한빛사논문
Ji Son,1 Yingao Zhang,1,2 Heather Lin,3 Oriol Mirallas,4,5 Pablo Alvarez Ballesteros,4,6 Mirella Nardo,4 Natalie Clark,1,7 R. Tyler Hillman,1,* Erick Campbell,4 Vijaykumar Holla,8 Amber M. Johnson,8 Amadeo B. Biter,4 Ying Yuan,3 Lauren P. Cobb,1 David M. Gershenson,1 Amir A. Jazaeri,1 Karen H. Lu,1 Pamela T. Soliman,1 Shannon N. Westin,1 Elizabeth D. Euscher,9 Barrett C. Lawson,9 Richard K. Yang,9 Funda Meric-Bernstam,4 David S. Hong4
1Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
3Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
4Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
5Research Unit for Molecular Therapy of Cancer (UITM), Medical Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
6Medical Oncology Department, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
7Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
8Khalifa Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
9Department of Anatomic Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
*CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research
Corresponding author: David S. Hong, MD
Abstract
Background: We aimed to describe RAS mutations in gynecologic cancers as they relate to clinicopathologic and genomic features, survival, and therapeutic implications.
Methods: Gynecologic cancers with available somatic molecular profiling data at our institution between February 2010 and August 2022 were included and grouped by RAS mutation status. Overall survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model.
Results: Of 3328 gynecologic cancers, 523 (15.7%) showed any RAS mutation. Patients with RAS-mutated tumors were younger (57 vs 60 years non-mutated), had higher prevalence of endometriosis (27.3% vs 16.9%), and lower grades (grade 1/2, 43.2% vs 8.1%, all p<0.0001). Highest prevalence of KRAS mutation was in mesonephric-like endometrial (100%, n=9/9), mesonephric-like ovarian (83.3%, n=5/6), mucinous ovarian (60.4%), and low-grade serous ovarian (44.4%) cancers. After adjustment for age, cancer type, and grade, RAS mutation was associated with worse overall survival (HR=1.3, p=0.001). Specific mutations were in KRAS (13.5%), NRAS (2.0%), and HRAS (0.51%), most commonly KRAS G12D (28.4%) and G12V (26.1%). Common co-mutations were PIK3CA (30.9%), PTEN(28.8%), ARID1A (28.0%), and TP53 (27.9%), of which 64.7% were actionable. RAS+MAPK pathway-targeted therapies were administered to 62 patients with RAS-mutated cancers. While overall survival was significantly higher with therapy (8.4 years [95%CI 5.5-12.0] vs 5.5 years [95%CI 4.6-6.6], HR=0.67, p=0.031), this effect did not persist in multivariable analysis.
Conclusion: RAS mutations in gynecologic cancers have a distinct histopathologic distribution and may impact overall survival. PIK3CA, PTEN, and ARID1A are potentially actionable co-alterations. RAS pathway-targeted therapy should be considered.
논문정보
관련 링크
연구자 키워드
관련분야 연구자보기
소속기관 논문보기
관련분야 논문보기
해당논문 저자보기