Literature DB >> 29978035

Migrating the SNP array-based homologous recombination deficiency measures to next generation sequencing data of breast cancer.

Zsofia Sztupinszki1, Miklos Diossy1, Marcin Krzystanek1, Lilla Reiniger2,3, István Csabai4, Francesco Favero5, Nicolai J Birkbak6,7, Aron C Eklund1, Ali Syed8, Zoltan Szallasi1,3,9,10.   

Abstract

The first genomic scar-based homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) measures were produced using SNP arrays. As array-based technology has been largely replaced by next generation sequencing approaches, it has become important to develop algorithms that derive the same type of genomic scar scores from next generation sequencing (whole exome "WXS", whole genome "WGS") data. In order to perform this analysis, we introduce here the scarHRD R package and show that using this method the SNP array-based and next generation sequencing-based derivation of HRD scores show good correlation (Pearson correlation between 0.73 and 0.87 depending on the actual HRD measure) and that the NGS-based HRD scores distinguish similarly well between BRCA mutant and BRCA wild-type cases in a cohort of triple-negative breast cancer patients of the TCGA data set.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 29978035      PMCID: PMC6028448          DOI: 10.1038/s41523-018-0066-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer        ISSN: 2374-4677


Introduction

Reliable quantification of homologous recombination deficiency of human tumor biopsies, especially in the case of ovarian and breast cancer, is expected to identify patients that are particularly sensitive to platinum or PARP inhibitor-based therapy.[1] Before the widespread introduction of next generation sequencing (NGS) to characterize tumor biopsies, SNP arrays were used to identify large-scale genomic aberrations associated with homologous recombination deficiency, often induced by the loss of BRCA1 or BRCA2 function. Three such measures were identified: telomeric allelic imbalance (HRD-TAI score),[2] loss of heterozygosity profiles (HRD-LOH score),[3] and large-scale state transitions (HRD-LST score).[4] These three measures have also been combined into a single summary measure of HR deficiency.[5] The HRD-LOH score has also become an integral part of a recently published, whole-genome sequencing-based measure of homologous recombination deficiency, HRDetect.[6] These measures, along with functional assays,[7] showed promise to identify HR-deficient cases and thus predict response to platinum or PARP inhibitor therapy.[2,8,9] Since NGS has become the main genomic characterization method of cancer biopsies, it has become essential to migrate the SNP array-based methodology to NGS-based platforms. TCGA breast cancer biopsies have been both SNP array profiled and subjected to NGS allowing a direct comparison.[8]

Results and discussion

We found good correlation between the SNP array-based and NGS-based HRD scores (Fig. 1). When comparing the results of the scarHRD R package to SNP array-based measurements, we found the following Pearson correlation coefficients: number of telomeric allelic imbalances (NtAI): r = 0.84 (R2 = 0.70, adjusted R2 = 0.70, p < 2.2e–16), large-scale transition (LST) r = 0.79 (R2 = 0.62, adjusted R2 = 0.62, p < 2.2e–16) loss of heterozygosity (HRD−LOH) r = 0.73 (R2 = 0.53, adjusted R2 = 0.52, p < 2.2e–16). These three measures are often combined for diagnostic purposes[5] and in HRDetect.[6] Therefore, we also compared the sum of the three scores across the two platforms (HRD sum): r = 0.87 (R2 = 0.75, adjusted R2 = 0.75, p < 2.2e–16) (Fig. 1). The artificial reduction of coverage to 30× did not affect this correlation (Supplementary Material, Figure S7-S8). The BRCA1/2-mutated samples showed significantly higher NGS-based HRD-sum values (Fig. 2, Supplementary Figure S6). The predictive value of HRD-sum, measured as AUC value of the corresponding ROC curve, was 80.8% (Supplementary Figure S2).
Fig. 1

Correlation between Affymetrix SNP 6.0 array-based and whole exome sequencing-based measurements of homologous recombination deficiency (telomeric allelic imbalance, loss of heterozygosity, large-scale transitions, and the sum of these estimates)

Fig. 2

Distribution of HRD-sum values in BRCA1/2 deficient and in BRCA1/2 intact triple-negative breast cancer samples from TCGA. HRD-sum values were determined with the scarHRD R package

Correlation between Affymetrix SNP 6.0 array-based and whole exome sequencing-based measurements of homologous recombination deficiency (telomeric allelic imbalance, loss of heterozygosity, large-scale transitions, and the sum of these estimates) Distribution of HRD-sum values in BRCA1/2 deficient and in BRCA1/2 intact triple-negative breast cancer samples from TCGA. HRD-sum values were determined with the scarHRD R package There was no significant difference in SNP versus WXS-based estimation of tAI, LST, and HRD-sum, but the number of LOH events were significantly lower in the WXS-based estimation (p = 0.012, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). This could be attributed to differences in segmentation algorithm (the more segmented the WXS data is the lower number of LOHs that are called) or to low sample quality, coverage. However, when comparing the ROC curves for BRCA1/2 status of the SNP-based and WXS-based HRD-score, there was no significant difference between the SNP array-based and NGS-based methods. (Supplementary Figure S3). According to our expectations and previous results the BRCA1/2-deficient cases showed higher values for each of the four scores (Supplementary Figure S4-S5). The sum of the three HRD scores showed good correlation across the two platforms. Thus in more advanced NGS-based HR deficiency measures such as HRDetect, the SNP array-based step could be replaced by an NGS-based estimate of the HR deficiency scores.

Brief description of the methods

Based on receptor status determined by immunohistochemistry, 139 paired tumor and normal samples of the TCGA breast cancer cohort could be classified as triple-negative breast cancer. From these patients 95 had Affymetrix SNP 6.0 array-based HRD estimates (LOH, TAI, LST), previously published by our group.[10] In this publication we present the scarHRD R package (https://github.com/sztup/scarHRD) which estimates the level of the three HR deficiency measures using NGS data. A sample’s LOH score is the total number of LOH regions across the entire genome that are larger than 15 Mb but do not cover whole chromosomes. In the original publication this 15 Mb lower limit for LOH was determined by comparing SNP array profiles between BRCA mutant and BRCA wild-type cases.[3] We performed a similar analysis using NGS data and found that the original 15 Mb cutoff performed best in this case as well (Supplementary Figure S1). The LST is defined as a chromosomal break between adjacent regions of at least 10 Mb, with a distance between them not larger than 3 Mb. The number of telomeric allelic imbalances is the number of AIs (the unequal contribution of parental allele sequences with or without changes in the overall copy number of the region) that extend to the telomeric end of a chromosome. Allele-specific copy number estimation is a crucial part of estimating HR deficiency. As previously shown, allele-specific copy number estimation from NGS data performed using the Sequenza R package show high agreement with SNP array-based copy number profiles.[11] The scarHRD package is, therefore, able to use Sequenza preprocessed files as well as other allele-specific segmentation files in the same format. As it has been previously shown that in ovarian cancer the sum of the genomic scar scores is elevated in BRCA-deficient cancers,[5] an additional aim of our study was to compare the unweighted numeric sum of LOH, tAI, and LST, called here HRD-sum, to the BRCA1/2 status of the patients. A sample was classified as BRCA-deficient if (1) there was a deep deletion of BRCA1/2, (2) a germline and a somatic mutation in BRCA1/2 with LOH, or (3) if LOH had co-occurred with promoter methylation in one of the BRCA1/2 genes. The somatic mutation status (mutations with likely pathogenic function) and methylation data was acquired from the TCGA data portal. The germline mutation status was determined using HaplotypeCaller, and was annotated with Intervar,[12] likely pathogenic mutations and frameshift insertion/deletion with unknown significance were used in our analysis. LOH was determined using Sequenza’s allele-specific segmentation results (Supplementary Table S1).

Data availability

The data sets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

The code/algorithm for performing the experiments is available for download at https://github.com/sztup/scarHRD. Supplementary Material
  12 in total

1.  HRDetect is a predictor of BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficiency based on mutational signatures.

Authors:  Helen Davies; Dominik Glodzik; Sandro Morganella; Lucy R Yates; Johan Staaf; Xueqing Zou; Manasa Ramakrishna; Sancha Martin; Sandrine Boyault; Anieta M Sieuwerts; Peter T Simpson; Tari A King; Keiran Raine; Jorunn E Eyfjord; Gu Kong; Åke Borg; Ewan Birney; Hendrik G Stunnenberg; Marc J van de Vijver; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; John W M Martens; Paul N Span; Sunil R Lakhani; Anne Vincent-Salomon; Christos Sotiriou; Andrew Tutt; Alastair M Thompson; Steven Van Laere; Andrea L Richardson; Alain Viari; Peter J Campbell; Michael R Stratton; Serena Nik-Zainal
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 53.440

2.  Ploidy and large-scale genomic instability consistently identify basal-like breast carcinomas with BRCA1/2 inactivation.

Authors:  Tatiana Popova; Elodie Manié; Guillaume Rieunier; Virginie Caux-Moncoutier; Carole Tirapo; Thierry Dubois; Olivier Delattre; Brigitte Sigal-Zafrani; Marc Bollet; Michel Longy; Claude Houdayer; Xavier Sastre-Garau; Anne Vincent-Salomon; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Marc-Henri Stern
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 12.701

3.  Bi-allelic alterations in DNA repair genes underpin homologous recombination DNA repair defects in breast cancer.

Authors:  Robert W Mutter; Nadeem Riaz; Charlotte Ky Ng; Rob Delsite; Salvatore Piscuoglio; Marcia Edelweiss; Luciano G Martelotto; Rita A Sakr; Tari A King; Dilip D Giri; Maria Drobnjak; Edi Brogi; Ranjit Bindra; Giana Bernheim; Raymond S Lim; Pedro Blecua; Alexis Desrichard; Dan Higginson; Russell Towers; Ruomu Jiang; William Lee; Britta Weigelt; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Simon N Powell
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 7.996

4.  Niraparib Maintenance Therapy in Platinum-Sensitive, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Mansoor R Mirza; Bradley J Monk; Jørn Herrstedt; Amit M Oza; Sven Mahner; Andrés Redondo; Michel Fabbro; Jonathan A Ledermann; Domenica Lorusso; Ignace Vergote; Noa E Ben-Baruch; Christian Marth; Radosław Mądry; René D Christensen; Jonathan S Berek; Anne Dørum; Anna V Tinker; Andreas du Bois; Antonio González-Martín; Philippe Follana; Benedict Benigno; Per Rosenberg; Lucy Gilbert; Bobbie J Rimel; Joseph Buscema; John P Balser; Shefali Agarwal; Ursula A Matulonis
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  BRCAness revisited.

Authors:  Christopher J Lord; Alan Ashworth
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2016-01-18       Impact factor: 60.716

6.  Homologous Recombination Deficiency and Platinum-Based Therapy Outcomes in Advanced Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Eric Y Zhao; Yaoqing Shen; Erin Pleasance; Katayoon Kasaian; Sreeja Leelakumari; Martin Jones; Pinaki Bose; Carolyn Ch'ng; Caralyn Reisle; Peter Eirew; Richard Corbett; Karen L Mungall; Nina Thiessen; Yussanne Ma; Jacqueline E Schein; Andrew J Mungall; Yongjun Zhao; Richard A Moore; Wendie Den Brok; Sheridan Wilson; Diego Villa; Tamara Shenkier; Caroline Lohrisch; Stephen Chia; Stephen Yip; Karen Gelmon; Howard Lim; Daniel Renouf; Sophie Sun; Kasmintan A Schrader; Sean Young; Ian Bosdet; Aly Karsan; Janessa Laskin; Marco A Marra; Steven J M Jones
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  Telomeric allelic imbalance indicates defective DNA repair and sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents.

Authors:  Nicolai J Birkbak; Zhigang C Wang; Daniel P Silver; Zoltan Szallasi; Andrea L Richardson; Ji-Young Kim; Aron C Eklund; Qiyuan Li; Ruiyang Tian; Christian Bowman-Colin; Yang Li; April Greene-Colozzi; J Dirk Iglehart; Nadine Tung; Paula D Ryan; Judy E Garber
Journal:  Cancer Discov       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 39.397

8.  Patterns of genomic loss of heterozygosity predict homologous recombination repair defects in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  V Abkevich; K M Timms; B T Hennessy; J Potter; M S Carey; L A Meyer; K Smith-McCune; R Broaddus; K H Lu; J Chen; T V Tran; D Williams; D Iliev; S Jammulapati; L M FitzGerald; T Krivak; J A DeLoia; A Gutin; G B Mills; J S Lanchbury
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Pan-cancer analysis of genomic scar signatures associated with homologous recombination deficiency suggests novel indications for existing cancer drugs.

Authors:  Andrea M Marquard; Aron C Eklund; Tejal Joshi; Marcin Krzystanek; Francesco Favero; Zhigang C Wang; Andrea L Richardson; Daniel P Silver; Zoltan Szallasi; Nicolai J Birkbak
Journal:  Biomark Res       Date:  2015-05-01

10.  Sequenza: allele-specific copy number and mutation profiles from tumor sequencing data.

Authors:  F Favero; T Joshi; A M Marquard; N J Birkbak; M Krzystanek; Q Li; Z Szallasi; A C Eklund
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 32.976

View more
  44 in total

1.  Clinical Outcome of Leiomyosarcomas With Somatic Alteration in Homologous Recombination Pathway Genes.

Authors:  Evan Rosenbaum; Philip Jonsson; Kenneth Seier; Li-Xuan Qin; Ping Chi; Mark Dickson; Mrinal Gounder; Ciara Kelly; Mary L Keohan; Benjamin Nacev; Mark T A Donoghue; Sarah Chiang; Samuel Singer; Marc Ladanyi; Cristina R Antonescu; Martee L Hensley; Sujana Movva; Sandra P D'Angelo; William D Tap
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2020-11-06

2.  Pan-cancer analysis reveals homologous recombination deficiency score as a predictive marker for immunotherapy responders.

Authors:  Can Yang; Zijing Zhang; Xuemei Tang; Xinju Zhang; Yuming Chen; Tingting Hu; Huating Zhang; Ming Guan; Xiuming Zhang; Zhiyuan Wu
Journal:  Hum Cell       Date:  2021-10-10       Impact factor: 4.174

3.  Discovery and validation of a transcriptional signature identifying homologous recombination-deficient breast, endometrial and ovarian cancers.

Authors:  Pierre-Alexandre Just; Marie-Aude Le Frere Belda; Anne-Sophie Bats; Bruno Borghese; Jérôme Alexandre; Guillaume Beinse; Pierre Laurent-Puig; Sebastien Jacques; Meriem Koual; Simon Garinet; Karen Leroy; Nicolas Delanoy; Helene Blons; Claire Gervais; Catherine Durdux; Charles Chapron; François Goldwasser; Benoit Terris; Cecile Badoual; Valerie Taly
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2022-06-25       Impact factor: 9.075

4.  HRD-MILN: Accurately estimate tumor homologous recombination deficiency status from targeted panel sequencing data.

Authors:  Xuwen Wang; Ying Xu; Yinbin Zhang; Shenjie Wang; Xuanping Zhang; Xin Yi; Shuqun Zhang; Jiayin Wang
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-09-28       Impact factor: 4.772

5.  Pan-cancer analysis of genomic scar patterns caused by homologous repair deficiency (HRD).

Authors:  E Rempel; K Kluck; S Beck; A Stenzinger; J Budczies; I Ourailidis; D Kazdal; O Neumann; A L Volckmar; M Kirchner; H Goldschmid; N Pfarr; W Weichert; D Hübschmann; S Fröhling; C Sutter; C P Schaaf; P Schirmacher; V Endris
Journal:  NPJ Precis Oncol       Date:  2022-06-09

6.  Detection of Molecular Signatures of Homologous Recombination Deficiency in Bladder Cancer.

Authors:  Judit Börcsök; Miklos Diossy; Zsofia Sztupinszki; Aurel Prosz; Viktoria Tisza; Sandor Spisak; Orsolya Rusz; Dag R Stormoen; Helle Pappot; Istvan Csabai; Søren Brunak; Kent W Mouw; Zoltan Szallasi
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 13.801

7.  Genetically Defined Syngeneic Mouse Models of Ovarian Cancer as Tools for the Discovery of Combination Immunotherapy.

Authors:  Sonia Iyer; Shuang Zhang; Simge Yucel; Heiko Horn; Sean G Smith; Ferenc Reinhardt; Esmee Hoefsmit; Bimarzhan Assatova; Julia Casado; Marie-Charlotte Meinsohn; M Inmaculada Barrasa; George W Bell; Fernando Pérez-Villatoro; Kaisa Huhtinen; Johanna Hynninen; Jaana Oikkonen; Pamoda M Galhenage; Shailja Pathania; Paula T Hammond; Benjamin G Neel; Anniina Farkkila; David Pépin; Robert A Weinberg
Journal:  Cancer Discov       Date:  2020-11-06       Impact factor: 39.397

Review 8.  Multi-Gene Testing Overview with a Clinical Perspective in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Martina Dameri; Lorenzo Ferrando; Gabriella Cirmena; Claudio Vernieri; Giancarlo Pruneri; Alberto Ballestrero; Gabriele Zoppoli
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 5.923

9.  CXCL10 potentiates immune checkpoint blockade therapy in homologous recombination-deficient tumors.

Authors:  Zhiwen Shi; Jianfeng Shen; Junjun Qiu; Qingguo Zhao; Keqin Hua; Hongyan Wang
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 11.556

10.  Genomic Landscape of Chinese Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients With Venous Tumor Thrombus Identifies Chromosome 9 and 14 Deletions and Related Immunosuppressive Microenvironment.

Authors:  Shaoxi Niu; Kan Liu; Yong Xu; Cheng Peng; Yao Yu; Qingbo Huang; Shengpan Wu; Bo Cui; Yan Huang; Xin Ma; Xu Zhang; Baojun Wang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.