotz; Armin Gerger; Florian Posch Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 4.379