» Articles » PMID: 38687597

Clinical and Genomic Landscape of RAS Mutations in Gynecologic Cancers

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to describe RAS mutations in gynecologic cancers as they relate to clinicopathologic and genomic features, survival, and therapeutic implications.

Experimental Design: Gynecologic cancers with available somatic molecular profiling data at our institution between February 2010 and August 2022 were included and grouped by RAS mutation status. Overall survival was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazard model.

Results: Of 3,328 gynecologic cancers, 523 (15.7%) showed any RAS mutation. Patients with RAS-mutated tumors were younger (57 vs. 60 years nonmutated), had a higher prevalence of endometriosis (27.3% vs. 16.9%), and lower grades (grade 1/2, 43.2% vs. 8.1%, all P < 0.0001). The highest prevalence of KRAS mutation was in mesonephric-like endometrial (100%, n = 9/9), mesonephric-like ovarian (83.3%, n = 5/6), mucinous ovarian (60.4%), and low-grade serous ovarian (44.4%) cancers. After adjustment for age, cancer type, and grade, RAS mutation was associated with worse overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.3; P = 0.001]. Specific mutations were in KRAS (13.5%), NRAS (2.0%), and HRAS (0.51%), most commonly KRAS G12D (28.4%) and G12V (26.1%). Common co-mutations were PIK3CA (30.9%), PTEN (28.8%), ARID1A (28.0%), and TP53 (27.9%), of which 64.7% were actionable. RAS + MAPK pathway-targeted therapies were administered to 62 patients with RAS-mutated cancers. While overall survival was significantly higher with therapy [8.4 years [(95% confidence interval (CI), 5.5-12.0) vs. 5.5 years (95% CI, 4.6-6.6); HR = 0.67; P = 0.031], this effect did not persist in multivariable analysis.

Conclusions: RAS mutations in gynecologic cancers have a distinct histopathologic distribution and may impact overall survival. PIK3CA, PTEN, and ARID1A are potentially actionable co-alterations. RAS pathway-targeted therapy should be considered.

Citing Articles

Phosphocholine inhibits proliferation and reduces stemness of endometrial cancer cells by downregulating mTOR-c-Myc signaling.

Gong K, Zheng Y, Liu Y, Zhang T, Song Y, Chen W Cell Mol Life Sci. 2024; 82(1):3.

PMID: 39680126 PMC: 11649893. DOI: 10.1007/s00018-024-05517-4.


Advances in research on malignant transformation of endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer.

Chen F, Zhu M, Li W Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1475231.

PMID: 39445058 PMC: 11496038. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1475231.


Clinical and Genomic Landscape of RAS Mutations in Gynecologic Cancers.

Son J, Zhang Y, Lin H, Mirallas O, Alvarez Ballesteros P, Nardo M Clin Cancer Res. 2024; 30(14):2986-2995.

PMID: 38687597 PMC: 11250057. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-2819.

References
1.
Harris P, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde J . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2008; 42(2):377-81. PMC: 2700030. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. View

2.
Matei D, Sill M, Lankes H, DeGeest K, Bristow R, Mutch D . Activity of sorafenib in recurrent ovarian cancer and primary peritoneal carcinomatosis: a gynecologic oncology group trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 29(1):69-75. PMC: 3055861. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.7856. View

3.
Semczuk A, BERBEC H, Kostuch M, Cybulski M, Wojcierowski J, Baranowski W . K-ras gene point mutations in human endometrial carcinomas: correlation with clinicopathological features and patients' outcome. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1999; 124(12):695-700. DOI: 10.1007/s004320050234. View

4.
Westin S, Sill M, Coleman R, Waggoner S, Moore K, Mathews C . Safety lead-in of the MEK inhibitor trametinib in combination with GSK2141795, an AKT inhibitor, in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer: An NRG Oncology/GOG study. Gynecol Oncol. 2019; 155(3):420-428. PMC: 6922584. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.09.024. View

5.
Brudvik K, Kopetz S, Li L, Conrad C, Aloia T, Vauthey J . Meta-analysis of KRAS mutations and survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg. 2015; 102(10):1175-83. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9870. View