K Wang1,2, J D McDermott3, A B Schrock1, J A Elvin1, L Gay1, S D Karam4, D Raben4, H Somerset5, S M Ali1, J S Ross1,6, D W Bowles3. 1. Foundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, USA. 2. Center for Precision Medicine, Zhejiang University International Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 4. Departments of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 6. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Albany Medical College, Albany, USA.
Abstract
Background: We sought to identify genomic alterations (GAs) in salivary mucoepidermoid carcinomas. Patients and methods: DNA was extracted from 48 mucoepidermoid carcinomas. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) including the calculation to tumor mutational burden (TMB) was performed on hybridization-captured adaptor ligation-based libraries of 315 cancer-related genes plus introns from 28 genes frequently rearranged for cancer and evaluated for all classes of GAs. Results: A total of 183 GAs were found in 80 unique genes. High-grade tumors had more GAs (mean 5 ± 3.8) compared with low (2.3 ± 1.4) or intermediate (2.6 ± 1.5) (P = 0.019). TP53 GAs were seen in all tumor grades (41.7%) but were most common in high-grade malignancies (56%) (P = 0.047). CDKN2A GAs were seen in 41.6% of tumors. PI3K/mTOR pathway activation, including PI3KCA mutations, were more common in high grade (52%) than in low- and intermediate-grade tumors (4.3%) (P = 0.007). BAP1 GAs were observed in 20.8% of tumors and BRCA1/2 GAs present in 10.5% of specimens. ERBB2 amplifications were seen in only 8.3% of tumors. The TMB for this patient group was relatively low with only 5 (10%) of cases having greater than 10 mutations/megabase of sequenced DNA. Conclusion: CGP of salivary mucoepidermoid carcinomas revealed diverse GAs that may lead to customized treatment options for patients with these rare tumors.
Background: We sought to identify genomic alterations (GAs) in salivary mucoepidermoid carcinomas. Patients and methods: DNA was extracted from 48 mucoepidermoid carcinomas. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) including the calculation to tumor mutational burden (TMB) was performed on hybridization-captured adaptor ligation-based libraries of 315 cancer-related genes plus introns from 28 genes frequently rearranged for cancer and evaluated for all classes of GAs. Results: A total of 183 GAs were found in 80 unique genes. High-grade tumors had more GAs (mean 5 ± 3.8) compared with low (2.3 ± 1.4) or intermediate (2.6 ± 1.5) (P = 0.019). TP53 GAs were seen in all tumor grades (41.7%) but were most common in high-grade malignancies (56%) (P = 0.047). CDKN2A GAs were seen in 41.6% of tumors. PI3K/mTOR pathway activation, including PI3KCA mutations, were more common in high grade (52%) than in low- and intermediate-grade tumors (4.3%) (P = 0.007). BAP1 GAs were observed in 20.8% of tumors and BRCA1/2 GAs present in 10.5% of specimens. ERBB2 amplifications were seen in only 8.3% of tumors. The TMB for this patient group was relatively low with only 5 (10%) of cases having greater than 10 mutations/megabase of sequenced DNA. Conclusion: CGP of salivary mucoepidermoid carcinomas revealed diverse GAs that may lead to customized treatment options for patients with these rare tumors.
Authors: Carla B Ripamonti; Paolo Bossi; Siranoush Manoukian; Laura Locati; Mara Colombo; Maria L Carcangiu; Andrea Vingiani; Lisa Licitra; Paolo Radice Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Stephen B Keysar; Justin R Eagles; Bettina Miller; Brian C Jackson; Farshad N Chowdhury; Julie Reisinger; Tugs-Saikhan Chimed; Phuong N Le; John J Morton; Hilary L Somerset; Marileila Varella-Garcia; Aik-Choon Tan; John I Song; Daniel W Bowles; Mary E Reyland; Antonio Jimeno Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Adele M Musicant; Kshitij Parag-Sharma; Weida Gong; Monideepa Sengupta; Arindam Chatterjee; Erin C Henry; Yi-Hsuan Tsai; Michele C Hayward; Siddharth Sheth; Renee Betancourt; Trevor G Hackman; Ricardo J Padilla; Joel S Parker; Jimena Giudice; Colin A Flaveny; David N Hayes; Antonio L Amelio Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: J S Ross; L M Gay; K Wang; J A Vergilio; J Suh; S Ramkissoon; H Somerset; J M Johnson; J Russell; S Ali; A B Schrock; D Fabrizio; G Frampton; V Miller; P J Stephens; J A Elvin; D W Bowles Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 32.976