FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3041722687> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3041722687 endingPage "439" @default.
• W3041722687 startingPage "437" @default.
• W3041722687 abstract "Intratumoral genetic heterogeneity is well known, as is the role of preexisting mutations in many documented cases of clinical relapse. But what is the extent of diversity and how does it evolve? To what degree are these mutations the product of selection like the consensus mutations that drive tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis? Is preexisting genetic resistance likely, or universal? And what are the implications for therapy? This Perspective focuses on two recent publications investigating intratumoral clonal and subclonal heterogeneity and implications for tumor evolution and therapy. These complementary works together present a strong case for intratumoral heterogeneity arising from neutral evolution after initial selection of driver mutations. Reiter et al.1 performed a comprehensive whole exome analysis of intratumoral heterogeneity within the primary tumor, between the primary and associated metastases, within individual metastases, and between metastases across multiple tumor types at diagnosis. To distinguish driver from passenger mutations, they utilized numerous bioinformatic approaches, and found good concordance in the driver mutations across these comparisons. A single biopsy from the primary was sufficient to capture nearly all of the driver genes found in associated metastases. Driver mutations were largely clonal (in all samples); the subclonal space contained very few new drivers. Results were consistent with a 91% concordance rate of qualitative response to targeted agents across lesions. The analysis was based on public data sources at low sequencing depth (approximately 10×) and variable accuracy. In fact, the authors attribute previous claims of driver heterogeneity to low tumor content, low depth, noise, and statistical issues inherent in taking a large number of samples. In contrast to measurements obtained from literature databases, we investigated subclonal (< 10% allele frequency) heterogeneity in fresh diagnostic specimens of colorectal cancer2 at exceptional depth (approximately 20,000×) and accuracy (< one technical error in 107 nucleotides sequenced) using duplex sequencing, which sequences both DNA strands and calls a mutation only if complementary changes are observed on both strands.3 We concluded from the curve of new unique mutations observable as a function of depth that the “effective mutation rate” per base per new cancer cell added to the tumor is higher (approximately 6 × 10−7) than previously assumed (10−10 to 10−8).2 The infinite sites assumption4 states that a mutation in a particular base will occur uniquely in one cell at any instant, and is used in other current mathematical models of tumor evolution.5, 6 However, the product of the number of cells in a tumor at diagnosis (≥ 109) and the effective mutation rate we found is much greater than one, and this quantity is a reasonable estimate of the number cells in which mutations at a particular base would simultaneously occur. We therefore concluded that the “infinite sites assumption” would be violated, leading to a previously unanticipated accumulation of mutational diversity (Figure 1) beyond a critical tumor size (1/(effective mutation rate)) despite identical predictions to other current models early in tumor growth. We calculated that every conceivable mutation is present in at least one cell at diagnosis, and therefore any resistance mutation is preexisting. While previous clinical and molecular results implied that preexisting resistance would be frequent, we found it to be universal (probability of all cells wild type at a given locus at diagnosis ≈ 10−308). Our study was limited to multiple exons of DNA polymerase genes totaling approximately 13 kilobase (kb). In contrast, Reiter et al.1 covered the exome but with lower depth and accuracy of sequencing. Nonetheless, several important conclusions are common to both studies. Theoretical and experimental studies7, 8 suggested neutral evolution (random accumulation of mutations with minimal selection) after selection for driver genes, further concordant with an analysis of allele frequencies in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database confirming neutral evolution across a variety of tumor types,5 with studies of synonymous/nonsynonymous mutation ratios,9 and with both studies under consideration here. Due to the branching nature of tumor evolution, deeper sequencing and rarer subclones probe later timepoints than before. Both studies see hope in regimens that match the mutational diversity within cancers with equally complex non–cross resistant treatment regimens. Regarding relapse, both studies conclude that not all driver mutations are resistance mutations, and not all resistance mutations are drivers. Both papers discuss the clinical importance of metastases rather than the primary, as diffuse metastases are generally the cause of cancer mortality. Both studies indicate that resistance can also arise via other genetic and epigenetic mechanisms, and by reversible phenotypic plasticity. Reiter et al.1 stated that mutations in very rare cells are of minimal importance because such cells may have a very small probability of reaching fixation within the primary. In contrast, we argue that rare cells in numerous diffuse micrometastases can rapidly establish themselves as minor subclones. Micrometastases less than the angiogenic limit of 1–2 mm3 can receive oxygen and nutrients via diffusion, and only as they pass this size threshold do they undergo the “angiogenic switch” releasing proangiogenic factors to stimulate neovascularization. Competition for nutrients may be primarily against normal tissue cells that do not have a full complement of driver genes to compete effectively against transformed cells. We view rare cells as a major source of late relapse due to resistance mutations and have published a paradigm aimed at preventing any single cell from simultaneously possessing resistance to all the non–cross resistant components of a combination due to independent mutations.10 In this regard, while the degree of concordance among drivers shown by Reiter et al.1 is impressive, in our opinion there is legitimate concern about the role of minority nonconcordant drivers, as well as non–driver resistance mutations, including those in rare cells. While resistance to any single therapy is preexisting, simultaneous resistance to multiple non–cross resistant therapies in a single cell may, according to our results, often be acquired during treatment. While both papers recommended non–cross resistant therapies as part of more complex therapeutic regimens, the question of whether this always implies simultaneous combination therapy remains open. Previous theoretical papers on this topic (reviewed in SI Appendix of ref. 2) have assumed treatment with the same therapy until relapse or progression. In contrast, if frequent adaptation of therapy is permitted in anticipation of probable undetected resistance events, optimal therapeutic sequences can contain both pulses of monotherapy and simultaneous combinations.10 This paradigm is especially relevant when we consider the possible need for dose reductions due to toxicity in simultaneous combinations, and the frequent need for adequate dosages to penetrate tissue spaces and achieve antineoplastic activities. Another significant unexplored area is the outgrowth of subclones with very high mutation rates in the presence of therapy. The genes controlling mutation rate are also randomly mutating in a cancer, and all possible mutations will be present. We term these hypermutator subclones, and believe based on simulation results10 that they are particularly dangerous due to their ability to rapidly acquire independent mutational resistance mutations to multiple components of a complex therapeutic regimen. To counter the extraordinary diversity of mutational resistance mechanisms in tumors, optimal therapy should: Utilize (in simultaneous combination or in rapid monotherapy pulses) a sufficient number of non–cross resistant agents to minimize the likelihood that a single cell could harbor simultaneous corresponding resistance mutations to all available therapies relevant to a single cancer.2, 10 Cells with single resistance will already be present, but there is an opportunity to prevent multiple simultaneous resistance in single cells.2 Up to four non–cross resistant therapies may be required,2 and each of these therapies may itself contain several synergistic individual drugs in order to overcome network signaling plasticity unrelated to mutations, even within a single subclone.10 Simultaneous administration of this number of agents in combination may not be feasible due to toxicity, but if therapy is changed frequently (rather than waiting for relapse) pulses of less complex combinations can achieve long-term control of diverse disease by utilizing a large variety of therapies;10 and: If feasible, selectively target hypermutator subclones that drive intratumoral diversity and may be more likely to rapidly acquire multiple resistances in a single cell.10 Based on simulation results, we believe multiply resistant hypermutator cells will often be present in end-stage cancer patients.2, 10 We are developing methods to isolate and quantify hypermutator subclones. The same principles apply to resistance driven by chromosomal rearrangements (including copy number variation) and stable epigenetic changes. In summary, these results indicate that rare cells matter to cancer treatment, because they are a source of resistance mutations. While epigenetic mechanisms and phenotypic plasticity likely also contribute to primary resistance and early relapses, we believe medium-term and late relapses will be increasingly caused by genetic changes. Treatment in the future should not be addressed to high prevalence consensus mutations only, but should also proactively consider rare singly resistant subclones (especially if they are hypermutators) and prevent their further evolution to multiple resistance by eliminating them early. Thus, later line therapies will become part of complex earlier therapeutic sequences, blurring the distinction between lines of therapy. Such a strategy must be guided by frequent high depth sequencing and mathematical models of evolutionary dynamics.10 More sensitive and less costly noninvasive sequencing by liquid biopsy will be needed. We thank Brendan Kohrn for critical analyses in ref. 2. We thank Robert Clarke, George Martin, Raymond Monnat, Daniel Promislow, and Louis Weiner for critical review of this manuscript. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Awards NCI P01-CA077852 and NCI R01-CA160674 (L.A.L.). L.A.L. and the University of Washington have a license agreement with TwinStrand Biosciences for the use and development of Duplex Sequencing technology. L.A.L. is a founding member of TwinStrand Biosciences. L.A.L. is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Stratos Genomics Inc. R.A.B. consults for AstraZeneca, Vertex, Zymeworks, and CStone, and is the Founder and Chief Scientific Officer of Onco-Mind, LLC. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article." @default.
• W3041722687 created "2020-07-16" @default.
• W3041722687 creator A5027438799 @default.
• W3041722687 creator A5079598741 @default.
• W3041722687 date "2020-07-10" @default.
• W3041722687 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W3041722687 title "Rare Mutations in Cancer Drug Resistance and Implications for Therapy" @default.
• W3041722687 cites W2010873488 @default.
• W3041722687 cites W2024289194 @default.
• W3041722687 cites W2099557169 @default.
• W3041722687 cites W2143197030 @default.
• W3041722687 cites W2147476214 @default.
• W3041722687 cites W2255988550 @default.
• W3041722687 cites W2260951263 @default.
• W3041722687 cites W2611387862 @default.
• W3041722687 cites W2971091813 @default.
• W3041722687 cites W2992640343 @default.
• W3041722687 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1938" @default.
• W3041722687 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7484911" @default.
• W3041722687 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32648584" @default.
• W3041722687 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3041722687 type Work @default.
• W3041722687 sameAs 3041722687 @default.
• W3041722687 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W3041722687 countsByYear W30417226872020 @default.
• W3041722687 countsByYear W30417226872021 @default.
• W3041722687 countsByYear W30417226872022 @default.
• W3041722687 countsByYear W30417226872023 @default.
• W3041722687 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3041722687 hasAuthorship W3041722687A5027438799 @default.
• W3041722687 hasAuthorship W3041722687A5079598741 @default.
• W3041722687 hasBestOaLocation W30417226871 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConcept C114851261 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConcept C2780035454 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConcept C2983331546 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConcept C98274493 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConceptScore W3041722687C114851261 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConceptScore W3041722687C121608353 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConceptScore W3041722687C126322002 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConceptScore W3041722687C2780035454 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConceptScore W3041722687C2983331546 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConceptScore W3041722687C54355233 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConceptScore W3041722687C71924100 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConceptScore W3041722687C86803240 @default.
• W3041722687 hasConceptScore W3041722687C98274493 @default.
• W3041722687 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W3041722687 hasLocation W30417226871 @default.
• W3041722687 hasLocation W30417226872 @default.
• W3041722687 hasOpenAccess W3041722687 @default.
• W3041722687 hasPrimaryLocation W30417226871 @default.
• W3041722687 hasRelatedWork W2086452998 @default.
• W3041722687 hasRelatedWork W2098585473 @default.
• W3041722687 hasRelatedWork W2125138090 @default.
• W3041722687 hasRelatedWork W2364034797 @default.
• W3041722687 hasRelatedWork W2368364941 @default.
• W3041722687 hasRelatedWork W2438771022 @default.
• W3041722687 hasRelatedWork W2794783788 @default.
• W3041722687 hasRelatedWork W2964191569 @default.
• W3041722687 hasRelatedWork W4213271907 @default.
• W3041722687 hasRelatedWork W2538623428 @default.
• W3041722687 hasVolume "108" @default.
• W3041722687 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3041722687 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3041722687 magId "3041722687" @default.
• W3041722687 workType "article" @default.