Phase and context shape the function of composite oncogenic mutations.

Cancers develop as a result of driver mutations1,2 that lead to clonal outgrowth and the evolution of disease3,4. The discovery and functional characterization of individual driver mutations are central aims of cancer research, and have elucidated myriad phenotypes5 and therapeutic vulnerabilities6. However, the serial genetic evolution of mutant cancer genes7,8 and the allelic context in which they arise is poorly understood in both common and rare cancer genes and tumour types. Here we find that nearly one in four human tumours contains a composite mutation of a cancer-associated gene, defined as two or more nonsynonymous somatic mutations in the same gene and tumour. Composite mutations are enriched in specific genes, have an elevated rate of use of less-common hotspot mutations acquired in a chronology driven in part by oncogenic fitness, and arise in an allelic configuration that reflects context-specific selective pressures. cis-acting composite mutations are hypermorphic in some genes in which dosage effects predominate (such as TERT), whereas they lead to selection of function in other genes (such as TP53). Collectively, composite mutations are driver alterations that arise from context- and allele-specific selective pressures that are dependent in part on gene and mutation function, and which lead to complex-often neomorphic-functions of biological and therapeutic importance.

Author Correction: Tumour lineage shapes BRCA-mediated phenotypes.

An Amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Tumour lineage shapes BRCA-mediated phenotypes.

Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 predispose individuals to certain cancers1-3, and disease-specific screening and preventative strategies have reduced cancer mortality in affected patients4,5. These classical tumour-suppressor genes have tumorigenic effects associated with somatic biallelic inactivation, although haploinsufficiency may also promote the formation and progression of tumours6,7. Moreover, BRCA1/2-mutant tumours are often deficient in the repair of double-stranded DNA breaks by homologous recombination8-13, and consequently exhibit increased therapeutic sensitivity to platinum-containing therapy and inhibitors of poly-(ADP-ribose)-polymerase (PARP)14,15. However, the phenotypic and therapeutic relevance of mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 remains poorly defined in most cancer types. Here we show that in the 2.7% and 1.8% of patients with advanced-stage cancer and germline pathogenic or somatic loss-of-function alterations in BRCA1/2, respectively, selective pressure for biallelic inactivation, zygosity-dependent phenotype penetrance, and sensitivity to PARP inhibition were observed only in tumour types associated with increased heritable cancer risk in BRCA1/2 carriers (BRCA-associated cancer types). Conversely, among patients with non-BRCA-associated cancer types, most carriers of these BRCA1/2 mutation types had evidence for tumour pathogenesis that was independent of mutant BRCA1/2. Overall, mutant BRCA is an indispensable founding event for some tumours, but in a considerable proportion of other cancers, it appears to be biologically neutral-a difference predominantly conditioned by tumour lineage-with implications for disease pathogenesis, screening, design of clinical trials and therapeutic decision-making.

The evolution of RET inhibitor resistance in RET-driven lung and thyroid cancers.

The efficacy of the highly selective RET inhibitor selpercatinib is now established in RET-driven cancers, and we sought to characterize the molecular determinants of response and resistance. We find that the pre-treatment genomic landscape does not shape the variability of treatment response except for rare instances of RAS-mediated primary resistance. By contrast, acquired selpercatinib resistance is driven by MAPK pathway reactivation by one of two distinct routes. In some patients, on- and off-target pathway reactivation via secondary RET solvent front mutations or MET amplifications are evident. In other patients, rare RET-wildtype tumor cell populations driven by an alternative mitogenic driver are selected for by treatment. Multiple distinct mechanisms are often observed in the same patient, suggesting polyclonal resistance may be common. Consequently, sequential RET-directed therapy may require combination treatment with inhibitors targeting alternative MAPK effectors, emphasizing the need for prospective characterization of selpercatinib-treated tumors at the time of monotherapy progression.