Evaluation of markers of immunity in different metastatic immune microenvironments suggests more suppression within breast to liver metastases in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Programmed death receptor ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and tumor mutational burden (TMB) are approved screening biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in advanced triple negative breast cancer. We examined these biomarkers along with characterization of the tumor microenvironment (TME) between breast tumors (BrTs), axillary metastases (AxMs), liver metastases (LvMs), non-axillary lymph node metastases, and non-liver metastases to determine differences related to site of metastatic disease. METHODS: 3076 unpaired biopsies from breast cancer patients were analyzed using whole transcriptome sequencing and NextGen DNA depicting TMB within tumor sites. The PD-L1 positivity was determined with VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay. The immune cell fraction within the TME was calculated by QuantiSeq and MCP-counter. RESULTS: Compared to BrT, more LvM samples had a high TMB (≥ 10 mutations/Mb) and fewer LvM samples had PD-L1+ expression. Evaluation of the TME revealed that LvM sites harbored lower infiltration of adaptive immune cells, such as CD4+, CD8+, and regulatory T-cells compared with the BrT foci. We saw differences in innate immune cell infiltration in LvM compared to BrT, including neutrophils and NK cells. CONCLUSIONS: LvMs are less likely to express PD-L1+ tumor cells but more likely to harbor high TMB as compared to BrTs. Unlike AxMs, LvMs represent a more immunosuppressed TME and demonstrate lower gene expression associated with adaptive immunity compared to BrTs. These findings suggest biopsy site be considered when interpreting results that influence ICI use for treatment and further investigation of immune composition and biomarkers expression by metastatic site.

A paradigm shift in understanding vulvovaginal melanoma as a distinct tumor type compared with cutaneous melanoma.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to compare molecular and immune profiles of vulvovaginal melanoma (VVM) with cutaneous melanoma (CM) and explore the significance of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) agents on survival. METHODS: Samples from VVM and CM tumors underwent comprehensive molecular and immune profiling. Treatment and survival data were extracted from insurance claims data and OS was calculated from time of ICI treatment to last contact. Statistical significance was determined using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum test and adjusted for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Molecular analysis was performed on 142 VVM and 3823 CM tumors. VVM demonstrated significantly (q < 0·01) less frequent BRAF and more frequent KIT, ATRX, and SF3B1 mutations. Alterations in pathways involving DNA damage and mRNA splicing were more common in VVM, while alterations in cell cycle and chromatin remodeling were less common. Immunogenicity of VVM was lower than CM, with an absence of high TMB (0% vs 46.9%) and lower PD-L1 positivity (18·0% vs 29·5%). Median immune checkpoint gene expression was lower in VVM, as were cell fractions for type I macrophages and CD8+ T-cells(q < 0·01). Myeloid dendritic cells were increased in VVM(q < 0·01). Median OS was shorter for VVM than for CM patients treated with ICIs (17·6 versus 37·9 months, HR:1·65 (95% CI 1·02-2·67) p = 0·04). CONCLUSIONS: VVM has a distinct molecular and immune profile compared to CM, which may contribute to the worse survival in VVM compared to CM patients treated with ICI therapy. Though ICIs have been a mainstay of treatment in recent years, our findings suggest that new therapeutic strategies are needed.

Mutational analysis of microsatellite-stable gastrointestinal cancer with high tumour mutational burden: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Genomic signatures contributing to high tumour mutational burden (TMB-H) independent from mismatch-repair deficiency (dMMR) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) status are not well studied. We aimed to characterise molecular features of microsatellite stable (MSS) TMB-H gastrointestinal tumours. METHODS: Molecular alterations of 48 606 gastrointestinal tumours from Caris Life Sciences (CARIS) identified with next-generation sequencing were compared among MSS-TMB-H, dMMR/MSI-H, and MSS-TMB-low (L) tumours, using χ2 or Fisher's exact tests. Antitumour immune response within the tumour environment was predicted by analysing the infiltration of immune cells and immune signatures using The Cancer Genome Atlas database. The Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used to evaluate the impact of gene alterations on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in MSS gastrointestinal cancers from the CARIS database, a Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center cohort, and a Peking University Cancer Hospital cohort. FINDINGS: MSS-TMB-H was observed in 1600 (3·29%) of 48 606 tumours, dMMR/MSI-H in 2272 (4·67%), and MSS-TMB-L in 44 734 (92·03%). Gene mutations in SMAD2, MTOR, NFE2L2, RB1, KEAP1, TERT, and RASA1 might impair antitumour immune response despite TMB-H, while mutations in 16 other genes (CDC73, CTNNA1, ERBB4, EZH2, JAK2, MAP2K1, MAP2K4, PIK3R1, POLE, PPP2R1A, PPP2R2A, PTPN11, RAF1, RUNX1, STAG2, and XPO1) were related to TMB-H with enhanced antitumour immune response independent of dMMR/MSI-H, constructing a predictive model (modified TMB [mTMB]) for immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy. Patients with any mutation in the mTMB gene signature, in comparison with patients with mTMB wildtype tumours, showed a superior survival benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors in MSS gastrointestinal cancers in the CARIS cohort (n=95, median overall survival 18·77 months [95% CI 17·30-20·23] vs 7·03 months [5·73-8·34]; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·31-0·99], p=0·044). In addition, copy number amplification in chromosome 11q13 (eg, CCND1, FGF genes) was more prevalent in MSS-TMB-H tumours than in the dMMR/MSI-H or MSS-TMB-L subgroups. INTERPRETATION: Not all mutations related to TMB-H can enhance antitumour immune response. More composite biomarkers should be investigated (eg, mTMB signature) to tailor treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Our data also provide novel insights for the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and drugs targeting cyclin D1 or FGFs. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, Gloria Borges WunderGlo Foundation, Dhont Family Foundation, Gene Gregg Pancreas Research Fund, San Pedro Peninsula Cancer Guild, Daniel Butler Research Fund, Victoria and Philip Wilson Research Fund, Fong Research Project, Ming Hsieh Research Fund, Shanghai Sailing Program, China National Postdoctoral Program for Innovative Talents, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Pan-tumor survey of ROS1 fusions detected by next-generation RNA and whole transcriptome sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Two ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been approved for ROS1 fusion positive (ROS1+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors. We performed a pan-tumor analysis of the incidence of ROS1 fusions to assess if more ROS1+ patients who could benefit from ROS1 TKIs could be identified. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of ROS1 positive solid malignancies identified by targeted RNA sequencing and whole transcriptome sequencing of clinical tumor samples performed at Caris Life Science (Phoenix, AZ). RESULTS: A total of 259 ROS1+ solid malignancies were identified from approximately 175,350 tumors that underwent next-generation sequencing (12% from targeted RNA sequencing [Archer]; 88% from whole transcriptome sequencing). ROS1+ NSCLC constituted 78.8% of the ROS1+ solid malignancies, follow by glioblastoma (GBM) (6.9%), and breast cancer (2.7%). The frequency of ROS1 fusion was approximately 0.47% among NSCLC, 0.29% for GBM, 0.04% of breast cancer. The mean tumor mutation burden for all ROS1+ tumors was 4.8 mutations/megabase. The distribution of PD-L1 (22C3) expression among all ROS1+ malignancies were 0% (18.6%), 1%-49% (29.4%), and ≥ 50% (60.3%) [for NSCLC: 0% (17.8%); 1-49% (27.7%); ≥ 50% (53.9%). The most common genetic co-alterations of ROS1+ NSCLC were TP53 (29.1%), SETD2 (7.3%), ARIAD1A (6.3%), and U2AF1 (5.6%). CONCLUSIONS: ROS1+ NSCLC tumors constituted the majority of ROS1+ solid malignancies with four major fusion partners. Given that > 20% of ROS1+ solid tumors may benefit from ROS1 TKIs treatment, comprehensive genomic profiling should be performed on all solid tumors.

Differential outcomes and immune checkpoint inhibitor response among endometrial cancer patients with MLH1 hypermethylation versus MLH1 "Lynch-like" mismatch repair gene mutation.

OBJECTIVES: To identify differential survival outcomes and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) response in MLH1 hypermethylated versus MLH1 mutated ("Lynch-like") endometrial tumors and determine whether their molecular profiles can elucidate the differential outcomes. METHODS: 1673 mismatch repair deficient endometrial tumors were analyzed by next-generation sequencing and whole transcriptome sequencing (Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ). PD-L1, ER, and PR were tested by immunohistochemistry and immune cell infiltrates were calculated using MCP-counter. Significance was determined using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests and adjusted for multiple comparisons. Overall survival (OS) was depicted using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: The endometrial cancer cohort comprised 89.2% patients with MLH1 hypermethylated tumors and 10.8% with MLH1 mutated tumors, with median ages of 67 and 60 years, respectively (p < 0.01). Patients with MLH1 hypermethylated tumors had significantly worse OS and trended toward worse OS following ICI treatment than patients with MLH1 mutated tumors. The immune microenvironment of MLH1 hypermethylated relative to MLH1 mutated was characterized by decreased PD-L1 positivity, immune checkpoint gene expression, immune cell infiltration, T cell inflamed scores, and interferon gamma (IFNγ) scores. MLH1 hypermethylation was also associated with decreased mutation rates in TP53 and DNA damage repair genes, but increased rates of JAK1, FGFR2, CCND1, and PTEN mutations, as well as increased ER and PR positivity. CONCLUSIONS: Endometrial cancer patients with MLH1 hypermethylation display significantly decreased survival and discrepant immunotherapy responses compared to patients with MLH1 mutated tumors, which was associated with differential mutational profiles, a more immune cold phenotype, and increased ER/PR expression in MLH1 hypermethylated tumors. Providers may consider early transition from single agent ICI to a multi-agent regimen or hormonal therapy for patients with MLH1 hypermethylated tumors.

Peritoneal metastases from primary appendiceal and colorectal carcinomas demonstrate distinct molecular identities on comprehensive tumor analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Published data comparing peritoneal metastases from appendiceal cancers (pAC) and colorectal cancers (pCRC) remain sparse. We compared pAC and pCRC using comprehensive tumor profiling (CTP). METHODS: CTP was performed, including next-generation sequencing and analysis of copy number variation (CNV), microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutational burden (TMB). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six pAC and 348 pCRC samples underwent CTP. The cohorts' age and gender were similar. pCRC demonstrated increased pathogenic variants (PATHs) in APC (48% vs. 3%, p < 0.01), ARID1A (12% vs. 2%, p < 0.01), BRAF (12% vs. 2%, p < 0.01), FBXW7 (7% vs. 2%, p < 0.01), KRAS (52% vs. 41%, p < 0.05), PIK3CA (15% vs. 2%, p < 0.01), and TP53 (53% vs. 23%, p < 0.01), and decreased PATHs in GNAS (8% vs. 31%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in CNV, fusion rate, or MSI. Median TMB was higher in pCRC (5.8 vs. 5.0 mutations per megabase, p = 0.0007). Rates of TMB-high tumors were similar (pAC 2.1% vs. pCRC 9.0%, p = 0.1957). pCRC had significantly more TMB-high tumors at lower thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a reduced overall TMB, pAC demonstrated mutations distinct from those seen in pCRC. These may serve as discrete biomarkers for future study.

The Genomic Landscape of Vulvar Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Vulvar squamous cell cancer (VSC) accounts for 90% of vulvar cancers. Next-generation sequencing studies of VSC imply human papillomavirus (HPV) and p53 status play separate roles in carcinogenesis and prognosis. We sought to describe the genomic landscape and analyze the immunologic profiles of VSC with respect to HPV and p53 status. A total of 443 VSC tumors underwent tumor profiling. Next-generation sequencing was performed on genomic DNA isolated from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples. PD-L1, microsatellite instability were tested by fragment analysis, IHC, and next-generation sequencing. Tumor mutational burden-high was defined as >10 mutations per MB. HPV 16/18 positive (HPV+) status was determined using whole exome sequencing on 105 samples. Three cohorts were identified from 105 samples with known HPV: HPV+, HPV-/p53wt, and HPV-/p53mt. Where HPV and p53 status were examined, TP53 mutations were exclusive of HPV+ tumors. In all, 37% of samples were HPV+. Among the 66 HPV- tumors, 52 (78.8%) were HPV-/p53mt and 14 (21.2%) were HPV-/p53wt. The HPV-/p53wt cohort had a higher rate of mutations in the PI3KCA gene (42.9% HPV-/p53wt vs 26.3% HPV+ vs. 5.8% HPV-/p53mt, q =0.028) and alterations in the PI3K/AkT/mTOR pathway (57.1% HPV-/p53wt vs. 34.2% HPV+ vs. 7.7% HPV-/p53mt, q =0.0386) than the other 2 cohorts. Ninety-eight VSC tumors with HPV16/18 information underwent transcriptomic analysis and immune deconvolution method. No differences were observed in immune profiles. The HPV-/p53wt VSC tumors had significantly higher rates of mutations in the PI3KCA gene and alterations in the PI3K/AkT/mTOR pathway, a potential target that merits further investigation in this subgroup.

Molecular profiles of endometrial cancer tumors among Black patients.

OBJECTIVES: Disparate outcomes exist between Black and White patients with endometrial cancer (EC). One contributing factor is the disproportionately low representation of Black patients in clinical trials and in tumor molecular profiling studies. Our objective was to investigate molecular profiles of ECs in a cohort with a high proportion of tumors from Black patients. METHODS: A total of 248 EC samples and self-reported race data were collected from 6 institutions. Comprehensive tumor profiling and analyses were performed by Caris Life Sciences. RESULTS: Tumors from 105 (42%) Black and 143 (58%) White patients were included. Serous histology (58% vs 36%) and carcinosarcoma (25% vs 16%), was more common among Black patients, and endometrioid was less common (17% vs 48%) (p < 0.01). Differences in gene mutations between cohorts corresponded to observed histologic differences between races. Specifically, TP53 mutations were predominant in serous tumors. In endometrioid tumors, mutations in ARID1A were the most common, and high rates of MSI-H, MMRd, and TMB-H were observed. In carcinosarcoma tumors, hormone receptor expression was high in tumors of Black patients (PR 23.4%, ER 30.8%). When stratified by histology, there were no significant differences between tumors from Black and White women. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort had a high proportion of tumors from Black women. Distinct molecular profiles were driven primarily by more aggressive histologic subtypes among Black women. Continued effort is needed to include Black women and other populations under-represented in EC molecular profiling studies as targeted therapies and personalized medicine become mainstream.

BRCA1/2 Reversion Mutations in Patients Treated with Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase (PARP) Inhibitors or Platinum Agents.

Background: Reversion mutations in BRCA1/2, resulting in restoration of the open reading frame, have been identified as a mechanism of resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy or PARP inhibition. We sought to explore the incidence of BRCA1/2 reversion mutations in different tumor types. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed molecular profiling results from primary and/or metastatic tumor samples submitted by multiple institutions. The samples underwent DNA and RNA sequencing at a CLIA/CAP-certified clinical lab. Reversion mutations were called only in patients whose available clinical records showed the use of PARP inhibitors or platinum agents prior to tumor profiling. Results: Reversion mutations were identified in 75 of 247,926 samples profiled across all tumor types. Among patients carrying pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations, reversion mutations in BRCA1/2 genes were seen in ovarian cancer (OC) (30/3424), breast cancer (BC) (27/1460), endometrial cancer (4/564), pancreatic cancer (2/340), cholangiocarcinoma (2/178), prostate cancer (5/461), cervical cancer (1/117), cancer of unknown primary (1/244), bladder cancer (1/300), malignant pleural mesothelioma (1/10), and a neuroendocrine tumor of the prostate. We identified 22 reversion mutations in BRCA1 and 8 in BRCA2 in OC. In BC, we detected 6 reversion mutations in BRCA1 and 21 in BRCA2. We compared molecular profile results of 14 high-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSOC) with reversion mutations against 87 control HGSOC with pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations without reversion mutations. Tumors with reversion mutations trended to have had lower ER expression (25% vs. 64%, p = 0.024, q = 0.82) and higher KDM6A mutation rate (15% vs. 0, p = 0.016, q = 0.82). Conclusions: We present one of the largest datasets reporting reversion mutations in BRCA1/2 genes across various tumor types. These reversion mutations were rare; this may be because some patients may not have had repeat profiling post-treatment. Repeat tumor profiling at times of treatment resistance can help inform therapy selection in the refractory disease setting.

Gliosarcoma vs. glioblastoma: a retrospective case series using molecular profiling.

BACKGROUND: Gliosarcoma (GS) refers to the presence of mesenchymal differentiation (as seen using light microscopy) in the setting of glioblastoma (GB, an astrocytoma, WHO Grade 4). Although the same approach to treatment is typically adopted for GS and GB, there remains some debate as to whether GS should be considered a discrete pathological entity. Differences between these tumors have not been clearly established at the molecular level. METHODS: Patients with GS (n=48) or GB (n=1229) underwent molecular profiling (MP) with a pan-cancer panel of tests as part of their clinical care. The methods employed included next-generation sequencing (NGS) of DNA and RNA, copy number variation (CNV) of DNA and immunohistochemistry (IHC). The MP comprised 1153 tests in total, although results for each test were not available for every tumor profiled. We analyzed this data retrospectively in order to determine if our results were in keeping with what is known about the pathogenesis of GS by contrast with GB. We also sought novel associations between the MP and GS vs. GB which might improve our understanding of pathogenesis of GS. RESULTS: Potentially meaningful associations (p<0.1, Fisher's exact test (FET)) were found for 14 of these tests in GS vs. GB. A novel finding was higher levels of proteins mediating immuno-evasion (PD-1, PD-L1) in GS. All of the differences we observed have been associated with epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in other tumor types. Many of the changes we saw in GS are novel in the setting of glial tumors, including copy number amplification in LYL1 and mutations in PTPN11. CONCLUSIONS: GS shows certain characteristics of EMT, by contrast with GB. Treatments targeting immuno-evasion may be of greater therapeutic value in GS relative to GB.

POT1 mutation spectrum in tumour types commonly diagnosed among POT1-associated hereditary cancer syndrome families.

BACKGROUND: The shelterin complex is composed of six proteins that protect and regulate telomere length, including protection of telomeres 1 (POT1). Germline POT1 mutations are associated with an autosomal dominant familial cancer syndrome presenting with diverse malignancies, including glioma, angiosarcoma, colorectal cancer and melanoma. Although somatic POT1 mutations promote telomere elongation and genome instability in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, the contribution of POT1 mutations to development of other sporadic cancers is largely unexplored. METHODS: We performed logistic regression, adjusted for tumour mutational burden, to identify associations between POT1 mutation frequency and tumour type in 62 368 tumours undergoing next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: A total of 1834 tumours harboured a non-benign mutation of POT1 (2.94%), of which 128 harboured a mutation previously reported to confer familial cancer risk in the setting of germline POT1 deficiency. Angiosarcoma was 11 times more likely than other tumours to harbour a POT1 mutation (p=1.4×10-20), and 65% of POT1-mutated angiosarcoma had >1 mutations in POT1. Malignant gliomas were 1.7 times less likely to harbour a POT1 mutation (p=1.2×10-3) than other tumour types. Colorectal cancer was 1.2 times less likely to harbour a POT1 mutation (p=0.012), while melanoma showed no differences in POT1 mutation frequency versus other tumours (p=0.67). CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm a role for shelterin dysfunction in angiosarcoma development but suggest that gliomas arising in the context of germline POT1 deficiency activate a telomere-lengthening mechanism that is uncommon in gliomagenesis.

Relationship between MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 gene-specific alterations and tumor mutational burden in 1057 microsatellite instability-high solid tumors.

Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) and tumor mutational burden (TMB) are predictive biomarkers for immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Still, the relationship between the underlying cause(s) of MSI and TMB in tumors remains poorly defined. We investigated associations of TMB to mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression patterns by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MMR mutations in a diverse sample of tumors. Hypothesized differences were identified by the protein/gene affected/mutated and the tumor histology/primary site. Overall, 1057 MSI-H tumors were identified from the 32 932 tested. MSI was examined by NGS using 7000+ target microsatellite loci. TMB was calculated using only nonsynonymous missense mutations sequenced with a 592-gene panel; a subset of MSI-H tumors also had MMR IHC performed. Analyses examined TMB by MMR protein heterodimer impacted (loss of MLH1/PMS2 vs. MSH2/MSH6 expression) and gene-specific mutations. The sample was 54.6% female; mean age was 63.5 years. Among IHC tested tumors, loss of co-expression of MLH1/PMS2 was more common (n = 544/705, 77.2%) than loss of MSH2/MSH6 (n = 81/705, 11.5%; P < .0001), and was associated with lower mean TMB (MLH1/PMS2: 25.03 mut/Mb vs MSH2/MSH6 46.83 mut/Mb; P < .0001). TMB also varied by tumor histology: colorectal cancers demonstrating MLH1/PMS2 loss had higher TMBs (33.14 mut/Mb) than endometrial cancers (20.60 mut/Mb) and other tumors (25.59 mut/Mb; P < .0001). MMR gene mutations were detected in 42.0% of tumors; among these, MSH6 mutations were most common (25.7%). MSH6 mutation patterns showed variability by tumor histology and TMB. TMB varies by underlying cause(s) of MSI and tumor histology; this heterogeneity may contribute to differences in response to ICI.

Actionable co-alterations in breast tumors with pathogenic mutations in the homologous recombination DNA damage repair pathway.

PURPOSE: Homologous recombination (HR)-deficient breast tumors may have genomic alterations that predict response to treatment with PARP inhibitors and other targeted therapies. METHODS: Comprehensive molecular profiles of 4647 breast tumors performed at Caris Life Sciences using 592-gene NGS were reviewed to identify somatic pathogenic mutations in HR genes ARID1A, ATM, ATRX, BAP1, BARD1, BLM, BRCA1/2, BRIP1, CHEK1/2, FANCA/C/D2/E/F/G/L, KMT2D, MRE11, NBN, PALB2, RAD50/51/51B, and WRN, as well as 41 markers that may be associated with treatment response to targeted anticancer therapies. RESULTS: 17.9% of breast tumors had HR mutations (HR-MT, 831/4647) [ER/PR+ , HER2- 18.3%, n = 2183; TNBC 18.2%, n = 1568; ER/PR+ , HER2+ 15.6%, n = 237; ER/PR-, HER2+ 12.9%, n = 217; unknown n = 442]. Mean TMB was higher for HR-MT tumors across subtypes (9.2 mut/Mb vs 7.6 h-wild type (HR-WT), p ≤ 0.0001) and independent of microsatellite status. MSI-H/dMMR was more frequent among HR-MT tumors (2.1% HR-MT vs 0.2% HR-WT, p ≤ 0.0001), as was tumor PD-L1 overexpression (13.2% HR-MT vs 11.0% HR-WT, p = 0.08). Additional co-alterations were similar between HR-MT and HR-WT, with the exception of PIK3CA (30.3% HR-WT vs 26.4% HR-MT, p = 0.024) and AKT1 (3.7% HR-WT vs 2.1% HR-MT, p = 0.021). AR overexpression and PIK3CA mutations were more common among ER/PR+ tumors. ERBB2 mutations were seen in both HER2+ and HER2- tumors. CONCLUSIONS: HR-MT was common across breast cancer subtypes and co-occurred more frequently with markers of response to immunotherapy (MSI-H/dMMR, TMB) compared to HR-WT tumors. Mutations were identified in both HR-MT and HR-WT tumors that suggest other targets for treatment. Clinical trials combining HRD-targeted agents and immunotherapy are underway and could be enriched through comprehensive molecular profiling.

Immune checkpoint expression, microsatellite instability, and mutational burden: Identifying immune biomarker phenotypes in uterine cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing grade of endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) is associated with aggressive behavior and poor prognosis. The traditional classification system is limited in its ability to guide treatment planning and prognostication. We identify distinct immune biomarker phenotypes using known markers of immunogenicity to identify patients who may benefit from immune therapy (IT). METHODS: 621 tumors were analyzed by multiplatform profiling. NextGen sequencing was performed on 592 genes. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was defined as high (H) ≥10mutations/megabase. Microsatellite Instability (MSI) by NGS was ≥46 loci. PD-L1 positivity was ≥2+, >5% by IHC. Chi-square tests were used. RESULTS: Overall, MSI-H was found in 33% of EECs, most frequent in grade 3 (G3), followed by grade 2 (G2) and grade 1 (G1) tumors (G3: 37%, G2: 32%, G1: 22%, p = 0.007). TMB-H was identified in 25% of EECs. TMB-H was most common in G3, followed by G2 and G1 tumors (G3: 34%, G2: 23%, G1: 13%, p = 0.006). Overall, PD-L1 expression was found in 5.5% of EECs. G3 EECs had the most frequent PD-L1 expression, followed by G2 and G1 tumors (G3: 12%, G2: 3.0%, G1: 0.9%, p < 0.0001). We identified POLE mutations in 4.5% (28/618). All POLE mutated tumors harbored TMB-H phenotypes but MSI-H and PD-L1 were only present in 10.7% and 14.8% of tumors respectively, suggesting upregulation of T-cell immune response in only a fraction of POLE mutated EECs. Triple negative (TN) biomarker phenotype (ER-/PR-/Her2-) was evaluated as a potential surrogate marker of tumor immunogenicity. We identified TN phenotype in 4% of G1 EEC compared with 9% in G2 and 33% in G3, suggesting loss of hormone expression and possible greater immunogenicity with increasing tumor grade. CONCLUSIONS: High grade tumors appear to be more immunogenic than low grade tumors and may preferentially benefit from IT.

Comprehensive tumor profiling reveals unique molecular differences between peritoneal metastases and primary colorectal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Peritoneal metastases (PM) from primary colorectal cancer (pCRC) are associated with poor outcomes; however, molecular differences are not well defined. METHODS: We compared unpaired tumor profiles of patients with pCRC and PM from Caris Life Sciences. Testing included next-generation sequencing of 592 genes, microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutational burden (TMB). Mutations were test-defined as pathogenic (PATH). RESULTS: Six hundred seventeen pCRC and 348 PM patients had similar gender (55% male) and age (median 59). PATHs were similar between PM and pCRC in KRAS, BRAF, SMAD2, SMAD4, and PTEN. pCRC PATHs were increased in APC (76% vs 48%, P < .01), ARID1A (29% vs 12%, P < .05), TP53 (72% vs 53%, P < .01), PIK3CA (22% vs 15%, P < .05), and FBXW7 (13% vs 7%, P < .01) compared with PM. Mucinous PM had more PATHs in GNAS (19% vs 8%, P = .032) while nonmucinous PM had more PATHs in BRAF (13% vs 8%, P = .027). Right-sided PM had decreased PATHs in APC (39% vs 68%, P < .0001), ARID1A (7% vs 38%, P < .004), and TP53 (48% vs 65%, P = .033) while there were no difference for left-sided PM. Nine percent of pCRC and 6% of PM were MSI-high (P = NS). There was no difference in TMB-high, TMB-intermediate, or TMB-low between PM and pCRC. CONCLUSIONS: PM have similar rates of KRAS mutation with increased PATHs in GNAS (mucinous) and BRAF (nonmucinous) compared to pCRC. No differences in MSI or TMB were identified between PM and pCRC tumors. These findings inform future study into the molecular profile of PM.

Molecular characterization of cancers with NTRK gene fusions.

Targeted inhibitors of neurotropic tyrosine kinases are highly effective in selected patients with gene fusions involving NTRK1, NTRK2, or NTRK3. These fusions are consistently detected in rare cancer types (e.g., secretory breast carcinoma and congenital infantile fibrosarcoma), but the occurrence of NTRK fusions in common cancers and their relationship to other therapy biomarkers are largely unexplored. Tissue samples from 11,502 patients were analyzed for 53 gene fusions and sequencing of 592 genes, along with an immunohistochemical evaluation of TrkA/B/C and PD-L1. Thirty-one cases (0.27% of the entire cohort) had NTRK fusions. The most common fusions were ETV6:NTRK3 (n = 10) and TPM3:NTRK1 (n = 6). Gliomas had the highest number of NTRK fusions (14/982, 1.4%), most commonly involving NTRK2 (n = 9). Seventeen non-glioma cases with NTRK fusions included carcinomas of the lungs, thyroid, breast, cervix, colon, nasal cavity, cancer of unknown primary and soft tissue sarcomas. Strong and uniform Trk expression detected with a pan-Trk immunohistochemistry characterized 7/8 NTRK1 fusion cases and 8/9 NTRK2 fusion cases, while NTRK3 fused cases were positive in 6/11 (55%) of cases. 29% of NTRK fusion cases had no other pathogenic genomic alteration. PD-L1 expression was observed in 23% of NTRK fused cases while high tumor DNA microsatellite instability was detected in two cases. We confirm the rarity of NTRK genes fusions outside the brain malignancies. NTRK inhibitors alone or combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors may be a therapeutic option for a substantial proportion of these patients. Strategies for detection of the NTRK fusion-driven cancers may include immunohistochemistry, but gene fusion detection remains the most reliable tool.

NUTM1-rearranged neoplasia: a multi-institution experience yields novel fusion partners and expands the histologic spectrum.

Poorly differentiated neoplasms lacking characteristic histopathologic features represent a significant challenge to the pathologist for diagnostic classification. Classically, NUT carcinoma (previously NUT midline carcinoma) is poorly differentiated but typically exhibits variable degrees of squamous differentiation. Diagnosis is genetically defined by NUTM1 rearrangement, usually with BRD4 as the fusion partner. In this multi-institutional next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization study, 26 new NUTM1-rearranged neoplasms are reported, including 20 NUT carcinomas, 4 sarcomas, and 2 tumors of an uncertain lineage. NUTM1 fusion partners were available in 24 of 26 cases. BRD4 was the fusion partner in 18/24 (75%) cases, NSD3 in 2/24 cases (8.3%), and BRD3 in 1/24 (4.2%) cases. Two novel fusion partners were identified: MGA in two sarcomas (myxoid spindle cell sarcoma and undifferentiated sarcoma) (2/24 cases 8.3%) and MXD4 in a round cell sarcoma in the cecum (1/24 cases 4.2%). Eleven cases tested for NUT immunoexpression were all positive, including the MGA and MXD4-rearranged tumors. Our results confirm that NUTM1 gene rearrangements are found outside the classic clinicopathological setting of NUT carcinoma. In addition, as novel fusion partners like MGA and MXD4 may not be susceptible to targeted therapy with bromodomain inhibitors, detecting the NUTM1 rearrangement may not be enough, and identifying the specific fusion partner may become necessary. Studies to elucidate the mechanism of tumorigenesis of novel fusion partners are needed.

Profiles of brain metastases: Prioritization of therapeutic targets.

We sought to compare the tumor profiles of brain metastases from common cancers with those of primary tumors and extracranial metastases in order to identify potential targets and prioritize rational treatment strategies. Tumor samples were collected from both the primary and metastatic sites of nonsmall cell lung cancer, breast cancer and melanoma from patients in locations worldwide, and these were submitted to Caris Life Sciences for tumor multiplatform analysis, including gene sequencing (Sanger and next-generation sequencing with a targeted 47-gene panel), protein expression (assayed by immunohistochemistry) and gene amplification (assayed by in situ hybridization). The data analysis considered differential protein expression, gene amplification and mutations among brain metastases, extracranial metastases and primary tumors. The analyzed population included: 16,999 unmatched primary tumor and/or metastasis samples: 8,178 nonsmall cell lung cancers (5,098 primaries; 2,787 systemic metastases; 293 brain metastases), 7,064 breast cancers (3,496 primaries; 3,469 systemic metastases; 99 brain metastases) and 1,757 melanomas (660 primaries; 996 systemic metastases; 101 brain metastases). TOP2A expression was increased in brain metastases from all 3 cancers, and brain metastases overexpressed multiple proteins clustering around functions critical to DNA synthesis and repair and implicated in chemotherapy resistance, including RRM1, TS, ERCC1 and TOPO1. cMET was overexpressed in melanoma brain metastases relative to primary skin specimens. Brain metastasis patients may particularly benefit from therapeutic targeting of enzymes associated with DNA synthesis, replication and/or repair.

Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers for Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: Why PD-L1 Testing May Not Be Enough.

PURPOSE: The treatment of patients with advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinomas has been transformed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab. Tumor and adjacent tissue must stain positively for the programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) protein by companion diagnostic testing. However, some patients with PD-L1-negative tumors also benefit from pembrolizumab. High microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutational load (TML) are positive predictive biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in other tumors. We sought to identify more patients who could benefit from ICI using alternative PD-L1 thresholds, MSI, and TML. METHODS: Tumor specimens underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS) and PD-L1 testing using immunohistochemistry. NGS was used to determine TML and MSI. RESULTS: We profiled 581 G/GEJ adenocarcinoma specimens. PD-L1 staining was scored for intensity (0, none; 1+, weak; 2+, moderate; 3+, strong). Using 2+ staining at a 5% threshold, 9.3% of tumors were PD-L1 positive, and using 1+ staining at 1%, 16.2% were PD-L1 positive. 6.9% of tumors had high MSI. High TML (≥17 mutations per megabase) was seen in 6.9%, and medium TML (≥7) was seen in 56.5% of tumors. Thirty (5.2%) PD-L1-negative tumors at the 1+, 1% threshold had high TML or high MSI. Primary tumors had higher rates of high TML (8.8% vs. 3.9%; p = .0377) and high MSI (8.5% vs. 3.9%; p = .0471) than metastases. CONCLUSION: PD-L1 testing alone fails to detect patients who may benefit from ICI. Lower PD-L1 thresholds and TML testing should be considered in future clinical trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Pembrolizumab is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients with refractory gastric and gastroesophageal cancers if the tumor and adjacent tissue stain positively for the programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) protein by companion diagnostic testing. Tumor mutational load, microsatellite instability (MSI), and alternative PD-L1 testing thresholds may serve as predictive biomarkers for response to immune checkpoint inhibition, and standard PD-L1 testing will not identify all patients who may benefit from this therapy.

Comparative Molecular Analyses of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Esophageal Adenocarcinoma, and Gastric Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal cancers are often grouped together even though cancers that originate in the esophagus often exhibit different histological features, geographical distribution, risk factors, and clinical characteristics than those originating in the stomach. Herein, we aimed to compare the molecular characteristics of three different gastroesophageal cancer types: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: In total, 3,342 gastroesophageal cancers were examined. Next-generation sequencing was performed on genomic DNA isolated from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples using the NextSeq platform. Tumor mutational burden was measured by counting all nonsynonymous missense mutations, and microsatellite instability was examined at over 7,000 target microsatellite loci. Immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization techniques were also performed. RESULTS: When compared with EAC and GAC, ESCC showed significantly lower mutational rates within APC, ARID1A, CDH1, KRAS, PTEN, and SMAD4, whereas more frequent mutations were observed in BAP1, CDKN2A, FOXO3, KMT2D, MSH6, NOTCH1, RB1, and SETD2. Human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression was observed in 13% of EAC compared with 6% of GAC and 1% of ESCC (p < .0001). Compared with EAC and GAC, ESCC exhibited higher expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) (27.7% vs. 7.5% vs. 7.7%, p < .0001). We observed that FGF3, FGF4, FGF19, CCND1 (co-localized on 11q13), and FGFR1 were significantly more amplified in ESCC compared with EAC and GAC (p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Molecular comparisons between ESCC, EAC, and GAC revealed distinct differences between squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinomas in each platform tested. Different prevalence of HER2/neu overexpression and amplification, and immune-related biomarkers between ESCC, EAC, and GAC, suggests different sensitivity to HER2-targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibition. These findings bring into question the validity of grouping patients with EAC and ESCC together in clinical trials and provide insight into molecular features that may represent novel therapeutic targets. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study highlights the genomic heterogeneity of gastroesophageal cancers, showing striking molecular differences between tumors originating from different locations. Moreover, this study showed that esophageal squamous cell carcinomas exhibit a unique molecular profile, whereas gastric adenocarcinomas and esophageal adenocarcinomas have some similarities, supporting the fact that adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas are completely different diseases, irrespective of the tumor location. This raises the question of whether treatment of gastroesophageal tumors should be determined according to histological subtype and molecular targets rather than anatomical site. These findings provide insights that could enable physicians to better select patients and inform therapeutic choices in order to improve clinical outcome.