Immune activation by DNA damage predicts response to chemotherapy and survival in oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Current strategies to guide selection of neoadjuvant therapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) are inadequate. We assessed the ability of a DNA damage immune response (DDIR) assay to predict response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in OAC. DESIGN: Transcriptional profiling of 273 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prechemotherapy endoscopic OAC biopsies was performed. All patients were treated with platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection between 2003 and 2014 at four centres in the Oesophageal Cancer Clinical and Molecular Stratification consortium. CD8 and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemical staining was assessed in matched resection specimens from 126 cases. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were applied according to DDIR status for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 66 OAC samples (24%) were DDIR positive with the remaining 207 samples (76%) being DDIR negative. DDIR assay positivity was associated with improved RFS (HR: 0.61; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.98; p=0.042) and OS (HR: 0.52; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88; p=0.015) following multivariate analysis. DDIR-positive patients had a higher pathological response rate (p=0.033), lower nodal burden (p=0.026) and reduced circumferential margin involvement (p=0.007). No difference in OS was observed according to DDIR status in an independent surgery-alone dataset.DDIR-positive OAC tumours were also associated with the presence of CD8+ lymphocytes (intratumoural: p<0.001; stromal: p=0.026) as well as PD-L1 expression (intratumoural: p=0.047; stromal: p=0.025). CONCLUSION: The DDIR assay is strongly predictive of benefit from DNA-damaging neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgical resection and is associated with a proinflammatory microenvironment in OAC.

Molecular Subgroup of Primary Prostate Cancer Presenting with Metastatic Biology.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 4-25% of patients with early prostate cancer develop disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. OBJECTIVE: To identify a molecular subgroup of prostate cancers with metastatic potential at presentation resulting in a high risk of recurrence following radical prostatectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Unsupervised hierarchical clustering was performed using gene expression data from 70 primary resections, 31 metastatic lymph nodes, and 25 normal prostate samples. Independent assay validation was performed using 322 radical prostatectomy samples from four sites with a mean follow-up of 50.3 months. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Molecular subgroups were identified using unsupervised hierarchical clustering. A partial least squares approach was used to generate a gene expression assay. Relationships with outcome (time to biochemical and metastatic recurrence) were analysed using multivariable Cox regression and log-rank analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A molecular subgroup of primary prostate cancer with biology similar to metastatic disease was identified. A 70-transcript signature (metastatic assay) was developed and independently validated in the radical prostatectomy samples. Metastatic assay positive patients had increased risk of biochemical recurrence (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] 1.62 [1.13-2.33]; p=0.0092) and metastatic recurrence (multivariable HR=3.20 [1.76-5.80]; p=0.0001). A combined model with Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment post surgical (CAPRA-S) identified patients at an increased risk of biochemical and metastatic recurrence superior to either model alone (HR=2.67 [1.90-3.75]; p<0.0001 and HR=7.53 [4.13-13.73]; p<0.0001, respectively). The retrospective nature of the study is acknowledged as a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: The metastatic assay may identify a molecular subgroup of primary prostate cancers with metastatic potential. PATIENT SUMMARY: The metastatic assay may improve the ability to detect patients at risk of metastatic recurrence following radical prostatectomy. The impact of adjuvant therapies should be assessed in this higher-risk population.