Homologous Recombination Deficiency Alterations in Colorectal Cancer: Clinical, Molecular, and Prognostic Implications.
Journal
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
ISSN: 1460-2105
Titre abrégé: J Natl Cancer Inst
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7503089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 02 2022
07 02 2022
Historique:
received:
25
03
2021
revised:
10
06
2021
accepted:
27
07
2021
pubmed:
2
9
2021
medline:
22
3
2022
entrez:
1
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) show high sensitivity to platinum salts and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-inhibitors in several malignancies. In colorectal cancer (CRC), the role of HRD alterations is mostly unknown. Next-generation sequencing, whole transcriptome sequencing, and whole exome sequencing were conducted using CRC samples submitted to a commercial Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments certified laboratory. Tumors with pathogenic and/or presumed pathogenic mutations in 33 genes involved in the homologous recombination pathway were considered HRD, the others were homologous recombination proficient (HRP). Furthermore, tumor samples from patients enrolled in the phase III TRIBE2 study comparing upfront FOLFOXIRI+bevacizumab vs FOLFOX+bevacizumab were analyzed with next-generation sequencing. The analyses were separately conducted in microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair (MSS/pMMR) and microsatellite instable-high or deficient mismatch repair (MSI-H/dMMR) groups. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Of 9321 CRC tumors, 1270 (13.6%) and 8051 (86.4%) were HRD and HRP, respectively. HRD tumors were more frequent among MSI-H/dMMR than MSS/pMMR tumors (73.4% vs 9.5%; P < .001; q < 0.001). In MSS/pMMR group, HRD tumors were more frequently tumor mutational burden high (8.1% vs 2.2%; P < .001; q < 0.001) and PD-L1 positive (5.0% vs 2.4%; P < .001; q = 0.001), enriched in all immune cell and fibroblast populations and genomic loss of heterozygosity-high (16.2% vs 9.5%; P = .03). In the TRIBE2 study, patients with MSS/pMMR and HRD tumors (10.7%) showed longer overall survival compared with MSS/pMMR and HRP tumors (40.2 vs 23.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.45 to 0.98; P = .04). Consistent results were reported in the multivariable model (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.02; P = .07). No interaction effect was evident between homologous recombination groups and treatment arm. HRD tumors are a distinctive subgroup of MSS/pMMR CRCs with specific molecular and prognostic characteristics. The potential efficacy of agents targeting the homologous recombination system and immune checkpoint inhibitors in this subgroup is worthy of clinical investigation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) show high sensitivity to platinum salts and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-inhibitors in several malignancies. In colorectal cancer (CRC), the role of HRD alterations is mostly unknown.
METHODS
Next-generation sequencing, whole transcriptome sequencing, and whole exome sequencing were conducted using CRC samples submitted to a commercial Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments certified laboratory. Tumors with pathogenic and/or presumed pathogenic mutations in 33 genes involved in the homologous recombination pathway were considered HRD, the others were homologous recombination proficient (HRP). Furthermore, tumor samples from patients enrolled in the phase III TRIBE2 study comparing upfront FOLFOXIRI+bevacizumab vs FOLFOX+bevacizumab were analyzed with next-generation sequencing. The analyses were separately conducted in microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair (MSS/pMMR) and microsatellite instable-high or deficient mismatch repair (MSI-H/dMMR) groups. All statistical tests were 2-sided.
RESULTS
Of 9321 CRC tumors, 1270 (13.6%) and 8051 (86.4%) were HRD and HRP, respectively. HRD tumors were more frequent among MSI-H/dMMR than MSS/pMMR tumors (73.4% vs 9.5%; P < .001; q < 0.001). In MSS/pMMR group, HRD tumors were more frequently tumor mutational burden high (8.1% vs 2.2%; P < .001; q < 0.001) and PD-L1 positive (5.0% vs 2.4%; P < .001; q = 0.001), enriched in all immune cell and fibroblast populations and genomic loss of heterozygosity-high (16.2% vs 9.5%; P = .03). In the TRIBE2 study, patients with MSS/pMMR and HRD tumors (10.7%) showed longer overall survival compared with MSS/pMMR and HRP tumors (40.2 vs 23.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.45 to 0.98; P = .04). Consistent results were reported in the multivariable model (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.02; P = .07). No interaction effect was evident between homologous recombination groups and treatment arm.
CONCLUSIONS
HRD tumors are a distinctive subgroup of MSS/pMMR CRCs with specific molecular and prognostic characteristics. The potential efficacy of agents targeting the homologous recombination system and immune checkpoint inhibitors in this subgroup is worthy of clinical investigation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34469533
pii: 6361603
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djab169
pmc: PMC8826505
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
271-279Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Mar 15;26(6):1372-1384
pubmed: 31831554
Lancet. 2010 Jul 24;376(9737):235-44
pubmed: 20609467
Nature. 2005 Apr 14;434(7035):917-21
pubmed: 15829967
JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2018:
pubmed: 30234181
Nature. 2005 Apr 14;434(7035):913-7
pubmed: 15829966
J Immunother Cancer. 2020 Mar;8(1):
pubmed: 32217756
Cell Rep. 2018 Apr 03;23(1):239-254.e6
pubmed: 29617664
J Clin Oncol. 2010 May 20;28(15):2512-9
pubmed: 20406929
Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Jul 1;26(13):3239-3247
pubmed: 32444418
Cancer Discov. 2012 Apr;2(4):366-375
pubmed: 22576213
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 28;382(22):2091-2102
pubmed: 32343890
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Feb 15;27(4):1174-1183
pubmed: 33293373
Mol Cell. 2017 Jun 15;66(6):801-817
pubmed: 28622525
Cancer Res. 2012 Nov 1;72(21):5454-62
pubmed: 22933060
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Aug 1;22(15):3764-73
pubmed: 26957554
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Aug 1;28(22):3555-61
pubmed: 20547991
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 9;361(2):123-34
pubmed: 19553641
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Feb 1;20(3):764-75
pubmed: 24240112
Cancer Med. 2018 Mar;7(3):746-756
pubmed: 29436178
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Oct 5;109(1):
pubmed: 27707838
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Jul 15;23(14):3610-3618
pubmed: 28137924
Cancer Discov. 2019 May;9(5):646-661
pubmed: 30777870
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jun;18(6):779-791
pubmed: 28438473
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 1;38(1):1-10
pubmed: 31682550
Sci Rep. 2019 Mar 1;9(1):3235
pubmed: 30824826
Mol Oncol. 2019 Apr;13(4):681-700
pubmed: 30714316
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 25;381(4):317-327
pubmed: 31157963
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Nov 1;110(11):1178-1189
pubmed: 30380096
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Sep;21(9):1155-1164
pubmed: 32771088
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Sep;14(9):1640-1650
pubmed: 31125737
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jun 1;27(16):2705-11
pubmed: 19364967
N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 10;377(6):523-533
pubmed: 28578601
Ann Oncol. 2020 Sep;31(9):1148-1159
pubmed: 32569725
Nature. 2013 Aug 22;500(7463):415-21
pubmed: 23945592
Nat Rev Cancer. 2011 Dec 23;12(1):68-78
pubmed: 22193408
Nat Rev Cancer. 2016 Feb;16(2):110-20
pubmed: 26775620
Oncologist. 2016 Feb;21(2):172-7
pubmed: 26786262
Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Aug;188:155-167
pubmed: 29580942
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 29;373(18):1697-708
pubmed: 26510020
Nat Commun. 2017 Oct 11;8(1):857
pubmed: 29021619
Ann Oncol. 2020 Sep;31(9):1135-1147
pubmed: 32512040
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Apr;21(4):497-507
pubmed: 32164906
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Jun 1;27(11):3234-3242
pubmed: 33766816
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb;16(2):81-104
pubmed: 30356138
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Aug 15;22(16):4057-66
pubmed: 26994146
Mol Cancer Res. 2018 May;16(5):805-812
pubmed: 29523759