Patient-specific cancer genes contribute to recurrently perturbed pathways and establish therapeutic vulnerabilities in esophageal adenocarcinoma

Abstract: The identification of cancer-promoting genetic alterations is challenging particularly in highly unstable and heterogeneous cancers, such as esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Here we describe a machine learning algorithm to identify cancer genes in individual patients considering all types of damaging alterations simultaneously. Analysing 261 EACs from the OCCAMS Consortium, we discover helper genes that, alongside well-known drivers, promote cancer. We confirm the robustness of our approach in 107 additional EACs. Unlike recurrent alterations of known drivers, these cancer helper genes are rare or patient-specific. However, they converge towards perturbations of well-known cancer processes. Recurrence of the same process perturbations, rather than individual genes, divides EACs into six clusters differing in their molecular and clinical features. Experimentally mimicking the alterations of predicted helper genes in cancer and pre-cancer cells validates their contribution to disease progression, while reverting their alterations reveals EAC acquired dependencies that can be exploited in therapy

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

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable