Mutations in the RAS/MAPK Pathway Drive Replication Repair-Deficient Hypermutated Tumors and Confer Sensitivity to MEK Inhibition.

The RAS/MAPK pathway is an emerging targeted pathway across a spectrum of both adult and pediatric cancers. Typically, this is associated with a single, well-characterized point mutation in an oncogene. Hypermutant tumors that harbor many somatic mutations may obscure the interpretation of such targetable genomic events. We find that replication repair-deficient (RRD) cancers, which are universally hypermutant and affect children born with RRD cancer predisposition, are enriched for RAS/MAPK mutations (P = 10-8). These mutations are not random, exist in subclones, and increase in allelic frequency over time. The RAS/MAPK pathway is activated both transcriptionally and at the protein level in patient-derived RRD tumors, and these tumors responded to MEK inhibition in vitro and in vivo. Treatment of patients with RAS/MAPK hypermutant gliomas reveals durable responses to MEK inhibition. Our observations suggest that hypermutant tumors may be addicted to oncogenic pathways, resulting in favorable response to targeted therapies. SIGNIFICANCE: Tumors harboring a single RAS/MAPK driver mutation are targeted individually for therapeutic purposes. We find that in RRD hypermutant cancers, mutations in the RAS/MAPK pathway are enriched, highly expressed, and result in sensitivity to MEK inhibitors. Targeting an oncogenic pathway may provide therapeutic options for these hypermutant polyclonal cancers.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1307.

Cancers from Novel Pole-Mutant Mouse Models Provide Insights into Polymerase-Mediated Hypermutagenesis and Immune Checkpoint Blockade.

POLE mutations are a major cause of hypermutant cancers, yet questions remain regarding mechanisms of tumorigenesis, genotype-phenotype correlation, and therapeutic considerations. In this study, we establish mouse models harboring cancer-associated POLE mutations P286R and S459F, which cause rapid albeit distinct time to cancer initiation in vivo, independent of their exonuclease activity. Mouse and human correlates enabled novel stratification of POLE mutations into three groups based on clinical phenotype and mutagenicity. Cancers driven by these mutations displayed striking resemblance to the human ultrahypermutation and specific signatures. Furthermore, Pole-driven cancers exhibited a continuous and stochastic mutagenesis mechanism, resulting in intertumoral and intratumoral heterogeneity. Checkpoint blockade did not prevent Pole lymphomas, but rather likely promoted lymphomagenesis as observed in humans. These observations provide insights into the carcinogenesis of POLE-driven tumors and valuable information for genetic counseling, surveillance, and immunotherapy for patients. SIGNIFICANCE: Two mouse models of polymerase exonuclease deficiency shed light on mechanisms of mutation accumulation and considerations for immunotherapy.See related commentary by Wisdom and Kirsch p. 5459.

Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials in high-impact ophthalmology journals and general medical journals: a systematic review.

Evidence-based treatments in ophthalmology are often based on the results of randomised controlled trials. Biased conclusions from randomised controlled trials may lead to inappropriate management recommendations. This systematic review investigates the prevalence of bias risk in randomised controlled trials published in high-impact ophthalmology journals and ophthalmology trials from general medical journals. Using Ovid MEDLINE, randomised controlled trials in the top 10 high-impact ophthalmology journals in 2015 were systematically identified and critically appraised for the prevalence of bias risk. Included randomised controlled trials were assessed in all domains of bias as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration. In addition, the prevalence of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was investigated. A comparison with ophthalmology articles from high-impact general medical journals was performed. Of the 259 records that were screened from ophthalmology-specific journals, 119 trials met all inclusion criteria and were critically appraised. In total, 29.4% of domains had an unclear risk, 13.8% had a high risk and 56.8% had a low risk of bias. In comparison, ophthalmology articles from general medical journals had a lower prevalence of unclear risk (17.1%), higher prevalence of high risk (21.9%) and a higher prevalence of low risk domains (61.9%). Furthermore, 64.7% of critically appraised trials from ophthalmology-specific journals did not report any conflicts of interest, while 70.6% did not report an industry sponsor of their trial. In closing, it is essential that authors, peer reviewers and readers closely follow published risk of bias guidelines.