Cargando…

Cyclin Pathway Genomic Alterations Across 190,247 Solid Tumors: Leveraging Large‐Scale Data to Inform Therapeutic Directions

BACKGROUND: We describe the landscape of cyclin and interactive gene pathway alterations in 190,247 solid tumors. METHODS: Using comprehensive genomic profiling (315 genes, >500× coverage), samples were analyzed for alterations in activating/sensitizing cyclin genes (CDK4 amplification, CDK6 ampl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jardim, Denis L., Millis, Sherri Z., Ross, Jeffrey S., Woo, Michelle Sue‐Ann, Ali, Siraj M., Kurzrock, Razelle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7794175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32885893
http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0509
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: We describe the landscape of cyclin and interactive gene pathway alterations in 190,247 solid tumors. METHODS: Using comprehensive genomic profiling (315 genes, >500× coverage), samples were analyzed for alterations in activating/sensitizing cyclin genes (CDK4 amplification, CDK6 amplification, CCND1, CCND2, CCND3, CDKN2B [loss], CDKN2A [loss], SMARCB1), hormone genes (estrogen receptor 1 [ESR1], androgen receptor [AR]), and co‐alterations in genes leading to cyclin inhibitor therapeutic resistance (RB1 and CCNE1). RESULTS: Alterations in at least one cyclin activating/sensitizing gene occurred in 24% of malignancies. Tumors that frequently harbored at least one cyclin alteration were brain gliomas (47.1%), esophageal (40.3%) and bladder cancer (37.9%), and mesotheliomas (37.9%). The most frequent alterations included CDKN2A (13.9%) and CDKN2B loss (12.5%). Examples of unique patterns of alterations included CCND1 amplification in breast cancer (17.3%); CDK4 alterations in sarcomas (12%); CCND2 in testicular cancer (23.4%), and SMARCB1 mutations in kidney cancer (3% overall, 90% in malignant rhabdoid tumors). Alterations in resistance genes RB1 and CCNE1 affected 7.2% and 3.6% of samples. Co‐occurrence analysis demonstrated a lower likelihood of concomitant versus isolated alterations in cyclin activating/sensitizing and resistance genes (odds ratio [OR], 0.35; p < .001), except in colorectal, cervical, and small intestine cancers. AR and cyclin activating/sensitizing alterations in prostate cancer co‐occurred more frequently (vs. AR alterations and wild‐type cyclin activating/sensitizing alterations) (OR, 1.79; p < .001) as did ESR1 and cyclin activating/sensitizing alterations in breast (OR, 1.62; p < .001) and cervical cancer (OR, 4.08; p = .04) (vs. ESR1 and cyclin wild‐type activating/sensitizing alterations). CONCLUSION: Cyclin pathway alterations vary according to tumor type/histology, informing opportunities for targeted therapy, including for rare cancers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Cyclin pathway genomic abnormalities are frequent in human solid tumors, with substantial variation according to tumor site and histology. Opportunities for targeted therapy emerge with comprehensive profiling of this pathway.