Literature DB >> 31660073

Genome landscapes of rectal cancer before and after preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Jie Yang1, Yuan Lin2,3, Ying Huang1, Jing Jin4, Shuangmei Zou5, Xiaolong Zhang6, Hongmin Li1, Ting Feng1, Jinna Chen1, Zhixiang Zuo6, Jian Zheng6, Yexiong Li4, Ge Gao2,3, Chen Wu1, Wen Tan1, Dongxin Lin1,6.   

Abstract

Resistance to preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is a major obstacle to cancer treatment in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. This study was to explore genome alterations in rectal cancer under CRT stress.
Methods: Whole-exome sequencing (WES) was performed on 28 paired tumors collected before and after CRT from the same patients who did not respond to CRT treatment. Somatic point mutations and copy number variations were detected by VarScan2 and Exome CNVs respectively using paired tumor and blood samples. Somatic alterations associated with CRT resistance were inferred considering differences in significantly mutated genes, mutation counts and cancer cell fraction between matched pre- and post-CRT tumors. We employed SignatureAnalyzer to infer mutation signatures and PyClone to decipher clonal evolution and examine intratumoral heterogeneity in tumors before and after CRT. The associations between intratumoral heterogeneity and patients' survival were analyzed using the log-rank test and the Cox regression model.
Results: (i) Recurrent mutations in CTDSP2, APC, KRAS, TP53 and NFKBIZ confer selective advantages on cancer cells and made them resistant to CRT treatment. (ii) CRT alters the genomic characteristics of tumors at both the somatic mutation and the copy number variation levels. (iii) CRT-resistant tumors exhibit either a branched or a linear evolution pattern. (iv) Different recurrent mutation signatures in pre-CRT and post-CRT patients implicate mutational processes underlying the evolution of CRT-resistant tumors. (v) High intratumoral heterogeneity in pre- or post-CRT is associated with poor patients' survival.
Conclusion: Our study reveals genome landscapes in rectal cancer before and after CRT and tumors evolution under CRT stress. The treatment-associated characteristics are useful for further investigations of CRT resistance in rectal cancer. © The author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  copy-number variation; mutation; rectal cancer; survival; whole-exome sequencing

Year:  2019        PMID: 31660073      PMCID: PMC6815957          DOI: 10.7150/thno.37794

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Theranostics        ISSN: 1838-7640            Impact factor:   11.556


Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks the fifth leading cause of cancer death and approximately 300,000 new CRC cases occur each year in China 1. Rectal cancer accounts for approximately 30% of all CRCs. Concurrent capecitabine, oxaliplatin and radiotherapy followed by total excision of the mesorectum is a mainstay in the management of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. However, regression of rectal carcinoma following preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is highly variable 2-5, with the development of relapse and distant metastases being the predominant modes of failure 6, 7. The variety may reflect differences in the biological properties of tumor such as CRT response. Despite the seriousness of this issue, there are few studies on the genome evolution under CRT in locally advanced rectal cancer and the mechanisms of CRT resistance in rectal cancer have not been well characterized. While large genomic studies such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) have shed some light on untreated tumors 8, the differences in genome alterations between untreated and treated tumors could be substantial 9-15. Resistance-related mutations may already exist in tumors before treatment. Or, they may occur and accumulate during the treatment as chemotherapeutic agents and radiation trigger DNA damages in cancer cells 16-19. Thus, profiling the genomic differences and clonal divergence between tumors before and after CRT could reveal effective biomarkers and putative drivers of the resistance to treatment. To this end, we conducted whole-exome profiling of tumor samples collected before and after CRT as well as their matched peripheral blood samples from 28 Chinese individuals with locally advanced rectal cancer. We identified substantial differences in genomic profiles between tumors before and after CRT treatment regarding point mutations (including SNVs short for single nucleotide variants and small INDELs short for insertions and deletions) and copy number variations (CNVs). We found two evolutionary patterns shaping the path from pre-CRT to CRT-resistant rectal cancer and Signature RC Post-2 like mutation signature in post-CRT tumors. Lastly, we found high intratumoral heterogeneity, both before and after CRT, was correlated with shorter survival time in rectal cancer patients.

Methods

Study subjects and biospecimen procurement

Patients with histopathologically confirmed locally advanced rectal cancer (N=126) were recruited between January 2006 and June 2013 at Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing. All patients received preoperative CRT treatment consisting of a total radiation dose of 50 Gy applied in 25 fractions over 5 weeks, concurrent with twice daily administration of capecitabine (825 mg/m2 in total) and 50 mg/m2/week oxaliplatin. Standardized surgery was performed after an interval of 4 to 6 weeks post CRT. Histological tumor response to CRT was assessed according to the Tumor Regression Grade (TRG) classification 20. Tissue samples with <10% residual tumor cells were defined as good responder (TRG 1 and 2); tissue samples with 10% to 50% residual tumor cells were classified as intermediate responder (TRG 3); and tissue samples with >50% residual tumor cells were considered as poor responder (TRG 4 and 5). Based on these criteria, 65 (51.6%) patients were good responders and the rest 61 (48.4%) were intermediate/poor responders. We then selected those patients with TRG ≥3 and matched triplet samples (i.e., blood, pre-CRT tumor biopsy, and surgically removed post-CRT tumor) for WES. Finally, 28 samples were chosen for analysis after quality control of tissue specimens and DNA samples. Patients' survival time was measured in months from the date of diagnosis to the date of death or last follow-up, respectively. Whether, when and why a patient had died was ascertained through follow-up telephone calls. The last date of follow-up was 25th January 2019 (Table ). Fresh tumor specimens and blood lymphocyte samples were snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen until use. We also selected 22 paraffin-embedded rectal cancer samples from the same 28 patient set for target region sequencing. All patients provided written informed consent before sample collection. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Cancer Hospital.

Whole-exome sequencing

Genomic DNA was extracted from fresh tumor samples and blood samples using the phenol-chloroform protocol, or from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples using QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit (Qiagen). WES libraries were generated using Agilent SureSelect Human All ExonV5 kit (Agilent) following the manufacturer's instructions. Sequencing was performed by Illunima Hiseq 2500 for paired-end 125 bp reads. In addition, we performed target region sequencing of 78 cancer-associated genes altered in TCGA CRC data set using Agilent SureSelectXT Custom Kits 8, achieving an average coverage of more than 1000X (Tables S2 and S3).

Analysis of whole-exome sequencing data

DNA reads passing standard quality control were aligned to reference human genome (GRCh37) using Burrows-Wheeler Aligner (BWA) software to get the original mapping results stored in BAM format 21. SAMtools, Picard (http://broadinstitute.github.io/picard/), and GATK were used to sort BAM files and do duplicate marking, local realignment, and base quality recalibration to generate final BAM file 22, 23. ANNOVAR 24 was used to annotate the detected variants, relying on public resources such as dbSNP and 1000 Genome 25, 26. SNVs and small INDELs were detected by VarScan2 27. Exome CNV was used to detect somatic CNV 28. CNVs with coverage ratio >1.3 were considered as gain and <0.7 were considered as loss. Significantly mutated genes in pre-CRT and post-CRT tumors were inferred by MutSigCV 29 with q<0.2 were considered as driver genes. Broad and focal CNVs were inferred by GISTIC 30. Arms and recurrent focal peaks in amplification or deletion regions were considered significant when q<0.25. Cancer cell fraction (CCF) of each mutation was calculated by ABSOLUTE integrating mutational allele frequencies and copy number calls 31. Mutations with CCF=1.0 were considered clonal while those with CCF<1.0 subclonal. To identify clonal relationship between pre-CRT and post-CRT tumors, we used PyClone (v0.13.1) to infer the cellular prevalence of mutations based on ABSOLUTE results 32. Clonal phylogeny was visualized using Timescape33. The number of recurrent signatures and the activities of each signature in single samples were inferred by SignatureAnalyzer (v1.1) 34-36 based on all the detected SNVs and the trinucleotide sequence context including the bases immediately 5' and 3' to the mutated base (96 possible mutation types). The inferred mutational signatures were compared with 30 COSMIC signatures using cosine similarity. We calculated the proportion of subclonal mutations in pre- and post-treatment tumor samples cohort separately, and measured it as intra-tumor heterogeneity.

Statistical analysis

The association between intratumoral heterogeneity and patients' overall/cancer-specific survival was examined using the log-rank test and a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model (including clinical covariates age, gender, KPS, TMN stage, post-chemotherapy and surgical procedure). Both the pre-CRT and the post-CRT tumor sets were divided into two groups based on intratumoral heterogeneity, defined as the proportion of subclonal mutations. The cutoff point was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the Youden index. Two-sided Wilcoxon tests were conducted to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between two paired abnormal distributions. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were conducted to check for significant difference of gene mutation frequencies between the TCGA samples and our samples. Spearman rank correlations were calculated between variant allele frequencies (VAFs) of WES and those of the target region sequencing. Correlations were considered significant and positive when P<0.05 and r>0.30. A p-value of less than 0.05 was used as the criterion for statistical significance. Statistical analyses were performed using R, python or SPSS.

Results

Mutations in rectal tumors before and after CRT

All the patients enrolled in this study were treated with the same concurrent CRT followed by total excision of the mesorectum. We selected 28 patients whose post-CRT tumor was classified as resistance to CRT (N=28; Table and sequenced their pre- and post-CRT tumor samples as well as blood samples. We confirmed each triplet samples belonging to the same individual using NGSCheckMate 37 (Figure and Table . The mean target coverage of WES was 97.6x for tumor samples with 97.3% of the bases >20x and 116.3 for blood samples with 98.4% of the bases >20x (Table ). The mutation frequencies of our samples were very similar to those of the untreated rectal cancer samples in TCGA (Table ). We identified totally 7,112 somatic mutations from pre-CRT tumor samples and 6,900 somatic mutations from post-CRT tumor samples (Table ). The difference in the number of mutations per sample was not significant (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, P=0.716; Figure ). The median coding mutation rates of pre- and post-CRT tumor samples were 1.89 and 1.34 per Mb respectively and the difference was not significant (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, P=0.495).

Recurrent mutations in rectal cancer before and after CRT

Using MutSigCV, we identified 5 significant recurrent mutations in pre-CRT tumors, including 4 previously reported colorectal cancer driver genes (TP53, KRAS, APC and SOX9) 8 and a novel gene NFKBIZ (Figure ). In contrast, besides TP53, CTDSP2, NFKBIZ and C4orf46 were significantly mutated in post-CRT tumor samples (Figure ). In addition, the mutation counts of 5 genes, KRAS, APC, TCHH, SOX9 and CTDSP2, were significantly different in pre- and post-CRT tumors. Three of the 5 genes, KRAS, APC and CTDSP2, had recurrent mutations in more than three patients (Figure ). Lastly, 13 genes harbored mutations whose CCF was higher in post-CRT tumors than in pre-CRT tumors in more than three patients (Figure ); these mutations may have conferred some selective advantages on cancer cells and made them resistant to CRT treatment. All in all, the three sets of recurrent mutations and their host genes mentioned above might relate to CRT resistance.

Heterogeneity of mutations and CNVs in tumors before and after CRT

The number of mutations shared by tumor collected before and after CRT ranged from 0.39% to 40.63% with an average of only 8.21% (Figure . A substantial proportion of mutations were unique to tumors before or after CRT, including mutations in previously reported driver genes such as APC, KRAS, TP53, SOX9, NRAS, PIK3CA, FBXW7, SMAD4 and TC7L2 8. To make sure these findings were not technical artifacts, we once again extracted DNAs from 22 of the original 28 paraffin-embedded rectal cancer samples (Table ) and then preformed target region sequencing on 78 genes significantly mutated in the TCGA data. The VAFs between target region sequencing and WES were closely correlated (Spearman rank correlation r=0.503, P=0.001; Figure and Table ). The mutations shared by pre- and post-CRT tumors mostly came from the primary clone instead of any sub-clones (Figures ). Furthermore, among the shared mutations, those inferred clonal were enriched in post-CRT tumors while those inferred subclonal were decreased in post-CRT although the differences were not statistically significant (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P=0.646 and P=0.936, respectively), indicating that tumors under CRT might select mutations beneficial to resistance (Figures ). We also examined the evolvement of CNVs in rectal cancer under CRT (Table ). In pre-CRT tumors, we identified several arm level changes including loss at 17p, 19q, 20p, 21p and 22q and gain at 7p, 20p and 20q (all q<0.25; Figure and Table ). We also identified 14 recurrent amplification peaks and 59 recurrent deletion peaks (both q<0.25; Figure ). Many genes located in the focal amplification/deletion regions are cancer-associated genes (Table and S11). In post-CRT tumors, we detected loss at 17p, 19p, 19q, 21p and 22q and gain at 7p, 7q, 8p, 8q, 9q, 13q, 20p and 20q (Figure and Table ). We found 205 focal amplification regions and 234 focal deletion regions (Figure and Tables S13 and S14). Interestingly, the numbers of CNVs in post-CRT tumors were substantially elevated compared with pre-CRT tumors (Figure and Figure ). The sharing of CNVs between pre-CRT and post-CRT tumors varied with patients (Figure ). Altogether, these results indicated the heterogeneity between pre- and post-CRT tumors from the same patients characterized by point mutations and CNVs, which may be associated with the resistance to CRT in locally advanced rectal cancer.

Clonal evolution of rectal cancer under CRT

Clonal analysis identified two evolution patterns of rectal cancer during CRT. One pattern was branched evolution, which we observed in 27 patients. In this evolution mode, the primary clone in the post-CRT tumor did not exist before the treatment. Instead, it was formed during the CRT by some cancer cells that acquired new mutations and developed resistance (Figure and Figure ). Take patient ID27 as an example (Figure ). Three clones were detected during CRT. The ancestor clone (blue) was retained during CRT treatment and possibly associated with carcinogenesis of rectal cancer. One subclone (pink) was almost eradicated after CRT, while the other (green) acquired new mutations during CRT and formed a new clone (green). The tumor mass mainly consisted of the green clones. Another pattern was linear evolution, in which some cancer cells survived under the CRT pressure and grew into the primary clone in the post-CRT tumor. We observed this evolution pattern in only one patient ID9 (Figure ). Three clones (blue, pink and purple) were detected in the pre-CRT tumor of this patient. During the treatment, the pink clone disappeared, whereas the purple clone, starting with a minor subset of cancer cells (2.5%), became dominant and even developed its own subclone (yellow-green).

Mutations driving the evolution of resistant rectal cancer

To elucidate how the mutational signatures evolve in rectal cancer treated with concurrent CRT, we then analyzed the distribution of six types of SNVs (C>A, C>G, C>T, T>A, T>C and T>G) and observed significantly more increase in C>T transition in post-CRT tumors than in pre-CRT tumors (Figure ). Further characterization of the mutational effect of CRT using a Bayesian variant of the non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) algorithm identified 3 signatures in pre-CRT tumors and 2 signatures in post-CRT tumors (Figure ), 4 of which closely resemble COSMIC signatures 34-36, 38-40 as shown in Figure . Signature RC Pre-1 in pre-CRT tumors was characterized by C>T transition and similar to COSMIC Signature 1 for age-related accumulation of 5-methylcytosine deamination events. Signature RC Pre-2 seemed to be a combination of several COSMIC signatures including two found in liver cancer. Signature RC Pre-3 did not resemble any COSMIC signatures and appeared to be a novel signature in rectal cancer (Figure ). In post-CRT tumors, Signature RC Post-1 also resembled COSMIC Signature 1 while Signature RC Post-2 was similar to COSMIC Signature 5, characterized by a broad spectrum of base changes and present in all tumor types. Analysis of signature activities showed a fair number of mutations attributable to Signature RC Post-2 (Figure ), indicating that this mutational signature could be associated with the resistance to CRT and shape the evolution of resistant rectal cancer.

Intratumoral heterogeneity is correlated with survival time in patients

As mentioned, post-CRT tumors developed genome-wide differences from pre-CRT tumors, including extensive CNVs. Thus, instead of focusing on specific gene or region targets, we examined the association between intratumoral heterogeneity (defined as the proportion of subclonal mutations in a tumor sample) 41 and patients' survival time. We found a shorter survival time was significantly associated with higher intratumoral heterogeneity of either pre-CRT (Plog-rank<0.001 for both overall and cancer-specific survival; Figure ) or post-CRT tumors (Plog-rank=0.007 for overall survival and Plog-rank=0.020 and cancer-specific survival; Figure ). Cox proportional hazards model analyses showed that after adjusting for potentially confounding factors such as age, sex, KPS, and TNM, an excess hazard ratio (HR) for death was still associated with the heterogeneity levels in either pre-CRT tumors (HR=35.44, 95% CI=3.39-370.74, P=0.003 for overall survival; HR=57.28, 95% CI=4.06-808.63, P=0.003 for cancer-specific survival) or post-CRT tumors (HR=6.90, 95% CI=1.28-37.26, P=0.025 for overall survival; HR=5.24, 95% CI=0.93-29.40, P=0.060 for cancer-specific survival).

Discussion

In this study, we conducted a WES profiling of locally advanced rectal cancers that develop resistance to preoperative CRT. Matched samples collected from the same individuals in the same ethnic group largely reduced genetic noise. Longitudinal study design (the same tumor sample collected before and after CRT) allows us to identify mutational characteristics and evolutionary patterns likely associated with CRT resistance. We obtained several interesting results in this study. Firstly, we not only confirmed reported mutations in TP53, APC, SOX9 and KRAS, but also identified a novel significantly mutated gene, NFKBIZ, in rectal cancer. NFKBIZ encodes IκBζ, an atypical member of the nuclear IκB family of proteins, which is an important regulator of inflammation, cell proliferation and survival 42-44. In addition, mutations in CTDSP2, APC, KRAS, TP53 and NFKBIZ were suggestively associated with CRT resistance because KRAS and TP53 are known colorectal cancer driver genes and key players in preoperative CRT resistance 45-50. However, the role of CTDSP2 has so far remained unclear. As a FOXO target gene it encodes C-terminal domain small phosphatase, which has been reported to regulate cell cycle progression through RAS and p21Cip1/Waf1 51. All of the acquired and retained mutations in CTDSP2 were frame shift deletions, occurring at the 213 amino acid position. CTDSP1/2 are the host genes of miRNA-26a/b, which can inhibit the phosphorylated form of RB 52 and hypo-phosphorylation of RB is known to cause drug resistance by activating the mTOR-AKT pathway 53. Given that CTDSP2 is rarely mutated in the untreated TCGA rectal cancer set (2/132), its mutation, along with APC, KRAS, TP53 and NFKBIZ mutations, might help predict CRT resistance in locally advanced rectal cancer. Secondly, we revealed genomic differences between tumors before and after CRT treatment from the same individuals regarding point mutations and CNVs. The majority of somatic mutations identified in our patient cohort were exclusive to tumors either before or after CRT treatment: only 8.21% of mutations on average were shared by both. Clonal analysis revealed that the shared clonal mutations increased while shared subclonal mutations decreased after CRT. Pre- and post-CRT tumors also showed very different CNVs. We found that high intratumoral heterogeneity was associated with poor survival time in patients, likely because high intratumoral heterogeneity endows tumors with the genetic variation fueling tumor clone evolution under the selection pressure from CRT 54. These findings provide additional information for prognostic prediction of CRT resistance. Thirdly, we identified several recurrent mutational signatures in pre- and post-CRT tumor samples. Among them, Signature RC Post-2 is suggestively associated with resistance to CRT. We also identified two evolutionary patterns in CRT-resistant tumors. Due to the difficulty in collecting matched triple samples (pre-CRT tumor, post-CRT tumor and blood) from the same individual, the sample size of this study is limited. A larger sample size would increase the detection power. Moreover, it would be interesting and needed to compare our results with those from studies conducted in other ethnic groups to pinpoint population-specific therapeutic biomarkers for CRT. In addition, whole-genome sequencing, which by theory would disclose more genomic variants (e.g., non-coding mutations and structural variations) relevant to CRT resistance, is warranted in future studies. In summary, we believe that the present study has laid a solid stepping stone to future investigations.
  53 in total

1.  Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Rolf Sauer; Heinz Becker; Werner Hohenberger; Claus Rödel; Christian Wittekind; Rainer Fietkau; Peter Martus; Jörg Tschmelitsch; Eva Hager; Clemens F Hess; Johann-H Karstens; Torsten Liersch; Heinz Schmidberger; Rudolf Raab
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-10-21       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Genomic Evolution after Chemoradiotherapy in Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Kent W Mouw; James M Cleary; Brendan Reardon; Jonathan Pike; Lior Z Braunstein; Jaegil Kim; Ali Amin-Mansour; Diana Miao; Alexis Damish; Joanna Chin; Patrick A Ott; Charles S Fuchs; Neil E Martin; Gad Getz; Scott Carter; Harvey J Mamon; Jason L Hornick; Eliezer M Van Allen; Alan D D'Andrea
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Mutations in specific codons of the KRAS oncogene are associated with variable resistance to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Marjun P Duldulao; Wendy Lee; Rebecca A Nelson; Wenyan Li; Zhenbin Chen; Joseph Kim; Julio Garcia-Aguilar
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-03-02       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer 2013.

Authors:  E Casado-Saenz; J Feliu; M A Gomez-España; A Sanchez-Gastaldo; R Garcia-Carbonero
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2013-07-30       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  KRAS and BRAF mutations in patients with rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Jochen Gaedcke; Marian Grade; Klaus Jung; Markus Schirmer; Peter Jo; Christoph Obermeyer; Hendrik A Wolff; Markus K Herrmann; Tim Beissbarth; Heinz Becker; Thomas Ried; Michael Ghadimi
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 6.280

6.  GISTIC2.0 facilitates sensitive and confident localization of the targets of focal somatic copy-number alteration in human cancers.

Authors:  Craig H Mermel; Steven E Schumacher; Barbara Hill; Matthew L Meyerson; Rameen Beroukhim; Gad Getz
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 13.583

7.  Absolute quantification of somatic DNA alterations in human cancer.

Authors:  Scott L Carter; Kristian Cibulskis; Elena Helman; Aaron McKenna; Hui Shen; Travis Zack; Peter W Laird; Robert C Onofrio; Wendy Winckler; Barbara A Weir; Rameen Beroukhim; David Pellman; Douglas A Levine; Eric S Lander; Matthew Meyerson; Gad Getz
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 54.908

8.  Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform.

Authors:  Heng Li; Richard Durbin
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-05-18       Impact factor: 6.937

9.  An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes.

Authors:  Goncalo R Abecasis; Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Mark A DePristo; Richard M Durbin; Robert E Handsaker; Hyun Min Kang; Gabor T Marth; Gil A McVean
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes.

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

View more
  8 in total

1.  Preoperative Fibrinogen-Albumin Ratio Index (FARI) is a Reliable Prognosis and Chemoradiotherapy Sensitivity Predictor in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Surgery Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Siyi Lu; Zhenzhen Liu; Xin Zhou; Bingyan Wang; Fei Li; Yanpeng Ma; Wendong Wang; Junren Ma; Yuxia Wang; Hao Wang; Wei Fu
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 3.989

2.  Multivariate Risk Analysis of RAS, BRAF and EGFR Mutations Allelic Frequency and Coexistence as Colorectal Cancer Predictive Biomarkers.

Authors:  Adriana Ionescu; Liviu Bilteanu; Ovidiu Ionut Geicu; Florin Iordache; Loredana Stanca; Aurelia Magdalena Pisoschi; Adrian Miron; Andreea Iren Serban; Valentin Calu
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-04       Impact factor: 6.575

3.  Genome variation in colorectal cancer patient with liver metastasis measured by whole-exome sequencing.

Authors:  Hui Yi; Zhi-Wei Liao; Jun-Jie Chen; Xin-Yu Shi; Guo-Liang Chen; Guan-Ting Wu; Di-Yuan Zhou; Guo-Qiang Zhou; Jin-Yu Huang; Lian Lian; Zheng-Yuan Yu; Song-Bing He
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2021-04

4.  Vitamin C activates pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH) targeting the mitochondrial tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle in hypoxic KRAS mutant colon cancer.

Authors:  Aiora Cenigaonandia-Campillo; Roberto Serna-Blasco; Laura Gómez-Ocabo; Sonia Solanes-Casado; Natalia Baños-Herraiz; Laura Del Puerto-Nevado; Jose Antonio Cañas; María Jesús Aceñero; Jesús García-Foncillas; Óscar Aguilera
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 11.556

5.  VAV2 is required for DNA repair and implicated in cancer radiotherapy resistance.

Authors:  Weiling Liu; Chuanwang Miao; Shaosen Zhang; Yachen Liu; Xiangjie Niu; Yiyi Xi; Wenjia Guo; Jiahui Chu; Ai Lin; Hongjin Liu; Xinyu Yang; Xinjie Chen; Ce Zhong; Yuling Ma; Yuqian Wang; Shihao Zhu; Shuning Liu; Wen Tan; Dongxin Lin; Chen Wu
Journal:  Signal Transduct Target Ther       Date:  2021-08-30

6.  Intratumor Heterogeneity as a Prognostic Factor in Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Tao Yu; Xin Gao; Zicheng Zheng; Xinyu Zhao; Shiyao Zhang; Chunqiang Li; Gang Liu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-10-15       Impact factor: 6.244

7.  Exome and Tissue-Associated Microbiota as Predictive Markers of Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Authors:  Isabella Kuniko T M Takenaka; Thais F Bartelli; Alexandre Defelicibus; Juan M Sendoya; Mariano Golubicki; Juan Robbio; Marianna S Serpa; Gabriela P Branco; Luana B C Santos; Laura C L Claro; Gabriel Oliveira Dos Santos; Bruna E C Kupper; Israel T da Silva; Andrea S Llera; Celso A L de Mello; Rachel P Riechelmann; Emmanuel Dias-Neto; Soledad Iseas; Samuel Aguiar; Diana Noronha Nunes
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 6.244

8.  Genomic and transcriptional alterations in first-line chemotherapy exert a potentially unfavorable influence on subsequent immunotherapy in NSCLC.

Authors:  Yayi He; Linsong Chen; Lishu Zhao; Shiying Dang; Guifeng Liu; Shinji Sasada; Patrick C Ma; Nico van Zandwijk; Rafael Rosell; Helmut H Popper; Hao Wang; Minlin Jiang; Haoyue Guo; Xinyi Liu; Shifu Chen; Xiaoni Zhang; Mingyan Xu; Bo Zhu; Ming Liu; Caicun Zhou
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 11.556

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.