Evolutionary trajectories of small cell lung cancer under therapy.

The evolutionary processes that underlie the marked sensitivity of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) to chemotherapy and rapid relapse are unknown1-3. Here we determined tumour phylogenies at diagnosis and throughout chemotherapy and immunotherapy by multiregion sequencing of 160 tumours from 65 patients. Treatment-naive SCLC exhibited clonal homogeneity at distinct tumour sites, whereas first-line platinum-based chemotherapy led to a burst in genomic intratumour heterogeneity and spatial clonal diversity. We observed branched evolution and a shift to ancestral clones underlying tumour relapse. Effective radio- or immunotherapy induced a re-expansion of founder clones with acquired genomic damage from first-line chemotherapy. Whereas TP53 and RB1 alterations were exclusively part of the common ancestor, MYC family amplifications were frequently not constituents of the founder clone. At relapse, emerging subclonal mutations affected key genes associated with SCLC biology, and tumours harbouring clonal CREBBP/EP300 alterations underwent genome duplications. Gene-damaging TP53 alterations and co-alterations of TP53 missense mutations with TP73, CREBBP/EP300 or FMN2 were significantly associated with shorter disease relapse following chemotherapy. In summary, we uncover key processes of the genomic evolution of SCLC under therapy, identify the common ancestor as the source of clonal diversity at relapse and show central genomic patterns associated with sensitivity and resistance to chemotherapy.

Resistance to MET inhibition in MET-dependent NSCLC and therapeutic activity after switching from type I to type II MET inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: Resistance to MET inhibition occurs inevitably in MET-dependent non-small cell lung cancer and the underlying mechanisms are insufficiently understood. We describe resistance mechanisms in patients with MET exon 14 skipping mutation (METΔex14), MET amplification, and MET fusion and report treatment outcomes after switching therapy from type I to type II MET inhibitors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- and post-treatment biopsies were analysed by NGS (next generation sequencing), digital droplet PCR (polymerase chain reaction), and FISH (fluorescense in situ hybridization). A patient-derived xenograft model was generated in one case. RESULTS: Of 26 patients with MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment, eight had paired pre- and post-treatment biopsies (Three with MET amplification, three with METΔex14, two with MET fusions (KIF5B-MET and PRKAR2B-MET).) In six patients, mechanisms of resistance were detected, whereas in two cases, the cause of resistance remained unclear. We found off-target resistance mechanisms in four cases with KRAS mutations and HER2 amplifications appearing. Two patients exhibited second-site MET mutations (p.D1246N and p. Y1248H). Three patients received type I and type II MET tyrosine kinase inhibitors sequentially. In two cases, further progressive disease was seen hereafter. The patient with KIF5B-MET fusion received three different MET inhibitors and showed long-lasting stable disease and a repeated response after switching therapy, respectively. CONCLUSION: Resistance to MET inhibition is heterogeneous with on- and off-target mechanisms occurring regardless of the initial MET aberration. Switching therapy between different types of kinase inhibitors can lead to repeated responses in cases with second-site mutations. Controlled clinical trials in this setting with larger patient numbers are needed, as evidence to date is limited to preclinical data and case series.

Combined point mutation in KRAS or EGFR genes and EML4-ALK translocation in lung cancer patients.

A total of three cases with novel constellations regarding mutation patterns in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are reported. The mutation patterns that are observed are novel and unexpected. First, a combined simultaneous KRAS mutation and EML4-ALK translocation, both in the main tumor and a bone metastasis, were observed, these mutations are assumed to mutually exclude each other. A further two cases include a father and a daughter, both of whom are suffering from NSCLC with different EGFR mutation patterns. A common cause was assumed; however, could not be deduced to mutations in the KRAS, BRAF and EGFR genes. The aforementioned cases are important, as it must be taken into account that mutations previously assumed to be exclusive can occur in combination, may influence the clinical outcome and may require different therapy compared with single mutated tumors. It has to be discussed whether diagnostic algorithms need to be adapted. The cases of father and daughter show that further unknown factors can influence development of NSCLC.