Pierre Khoueiry1, Ghina Fakhri2, Reem Akel2, Majd El Assaad2, Rami Mahfouz3, Fadlo Khuri2, Hassan Chami4, Jason Petersen5, Sarah Viet5, Gareth Davies5, Humam Kadara1, Arafat Tfayli2. 1. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. 2. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. 4. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. 5. Avera Institute for Human Genetics, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The overall 5-year survival of lung cancer remains dismal despite the current treatment regimens. Testing for driver mutations has become routine practice for oncologists due to the presence of targeted therapy readily available for patients. Deep targeted sequencing through next generation sequencing (NGS) is an adequate methodology to detect mutations at multi-genetic levels. The molecular pathology of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poorly understood in the Middle East and, to date, no other reports have been published on deep targeted sequencing of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) tissues. METHODS: Deep targeted sequencing using TruSeq Amplicon Cancer panel of 48 genes was performed on 85 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues from patients with LUAD who were treatment-naive at the time of the collection. Variants with an allele frequency higher than 10% were retained. RESULTS: Variant calling identified a total of 2,455 variants of which missense mutations were the most frequent (75.6%). All of our samples showed at least one mutation in one of the 10 most commonly mutated genes with FLT3 being the gene with the highest mutation rate (67%). TP53, KRAS and STK11 were the second, third and fourth most commonly mutated genes, respectively while EGFR mutation rate reached 22.4%. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first hot spot profiling study on patients from this area. The frequencies of mutated genes presented in our study showed similarity to other reported outcomes. At least one mutation was detected in our cohort of LUAD.
BACKGROUND: The overall 5-year survival of lung cancer remains dismal despite the current treatment regimens. Testing for driver mutations has become routine practice for oncologists due to the presence of targeted therapy readily available for patients. Deep targeted sequencing through next generation sequencing (NGS) is an adequate methodology to detect mutations at multi-genetic levels. The molecular pathology of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poorly understood in the Middle East and, to date, no other reports have been published on deep targeted sequencing of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) tissues. METHODS: Deep targeted sequencing using TruSeq Amplicon Cancer panel of 48 genes was performed on 85 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues from patients with LUAD who were treatment-naive at the time of the collection. Variants with an allele frequency higher than 10% were retained. RESULTS: Variant calling identified a total of 2,455 variants of which missense mutations were the most frequent (75.6%). All of our samples showed at least one mutation in one of the 10 most commonly mutated genes with FLT3 being the gene with the highest mutation rate (67%). TP53, KRAS and STK11 were the second, third and fourth most commonly mutated genes, respectively while EGFR mutation rate reached 22.4%. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first hot spot profiling study on patients from this area. The frequencies of mutated genes presented in our study showed similarity to other reported outcomes. At least one mutation was detected in our cohort of LUAD.
Entities:
Keywords:
Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD); Middle East; hot spot mutations; next generation sequencing (NGS)
Authors: L V Sequist; R S Heist; A T Shaw; P Fidias; R Rosovsky; J S Temel; I T Lennes; S Digumarthy; B A Waltman; E Bast; S Tammireddy; L Morrissey; A Muzikansky; S B Goldberg; J Gainor; C L Channick; J C Wain; H Gaissert; D M Donahue; A Muniappan; C Wright; H Willers; D J Mathisen; N C Choi; J Baselga; T J Lynch; L W Ellisen; M Mino-Kenudson; M Lanuti; D R Borger; A J Iafrate; J A Engelman; D Dias-Santagata Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Shyhmin Huang; Sergio Benavente; Eric A Armstrong; Chunrong Li; Deric L Wheeler; Paul M Harari Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Joan H Schiller; David Harrington; Chandra P Belani; Corey Langer; Alan Sandler; James Krook; Junming Zhu; David H Johnson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-01-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hisayuki Shigematsu; Li Lin; Takao Takahashi; Masaharu Nomura; Makoto Suzuki; Ignacio I Wistuba; Kwun M Fong; Huei Lee; Shinichi Toyooka; Nobuyoshi Shimizu; Takehiko Fujisawa; Ziding Feng; Jack A Roth; Joachim Herz; John D Minna; Adi F Gazdar Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: John D Carpten; Andrew L Faber; Candice Horn; Gregory P Donoho; Stephen L Briggs; Christiane M Robbins; Galen Hostetter; Sophie Boguslawski; Tracy Y Moses; Stephanie Savage; Mark Uhlik; Aimin Lin; Jian Du; Yue-Wei Qian; Douglas J Zeckner; Greg Tucker-Kellogg; Jeffrey Touchman; Ketan Patel; Spyro Mousses; Michael Bittner; Richard Schevitz; Mei-Huei T Lai; Kerry L Blanchard; James E Thomas Journal: Nature Date: 2007-07-04 Impact factor: 69.504