BACKGROUND: Little is known about the genomic differences between metastatic urothelial carcinoma (LTUC) and upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). We compare genomic features of primary and metastatic UTUC and LTUC tumors in a cohort of patients with end stage disease. METHODS: We performed whole exome sequencing on matched primary and metastatic tumor samples (N=37) from 7 patients with metastatic UC collected via rapid autopsy. Inter- and intra-patient mutational burden, mutational signatures, predicted deleterious mutations, and somatic copy alterations (sCNV) were analyzed. RESULTS: We investigated 3 patients with UTUC (3 primary samples, 13 metastases) and 4 patients with LTUC (4 primary samples, 17 metastases). We found that sSNV burden was higher in metastatic LTUC compared to UTUC. Moreover, the APOBEC mutational signature was pervasive in metastatic LTUC and less so in UTUC. Despite a lower overall sSNV burden, UTUC displayed greater inter- and intra-individual genomic distances at the copy number level between primary and metastatic tumors than LTUC. Our data also indicate that metastatic UTUC lesions can arise from small clonal populations present in the primary cancer. Importantly, putative druggable mutations were found across patients with the majority shared across all metastases within a patient. CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic UTUC demonstrated a lower overall mutational burden but greater structural variability compared to LTUC. Our findings suggest that metastatic UTUC displays a greater spectrum of copy number divergence from LTUC. Importantly, we identified druggable lesions shared across metastatic samples, which demonstrate a level of targetable homogeneity within individual patients.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the genomic differences between metastatic urothelial carcinoma (LTUC) and upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). We compare genomic features of primary and metastatic UTUC and LTUC tumors in a cohort of patients with end stage disease. METHODS: We performed whole exome sequencing on matched primary and metastatic tumor samples (N=37) from 7 patients with metastatic UC collected via rapid autopsy. Inter- and intra-patient mutational burden, mutational signatures, predicted deleterious mutations, and somatic copy alterations (sCNV) were analyzed. RESULTS: We investigated 3 patients with UTUC (3 primary samples, 13 metastases) and 4 patients with LTUC (4 primary samples, 17 metastases). We found that sSNV burden was higher in metastatic LTUC compared to UTUC. Moreover, the APOBEC mutational signature was pervasive in metastatic LTUC and less so in UTUC. Despite a lower overall sSNV burden, UTUC displayed greater inter- and intra-individual genomic distances at the copy number level between primary and metastatic tumors than LTUC. Our data also indicate that metastatic UTUC lesions can arise from small clonal populations present in the primary cancer. Importantly, putative druggable mutations were found across patients with the majority shared across all metastases within a patient. CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic UTUC demonstrated a lower overall mutational burden but greater structural variability compared to LTUC. Our findings suggest that metastatic UTUC displays a greater spectrum of copy number divergence from LTUC. Importantly, we identified druggable lesions shared across metastatic samples, which demonstrate a level of targetable homogeneity within individual patients.
Authors: Aaron McKenna; Matthew Hanna; Eric Banks; Andrey Sivachenko; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrew Kernytsky; Kiran Garimella; David Altshuler; Stacey Gabriel; Mark Daly; Mark A DePristo Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Atreya Dash; Joseph A Pettus; Harry W Herr; Bernard H Bochner; Guido Dalbagni; S Machele Donat; Paul Russo; Mary G Boyle; Matthew I Milowsky; Dean F Bajorin Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kevin A David; Katherine Mallin; Matthew I Milowsky; Jamie Ritchey; Peter R Carroll; David M Nanus Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Martine P Roudier; Lawrence D True; Celestia S Higano; Hubert Vesselle; William Ellis; Paul Lange; Robert L Vessella Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: H Barton Grossman; Ronald B Natale; Catherine M Tangen; V O Speights; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Donald L Trump; Ralph W deVere White; Michael F Sarosdy; David P Wood; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Leonidas N Diamantopoulos; Ali Raza Khaki; Petros Grivas; John L Gore; George R Schade; Andrew C Hsieh; John K Lee; Todd Yezefski; Evan Y Yu; Michael T Schweizer; Heather H Cheng; Sarah P Psutka; Daniel W Lin; Maria S Tretiakova; Funda Vakar-Lopez; Robert B Montgomery; Jonathan L Wright Journal: Bladder Cancer Date: 2020-03-28
Authors: Sumanta K Pal; Dean Bajorin; Nazli Dizman; Jean Hoffman-Censits; David I Quinn; Daniel P Petrylak; Matthew D Galsky; Ulka Vaishampayan; Ugo De Giorgi; Sumati Gupta; Howard A Burris; Harris S Soifer; Gary Li; Hao Wang; Carl L Dambkowski; Susan Moran; Siamak Daneshmand; Jonathan E Rosenberg Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gillian Vandekerkhove; Jean-Michel Lavoie; Matti Annala; Andrew J Murtha; Nora Sundahl; Simon Walz; Takeshi Sano; Sinja Taavitsainen; Elie Ritch; Ladan Fazli; Antonio Hurtado-Coll; Gang Wang; Matti Nykter; Peter C Black; Tilman Todenhöfer; Piet Ost; Ewan A Gibb; Kim N Chi; Bernhard J Eigl; Alexander W Wyatt Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Elise Y Cai; Jose Garcia; Yuzhen Liu; Funda Vakar-Lopez; Sonali Arora; Holly M Nguyen; Bryce Lakely; Lisha Brown; Alicia Wong; Bruce Montgomery; John K Lee; Eva Corey; Jonathan L Wright; Andrew C Hsieh; Hung-Ming Lam Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sujata Jana; Rucha Deo; Rowan P Hough; Yuzhen Liu; Jessie L Horn; Jonathan L Wright; Hung-Ming Lam; Kevin R Webster; Gary G Chiang; Nahum Sonenberg; Andrew C Hsieh Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2021-06-08