Mary Garland-Kledzik1, Anthony Scholer2, Miquel Ensenyat-Mendez3, Javier I J Orozco4, Adam Khader2, Juan Santamaria-Barria2, Trevan Fischer2, Alessio Pigazzi5, Diego M Marzese3. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA. mgkledzikmd@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Saint John's Cancer Institute at Providence St. John's Health Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 3. Cancer Epigenetic Laboratory, Health Research Institute of the Balearic Islands (IdISBa), Palma, Islas Baleares, Spain. 4. Cancer Epigenetics Laboratory, Saint John's Cancer Institute at Providence St. John's Health Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 5. Colon and Rectal Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Appendiceal cancer is a rare disease process with complex treatment strategies. The objective of this study was to identify mutation-based genetic subtypes that may differ from the current histological classification, compare the genetic make-up of primaries and metastases, and find novel targetable alterations. METHODS: The analyses involved the curation and normalization of gene mutation panels from appendiceal adenocarcinoma and mucinous adenocarcinoma (n = 196) stored in the AACR GENIE Database v6.0. Genes mutated in less than one patient and tumors profiled with incomplete mutation panels were excluded from the study. The optimal number of AC subtypes was established using the Nonnegative Matrix Factorization algorithm. Statistical comparisons of mutation frequencies were performed using Pearson's χ2 test. RESULTS: AC patients were stratified into five mutation subtypes, based on a final set of 41 cancer-related genes. AC0 had no mutations. The most frequently mutated genes varied between the subtypes were: AC1: KRAS (91.9%) and GNAS (77.4%); AC2: KRAS (52.5%), APC (32.5%), and GNAS (30%); AC3: KMT2D (38.7%), TP53 (38.7%), KRAS (35.5%), EP300 (22.6%); and AC4: TP53 (97.2%), KRAS (77.8%), and SMAD4 (36.1%). Additionally, AC3 was less likely to be mucinous (22.6% vs. 50.0-74.2%, p < 0.001) and had a higher mutation frequency (3.6 vs. 0-3.1, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between primary tumors and metastases in the 41 assessed genes (p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: The characterization of these subtypes suggests a need for molecular approaches to complement anatomical and histopathological staging for AC. A prospective comparison of subtype prognosis and response to surgery and adjuvant treatment is needed to identify the clinical applications of the novel molecular subtypes.
PURPOSE: Appendiceal cancer is a rare disease process with complex treatment strategies. The objective of this study was to identify mutation-based genetic subtypes that may differ from the current histological classification, compare the genetic make-up of primaries and metastases, and find novel targetable alterations. METHODS: The analyses involved the curation and normalization of gene mutation panels from appendiceal adenocarcinoma and mucinous adenocarcinoma (n = 196) stored in the AACR GENIE Database v6.0. Genes mutated in less than one patient and tumors profiled with incomplete mutation panels were excluded from the study. The optimal number of AC subtypes was established using the Nonnegative Matrix Factorization algorithm. Statistical comparisons of mutation frequencies were performed using Pearson's χ2 test. RESULTS: AC patients were stratified into five mutation subtypes, based on a final set of 41 cancer-related genes. AC0 had no mutations. The most frequently mutated genes varied between the subtypes were: AC1: KRAS (91.9%) and GNAS (77.4%); AC2: KRAS (52.5%), APC (32.5%), and GNAS (30%); AC3: KMT2D (38.7%), TP53 (38.7%), KRAS (35.5%), EP300 (22.6%); and AC4: TP53 (97.2%), KRAS (77.8%), and SMAD4 (36.1%). Additionally, AC3 was less likely to be mucinous (22.6% vs. 50.0-74.2%, p < 0.001) and had a higher mutation frequency (3.6 vs. 0-3.1, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between primary tumors and metastases in the 41 assessed genes (p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: The characterization of these subtypes suggests a need for molecular approaches to complement anatomical and histopathological staging for AC. A prospective comparison of subtype prognosis and response to surgery and adjuvant treatment is needed to identify the clinical applications of the novel molecular subtypes.
Authors: Edward A Levine; Konstantinos I Votanopoulos; Shadi A Qasem; John Philip; Kathleen A Cummins; Jeff W Chou; Jimmy Ruiz; Ralph D'Agostino; Perry Shen; Lance D Miller Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Edward A Levine; Dan G Blazer; Mickey K Kim; Perry Shen; John H Stewart; Cynthia Guy; David S Hsu Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-02-17 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Terence C Chua; Brendan J Moran; Paul H Sugarbaker; Edward A Levine; Olivier Glehen; François N Gilly; Dario Baratti; Marcello Deraco; Dominique Elias; Armando Sardi; Winston Liauw; Tristan D Yan; Pedro Barrios; Alberto Gómez Portilla; Ignace H J T de Hingh; Wim P Ceelen; Joerg O Pelz; Pompiliu Piso; Santiago González-Moreno; Kurt Van Der Speeten; David L Morris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Norman J Carr; Thomas D Cecil; Faheez Mohamed; Leslie H Sobin; Paul H Sugarbaker; Santiago González-Moreno; Panos Taflampas; Sara Chapman; Brendan J Moran Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Hakan Alakus; Michele L Babicky; Pradipta Ghosh; Shawn Yost; Kristen Jepsen; Yang Dai; Angelo Arias; Michael L Samuels; Evangeline S Mose; Richard B Schwab; Michael R Peterson; Andrew M Lowy; Kelly A Frazer; Olivier Harismendy Journal: Genome Med Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 11.117