Nicola Grehan

Familial gastric cancer: overview and guidelines for management*

Families with autosomal dominant inherited predisposition to gastric cancer have been described. More recently, germlineE-cadherin/CDH1mutations have been identified in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer kindred. The need to have protocols to manage and counsel these families in the clinic led a group of geneticists, gastroenterologists, surgeons, oncologists, pathologists, and molecular biologists to convene a workshop to produce consensus statements and guidelines for familial gastric cancer. Review of the available cancer pathology from people belonging to families with documented germlineE-cadherin/CDH1mutations confirmed that the gastric cancers were all of the diffuse type. Criteria to define the different types of familial gastric cancer syndromes were agreed. Foremost among these criteria was that review of histopathology should be part of the evaluation of any family with aggregation of gastric cancer cases. Guidelines for genetic testing and counselling in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer were produced. Finally, a proposed strategy for clinical management in families with high penetrance autosomal dominant predisposition to gastric cancer was defined.

Germline E-cadherin mutations in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: assessment of 42 new families and review of genetic screening criteria

Background: Mutations in the E-cadherin (CDH1) gene are a well documented cause of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC). Development of evidence based guidelines for CDH1 screening for HDGC have been complicated by its rarity, variable penetrance, and lack of founder mutations. Methods: Forty three new gastric cancer (GC) families were ascertained from multiple sources. In 42 of these families at least one gastric cancer was pathologically confirmed to be a diffuse gastric cancer (DGC); the other family had intestinal type gastric cancers. Screening of the entire coding region of the CDH1 gene and all intron/exon boundaries was performed by bi-directional sequencing. Results: Novel mutations were found in 13 of the 42 DGC families (31% overall). Twelve of these mutations occur among the 25 families with multiple cases of gastric cancer and with pathologic confirmation of diffuse gastric cancer phenotype in at least one individual under the age of 50 years. The mutations found include small insertions and deletions, splice site mutations, and three non-conservative amino acid substitutions (A298T, W409R, and R732Q). All three missense mutations conferred loss of E-cadherin function in in vitro assays. Multiple cases of breast cancers including pathologically confirmed lobular breast cancers were observed both in mutation positive and negative families. Conclusion: Germline truncating CDH1 mutations are found in 48% of families with multiple cases of gastric cancer and at least one documented case of DGC in an individual under 50 years of age. We recommend that these criteria be used for selecting families for CDH1 mutational analysis.

Ordering of mutations in preinvasive disease stages of esophageal carcinogenesis

Cancer genome sequencing studies have identified numerous driver genes, but the relative timing of mutations in carcinogenesis remains unclear. The gradual progression from premalignant Barretts esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) provides an ideal model to study the ordering of somatic mutations. We identified recurrently mutated genes and assessed clonal structure using whole-genome sequencing and amplicon resequencing of 112 EACs. We next screened a cohort of 109 biopsies from 2 key transition points in the development of malignancy: benign metaplastic never-dysplastic Barretts esophagus (NDBE; n = 66) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD; n = 43). Unexpectedly, the majority of recurrently mutated genes in EAC were also mutated in NDBE. Only TP53 and SMAD4 mutations occurred in a stage-specific manner, confined to HGD and EAC, respectively. Finally, we applied this knowledge to identify high-risk Barretts esophagus in a new non-endoscopic test. In conclusion, mutations in EAC driver genes generally occur exceptionally early in disease development with profound implications for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Mechanisms and sequelae of E‐cadherin silencing in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer

Around 25–40% of cases of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) are caused by heterozygous E‐cadherin (CDH1) germline mutations. The mechanisms for loss of the second allele still remain unclear. The aims of this study were to elucidate mechanisms for somatic inactivation of the wild‐type CDH1 allele and to seek evidence for cadherin switching. Archival tumour material was analysed from 16 patients with CDH1 germline mutations and seven patients fulfilling HDGC criteria without CDH1 germline mutations. The 16 CDH1 exons were sequenced. E‐cadherin promoter methylation was analysed by bisulphite sequencing and pyrosequencing and allele specificity was determined using polymorphic loci. Loss of heterozygosity was analysed using microsatellite markers. Cadherin expression levels were determined by real‐time RT–PCR and immunohistochemistry. Six of 16 individuals with germline mutations had at least one second hit mechanism. Two exonic mutations (exon 9 truncating, exon 3 missense) and four intronic mutations which may affect splicing were identified. Tumours from 4/16 individuals had promoter hypermethylation that was restricted to the A allele haplotype in three cases. E‐cadherin loss (mRNA and protein) generally correlated with identification of a second hit. In cases without germline E‐cadherin mutations there was no evidence for somatic mutation or significant promoter methylation. P‐cadherin (>25% cells) was expressed in 7/13 (54%) and 4/5 (80%) with and without germline CDH1 mutations, respectively, independent of complete E‐cadherin loss. Overall, inactivation of the second CDH1 allele occurs by mutation and methylation events. Methylation is commonly allele‐specific and is uncommon without germline mutations. P‐cadherin over‐expression commonly occurs in individuals with diffuse type gastric cancer. Copyright

Mutational signatures in esophageal adenocarcinoma define etiologically distinct subgroups with therapeutic relevance

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has a poor outcome, and targeted therapy trials have thus far been disappointing owing to a lack of robust stratification methods. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) analysis of 129 cases demonstrated that this is a heterogeneous cancer dominated by copy number alterations with frequent large-scale rearrangements. Co-amplification of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) and/or downstream mitogenic activation is almost ubiquitous; thus tailored combination RTK inhibitor (RTKi) therapy might be required, as we demonstrate in vitro. However, mutational signatures showed three distinct molecular subtypes with potential therapeutic relevance, which we verified in an independent cohort (n = 87): (i) enrichment for BRCA signature with prevalent defects in the homologous recombination pathway; (ii) dominant T>G mutational pattern associated with a high mutational load and neoantigen burden; and (iii) C>A/T mutational pattern with evidence of an aging imprint. These subtypes could be ascertained using a clinically applicable sequencing strategy (low coverage) as a basis for therapy selection.

A comparative analysis of whole genome sequencing of esophageal adenocarcinoma pre- and post-chemotherapy

The scientific community has avoided using tissue samples from patients that have been exposed to systemic chemotherapy to infer the genomic landscape of a given cancer. Esophageal adenocarcinoma is a heterogeneous, chemoresistant tumor for which the availability and size of pretreatment endoscopic samples are limiting. This study compares whole-genome sequencing data obtained from chemo-naive and chemo-treated samples. The quality of whole-genomic sequencing data is comparable across all samples regardless of chemotherapy status. Inclusion of samples collected post-chemotherapy increased the proportion of late-stage tumors. When comparing matched pre- and post-chemotherapy samples from 10 cases, the mutational signatures, copy number, and SNV mutational profiles reflect the expected heterogeneity in this disease. Analysis of SNVs in relation to allele-specific copy-number changes pinpoints the common ancestor to a point prior to chemotherapy. For cases in which pre- and post-chemotherapy samples do show substantial differences, the timing of the divergence is near-synchronous with endoreduplication. Comparison across a large prospective cohort (62 treatment-naive, 58 chemotherapy-treated samples) reveals no significant differences in the overall mutation rate, mutation signatures, specific recurrent point mutations, or copy-number events in respect to chemotherapy status. In conclusion, whole-genome sequencing of samples obtained following neoadjuvant chemotherapy is representative of the genomic landscape of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Excluding these samples reduces the material available for cataloging and introduces a bias toward the earlier stages of cancer.

The landscape of selection in 551 Esophageal Adenocarcinomas defines genomic biomarkers for the clinic

Esophageal Adenocarcinoma (EAC) is a poor prognosis cancer type with rapidly rising incidence. Our understanding of genetic events which drive EAC development is limited and there are few molecular biomarkers for prognostication or therapeutics. We have accumulated a cohort of 551 genomically characterised EACs (73% WGS and 27% WES) with clinical annotation and matched RNA-seq. Using a variety of driver gene detection methods we discover 65 EAC drivers (66% novel) and describe mutation and CNV types with specific functional impact. We identify a mean of 3.7 driver events per case derived almost equally from copy number events and mutations. We compare driver mutation rates to the exome-wide mutational excess calculated using Non-synonymous vs Synonymous mutation rates (dNdS). We see mutual exclusivity or co-occurrence of events within and between a number of EAC pathways (GATA factors, Core Cell cycle genes, TP53 regulators and the SWI/SNF complex) suggestive of important functional relationships. These driver variants correlate with tumour differentiation, sex and prognosis. Poor prognostic indicators (SMAD4, GATA4) are verified in independent cohorts with significant predictive value. Over 50% of EACs contain sensitising events for CDK4/6 inhibitors which are highly correlated with clinically relevant sensitivity in a panel EAC cell lines.

Organoid cultures recapitulate esophageal adenocarcinoma heterogeneity providing a model for clonality studies and precision therapeutics.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) incidence is increasing while 5-year survival rates remain less than 15%. A lack of experimental models has hampered progress. We have generated clinically annotated EAC organoid cultures that recapitulate the morphology, genomic, and transcriptomic landscape of the primary tumor including point mutations, copy number alterations, and mutational signatures. Karyotyping of organoid cultures has confirmed polyclonality reflecting the clonal architecture of the primary tumor. Furthermore, subclones underwent clonal selection associated with driver gene status. Medium throughput drug sensitivity testing demonstrates the potential of targeting receptor tyrosine kinases and downstream mediators. EAC organoid cultures provide a pre-clinical tool for studies of clonal evolution and precision therapeutics.Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has a poor 5-year survival rate and lacks robust preclinical models for use in research. Here, the authors show that newly derived organoids recapitulate the transcriptomic, genetic, and morphological landscape of the primary EAC tumors and provide a platform to test drug sensitivity and study tumor clonality.

Erratum: Corrigendum: Mutational signatures in esophageal adenocarcinoma define etiologically distinct subgroups with therapeutic relevance

Nat. Genet.; 10.1038/ng.3659; corrected online 19 September 2016 In the version of this article initially published online, the mutation signature illustrations for S1 and S2 in Figure 3a were switched. Additionally, in the Online Methods, the text originally stated that structural variants were called using BWA-MEM, when it should have stated that these were called using BWA.

Corrigendum: A comparative analysis of whole genome sequencing of esophageal adenocarcinoma pre- and post-chemotherapy

Corrigendum: A comparative analysis of whole genome sequencing of esophageal adenocarcinoma preand post-chemotherapy Ayesha Noorani, Jan Bornschein, Andy G. Lynch, Maria Secrier, Achilleas Achilleos, Matthew Eldridge, Lawrence Bower, Jamie M.J. Weaver, Jason Crawte, Chin-Ann Ong, Nicholas Shannon, Shona MacRae, Nicola Grehan, Barbara Nutzinger, Maria O’Donovan, Richard Hardwick, Simon Tavaré, Rebecca C. Fitzgerald, on behalf of the Oesophageal Cancer Clinical and Molecular Stratification (OCCAMS) Consortium