4.5 Article

Comparative Genomic Profiling of Matched Primary and Metastatic Tumors in Renal Cell Carcinoma

Journal

EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS
Volume 4, Issue 6, Pages 986-994

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.09.016

Keywords

Renal cell carcinoma; Metastasis; Primary-metastasis tumor pairs; Genomics; Next-generation sequencing; Discordance; Convergent evolution; Spatiotemporal divergence

Funding

  1. J. Randall and Kathleen L. MacDonald Family Research Fund
  2. Jill and Jeffrey Weiss Family Fund for the cure of metastatic kidney cancer
  3. Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers
  4. NIH/NCI Cancer Center support grant [P30 CA008748]
  5. Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service award [T3to2CA082088]
  6. German Research Foundation [CA1403/1-1]
  7. Kidney Cancer Association Young Investigator Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) studies of matched pairs of primary and metastatic tumors in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have been limited to small cohorts. Objective: To evaluate the discordance in somatic mutations between matched primary and metastatic RCC tumors. Design, setting, and participants: Primary tumor (P), metastasis (M), and germline DNA from 60 patients with RCC was subjected to NGS with a targeted exon capture-based assay of 341 cancer-associated genes. Somatic mutations were called using a validated pipeline. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Mutations were classified as shared (S) or private (Pr) in relation to each other within individual P-M pairs. The concordance score was calculated as (S Pr)/(S + Pr). To calculate enrichment of Pr/S mutations for a particular gene, we calculated a two-sided p value from a binomial model for each gene with at least ten somatic mutation events, and also implemented a separate permutation test procedure. We adjusted p values for multiple hypothesis testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. The mutation discordance was calculated using Mann-Whitney U tests according to gene mutations or metastatic sites. Results and limitations: Twenty-one pairs (35%) showed Pr mutations in both P and M samples. Of the remaining 39 pairs (65%), 14 (23%) had Pr mutations specific to P samples, 12 (20%) had Pr mutations to M samples, and 13 (22%) had identical somatic mutations. No individual gene mutation was preferentially enriched in either P or M samples. P-M pairs with SETD2 mutations demonstrated higher discordance than pairs with wild-type SETD2. We observed that patients who received therapy before sampling of the P or M tissue had higher concordance of mutations for P-M pairs than patients who did not (Mann-Whitney p = 0.088). Conclusions: Our data show mutation discordance within matched P-M RCC tumor pairs. As most contemporary precision medicine trials do not differentiate mutations detected in P and M tumors, the prognostic and predictive value of mutations in P versus M tumors warrants further investigation. Patient summary: In this study we evaluated the concordance of mutations between matched primary and metastatic tumors for 60 kidney cancer patients using a panel of 341 cancer genes. Forty-seven patients carried nonidentical cancer gene mutations within their matched primary-metastatic pair. The mutation profile of the primary tumor alone could compromise precision in selecting effective targeted therapies and result in suboptimal clinical outcomes. (c) 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available