Comparative Genomic Analysis of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Biopsy Type, Ancestry, and Testing Patterns.
Bile duct neoplasms
Comparative genomics
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
Liquid biopsy
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
received:
14
01
2021
accepted:
19
05
2021
pubmed:
4
6
2021
medline:
29
9
2021
entrez:
3
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
At diagnosis, the majority of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) present with advanced disease and a poor prognosis. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) early in the disease course may increase access to targeted therapies and clinical trials; however, unresolved issues remain surrounding the optimal biopsy type to submit for CGP. Mutational frequencies between primary tumor biopsies (Pbx), metastatic biopsies (Mbx), and liquid biopsies (Lbx) in 1,632 patients with IHCC were compared. Potentially actionable alterations were found in 52%, 34%, and 35% of patients in the Pbx, Mbx, and Lbx cohorts, respectively. In Pbx, Mbx, and Lbx, FGFR2 rearrangements were found in 9%, 6%, and 4%, and IDH1 mutations were identified in 16%, 5%, and 9% patients, respectively. Moreover, alterations in FGFR2 and IDH1 were significantly associated with distinct ancestries, including 2.1-fold enrichment for FGFR2 rearrangements in patients with African ancestry and 1.5-fold enrichment for IDH1 mutations in patients with admixed American (Hispanic) ancestry. Finally, the publication of biomarker-driven clinical trials in IHCC correlated with changing CGP testing patterns. Significant correlations between patient characteristics and IHCC trial disclosures were observed, including a significant decrease from time between biopsy and CGP testing, and more frequent testing of primary versus metastatic samples. Overall, because of the high likelihood of identifying actionable genomic alterations, CGP should be considered for the majority of patients with inoperable IHCC, and Lbx and Mbx can be considered as part of the diagnostic suite. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) should be considered for all patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) or suspected IHCC, as actionable alterations were commonly found in multiple genes and a wide variety of FGFR2 fusion partners were identified. The disclosure of IHCC trial data correlated with increased use of CGP, an encouraging trend that moves new therapeutic options forward for rare cancers with a rare biomarker. Although tissue from the primary lesion may identify actionable alterations at higher rates, CGP of a liquid biopsy or metastatic site can be considered, particularly if the primary tissue block is exhausted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
At diagnosis, the majority of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) present with advanced disease and a poor prognosis. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) early in the disease course may increase access to targeted therapies and clinical trials; however, unresolved issues remain surrounding the optimal biopsy type to submit for CGP.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Mutational frequencies between primary tumor biopsies (Pbx), metastatic biopsies (Mbx), and liquid biopsies (Lbx) in 1,632 patients with IHCC were compared.
RESULTS
Potentially actionable alterations were found in 52%, 34%, and 35% of patients in the Pbx, Mbx, and Lbx cohorts, respectively. In Pbx, Mbx, and Lbx, FGFR2 rearrangements were found in 9%, 6%, and 4%, and IDH1 mutations were identified in 16%, 5%, and 9% patients, respectively. Moreover, alterations in FGFR2 and IDH1 were significantly associated with distinct ancestries, including 2.1-fold enrichment for FGFR2 rearrangements in patients with African ancestry and 1.5-fold enrichment for IDH1 mutations in patients with admixed American (Hispanic) ancestry. Finally, the publication of biomarker-driven clinical trials in IHCC correlated with changing CGP testing patterns. Significant correlations between patient characteristics and IHCC trial disclosures were observed, including a significant decrease from time between biopsy and CGP testing, and more frequent testing of primary versus metastatic samples.
CONCLUSION
Overall, because of the high likelihood of identifying actionable genomic alterations, CGP should be considered for the majority of patients with inoperable IHCC, and Lbx and Mbx can be considered as part of the diagnostic suite.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) should be considered for all patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) or suspected IHCC, as actionable alterations were commonly found in multiple genes and a wide variety of FGFR2 fusion partners were identified. The disclosure of IHCC trial data correlated with increased use of CGP, an encouraging trend that moves new therapeutic options forward for rare cancers with a rare biomarker. Although tissue from the primary lesion may identify actionable alterations at higher rates, CGP of a liquid biopsy or metastatic site can be considered, particularly if the primary tissue block is exhausted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34080753
doi: 10.1002/onco.13844
pmc: PMC8417854
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
787-796Informations de copyright
© 2021 AlphaMed Press.
Références
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013 Aug;24(8):1218-26
pubmed: 23725793
Cancer Cell. 2020 May 11;37(5):639-654.e6
pubmed: 32396860
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 25;15(9):e0237802
pubmed: 32976510
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Aug 15;25(16):4888-4897
pubmed: 31088831
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Sep 1;6(9):1405-1409
pubmed: 32729929
Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2017 Mar;36(1):141-157
pubmed: 27981460
Sci Rep. 2019 Sep 13;9(1):13261
pubmed: 31519967
Drugs. 2020 Jun;80(9):923-929
pubmed: 32472305
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Sep 1;24(17):4154-4161
pubmed: 29848569
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jun;21(6):796-807
pubmed: 32416072
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Nov;31(11):1023-31
pubmed: 24142049
Nat Commun. 2015 Jan 30;6:6120
pubmed: 25636086
J Hepatol. 2014 Jun;60(6):1268-89
pubmed: 24681130
Hepatology. 2014 Apr;59(4):1427-34
pubmed: 24122810
J Mol Diagn. 2019 Nov;21(6):1053-1066
pubmed: 31445211
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Apr;16(4):370-376
pubmed: 29632056
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jan 20;36(3):276-282
pubmed: 29182496
Cancer Control. 2017 Jul-Sep;24(3):1073274817729241
pubmed: 28975832
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016 Oct;7(5):789-796
pubmed: 27747092
Genome Med. 2017 Apr 19;9(1):34
pubmed: 28420421
Nat Med. 2019 Sep;25(9):1415-1421
pubmed: 31501609
Ann Oncol. 2018 Sep 1;29(9):1895-1902
pubmed: 30137196
Int J Cancer. 2021 Feb 1;148(3):702-712
pubmed: 32700810
Oncotarget. 2017 Sep 15;8(60):101165-101174
pubmed: 29254154
Oncologist. 2014 Mar;19(3):235-42
pubmed: 24563076
Nat Commun. 2015 Jan 22;6:6087
pubmed: 25608663
Blood. 2017 Aug 10;130(6):722-731
pubmed: 28588020
J Hepatol. 2018 May;68(5):959-969
pubmed: 29360550
JCO Precis Oncol. 2018 Nov;2:1-12
pubmed: 35135097
Cancer Discov. 2017 Mar;7(3):252-263
pubmed: 28034880
Br J Cancer. 2019 Jan;120(2):165-171
pubmed: 30420614
Cancer. 2016 Dec 15;122(24):3838-3847
pubmed: 27622582
Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2016 Jun;35(2):263-75
pubmed: 26857926
Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2020 Apr;52:56-67
pubmed: 31899106
Case Rep Oncol. 2020 Aug 5;13(2):941-947
pubmed: 32999653
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Sep;21(9):1234-1243
pubmed: 32818466
Genome Res. 2009 Sep;19(9):1655-64
pubmed: 19648217
Hum Pathol. 2014 Aug;45(8):1630-8
pubmed: 24837095
J Carcinog. 2015 Feb 23;14:1
pubmed: 25788866
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 23;9(12):e115383
pubmed: 25536104
J Mol Diagn. 2018 Sep;20(5):686-702
pubmed: 29936259
N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 8;362(14):1273-81
pubmed: 20375404
Nat Med. 2019 Dec;25(12):1928-1937
pubmed: 31768066
J Clin Pathol. 2016 May;69(5):403-8
pubmed: 26500333