Cargando…
MET amplification in metastatic colorectal cancer: an acquired response to EGFR inhibition, not a de novo phenomenon
BACKGROUND: MET amplification appears to be a predictive biomarker for MET inhibition. Prior studies reported a MET amplification rate of 9–18% in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but do not differentiate increased gene copy numbers due to chromosomal level aberrations from focal gene amplificati...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Impact Journals LLC
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5342368/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27421137 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.10559 |
_version_ | 1782513163273502720 |
---|---|
author | Raghav, Kanwal Morris, Van Tang, Chad Morelli, Pia Amin, Hesham M. Chen, Ken Manyam, Ganiraju C. Broom, Bradley Overman, Michael J. Shaw, Kenna Meric-Bernstam, Funda Maru, Dipen Menter, David Ellis, Lee M. Eng, Cathy Hong, David Kopetz, Scott |
author_facet | Raghav, Kanwal Morris, Van Tang, Chad Morelli, Pia Amin, Hesham M. Chen, Ken Manyam, Ganiraju C. Broom, Bradley Overman, Michael J. Shaw, Kenna Meric-Bernstam, Funda Maru, Dipen Menter, David Ellis, Lee M. Eng, Cathy Hong, David Kopetz, Scott |
author_sort | Raghav, Kanwal |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: MET amplification appears to be a predictive biomarker for MET inhibition. Prior studies reported a MET amplification rate of 9–18% in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but do not differentiate increased gene copy numbers due to chromosomal level aberrations from focal gene amplifications. Validation of MET amplification rate in mCRC is critical to this field. RESULTS: In tumor tissue-based analyses, overall MET amplification rate was 1.7% (10/590). MET amplification was seen in 0/103 (0%), 4/208 (1.9%) and 6/279 (2.2%) cases, in cohorts 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Rate of MET amplification in cfDNA of cohort 4 patients refractory to anti-EGFR therapy (n = 53) was 22.6% (12/53) and was significantly higher compared to patients not exposed to anti-EGFR therapy (p < 0.001). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed MET amplification in mCRC (n = 795) using different methods across multiple cohorts. Cohort 1 (n = 103) and 2 (n = 208) included resected liver metastases and tumor biopsies, respectively, tested for MET amplification using fluorescence in-situ hybridization [amplification: MET/CEP7 ratio ≥ 2.0]. Using another tissue-based approach, cohort 3 (n = 279) included tumor biopsies sequenced with HiSeq (Illumina) with full exome coverage for MET [amplification: ≥ 4 copies identified by an in-house algorithm]. Using a blood-based approach by contrast, cohort 4 (n = 205) included patients in whom the full exome of MET in circulating-free DNA (cfDNA) was sequenced with HiSeq. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to prior reports, in this large cohort, MET amplification was a rare event in mCRC tissues. In plasma by stark contrast, MET amplification identified by cfDNA occurred in a sizable subset of patients that are refractory to anti-EGFR therapy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5342368 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Impact Journals LLC |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53423682017-03-22 MET amplification in metastatic colorectal cancer: an acquired response to EGFR inhibition, not a de novo phenomenon Raghav, Kanwal Morris, Van Tang, Chad Morelli, Pia Amin, Hesham M. Chen, Ken Manyam, Ganiraju C. Broom, Bradley Overman, Michael J. Shaw, Kenna Meric-Bernstam, Funda Maru, Dipen Menter, David Ellis, Lee M. Eng, Cathy Hong, David Kopetz, Scott Oncotarget Research Paper BACKGROUND: MET amplification appears to be a predictive biomarker for MET inhibition. Prior studies reported a MET amplification rate of 9–18% in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but do not differentiate increased gene copy numbers due to chromosomal level aberrations from focal gene amplifications. Validation of MET amplification rate in mCRC is critical to this field. RESULTS: In tumor tissue-based analyses, overall MET amplification rate was 1.7% (10/590). MET amplification was seen in 0/103 (0%), 4/208 (1.9%) and 6/279 (2.2%) cases, in cohorts 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Rate of MET amplification in cfDNA of cohort 4 patients refractory to anti-EGFR therapy (n = 53) was 22.6% (12/53) and was significantly higher compared to patients not exposed to anti-EGFR therapy (p < 0.001). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed MET amplification in mCRC (n = 795) using different methods across multiple cohorts. Cohort 1 (n = 103) and 2 (n = 208) included resected liver metastases and tumor biopsies, respectively, tested for MET amplification using fluorescence in-situ hybridization [amplification: MET/CEP7 ratio ≥ 2.0]. Using another tissue-based approach, cohort 3 (n = 279) included tumor biopsies sequenced with HiSeq (Illumina) with full exome coverage for MET [amplification: ≥ 4 copies identified by an in-house algorithm]. Using a blood-based approach by contrast, cohort 4 (n = 205) included patients in whom the full exome of MET in circulating-free DNA (cfDNA) was sequenced with HiSeq. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to prior reports, in this large cohort, MET amplification was a rare event in mCRC tissues. In plasma by stark contrast, MET amplification identified by cfDNA occurred in a sizable subset of patients that are refractory to anti-EGFR therapy. Impact Journals LLC 2016-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5342368/ /pubmed/27421137 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.10559 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Raghav et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Paper Raghav, Kanwal Morris, Van Tang, Chad Morelli, Pia Amin, Hesham M. Chen, Ken Manyam, Ganiraju C. Broom, Bradley Overman, Michael J. Shaw, Kenna Meric-Bernstam, Funda Maru, Dipen Menter, David Ellis, Lee M. Eng, Cathy Hong, David Kopetz, Scott MET amplification in metastatic colorectal cancer: an acquired response to EGFR inhibition, not a de novo phenomenon |
title | MET amplification in metastatic colorectal cancer: an acquired response to EGFR inhibition, not a de novo phenomenon |
title_full | MET amplification in metastatic colorectal cancer: an acquired response to EGFR inhibition, not a de novo phenomenon |
title_fullStr | MET amplification in metastatic colorectal cancer: an acquired response to EGFR inhibition, not a de novo phenomenon |
title_full_unstemmed | MET amplification in metastatic colorectal cancer: an acquired response to EGFR inhibition, not a de novo phenomenon |
title_short | MET amplification in metastatic colorectal cancer: an acquired response to EGFR inhibition, not a de novo phenomenon |
title_sort | met amplification in metastatic colorectal cancer: an acquired response to egfr inhibition, not a de novo phenomenon |
topic | Research Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5342368/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27421137 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.10559 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT raghavkanwal metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT morrisvan metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT tangchad metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT morellipia metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT aminheshamm metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT chenken metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT manyamganirajuc metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT broombradley metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT overmanmichaelj metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT shawkenna metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT mericbernstamfunda metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT marudipen metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT menterdavid metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT ellisleem metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT engcathy metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT hongdavid metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon AT kopetzscott metamplificationinmetastaticcolorectalcanceranacquiredresponsetoegfrinhibitionnotadenovophenomenon |