Tumor copy number alteration burden is a pan-cancer prognostic factor associated with recurrence and death

  1. Haley Hieronymus
  2. Rajmohan Murali
  3. Amy Tin
  4. Kamlesh Yadav
  5. Wassim Abida
  6. Henrik Moller
  7. Daniel Berney
  8. Howard Scher
  9. Brett Carver
  10. Peter Scardino
  11. Nikolaus Schultz
  12. Barry Taylor
  13. Andrew Vickers
  14. Jack Cuzick
  15. Charles L Sawyers  Is a corresponding author
  1. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States
  2. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, United States
  3. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States
  4. Kings College London, United Kingdom
  5. Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom

Abstract

The level of copy number alteration (CNA), termed CNA burden, in the tumor genome is associated with recurrence of primary prostate cancer. Whether CNA burden is associated with prostate cancer survival or outcomes in other cancers is unknown. We analyzed the CNA landscape of conservatively treated prostate cancer in a biopsy and transurethral resection cohort, reflecting an increasingly common treatment approach. We find that CNA burden is prognostic for cancer-specific death, independent of standard clinical prognostic factors. More broadly, we find CNA burden is significantly associated with disease-free and overall survival in primary breast, endometrial, renal clear cell, thyroid, and colorectal cancer in TCGA cohorts. To assess clinical applicability, we validated these findings in an independent pan-cancer cohort of patients whose tumors were sequenced using a clinically-certified next generation sequencing assay (MSK-IMPACT), where prognostic value varied based on cancer type. This prognostic association was affected by incorporating tumor purity in some cohorts. Overall, CNA burden of primary and metastatic tumors is a prognostic factor, potentially modulated by sample purity and measurable by current clinical sequencing.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files and reference materials. The conservative treatment TAPG copy number cohort array data was deposited in NCBI GEO under accession number GSE103665 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE103665, reviewer access token czwruyesnzqbbyn).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Haley Hieronymus

    Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Rajmohan Murali

    Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6988-4295
  3. Amy Tin

    Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Kamlesh Yadav

    Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Wassim Abida

    Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Henrik Moller

    Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Population and Global Health, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Daniel Berney

    Department of Molecular Oncology, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Howard Scher

    Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Brett Carver

    Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Peter Scardino

    Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Nikolaus Schultz

    Marie-Josée and Henry R Kravis Center for Molecular Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Barry Taylor

    Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Andrew Vickers

    Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Jack Cuzick

    Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Charles L Sawyers

    Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    sawyersc@mskcc.org
    Competing interests
    Charles L Sawyers, Senior Editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4955-6475

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Charles L Sawyers

National Institutes of Health (CA193837)

  • Charles L Sawyers

Prostate Cancer Foundation

  • Kamlesh Yadav

National Institutes of Health (CA092629)

  • Charles L Sawyers

National Institutes of Health (CA155169)

  • Charles L Sawyers

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2018, Hieronymus et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 8,945
    views
  • 1,081
    downloads
  • 215
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Haley Hieronymus
  2. Rajmohan Murali
  3. Amy Tin
  4. Kamlesh Yadav
  5. Wassim Abida
  6. Henrik Moller
  7. Daniel Berney
  8. Howard Scher
  9. Brett Carver
  10. Peter Scardino
  11. Nikolaus Schultz
  12. Barry Taylor
  13. Andrew Vickers
  14. Jack Cuzick
  15. Charles L Sawyers
(2018)
Tumor copy number alteration burden is a pan-cancer prognostic factor associated with recurrence and death
eLife 7:e37294.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37294

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37294

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Susanne Tilk, Judith Frydman ... Dmitri A Petrov
    Research Article

    In asexual populations that don’t undergo recombination, such as cancer, deleterious mutations are expected to accrue readily due to genome-wide linkage between mutations. Despite this mutational load of often thousands of deleterious mutations, many tumors thrive. How tumors survive the damaging consequences of this mutational load is not well understood. Here, we investigate the functional consequences of mutational load in 10,295 human tumors by quantifying their phenotypic response through changes in gene expression. Using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), we find that high mutational load tumors up-regulate proteostasis machinery related to the mitigation and prevention of protein misfolding. We replicate these expression responses in cancer cell lines and show that the viability in high mutational load cancer cells is strongly dependent on complexes that degrade and refold proteins. This indicates that the upregulation of proteostasis machinery is causally important for high mutational burden tumors and uncovers new therapeutic vulnerabilities.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Kourosh Hayatigolkhatmi, Chiara Soriani ... Simona Rodighiero
    Tools and Resources

    Understanding the cell cycle at the single-cell level is crucial for cellular biology and cancer research. While current methods using fluorescent markers have improved the study of adherent cells, non-adherent cells remain challenging. In this study, we addressed this gap by combining a specialized surface to enhance cell attachment, the FUCCI(CA)2 sensor, an automated image analysis pipeline, and a custom machine learning algorithm. This approach enabled precise measurement of cell cycle phase durations in non-adherent cells. This method was validated in acute myeloid leukemia cell lines NB4 and Kasumi-1, which have unique cell cycle characteristics, and we tested the impact of cell cycle-modulating drugs on NB4 cells. Our cell cycle analysis system, which is also compatible with adherent cells, is fully automated and freely available, providing detailed insights from hundreds of cells under various conditions. This report presents a valuable tool for advancing cancer research and drug development by enabling comprehensive, automated cell cycle analysis in both adherent and non-adherent cells.