Molecular Landscape of ERBB2/ERBB3 Mutated Colorectal Cancer

Despite growing therapeutic relevance of ERBB2 amplifications in colorectal cancer (CRC), little is known about ERBB2/ERBB3 mutations. We aimed to characterize these subsets of CRC. We performed a retrospective analysis of 419 CRC patients from MD Anderson (MDACC) and 619 patients from the Nurses�...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JNCI : Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2018-12, Vol.110 (12), p.1409-1417
Hauptverfasser: Loree, Jonathan M, Bailey, Ann M, Johnson, Amber M, Yu, Yao, Wu, Wenhui, Bristow, Christopher A, Davis, Jennifer S, Shaw, Kenna R, Broaddus, Russell, Banks, Kimberly C, Lanman, Richard B, Meric-Bernstam, Funda, Overman, Michael J, Kopetz, Scott, Raghav, Kanwal
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Despite growing therapeutic relevance of ERBB2 amplifications in colorectal cancer (CRC), little is known about ERBB2/ERBB3 mutations. We aimed to characterize these subsets of CRC. We performed a retrospective analysis of 419 CRC patients from MD Anderson (MDACC) and 619 patients from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS)/Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) with tissue sequencing, clinicopathologic, mutational, and consensus molecular subtype (CMS) profiles of ERBB2/ERBB3 mutant patients. A third cohort of 1623 CRC patients with ctDNA assays characterized the ctDNA profile of ERBB2 mutants. All statistical tests were two-sided. ERBB2 mutations occurred in 4.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.4% to 6.4%), 5.8% (95% CI = 4.1% to 8.0%), and 5.1% (95% CI = 4.0% to 6.2%) of MDACC, NHS/HPFS, and ctDNA patients, respectively. ERBB3 mutations occurred in 5.7% (95% CI = 3.7% to 8.4%, 95% CI = 4.0% to 7.8%) of patients in both tissue cohorts. Age, stage, and tumor location were not associated with either mutation. Microsatellite instability (MSI) was associated with ERBB2 (odds ratio [OR] = 5.98, 95% CI = 2.47 to 14.49, P < .001; OR = 5.13, 95% CI = 2.38 to 11.05, P < .001) and ERBB3 mutations (OR = 3.48, 95% CI = 1.51 to 8.02, P = .002; OR = 3.40, 95% CI = 1.05 to 10.96, P = .03) in both tissue cohorts. Neither gene was associated with TP53, APC, KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF mutations in tissue. However, PIK3CA mutations were strongly associated with ERBB2 mutations in all three cohorts (OR = 3.68, 95% CI = 1.83 to 7.41, P = .001; OR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.11 to 4.58, P = .02; OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.25 to 3.58, P = .004) and ERBB3 mutations in the MDACC cohort (OR = 13.26, 95% CI = 5.27 to 33.33, P < .001). ERBB2 (P = 0.08) and ERBB3 (P = .008) mutations were associated with CMS1 subtype. ERBB2 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.23 to 4.03, P = .009), but not ERBB3 (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.73, P = .73), mutations were associated with worse overall survival. MSI and PIK3CA mutations are associated with ERBB2/ERBB3 mutations. Co-occurring PIK3CA mutations may represent a second hit to oncogenic signaling that needs consideration when targeting ERBB2/ERBB3.
ISSN:0027-8874
1460-2105
DOI:10.1093/jnci/djy067