» Articles » PMID: 38473427

The Impact of Mutational Hotspots on Cancer Survival

Overview
Journal Cancers (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Oncology
Date 2024 Mar 13
PMID 38473427
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Cofactors, biomarkers, and the mutational status of genes such as TP53, EGFR, IDH1/2, or PIK3CA have been used for patient stratification. However, many genes exhibit recurrent mutational positions known as hotspots, specifically linked to varying degrees of survival outcomes. Nevertheless, few hotspots have been analyzed (e.g., TP53 and EGFR). Thus, many other genes and hotspots remain unexplored.

Methods: We systematically screened over 1400 hotspots across 33 TCGA cancer types. We compared the patients carrying a hotspot against (i) all cases, (ii) gene-mutated cases, (iii) other mutated hotspots, or (iv) specific hotspots. Due to the limited number of samples in hotspots and the inherent group imbalance, besides Cox models and the log-rank test, we employed VALORATE to estimate their association with survival precisely.

Results: We screened 1469 hotspots in 6451 comparisons, where 314 were associated with survival. Many are discussed and linked to the current literature. Our findings demonstrate associations between known hotspots and survival while also revealing more potential hotspots. To enhance accessibility and promote further investigation, all the Kaplan-Meier curves, the log-rank tests, Cox statistics, and VALORATE-estimated null distributions are accessible on our website.

Conclusions: Our analysis revealed both known and putatively novel hotspots associated with survival, which can be used as biomarkers. Our web resource is a valuable tool for cancer research.

Citing Articles

Validation of a Compact and Self-Contained Pyrosequencing Platform for Clinical Screening of Mutations in Thyroid Cancers.

Burkhardt A, Smith C, Singh R Diagnostics (Basel). 2025; 15(3).

PMID: 39941320 PMC: 11817209. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics15030390.


Key wound healing genes as diagnostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets in uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma: an integrated in silico and in vitro study.

Jiang F, Ahmad S, Kanwal S, Hameed Y, Tang Q Hereditas. 2025; 162(1):5.

PMID: 39833941 PMC: 11748876. DOI: 10.1186/s41065-025-00369-9.

References
1.
Sullivan R, LoRusso P, Boerner S, Dummer R . Achievements and challenges of molecular targeted therapy in melanoma. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2015; :177-86. DOI: 10.14694/EdBook_AM.2015.35.177. View

2.
Mayakonda A, Lin D, Assenov Y, Plass C, Koeffler H . Maftools: efficient and comprehensive analysis of somatic variants in cancer. Genome Res. 2018; 28(11):1747-1756. PMC: 6211645. DOI: 10.1101/gr.239244.118. View

3.
Ignatiadis N, Klaus B, Zaugg J, Huber W . Data-driven hypothesis weighting increases detection power in genome-scale multiple testing. Nat Methods. 2016; 13(7):577-80. PMC: 4930141. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.3885. View

4.
Trevino V, Tamez-Pena J . VALORATE: fast and accurate log-rank test in balanced and unbalanced comparisons of survival curves and cancer genomics. Bioinformatics. 2017; 33(12):1900-1901. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx080. View

5.
Trevino V . HotSpotAnnotations-a database for hotspot mutations and annotations in cancer. Database (Oxford). 2020; 2020. PMC: 7211031. DOI: 10.1093/database/baaa025. View