Xiangchun Li1, Boris Pasche2,3, Wei Zhang2,3, Kexin Chen4. 1. Tianjin Cancer Institute, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China. 2. Center for Cancer Genomics and Precision Oncology, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 3. Department of Cancer Biology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Abstract
Importance: MUC16, which encodes cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), is frequently mutated in gastric cancer (GC); however, its association with tumor mutation load (TML) and outcome in patients with GC has not been established, to date. Objective: To investigate whether MUC16 mutations are associated with TML and prognosis in patients with GC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Statistical analysis of genomic data from 437 GC samples obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and 256 samples from an Asian cohort. Both cohorts contained data of patients with GC involved in previous genomic studies. Data were obtained from TCGA on September 3, 2017, and from the Asian cohort on March 5, 2013, and analyzed from September 3 to December 1, 2017. The TCGA cohort was used as a discovery set and the Asian cohort as a validation set. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox and logistic regression models were applied. Regression models addressed confounding factors; Bayesian variant nonnegative matrix factorization was used to extract mutational signatures. The MutSigCV algorithm was used to identify significantly mutated genes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were mutation frequency, overall survival, and TML, calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, odds ratios (ORs), and significance of signaling pathways. Results: MUC16 was mutated in 168 of 437 (38.4%) of the GC samples from the TCGA cohort and in 57 of 256 (22.3%) from the Asian cohort. In both cohorts, GC samples with MUC16 mutations exhibited significantly greater TML than those without MUC16 mutations (median mutation counts: TCGA cohort, 264 with MUC16 mutation vs 115 without; Asian cohort, 134 with MUC16 mutation vs 74 without; Wilcoxon rank sum test, both P < .001). This association was independent of mutations in POLE and BRCA1/2 and mutational signatures in the TCGA cohort (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.49-2.36; P < .001) and the Asian cohort (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.25-2.29; P < .001). MUC16 mutations were significantly associated with better prognosis in both cohorts (median overall survival, 46.9 [95% CI, 26.4-NA (not available)] vs 26.7 [95% CI, 20.2-43.1] months; log-rank test, P = .007 [TCGA cohort] and not calculable [the median overall survival of patients with GC and MUC16 mutations could not be calculated because more than half the patients in the group were alive] vs 36.8 months; P = .04 [Asian cohort]). The association remained statistically significant after controlling for age, sex, TNM stage, mutations in POLE and BRCA1/2, and mutational signatures (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.42-0.89]; log rank test, P = .01). Immune response and cell cycle regulation circuits were among the top altered signaling pathways in samples with MUC16 mutations (normalized enrichment score, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.57-1.79] and 2.04 [95% CI, 1.90-2.18]; adjusted P < .001). The prognostic significance of MUC16 mutation identified in the TCGA cohort was validated in the Asian cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate that MUC16 mutations may be associated with higher TML, better survival outcomes, and immune response and cell cycle pathways. These findings may be immediately applicable for guiding immunotherapy treatment for patients with GC.
Importance: MUC16, which encodes cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), is frequently mutated in gastric cancer (GC); however, its association with tumor mutation load (TML) and outcome in patients with GC has not been established, to date. Objective: To investigate whether MUC16 mutations are associated with TML and prognosis in patients with GC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Statistical analysis of genomic data from 437 GC samples obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and 256 samples from an Asian cohort. Both cohorts contained data of patients with GC involved in previous genomic studies. Data were obtained from TCGA on September 3, 2017, and from the Asian cohort on March 5, 2013, and analyzed from September 3 to December 1, 2017. The TCGA cohort was used as a discovery set and the Asian cohort as a validation set. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox and logistic regression models were applied. Regression models addressed confounding factors; Bayesian variant nonnegative matrix factorization was used to extract mutational signatures. The MutSigCV algorithm was used to identify significantly mutated genes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were mutation frequency, overall survival, and TML, calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, odds ratios (ORs), and significance of signaling pathways. Results:MUC16 was mutated in 168 of 437 (38.4%) of the GC samples from the TCGA cohort and in 57 of 256 (22.3%) from the Asian cohort. In both cohorts, GC samples with MUC16 mutations exhibited significantly greater TML than those without MUC16 mutations (median mutation counts: TCGA cohort, 264 with MUC16 mutation vs 115 without; Asian cohort, 134 with MUC16 mutation vs 74 without; Wilcoxon rank sum test, both P < .001). This association was independent of mutations in POLE and BRCA1/2 and mutational signatures in the TCGA cohort (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.49-2.36; P < .001) and the Asian cohort (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.25-2.29; P < .001). MUC16 mutations were significantly associated with better prognosis in both cohorts (median overall survival, 46.9 [95% CI, 26.4-NA (not available)] vs 26.7 [95% CI, 20.2-43.1] months; log-rank test, P = .007 [TCGA cohort] and not calculable [the median overall survival of patients with GC and MUC16 mutations could not be calculated because more than half the patients in the group were alive] vs 36.8 months; P = .04 [Asian cohort]). The association remained statistically significant after controlling for age, sex, TNM stage, mutations in POLE and BRCA1/2, and mutational signatures (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.42-0.89]; log rank test, P = .01). Immune response and cell cycle regulation circuits were among the top altered signaling pathways in samples with MUC16 mutations (normalized enrichment score, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.57-1.79] and 2.04 [95% CI, 1.90-2.18]; adjusted P < .001). The prognostic significance of MUC16 mutation identified in the TCGA cohort was validated in the Asian cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate that MUC16 mutations may be associated with higher TML, better survival outcomes, and immune response and cell cycle pathways. These findings may be immediately applicable for guiding immunotherapy treatment for patients with GC.
Authors: Christiaan Klijn; Steffen Durinck; Eric W Stawiski; Peter M Haverty; Zhaoshi Jiang; Hanbin Liu; Jeremiah Degenhardt; Oleg Mayba; Florian Gnad; Jinfeng Liu; Gregoire Pau; Jens Reeder; Yi Cao; Kiran Mukhyala; Suresh K Selvaraj; Mamie Yu; Gregory J Zynda; Matthew J Brauer; Thomas D Wu; Robert C Gentleman; Gerard Manning; Robert L Yauch; Richard Bourgon; David Stokoe; Zora Modrusan; Richard M Neve; Frederic J de Sauvage; Jeffrey Settleman; Somasekar Seshagiri; Zemin Zhang Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Kexin Chen; Da Yang; Xiangchun Li; Baocun Sun; Fengju Song; Wenfeng Cao; Daniel J Brat; Zhibo Gao; Haixin Li; Han Liang; Yanrui Zhao; Hong Zheng; Miao Li; Jan Buckner; Scott D Patterson; Xiang Ye; Christoph Reinhard; Anahita Bhathena; Deepa Joshi; Paul S Mischel; Carlo M Croce; Yi Michael Wang; Sreekumar Raghavakaimal; Hui Li; Xin Lu; Yang Pan; Han Chang; Sujuan Ba; Longhai Luo; Webster K Cavenee; Wei Zhang; Xishan Hao Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Swee Seong Wong; Kyoung-Mee Kim; Jason C Ting; Kun Yu; Jake Fu; Shawn Liu; Razvan Cristescu; Michael Nebozhyn; Lara Gong; Yong Gang Yue; Jian Wang; Chen Ronghua; Andrey Loboda; James Hardwick; Xiaoqiao Liu; Hongyue Dai; Jason Gang Jin; Xiang S Ye; So Young Kang; In Gu Do; Joon Oh Park; Tae Sung Sohn; Christoph Reinhard; Jeeyun Lee; Sung Kim; Amit Aggarwal Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Matthew E Ritchie; Belinda Phipson; Di Wu; Yifang Hu; Charity W Law; Wei Shi; Gordon K Smyth Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Kai Wang; Siu Tsan Yuen; Jiangchun Xu; Siu Po Lee; Helen H N Yan; Stephanie T Shi; Hoi Cheong Siu; Shibing Deng; Kent Man Chu; Simon Law; Kok Hoe Chan; Annie S Y Chan; Wai Yin Tsui; Siu Lun Ho; Anthony K W Chan; Jonathan L K Man; Valentina Foglizzo; Man Kin Ng; April S Chan; Yick Pang Ching; Grace H W Cheng; Tao Xie; Julio Fernandez; Vivian S W Li; Hans Clevers; Paul A Rejto; Mao Mao; Suet Yi Leung Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2014-05-11 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Austin M Dulak; Petar Stojanov; Shouyong Peng; Michael S Lawrence; Cameron Fox; Chip Stewart; Santhoshi Bandla; Yu Imamura; Steven E Schumacher; Erica Shefler; Aaron McKenna; Scott L Carter; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrey Sivachenko; Gordon Saksena; Douglas Voet; Alex H Ramos; Daniel Auclair; Kristin Thompson; Carrie Sougnez; Robert C Onofrio; Candace Guiducci; Rameen Beroukhim; Zhongren Zhou; Lin Lin; Jules Lin; Rishindra Reddy; Andrew Chang; Rodney Landrenau; Arjun Pennathur; Shuji Ogino; James D Luketich; Todd R Golub; Stacey B Gabriel; Eric S Lander; David G Beer; Tony E Godfrey; Gad Getz; Adam J Bass Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-03-24 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Michael S Lawrence; Petar Stojanov; Paz Polak; Gregory V Kryukov; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrey Sivachenko; Scott L Carter; Chip Stewart; Craig H Mermel; Steven A Roberts; Adam Kiezun; Peter S Hammerman; Aaron McKenna; Yotam Drier; Lihua Zou; Alex H Ramos; Trevor J Pugh; Nicolas Stransky; Elena Helman; Jaegil Kim; Carrie Sougnez; Lauren Ambrogio; Elizabeth Nickerson; Erica Shefler; Maria L Cortés; Daniel Auclair; Gordon Saksena; Douglas Voet; Michael Noble; Daniel DiCara; Pei Lin; Lee Lichtenstein; David I Heiman; Timothy Fennell; Marcin Imielinski; Bryan Hernandez; Eran Hodis; Sylvan Baca; Austin M Dulak; Jens Lohr; Dan-Avi Landau; Catherine J Wu; Jorge Melendez-Zajgla; Alfredo Hidalgo-Miranda; Amnon Koren; Steven A McCarroll; Jaume Mora; Brian Crompton; Robert Onofrio; Melissa Parkin; Wendy Winckler; Kristin Ardlie; Stacey B Gabriel; Charles W M Roberts; Jaclyn A Biegel; Kimberly Stegmaier; Adam J Bass; Levi A Garraway; Matthew Meyerson; Todd R Golub; Dmitry A Gordenin; Shamil Sunyaev; Eric S Lander; Gad Getz Journal: Nature Date: 2013-06-16 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Mildred Felder; Arvinder Kapur; Jesus Gonzalez-Bosquet; Sachi Horibata; Joseph Heintz; Ralph Albrecht; Lucas Fass; Justanjyot Kaur; Kevin Hu; Hadi Shojaei; Rebecca J Whelan; Manish S Patankar Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 27.401
Authors: Xuefeng Wang; Xiaoqing Yu; Michael Krauthammer; Willy Hugo; Chunzhe Duan; Peter A Kanetsky; Jamie K Teer; Zachary J Thompson; Denise Kalos; Kenneth Y Tsai; Keiran S M Smalley; Vernon K Sondak; Y Ann Chen; Jose R Conejo-Garcia Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 4.254