Mark W Ball1, Michael A Gorin2, Charles G Drake2, Hans J Hammers2, Mohamad E Allaf2. 1. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute & Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Electronic address: mark.ball@jhmi.edu. 2. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute & Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The accumulation of somatic genetic alterations drives carcinogenesis. Little is known, however, about how the level of genetic alteration across an entire cancer genome affects tumor grade, stage or survival. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of somatic mutation count (MC) and copy number variation (CNV) on pathologic and oncologic outcomes in patients with genitourinary malignancies in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TCGA data sets for adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC), bladder urothelial carcinoma (BLCA), chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC; KICH), clear cell RCC (KIRC), papillary RCC (KIRP), pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PCPG), prostate adenocarcinoma (PRAD), and testis germ cell tumor (TGCT) were accessed via cBioportal. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Median MC and CNV were compared among and within each tumor type. Patients were stratified by grade and stage, and differences in MC and CNV were compared. Correlation of MC and CNV with overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) was analyzed when these data were available. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among the tumor types analyzed, BLCA had the highest MC at 167, followed by ACC (89), KIRP (71), TGCT (55), KIRC (45), PRAD (34), PCPG (14), and KICH (12). The tumor type with the highest fraction of the genome with CNV was KICH (0.94), followed by ACC (0.58), TGCT (0.41), BLCA (0.29), KIRP (0.15), PCPG (0.13), KIRC (0.12), and PRAD (0.06). MC was associated with higher T stage in ACC, N stage in KIRC, M stage in ACC, grade in BLCA, and primary Gleason score in PRAD, and was associated with OS and RFS in KICH. CNV was associated with higher N stage in PRAD, grade in KIRC, and Gleason grade in PRAD. In addition, higher CNV was independently associated with inferior RFS for KIRC, as well as inferior OS and RFS for KIRP. CONCLUSIONS: MC and CNV vary greatly among tumor types. PATIENT SUMMARY: Cancers with higher levels of genomic alterations are associated with worse pathologic features and survival. The degree of genomic alterations could serve as a useful marker of disease aggressiveness.
BACKGROUND: The accumulation of somatic genetic alterations drives carcinogenesis. Little is known, however, about how the level of genetic alteration across an entire cancer genome affects tumor grade, stage or survival. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of somatic mutation count (MC) and copy number variation (CNV) on pathologic and oncologic outcomes in patients with genitourinary malignancies in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TCGA data sets for adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC), bladder urothelial carcinoma (BLCA), chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC; KICH), clear cell RCC (KIRC), papillary RCC (KIRP), pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PCPG), prostate adenocarcinoma (PRAD), and testis germ cell tumor (TGCT) were accessed via cBioportal. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Median MC and CNV were compared among and within each tumor type. Patients were stratified by grade and stage, and differences in MC and CNV were compared. Correlation of MC and CNV with overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) was analyzed when these data were available. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among the tumor types analyzed, BLCA had the highest MC at 167, followed by ACC (89), KIRP (71), TGCT (55), KIRC (45), PRAD (34), PCPG (14), and KICH (12). The tumor type with the highest fraction of the genome with CNV was KICH (0.94), followed by ACC (0.58), TGCT (0.41), BLCA (0.29), KIRP (0.15), PCPG (0.13), KIRC (0.12), and PRAD (0.06). MC was associated with higher T stage in ACC, N stage in KIRC, M stage in ACC, grade in BLCA, and primary Gleason score in PRAD, and was associated with OS and RFS in KICH. CNV was associated with higher N stage in PRAD, grade in KIRC, and Gleason grade in PRAD. In addition, higher CNV was independently associated with inferior RFS for KIRC, as well as inferior OS and RFS for KIRP. CONCLUSIONS:MC and CNV vary greatly among tumor types. PATIENT SUMMARY:Cancers with higher levels of genomic alterations are associated with worse pathologic features and survival. The degree of genomic alterations could serve as a useful marker of disease aggressiveness.
Authors: Alexandra Snyder; Vladimir Makarov; Taha Merghoub; Jianda Yuan; Jedd D Wolchok; Timothy A Chan; Jesse M Zaretsky; Alexis Desrichard; Logan A Walsh; Michael A Postow; Phillip Wong; Teresa S Ho; Travis J Hollmann; Cameron Bruggeman; Kasthuri Kannan; Yanyun Li; Ceyhan Elipenahli; Cailian Liu; Christopher T Harbison; Lisu Wang; Antoni Ribas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey S Damrauer; Katherine A Hoadley; David D Chism; Cheng Fan; Christopher J Tiganelli; Sara E Wobker; Jen Jen Yeh; Matthew I Milowsky; Gopa Iyer; Joel S Parker; William Y Kim Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Craig H Mermel; Steven E Schumacher; Barbara Hill; Matthew L Meyerson; Rameen Beroukhim; Gad Getz Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Samuel Peña-Llopis; Silvia Vega-Rubín-de-Celis; Arnold Liao; Nan Leng; Andrea Pavía-Jiménez; Shanshan Wang; Toshinari Yamasaki; Leah Zhrebker; Sharanya Sivanand; Patrick Spence; Lisa Kinch; Tina Hambuch; Suneer Jain; Yair Lotan; Vitaly Margulis; Arthur I Sagalowsky; Pia Banerji Summerour; Wareef Kabbani; S W Wendy Wong; Nick Grishin; Marc Laurent; Xian-Jin Xie; Christian D Haudenschild; Mark T Ross; David R Bentley; Payal Kapur; James Brugarolas Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2012-06-10 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Travis I Zack; Stephen E Schumacher; Scott L Carter; Andre D Cherniack; Gordon Saksena; Barbara Tabak; Michael S Lawrence; Cheng-Zhong Zhsng; Jeremiah Wala; Craig H Mermel; Carrie Sougnez; Stacey B Gabriel; Bryan Hernandez; Hui Shen; Peter W Laird; Gad Getz; Matthew Meyerson; Rameen Beroukhim Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Andres F Correa; Karen J Ruth; Tahseen Al-Saleem; Jianming Pei; Essel Dulaimi; Debra Kister; Michelle Collins; Phillip H Abbosh; Michael J Slifker; Eric Ross; Robert G Uzzo; Joseph R Testa Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Pengbo Beck; Barbara Selle; Lukas Madenach; David T W Jones; Christian Vokuhl; Apurva Gopisetty; Arash Nabbi; Ines B Brecht; Martin Ebinger; Jenny Wegert; Norbert Graf; Manfred Gessler; Stefan M Pfister; Natalie Jäger Journal: iScience Date: 2022-03-26