Alexa B Schrock1, Craig E Devoe2, Robert McWilliams3, James Sun1, Thomas Aparicio4, Philip J Stephens1, Jeffrey S Ross1,5, Richard Wilson6, Vincent A Miller1, Siraj M Ali1, Michael J Overman7. 1. Foundation Medicine, Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2. Northwell Health, The Monter Cancer Center, Lake Success, New York. 3. Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Avicenne, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, University Paris 13, Bobigny, France. 5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York. 6. Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Northern Ireland. 7. Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Small-bowel adenocarcinomas (SBAs) are rare cancers with a significantly lower incidence, later stage at diagnosis, and worse overall survival than other intestinal-derived cancers. To date, comprehensive genomic analysis of SBA is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To perform in-depth genomic characterization of a large series of SBAs and other gastrointestinal tumors to draw comparisons and identify potentially clinically actionable alterations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective analysis was performed of clinical samples from patients with SBA (n = 317), colorectal cancer (n = 6353), and gastric carcinoma (n = 889) collected between August 24, 2012, and February 3, 2016, using hybrid-capture-based genomic profiling, at the request of the individual treating physicians in the course of clinical care for the purpose of making therapy decisions. RESULTS: Of the 7559 patients included in analysis, 4138 (54.7%) were male; the median age was 56 (range, 12-101) years. The frequency of genomic alterations seen in SBA demonstrated distinct differences in comparison with either colorectal cancer (APC: 26.8% [85 of 317] vs 75.9% [4823 of 6353], P < .001; and CDKN2A: 14.5% [46 of 317] vs 2.6% [165 of 6353], P < .001) or gastric carcinoma (KRAS: 53.6% [170 of 317] vs 14.2% [126 of 889], P < .001; APC: 26.8% [85 of 317] vs 7.8% [69 of 889], P < .001; and SMAD4: 17.4% [55 of 317] vs 5.2% [46 of 889], P < .001). BRAF was mutated in 7.6% (484 of 6353) of colorectal cancer and 9.1% (29 of 317) of SBA samples, but V600E mutations were much less common in SBA, representing only 10.3% (3 of 29) of BRAF-mutated cases. The ERBB2/HER2 point mutations (8.2% [26 of 317]), microsatellite instability (7.6% [13 of 170]), and high tumor mutational burden (9.5% [30 of 317]) were all enriched in SBA. Significant differences were noted in the molecular profile of unspecified SBA compared with duodenal adenocarcinoma, as well as in inflammatory bowel disease-associated SBAs. Targetable alterations in several additional genes, including PIK3CA and MEK1, and receptor tyrosine kinase fusions, were also identified in all 3 series. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study presents to our knowledge the first large-scale genomic comparison of SBA with colorectal cancer and gastric carcinoma. The distinct genomic differences establish SBA as a molecularly unique intestinal cancer. In addition, genomic profiling can identify potentially targetable genomic alterations in the majority of SBA cases (91%), and the higher incidence of microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden in SBA suggests a potential role for immunotherapy.
IMPORTANCE: Small-bowel adenocarcinomas (SBAs) are rare cancers with a significantly lower incidence, later stage at diagnosis, and worse overall survival than other intestinal-derived cancers. To date, comprehensive genomic analysis of SBA is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To perform in-depth genomic characterization of a large series of SBAs and other gastrointestinal tumors to draw comparisons and identify potentially clinically actionable alterations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective analysis was performed of clinical samples from patients with SBA (n = 317), colorectal cancer (n = 6353), and gastric carcinoma (n = 889) collected between August 24, 2012, and February 3, 2016, using hybrid-capture-based genomic profiling, at the request of the individual treating physicians in the course of clinical care for the purpose of making therapy decisions. RESULTS: Of the 7559 patients included in analysis, 4138 (54.7%) were male; the median age was 56 (range, 12-101) years. The frequency of genomic alterations seen in SBA demonstrated distinct differences in comparison with either colorectal cancer (APC: 26.8% [85 of 317] vs 75.9% [4823 of 6353], P < .001; and CDKN2A: 14.5% [46 of 317] vs 2.6% [165 of 6353], P < .001) or gastric carcinoma (KRAS: 53.6% [170 of 317] vs 14.2% [126 of 889], P < .001; APC: 26.8% [85 of 317] vs 7.8% [69 of 889], P < .001; and SMAD4: 17.4% [55 of 317] vs 5.2% [46 of 889], P < .001). BRAF was mutated in 7.6% (484 of 6353) of colorectal cancer and 9.1% (29 of 317) of SBA samples, but V600E mutations were much less common in SBA, representing only 10.3% (3 of 29) of BRAF-mutated cases. The ERBB2/HER2 point mutations (8.2% [26 of 317]), microsatellite instability (7.6% [13 of 170]), and high tumor mutational burden (9.5% [30 of 317]) were all enriched in SBA. Significant differences were noted in the molecular profile of unspecified SBA compared with duodenal adenocarcinoma, as well as in inflammatory bowel disease-associated SBAs. Targetable alterations in several additional genes, including PIK3CA and MEK1, and receptor tyrosine kinase fusions, were also identified in all 3 series. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study presents to our knowledge the first large-scale genomic comparison of SBA with colorectal cancer and gastric carcinoma. The distinct genomic differences establish SBA as a molecularly unique intestinal cancer. In addition, genomic profiling can identify potentially targetable genomic alterations in the majority of SBA cases (91%), and the higher incidence of microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden in SBA suggests a potential role for immunotherapy.
Authors: Siraj M Ali; Eric M Sanford; Samuel J Klempner; Douglas A Rubinson; Kai Wang; Norma A Palma; Juliann Chmielecki; Roman Yelensky; Gary A Palmer; Deborah Morosini; Doron Lipson; Daniel V Catenacci; Fadi Braiteh; Rachel Erlich; Philip J Stephens; Jeffrey S Ross; Sai-Hong Ignatius Ou; Vincent A Miller Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-04-16
Authors: Marie-Claude Gingras; Kyle R Covington; David K Chang; Lawrence A Donehower; Anthony J Gill; Michael M Ittmann; Chad J Creighton; Amber L Johns; Eve Shinbrot; Ninad Dewal; William E Fisher; Christian Pilarsky; Robert Grützmann; Michael J Overman; Nigel B Jamieson; George Van Buren; Jennifer Drummond; Kimberly Walker; Oliver A Hampton; Liu Xi; Donna M Muzny; Harsha Doddapaneni; Sandra L Lee; Michelle Bellair; Jianhong Hu; Yi Han; Huyen H Dinh; Mike Dahdouli; Jaswinder S Samra; Peter Bailey; Nicola Waddell; John V Pearson; Ivon Harliwong; Huamin Wang; Daniela Aust; Karin A Oien; Ralph H Hruban; Sally E Hodges; Amy McElhany; Charupong Saengboonmee; Fraser R Duthie; Sean M Grimmond; Andrew V Biankin; David A Wheeler; Richard A Gibbs Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Muhammad A Alvi; Darragh G McArt; Paul Kelly; Marc-Aurel Fuchs; Matthew Alderdice; Clare M McCabe; Victoria Bingham; Claire McGready; Shailesh Tripathi; Frank Emmert-Streib; Maurice B Loughrey; Stephen McQuaid; Perry Maxwell; Peter W Hamilton; Richard Turkington; Jacqueline A James; Richard H Wilson; Manuel Salto-Tellez Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2015-08-28
Authors: Zachary R Chalmers; Caitlin F Connelly; David Fabrizio; Laurie Gay; Siraj M Ali; Riley Ennis; Alexa Schrock; Brittany Campbell; Adam Shlien; Juliann Chmielecki; Franklin Huang; Yuting He; James Sun; Uri Tabori; Mark Kennedy; Daniel S Lieber; Steven Roels; Jared White; Geoffrey A Otto; Jeffrey S Ross; Levi Garraway; Vincent A Miller; Phillip J Stephens; Garrett M Frampton Journal: Genome Med Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Gang Zheng; Li-Hui Tseng; Guoli Chen; Lisa Haley; Peter Illei; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman; Ming-Tseh Lin Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-10-24 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: T Aparicio; M Svrcek; A Zaanan; E Beohou; A Laforest; P Afchain; Emmanuel Mitry; J Taieb; F Di Fiore; J-M Gornet; A Thirot-Bidault; I Sobhani; D Malka; T Lecomte; C Locher; F Bonnetain; P Laurent-Puig Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Alexa B Schrock; Dean Pavlick; Samuel J Klempner; Jon H Chung; Brady Forcier; Allison Welsh; Lauren Young; Bryan Leyland-Jones; Rodolfo Bordoni; Richard D Carvajal; Joseph Chao; Razelle Kurzrock; Jason K Sicklick; Jeffrey S Ross; Philip J Stephens; Craig Devoe; Fadi Braiteh; Siraj M Ali; Vincent A Miller Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Mohamed E Salem; Alberto Puccini; Axel Grothey; Derek Raghavan; Richard M Goldberg; Joanne Xiu; W Michael Korn; Benjamin A Weinberg; Jimmy J Hwang; Anthony F Shields; John L Marshall; Philip A Philip; Heinz-Josef Lenz Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: M J Overman; L Adam; K Raghav; J Wang; B Kee; D Fogelman; C Eng; E Vilar; R Shroff; A Dasari; R Wolff; J Morris; E Karunasena; T R Pisanic; N Azad; S Kopetz Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Liana Adam; F Anthony San Lucas; Richard Fowler; Yao Yu; Wenhui Wu; Yulun Liu; Huamin Wang; David Menter; Michael T Tetzlaff; Joe Ensor; Ganiraju Manyam; Stefan T Arold; Chad Huff; Scott Kopetz; Paul Scheet; Michael J Overman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 12.531