| Literature DB >> 28007036 |
Masayuki Nagahashi1, Toshifumi Wakai2, Yoshifumi Shimada1, Hiroshi Ichikawa1, Hitoshi Kameyama1, Takashi Kobayashi1, Jun Sakata1, Ryoma Yagi1, Nobuaki Sato3, Yuko Kitagawa4, Hiroyuki Uetake5, Kazuhiro Yoshida6, Eiji Oki7, Shin-Ei Kudo8, Hiroshi Izutsu9, Keisuke Kodama9, Mitsutaka Nakada9, Julie Tse10, Meaghan Russell10, Joerg Heyer10, Winslow Powers10, Ruobai Sun10, Jennifer E Ring10, Kazuaki Takabe11,12, Alexei Protopopov10, Yiwei Ling13, Shujiro Okuda14, Stephen Lyle15,16.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive genomic sequencing (CGS) has the potential to revolutionize precision medicine for cancer patients across the globe. However, to date large-scale genomic sequencing of cancer patients has been limited to Western populations. In order to understand possible ethnic and geographic differences and to explore the broader application of CGS to other populations, we sequenced a panel of 415 important cancer genes to characterize clinically actionable genomic driver events in 201 Japanese patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).Entities:
Keywords: Actionable driver mutation; Colorectal cancer; Comprehensive genomic sequencing; Ethnicity; Hypermutation; Japanese; Precision medicine
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28007036 PMCID: PMC5180401 DOI: 10.1186/s13073-016-0387-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genome Med ISSN: 1756-994X Impact factor: 11.117
Fig. 1Genetic aberrations across common oncogenic pathways in CRC. Japanese patients (a) and US patients (b) were evaluated for gene alterations in the key cancer pathways. Amplification (red), deletion (blue), missense point mutations (green), or frameshift mutations (brown). Altered cases are defined as the total number of unique samples with a genetic aberration in each pathway. c Percent of patients with a variation for each given gene. Statistical significance was determined using Fisher’s exact test. d J-CRC, US-CRC, and TCGA sample data were evaluated for gene alterations in the dsDNA break repair pathway in the 415-gene panel. e Percent of patients with a variation for each given gene. Statistical significance was determined using Fisher’s exact test
Fig. 2Mutation rates in Japanese and US CRC patients. Mutation rates from Japanese patients (a) and US patients (b) were determined by the number of non-synonymous SNVs in the 415-gene panel. Hypermutated and non-hypermutated cancers separated by the dashed line. Red, MMR-deficient; gray, MMR-intact; white, no data. c Data from TCGA CRC cases (green) were downsampled to the content of the 415-gene CGS platform (blue; non-synonymous SNPs). Correlation between mutation rates determined by CGS and WES (insert). d ROC analysis using the 415-gene CGS platform, WES, and random sets of 400, 300, 200, 100, and 50 genes as predictors of hypermutated samples (TCGA dataset). e Aggregated mutational signature profiles for hypermutated (top) and non-hypermutated cases (bottom). The pie charts represent inferred contribution of COSMIC signatures to corresponding profiles. f Mutations in BRAF for Japanese patients (n = 201), US patients (n = 108), and TCGA samples (n = 224) were aligned to protein domains. The number of mutations at each given amino acid were plotted in corresponding pie graphs. As shown, BRAF V600E was the highest frequency mutations in each protein. Patient samples were further plotted by mutation status: (g) BRAF-hypermutated, (h) BRAF-non-hypermutated
Fig. 3Cluster of 26-gene co-mutation patterns. Cluster analysis was performed on non-hypermutated Japanese CRC samples (n = 184 tumors) by using Euclidean distance and Ward’s clustering method and co-mutation patterns of the 26-gene subset with statistical analysis are shown. Mutation rate in each group is shown as a bar graph in the middle panel. Group-based mean values for age and tumor diameter are shown (left) with cluster colors and fraction for clinical information (right). Dark bars indicate significant difference (p < 0.05, two-tailed Fisher’s exact test) to the distribution of all other non-hypermutated donors, light bars are non-significant (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01). Chemo chemotherapy; Cmab Cetuximab; Pmab Panitumumab; Bmab Bevacizumab. †Combination therapy with other inhibitors (e.g. anti-EGFR, MEK inhibitors) will be recommended
Fig. 4Clinical outcomes of Stage IV patients treated with anti-EGFR therapies. a Waterfall plot for 33 patients with Stage IV CRC after anti-EGFR targeted therapy in addition to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The vertical axis shows the best calculated responses on the basis of measurable lesions in each individual patient. b Swimmers plot for 39 patients with Stage IV CRC treated with anti-EGFR therapies. The horizontal axis shows progression-free survival for each patient. c, d Kaplan–Meier survival estimates according to genomic subgroups. c Progression-free survival was analyzed in 39 patients with Stage IV CRC treated with anti-EGFR therapies. The patients were divided to “All WT (wild type)” (Cluster 1; n = 15) or “Mutated” (Clusters 2–8; n = 24) based on the cluster analysis with targeted therapy-related 26 genes. d Progression-free survival was analyzed for 36 patients with Stage IV CRC treated with anti-EGFR therapies based on subgroups (All WT, cluster 1; RNF and BRAF, cluster 4; PTEN, cluster 5; RAS, cluster 6) by clustering with the 26 genes