Importance: Understanding RAS dependency and mechanisms of RAS activation in non-V600 BRAF variant cancers has important clinical implications. This is the first study to date to systematically assess RAS dependency of BRAF alterations with real-world cancer genomic databases. Objective: To evaluate RAS dependency of individual BRAF alterations through alteration coexistence analysis using cancer genomic databases. Design and Setting: A cross-sectional data analysis of 119 538 nonredundant cancer samples using cancer genomics databases including GENIE (Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange) and databases in cBioPortal including TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) (accessed March 24, 2020), in addition to 2745 cancer samples from Mayo Clinic Genomics Laboratory (January 1, 2015, to July 1, 2020). Frequencies and odds ratios of coexisting alterations of RAS (KRAS, NRAS and HRAS) and RAS regulatory genes (NF1, PTPN11 and CBL) were calculated for individual BRAF alterations, and compared according to the current BRAF alteration classification; cancer type specificity of coexisting alterations of RAS or RAS regulatory genes was also evaluated. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measurement is enrichment of RAS (KRAS, NRAS and HRAS) alterations in BRAF variant cancers. Secondary outcome measurement is enrichment of RAS regulatory gene (NF1, PTPN11, and CBL) in BRAF variant cancers. Results: A total of 2745 cancer samples from 2708 patients (female/male ratio: 1.0) tested by Mayo Clinic Genomics Laboratory and 119 538 patients (female/male ratio: 1.1) from GENIE and cBioPortal database were included in the study. In 119 538 nonredundant cancer samples, class 1 BRAF alterations and BRAF fusions were found to be mutually exclusive to alterations of RAS or RAS regulatory genes (odds ratio range 0.03-0.13 and 0.03-0.73 respectively), confirming their RAS independency. Both class 2 and class 3 BRAF alterations show variable and overlapping levels of enriched RAS alterations (odds ratio range: 0.03-5.9 and 0.63-2.52 respectively), suggesting heterogeneity in RAS dependency and a need to revisit BRAF alteration classification. For RAS-dependent BRAF alterations, the coexisting alterations also involve RAS regulatory genes by enrichment analysis (for example, S467L shows an odds ratio of 8.26 for NF1, 9.87 for PTPN11, and 15.23 for CBL) and occur in a variety of cancer types with some coalterations showing cancer type specificity (for example, HRAS variations account for 46.7% of all coexisting RAS alterations in BRAF variant bladder cancers, but 0% in non-small cell lung cancers). Variant-level assessment shows that BRAF alterations involving the same codon may differ in RAS dependency. In addition, RAS dependency of previously unclassified BRAF alterations could be assessed. Conclusions and Relevance: Current BRAF alteration classification based on in vitro assays does not accurately predict RAS dependency in vivo for non-V600 BRAF alterations. RAS-dependent BRAF variant cancers with different mechanisms of RAS activation suggest the need for different treatment strategies.
Importance: Understanding RAS dependency and mechanisms of RAS activation in non-V600 BRAF variant cancers has important clinical implications. This is the first study to date to systematically assess RAS dependency of BRAF alterations with real-world cancer genomic databases. Objective: To evaluate RAS dependency of individual BRAF alterations through alteration coexistence analysis using cancer genomic databases. Design and Setting: A cross-sectional data analysis of 119 538 nonredundant cancer samples using cancer genomics databases including GENIE (Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange) and databases in cBioPortal including TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) (accessed March 24, 2020), in addition to 2745 cancer samples from Mayo Clinic Genomics Laboratory (January 1, 2015, to July 1, 2020). Frequencies and odds ratios of coexisting alterations of RAS (KRAS, NRAS and HRAS) and RAS regulatory genes (NF1, PTPN11 and CBL) were calculated for individual BRAF alterations, and compared according to the current BRAF alteration classification; cancer type specificity of coexisting alterations of RAS or RAS regulatory genes was also evaluated. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measurement is enrichment of RAS (KRAS, NRAS and HRAS) alterations in BRAF variant cancers. Secondary outcome measurement is enrichment of RAS regulatory gene (NF1, PTPN11, and CBL) in BRAF variant cancers. Results: A total of 2745 cancer samples from 2708 patients (female/male ratio: 1.0) tested by Mayo Clinic Genomics Laboratory and 119 538 patients (female/male ratio: 1.1) from GENIE and cBioPortal database were included in the study. In 119 538 nonredundant cancer samples, class 1 BRAF alterations and BRAF fusions were found to be mutually exclusive to alterations of RAS or RAS regulatory genes (odds ratio range 0.03-0.13 and 0.03-0.73 respectively), confirming their RAS independency. Both class 2 and class 3 BRAF alterations show variable and overlapping levels of enriched RAS alterations (odds ratio range: 0.03-5.9 and 0.63-2.52 respectively), suggesting heterogeneity in RAS dependency and a need to revisit BRAF alteration classification. For RAS-dependent BRAF alterations, the coexisting alterations also involve RAS regulatory genes by enrichment analysis (for example, S467L shows an odds ratio of 8.26 for NF1, 9.87 for PTPN11, and 15.23 for CBL) and occur in a variety of cancer types with some coalterations showing cancer type specificity (for example, HRAS variations account for 46.7% of all coexisting RAS alterations in BRAF variant bladder cancers, but 0% in non-small cell lung cancers). Variant-level assessment shows that BRAF alterations involving the same codon may differ in RAS dependency. In addition, RAS dependency of previously unclassified BRAF alterations could be assessed. Conclusions and Relevance: Current BRAF alteration classification based on in vitro assays does not accurately predict RAS dependency in vivo for non-V600 BRAF alterations. RAS-dependent BRAF variant cancers with different mechanisms of RAS activation suggest the need for different treatment strategies.
Authors: Paul T C Wan; Mathew J Garnett; S Mark Roe; Sharlene Lee; Dan Niculescu-Duvaz; Valerie M Good; C Michael Jones; Christopher J Marshall; Caroline J Springer; David Barford; Richard Marais Journal: Cell Date: 2004-03-19 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Samantha E Bowyer; Aparna D Rao; Megan Lyle; Shahneen Sandhu; Georgina V Long; Grant A McArthur; Jeanette M Raleigh; Rodney J Hicks; Michael Millward Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Ethan Cerami; Jianjiong Gao; Ugur Dogrusoz; Benjamin E Gross; Selcuk Onur Sumer; Bülent Arman Aksoy; Anders Jacobsen; Caitlin J Byrne; Michael L Heuer; Erik Larsson; Yevgeniy Antipin; Boris Reva; Arthur P Goldberg; Chris Sander; Nikolaus Schultz Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Zhan Yao; Neilawattie M Torres; Anthony Tao; Yijun Gao; Lusong Luo; Qi Li; Elisa de Stanchina; Omar Abdel-Wahab; David B Solit; Poulikos I Poulikakos; Neal Rosen Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Alice T Shaw; Mark M Awad; Ibiayi Dagogo-Jack; Pablo Martinez; Beow Y Yeap; Chiara Ambrogio; Lorin A Ferris; Christine Lydon; Tom Nguyen; Nicholas A Jessop; A John Iafrate; Bruce E Johnson; Jochen K Lennerz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Parvez M Lokhandwala; Li-Hui Tseng; Erika Rodriguez; Gang Zheng; Aparna Pallavajjalla; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman; Ming-Tseh Lin Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Majd Jawad; Michelle Afkhami; Yi Ding; Xiaohui Zhang; Peng Li; Kim Young; Mina Luqing Xu; Wei Cui; Yiqing Zhao; Stephanie Halene; Aref Al-Kali; David Viswanatha; Dong Chen; Rong He; Gang Zheng Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Dennis M Bjorklund; R Marc L Morgan; Jasmeen Oberoi; Katie L I M Day; Panagiota A Galliou; Chrisostomos Prodromou Journal: Biomolecules Date: 2022-06-28
Authors: Alessandro Di Federico; Andrea De Giglio; Francesco Gelsomino; Dario De Biase; Francesca Giunchi; Arianna Palladini; Francesca Sperandi; Barbara Melotti; Andrea Ardizzoni Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-07-17 Impact factor: 6.575