| Literature DB >> 30952619 |
Suzy Scholl1, Marina Popovic2, Anne de la Rochefordiere3, Elodie Girard3, Sylvain Dureau3, Aljosa Mandic2, Katarina Koprivsek2, Nina Samet4, Marius Craina5, Madalin Margan5, Sanne Samuels6, Henry Zijlmans6, Gemma Kenter6, Peter Hillemanns7, Sorin Dema5, Alis Dema5, Goran Malenkovic2, Branislav Djuran2, Anne Floquet8, Delphine Garbay8, Frédéric Guyon8, Pierre Emmanuel Colombo9, Michel Fabbro9, Christine Kerr9, Charlotte Ngo10, Fabrice Lecuru10, Eleonor Rivin Del Campo11, Charles Coutant12, Frédéric Marchal13, Nathalie Mesgouez-Nebout14, Virginie Fourchotte3, Jean Guillaume Feron3, Philippe Morice15, Eric Deutsch15, Pauline Wimberger16, Jean-Marc Classe17, Noreen Gleeson18, Heiko von der Leyen19, Mathieu Minsat3, Coraline Dubot3, Pierre Gestraud3, Attila Kereszt20, Istvan Nagy20, Balazs Balint20, Els Berns21, Ekaterina Jordanova6, Nicolas de Saint-Jorre22, Alexia Savignoni3, Nicolas Servant3, Philippe Hupe3, Leanne de Koning3, Pierre Fumoleau3, Roman Rouzier3, Maud Kamal3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of information as to which molecular processes, present at diagnosis, favor tumour escape from standard-of-care treatments in cervical cancer (CC). RAIDs consortium (www.raids-fp7.eu), conducted a prospectively monitored trial, [BioRAIDs (NCT02428842)] with the objectives to generate high quality samples and molecular assessments to stratify patient populations and to identify molecular patterns associated with poor outcome.Entities:
Keywords: Bioraids study; Cervical cancers; Epigenetics pathways; PI3KCA; Patient stratification; Prospective database; Reverse phase protein array; Whole exome sequencing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30952619 PMCID: PMC6562019 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.03.069
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Treatment allocation as a function of FIGO staging.
| FIGO 2014 | FIGO 2018 | Primary treatment allocation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage | Number | Stage | Number | (%) | Surgery | Chemo radiation | NACT |
| IB1 | 34 | IB1 | 25 | 7% | 18 | 7 | 0 |
| IB2 | 62 | IB2 | 25 | 7% | 10 | 9 | 6 |
| IIA | 28 | IIA | 14 | 4% | 0 | 14 | 0 |
| IIB | 167 | IIB | 73 | 19% | 2 | 67 | 4 |
| IIIA | 11 | IIIA | 2 | 1% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| IIIB | 42 | IIIB | 18 | 5% | 0 | 17 | 1 |
| IIIC1 | 147 | 39% | 23 | 108 | 16 | ||
| IIIC2 | 40 | 11% | 1 | 28 | 11 | ||
| IVA | 18 | IVA | 18 | 5% | 1 | 11 | 6 |
| IVB | 15 | IVB | 15 | 4% | 1 | 1 | 13 |
| TOTAL | 377 | 377 | 100% | 56 | 263 | 58 | |
Fig. 1Oncoprints are presented, showing the most frequently altered (higher than 5% of the cohort) oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes, combining both small and large-scale variations together with clinical information (WES and target panel combined), using the R package Complex Heatmap (v1.17.1). Each column represents a patient. Key oncogene and tumour suppressor gene alterations are listed by name (right column), by frequency in the population (left column), by alteration type (colour code) by each clinical data detail for each individual patient (heading). Headings define the type of mutational analysis (full exome or targeted 607 gene panel), the tumour mutational burden (high/low; cut-off = 8mutations/Mb), the HPV clade (7, 9, other), the histological type (squamous, adenocarcinoma, other), first treatment received (surgery, chemoradiation, NACT), node status (positive/negative), FIGO stage (2014) not taking into account lymph node involvement and regrouped into I-II versus III-IV. Quantile PFS ordered by time interval from start to date of progression: 1. PD prior to 6 Mo, 2. 6–12 Mo, 3. 12–18 Mo, 4. DFS at last follow up.
PFS according to clinical and tumour characteristics.
| HR | IC95%(HR) | HR | IC95%(HR) | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0·47 | |||||
| <50 | 1 | |||||
| ≥50 | 1·14 | [0·79; 1·65] | ||||
| Tobacco consumption | 0·62 | |||||
| Never | 1 | |||||
| Yes. current or past (>1PA) | 0·91 | [0·63; 1·31] | ||||
| BMI | 0·01 | 0·03 | ||||
| <25 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| ≥25 | 0·63 | [0·43; 0·91] | 0·66 | [0·45; 0·96] | ||
| ECOG | 0·002 | 0·04 | ||||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1–2 | 2·10 | [1·32; 3·28] | 1·70 | [1·04; 2·77] | ||
| Histological type | 0·73 | |||||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 1 | |||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 1·11 | [0·65; 1·88] | ||||
| Adenosquamous. clear cell. mixed + undifferentiated | 0·75 | [0·30; 1·84] | ||||
| Hemoglobin (g/dl) | 0·06 | 0·34 | ||||
| ≤10 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| >10 | 0·61 | [0·37; 1·01] | 0·76 | [0·44; 1·32] | ||
| FIGO 2014 | <0·001 | |||||
| I | 1 | |||||
| II | 1·87 | [1·09; 3·22] | ||||
| III | 4·90 | [2·66; 9·02] | ||||
| IV | 3·64 | [1·83; 7·21] | ||||
| FIGO 2018 (integrates lymph nodes status under IIIC) | <0·001 | 0·004 | ||||
| I | 1 | 1 | ||||
| II | 2·14 | [0·86; 5·35] | 1·83 | [0·72; 4·63] | ||
| III | 4·04 | [1·76; 9·29] | 3·25 | [1·40; 7·57] | ||
| IV | 5·71 | [2·23; 14·60] | 3·46 | [1·28; 9·31] | ||
| HPV type (based on hybridisation test) | 0·17 | 0·56 | ||||
| Clade 9 (HPV 16.31.33.35.52.58) | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Clade 7 (HPV 18.39.45.59.68) | 1·47 | [0·96;2·24] | 1·32 | [0·85; 2·05] | ||
| Others or Negatives | 1·38 | [0·76; 2·52] | 1·30 | [0·69; 2·44] | ||
Fig. 2Progression free survival according to the presence/absence of alterations in a METAGENE composed of any of the following alterations in the PI3K pathway and/or in Enzymes involved in Epigenetic Signaling. The list of genes included in this analysis was predominantly (but not exclusively) oncogenes from the Tyrosine Kinase receptor/PI3K pathway: PI3KCA and PI3KCB mutations as well as PTEN in association with the following (predominantly suppressor) genes with loss of function alterations in Epigenetic enzymes: KMT2C, KMT2D, KMT2A, KDM5C, EP300, CREBBP, ARID1A, ARID2, ATRX.
Fig. 3Progression free survival by RPPA analysis from the total evaluable population with available RPPA data (n = 136). Comparison of outcome of cluster “EMT” (Red) versus pooled gene expression clusters of DNA damage and MAPK/PI3K signaling (Blue), suggests a poorer PFS for the patients whose tumours showed EMT associated gene expression. Gene expression of epigenetically active enzymes was not assessed. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)