Cited by 307Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations

Genomic Heterogeneity as a Barrier to Precision Medicine in Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma

Open access
Pectasides, Eirini, Stachler, Matthew D., Derks, Sarah, Liu, Yang, Maron, Steven, Islam, Mirazul, Alpert, Lindsay, Kwak, Heewon +49 more·2018·Cancer Discovery

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) is a lethal disease where targeted therapies, even when guided by genomic biomarkers, have had limited efficacy. A potential reason for the failure of such therapies is that genomic profiling results could commonly differ between the primary and metastatic tumors. To evaluate genomic heterogeneity, we sequenced paired primary GEA and synchronous metastatic lesions across multiple cohorts, finding extensive differences in genomic alterations, including discrepancies in potentially clinically relevant alterations. Multiregion sequencing showed significant discrepancy within the primary tumor (PT) and between the PT and disseminated disease, with oncogene amplification profiles commonly discordant. In addition, a pilot analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing demonstrated the feasibility of detecting genomic amplifications not detected in PT sampling. Lastly, we profiled paired primary tumors, metastatic tumors, and cfDNA from patients enrolled in the personalized antibodies for GEA (PANGEA) trial of targeted therapies in GEA and found that genomic biomarkers were recurrently discrepant between the PT and untreated metastases. Divergent primary and metastatic tissue profiling led to treatment reassignment in 32% (9/28) of patients. In discordant primary and metastatic lesions, we found 87.5% concordance for targetable alterations in metastatic tissue and cfDNA, suggesting the potential for cfDNA profiling to enhance selection of therapy. Significance: We demonstrate frequent baseline heterogeneity in targetable genomic alterations in GEA, indicating that current tissue sampling practices for biomarker testing do not effectively guide precision medicine in this disease and that routine profiling of metastatic lesions and/or cfDNA should be systematically evaluated. Cancer Discov; 8(1); 37–48. ©2017 AACR. See related commentary by Sundar and Tan, p. 14. See related article by Janjigian et al., p. 49. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/2159-8290.cd-17-0395

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Heterogeneity, or diverse cell populations within diseased tissue, is the leading cause of treatment failure for many complex diseases and a major obstacle to precision medicine.

    “Heterogeneity, or more specifically, the diverse cell populations within the diseased tissue, is the leading cause of treatment failure for many complex diseases, such as cancers1, Alzheimer’s disease2, stroke3, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)4, etc., as well as a major obstacle to successful precision medicine5–7.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pectasides, E., Stachler, M. D., Derks, S., Liu, Y., Maron, S., Islam, M., Alpert, L., Kwak, H., Kindler, H., Polite, B., Sharma, M. R., Allen, K., O'Day, E., Lomnicki, S., Maranto, M., Kanteti, R., Fitzpatrick, C., Weber, C., Setia, N., Xiao, S.-Y., Hart, J., Nagy, R. J., Kim, K.-M., Choi, M.-G., Min, B.-H., Nason, K. S., O'Keefe, L., Watanabe, M., Baba, H., Lanman, R., Agoston, A. T., Oh, D. J., Dunford, A., Thorner, A. R., Ducar, M. D., Wollison, B. M., Coleman, H. A., Ji, Y., Posner, M. C., Roggin, K., Turaga, K., Chang, P., Hogarth, K., Siddiqui, U., Gelrud, A., Ha, G., Freeman, S. S., Rhoades, J., Reed, S., Gydush, G., Rotem, D., Davison, J., Imamura, Y., Adalsteinsson, V., Lee, J., Bass, A. J., & Catenacci, D. V.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • 1Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • University of Chicago Medical Center (US)
  • 6Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology/Oncology, University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Guardant (United States) (US)
  • Samsung Medical Center (KR)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • The Cancer Institute Hospital (JP)
  • Kumamoto University (JP)
  • University of New England (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
  • 21Department of Medicine, Section of Gastroenterology, University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, Chicago, Illinois.
Corresponding author
  • Bass, Adam J.
  • Catenacci, Daniel V.
Venue
Cancer Discovery
Published
2018-01-01
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
37-48
ISSN
  • 2159-8274 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-8290
OpenAlex
W2763498516
Cited by
307
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 27
FWCI
10.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Cancer Discovery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (KL2TR001100)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17K19619)
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA127003, P01CA098101, K23CA178203, R01CA196932, P30CA014599)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007748)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K08DK109209)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Keywords
gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, tumor genomic heterogeneity, cell-free DNA, oncogene amplification, targeted therapy selection, precision medicine, biomarker testing, tissue sampling
MeSH terms
Exome Sequencing, Adenocarcinoma, Esophageal Neoplasms, Humans, Stomach Neoplasms, Cohort Studies, Genomics, Precision Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review