Tumor profiling of gastric and esophageal carcinoma reveal different treatment options

Abstract

Background: NCCN states that chemotherapies for advanced esophageal and gastric cancers may be used interchangeably. Biomarkers from gastroesophageal cancer patients were interrogated to identify actionable alterations with therapeutic implications. Methods: 666 gastric and 640 esophageal cancer cases referred to Caris Life Sciences between 2009 thru 2013 were evaluated. Specific testing was performed, which included a combination of sequencing (Sanger, NGS) and protein expression (IHC). Results: In the complete cohort (n = 1306), 30 of 45 genes tested harbored mutations; highest rates were seen in TP53 (54%), APC (10%), SMAD4 (5.9%), KRAS (5.9%), and PIK3CA (5.1%). IHC of TOP2A was high in 76% of cases, TOPO1 in 51% and SPARC in 25%; low IHC of ERCC1 was seen in 65%, RRM1 in 62%, TS in 61% and MGMT in 45%, indicating potential benefit from epirubicin, irinotecan, nab-paclitaxel, platinum-based agents, gemcitabine, 5FU/capecitabine and temozolomide, respectively. In the HER2+ cohort (n = 88), 50% of patients demonstrated possible benefit from a combination of trastuzumab with 5FU/capecitabine based on concurrent low TS, 53% with irinotecan (high TOPO1), 63% with cisplatin (low ERCC1) and 55% with gemcitabine (low RRM1). Subgroup analysis by tumor origin demonstrated significant differences in actionable biomarker profiles with HER2 (13% vs. 4.6%), SPARC (34% vs. 15%), TOP2A (86% vs. 67%), and TOPO1 (55% vs. 46%) in esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma cases respectively (P < 0.05). Conclusion: A comprehensive multiplatform biomarker analysis suggested significant biomarker differences between gastric and esophageal cancers. These results can assist in the development of future clinical trials.

Keywords:

• biomarker
• esophageal cancer
• gastric cancer
• molecular profiling
• personalized medicine

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.