Abstract Background The incidence of gastroesophageal cancer diagnosed at ages younger than 50 years is increasing. Assessment of the clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics of these cancers is limited currently. Methods This analysis used Tempus’ clinicogenomic database to compare patients diagnosed with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 vs 50 years and older who completed tumor molecular profiling between December 2017 and July 2024. The spectrum of biomarkers, somatic alterations, and germline alterations were compared between those diagnosed with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years and those aged 50 years and older, and a multivariate analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with longer survival. Results Among 5863 gastroesophageal cancer patients, 785 had gastroesophageal cancer diagnosed at ages younger than 50 years. There were more females (35% vs 25%, P < .001) and fewer White patients (69% vs 80%, P < .001) with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years. Fewer tumors of patients with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years had high tumor mutational burden (3.2% vs 10.2%, P < .001) or high microsatellite instability (1.7% vs 5.1%, P < .001), but there was no difference in PD-L1 positivity (49% vs 51%, P = .3). Higher incidence of somatic CDH1 mutations was seen in those with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years (16.1% vs 6.6%, q < 0.001) with lower incidence of TP53 (65.6% vs 74.1%), CDKN2A (12.5% vs 19.8%), and KRAS (11.7% vs 18.3%, P < .001 for all) alterations. The most statistically significant germline difference was higher incidence of CDH1 (2.2% vs 0.3%, q = 0.001) and TP53 (0.6% vs 0%, q = 0.039) alterations among those with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years. Median survival for patients with metastatic disease was longer for gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years (11 vs 8.5 months, P = .002), and gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years, ERBB2 amplification, and high microsatellite instability were associated with superior survival. Conclusions Unique molecular and germline profiles were seen in patients with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years, which may suggest differences in causal factors yet undiscovered.
Landscape of somatic genetic alterations and PAM50 intrinsic subtypes in breast cancer associated with germline pathogenic variants in DNA-repair genes
Abstract Background The association of germline pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (GPVs) in hereditary breast cancer genes with underlying tumor biology and clinical outcomes remains incompletely understood. This study characterized differences in somatic alterations and intrinsic subtypes between sporadic and hereditary breast cancers associated with GPVs in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2. Methods This retrospective cohort study included women with breast cancer and an ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2 GPV who had undergone tumor sequencing and whole transcriptome RNA expression analysis. Clinicopathological features, intrinsic subtypes, somatic alterations, and survival were compared by GPV status and immunohistochemistry-defined subtype and to sporadic cases. All statistical significance tests were 2-sided. Results The 4988 women with breast cancer in this study included 98 BRCA1, 126 BRCA2, 74 PALB2, 54 ATM, and 83 CHEK2 GPVs. Compared with sporadic cases, hormone receptor–positive/(ERBB2) formerly HER2–negative tumors in BRCA1 GPVs were statistically significantly enriched for basal subtype (45.5% vs 11.4%; P < .001), while CHEK2 carriers had a higher prevalence of luminal A subtype (80.4% vs 60.3%; P = .006). In hormone receptor–positive/(ERBB2)-negative breast cancers, BRCA1 GPVs were enriched for TP53 alterations (84.6% vs 29.8%; q < 0.001), ATM GPVs with FGFR1 alterations (35.4% vs 12.7%; q = 0.04), and BRCA2 GPVs with APC alterations (10.1% vs 1.5%; q = 0.004). Conversely, BRCA2 GPVs were inversely associated with PIK3CA alterations (13.0% vs 34.1%; q = 0.005) and CHEK2 GPVs with TP53 alterations (8.0% vs 29.8%; q = 0.02). Conclusions The GPVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 are associated with distinct intrinsic breast cancer subtypes and somatic genomic alterations. These findings may enhance precision in risk stratification and guide personalized treatment strategies.
Germline–Somatic Interactions in BRCA-Associated Cancers: Unique Molecular Profiles and Clinical Outcomes Linking
ATM
to
TP53
Synthetic Essentiality
Abstract Purpose: Germline alterations in homologous recombination repair (gHRR) genes affect the pathogenesis, treatment options, and survival of patients with cancer. However, distinct gHRR gene alterations may differentially affect treatment response and oncogenic signaling. In this study, we interrogated genomic and transcriptomic data and assessed clinical outcomes of patients with gHRR mutations across four BRCA-associated cancers (breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers) to identify therapeutic vulnerabilities. Experimental Design: We assessed 24,309 patients undergoing matched tumor/normal next-generation DNA and RNA sequencing. Annotated gHRR gene variants [germline BRCA1, germline BRCA2, germline PALB2, germline ATM (gATM), and germline CHEK2] were analyzed. HRs were used to assess survival outcomes comparing germline versus sporadic groups. Somatic alterations and their frequencies were compared across gHRR-altered groups. Differential gene expression and gene set enrichment analysis were used to compare transcriptomic profiles. Results: Somatic TP53 mutations were depleted in gATM carriers (P < 0.05) across all four BRCA-associated cancers by up to 2.5-fold. Tumors with germline BRCA1/2 mutations were associated with improved survival in patients with ovarian cancer and had consistent enrichment of TP53 mutations in all four cancers. gATM mutations displayed elevated p53 transcriptional activity in all four cancers, with significance reached in breast and prostate cancers (P < 0.01). In breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers, gATM tumors demonstrated significantly increased inflammatory pathways (P < 0.001). Finally, using gene dependency data, we found that cell lines that were highly dependent on ATM were co-dependent on canonical p53 function. Conclusions: gATM-associated cancers seem to require intact p53 activity and this synthetic essentiality may be used to guide targeted therapies that perturb canonical TP53 function.
Genomic Landscapes of Early-Onset Versus Average-Onset Colorectal Cancer Populations
Background: Rates of early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC), defined as disease diagnosed at <50 years of age, are increasing. The incidence and spectrum of somatic and pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in this population are not well understood. Methods: This cross-sectional study leveraged Tempus’ clinicogenomic database, including de-identified records of patients diagnosed with CRC between 2000–2022, to analyze and compare eoCRC and average-onset colorectal cancer (aoCRC, disease diagnosed ≥50 years of age) patients. The frequency and spectrum of somatic mutations and PGVs in patients with eoCRC and aoCRC were evaluated and compared. Results: Among 11,006 participants in this study, 57% were male, 76% were white, and 80% had stage 4 disease. Within the total cohort, 2379 had eoCRC and 8627 had aoCRC. Among patients with eoCRC, 4.2% had a tumor with high microsatellite instability and/or deficient mismatch repair (MSI-H/dMMR) and 6.8% with aoCRC had an MSI-H/dMMR tumor (p < 0.001). The most frequent somatic mutations involved TP53, APC, and KRAS, with the most significant difference in BRAF, which was more frequently mutated in aoCRC (9.8% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.0001). In total, 1413 (59.4%) eoCRC and 4898 (56.8%) aoCRC patients had matched normal specimen (blood or saliva) sequencing and a PGV was identified in 6.9% of eoCRC and 5.0% of aoCRC patients. Conclusions: Somatic and germline mutation profiles were similar for eoCRC and aoCRC patients and may not adequately explain differences in tumor behavior and age of disease onset.
Molecular characteristics of early-onset versus average-onset gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
496 Background: Incidence of early-onset gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (eoGEA, ages <50 years) has been increasing in the United States since the 1990s, the etiology of which is still unclear, and limited data exists on molecular drivers. This study evaluates somatic and germline profiles in eoGEA compared to average-onset GEA (aoGEA, ages≥ 50 years). Methods: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional study utilizing data from de-identified records of GEA (esophageal, gastroesophageal junction and gastric adenocarcinomas) patients who underwent somatic NGS testing via the Tempus xT assay (595-648 gene DNA panel) from 12/2017 to 07/2024. This assay assesses somatic tumor mutations (including SNVs, Indels, CNVs, and select SVs), MSI, TMB, and incidentally detected germline SNVs and small indels in matched normal tissue. Clinical characteristics and immunotherapy markers were compared between eoGEA and aoGEA by Wilcoxon Rank Sum or Chi-squared test. Somatic and germline mutations were compared between two age groups with false discovery rate adjustments. Results: We compared the demographic, clinical, and molecular features of a total of 5863 patients with eoGEA (n=785, median age 43) and aoGEA (n=5078, median age 68). Over 80% of patients were diagnosed with stage IV disease. The eoGEA group had a higher proportion of females, non-white, and Hispanic or Latino patients compared to the aoGEA group (p<0.001). Prevalence of MSI-H/ dMMR, and TMB-H was lower in eoGEA vs aoGEA (p<0.001), while PD-L1 expression was similar. Prevalence of somatic CDH1 , CDKN2A , and TP53 SNVs, and FGFR2 and KRAS CNAs were higher in eoGEA vs aoGEA (q<0.001). In a subset of 3286 patients with tumor/normal match testing (eoGEA=464 and aoGEA=2822), eoGEA also had a higher prevalence of germline CDH1 mutations (q<0.001). Conclusions: eoGEA has a unique somatic and germline mutation profile compared to aoGEA; further study evaluating the molecular landscape including epigenetic changes could shed light on underlying mechanisms responsible for the rising incidence of eoGEA. eoGEA (n=785) aoGEA (n=5078) p-value/q-value* Baseline characteristics Median age at diagnosis (IQR) 43 (38, 47) 68 (61,74) <0.001 Gender: male 509 (65%) 3798 (75%) <0.001 Race (white) 280 (69%) 2347 (80%) <0.001 Ethnicity (not hispanic or latino) 206 (60%) 1768 (86% <0.001 Stage IV 495 (85%) 2883 (81%) 0.073 Immunologic markers TMB ≥ 10 25 (3.2%) 519(10%) <0.001 MSI-H 13 (1.7%) 261 (5.1%) <0.001 dMMR 7 (2.2%) 120 (5.9%) 0.007 Somatic mutations profiles * CDH1 126 (16%) 334 (6.6%) <0.001 TP53 515 (66%) 3764 (74%) <0.001 CDKN2A 101 (13%) 1011 (20%) <0.001 KRAS 92 (12%) 931 (18%) <0.001 NOTCH1 12 (1.5%) 228 (4.5%) 0.002 Germline mutation profiles * eoGEA (N=464) aoGEA (N= 2,822) Overall prevalence 46 (9.9%) 207 (7.3%) CDH1 10 (2.2%) 8 (0.3%) 0.001 TP53 3 (0.6%) 0 (0%) 0.039 BRCA2 2 (0.4%) 38 (1.3%) 0.6 BRIP1 4 (0.9%) 10 (0.4%) 0.6
A comprehensive analysis of POLE/POLD1 genomic alterations in colorectal cancer
Abstract Introduction Pathogenic mutations in POLE/POLD1 lead to decreased fidelity of DNA replication, resulting in a high tumor mutational burden (TMB-H), defined as TMB ≥ 10 mut/Mb, independent of deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) and microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) status. Methods De-identified records of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) profiled with the Tempus xT assay (DNA-seq of 595-648 genes at 500×) were identified from the Tempus Database. Results Among 9136 CRC samples profiled, the frequency of POLE/POLD1 genomic alterations was 2.4% (n = 217). Copy number loss was the most common genomic alteration (64%, n = 138) of POLE/POLD1, followed by copy number amplifications (18%, n = 40) and short variant mutations (18%, n = 39). The POLE/POLD1 mutated group presented with a higher frequency of TMB-H phenotype relative to wild type (WT; 22% vs. 9%, P < .001), with a median TMB of 127 mut/Mb in the TMB-H POLE/POLD1 subset. The TMB showed a dramatic contrast between POLE/POLD1 short variant mutations as compared to the group with copy number alterations, with a TMB of 159 mut/Mb vs 15 mut/Mb, respectively. Thus, the short variant mutations represented the so-called ultra-hypermutated phenotype. The POLE/POLD1 mutated group, as compared to WT, exhibited a higher rate of coexisting mutations, including APC, ALK, ATM, BRCA2, and RET mutations. Conclusion Patients with POLE/POLD1 mutations exhibited significant differences across immunological markers (ie, TMB, MMR, and MSI-H) and molecular co-alterations. Those with short variant mutations represented 18% of the POLE/POLD1 cohort and 0.4% of the total cohort examined. This group of patients had a median TMB of 159 mut/Mb (range 34-488), representing the ultra-hypermutated phenotype. This group of patients is important to identify given the potential for exceptional response to immune checkpoint inhibitors.