Investigation of RBM10 mutation and its associations with clinical and molecular characteristics in EGFR-mutant and EGFR-wildtype lung adenocarcinoma.

ABSTRACT

Background: RBM10 is commonly mutated in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). However, its role in the pathogenesis of LUAD remains undefined. EGFR-mutant LUAD represents a distinct subset of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The function of RBM10 in tumor pathogenesis is supposed to differ between EGFR-mutant and EGFR-wt LUAD. This study aimed to interrogate the prevalence of RBM10 mutation in a large cohort of Chinese patients with LUAD and investigate the association of RBM10 mutation with clinical and molecular characteristics of EGFR-mutant and EGFR-wt LUAD. Methods: Tumor sequencing data from 2848 Chinese patients with LUAD were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. The prevalence of RBM10 was also compared with other three cohorts OrigMed (n = 1222), MSKCC (n = 1267), and TCGA (n = 566). The associations of RBM10 mutation with clinical and molecular characteristics were assessed. An external cohort of 182 patients with LUAD who received PD-1 inhibitor were used to investigate the association of RBM10 mutation with clinical outcomes upon immunotherapy. Results: Our cohort showed a higher prevalence of RBM10 in EGFR-mutant LUAD than in EGFR-wt LUAD (14.8 % vs. 6.5 %, p < 0.001). The enrichment of RBM10 mutations in EGFR-mutant LUAD was also seen in another Chinese cohort (OrigMed 14.9 % vs. 7.8 %, p < 0.001), but not in the two western cohorts (MSKCC 7.4 % vs. 9.5 %, p = 0.272; TCGA 8.1 % vs. 6.7 %, p = 0.624). RBM10 mutations co-occurred more frequently with EGFR L858R mutations (23.7 %) than with other types of EGFR mutations (19 del 7.7 %; other 7.1 % in others, p < 0.001). In EGFR-mutant LUAD, RBM10 mutations were more commonly found in stage I (18.2 %) and II (21.8 %) vs. stage III (9.4 %) and IV (11.3 %) tumors (p < 0.001). The proportion of PD-L1 positive expression in EGFR-mutant LUAD with concomitant RBM10 mutation was not different from that those without RBM10 mutations (41.8 % vs. 47.9 %, p = 0.566). In contrast, RBM10 mutation occurred more frequently in EGFR-wt LUAD at stage II-IV (stage II 12.0 %, stage III 8.7 %, stage IV 6.6 %) than at stage I (2.8 %). EGFR-wt LUAD with concomitant RBM10 mutations had higher proportions of PD-L1 expression positivity (78.9 % vs. 61.9 %, p = 0.014) and higher tumor mutational load (8.97 vs. 2.99 muts/Mb, p < 0.001) than those without. Patients with EGFR-wt LUAD who also harbored RBM10 loss of function (LOF) mutations had a longer median PFS upon immunotherapy than those with RBM10 non-LOF mutations (7.15 m vs. 2.60 m, HR = 4.83 [1.30-17.94], p = 0.010). Conclusion: We comprehensively investigated RBM10 mutations in a Chinese cohort with LUAD. Compared to western cohorts, a significant enrichment of RBM10 mutations in EGFR-mutant LUAD compared to EGFR-wildtype LUAD in the Chinese population. RBM10 mutation shows different associations with clinical and molecular characteristics between EGFR-mutant and EGFR-wt LUAD, suggesting a divergent mechanism between these two subsets via which RBM10 deficiency contribute to tumor pathogenesis. The findings contribute to our understanding of the molecular landscape of LUAD and highlight the importance of considering population-specific factors in cancer genomics research.