| Literature DB >> 35392220 |
Isabella Kuniko T M Takenaka1, Thais F Bartelli1, Alexandre Defelicibus2, Juan M Sendoya3,4, Mariano Golubicki5,6, Juan Robbio6, Marianna S Serpa1, Gabriela P Branco1, Luana B C Santos1, Laura C L Claro7, Gabriel Oliveira Dos Santos7, Bruna E C Kupper8, Israel T da Silva2, Andrea S Llera3,4, Celso A L de Mello9, Rachel P Riechelmann9, Emmanuel Dias-Neto1,10, Soledad Iseas5, Samuel Aguiar8, Diana Noronha Nunes1,11.
Abstract
The clinical and pathological responses to multimodal neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancers (LARCs) remain unpredictable, and robust biomarkers are still lacking. Recent studies have shown that tumors present somatic molecular alterations related to better treatment response, and it is also clear that tumor-associated bacteria are modulators of chemotherapy and immunotherapy efficacy, therefore having implications for long-term survivorship and a good potential as the biomarkers of outcome. Here, we performed whole exome sequencing and 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) amplicon sequencing from 44 pre-treatment LARC biopsies from Argentinian and Brazilian patients, treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or total neoadjuvant treatment, searching for predictive biomarkers of response (responders, n = 17; non-responders, n = 27). In general, the somatic landscape of LARC was not capable to predict a response; however, a significant enrichment in mutational signature SBS5 was observed in non-responders (p = 0.0021), as well as the co-occurrence of APC and FAT4 mutations (p < 0.05). Microbiota studies revealed a similar alpha and beta diversity of bacteria between response groups. Yet, the linear discriminant analysis (LDA) of effect size indicated an enrichment of Hungatella, Flavonifractor, and Methanosphaera (LDA score ≥3) in the pre-treatment biopsies of responders, while non-responders had a higher abundance of Enhydrobacter, Paraprevotella (LDA score ≥3) and Finegoldia (LDA score ≥4). Altogether, the evaluation of these biomarkers in pre-treatment biopsies could eventually predict a neoadjuvant treatment response, while in post-treatment samples, it could help in guiding non-operative treatment strategies.Entities:
Keywords: biomarkers of treatment response; locally advanced rectal cancer; microbiota; mutational signatures; neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; whole exome sequencing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35392220 PMCID: PMC8982181 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.809441
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Clinicopathological and lifestyle characteristics of LARC patients from Argentina and Brazil enrolled in this study.
| Characteristics | Number of patients (n = 44) | Response to nCRT |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NR (n = 27) | R (n = 17) | |||
|
| 58 (34–79) | 58 (34–79) | 63 (43–77) | |
|
| ||||
| Argentina | 18 (40.9%) | 12 (44.4%) | 6 (35.3%) | 0.775 |
| Brazil | 26 (59.1%) | 15 (34.1%) | 11 (64.7%) | |
|
| ||||
| Male | 27 (62.4%) | 17 (63.0%) | 10 (58.8%) | 1.0 |
| Female | 17 (38.6%) | 10 (37.0%) | 7 (41.2%) | |
|
| ||||
| Mid rectum | 20 (45.5%) | 14 (51.8%) | 6 (35.3%) | 0.445 |
| Low rectum | 24 (54.5%) | 13 (48.2%) | 11 (64.7%) | |
|
| ||||
| T2 | 5 (11.4%) | 2 (7.4%) | 3 (17.7%) | 0.587a |
| T3 | 29 (65.9%) | 19 (70.4%) | 10 (58.8%) | |
| T4 | 10 (22.7%) | 6 (22.2%) | 4 (23.5%) | |
|
| ||||
| N0 | 12 (27.3%) | 5 (18.5%) | 7 (41.2%) | 0.176 |
| N1 | 30 (68.2%) | 21 (77.8%) | 9 (52.9%) | |
| N2 | 2 (4.5%) | 1 (3.7%) | 1 (5.9%) | |
|
| ||||
| ≤5 | 24 (54.5%) | 13 (48.2%) | 11 (64.7%) | 0.617 |
| ≥5 | 20 (45.5%) | 14 (51.8%) | 6 (35.3%) | |
|
| 0.559 | |||
| No | 25 (56.8%) | 14 (51.8%) | 11 (64.7%) | |
| Yes | 19 (43.2%) | 13 (48.2%) | 6 (35.3%) | |
|
| 0.916 | |||
| No | 22 (50.0%) | 14 (51.9%) | 8 (47.1%) | |
| Yes | 13 (29.5%) | 8 (29.6%) | 5 (29.4%) | |
| Former | 9 (20.5%) | 5 (18.5%) | 4 (23.5%) | |
|
| 0.465 | |||
| TNT | 10 (22.7%) | 7 (25.9%) | 3 (17.6%) | |
| nCRT (5-FU and capecitabine) | 34 (77.3%) | 20 (74.1%) | 14 (82.4%) | |
|
| 1.0 | |||
| Present (>50% of tumor cells) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (100%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Absent | 25 (56.8%) | 14 (51.8%) | 11 (48.2%) | |
| NA | 18 (40.9%) | 12 (44.4%) | 6 (35.3%) | |
|
| 0.074 | |||
| Present | 7 (15.9%) | 7 (100%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Absent | 33 (75.0%) | 20 (60.6%) | 13 (39.4%) | |
| NA | 4 (9.1%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (100%) | |
|
| 0.007 | |||
| Present | 11 (25.0%) | 11 (100%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Absent | 28 (63.6%) | 15 (53.6%) | 13 (46.4%) | |
| NA | 5 (11.4%) | 1 (20.0%) | 4 (80.0%) | |
|
| 0.680 | |||
| Present | 12 (27.3%) | 6 (50.0%) | 6 (50.0%) | |
| Absent | 12 (27.3%) | 8 (66.6%) | 4 (33.4%) | |
| NA | 20 (45.4%) | 13 (65.0%) | 7 (35.0%) | |
Fisher’s exact test.
chi-square with continuity correction.
p-value statistically significant (p < 0.05); CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; NA, data not available.
Figure 1Mutational profile from LARC samples. (A) TMB comparison between AR and BR pre-treatment biopsy samples from R and NR patients diagnosed with LARC (Wilcoxon test p-value = 0.4 for AR R vs. NR; p-value = 0.58 for BR R vs. NR). (B) Distribution of somatic mutations found in pre-treatment biopsies of LARC in BR and (C) AR samples. Each column represents a patient, and each line represents a gene. The upper plot shows the number of mutations (TMB) in each sample, the central plot shows the mutation types as indicated by the colors, the right plot indicates the number of samples with mutations in that specific gene, and the lower part of the figure indicates the response of each patient (R, responder; NR, non-responder). (D) Co-occurrence of genetic alteration analysis in LARC biopsies before neoadjuvant treatment obtained from NR and (E) R patients.
Figure 2Oncogenic pathway analysis in WES data from LARC. The most altered oncogenic pathways in LARC biopsies before neoadjuvant treatment in (A) NR and (B) R patients. Wnt-β catenin oncogenic pathway alterations in LARC biopsies before neoadjuvant treatment in (C) NR and (D) R patients. Tumor suppressor genes are represented in red and oncogenes in blue. Each square represents a sample with a mutation in the respective gene. Hippo oncogenic pathway alterations in LARC biopsies before neoadjuvant treatment in (E) NR and (F) R patients. Tumor suppressor genes are represented in red and oncogenes in blue. Each square represents a sample with a mutation in the respective gene.
Figure 3Alpha and beta diversity of LARC biopsies before neoadjuvant treatment. Boxplots showing the bacterial alpha diversity using different metrics (observed ASVs, Chao1, Shannon, and Simpson indices) between (A) country of origin of the samples: Argentina and Brazil; (B) response to neoadjuvant treatment: R and NR patients. No statistically significant differences were observed (Mann–Whitney U test, p-value > 0.05); PCoA ordination plots showing the bacterial beta diversity using three distance metrics (Bray–Curtis, unweighted and weighted UniFrac) comparing (C) country of origin of the samples: Argentina and Brazil; and (D) response to neoadjuvant treatment: R and NR patients. Samples from Argentina and Brazil formed two separate clusters (Bray–Curtis and unweighted UniFrac distances, PERMANOVA/ADONIS p-value < 0.05).
Figure 4Main bacterial phyla and genera in pre-treatment biopsies of LARC: (A) Relative abundance of the main phyla according to the (A) country of origin of the samples and (B) response to neoadjuvant treatment: R and NR patients. (C) Relative abundance of bacterial genera from Argentina and Brazil, with relative abundance above 1%.
Top 10 genera identified in pre-treatment LARC biopsies according to the country of origin and patient’s response to neoadjuvant treatment (nCRT).
| Top 10 | NR patients | R patients | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genus | Frequency (%) | Genus | Frequency (%) | |
|
| ||||
| 1 |
| 28.9 |
| 25.8 |
| 2 |
| 7.1 |
| 21.1 |
| 3 |
| 5.3 |
| 4.1 |
| 4 |
| 5.0 |
| 3.4 |
| 5 |
| 4.8 |
| 3.2 |
| 6 |
| 4.4 |
| 2.6 |
| 7 |
| 2.8 |
| 2.4 |
| 8 |
| 2.5 |
| 2.2 |
| 9 |
| 2.4 |
| 2.2 |
| 10 |
| 1.5 |
| 2.0 |
|
| ||||
| 1 |
| 21.6 |
| 13.3 |
| 2 |
| 20.0 |
| 12.7 |
| 3 |
| 6.4 |
| 10.2 |
| 4 |
| 3.7 |
| 5.8 |
| 5 |
| 3.0 |
| 4.2 |
| 6 |
| 2.9 |
| 3.4 |
| 7 |
| 2.5 |
| 3.2 |
| 8 |
| 1.8 |
| 2.5 |
| 9 |
| 1.8 |
| 2.4 |
| 10 |
| 1.7 |
| 2.3 |
Figure 5LEfSe at the genus level for pre-treatment LARC biopsies according to the country of origin. AR samples are indicated by red and BR samples by green; horizontal bars represent the effect size for each genus, and the bar length represents the log10 LDA score, indicated by the dotted lines (vertical). The three plots on the right highlight the genera present almost exclusively in AR samples.
Figure 6Differently abundant bacteria between R and NR. (A, B) LEfSe at the genus level for pre-treatment LARC biopsies according to the country of origin and response to neoadjuvant treatment. NR samples are indicated by red and R samples by green; horizontal bars represent the effect size for each genus and bar length represents the log10 LDA score, indicated by the dotted lines (vertical). (A) BR R and NR patients, the two plots in the bottom highlights genera present exclusively in NR and R samples; (B) AR R and NR patients, the two plots in the bottom highlight genera present exclusively in R samples. (C) LEfSe at the genus level for pre-treatment LARC biopsies from Argentina and Brazil according to the response to neoadjuvant treatment. NR samples are indicated by red and R samples by green; horizontal bars represent the effect size for each genus and bar length represents the log10 LDA score, indicated by the dotted lines (vertical). The plot in the bottom highlights the genus Finegoldia present almost exclusively in NR samples.
Figure 7Predictions of the metagenomes identified in LARC biopsy samples. PICRUSt predictions of the metagenomes previously identified as differentially abundant in pre-treatment LARC biopsies between R and NR patients as identified by LEfSe (LDA score ≥ 2).