Comparative Genomic Landscape of Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder Among Patients of East and South Asian Genomic Ancestry.
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 10 2023
03 10 2023
Historique:
received:
06
12
2022
accepted:
21
03
2023
medline:
4
10
2023
pubmed:
17
5
2023
entrez:
17
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite the low rate of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB) in patients of South Asian (SAS) and East Asian (EAS) descent, they make up a significant portion of the cases worldwide. Nevertheless, these patients are largely under-represented in clinical trials. We queried whether UCB arising in patients with SAS and EAS ancestry would have unique genomic features compared to the global cohort. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue was obtained for 8728 patients with advanced UCB. DNA was extracted and comprehensive genomic profiling was performed. Ancestry was classified using a proprietary calculation algorithm. Genomic alterations (GAs) were determined using a 324-gene hybrid-capture-based method which also calculates tumor mutational burden (TMB) and determines microsatellite status (MSI). Of the cohort, 7447 (85.3%) were EUR, 541 (6.2%) were AFR, 461 (5.3%) were of AMR, 74 (0.85%) were SAS, and 205 (2.3%) were EAS. When compared with EUR, TERT GAs were less frequent in SAS (58.1% vs. 73.6%; P = .06). When compared with non-SAS, SAS had less frequent GAs in FGFR3 (9.5% vs. 18.5%, P = .25). TERT promoter mutations were significantly less frequent in EAS compared to non-EAS (54.1% vs. 72.9%; P < .001). When compared with the non-EAS, PIK3CA alterations were significantly less common in EAS (12.7% vs. 22.1%, P = .005). The mean TMB was significantly lower in EAS vs. non-EAS (8.53 vs. 10.02; P = .05). The results from this comprehensive genomic analysis of UCB provide important insight into the possible differences in the genomic landscape in a population level. These hypothesis-generating findings require external validation and should support the inclusion of more diverse patient populations in clinical trials.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite the low rate of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB) in patients of South Asian (SAS) and East Asian (EAS) descent, they make up a significant portion of the cases worldwide. Nevertheless, these patients are largely under-represented in clinical trials. We queried whether UCB arising in patients with SAS and EAS ancestry would have unique genomic features compared to the global cohort.
METHODS
Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue was obtained for 8728 patients with advanced UCB. DNA was extracted and comprehensive genomic profiling was performed. Ancestry was classified using a proprietary calculation algorithm. Genomic alterations (GAs) were determined using a 324-gene hybrid-capture-based method which also calculates tumor mutational burden (TMB) and determines microsatellite status (MSI).
RESULTS
Of the cohort, 7447 (85.3%) were EUR, 541 (6.2%) were AFR, 461 (5.3%) were of AMR, 74 (0.85%) were SAS, and 205 (2.3%) were EAS. When compared with EUR, TERT GAs were less frequent in SAS (58.1% vs. 73.6%; P = .06). When compared with non-SAS, SAS had less frequent GAs in FGFR3 (9.5% vs. 18.5%, P = .25). TERT promoter mutations were significantly less frequent in EAS compared to non-EAS (54.1% vs. 72.9%; P < .001). When compared with the non-EAS, PIK3CA alterations were significantly less common in EAS (12.7% vs. 22.1%, P = .005). The mean TMB was significantly lower in EAS vs. non-EAS (8.53 vs. 10.02; P = .05).
CONCLUSIONS
The results from this comprehensive genomic analysis of UCB provide important insight into the possible differences in the genomic landscape in a population level. These hypothesis-generating findings require external validation and should support the inclusion of more diverse patient populations in clinical trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37196060
pii: 7169380
doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyad120
pmc: PMC10546831
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e910-e920Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.
Références
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Nov;31(11):1023-31
pubmed: 24142049
Cell Rep. 2013 Jan 31;3(1):246-59
pubmed: 23318258
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Nature. 2012 Jun 20;486(7403):405-9
pubmed: 22722202
Neoplasia. 2017 Aug;19(8):649-658
pubmed: 28732212
J Immunother Cancer. 2021 Nov;9(11):
pubmed: 34725212
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Mar 1;27(5):1438-1451
pubmed: 33310889
J Clin Oncol. 2018 May 1;36(13):1291-1299
pubmed: 29401002
Hum Pathol. 2023 Mar;133:56-75
pubmed: 35700749
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2021 Jun;41:e174-e181
pubmed: 34061566
Nature. 2013 May 2;497(7447):67-73
pubmed: 23636398
World J Urol. 2020 Aug;38(8):1895-1904
pubmed: 31676912
Cancer Med. 2021 Mar;10(5):1525-1534
pubmed: 33591635
Cancer Cell. 2020 May 11;37(5):639-654.e6
pubmed: 32396860
BJU Int. 2022 Feb;129(2):168-170
pubmed: 34748278
Clin Epigenetics. 2018 Jan 4;10:1
pubmed: 29312470
Cancer Med. 2020 Oct;9(19):7151-7160
pubmed: 32810393
Ann Oncol. 2021 Feb;32(2):208-217
pubmed: 33246021
Nature. 2012 Oct 4;490(7418):61-70
pubmed: 23000897
Nat Med. 2017 Jun;23(6):703-713
pubmed: 28481359
Nature. 2017 Mar 16;543(7645):378-384
pubmed: 28112728
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 25;381(4):338-348
pubmed: 31340094
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Dec 1;19(23):6578-84
pubmed: 24097866
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Oct;20(10):1454-1466
pubmed: 31405822
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2016 Nov;78(5):959-967
pubmed: 27620207
Nat Rev Urol. 2018 Jun;15(6):386-393
pubmed: 29599449
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 20;37(30):2730-2737
pubmed: 31116675