Abstract
Quantifying the effectiveness of different cancer therapies in patients with specific tumor mutations is critical for improving patient outcomes and advancing precision medicine. Here we perform a large-scale computational analysis of 40,903 US patients with cancer who have detailed mutation profiles, treatment sequences and outcomes derived from electronic health records. We systematically identify 458 mutations that predict the survival of patients on specific immunotherapies, chemotherapy agents or targeted therapies across eight common cancer types. We further characterize mutation–mutation interactions that impact the outcomes of targeted therapies. This work demonstrates how computational analysis of large real-world data generates insights, hypotheses and resources to enable precision oncology.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The FH-FMI CGDB data used in this study were licensed from Flatiron Health (https://flatiron.com/real-world-evidence/) and Foundation Medicine. These de-identified data may be made available upon request; interested researchers can contact DataAccess@flatiron.com and cgdb-fmi@flatiron.com. The GENIE BPC data access information is available at https://www.aacr.org/professionals/research/aacr-project-genie/. OncoKB is available at https://www.oncokb.org/. The findings from our study are visualized in www.precision-cancer.org.
Code availability
The open-source Python code for the computational analysis in this paper is available at https://github.com/RuishanLiu/precision-cancer.
References
Hodson, R. Precision medicine. Nature 537, S49 (2016).
Morash, M., Mitchell, H., Beltran, H., Elemento, O. & Pathak, J. The role of next-generation sequencing in precision medicine: a review of outcomes in oncology. J. Pers. Med. 8, E30 (2018).
Garraway, L. A., Verweij, J. & Ballman, K. V. Precision oncology: an overview. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 1803–1805 (2013).
Marquart, J., Chen, E. Y. & Prasad, V. Estimation of the percentage of US patients with cancer who benefit from genome-driven oncology. JAMA Oncol. 4, 1093–1098 (2018).
Sun, L. et al. Association between KRAS variant status and outcomes with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol. 7, 937–939 (2021).
Raponi, M., Winkler, H. & Dracopoli, N. C. KRAS mutations predict response to EGFR inhibitors. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 8, 413–418 (2008).
Hernán, M. A. & Robins, J. M. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am. J. Epidemiol. 183, 758–764 (2016).
Danaei, G., García Rodríguez, L. A., Cantero, O. F., Logan, R. W. & Hernán, M. A. Electronic medical records can be used to emulate target trials of sustained treatment strategies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 96, 12–22 (2018).
Liu, R. et al. Evaluating eligibility criteria of oncology trials using real-world data and AI. Nature 592, 629–633 (2021).
Singal, G. et al. Association of patient characteristics and tumor genomics with clinical outcomes among patients with non-small cell lung cancer using a clinicogenomic database. JAMA 321, 1391–1399 (2019).
Zhang, Q., Gossai, A., Monroe, S., Nussbaum, N. C. & Parrinello, C. M. Validation analysis of a composite real-world mortality endpoint for patients with cancer in the United States. Health Serv. Res. 56, 1281–1287 (2021).
Curtis, M. D. et al. Development and validation of a high-quality composite real-world mortality endpoint. Health Serv. Res. 53, 4460–4476 (2018).
Carrigan, G. et al. Using electronic health records to derive control arms for early phase single-arm lung cancer trials: proof-of-concept in randomized controlled trials. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 107, 369–377 (2020).
Suissa, S. Immortal time bias in pharmaco-epidemiology. Am. J. Epidemiol. 167, 492–499 (2008).
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 57, 289–300 (1995).
Petitjean, A., Achatz, M. I. W., Borresen-Dale, A. L., Hainaut, P. & Olivier, M. TP53 mutations in human cancers: functional selection and impact on cancer prognosis and outcomes. Oncogene 26, 2157–2165 (2007).
Wolfer, A. et al. MYC regulation of a ‘poor-prognosis’ metastatic cancer cell state. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 3698–3703 (2010).
Zhao, R., Choi, B. Y., Lee, M.-H., Bode, A. M. & Dong, Z. Implications of genetic and epigenetic alterations of CDKN2A (p16(INK4a)) in Cancer. EBioMedicine 8, 30–39 (2016).
Cavanna, L., Citterio, C. & Orlandi, E. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in EGFR-mutation positive TKI-treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer network meta-analysis. Oncotarget 10, 209–215 (2019).
Mazieres, J. et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with advanced lung cancer and oncogenic driver alterations: results from the IMMUNOTARGET registry. Ann. Oncol. 0, 1321–1328 (2019).
Rossi, G. et al. Precision medicine for NSCLC in the Era of immunotherapy: New biomarkers to select the most suitable treatment or the most suitable patient. Cancers 12, E1125 (2020).
Guibert, N. et al. Targeted sequencing of plasma cell-free DNA to predict response to PD1 inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 137, 1–6 (2019).
Tsao, M.-S. et al. Prognostic and predictive importance of p53 and RAS for adjuvant chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 5240–5247 (2007).
Wang, W.-X. et al. TP53 mutations predict for poor survival in ALK rearrangement lung adenocarcinoma patients treated with crizotinib. J. Thorac. Dis. 10, 2991–2998 (2018).
Witkiewicz, A. K. et al. RB-pathway disruption is associated with improved response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 5110–5122 (2012).
Ertel, A. et al. RB-pathway disruption in breast cancer: differential association with disease subtypes, disease-specific prognosis and therapeutic response. Cell Cycle 9, 4153–4163 (2010).
Tanioka, M. et al. Transcriptional CCND1 expression as a predictor of poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab in HER2-positive/ER-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 147, 513–525 (2014).
Chen, K., Quan, J., Yang, J. & Chen, Z. The potential markers of endocrine resistance among HR+/HER2+ breast cancer patients. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 22, 576–584 (2020).
Rastelli, F. & Crispino, S. Factors predictive of response to hormone therapy in breast cancer. Tumori 94, 370–383 (2008).
de Bruin, E. C. et al. Reduced NF1 expression confers resistance to EGFR inhibition in lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 4, 606–619 (2014).
Hsu, C. P. et al. Clinical significance of tumor suppressor PTEN in colorectal carcinoma. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 37, 140–147 (2011).
Carbuccia, N. et al. Mutations of ASXL1 gene in myeloproliferative neoplasms. Leukemia 23, 2183–2186 (2009).
Endele, S. et al. Mutations in GRIN2A and GRIN2B encoding regulatory subunits of NMDA receptors cause variable neurodevelopmental phenotypes. Nat. Genet. 42, 1021–1026 (2010).
Carvill, G. L. et al. GRIN2A mutations cause epilepsy-aphasia spectrum disorders. Nat. Genet. 45, 1073–1076 (2013).
Odogwu, L. et al. FDA approval summary: dabrafenib and trametinib for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancers harboring BRAF V600E mutations. Oncologist 23, 740–745 (2018).
Eng, C. BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer: an enigmatic target. J. Clin. Oncol. 39, 259–261 (2021).
Powles, T. et al. Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor211): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 391, 748–757 (2018).
Balar, A. V. et al. Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Lond. Engl. 389, 67–76 (2017).
West, H. et al. Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower130): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 20, 924–937 (2019).
Peters, S. et al. Phase II Trial of Atezolizumab as first-line or subsequent therapy for patients with programmed death-ligand 1-selected advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (BIRCH). J. Clin. Oncol. 35, 2781–2789 (2017).
Rittmeyer, A. et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 389, 255–265 (2017).
Chakravarty, D. et al. OncoKB: A precision oncology knowledge base. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2017, 1–16 (2017).
Kron, A. et al. Impact of TP53 mutation status on systemic treatment outcome in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann. Oncol. 29, 2068–2075 (2018).
Liu, C. et al. The superior efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy in KRAS-mutant non-small cell lung cancer that correlates with an inflammatory phenotype and increased immunogenicity. Cancer Lett. 470, 95–105 (2020).
McGough, S. F. et al. Penalized regression for left-truncated and right-censored survival data. Stat. Med. 40, 5487–5500 (2021).
Dong, Z.-Y. et al. Potential predictive value of TP53 and KRAS mutation status for response to PD-1 blockade immunotherapy in lung adenocarcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 3012–3024 (2017).
Okamoto, I. et al. Real world treatment and outcomes in EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer: Long-term follow-up of a large patient cohort. Lung Cancer 117, 14–19 (2018).
Papillon-Cavanagh, S., Doshi, P., Dobrin, R., Szustakowski, J. & Walsh, A. M. STK11 and KEAP1 mutations as prognostic biomarkers in an observational real-world lung adenocarcinoma cohort. ESMO Open 5, e000706 (2020).
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).
He, J. et al. Integrated genomic DNA/RNA profiling of hematologic malignancies in the clinical setting. Blood 127, 3004–3014 (2016).
Woodhouse, R. et al. Clinical and analytical validation of FoundationOne Liquid CDx, a novel 324-Gene cfDNA-based comprehensive genomic profiling assay for cancers of solid tumor origin. PLoS ONE 15, e0237802 (2020).
Carrigan, G. et al. An evaluation of the impact of missing deaths on overall survival analyses of advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients conducted in an electronic health records database. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 28, 572–581 (2019).
André, F. et al. AACR project GENIE: Powering precision medicine through an international consortium. Cancer Discov. 7, 818–831 (2017).
Acknowledgements
We thank A. Gentles, L. Zou, D. Hibar, M. Taylor, Y. Lu and J. Caswell-Jin for comments and discussions. S.R., M.R.G., N.P., C.H, L.W., C.H. and R.C. are supported by funding from Roche. J.Z. is supported by National Science Foundation CAREER, a Sloan Fellowship, a grant from the Emerson Collective and the Chan-Zuckerberg Investigator award.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
R.L., S.R., R.C., J.N. and J.Z. designed the study. R.L. carried out the data analysis. S.R., S.W., M.R.G., N.P., Z.H., L.W., C.H., N.C. and J.N. verified the analysis and provided technical support and interpretations of the findings. Z.H. created data visualizations. J.N., R.C. and J.Z. supervised the study. All the authors contributed to writing the manuscript and reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
S.R., M.R.G., N.P., N.C., L.W., C.H. and R.C. are employees of Roche-Genentech.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Medicine thanks R. Stephanie Huang, Joe Zhang, Geoff Hall and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling editors: Javier Carmona and Joao Monteiro in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Histogram of the diagnosis dates stratified by cancer types.
The time interval is one month.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Histogram of the sample collection dates for the earliest FMI test.
The patients are binned relative to lines of treatment.
Extended Data Fig. 3 OS HR for the subset of mutations in each gene that are assessed by FMI to be likely pathogenic.
Entries with OS HR with two-sided Wald test P value <0.05 and shown in Fig. 1c are colored.
Extended Data Fig. 4 OS HR for individual genes after removing FMI baitsets used for liquid biopsy.
Entries with OS HR with two-sided Wald test P value <0.05 and shown in Fig. 1c are colored.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Refined mutation–mutation interactions analysis for specific mutations targeted by therapies.
Anchor genes and modifier genes are selected in the same way as in Fig. 3. For each anchor gene, we only consider mutations subtypes that are specifically focused on by FDA-approved targeted therapies (written below the gene name). The size of a modifier gene’s circle indicates what fraction of patients with the anchor gene mutated in the pathogenic subtypes also have mutation in the modifier gene. The modifier’s color indicates its positive (blue for HR <1) or negative (red for HR >1) impact on the survival of patients who have the anchor gene pathogenic mutation. Modifiers are genes with significant anchor-modifier interactions (two-sided Wald test P value <0.05).
Extended Data Fig. 6 Balance assessment between experiment and control cohorts for baseline covariates.
Here we use the analysis of the prognostic effect of TP53 mutation on overall survival as an example; similar results are seen for other genes. For each cancer, we plot the standardized mean difference (SMD) for every baseline covariate between the experiment cohort (patients with TP53 mutation) and control cohort (patients without TP53 mutation). SMD close to 0 represents that the two cohorts are balanced. The inverse propensity weighting used in our analysis (IPTW) effectively balances the two cohorts. Raw corresponds to the unadjusted cohorts.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Balance assessment between experiment and control cohorts for covariate missingness.
Here we report the standardized mean difference (SMD) between the experiment and control cohorts for the missingness of ECOG value as an example; similar results are seen for other covariates. For each cancer, we plot SMD evaluated for the prognostic effect of the top ten most frequent mutations on overall survival. SMD close to 0 represents that the two cohorts are balanced. The inverse propensity weighting used in our analysis (IPTW) effectively balances the two cohorts in regard to covariate missingness. Raw corresponds to the unadjusted cohorts.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Tables 1–16.
Supplementary Data
Full tables for Supplementary Tables 3, 4, 7 and 8.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, R., Rizzo, S., Waliany, S. et al. Systematic pan-cancer analysis of mutation–treatment interactions using large real-world clinicogenomics data. Nat Med 28, 1656–1661 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01873-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01873-5