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.Whole-genome sequencing of esophageal adenocarcinoma samples was performed as part of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) through the oEsophageal Cancer Clinical and Molecular Stratification (OCCAMS) Consortium and was funded by Cancer Research UK. We thank the ICGC members for their input on verification standards as part of the benchmarking exercise. We thank the Human Research Tissue Bank, which is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, from Addenbrooke’s Hospital and UCL. Also the University Hospital of Southampton Trust and the Southampton, Birmingham, Edinburgh and UCL Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres and the QEHB charities. This study was partly funded by a project grant from Cancer Research UK. R.C.F. is funded by an NIHR Professorship and receives core funding from the Medical Research Council and infrastructure support from the Biomedical Research Centre and the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre. We acknowledge the support of The University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK (C14303/A17197) and Hutchison Whampoa Limited. We would like to thank Dr. Peter Van Loo for providing the NGS version of ASCAT for copy number calling. We are grateful to all the patients who provided written consent for participation in this study and the staff at all participating centres. Some of the work was undertaken at UCLH/UCL who received a proportion of funding from the Department of Health’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme. The work at UCLH/UCL was also supported by the CRUK UCL Early Cancer Medicine Centre.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng.365

Towards screening Barrett’s Oesophagus: current guidelines, imaging modalities and future developments

Barrett’s oesophagus is the only known precursor to oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC). Although guidelines on the screening and surveillance exist in Barrett’s oesophagus, the current strategies are inadequate. Oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) is the gold standard method in screening for Barrett’s oesophagus. This invasive method is expensive with associated risks negating its use as a current screening tool for Barrett’s oesophagus. This review explores current definitions, epidemiology, biomarkers, surveillance, and screening in Barrett’s oesophagus. Imaging modalities applicable to this condition are discussed, in addition to future developments. There is an urgent need for an alternative non-invasive method of screening and/or surveillance which could be highly beneficial towards reducing waiting times, alleviating patient fears and reducing future costs in current healthcare services. Vibrational spectroscopy has been shown to be promising in categorising Barrett’s oesophagus through to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and OAC. These techniques need further validation through multicentre trials

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.This study was partly funded by a project grant from Cancer Research UK. R.C.F. is funded by an NIHR Professorship and receives core funding from the Medical Research Council and infrastructure support from the Biomedical Research Centre and the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre. We acknowledge the support of The University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK (C14303/A17197) and Hutchison Whampoa Limited