Alex Boussioutas

// A. Marcell Szász 1, 2 , András Lánczky 1 , Ádám Nagy 1 , Susann Förster 3 , Kim Hark 4 , Jeffrey E. Green 4 , Alex Boussioutas 5, 6, 7 , Rita Busuttil 5, 6, 7 , András Szabó 8 , Balázs Győrffy 1, 8 1 MTA-TTK Lendület Cancer Biomarker Research Group, Budapest, Hungary 2 2nd Department of Pathology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary 3 Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany 4 Transgenic Oncogenesis and Genomics Section, Laboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA 5 Cancer Genetics and Genomics Laboratory, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia 6 Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia 7 Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia 8 2nd Department of Pediatrics, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary Correspondence to: Balázs Győrffy, email: gyorffy.balazs@ttk.mta.hu Keywords: gastric cancer, survival, meta-analysis Received: April 07, 2016      Accepted: June 13, 2016      Published: June 30, 2016 ABSTRACT Introduction: Multiple gene expression based prognostic biomarkers have been repeatedly identified in gastric carcinoma. However, without confirmation in an independent validation study, their clinical utility is limited. Our goal was to establish a robust database enabling the swift validation of previous and future gastric cancer survival biomarker candidates. Results: The entire database incorporates 1,065 gastric carcinoma samples, gene expression data. Out of 29 established markers, higher expression of BECN1 (HR = 0.68, p = 1.5E-05), CASP3 (HR = 0.5, p = 6E-14), COX2 (HR = 0.72, p = 0.0013), CTGF (HR = 0.72, p = 0.00051), CTNNB1 (HR = 0.47, p = 4.3E-15), MET (HR = 0.63, p = 1.3E-05), and SIRT1 (HR = 0.64, p = 2.2E-07) correlated to longer OS. Higher expression of BIRC5 (HR = 1.45, p = 1E-04), CNTN1 (HR = 1.44, p = 3.5E- 05), EGFR (HR = 1.86, p = 8.5E-11), ERCC1 (HR = 1.36, p = 0.0012), HER2 (HR = 1.41, p = 0.00011), MMP2 (HR = 1.78, p = 2.6E-09), PFKB4 (HR = 1.56, p = 3.2E-07), SPHK1 (HR = 1.61, p = 3.1E-06), SP1 (HR = 1.45, p = 1.6E-05), TIMP1 (HR = 1.92, p = 2.2E- 10) and VEGF (HR = 1.53, p = 5.7E-06) were predictive for poor OS. Materials and Methods: We integrated samples of three major cancer research centers (Berlin, Bethesda and Melbourne datasets) and publicly available datasets with available follow-up data to form a single integrated database. Subsequently, we performed a literature search for prognostic markers in gastric carcinomas (PubMed, 2012–2015) and re-validated their findings predicting first progression (FP) and overall survival (OS) using uni- and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Conclusions: The major advantage of our analysis is that we evaluated all genes in the same set of patients thereby making direct comparison of the markers feasible. The best performing genes include BIRC5, CASP3, CTNNB1, TIMP-1, MMP-2, SIRT, and VEGF.

OBJECTIVE: Gastric cancer is a major gastrointestinal malignancy for which targeted therapies are emerging as treatment options. This study sought to identify the most prevalent molecular targets in gastric cancer and to elucidate systematic patterns of exclusivity and co-occurrence among these targets, through comprehensive genomic analysis of a large panel of gastric cancers. DESIGN: Using high-resolution single nucleotide polymorphism arrays, copy number alterations were profiled in a panel of 233 gastric cancers (193 primary tumours, 40 cell lines) and 98 primary matched gastric non-malignant samples. For selected alterations, their impact on gene expression and clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: 22 recurrent focal alterations (13 amplifications and nine deletions) were identified. These included both known targets (FGFR2, ERBB2) and also novel genes in gastric cancer (KLF5, GATA6). Receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK)/RAS alterations were found to be frequent in gastric cancer. This study also demonstrates, for the first time, that these alterations occur in a mutually exclusive fashion, with KRAS gene amplifications highlighting a clinically relevant but previously underappreciated gastric cancer subgroup. FGFR2-amplified gastric cancers were also shown to be sensitive to dovitinib, an orally bioavailable FGFR/VEGFR targeting agent, potentially representing a subtype-specific therapy for FGFR2-amplified gastric cancers. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates the existence of five distinct gastric cancer patient subgroups, defined by the signature genomic alterations FGFR2 (9% of tumours), KRAS (9%), EGFR (8%), ERBB2 (7%) and MET (4%). Collectively, these subgroups suggest that at least 37% of gastric cancer patients may be potentially treatable by RTK/RAS directed therapies.

Germline CDH1 mutations confer a high lifetime risk of developing diffuse gastric (DGC) and lobular breast cancer (LBC). A multidisciplinary workshop was organised to discuss genetic testing, surgery, surveillance strategies, pathology reporting and the patient's perspective on multiple aspects, including diet post gastrectomy. The updated guidelines include revised CDH1 testing criteria (taking into account first-degree and second-degree relatives): (1) families with two or more patients with gastric cancer at any age, one confirmed DGC; (2) individuals with DGC before the age of 40 and (3) families with diagnoses of both DGC and LBC (one diagnosis before the age of 50). Additionally, CDH1 testing could be considered in patients with bilateral or familial LBC before the age of 50, patients with DGC and cleft lip/palate, and those with precursor lesions for signet ring cell carcinoma. Given the high mortality associated with invasive disease, prophylactic total gastrectomy at a centre of expertise is advised for individuals with pathogenic CDH1 mutations. Breast cancer surveillance with annual breast MRI starting at age 30 for women with a CDH1 mutation is recommended. Standardised endoscopic surveillance in experienced centres is recommended for those opting not to have gastrectomy at the current time, those with CDH1 variants of uncertain significance and those that fulfil hereditary DGC criteria without germline CDH1 mutations. Expert histopathological confirmation of (early) signet ring cell carcinoma is recommended. The impact of gastrectomy and mastectomy should not be underestimated; these can have severe consequences on a psychological, physiological and metabolic level. Nutritional problems should be carefully monitored.