| Literature DB >> 30115035 |
Tomoya Yokota1, Masakuni Serizawa2, Ayumu Hosokawa3, Kimihide Kusafuka4, Keita Mori5, Toshiro Sugiyama3, Yasuhiro Tsubosa6, Yasuhiro Koh7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practical and reliable genotyping procedures with a considerable number of samples are required not only for risk-adapted therapeutic strategies, but also for stratifying patients into future clinical trials for molecular-targeting drugs. Recent advances in mutation testing, including next-generation sequencing, have led to the increased use of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. We evaluated gene alteration profiles of cancer-related genes in esophageal cancer patients and correlated them with clinicopathological features, such as smoking status and survival outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Esophageal cancer; Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue; Next-generation sequencing; PIK3CA mutation; Prognostic factors
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30115035 PMCID: PMC6097210 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4733-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Venn diagram representing the number of nonsynonymous mutations in the samples with ΔCt < 1.55 and ΔCt ≥ 1.55. Each Venn diagram represents the number of nonsynonymous mutations reported in the COSMIC version 71 database with coverage ≥250, frequency ≥ 5%. In the samples with ΔCt < 1.55, nonsynonymous mutations with non-UDG pretreatment were selected (a), whereas those with UDG pretreatment were selected in the samples with ΔCt ≥ 1.55 (b)
Patient characteristics according to smoking history (n = 126)
| Smoking status | 0 ( | 1 ( | 2 ( | 3 ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median age (range) | 63 (44–73) | 64 (46–75) | 63 (42–76) | 64 (46–79) | ** 0.3949 |
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 10 | 20 | 25 | 57 | *0.04537 |
| Female | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | |
| Location | |||||
| Ce | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | *0.02068 |
| Ut | 4 | 3 | 1 | 6 | |
| Mt | 4 | 6 | 18 | 21 | |
| Lt | 5 | 13 | 7 | 28 | |
| Ae | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | |
| Histology | |||||
| SCC | 14 | 21 | 28 | 53 | *0.642 |
| Others | 0 | 1 | 2 | 7 | |
| TNM (UICC6th) | |||||
| T1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | *0.163 |
| T2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| T3 | 11 | 18 | 30 | 54 | |
| T4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| N0 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 10 | *0.1923 |
| N1 | 10 | 17 | 19 | 50 | |
| M0 | 11 | 18 | 24 | 51 | *0.7328 |
| M1a | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |
| M1b | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | |
| Adjuvant | |||||
| NAC | 6 | 11 | 17 | 31 | *0.8629 |
| No NAC | 8 | 11 | 13 | 29 | |
| HER2 | |||||
| > median | 4 | 12 | 17 | 31 | *0.357 |
| < median | 10 | 10 | 13 | 29 | |
| MET | |||||
| > median | 5 | 13 | 16 | 33 | *0.5689 |
| < median | 9 | 9 | 14 | 27 | |
| EGFR | |||||
| > median | 6 | 10 | 14 | 32 | *0.8578 |
| < median | 8 | 12 | 16 | 28 | |
| ALK | |||||
| > median | 6 | 14 | 13 | 29 | *0.4895 |
| < median | 8 | 8 | 17 | 31 | |
| HGF | |||||
| > median | 4 | 9 | 14 | 34 | *0.2289 |
| < median | 10 | 13 | 16 | 26 | |
| TP53 | |||||
| Wild type | 7 | 8 | 7 | 20 | *0.372 |
| Mutation | 7 | 14 | 23 | 40 | |
| APC | |||||
| Wild type | 14 | 20 | 26 | 53 | *0.6702 |
| Mutation | 0 | 2 | 4 | 7 | |
| PIK3CA | |||||
| Wild type | 14 | 16 | 28 | 54 | *0.06858 |
| Mutation | 0 | 6 | 2 | 6 | |
| FBXW7 | |||||
| Wild type | 14 | 19 | 27 | 56 | *0.516 |
| Mutation | 0 | 3 | 3 | 4 | |
| BRAF | |||||
| Wild type | 14 | 20 | 28 | 55 | *0.8769 |
| Mutation | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 | |
Cumulative smoking dose: pack-years (PY) = Packs/day × years of smoking
Smoking status 0: non-smoker, Smoking status 1: 0 < PY < 20, Smoking status 2: 20 < PY < 40, Smoking status 3: 40 < PY
Abbreviation: Ce cervical esophageal cancer, Ut upper thoracic esophageal cancer, Mt middle thoracic esophageal cancer, Lt lower thoracic esophageal cancer, Ae abdominal esophageal cancer, SCC squamous cell carcinoma, NAC neoadjuvant chemotherapy
* Fisher’s exact test, ** Wilcoxon test
Fig. 2Genome-wide mutational landscape of ESCC identified by whole-exome sequencing (n = 126). a Number of total nonsynonymous mutations in individuals is illustrated in the bar graph. b Left, mutations in a selection of frequently mutated genes, arranged vertically by functional group and colored by the type of gene alteration. Samples are displayed as columns. Right, the percentage of individuals with somatic alterations that targeted each gene. c Smoking status is represented by cumulative exposure doses measured by pack years
Fig. 3Frequency of somatic mutations with base substitution in non/light smoker (n = 36) and smokers (n = 90). Frequencies of somatic mutations are shown for indicated genes in (a) non/light smokers (smoking status 0 + 1) and (b) smokers (smoking status 2 + 3). Deletions, insertions, and six types of point mutations are differentially shown by colors
Factors associated with overall survival in univariate and multivariate analyses
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis (including all variables) | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors | Category | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Age | ≥65 (vs. < 65) | 1.11 (0.68–1.79) | 0.68 | 1.25 (0.74–2.11) | 0.40 | ||
| Male | Male (vs. Female) | 2.36 (0.86–6.49) | 0.096 | 2.48 (0.86–7.20) | 0.094 | 2.30 (0.83–6.36) | 0.11 |
| Smoking status | 2–3 (vs 0–1) | 1.22 (0.71–2.13) | 0.47 | 0.74 (0.40–1.36) | 0.33 | ||
| cT | T3 (vs. T1, T2) | 4.25 (1.04–17.41) | 0.044 | 5.23 (1.19–23.00) | 0.029 | 4.30 (1.04–17.70) | 0.044 |
| cN | N1 (vs. N0) | 1.52 (0.84–2.75) | 0.16 | 1.12 (0.57–2.19) | 0.75 | ||
| NAC | Without (vs. with) | 1.01 (0.62–1.65) | 0.97 | 0.88 (0.52–1.50) | 0.65 | ||
| HER2 | >median (vs. <median) | 0.93 (0.57–1.50) | 0.76 | 0.92 (0.54–1.55) | 0.75 | ||
| MET | >median (vs. <median) | 0.75 (0.46–1.21) | 0.24 | 0.74 (0.44–1.27) | 0.28 | ||
| EGFR | >median (vs. <median) | 0.99 (0.61–1.60) | 0.97 | 0.95 (0.56–1.62) | 0.86 | ||
| ALK | >median (vs. <median) | 1.17 (0.72–1.89) | 0.52 | 1.14 (0.68–1.92) | 0.61 | ||
| HGF | >median (vs. <median) | 1.29 (0.80–2.09) | 0.29 | 1.34 (0.77–2.33) | 0.29 | ||
| p53 | Mutation (vs. wild type) | 1.72 (0.98–3.03) | 0.059 | 1.51 (0.82–2.81) | 0.19 | 1.55 (0.88–2.73) | 0.13 |
| PIK3CA | Mutation (vs. wild type) | 0.40 (0.14–1.10) | 0.077 | 0.28 (0.09–0.90) | 0.033 | 0.34 (0.12–0.96) | 0.042 |
| APC | Mutation (vs. wild type) | 0.87 (0.40–1.90) | 0.72 | 0.81 (0.23–2.86) | 0.74 | ||
| ERBB4 | Mutation (vs. wild type) | 0.63 (0.23–1.73) | 0.37 | 0.91 (0.27–3.10) | 0.88 | ||
| FBXW7 | Mutation (vs. wild type) | 0.56 (0.20–1.54) | 0.26 | 0.43 (0.13–1.44) | 0.17 | ||
| BRAF | Mutation (vs. wild type) | 0.99 (0.40–2.47) | 0.99 | 1.83 (0.56–6.04) | 0.32 | ||
| RB1 | Mutation (vs. wild type) | 1.03 (0.41–2.57) | 0.95 | 1.79 (0.52–6.11) | 0.35 | ||
Abbreviations: HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, cT clinical T, cN clinical N
Fig. 4Kaplan-Meier plot showing overall survival in esophageal cancer patients according to PIK3CA mutational status (n = 126)
PIK3CA status and associated clinicopathological factors (n = 126)
| Variable | PIK3CA mutant | PIK3CA wild type | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | ||
| Age | |||||
| < 65 | 7 | 50.0 | 63 | 56.3 | 0.7776 |
| ≥ 65 | 7 | 50.0 | 49 | 43.8 | |
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 13 | 92.9 | 99 | 88.4 | 1.0000 |
| Female | 1 | 7.1 | 13 | 11.6 | |
| Smoking status | |||||
| 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 14 | 12.5 | |
| 1 | 6 | 42.9 | 16 | 14.3 | 0.06858 |
| 2 | 2 | 14.3 | 28 | 25.0 | |
| 3 | 6 | 42.9 | 54 | 48.2 | |
| Location | |||||
| Ce | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 1.8 | 0.9269 |
| Ut | 1 | 7.1 | 13 | 11.6 | |
| Mt | 6 | 42.9 | 43 | 38.4 | |
| Lt | 7 | 50.0 | 46 | 41.1 | |
| Ae | 0 | 0.0 | 8 | 7.1 | |
| Histology | |||||
| SCC | 14 | 100.0 | 102 | 91.1 | 0.6007 |
| Others | 0 | 0.0 | 10 | 8.9 | |
| TNM (UICC6th) | |||||
| T1 | 0 | 0.0 | 5 | 4.5 | 0.2775 |
| T2 | 1 | 7.1 | 5 | 4.5 | |
| T3 | 12 | 85.7 | 101 | 90.2 | |
| T4 | 1 | 7.1 | 1 | 0.9 | |
| N0 | 4 | 28.6 | 26 | 23.2 | 0.7402 |
| N1 | 10 | 71.4 | 86 | 76.8 | |
| M0 | 11 | 78.6 | 93 | 83.0 | 0.4465 |
| M1a | 2 | 14.3 | 7 | 6.3 | |
| M1b | 1 | 7.1 | 12 | 10.7 | |
| Adjuvant | |||||
| NAC | 7 | 50.0 | 58 | 51.8 | 1.0000 |
| No NAC | 7 | 50.0 | 54 | 48.2 | |
| HER2 | |||||
| > median | 9 | 64.3 | 55 | 49.1 | 0.3969 |
| < median | 5 | 35.7 | 57 | 50.9 | |
| MET | |||||
| > median | 6 | 42.9 | 61 | 54.5 | 0.5715 |
| < median | 8 | 57.1 | 51 | 45.5 | |
| EGFR | |||||
| > median | 5 | 35.7 | 57 | 50.9 | 0.3969 |
| < median | 9 | 64.3 | 55 | 49.1 | |
| ALK | |||||
| > median | 7 | 50.0 | 55 | 49.1 | 1.0000 |
| < median | 7 | 50.0 | 57 | 50.9 | |
| HGF | |||||
| > median | 6 | 42.9 | 55 | 49.1 | 0.7796 |
| < median | 8 | 57.1 | 57 | 50.9 | |
| TP53 | |||||
| Wild type | 4 | 28.6 | 38 | 33.9 | 0.7728 |
| Mutation | 10 | 71.4 | 74 | 66.1 | |
| APC | |||||
| Wild type | 8 | 57.1 | 105 | 93.8 | 0.0007 |
| Mutation | 6 | 42.9 | 7 | 6.3 | |
| ERBB4 | |||||
| Wild type | 12 | 85.7 | 104 | 92.9 | 0.3070 |
| Mutation | 2 | 14.3 | 8 | 7.1 | |
| FBXW7 | |||||
| Wild type | 12 | 85.7 | 104 | 92.9 | 0.3070 |
| Mutation | 2 | 14.3 | 8 | 7.1 | |
| BRAF | |||||
| Wild type | 10 | 71.4 | 107 | 95.5 | 0.0090 |
| Mutation | 4 | 28.6 | 5 | 4.5 | |
| RB1 | |||||
| Wild type | 11 | 78.6 | 106 | 94.6 | 0.0618 |
| Mutation | 3 | 21.4 | 6 | 5.4 | |
Prognostic significance of PIK3CA alterations in esophageal cancer
| Author | Sample size (N) | Histology | Type of PIK3CA alterations | Frequency (%) | Prognostic effect | HR (95% CI) | Material | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maeng et al. (2012) [ | 80 | ESCC | Exon 9 and 20 mutations | 11.5 | N.S. | NA | Primary& Metastatic sites FFPE | Mass-spectrometry based assay |
| Shigaki et al. (2013) [ | 219 | ESCC | Exon 9 and 20 mutations | 21 | Favorable OS | 0.35 (0.10–0.90) | Surgically resected FFPE | Pyrosequencing |
| Hou et al. (2014) [ | 96 | ESCC | Exon 9 and 20 mutations | 12.5 | Trend towards favorable OS | NA | Surgically resected FFPE | Mutant enriched PCR method |
| Wang et al. (2014) [ | 406 | ESCC | Exon 9 mutations | 7.4 | N.S. | 1.256 (0.748–2.108) | Surgically resected FFPE | Direct sequencing |
| Kim et al. (2016) [ | 534 | ESCC | Amplification | 10.5 | Trend towards unfavorable OS | 1.21 (0.83–1.77) | Surgically resected FFPE | Fluorescent in situ hybridization |
| 388 | Exon 9 and 20 mutations | 1.5 | N.S. | NA | Direct sequencing | |||
| Liu et al. (2017) [ | 210 | ESCC | Exon 9 mutations | 22.9 | Favorable OS | NA | Surgically resected FFPE | Pyrosequencing |
| Current study | 126 | Mostly ESCC | Exon 9 and 20 mutations | 11.1 | Favorable OS | 0.34 (0.12–0.96) | Surgically resected FFPE | MPS with TSACP |
| Amplification | 2.4 | N.S. | 2.66 (0.64–11.05) |
Abbreviations: OS overall survival, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, NA not available, FFPE formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded, N.S. not significant, ESCC esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, MPS massively parallel sequencing, TSACP TruSeq® Amplicon Cancer Panel