| Literature DB >> 35382356 |
Weiwei Zhai1, Hannah Lai1, Neslihan Arife Kaya1, Jianbin Chen1, Hechuan Yang1, Bingxin Lu1, Jia Qi Lim1, Siming Ma1, Sin Chi Chew2, Khi Pin Chua1, Jacob Josiah Santiago Alvarez1, Pauline Jieqi Chen1, Mei Mei Chang1, Lingyan Wu2, Brian K P Goh3, Alexander Yaw-Fui Chung3, Chung Yip Chan3, Peng Chung Cheow3, Ser Yee Lee3, Juinn Huar Kam3, Alfred Wei-Chieh Kow4, Iyer Shridhar Ganpathi4, Rawisak Chanwat5, Jidapa Thammasiri6, Boon Koon Yoong7, Diana Bee-Lan Ong7, Vanessa H de Villa8, Rouchelle D Dela Cruz9, Tracy Jiezhen Loh10, Wei Keat Wan10, Zeng Zeng11, Anders Jacobsen Skanderup1, Yin Huei Pang12, Krishnakumar Madhavan4, Tony Kiat-Hon Lim10, Glenn Bonney4, Wei Qiang Leow10, Valerie Chew13, Yock Young Dan14, Wai Leong Tam1, Han Chong Toh15, Roger Sik-Yin Foo1, Pierce Kah-Hoe Chow1.
Abstract
Intra-tumor heterogeneity (ITH) is a key challenge in cancer treatment, but previous studies have focused mainly on the genomic alterations without exploring phenotypic (transcriptomic and immune) heterogeneity. Using one of the largest prospective surgical cohorts for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with multi-region sampling, we sequenced whole genomes and paired transcriptomes from 67 HCC patients (331 samples). We found that while genomic ITH was rather constant across stages, phenotypic ITH had a very different trajectory and quickly diversified in stage II patients. Most strikingly, 30% of patients were found to contain more than one transcriptomic subtype within a single tumor. Such phenotypic ITH was found to be much more informative in predicting patient survival than genomic ITH and explains the poor efficacy of single-target systemic therapies in HCC. Taken together, we not only revealed an unprecedentedly dynamic landscape of phenotypic heterogeneity in HCC, but also highlighted the importance of studying phenotypic evolution across cancer types.Entities:
Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma; intra-tumor heterogeneity; phenotypic evolution; tumor evolution
Year: 2021 PMID: 35382356 PMCID: PMC8973408 DOI: 10.1093/nsr/nwab192
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Natl Sci Rev ISSN: 2053-714X Impact factor: 17.275
Figure 1.Genomic landscape of the cohort. (a) Schematic representation of the grid sampling. A central slice is taken out from the tumor and consecutive sectors were sampled along a grid line. (b) Oncoprint plot of the common drivers (≥4%) across the cohort (see also Supplementary Fig. 3). Columns are the samples and rows are the genes. Percentage of alterations are shown on the left. Multiple sectors belonging to one patient were annotated (patient, top). Mutation burden is plotted as a bar plot on the top. Clinical features are shown in the bottom annotation panel. (c) The relationship between truncal status and frequency of the somatic alterations (SNVs, amplifications and deletions at the cytoband level). (d) The distribution of signature contributions for the truncal and non-truncal mutations. P-values were calculated with two-sided paired Wilcoxon tests.
Figure 2.DNA heterogeneity and non-neutral evolution. (a) For any two sectors of a patient, DNA ITH is calculated as the total number of private mutations over the total number of mutations of the two sectors. A wide range of DNA ITH existed across the patient cohort. The histogram in the inner circle displayed the level of DNA ITH. Representative phylogenies from low/medium/high ITH quantiles are shown in the rainbow with color scale ranging from blue (lowest ITH) to red (highest ITH). (b) The relationship between number of tumor samples and the fold increase in the observed variability (see Methods, the same color scale as Fig. 2a). (c) An illustration of spatially separated (SS) and spatially mixed (SM) tree pattern. (d) Sample phylogeny of patient ITH_52. (e) IBD pattern of patient ITH_52. The regression between the physical distances of the patient's sectors (X-axis) and their genetic distance (FST) (Y-axis). (f) Clonal decomposition using PhyloWGS. The regression relationship between the physical distance and cosine distance of the clonal composition of the tumor sectors (Methods). (g) The left panel is the phylogenetic relationship of the clones. Right panel shows the clonal composition of the tumor sectors. (h) Cartoon illustration of the testing of non-neutral evolution in the sample without any private driver (T1) and the sample with private driver (T2). (i) The R-square fit (testing neutral evolution) in samples with private drivers and without private drivers.
Figure 3.RNA subgroup and mixed subtypes. (a) Heatmap of the expression of the top 3000 MAD coding genes (rows) across the three RNA subtypes (C1, C2 and C3) in all the samples (columns). (b) Enrichment of important functional pathways and major driver mutations across the three subtypes. CGP are liver-related chemical and genetic perturbation gene sets (see Methods). (c) Correlation between RNA subtypes and stages across all samples. (d) Subclass mapping between subtypes in the PLANET cohort and the TCGA Asian cohorts (Methods), and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the subtypes in the TCGA Asian cohorts. (e) Circos plot of the RNA subtypes. The Circle shows the RNA subtypes of the tumor sectors (arranged in physical order) of 17 patients with mixed RNA subtypes as well as the pure subtype patients. (f) Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot of the transcriptome from tumor sectors with lines linking tumor sectors of patients with mixed RNA subtypes. (g) Correlation between DNA ITH and RNA ITH. (h) The relationship between stage and RNA ITH (left) and the relationship between stage and DNA ITH (right). (i) Correlation between mixed subtypes and RNA ITH (left) and DNA ITH (right). (j) The proportion of mixed subtype patients as a function of stage.
Figure 4.The immune subtype and immune ITH. (a) Tumor sectors are clustered by the level of estimated immune infiltration (Methods). Each row is an immune cell type and each column is a tumor sector. If a patient has all sectors classified as having low levels of immune infiltration (cold, blue), the patient's samples are linked by a blue line. Red or orange lines are used for purely hot or mixed subtype patients. (b) The linear relationship between DNA ITH and immune ITH. (c) The linear relationship between RNA ITH and immune ITH. (d) The relationship between stage and immune ITH. (e) The relationship between stage and the standard deviation of the GEP score.
Figure 5.The impact of ITH on possible patient treatment response. (a) Representative patients with varying levels of ITH for potentially targetable mutations are shown. Mutations were classified based on the level of evidence for their therapeutic potential (1, clinically approved for other cancer types; 2, supported by clinical data; 3, supported by pre-clinical data; 4, other mutations in targetable genes, Methods). (b) Proportion of truncal and non-truncal mutations for potentially targetable genes. (c) Proportion of patients found to contain potentially targetable mutations when increasing the number of sectors examined from a tumor (Methods). (d) Activation level shown as the Gene Set Variation Analysis (GSVA) score for the angiogenesis pathway (one of the target pathways for sorafenib and lenvatinib). The upper 15% (response rate) quantile was set as the cutoff value delineating treatment response. (e) The predicted response across patients based on different RNA subtypes. (f) Predicted response rates based on varying levels of cut-off values (Methods). (g) The correlation between the two agents targeted by combination therapy. Based on GSVA and GEP scores, the predicted response to combination therapy for all samples is shown. Samples can be divided into different response quadrants (left) and the corresponding patient-level responses are shown for anti-angiogenesis, ICB and combination therapies (right). (h) Predicted response across sectors for selected patients with high (left) and low (right) phenotypic ITH. (i) Comparison of patient-level predicted response between monotherapies and combination therapy among patients with high and low phenotypic ITH.
Figure 6.Integrative survival analysis and natural history of HCC evolution. (a) Correlation network of the selected clinical, molecular and ITH features. The edges of the network indicate correlation between features (thicker lines indicate smaller correlation P-values). Upward triangles represent a hazard ratio (HR) <1 (later recurrence) and downward triangles represent an HR >1 (earlier recurrence). For features with multiple levels such as stage, the HR of the most significant level is used. A black border around the triangle indicates significance (log-rank score test P-value < 0.05) in the univariate Cox model. (b) Ranking of importance among variables in the multivariate Cox model. HRs and P-values from the multivariate Cox-model are also shown. (c) Survival groups predicted using the multivariate Cox model. Asterisks indicate that the feature is significantly correlated to the predicted subgroups. Immune markers and treatment options were not used in the Cox model but are shown as annotations. (d) Kaplan-Meier curves for the predicted survival groups. (e) Schematic representation of the natural history of HCC evolution with key events in different clinical stages. Pie charts show the patient-level proportion of RNA and immune subtypes across different stages from the same set of patients used in the above Cox models.