7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Analysis of mutational signatures in primary and metastatic endometrial cancer reveals distinct patterns of DNA repair defects and shifts during tumor progression

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Mutational signatures provide insights into the biological processes shaping tumor genomes and may inform patient therapy. We sought to define the mutational signatures of i) endometrioid and serous endometrial carcinomas (ECs), stratified into the four molecular subtypes, ii) uterine carcinosarcomas, and iii) matched primary and metastatic ECs. Whole-exome sequencing MC3 data from primary endometrioid and serous carcinomas (n=232) and uterine carcinosarcomas (n=57) from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), and matched primary and metastatic ECs (n=61, 26 patients) were reanalyzed, subjected to mutational signature analysis using deconstructSigs, and correlated with clinicopathologic and genomic data. POLE (ultramutated) and MSI (hypermutated) molecular subtypes displayed dominant mutational signatures associated with POLE mutations (15/17 cases) and microsatellite instability (55/65 cases), respectively. Most endometrioid and serous carcinomas of copy-number low (endometrioid) and copy-number high (serous-like) molecular subtypes, and carcinosarcomas displayed a dominant aging-associated signature 1. Only 15% (9/60) of copy-number high (serous-like) ECs had a dominant signature 3 (homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD)-related), a prevalence significantly lower than that found in high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (54%, p<0.001) or basal-like breast cancers (46%, p<0.001). Shifts from aging- or POLE - to MSI-related mutational processes were observed in the progression from primary to metastatic ECs in a subset of cases. The mutational processes underpinning ECs vary even among tumors of the same TCGA molecular subtype and in the progression from primary to metastatic ECs. Only a minority of copy-number high (serous-like) ECs display genomics features of HRD and would likely benefit from HRD-directed therapies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer statistics, 2018

          Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2014, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2015, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, 1,735,350 new cancer cases and 609,640 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2005-2014) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2006-2015) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Of the 10 leading causes of death, only cancer declined from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the cancer death rate was 14% higher in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) than non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) overall (death rate ratio [DRR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13-1.15), but the racial disparity was much larger for individuals aged <65 years (DRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29-1.32) compared with those aged ≥65 years (DRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09) and varied substantially by state. For example, the cancer death rate was lower in NHBs than NHWs in Massachusetts for all ages and in New York for individuals aged ≥65 years, whereas for those aged <65 years, it was 3 times higher in NHBs in the District of Columbia (DRR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.16-3.91) and about 50% higher in Wisconsin (DRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02), Kansas (DRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81), Louisiana (DRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60), Illinois (DRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57), and California (DRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.54). Larger racial inequalities in young and middle-aged adults probably partly reflect less access to high-quality health care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer

            All cancers are caused by somatic mutations. However, understanding of the biological processes generating these mutations is limited. The catalogue of somatic mutations from a cancer genome bears the signatures of the mutational processes that have been operative. Here, we analysed 4,938,362 mutations from 7,042 cancers and extracted more than 20 distinct mutational signatures. Some are present in many cancer types, notably a signature attributed to the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases, whereas others are confined to a single class. Certain signatures are associated with age of the patient at cancer diagnosis, known mutagenic exposures or defects in DNA maintenance, but many are of cryptic origin. In addition to these genome-wide mutational signatures, hypermutation localized to small genomic regions, kataegis, is found in many cancer types. The results reveal the diversity of mutational processes underlying the development of cancer with potential implications for understanding of cancer etiology, prevention and therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumors

              Summary We analyzed primary breast cancers by genomic DNA copy number arrays, DNA methylation, exome sequencing, mRNA arrays, microRNA sequencing and reverse phase protein arrays. Our ability to integrate information across platforms provided key insights into previously-defined gene expression subtypes and demonstrated the existence of four main breast cancer classes when combining data from five platforms, each of which shows significant molecular heterogeneity. Somatic mutations in only three genes (TP53, PIK3CA and GATA3) occurred at > 10% incidence across all breast cancers; however, there were numerous subtype-associated and novel gene mutations including the enrichment of specific mutations in GATA3, PIK3CA and MAP3K1 with the Luminal A subtype. We identified two novel protein expression-defined subgroups, possibly contributed by stromal/microenvironmental elements, and integrated analyses identified specific signaling pathways dominant in each molecular subtype including a HER2/p-HER2/HER1/p-HER1 signature within the HER2-Enriched expression subtype. Comparison of Basal-like breast tumors with high-grade Serous Ovarian tumors showed many molecular commonalities, suggesting a related etiology and similar therapeutic opportunities. The biologic finding of the four main breast cancer subtypes caused by different subsets of genetic and epigenetic abnormalities raises the hypothesis that much of the clinically observable plasticity and heterogeneity occurs within, and not across, these major biologic subtypes of breast cancer.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gynecologic Oncology
                Gynecologic Oncology
                Elsevier BV
                00908258
                January 2019
                January 2019
                : 152
                : 1
                : 11-19
                Article
                10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.032
                6726428
                30415991
                f14eb76e-bead-4009-8a57-8df77135977d
                © 2019

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article