» Articles » PMID: 24599305

Comparative Genomic Analysis of Primary and Synchronous Metastatic Colorectal Cancers

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2014 Mar 7
PMID 24599305
Citations 69
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Approximately 50% of patients with primary colorectal carcinoma develop liver metastases. Understanding the genetic differences between primary colon cancer and their metastases to the liver is essential for devising a better therapeutic approach for this disease. We performed whole exome sequencing and copy number analysis for 15 triplets, each comprising normal colorectal tissue, primary colorectal carcinoma, and its synchronous matched liver metastasis. We analyzed the similarities and differences between primary colorectal carcinoma and matched liver metastases in regards to somatic mutations and somatic copy number alterationss. The genomic profiling demonstrated mutations in APC(73%), KRAS (33%), ARID1A and PIK3CA (6.7%) genes between primary colorectal and metastatic liver tumors. TP53 mutation was observed in 47% of the primary samples and 67% in liver metastatic samples. The grouped pairs, in hierarchical clustering showed similar somatic copy number alteration patterns, in contrast to the ungrouped pairs. Many mutations (including those of known key cancer driver genes) were shared in the grouped pairs. The ungrouped pairs exhibited distinct mutation patterns with no shared mutations in key driver genes. Four ungrouped liver metastasis samples had mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes along with hypermutations and a substantial number of copy number alterations. Our results suggest that about half of the metastatic colorectal carcinoma had the same clonal origin with their primary colorectal carcinomas, whereas remaining cases were genetically distinct from their primary carcinomas. These findings underscore the need to evaluate metastatic lesions separately for optimized therapy, rather than to extrapolate from primary tumor data.

Citing Articles

Acquired resistance to anti-PD1 therapy in patients with NSCLC associates with immunosuppressive T cell phenotype.

Hiltbrunner S, Cords L, Kasser S, Freiberger S, Kreutzer S, Toussaint N Nat Commun. 2023; 14(1):5154.

PMID: 37620318 PMC: 10449840. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-40745-5.


Metastatic Lesions of the Brain and Spine.

Ung T, Meola A, Chang S Adv Exp Med Biol. 2023; 1405:545-564.

PMID: 37452953 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-23705-8_21.


The different clonal origins of metachronous and synchronous metastases.

Gofrit O, Gofrit B, Roditi Y, Popovtzer A, Frank S, Sosna J J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023; 149(13):11085-11092.

PMID: 37340186 PMC: 10465669. DOI: 10.1007/s00432-023-05007-3.


Comparison of genetic variation between primary colorectal cancer and metastatic peritoneal cancer.

Shin W, Yun J, Han K, Park D Genes Genomics. 2023; 45(8):989-1001.

PMID: 37277571 DOI: 10.1007/s13258-023-01408-3.


Usefulness of pyruvate dehydrogenase-E1α expression to determine SUVmax cut-off value of [F]FDG-PET for predicting lymph node metastasis in lung cancer.

Ito R, Yashiro M, Tsukioka T, Izumi N, Komatsu H, Inoue H Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):1565.

PMID: 36709375 PMC: 9884208. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-28805-8.


References
1.
Visvader J . Cells of origin in cancer. Nature. 2011; 469(7330):314-22. DOI: 10.1038/nature09781. View

2.
Klein C . Parallel progression of primary tumours and metastases. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009; 9(4):302-12. DOI: 10.1038/nrc2627. View

3.
Dong G, Guo X, Fu X, Wan S, Zhou F, Myers R . Potentially functional genetic variants in KDR gene as prognostic markers in patients with resected colorectal cancer. Cancer Sci. 2011; 103(3):561-8. PMC: 7713614. DOI: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2011.02194.x. View

4.
Sturmer T, Glynn R, Lee I, Christen W, Hennekens C . Lifetime cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer incidence in the Physicians' Health Study I. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92(14):1178-81. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/92.14.1178. View

5.
Parsons B . Many different tumor types have polyclonal tumor origin: evidence and implications. Mutat Res. 2008; 659(3):232-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.05.004. View