Citations

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Background: The predictive and prognostic role of BRAF alterations has been evaluated in colorectal cancer (CRC); however, BRAF alterations have not been fully characterized in non-CRC gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. In the present study, we report the frequency and spectrum of BRAF alterations among patients with non-CRC GI malignancies. Methods: Patients with CRC and non-CRC GI malignancies who underwent somatic tumor profiling via a tissue-based or liquid-based assay were included in this study. Gain-of-function BRAF alterations were defined as pathogenic/likely pathogenic somatic short variants (SVs), copy number amplifications ≥8, or fusions (RNA or DNA). Results: Among 51,560 patients with somatic profiling, 40% had CRC and 60% had non-CRC GI malignancies. BRAF GOF alterations were seen more frequently in CRC (8.9%) compared to non-CRC GI malignancies (2.2%) (p < 0.001). Non-CRC GI malignancies with the highest prevalence of BRAF GOF alterations were bile duct cancers (4.1%) and small intestine cancers (4.0%). Among BRAF GOF alterations, class II (28% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.001) and class III (23% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) were more common in non-CRC GI malignancies. Among class II alterations, rates of BRAF amplifications (3.1% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001) and BRAF fusions (12% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.001) were higher in non-CRC GI malignancies compared to CRC. Conclusions: Non-CRC GI malignancies demonstrate a distinct BRAF alteration profile compared to CRC, with a higher frequency of class II and III mutations, and more specifically, a higher incidence of BRAF fusions. Future studies should evaluate clinical implications for the management of non-CRC GI patients with BRAF alterations, especially BRAF fusions.

759 Background: BRAF V600E mutations are present in 5-10% of patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) and associated with poor prognosis. Recently, there was tumor agnostic FDA approval of dabrafenib + trametinib for BRAF V600E mutated solid tumors. However, the frequency of BRAF alterations ( BRAF alt), especially non-V600E, in other gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are not well described. This study characterizes BRAF alt in CRC vs other GI cancers (non-CRC). Methods: De-identified records from 51,560 patients diagnosed with GI cancers were retrospectively analyzed from the Tempus database. The molecular landscape including presence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRAF alt was evaluated by panel-based tissue DNA, RNA or ctDNA NGS sequencing (Tempus Labs, Inc.). The frequency of BRAF alt, co-mutations, MSI, TMB and MMR were compared between CRC and (non-CRC) by Chi-squared/Fisher’s Exact or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. False-discovery rate correction was used for multiple testing. Results: BRAF alt were identified in 8.9% of CRC and 2.2% of non-CRC cohort. BRAF alt frequency varied by tumor type with the highest observed in colon (11%), jejunum (9.6%), intrahepatic bile duct (5.3%), rectal (4.5%), and ampulla of vater (4.5%) and lower in esophageal (0.9%) and gastric (1.6%). BRAF alt CRC had higher frequency of females (57% vs 45%, p <0.001) and older age at diagnosis (67 vs 66 yrs, p=0.029) compared to non-CRC group. Race was also significantly different, with white patients being more predominant in both groups (85% CRC,77% non-CRC). Among the BRAF alt, fusions (12% vs 2.2%, p <0.001) and amplifications (3.1% vs 0.3%, p <0.001) were higher in non-CRC vs CRC (Table). BRAF V600E was most common in all GI tumors, but higher in CRC vs non-CRC (75% vs 27%, q<0.001). Mutations higher in non-CRC vs CRC (q<0.009) included class II (G469A, K601E, BRAF-SND1, and BRAF amplification) and class III (D594N & N581S) BRAF alt. BRAF co-occurring mutations in CRC were TP53 (70%), APC (42%), RNF43 (30%), SMAD4 (22%), and PIK3CA (21%), and in non-CRC: TP53 (52%), CDKN2A (32%), CDKN2B (20%) SMAD4 (17%) and MTAP (16%). Among tissue samples, MSI-H (30% vs 4.%, p <0.001) and TMB-H ≥10 mut/MB (32% vs 6.7%, p <0.001) were more frequent in BRAF alt CRC vs non-CRC. Conclusions: Meaningful differences were found between the groups in terms of demographics, frequency, and type of BRAF alt and co-occurring mutations. In particular, certain BRAF fusions were present in a higher proportion of other GI cancers and could be an important therapeutic target for this patient population.[Table: see text]

3536 Background: Early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC, initial CRC diagnosis at age < 50 years) has been increasing in the past two decades especially in Western countries. This study evaluates somatic and germline profiles in eoCRC compared to average-onset CRC (aoCRC, initial CRC diagnosis at age ≥ 50 years). Methods: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional study utilizing data from de-identified records of colorectal cancer patients tested with the Tempus xT assay from 2017 to 2022. Briefly, the assay is a targeted panel that detects single nucleotide variants, insertions and/or deletions, and copy number variants in 598-648 genes, as well as chromosomal rearrangements in 22 genes with high sensitivity and specificity. Baseline characteristics and immunologic markers were compared between eoCRC and aoCRC by Wilcoxon Rank Sum or Chi-squared test (reporting p-values). Somatic and germline mutations were compared between two age groups with false discover rate adjustments (reporting q-values). Results: In this study, 2,379 eoCRC and 8,627 aoCRC patients were included, with the majority diagnosed with stage IV disease. Additionally, germline alterations were assessed on a subset of 6,311 patients with tumor/normal match testing (eoCRC = 1,413 and aoCRC = 4,898). Left-sided primaries were more common in eoCRC (85% left/rectum in eoCRC vs. 75% left/rectum in aoCRC (p < 0.001), and rates of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) were lower compared to aoCRC (4.2% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.001). eoCRC has a unique somatic mutation profile compared to aoCRC. A higher prevalence of germline mutations was observed in eoCRC overall (6.9% vs. 5%, p = 0.006); however, no statistically significant differences were observed in individual germline genes compared to aoCRC, likely due to relatively small numbers. Conclusions: eoCRC has a unique mutational profile and presence of germline mutations in 6.9% of eoCRC, indicating a potential role for universal germline testing in CRC. [Table: see text]