Molecular Profiling of Exceptional Responders to Cancer Therapy.
DNA damage repair
Exceptional responders
Genomic instability
Immune system
Precision medicine
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
25
06
2020
accepted:
10
11
2020
pubmed:
20
11
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
19
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The vast majority of metastatic cancers cannot be cured. Palliative treatment may relieve disease symptoms by stopping or slowing cancer growth and may prolong patients' lives, but almost all patients will inevitably develop disease progression after initial response. However, for reasons that are not fully understood, a very few patients will have extraordinary durable responses to standard anticancer treatments. We analyzed exceptional responders treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center between September 2009 and November 2017. An exceptional response was defined as a complete response lasting more than 1 year or a partial response or stable disease for more than 2 years. Tumor samples were analyzed using an Ambry Genetics test kit with a 142-gene panel. Messenger RNA expression was evaluated using NanoString's nCounter PanCancer Pathways Panel and Immune Profiling Panel and compared with matched controls for gender, age, and cancer type. Twenty-six exceptional responders with metastatic bladder, kidney, breast, lung, ovarian, uterine, and colon cancers were enrolled. Mutations were identified in 45 genes. The most common mutation was an EPHA5 nonsynonymous mutation detected in 87.5% of patients. Mutations in DNA damage repair pathway genes were also frequent, suggesting increased genome instability. We also found varying expression of 73 genes in the Pathways panel and 85 genes in the Immune Profiling panel, many of them responsible for improvement in tumor recognition and antitumor immune response. The genomic instability detected in our exceptional responders, plus treatment with DNA damage compounds combined with favorable anticancer immunity, may have contributed to exceptional responses to standard anticancer therapies in the patients studied. With recent advances in the treatment of cancer, there is increased emphasis on the importance of identifying molecular markers to predict treatment outcomes, thereby allowing precision oncology. In this study, it was hypothesized that there is a "specific biologic signature" in the biology of the cancer in long-term survivors that allows sensitivity to systemic therapy and durability of response. Results showed that DNA damage repair pathway alterations, combined with favorable anticancer immunity, may have contributed to exceptional responses. It is very likely that an in-depth examination of outlier responses will become a standard component of drug development in the future.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The vast majority of metastatic cancers cannot be cured. Palliative treatment may relieve disease symptoms by stopping or slowing cancer growth and may prolong patients' lives, but almost all patients will inevitably develop disease progression after initial response. However, for reasons that are not fully understood, a very few patients will have extraordinary durable responses to standard anticancer treatments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We analyzed exceptional responders treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center between September 2009 and November 2017. An exceptional response was defined as a complete response lasting more than 1 year or a partial response or stable disease for more than 2 years. Tumor samples were analyzed using an Ambry Genetics test kit with a 142-gene panel. Messenger RNA expression was evaluated using NanoString's nCounter PanCancer Pathways Panel and Immune Profiling Panel and compared with matched controls for gender, age, and cancer type.
RESULTS
Twenty-six exceptional responders with metastatic bladder, kidney, breast, lung, ovarian, uterine, and colon cancers were enrolled. Mutations were identified in 45 genes. The most common mutation was an EPHA5 nonsynonymous mutation detected in 87.5% of patients. Mutations in DNA damage repair pathway genes were also frequent, suggesting increased genome instability. We also found varying expression of 73 genes in the Pathways panel and 85 genes in the Immune Profiling panel, many of them responsible for improvement in tumor recognition and antitumor immune response.
CONCLUSIONS
The genomic instability detected in our exceptional responders, plus treatment with DNA damage compounds combined with favorable anticancer immunity, may have contributed to exceptional responses to standard anticancer therapies in the patients studied.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
With recent advances in the treatment of cancer, there is increased emphasis on the importance of identifying molecular markers to predict treatment outcomes, thereby allowing precision oncology. In this study, it was hypothesized that there is a "specific biologic signature" in the biology of the cancer in long-term survivors that allows sensitivity to systemic therapy and durability of response. Results showed that DNA damage repair pathway alterations, combined with favorable anticancer immunity, may have contributed to exceptional responses. It is very likely that an in-depth examination of outlier responses will become a standard component of drug development in the future.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33210795
doi: 10.1002/onco.13600
pmc: PMC7930427
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
186-195Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA006927
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2020 AlphaMed Press.
Références
J Gastroenterol. 2003;38(3):207-15
pubmed: 12673442
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
MedGenMed. 2001 Sep 07;3(5):9
pubmed: 11698916
Pharmacogenomics J. 2015 Dec;15(6):505-12
pubmed: 25778469
Epigenetics. 2014 Jun;9(6):896-909
pubmed: 24699858
Cancer Res. 2016 Nov 15;76(22):6452-6457
pubmed: 27811149
Am J Cancer Res. 2017 May 01;7(5):1016-1036
pubmed: 28560055
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 11;356(2):115-24
pubmed: 17215529
N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 21;380(12):1103-1115
pubmed: 30779531
Oncotarget. 2017 Jun 29;8(38):63646-63664
pubmed: 28969018
N Engl J Med. 2004 May 20;350(21):2129-39
pubmed: 15118073
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Aug 29;103(35):13138-43
pubmed: 16924108
N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 22;369(8):722-31
pubmed: 23964934
Cancer Res. 2016 Jan 15;76(2):264-74
pubmed: 26744522
Cancer Res. 2003 Aug 1;63(15):4481-9
pubmed: 12907621
N Engl J Med. 2015 Feb 26;372(9):793-5
pubmed: 25635347
BMC Cancer. 2016 Nov 22;16(1):911
pubmed: 27871313
J Biol Chem. 2015 Mar 20;290(12):7345-59
pubmed: 25623065
Nat Rev Cancer. 2012 Sep;12(9):587-98
pubmed: 22918414
Cancer Gene Ther. 2020 Aug 6;:
pubmed: 32759987
Leukemia. 2015 May;29(5):1133-42
pubmed: 25371178
N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 21;380(12):1116-1127
pubmed: 30779529
Cancer. 2018 Dec 15;124(24):4592-4596
pubmed: 30383887
BMC Cancer. 2010 Sep 16;10:494
pubmed: 20846368
Front Immunol. 2018 Jun 04;9:1288
pubmed: 29915603
Oncotarget. 2016 Oct 18;7(42):68206-68228
pubmed: 27626691
Blood. 1995 Feb 15;85(4):1083-94
pubmed: 7849296
Nucleic Acids Res. 2010 Sep;38(16):e164
pubmed: 20601685
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001 May;67(1):71-80
pubmed: 11518468
Cell Adh Migr. 2015;9(1-2):141-53
pubmed: 25569113
Front Genet. 2016 Nov 21;7:204
pubmed: 27917193
Mol Cancer Res. 2016 Sep;14(9):830-40
pubmed: 27401611
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Nov 1;25(21):6452-6462
pubmed: 31533931
Immunol Rev. 2017 Mar;276(1):178-191
pubmed: 28258691
Mol Cell Probes. 2020 Aug;52:101566
pubmed: 32234341
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2014;:71-6
pubmed: 24857062
Front Oncol. 2015 Feb 16;5:34
pubmed: 25763356
Cancer Res. 2013 Dec 15;73(24):7189-7198
pubmed: 24177180
Cancer Cell. 2018 Oct 8;34(4):536-548
pubmed: 30146333
Int J Mol Med. 2018 Sep;42(3):1229-1236
pubmed: 29845221
Cell Mol Life Sci. 2018 Feb;75(4):689-713
pubmed: 29032503
Hum Mutat. 2016 Mar;37(3):235-41
pubmed: 26555599
Blood. 2005 Apr 1;105(7):2869-76
pubmed: 15585656