| Literature DB >> 29100312 |
Olga Østrup1,2, Vegar Johansen Dagenborg1,3, Vigdis Nygaard1, Kjersti Flatmark1,4,3, Einar Andreas Rødland1,2, Veronica Skarpeteig2, Laxmi Silwal-Pandit2, Krzysztof Grzyb5, Audun Elnæs Berstad6, Åsmund Avdem Fretland7,8,3, Gunhild Mari Mælandsmo1,9, Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale2,3, Anne Hansen Ree10,3, Bjørn Edwin7,8,3.
Abstract
Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with highly variable clinical outcome and response to therapy. The recently identified consensus molecular subtypes (CMS1-4) have prognostic and therapeutic implications in primary CRC, but whether these subtypes are valid for metastatic disease is unclear. We performed multi-level analyses of resectable CRC liver metastases (CLM) to identify molecular characteristics of metastatic disease and evaluate the clinical relevance.Entities:
Keywords: colorectal liver metastases; genomic profiling; immunogenic cell death; neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Year: 2017 PMID: 29100312 PMCID: PMC5652706 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.19350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Clinicopathological characteristics of the study cohort
| Variable | Number | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 68 | (45-81) | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 27 | 59 | |
| Female | 19 | 41 | |
| Performance Status | |||
| ECOG 0 | 34 | 74 | |
| ECOG 1 | 10 | 22 | |
| ECOG 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Primary tumor localization | |||
| Right Colon | 11 | 24 | |
| Left Colon | 16 | 35 | |
| Rectum | 19 | 41 | |
| T-stage primary tumor | |||
| T1-T2 | 5 | 11 | |
| T3 | 31 | 67 | |
| T4 | 9 | 20 | |
| NA | 1 | 2 | |
| N-stage primary tumor | |||
| N0 | 22 | 48 | |
| N+ | 24 | 52 | |
| Primary tumor histological differentiation | |||
| Well | 3 | 7 | |
| Moderate | 39 | 85 | |
| Poor | 2 | 4 | |
| NA | 2 | 4 | |
| Liver metastases | |||
| Synchronous | 32 | 70 | |
| Metachronous | 14 | 30 | |
| Number of liver metastases | |||
| 1 | 28 | 61 | |
| 2 | 15 | 33 | |
| 3+ | 3 | 7 | |
| Recurrent disease | |||
| Any recurrence | 29 | 63 | |
| Hepatic recurrence | 22 | 48 | |
| Liver metastasis histological differentiation | |||
| Well | 1 | 2 | |
| Moderate | 40 | 87 | |
| Poor | 1 | 2 | |
| NA | 4 | 9 | |
| NACT | |||
| Yes | 15 | 33 | |
| No | 31 | 67 | |
| Response NACT (n=15) | |||
| Partial Response | 3 | 20 | |
| Stable Disease | 10 | 67 | |
| Progressive Disease | 2 | 13 | |
| CRS parameters (n=38) | |||
| N+ primary CRC | 20 | 53 | |
| DFS CRC < 12 months | 29 | 76 | |
| Number CLM > 1 | 15 | 40 | |
| Size CLM > 5 cm | 4 | 11 | |
| CEA > 200 | 1 | 3 | |
| CRS (n=38) | |||
| 0-2 | 29 | 76 | |
| 3-4 | 9 | 24 |
n=46 unless stated otherwise. Numbers represent frequency and percentages, except for age given in median and range.
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; T-stage, primary tumor stage; N-stage, primary tumor lymph node status; CRC, colorectal cancer; CLM, colorectal liver metastases; CRS, clinical risk score; DFS, disease free survival; NACT, neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Figure 1Somatic mutations and copy number alterations (CNAs) in colorectal liver metastases
Main panel: Selected genes (y-axis) with mutations (blue), amplifications (red) and deletions (green); Oslo-CoMet trial sample ID (x-axis). Black outlines indicate metastatic pairs. Consensus molecular subtype (CMS) is indicated when available. Top panel: Total number of mutations, amplifications and deletions per sample. Right panel: Total number of mutations, amplifications and deletions for selected genes. *, CNA data not available.
Figure 2Genome wide copy number alterations
(A) Frequency plot of genome wide copy number alterations. The histogram shows percentage of samples with specific alterations. The genomic position is indicated by chromosome 1 on the left and up to chromosome 22 on the right. Copy number gains for each region are depicted in red, and copy number losses are depicted in green. The plot shows high frequency of CNAs in chromosomes 7, 8, 13, 18 and 20. (B) Metastatic pairs displaying discrepancies in copy number profiles. Estimated ploidy and purity (tumor cell fraction) values are listed at the top of the plot. Metastatic pair 8M1 and 8M2 show discrepancies in segments of chromosomes 4, 13 and 14; metastatic pair 36M1 and 36M2 differ in total ploidy, with 36M1 having ploidy close to 4n and 36M2 having ploidy close to 2n.
Figure 3Gene expression variability in tumor-adjacent liver samples and metastases
(A) Dot-plot showing distribution of variability of individual transcripts in tumor-adjacent liver samples (x-axis) and metastases (y-axis). Ten genes in tumor-adjacent liver samples and 111 genes in metastases were identified by a variance filter of the respective gene expression data sets (variance>5). (B) Principle component analysis comparing gene expression from tumor-adjacent liver samples (yellow dots) compared to metastases (blue dots). The two sample types formed distinct non-overlapping clusters. (C) Heat map representing the expression profiles of the 111 genes found to be highly variable in metastases and subjected to unsupervised clustering analysis. Red-blue scale: red represents high expression and blue low expression. Annotation of samples includes administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and mutations in SMAD4 and NRAS.
Univariable Cox proportional hazard analysis of OS and DFS including number of DEGs
| OS | DFS | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable(n) | Months (95% CI) | HR | 95% CI | p-Value | Months (95% CI) | HR | 95% CI | p-Value | DEG | |
| Gender | 36 | |||||||||
| Male (27) | 45 (41-48) | Ref | 29 (23-36) | Ref | ||||||
| Female (19) | 39 (31-45) | 1.7 | 0.7 - 4.3 | 0.3 | 17 (9-26) | 2.4 | 1.2 – 5.1 | 0.02 | ||
| ECOG | 0 | |||||||||
| 0 (34) | 45 (42-49) | Ref | 28 (22-35) | Ref | 22-35 | |||||
| 1-2 (12) | 33 (25-42) | 3.2 | 1.3 – 8.2 | 0.01 | 13 (5-21) | 2.7 | 1.2 – 6.0 | 0.01 | ||
| Recurrence | 0 | |||||||||
| No (17) | 49 (46-52) | Ref | NA | |||||||
| Yes (29) | 38 (33-43) | 6.0 | 1.4 – 26.1 | 0.02 | NA | NA | ||||
| CRS | 0 | |||||||||
| 0-2 (29) | 43 (39-47) | ref | Ref | |||||||
| 3-4 (9) | 33 (23-43) | 1.8 | 0.6 – 5.2 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 0.6 – 3.4 | 0.4 | |||
| NACT | 208 | |||||||||
| No (31) | 43 (39-47) | Ref | 25 (19-32) | Ref | ||||||
| Yes (15) | 40 (33-47) | 1.4 | 0.5 – 3.6 | 0.5 | 22 (12-33) | 1.2 | 0.6 – 2.6 | 0.6 | ||
| 34 | ||||||||||
| wt (22) | 42 (37-47) | Ref | 22 (14-30) | Ref | ||||||
| mt + del (24) | 42 (37-47) | 0.9 | 0.4 – 2.3 | 0.9 | 26 (19-34) | 1.2 | 0.6 – 2.4 | 0.7 | ||
| 22 | ||||||||||
| wt (39) | 44 (40-47) | Ref | 26 (20-32) | Ref | ||||||
| mt (7) | 31 (21-42) | 3.3 | 1.2 – 9.5 | 0.02 | 17 (3-30) | 1.9 | 0.8 – 4.7 | 0.2 | ||
| 44 | ||||||||||
| wt (41) | 43 (39-46) | Ref | 24 (18-29) | Ref | ||||||
| mt (5) | 36 (20-52) | 1.3 | 0.3 – 5.8 | 0.7 | 30 (13-47) | 0.8 | 0.2 – 2.6 | 0.7 | ||
Values are given in means.
OS, overall survival; DFS, disease free survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; NACT, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; mt, mutated; wt, wild type; del, deletion of gene; DEG, differentially expressed genes; NA, not applicable. OS and DFS (months) are calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, HR and p-values are derived from Cox proportional hazard regression analysis.
Figure 4Survival outcome after liver metastasis surgery
Kaplan-Meier estimates comparing overall survival using log-rank test in patients having neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT+) or not (NACT-).