Association of Copy Number Variation Signature and Survival in Patients With Serous Ovarian Cancer.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2021
01 06 2021
Historique:
entrez:
28
6
2021
pubmed:
29
6
2021
medline:
6
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Tailoring therapeutic regimens to individual patients with ovarian cancer is informed by severity of disease using a variety of clinicopathologic indicators. Although DNA repair variations are increasingly used for therapy selection in ovarian cancer, molecular features are not widely used for general assessment of patient prognosis and disease severity. To distill a highly dynamic characteristic, signature of copy number variations (CNV), into a risk score that could be easily validated analytically or repurposed for use given existing US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved multigene assays. This genetic association study used the Cancer Genome Atlas Ovarian Cancer database to assess for genome-wide survival associations agnostic to gene function. Regions enriched for significant associations were compared to associations from scrambled data. CNV associations were condensed into a risk score, which was internally validated using bootstrapping. The participants were patients with serous ovarian cancer (stages I-IV) diagnosed from 1992 to 2013. Statistical analysis was performed from April to July 2020. Overall survival (OS). Among 564 patients with serous ovarian cancer, the mean (SD) age was 59.7 (11.5) years; 34 (6%) identified as Black or African American. A total of 13 genome regions, comprising 14 alterations, were identified as significantly risk associated. Composite risk score was independent of total CNV burden, total mutational burden, BRCA status, and open-source genome-wide DNA repair deficiency signatures. Binned terciles yielded high-, standard-, and low-risk groups with respective median OS estimates of 2.9 (95% CI, 2.3-3.2) years, 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.8) years, and 5.7 (95% CI, 4.7-7.4) years, respectively (P < .001). Associated 5-year survival estimates in each tercile were 15% (95% CI, 10%-22%), 36% (95% CI, 29%-46%), and 53% (95% CI, 45%-62%). The risk score had more discriminatory ability to prognosticate OS than age, clinical stage, grade, and race combined, and was strongly additive to significant clinical features (P < .001). Simulated adaptation of FDA-approved assays showed similar performance. Gene ontology analyses of identified regions showed an enrichment for regulatory miRNAs and protein kinase regulators. This study found that a CNV-based risk score is independent to and stronger than current or near-future ovarian cancer genomic biomarkers to prognosticate OS. CNV regions identified were not strongly associated with canonical ovarian cancer biological pathways, identifying candidates for future mechanistic investigations. External validation of the CNV risk score, especially in concert with more extensive clinical features, could be pursued via existing FDA-approved assays.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34181012
pii: 2781458
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14162
pmc: PMC8239953
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2114162Subventions
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 GM007337
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Ann Oncol. 2020 Sep;31(9):1240-1250
pubmed: 32473302
N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2403-2415
pubmed: 31562800
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Feb 1;20(3):764-75
pubmed: 24240112
Cell. 2018 Apr 5;173(2):400-416.e11
pubmed: 29625055
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Apr;125(1):25-30
pubmed: 22155261
Nat Commun. 2017 Feb 15;8:14423
pubmed: 28198375
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep 10;37(26):2317-2328
pubmed: 31216226
N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2391-2402
pubmed: 31562799
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Apr 03;106(5):
pubmed: 24700803
Biomark Res. 2015 May 01;3:9
pubmed: 26015868
J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1-22
pubmed: 20808728
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Oct;135(1):13-8
pubmed: 25093289
Genome Biol. 2011;12(4):R41
pubmed: 21527027
Nature. 2011 Jun 29;474(7353):609-15
pubmed: 21720365
Br J Cancer. 2001 Nov 30;85(11):1634-9
pubmed: 11742480
Am J Hum Genet. 2003 Mar;72(3):759-62
pubmed: 12563560
Brief Bioinform. 2015 Mar;16(2):291-303
pubmed: 24632304
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jan;68(1):7-30
pubmed: 29313949
N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2416-2428
pubmed: 31851799
Cancer. 2019 Dec 15;125 Suppl 24:4578-4581
pubmed: 31967684
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 18;13(10):e0206008
pubmed: 30335837
J Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Sep;29(5):e78
pubmed: 30022638
Genome Med. 2016 Nov 15;8(1):121
pubmed: 27846907
Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2015 Jun;34(2):217-26
pubmed: 25982285
Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2009 Aug;48(8):711-24
pubmed: 19441089
BMC Bioinformatics. 2016 May 26;17(1):222
pubmed: 27230211
Oncotarget. 2017 Jan 31;8(5):8120-8130
pubmed: 28042955
Ann Palliat Med. 2016 Apr;5(2):83-92
pubmed: 27121736
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Feb;148(2):275-280
pubmed: 29195926