| Literature DB >> 28157713 |
Siavosh Tabatabaeifar1,2, Mads Thomassen3,2, Martin J Larsen3,2, Stine R Larsen4,2, Torben A Kruse3,2, Jens A Sørensen1,2.
Abstract
Recent studies suggest that head and neck squamous cell carcinomas are very heterogeneous between patients; however the subclonal structure remains unexplored mainly due to studies using only a single biopsy per patient. To deconvolute the clonal structure and describe the genomic cancer evolution, we applied whole-exome sequencing combined with ultra-deep targeted sequencing on oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC). From each patient, a set of biopsies was sampled from distinct geographical sites in primary tumor and lymph node metastasis.We demonstrate that the included OSCCs show a high degree of inter-patient heterogeneity but a low degree of intra-tumor heterogeneity. However, some OSCC cancers contain complex subclonal architectures comprising distinct subclones only found in geographically distinct regions of the primary tumors. In several cases we find mutations in the primary tumor that are not present in the lymph node metastasis. We conclude that metastatic potential in our population is acquired early in tumor evolution as evident by the ongoing parallel evolution in several primary tumors.Entities:
Keywords: genomic evolution; oral squamous cell carcinoma; subclonal structure; tumor heterogeneity; ultra-deep sequencing
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28157713 PMCID: PMC5369985 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Venn diagrams
Venn diagrams for all patients illustrating the shared mutations across biopsies. A mutation has to have sufficiently high enough alternative reads (B-alleles) before being counted (in this case, at least 5). It should be noted that tumor back in patient 5 was evaluated not to contain tumor tissue.
Figure 2B-Allele frequency (BAF) vs copy number plots for patient 1
LogR is defined as the Log2 copy number ratio between the tumor and matched normal sample. Each point represents a somatic point mutation and each circle represents a copy number event; each point and circle is color-coded according to the clonal structure of the phylogenetic tree (Figure 3). Overall, the bulk of mutations are clustered around a LogR of zero at half of the maximum BAF indicating the heterozygous positions (AB) of all cancer cells in the biopsy; no loss or gain events have occurred at AB. LOH (B) is seen at the lower right corner with a high BAF, indicating that both alleles have been altered, i.e. point mutation and loss of wildtype. AB: diploid, one mutation and one wildtype. BB: diploid, loss of wildtype and gain of mutation. ABB: triploid, gain of mutation without loss of wildtype. Tumor front: contains the 3a-clone which has inherited the mutations of the 2b- and 1a-clones. Tumor center: contains 2a, 2b and 3a. Tumor back: contains 2a and 3c; 3c has inherited the mutations of 2b. Orange/blue highlighted LOH and BB seen for the mutations of 1a (BAF > 0.40) have occurred in one of the two clones. The highlighted orange/blue B’s indicate subclonality, grey B circles indicate events present in all cells. It is important to note that BBs originate from their closest B. It is not possible to determine in which clone these copy events have occurred (2a or 3c), as both clones occur with the same frequency, so their mutations are clustered together. Lymph node: contains 3b and 4a. The mutations of 3b and 4a are biopsy specific.
Figure 3Phylogenetic trees for all patients
Each pie chart represents a biopsy; they indicate the distribution of clones in each biopsy as the ratio between BAF(ABsubclone) and BAF(ABall), please refer to Supplementary Note 1 for full details on construction of phylogenetic trees. Biopsy specific primary tumor mutations for patient 1 have been left out of the tree, since they either have a very low BAF or there are too few to base any conclusion on. Patient 5′s tumor back was left out, because it was evaluated not to contain any tumor by the pathologist, and the amount of mutations discovered are too few to base any conclusions on. There is no evidence of intra-tumor heterogeneity in patient 2 and 4. TF: Tumor front. TC: Tumor center. TB: Tumor back. LN: Lymph node.
Candidate cancer driver genes
| Gene | Recurrence | iCAGES | Loss-of-function | LOH | COSMIC (%) | HR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X | X | X | X | 0.274 | n.s. | |
| X | X | X | 0.028 | n.s. | ||
| X | X | X | 0.010 | n.s. | ||
| X | X* | X** | 0.002 | 1.39 (1.03−1.89) | ||
| X | X | 0.004 | 1.40 (1.04−1.89) | |||
| X | X | 0.077 | 1.82 (1.34−2.49) | |||
| X | X | 0.005 | 1.41 (1.02−1.96) | |||
| X | X | 0.113 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.017 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.016 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.022 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.004 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.016 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.005 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.010 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.004 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.000 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.011 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.002 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.007 | n.s. | |||
| X | X | 0.004 | n.s. |
To qualify as a candidate, the gene must at least fulfill 2 of the 4 criteria: Recurrence, iCAGES, Loss-of-function and LOH. The top 7 candidate genes have fulfilled 3 criteria and/or have a significant hazard ratio; these genes will be mentioned in the main text. Recurrence: is the gene recurrently mutated in our cohort. iCAGES: has the mutation been classified in iCAGES as a driver. Loss-of-function: is the mutation a frameshift indel, splice site or stopgain. LOH: has the gene undergone LOH. COSMIC: Percentage of gene mutated in the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer. HR: Hazard ratio for loss of gene based on The Cancer Genome Atlas’s data from 522 HNSCC patients; p-value < 0.05 (Supplementary Figure 2). N.s.: not significant. X*: Missense mutation of CALML5 resulted in a significant ion charge change from negative to positive (glutamic acid to lysine). X**: LOH of CALML5 occurred independently in 2 distinct subclones.