| Literature DB >> 34290393 |
Raul Caso1, James G Connolly1, Jian Zhou1,2, Kay See Tan3,4, James J Choi1, Gregory D Jones1, Brooke Mastrogiacomo1,5, Francisco Sanchez-Vega4,5, Bastien Nguyen5, Gaetano Rocco1,4, Daniela Molena1,4, Smita Sihag1,4, Prasad S Adusumilli1,4, Matthew J Bott1,4, David R Jones6,7.
Abstract
While next-generation sequencing (NGS) is used to guide therapy in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), use of NGS to determine pathologic LN metastasis prior to surgery has not been assessed. To bridge this knowledge gap, we performed NGS using MSK-IMPACT in 426 treatment-naive patients with clinical N2-negative LUAD. A multivariable logistic regression model that considered preoperative clinical and genomic variables was constructed. Most patients had cN0 disease (85%) with pN0, pN1, and pN2 rates of 80%, 11%, and 9%, respectively. Genes altered at higher rates in pN-positive than in pN-negative tumors were STK11 (p = 0.024), SMARCA4 (p = 0.006), and SMAD4 (p = 0.011). Fraction of genome altered (p = 0.037), copy number amplifications (p = 0.001), and whole-genome doubling (p = 0.028) were higher in pN-positive tumors. Multivariable analysis revealed solid tumor morphology, tumor SUVmax, clinical stage, SMARCA4 and SMAD4 alterations were independently associated with pathologic LN metastasis. Incorporation of clinical and tumor genomic features can identify patients at risk of pathologic LN metastasis; this may guide therapy decisions before surgical resection.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34290393 PMCID: PMC8295366 DOI: 10.1038/s41698-021-00210-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: NPJ Precis Oncol ISSN: 2397-768X
Clinicopathologic characteristics.
| Characteristic | pN-negative ( | pN-positive ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at resection, years | 69 (64–74) | 69 (62–74) | 0.8 |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 212 (62) | 43 (51) | 0.063 |
| Female | 129 (38) | 42 (49) | |
| Smoking status | |||
| Never | 91 (27) | 19 (22) | 0.5 |
| Ever | 250 (73) | 66 (78) | |
| Pack-years ( | 16 (0–40) | 20 (3.8–45) | 0.2 |
| Tumor morphologic appearance on CT ( | |||
| Nonsolid | 137 (41) | 7 (8) | <0.001 |
| Solid | 201 (59) | 78 (92) | |
| Tumor location | |||
| RUL | 110 (32) | 26 (31) | 0.095 |
| RML | 23 (7) | 2 (2) | |
| RLL | 64 (19) | 14 (16) | |
| LUL | 84 (25) | 23 (27) | |
| LLL | 51 (15) | 12 (14) | |
| Multiple lobes | 9 (3) | 8 (9) | |
| Tumor size on CT, cm ( | 2.2 (1.5–3) | 2.9 (1.9–3.8) | <0.001 |
| Tumor SUVmax ( | 3.5 (1.8–6.5) | 7.8 (4.6–10.5) | <0.001 |
| cN stage (CT and PET criteria) | |||
| cN0 | 308 (90) | 54 (64) | <0.001 |
| cN1 | 33 (10) | 31 (36) | |
| Clinical stage | |||
| I | 288 (84) | 46 (54) | <0.001 |
| II | 53 (16) | 39 (46) | |
| Mediastinal staging | |||
| EBUS | 16 (5) | 22 (26) | <0.001 |
| Mediastinoscopy | 2 (0.6) | 1 (1) | |
| EBUS and mediastinoscopy | 0 | 1 (1) | |
| None | 323 (95) | 61 (72) | |
| Preoperative biopsy contains MIP or SOL subtype ( | |||
| No | 142 (82) | 41 (77) | 0.493 |
| Yes | 32 (18) | 12 (23) | |
| pN status | |||
| pN0 | 341 (100) | 0 | <0.001 |
| pN1 | 0 | 48 (56) | |
| pN2 | 0 | 37 (44) | |
| Pathologic stage | |||
| I | 284 (83) | 0 | <0.001 |
| II | 49 (14) | 42 (49) | |
| III | 8 (2) | 43 (51) | |
Data are presented as no. (%) or median (interquartile range).
CT computed tomography, EBUS endobronchial ultrasound, LLL left lower lobe, LUL left upper lobe, MIP micropapillary, PET positron emission tomography, RLL right lower lobe, RML right middle lobe, RUL right upper lobe, SOL solid.
Fig. 1OncoPrint of genes altered in ≥2% of the entire cohort according to pathologic lymph node status.
CT computed tomography, NA not available.
Fig. 2Summary genomic metrics according to pathologic lymph node metastasis.
a Boxplot of tumor mutational burden (mutations/megabase) versus pathologic lymph node status. b Boxplot of fraction of genomic altered versus pathologic lymph node status. c Bar graphs showing percent of total tumor samples with most frequently altered mutational signatures (SBS2, SBS13, SBS4) according to pathologic lymph node metastasis (asterisk (*) signifies p < 0.05). In the boxplots in this figure, the center line represents the median value, the bounds of the box represent the interquartile range, and the whiskers extend to 1.5× the interquartile range on either side of the median.
Fig. 3Copy number alteration analysis according to pathologic lymph node metastasis.
a Boxplot of copy number amplifications versus pathologic lymph node status. b Boxplot of copy number deletions versus pathologic lymph node status. c Comparison of copy number alterations across chromosome arms according to pathologic lymph node status. d Bar plot of the rate of whole-genome doubling versus pathologic lymph node status. In the boxplots in this figure, the center line represents the median value, the bounds of the box represent the interquartile range, and the whiskers extend to 1.5× the interquartile range on either side of the median.
Fig. 4Multivariable logistic regression model of preoperative clinicopathologic and genomic features associated with pathologic lymph node metastasis.
In the forest plot in this figure, the points represent the odds ratio, and the whiskers represent the confidence interval corresponding to the table to the right. CI confidence interval, CT computed tomography, OR odds ratio, SUV standardized uptake value.