Genomic Alterations and Their Implications on Survival in Nonmetastatic Colorectal Cancer: Status Quo and Future Perspectives

Transcriptomic correlates of cell cycle checkpoints with distinct prognosis, molecular characteristics, immunological regulation, and therapeutic response in colorectal adenocarcinoma

Backgrounds

Colorectal adenocarcinoma (COAD), accounting for the most common subtype of colorectal cancer (CRC), is a kind of malignant digestive tumor. Some cell cycle checkpoints (CCCs) have been found to contribute to CRC progression, whereas the functional roles of a lot of CCCs, especially the integrated role of checkpoint mechanism in the cell cycle, remain unclear.

Materials and methods

The Genomic Data Commons (GDC) The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) COAD cohort was retrieved as the training dataset, and GSE24551 and GSE29623 were downloaded from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) as the validation datasets. A total of 209 CCC-related genes were derived from the Gene Ontology Consortium and were subsequently enrolled in the univariate, multivariate, and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) Cox regression analyses, finally defining a CCC signature. Cell proliferation and Transwell assay analyses were utilized to evaluate the functional roles of signature-related CCCs. The underlying CCC signature, molecular characteristics, immune-related features, and therapeutic response were finally estimated. The Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) database was employed for the evaluation of chemotherapeutic responses.

Results

The aberrant gene expression of CCCs greatly contributed to COAD development and progression. Univariate Cox regression analysis identified 27 CCC-related genes significantly affecting the overall survival (OS) of COAD patients; subsequently, LASSO analysis determined a novel CCC signature. Noticeably, CDK5RAP2, MAD1L1, NBN, RGCC, and ZNF207 were first identified to be correlated with the prognosis of COAD, and it was proven that all of them were significantly correlated with the proliferation and invasion of HCT116 and SW480 cells. In TCGA COAD cohort, CCC signature robustly stratified COAD patients into high and low CCC score groups (median OS: 57.24 months vs. unreached, p< 0.0001), simultaneously, with the good AUC values for OS prediction at 1, 2, and 3 years were 0.74, 0.78, and 0.77. Furthermore, the prognostic capacity of the CCC signature was verified in the GSE24551 and GSE29623 datasets, and the CCC signature was independent of clinical features. Moreover, a higher CCC score always indicated worse OS, regardless of clinical features, histological subtypes, or molecular subgroups. Intriguingly, functional enrichment analysis confirmed the CCC score was markedly associated with extracellular, matrix and immune (chemokine)-related signaling, cell cycle-related signaling, and metabolisms. Impressively, a higher CCC score was positively correlated with a majority of chemokines, receptors, immunostimulators, and anticancer immunity, indicating a relatively immune-promoting microenvironment. In addition, GSE173839, GSE25066, GSE41998, and GSE194040 dataset analyses of the underlying CCC signature suggested that durvalumab with olaparib and paclitaxel, taxane-anthracycline chemotherapy, neoadjuvant cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin with ixabepilone or paclitaxel, and immunotherapeutic strategies might be suitable for COAD patients with higher CCC score. Eventually, the GDSC database analysis showed that lower CCC scores were likely to be more sensitive to 5-fluorouracil, bosutinib, gemcitabine, gefitinib, methotrexate, mitomycin C, and temozolomide, while patients with higher CCC score seemed to have a higher level of sensitivity to bortezomib and elesclomol.

Conclusion

The novel CCC signature exhibited a good ability for prognosis prediction for COAD patients, and the CCC score was found to be highly correlated with molecular features, immune-related characteristics, and therapeutic responses, which would greatly promote clinical management and precision medicine for COAD.

Recurrence Risk after Radical Colorectal Cancer Surgery-Less Than before, But How High Is It?

Simple Summary

Evidence indicates that recurrence risk after colon cancer today is less than it was when trials performed decades ago showed that adjuvant chemotherapy reduces the risk and prolong disease-free and overall survival. After rectal cancer surgery, local recurrence rates have decreased but it is unclear if systemic recurrences have. After a systematic review of available literature reporting recurrence risks after curative colorectal cancer surgery we report that the risks are lower today than they were in the past and that this risk reduction is not solely ascribed to the use of adjuvant therapy. Adjuvant therapy always means overtreatment of many patients, already cured by the surgery. Fewer recurrences mean that progress in the care of these patients has happened but also that the present guidelines giving recommendations based upon old data must be adjusted. The relative gains from adding chemotherapy are not altered, but the absolute number of patients gaining is less.

Abstract

Adjuvant chemotherapy aims at eradicating tumour cells sometimes present after radical surgery for a colorectal cancer (CRC) and thereby diminish the recurrence rate and prolong time to recurrence (TTR). Remaining tumour cells will lead to recurrent disease that is usually fatal. Adjuvant therapy is administered based upon the estimated recurrence risk, which in turn defines the need for this treatment. This systematic overview aims at describing whether the need has decreased since trials showing that adjuvant chemotherapy provides benefits in colon cancer were performed decades ago. Thanks to other improvements than the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy, such as better staging, improved surgery, the use of radiotherapy and more careful pathology, recurrence risks have decreased. Methodological difficulties including intertrial comparisons decades apart and the present selective use of adjuvant therapy prevent an accurate estimate of the magnitude of the decreased need. Furthermore, most trials do not report recurrence rates or TTR, only disease-free and overall survival (DFS/OS). Fewer colon cancer patients, particularly in stage II but also in stage III, today display a sufficient need for adjuvant treatment considering the burden of treatment, especially when oxaliplatin is added. In rectal cancer, neo-adjuvant treatment will be increasingly used, diminishing the need for adjuvant treatment.