Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Pathol Res Pract. 2019 May 20:152445. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2019.152445. [Epub ahead of print]

Targeted next generation sequencing reveals a common genetic pathway for colorectal cancers with chromosomal instability and those with microsatellite and chromosome stability.

Author information

1
Academic Unit of Pathology and Nottingham Molecular Pathology Node, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, UK.
2
Academic Unit of Pathology and Nottingham Molecular Pathology Node, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, UK. Electronic address: Henry.Ebili@nottingham.ac.uk.
3
Centre for Medical Genetics, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City Hospital Campus, UK.
4
Department of Pathology and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Wellcome Trust Brenner Building, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
5
Oxford Centre for Cancer Gene Research and NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7BN, UK.
6
Institute of Cancer and Genomic Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Microsatellite stable sporadic colorectal cancers (CRCs) can be classified as either tumours with chromosomal instability (CIN+) or tumours that are 'Microsatellite and Chromosomal Stable' (MACS). The CIN + tumours are aneuploid whilst MACS are near-diploid; little else is known about their differences. We compared the mutation profiles of CIN + and MACS CRCs.

METHOD:

Targeted Next Generation Sequencing for mutation in 26 driver genes (TruSight-26 kit) was undertaken in 46 CIN + and 35 MACSCRCs. Tumours were compared for mutation frequency, allelic imbalance and clonal heterogeneity.

RESULTS:

Mutations were detected in 58% genes and, overall, mutation in driver genes was at expected frequencies. Comparison of classes revealed similar mutation frequencies in most genes and allelic imbalance atAPC and TP53. Differences were seen in mutation frequency in KRAS (41% CIN+ vs 68% MACS, p = 0.015) and GNAS (0% CIN+ vs 12% MACS, p = 0.032). Twenty percent CIN + CRCs harboured mutations only in TP53 - a profile not seen in the MACS tumours (p = 0.009). None of the differences were significant after multiple testing corrections.

CONCLUSIONS:

The mutation profiles of CIN and MACS CRCs are similar. The events allowing aneuploidy (or forcing retention of diploidy) remain unknown.

KEYWORDS:

Chromosomal instability; Microsatellite and chromosomal stable; Next-generation sequencing; colorectal cancer; genomic instability; tumour ploidy

PMID:
31153694
DOI:
10.1016/j.prp.2019.152445

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center