The Network of Cancer Genes (NCG): a comprehensive catalogue of known and candidate cancer genes from cancer sequencing screens

The Network of Cancer Genes (NCG) is a manually curated repository of 2372 genes whose somatic modifications have known or predicted cancer driver roles. These genes were collected from 275 publications, including two sources of known cancer genes and 273 cancer sequencing screens of more than 100 cancer types from 34,905 cancer donors and multiple primary sites. This represents a more than 1.5-fold content increase compared to the previous version. NCG also annotates properties of cancer genes, such as duplicability, evolutionary origin, RNA and protein expression, miRNA and protein interactions, and protein function and essentiality

Genome-Protective Topoisomerase 2a-Dependent G2 Arrest Requires p53 in hTERT-Positive Cancer Cells

Topoisomerase 2a (Topo2a)-dependent G2 arrest engenders faithful segregation of sister chromatids, yet in certain tumor cell lines where this arrest is dysfunctional, a PKCe-dependent failsafe pathway can be triggered. Here we elaborate on recent advances in understanding the underlying mechanisms associated with this G2 arrest by determining that p53–p21 signaling is essential for efficient arrest in cell lines, in patient-derived cells, and in colorectal cancer organoids. Regulation of this p53 axis required the SMC5/6 complex, which is distinct from the p53 pathways observed in the DNA damage response. Topo2a inhibition specifically during S phase did not trigger G2 arrest despite affecting completion of DNA replication. Moreover, in cancer cells reliant upon the alternative lengthening of telomeres (ALT) mechanism, a distinct form of Topo2a-dependent, p53-independent G2 arrest was found to be mediated by BLM and Chk1. Importantly, the previously described PKCe-dependent mitotic failsafe was engaged in hTERT-positive cells when Topo2a-dependent G2 arrest was dysfunctional and where p53 was absent, but not in cells dependent on the ALT mechanism. In PKCe knockout mice, p53 deletion elicited tumors were less aggressive than in PKCe-replete animals and exhibited a distinct pattern of chromosomal rearrangements. This evidence suggests the potential of exploiting synthetic lethality in arrest-defective hTERT-positive tumors through PKCe-directed therapeutic intervention. Significance: The identification of a requirement for p53 in stringent Topo2a-dependent G2 arrest and engagement of PKCe failsafe pathways in arrest-defective hTERT-positive cells provides a therapeutic opportunity to induce selective synthetic lethality

Comparative assessment of genes driving cancer and somatic evolution in non-cancer tissues: an update of the Network of Cancer Genes (NCG) resource.

BACKGROUND: Genetic alterations of somatic cells can drive non-malignant clone formation and promote cancer initiation. However, the link between these processes remains unclear and hampers our understanding of tissue homeostasis and cancer development. RESULTS: Here, we collect a literature-based repertoire of 3355 well-known or predicted drivers of cancer and non-cancer somatic evolution in 122 cancer types and 12 non-cancer tissues. Mapping the alterations of these genes in 7953 pan-cancer samples reveals that, despite the large size, the known compendium of drivers is still incomplete and biased towards frequently occurring coding mutations. High overlap exists between drivers of cancer and non-cancer somatic evolution, although significant differences emerge in their recurrence. We confirm and expand the unique properties of drivers and identify a core of evolutionarily conserved and essential genes whose germline variation is strongly counter-selected. Somatic alteration in even one of these genes is sufficient to drive clonal expansion but not malignant transformation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study offers a comprehensive overview of our current understanding of the genetic events initiating clone expansion and cancer revealing significant gaps and biases that still need to be addressed. The compendium of cancer and non-cancer somatic drivers, their literature support, and properties are accessible in the Network of Cancer Genes and Healthy Drivers resource at http://www.network-cancer-genes.org/

Extent of investigation and management of cases of ‘unexplained’ mismatch repair deficiency (u-dMMR): a UK Cancer Genetics Group consensus

Background Mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) is a characteristic feature of cancers linked to Lynch syndrome. However, in most cases, it results from sporadic somatic events rather than hereditary factors. The term’Lynch-like syndrome’ (LLS) has been used to guide colorectal cancer surveillance for relatives of individuals with a dMMR tumour when somatic and germline genomic testing is uninformative. As the assessment of mismatch repair through immunohistochemistry and/or microsatellite instability is increasingly applied across various tumour types for treatment planning, dMMR is increasingly detected in tumours where suspicion of hereditary aetiology is low. Our objective was to establish current practices and develop national guidance for investigating, and managing relatives of, patients with cancers demonstrating unexplained dMMR

Extent of investigation and management of cases of ‘unexplained’ mismatch repair deficiency (u-dMMR): a UK Cancer Genetics Group consensus

Background Mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) is a characteristic feature of cancers linked to Lynch syndrome. However, in most cases, it results from sporadic somatic events rather than hereditary factors. The term'Lynch-like syndrome' (LLS) has been used to guide colorectal cancer surveillance for relatives of individuals with a dMMR tumour when somatic and germline genomic testing is uninformative. As the assessment of mismatch repair through immunohistochemistry and/or microsatellite instability is increasingly applied across various tumour types for treatment planning, dMMR is increasingly detected in tumours where suspicion of hereditary aetiology is low. Our objective was to establish current practices and develop national guidance for investigating, and managing relatives of, patients with cancers demonstrating unexplained dMMR. Methods This was achieved through a virtual consensus meeting involving key stakeholders from the UK, through premeeting surveys, structured discussions and in-meeting polling to formulate best practice guidance. Results We identified variability in the availability of diagnostic technologies across specialist centres. It was agreed that equitable access to baseline testing is required, acknowledging the need for a pragmatic approach to investigating dMMR cancers not traditionally associated with Lynch syndrome. Factors such as family history, age, tumour type, protein loss pattern and extent of the investigation were deemed crucial in guiding family management. The term'unexplained dMMR' was recommended over LLS. Conclusion Decisions regarding investigations and future cancer risk management in patients and relatives should be nuanced, considering factors like clinical suspicion of hereditary predisposition to allocate limited resources efficiently and avoid unnecessary investigations in low-suspicion families

Clinical outcomes for patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer: Arguing the case for specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary assessment

In patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer, hepatic resection can offer a significant survival benefit over systemic therapy alone. Specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary meetings are currently believed to provide the best forum to discuss the management for these patients. A retrospective analysis was undertaken of patients diagnosed with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer over 6 months within a cancer network in the United Kingdom. In addition, patients who were diagnosed but not referred to the hepatobiliary meeting were discussed within a virtual multi-disciplinary setting. Contributors were blinded and proposed management recorded. 159 newly diagnosed patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer were identified. 68 (43%) were referred at initial diagnosis and 38 (24%) referred following systemic treatment. 35 (51%) who were discussed at baseline underwent a subsequent hepatectomy or radio frequency ablation, as did 18 (47%) patients referred after chemotherapy. Of the remaining 53 (33%) patients not referred, imaging was available for 31 (58%). Decisions regarding potential liver-directed therapy were discussed within a multi-disciplinary setting. 13 (41.9%) were identified as resectable or potentially resectable and 11 (35.5%) may have been suitable for a clinical trial. In reality, none of these 31 patients (100%) underwent surgery or ablation. Whilst the majority of patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer were referred appropriately, this study demonstrates that a significant number with potentially resectable disease are not being discussed at specialist meetings. A review of all diagnosed cases would ensure that an increased number of patients are offered hepatic resection or ablation