4.8 Article

Evolution and clinical impact of co-occurring genetic alterations in advanced-stage EGFR-mutant lung cancers

期刊

NATURE GENETICS
卷 49, 期 12, 页码 1693-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ng.3990

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [NCI-R01CA169338, NCI-DP2CA174497]
  2. Pew Charitable Trust
  3. Stewart Foundation
  4. Searle Foundation
  5. AACR
  6. Lung Cancer Research Foundation
  7. Cancer Research UK [19310, 20466, 17786] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Medical Research Council [MR/P014712/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Rosetrees Trust [M391, M231-CD1, M445, M179, M640] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. The Francis Crick Institute [10485, 10172, 10359, 10467, C28575/A25223, C60895/A23896, 10170, 10169, 10174, VEG 108844, A1278] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. MRC [MR/P014712/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A widespread approach to modern cancer therapy is to identify a single oncogenic driver gene and target its mutant-protein product (for example, EGFR-inhibitor treatment in EGFR-mutant lung cancers). However, genetically driven resistance to targeted therapy limits patient survival. Through genomic analysis of 1,122 EGFR-mutant lung cancer cell-free DNA samples and whole-exome analysis of seven longitudinally collected tumor samples from a patient with EGFR-mutant lung cancer, we identified critical co-occurring oncogenic events present in most advanced-stage EGFR-mutant lung cancers. We defined new pathways limiting EGFR-inhibitor response, including WNT/beta-catenin alterations and cell-cycle-gene (CDK4 and CDK6) mutations. Tumor genomic complexity increases with EGFR-inhibitor treatment, and co-occurring alterations in CTNNB1 and PIK3CA exhibit nonredundant functions that cooperatively promote tumor metastasis or limit EGFR-inhibitor response. This study calls for revisiting the prevailing single-gene driver-oncogene view and links clinical outcomes to co-occurring genetic alterations in patients with advanced-stage EGFR-mutant lung cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据