Patient-derived xenograft models capture genomic heterogeneity in endometrial cancer.
Endometrial cancer
Genomic characterization
Genomic scarring
Homologous recombination
Mutational signatures
PARP inhibitors
Patient-derived xenografts
Tumor heterogeneity
Journal
Genome medicine
ISSN: 1756-994X
Titre abrégé: Genome Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101475844
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 01 2022
10 01 2022
Historique:
received:
19
11
2020
accepted:
13
10
2021
entrez:
11
1
2022
pubmed:
12
1
2022
medline:
17
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Endometrial cancer (EC) is a major gynecological cancer with increasing incidence. It comprises four molecular subtypes with differing etiology, prognoses, and responses to chemotherapy. In the future, clinical trials testing new single agents or combination therapies will be targeted to the molecular subtype most likely to respond. As pre-clinical models that faithfully represent the molecular subtypes of EC are urgently needed, we sought to develop and characterize a panel of novel EC patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models. Here, we report whole exome or whole genome sequencing of 11 PDX models and their matched primary tumor. Analysis of multiple PDX lineages and passages was performed to study tumor heterogeneity across lineages and/or passages. Based on recent reports of frequent defects in the homologous recombination (HR) pathway in EC, we assessed mutational signatures and HR deficiency scores and correlated these with in vivo responses to the PARP inhibitor (PARPi) talazoparib in six PDXs representing the copy number high/p53-mutant and mismatch-repair deficient molecular subtypes of EC. PDX models were successfully generated from grade 2/3 tumors, including three uterine carcinosarcomas. The models showed similar histomorphology to the primary tumors and represented all four molecular subtypes of EC, including five mismatch-repair deficient models. The different PDX lineages showed a wide range of inter-tumor and intra-tumor heterogeneity. However, for most PDX models, one arm recapitulated the molecular landscape of the primary tumor without major genomic drift. An in vivo response to talazoparib was detected in four copy number high models. Two models (carcinosarcomas) showed a response consistent with stable disease and two models (one copy number high serous EC and another carcinosarcoma) showed significant tumor growth inhibition, albeit one consistent with progressive disease; however, all lacked the HR deficiency genomic signature. EC PDX models represent the four molecular subtypes of disease and can capture intra-tumor heterogeneity of the original primary tumor. PDXs of the copy number high molecular subtype showed sensitivity to PARPi; however, deeper and more durable responses will likely require combination of PARPi with other agents.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer (EC) is a major gynecological cancer with increasing incidence. It comprises four molecular subtypes with differing etiology, prognoses, and responses to chemotherapy. In the future, clinical trials testing new single agents or combination therapies will be targeted to the molecular subtype most likely to respond. As pre-clinical models that faithfully represent the molecular subtypes of EC are urgently needed, we sought to develop and characterize a panel of novel EC patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models.
METHODS
Here, we report whole exome or whole genome sequencing of 11 PDX models and their matched primary tumor. Analysis of multiple PDX lineages and passages was performed to study tumor heterogeneity across lineages and/or passages. Based on recent reports of frequent defects in the homologous recombination (HR) pathway in EC, we assessed mutational signatures and HR deficiency scores and correlated these with in vivo responses to the PARP inhibitor (PARPi) talazoparib in six PDXs representing the copy number high/p53-mutant and mismatch-repair deficient molecular subtypes of EC.
RESULTS
PDX models were successfully generated from grade 2/3 tumors, including three uterine carcinosarcomas. The models showed similar histomorphology to the primary tumors and represented all four molecular subtypes of EC, including five mismatch-repair deficient models. The different PDX lineages showed a wide range of inter-tumor and intra-tumor heterogeneity. However, for most PDX models, one arm recapitulated the molecular landscape of the primary tumor without major genomic drift. An in vivo response to talazoparib was detected in four copy number high models. Two models (carcinosarcomas) showed a response consistent with stable disease and two models (one copy number high serous EC and another carcinosarcoma) showed significant tumor growth inhibition, albeit one consistent with progressive disease; however, all lacked the HR deficiency genomic signature.
CONCLUSIONS
EC PDX models represent the four molecular subtypes of disease and can capture intra-tumor heterogeneity of the original primary tumor. PDXs of the copy number high molecular subtype showed sensitivity to PARPi; however, deeper and more durable responses will likely require combination of PARPi with other agents.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35012638
doi: 10.1186/s13073-021-00990-z
pii: 10.1186/s13073-021-00990-z
pmc: PMC8751371
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Nat Cell Biol. 2019 Aug;21(8):1041-1051
pubmed: 31371824
Cancer. 2017 Mar 1;123(5):802-813
pubmed: 28061006
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Sep 15;19(18):5003-15
pubmed: 23881923
Mol Cancer Ther. 2014 Feb;13(2):433-43
pubmed: 24356813
Nat Genet. 2017 Nov;49(11):1567-1575
pubmed: 28991255
Nat Cell Biol. 2017 May;19(5):568-577
pubmed: 28394884
PLoS Med. 2005 Jan;2(1):e17
pubmed: 15696205
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Nov;159(2):381-386
pubmed: 32900500
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jan;152(1):11-19
pubmed: 30415991
Hum Mutat. 2014 Dec;35(12):1442-5
pubmed: 25196364
Nat Genet. 2018 Aug;50(8):1189-1195
pubmed: 30013179
Cancer Cell. 2017 Mar 13;31(3):411-423
pubmed: 28292439
NPJ Breast Cancer. 2018 Jul 2;4:16
pubmed: 29978035
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Jan 27;11(2):
pubmed: 33513911
Nat Commun. 2020 May 26;11(1):2641
pubmed: 32457376
Nat Commun. 2019 Jul 5;10(1):2969
pubmed: 31278357
Nat Commun. 2019 Jul 18;10(1):3163
pubmed: 31320640
Mol Cancer Res. 2019 Mar;17(3):731-740
pubmed: 30610106
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Aug 1;22(15):3764-73
pubmed: 26957554
Nature. 2015 May 28;521(7553):489-94
pubmed: 26017449
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 13;9(6):e100041
pubmed: 24927325
Nat Commun. 2014 Sep 19;5:5006
pubmed: 25233892
Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2016 Dec 8;56:15.9.1-15.9.17
pubmed: 27930809
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jan;68(1):7-30
pubmed: 29313949
JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2018:
pubmed: 30234181
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Sep;146(3):538-545
pubmed: 28625393
Nature. 2016 May 02;534(7605):47-54
pubmed: 27135926
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45835
pubmed: 23049875
Nat Methods. 2014 Apr;11(4):396-8
pubmed: 24633410
Cell Cycle. 2019 Mar - Apr;18(6-7):759-770
pubmed: 30874462
Nat Genet. 2016 Aug;48(8):848-55
pubmed: 27348297
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Oct;139(1):118-26
pubmed: 26232337
Cancer Manag Res. 2020 Jul 22;12:6123-6135
pubmed: 32801862
Nature. 2019 Nov;575(7781):210-216
pubmed: 31645765
Neoplasia. 2017 Aug;19(8):628-636
pubmed: 28658648
Cancer Res. 2014 Apr 1;74(7):1895-901
pubmed: 24525744
Ann Oncol. 2018 May 1;29(5):1180-1188
pubmed: 29432521
BMC Cancer. 2014 Mar 13;14:179
pubmed: 24625059
Ann Oncol. 2019 Jul 1;30(7):1071-1079
pubmed: 31090900
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Aug 15;22(16):4215-24
pubmed: 27006490
Cancer. 2019 Sep 15;125(18):3172-3183
pubmed: 31150123
Nature. 2012 Jun 28;486(7404):532-6
pubmed: 22722830
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Mar;128(3):470-4
pubmed: 23127973
Cancer Discov. 2015 Jul;5(7):752-67
pubmed: 26069190
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Nov;143(2):379-388
pubmed: 27614696
Sci Transl Med. 2010 Oct 13;2(53):53ra75
pubmed: 20944090
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 10;38(29):3388-3397
pubmed: 32749941
Eur J Cancer. 2010 Oct;46(15):2821-7
pubmed: 20638839
Ann Oncol. 2017 Dec 1;28(12):3076-3082
pubmed: 28950321
Cell. 2018 Apr 5;173(2):291-304.e6
pubmed: 29625048
Nat Genet. 2017 Oct;49(10):1476-1486
pubmed: 28825726
ESMO Open. 2020 Oct;5(5):e000926
pubmed: 33109627
Genome Biol. 2009;10(11):R128
pubmed: 19903341
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Oct 25;113(43):12238-12243
pubmed: 27791010
Cell Rep. 2020 May 5;31(5):107550
pubmed: 32375028
Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9
pubmed: 19505943
Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Feb;160(2):557-567
pubmed: 33309417
Nat Commun. 2017 Oct 11;8(1):857
pubmed: 29021619
Cancer Res. 2019 Jan 15;79(2):311-319
pubmed: 30482774
Nature. 2013 May 2;497(7447):67-73
pubmed: 23636398
Bioinformatics. 2014 Apr 1;30(7):1015-6
pubmed: 24371154
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Feb 1;25(3):1087-1097
pubmed: 30413523
Br J Cancer. 2015 Jul 14;113(2):299-310
pubmed: 26172027
Nat Med. 2017 Apr;23(4):517-525
pubmed: 28288110