Drug response profiles in patient-derived cancer cells across histological subtypes of ovarian cancer: real-time therapy tailoring for a patient with low-grade serous carcinoma.

Many efforts are underway to develop novel therapies against the aggressive high-grade serous ovarian cancers (HGSOCs), while our understanding of treatment options for low-grade (LGSOC) or mucinous (MUCOC) of ovarian malignancies is not developing as well. We describe here a functional precision oncology (fPO) strategy in epithelial ovarian cancers (EOC), which involves high-throughput drug testing of patient-derived ovarian cancer cells (PDCs) with a library of 526 oncology drugs, combined with genomic and transcriptomic profiling. HGSOC, LGSOC and MUCOC PDCs had statistically different overall drug response profiles, with LGSOCs responding better to targeted inhibitors than HGSOCs. We identified several subtype-specific drug responses, such as LGSOC PDCs showing high sensitivity to MDM2, ERBB2/EGFR inhibitors, MUCOC PDCs to MEK inhibitors, whereas HGSOCs showed strongest effects with CHK1 inhibitors and SMAC mimetics. We also explored several drug combinations and found that the dual inhibition of MEK and SHP2 was synergistic in MAPK-driven EOCs. We describe a clinical case study, where real-time fPO analysis of samples from a patient with metastatic, chemorefractory LGSOC with a CLU-NRG1 fusion guided clinical therapy selection. fPO-tailored therapy with afatinib, followed by trastuzumab and pertuzumab, successfully reduced tumour burden and blocked disease progression over a five-year period. In summary, fPO is a powerful approach for the identification of systematic drug response differences across EOC subtypes, as well as to highlight patient-specific drug regimens that could help to optimise therapies to individual patients in the future.

Ductal and acinar components of mixed prostatic adenocarcinoma frequently have a common clonal origin.

BACKGROUND: Ductal adenocarcinoma (DA) is an aggressive subtype of prostate cancer. It is most commonly seen in mixed tumors together with conventional acinar adenocarcinoma (AA). The genetic profile of DA and its clonal origin is not fully characterized. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether DA represents a distinct genetic subtype and to investigate the somatic relationship between the ductal and acinar components of mixed cancers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In 17 radical prostatectomy specimens ductal and acinar tumor components from the same tumor foci were dissected. DNA was extracted and genomic sequencing performed. After exclusion of two cases with low cell yield, 15 paired samples remained for analysis. RESULTS: In 12 of 15 cases a common somatic denominator was identified, while three cases had clonally separate components. In DA, TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions were detected in 47% (7/15), clonal FOXA1 alterations in 33% (5/15) and SPOP alterations in 27% (4/15) of cases. In one case KIAA1549-BRAF fusion was identified. Genome doubling events, resulting in an increased ploidy, were identified in the DA in 53% (8/15) of cases, but not seen in any AA. PTEN and CTNNB1 alterations were enriched in DA (6/15) but not seen in any AA. No cancers showed microsatellite instability or high tumor mutation burden. CONCLUSIONS: Ductal and acinar prostate adenocarcinoma components of mixed tumors most often share the same origin and are clonally related. DA components in mixed tumor often exhibit genome doubling events resulting in aneuploidy, consistent with the aggressive nature of high grade prostate cancer.

Somatic alterations detected in diagnostic prostate biopsies provide an inadequate representation of multifocal prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The majority of clinical prostate cancers are multifocal with morphological and molecular heterogeneity. Adequate tissue representation is crucial for the clinical utility of multigene panel sequencing of core needle biopsies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the genomic heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer and to analyze how representative preoperative biopsies are of spatially separated tumor foci. METHODS: We analyzed at least 2 tumor foci and 1 to 3 preoperative biopsy cores from 11 patients. Diagnostic biopsies, as well as fresh frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples, from major tumor foci of radical prostatectomy specimens were macrodissected for the enrichment of tumor tissue. DNA was extracted and sequenced. We analyzed structural alterations, mutations, and copy number variations and compared the genomic profiles of tumor foci with those of preoperative biopsies. RESULTS: Alterations were rarely shared between foci, indicating a high degree of genomic heterogeneity. In 8 of 11 men at least 1 tumor focus was represented by the biopsies defined as harboring at least 1 common clonal somatic event. In only one case, somatic alterations from two spatially separate tumors were identified in the biopsies. Of the mutations and structural variants detected in fresh frozen or formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prostatectomy material, only an average of 19% (range 0-44) and 55% (range 0-100), respectively, were found in preoperative biopsies where a common somatic origin was established. CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal prostate cancer is a somatically heterogeneous disease in which systematic needle biopsies do not provide sufficient molecular representation of the somatic alterations detected in spatially distinct tumor areas. Targeted biopsies, directed at separate tumor foci, could potentially improve tissue representation of these heterogeneous foci in preoperative biopsies.