Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients

  • An Erratum to this article was published on 01 August 2017

Abstract

Tumor molecular profiling is a fundamental component of precision oncology, enabling the identification of genomic alterations in genes and pathways that can be targeted therapeutically. The existence of recurrent targetable alterations across distinct histologically defined tumor types, coupled with an expanding portfolio of molecularly targeted therapies, demands flexible and comprehensive approaches to profile clinically relevant genes across the full spectrum of cancers. We established a large-scale, prospective clinical sequencing initiative using a comprehensive assay, MSK-IMPACT, through which we have compiled tumor and matched normal sequence data from a unique cohort of more than 10,000 patients with advanced cancer and available pathological and clinical annotations. Using these data, we identified clinically relevant somatic mutations, novel noncoding alterations, and mutational signatures that were shared by common and rare tumor types. Patients were enrolled on genomically matched clinical trials at a rate of 11%. To enable discovery of novel biomarkers and deeper investigation into rare alterations and tumor types, all results are publicly accessible.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Overview of the MSK-IMPACT clinical workflow.
Figure 2: Overview of the MSK-IMPACT cohort.
Figure 3: The spectrum of TERT promoter mutations in cancer.
Figure 4: Spectrum of kinase fusions identified by MSK-IMPACT.
Figure 5: Mutational signatures derived from MSK-IMPACT targeted sequencing data.
Figure 6: Clinical actionability of somatic alterations revealed by MSK-IMPACT.

Change history

  • 14 June 2017

    In the version of this article initially published online, the top value in the y axis of the Kaplan–Meier plots in Figure 3c was incorrectly denoted as 0.1. The correct value is 1. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

References

  1. 1

    Garraway, L.A. Genomics-driven oncology: framework for an emerging paradigm. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 1806–1814 (2013).

  2. 2

    Varghese, A.M. & Berger, M.F. Advancing clinical oncology through genome biology and technology. Genome Biol. 15, 427 (2014).

  3. 3

    Lindeman, N.I. et al. Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. J. Mol. Diagn. 15, 415–453 (2013).

  4. 4

    Chapman, P.B. et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 2507–2516 (2011).

  5. 5

    Hyman, D.M. et al. Vemurafenib in multiple nonmelanoma cancers with BRAF V600 mutations. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 726–736 (2015).

  6. 6

    Singh, R.R. et al. Clinical validation of a next-generation sequencing screen for mutational hotspots in 46 cancer-related genes. J. Mol. Diagn. 15, 607–622 (2013).

  7. 7

    Roychowdhury, S. et al. Personalized oncology through integrative high-throughput sequencing: a pilot study. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 111ra121 (2011).

  8. 8

    Frampton, G.M. et al. Development and validation of a clinical cancer genomic profiling test based on massively parallel DNA sequencing. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 1023–1031 (2013).

  9. 9

    Beltran, H. et al. Whole-exome sequencing of metastatic cancer and biomarkers of treatment response. JAMA Oncol. 1, 466–474 (2015).

  10. 10

    Sholl, L.M. et al. Institutional implementation of clinical tumor profiling on an unselected cancer population. JCI Insight 1, e87062 (2016).

  11. 11

    Cheng, D.T. et al. Memorial Sloan Kettering–integrated mutation profiling of actionable cancer targets (MSK-IMPACT): a hybridization capture–based next-generation sequencing clinical assay for solid tumor molecular oncology. J. Mol. Diagn. 17, 251–264 (2015).

  12. 12

    Cerami, E. et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov. 2, 401–404 (2012).

  13. 13

    Ciriello, G. et al. Emerging landscape of oncogenic signatures across human cancers. Nat. Genet. 45, 1127–1133 (2013).

  14. 14

    Simen, B.B. et al. Validation of a next-generation-sequencing cancer panel for use in the clinical laboratory. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 139, 508–517 (2015).

  15. 15

    Forbes, S.A. et al. COSMIC: somatic cancer genetics at high-resolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, D777–D783 (2017).

  16. 16

    Kandoth, C. et al. Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types. Nature 502, 333–339 (2013).

  17. 17

    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic characterization of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Cell 159, 676–690 (2014).

  18. 18

    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. Nature 513, 202–209 (2014).

  19. 19

    Davis, C.F. et al. The somatic genomic landscape of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Cell 26, 319–330 (2014).

  20. 20

    Powell, E., Piwnica-Worms, D. & Piwnica-Worms, H. Contribution of p53 to metastasis. Cancer Discov. 4, 405–414 (2014).

  21. 21

    Watson, P.A., Arora, V.K. & Sawyers, C.L. Emerging mechanisms of resistance to androgen receptor inhibitors in prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 15, 701–711 (2015).

  22. 22

    Toy, W. et al. ESR1 ligand-binding domain mutations in hormone-resistant breast cancer. Nat. Genet. 45, 1439–1445 (2013).

  23. 23

    Robinson, D.R. et al. Activating ESR1 mutations in hormone-resistant metastatic breast cancer. Nat. Genet. 45, 1446–1451 (2013).

  24. 24

    Chang, M.T. et al. Identifying recurrent mutations in cancer reveals widespread lineage diversity and mutational specificity. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 155–163 (2016).

  25. 25

    Baca, S.C. et al. Punctuated evolution of prostate cancer genomes. Cell 153, 666–677 (2013).

  26. 26

    Horn, S. et al. TERT promoter mutations in familial and sporadic melanoma. Science 339, 959–961 (2013).

  27. 27

    Huang, F.W. et al. Highly recurrent TERT promoter mutations in human melanoma. Science 339, 957–959 (2013).

  28. 28

    Killela, P.J. et al. TERT promoter mutations occur frequently in gliomas and a subset of tumors derived from cells with low rates of self-renewal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 6021–6026 (2013).

  29. 29

    Gao, K. et al. TERT promoter mutations and long telomere length predict poor survival and radiotherapy resistance in gliomas. Oncotarget 7, 8712–8725 (2016).

  30. 30

    Melo, M. et al. TERT promoter mutations are a major indicator of poor outcome in differentiated thyroid carcinomas. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 99, E754–E765 (2014).

  31. 31

    Piscuoglio, S. et al. Massively parallel sequencing of phyllodes tumours of the breast reveals actionable mutations, and TERT promoter hotspot mutations and TERT gene amplification as likely drivers of progression. J. Pathol. 238, 508–518 (2016).

  32. 32

    Stransky, N., Cerami, E., Schalm, S., Kim, J.L. & Lengauer, C. The landscape of kinase fusions in cancer. Nat. Commun. 5, 4846 (2014).

  33. 33

    Ross, J.S. et al. The distribution of BRAF gene fusions in solid tumors and response to targeted therapy. Int. J. Cancer 138, 881–890 (2016).

  34. 34

    Menzies, A.M. et al. Clinical activity of the MEK inhibitor trametinib in metastatic melanoma containing BRAF kinase fusion. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 28, 607–610 (2015).

  35. 35

    Poulikakos, P.I. et al. RAF inhibitor resistance is mediated by dimerization of aberrantly spliced BRAFV600E. Nature 480, 387–390 (2011).

  36. 36

    Yao, Z. et al. BRAF mutants evade ERK-dependent feedback by different mechanisms that determine their sensitivity to pharmacologic inhibition. Cancer Cell 28, 370–383 (2015).

  37. 37

    Alexandrov, L.B. et al. Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer. Nature 500, 415–421 (2013).

  38. 38

    Niu, B. et al. MSIsensor: microsatellite instability detection using paired tumor–normal sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 1015–1016 (2014).

  39. 39

    Le, D.T. et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 2509–2520 (2015).

  40. 40

    Chakravarty, D. et al. OncoKB: a precision oncology knowledge base. J. Clin. Oncol. Precision Oncol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00011 (2017).

  41. 41

    Meric-Bernstam, F. et al. Feasibility of large-acale genomic testing to facilitate enrollment onto genomically matched clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 2753–2762 (2015).

  42. 42

    Ross, J.S. et al. Comprehensive genomic profiling of carcinoma of unknown primary site: new routes to targeted therapies. JAMA Oncol. 1, 40–49 (2015).

  43. 43

    Zhu, Z. et al. Inhibition of KRAS-driven tumorigenicity by interruption of an autocrine cytokine circuit. Cancer Discov. 4, 452–465 (2014).

  44. 44

    Manchado, E. et al. A combinatorial strategy for treating KRAS-mutant lung cancer. Nature 534, 647–651 (2016).

  45. 45

    Eubank, M.H. et al. Automated eligibility screening and monitoring for genotype-driven precision oncology trials. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 23, 777–781 (2016).

  46. 46

    Schwaederle, M. et al. On the road to precision cancer medicine: analysis of genomic biomarker actionability in 439 patients. Mol. Cancer Ther. 14, 1488–1494 (2015).

  47. 47

    Stockley, T.L. et al. Molecular profiling of advanced solid tumors and patient outcomes with genotype-matched clinical trials: the Princess Margaret IMPACT/COMPACT trial. Genome Med. 8, 109 (2016).

  48. 48

    Jones, S. et al. Personalized genomic analyses for cancer mutation discovery and interpretation. Sci. Transl. Med. 7, 283ra53 (2015).

  49. 49

    Garofalo, A. et al. The impact of tumor profiling approaches and genomic data strategies for cancer precision medicine. Genome Med. 8, 79 (2016).

  50. 50

    Schrader, K.A. et al. Germline variants in targeted tumor sequencing using matched normal DNA. JAMA Oncol. 2, 104–111 (2016).

  51. 51

    Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).

  52. 52

    McKenna, A. et al. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 20, 1297–1303 (2010).

  53. 53

    Mose, L.E., Wilkerson, M.D., Hayes, D.N., Perou, C.M. & Parker, J.S. ABRA: improved coding indel detection via assembly-based realignment. Bioinformatics 30, 2813–2815 (2014).

  54. 54

    Cibulskis, K. et al. Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 213–219 (2013).

  55. 55

    Ye, K., Schulz, M.H., Long, Q., Apweiler, R. & Ning, Z. Pindel: a pattern growth approach to detect break points of large deletions and medium sized insertions from paired-end short reads. Bioinformatics 25, 2865–2871 (2009).

  56. 56

    Rausch, T. et al. DELLY: structural variant discovery by integrated paired-end and split-read analysis. Bioinformatics 28, i333–i339 (2012).

  57. 57

    Thorvaldsdóttir, H., Robinson, J.T. & Mesirov, J.P. Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV): high-performance genomics data visualization and exploration. Brief. Bioinform. 14, 178–192 (2013).

  58. 58

    Yoshihara, K. et al. The landscape and therapeutic relevance of cancer-associated transcript fusions. Oncogene 34, 4845–4854 (2015).

  59. 59

    Manning, G., Whyte, D.B., Martinez, R., Hunter, T. & Sudarsanam, S. The protein kinase complement of the human genome. Science 298, 1912–1934 (2002).

  60. 60

    Karolchik, D. et al. The UCSC Table Browser data retrieval tool. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D493–D496 (2004).

  61. 61

    Zheng, Z. et al. Anchored multiplex PCR for targeted next-generation sequencing. Nat. Med. 20, 1479–1484 (2014).

  62. 62

    Jordan, E.J . et al. Prospective comprehensive molecular characterization of lung adenocarcinomas for efficient patient matching to approved and emerging therapies. Cancer Discov. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1337 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge C. England, J. Somar, T. Malbari, P. Salazar, S. Islam, E. Gallagher, I. Rijo, N. Mensah, G. Lukose, T. Mitchell, A. Yannes, Y. Chekaluk, G. Jour, N. Sadri, K. Tian, C. Pagan, J.K. Killian, D. Alex, J. Gomez-Gelvez, C. Ho, S. Naupari, J. Arlequin, C. Carvajal, L. Tovar Ramirez, J. Bakas, P. Sukhadia, E. Paraiso and J. Rudolph for their important contributions. This study was supported by the MSK Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748), Cycle for Survival, the Farmer Family Foundation, and the Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Molecular Oncology.

Author information

A.Z., R. Benayed and M.F.B. wrote the manuscript. R. Benayed, J.S., J. Casanova, R. Bacares, I.J.K., A.R., J.B.S., L.S., T.B. and K.A.M. generated the genomic data. A.Z., R. Benayed, R.H.S., S.M., H.R.K., P.S., S.M.D., M.H., S.D., D.S.R., J.F.H., D.F.D., J.Y., D.L.M., D.T.C., R. Chandramohan, A.S.M., R.N.P., G.J., K.N., L.B., P.J., N.C., M.T.C., H.H.W., B.S.T., N.S., D.M.H., M.E.A., D.B.S., M.L. and M.F.B. reviewed and analyzed the genomic data. M.D.H., D.A.B., A.M.S., H.A.-A., E.V., J.W., M.E., S.B.T., S.M.G., D.N.R., J. Galle, R.D., R. Cambria, W.A., A.C., D.R.F., M.M.G., A.A.H., J.J.H., G.I., Y.Y.J., E.J.J., C.M.K., M.A.L., L.G.T.M., A.M.O., N.R., P.R., A.N.S., N.S., T.E.S., A.M.V., R.Y., D.M.H. and D.B.S. provided clinical data. A.Z., A.S., J. Gao, D.C., D.T.C., M.P., M.H.S., A.B.R., Z.Y.L., A.A.A., A.V.P., B.E.G., R.K., Z.J.H., H.-W.C., S.P., H.Z., J.W., A.O., B.S.T. and N.S. created bioinformatics tools and systems to support data analysis, annotation and dissemination. J. Coleman, B.B., G.J.R., L.B.S., H.I.S., P.J.S., D.S.K., J.B. and D.B.S. provided support for the MSK-IMPACT sequencing initiative. M.E.R., D.M.H. and D.B.S. developed the institutional molecular profiling protocol. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Correspondence to Michael F Berger.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–14 (PDF 1773 kb)

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Tables 1–7 (XLSX 1900 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zehir, A., Benayed, R., Shah, R. et al. Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients. Nat Med 23, 703–713 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4333

Download citation

Further reading