Differential Orthopedia Homeobox expression in pulmonary carcinoids is associated with changes in DNA methylation

Limited number of tumor types have been examined for Orthopedia Homeobox (OTP) expression. In pulmonary carcinoids, loss of expression is a strong indicator of poor prognosis. Here, we investigated OTP expression in 37 different tumor types, and the association between OTP expression and DNA methylation levels in lung neuroendocrine neoplasms. We analyzed publicly available multi-omics data (whole-exome-, whole-genome-, RNA sequencing and Epic 850K-methylation array) of 58 typical carcinoids, 27 atypical carcinoids, 69 large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and 51 small cell lung cancer patients and TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) data of 33 tumor types. 850K-methylation analysis was cross-validated using targeted pyrosequencing on 35 carcinoids. We report bimodality of OTP expression in carcinoids (OTPhigh vs OTPlow group, likelihood-ratio test P = 1.5 × 10-2 ), with the OTPhigh group specific to pulmonary carcinoids while absent from all other cohorts analyzed. Significantly different DNA methylation levels were observed between OTPhigh and OTPlow carcinoids in 12/34 OTP infinium probes (FDR < 0.05 and β-value effect size > .2). OTPlow carcinoids harbor high DNA methylation levels as compared to OTPhigh carcinoids. OTPlow carcinoids showed a significantly worse overall survival (log-rank test P = .0052). Gene set enrichment analysis for somatically mutated genes associated with hallmarks of cancer showed robust enrichment of three hallmarks in the OTPlow group, that is, sustaining proliferative signaling, evading growth suppressor and genome instability and mutation. Together our data suggest that high OTP expression is a unique feature of pulmonary carcinoids with a favorable prognosis and that in poor prognostic patients, OTP expression is lost, most likely due to changes in DNA methylation levels.

In-depth molecular analysis of combined and co-primary pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and adenocarcinoma

Up to 14% of large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (LCNECs) are diagnosed in continuity with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. In addition to these combined lesions, 1% to 7% of lung tumors present as co-primary tumors with multiple synchronous lesions. We evaluated molecular and clinicopathological characteristics of combined and co-primary LCNEC-adenocarcinoma (ADC) tumors. Ten patients with LCNEC-ADC (combined) and five patients with multiple synchronous ipsilateral LCNEC and ADC tumors (co-primary) were included. DNA was isolated from distinct tumor parts, and 65 cancer genes were analyzed by next generation sequencing. Immunohistochemistry was performed including neuroendocrine markers, pRb, Ascl1 and Rest. Pure ADC (N = 37) and LCNEC (N = 17) cases were used for reference. At least 1 shared mutation, indicating tumor clonality, was found in LCNEC- and ADC-parts of 10/10 combined tumors but only in 1/5 co-primary tumors. A range of identical mutations was observed in both parts of combined tumors: 8/10 contained ADC-related (EGFR/KRAS/STK11 and/or KEAP1), 4/10 RB1 and 9/10 TP53 mutations. Loss of pRb IHC was observed in 6/10 LCNEC- and 4/10 ADC-parts. The number and intensity of expression of Ascl1 and neuroendocrine markers increased from pure ADC (low) to combined ADC (intermediate) and combined and pure LCNEC (high). The opposite was true for Rest expression. In conclusion, all combined LCNEC-ADC tumors were clonally related indicating a common origin. A relatively high frequency of pRb inactivation was observed in both LCNEC- and ADC-parts, suggesting an underlying role in LCNEC-ADC development. Furthermore, neuroendocrine differentiation might be modulated by Ascl1(+) and Rest(-) expression.

Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands: Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy.

RESULTS

Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type-specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%).

CONCLUSION

MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a "Dutch MTB model" for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing.