A multi-site cutting device implements efficiently the divide-and-conquer strategy in tumor sampling

Spatial patterns of tumour growth impact clonal diversification in a computational model and the TRACERx Renal study

Genetic intra-tumour heterogeneity fuels clonal evolution, but our understanding of clinically relevant clonal dynamics remain limited. We investigated spatial and temporal features of clonal diversification in clear cell renal cell carcinoma through a combination of modelling and real tumour analysis. We observe that the mode of tumour growth, surface or volume, impacts the extent of subclonal diversification, enabling interpretation of clonal diversity in patient tumours. Specific patterns of proliferation and necrosis explain clonal expansion and emergence of parallel evolution and microdiversity in tumours. In silico time-course studies reveal the appearance of budding structures before detectable subclonal diversification. Intriguingly, we observe radiological evidence of budding structures in early-stage clear cell renal cell carcinoma, indicating that future clonal evolution may be predictable from imaging. Our findings offer a window into the temporal and spatial features of clinically relevant clonal evolution.

Impact of tumor heterogeneity and tissue sampling for genetic mutation testing: a systematic review and post hoc analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to identify guidelines to assist systematic reviewers or clinical researchers in identifying sampling bias due to tumor heterogeneity (TH) in solid cancers assayed for somatic mutations. We also assessed current reporting standards to determine the impact of TH on sample bias.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review searching 13 databases (to January 2019) to identify guidelines. A post hoc analysis was performed using 12 prostate tumor somatic mutation data sets from a previous systematic review to assess reporting on TH.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2,085 records. No formal guidelines were identified. Forty publications contained incidental recommendations across five major themes: using multiple tumor samples (n = 29), sample purity thresholds (n = 14), using specific sequencing methods (n = 8), using liquid biopsies (n = 4), and microdissection (n = 4). In post hoc analyses, 50% (6 of 12) clearly reported pathology methods. Forty-two percent (5 of 12) did not report pathology results. Forty-two percent (5 of 12) confirmed the pathology of the sample by direct diagnosis rather than inference. Forty-two percent (5 of 12) used multiple samples per patient. Fifty-eight percent (7 of 12) reported on tumor purity (reported ranges 10% to 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

As precision medicine progresses to the clinic, guidelines are required to help evidence-based decision makers understand how TH may impact sample bias. Authors need to clearly report pathology methods and results and tumor purity methods and results.