Faculty Opinions recommendation of The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer.

Author(s):  
Sebastian Stintzing
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter W. Eide ◽  
Seyed H. Moosavi ◽  
Ina A. Eilertsen ◽  
Tuva H. Brunsell ◽  
Jonas Langerud ◽  
...  

AbstractGene expression-based subtypes of colorectal cancer have clinical relevance, but the representativeness of primary tumors and the consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) for metastatic cancers is not well known. We investigated the metastatic heterogeneity of CMS. The best approach to subtype translation was delineated by comparisons of transcriptomic profiles from 317 primary tumors and 295 liver metastases, including multi-metastatic samples from 45 patients and 14 primary-metastasis sets. Associations were validated in an external data set (n = 618). Projection of metastases onto principal components of primary tumors showed that metastases were depleted of CMS1-immune/CMS3-metabolic signals, enriched for CMS4-mesenchymal/stromal signals, and heavily influenced by the microenvironment. The tailored CMS classifier (available in an updated version of the R package CMScaller) therefore implemented an approach to regress out the liver tissue background. The majority of classified metastases were either CMS2 or CMS4. Nonetheless, subtype switching and inter-metastatic CMS heterogeneity were frequent and increased with sampling intensity. Poor-prognostic value of CMS1/3 metastases was consistent in the context of intra-patient tumor heterogeneity.


2021 ◽  
Vol 157 ◽  
pp. 71-80
Author(s):  
Arndt Stahler ◽  
Volker Heinemann ◽  
Veronika Schuster ◽  
Kathrin Heinrich ◽  
Annika Kurreck ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Sanne ten Hoorn ◽  
Anne Trinh ◽  
Joan de Jong ◽  
Lianne Koens ◽  
Louis Vermeulen

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3545-3545
Author(s):  
Inge van Den Berg ◽  
Marcel Smid ◽  
Robert R.J. Coebergh van den Braak ◽  
Mark A van de Wiel ◽  
Carolien H. M. Van Deurzen ◽  
...  

3545 Background: Consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) can guide precision treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). Currently available assays can identify CMS1 and CMS4 cases well, while a dedicated test to distinguish CMS2 and 3 is lacking. This study aimed to identify a panel of methylation markers to distinguish between CMS2 and 3 in patients with CRC. Methods: Fresh-frozen tumor tissue of 239 patients with stage I-III CRC was included. CMS classification was performed on RNA-seq data using the single-sample-prediction parameter from the “CMSclassifier” package. Methylation profiles were obtained using the Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip. We performed adaptive group-regularised logistic ridge-regression with post-hoc group-weighted elastic net marker selection to build prediction models for classification of CMS2 and CMS3 based on 15, 10 or 5 markers. Data from TCGAwas used for validation. Results: Overall methylation profiles differed between CMS2 and CMS3. Group-regularisation of the probes was done based on their location either relative to a CpG island or relative to a gene present in the CMS classifier resulting in two different prediction models and subsequently different marker panels. For both panels, even when using only 5 markers, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were > 90%. Validation showed comparable performances. Conclusions: Our highly sensitive and specific methylation marker panel can be used to distinguish CMS2 and 3. This enables development of a qPCR DNA methylation assay in patients with CRC to provide a specific and non-invasive classification tool.


Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 3160
Author(s):  
Sophie Mouillet-Richard ◽  
Pierre Laurent-Puig

Recent advance in the characterization of the heterogeneity of colorectal cancer has led to the definition of a consensus molecular classification within four CMS subgroups, each associated with specific molecular and clinical features. Investigating the signalling pathways that drive colorectal cancer progression in relation to the CMS classification may help design therapeutic strategies tailored for each CMS subtype. The two main effectors of the Hippo pathway YAP and its paralogue TAZ have been intensively scrutinized for their contribution to colon carcinogenesis. Here, we review the knowledge of YAP/TAZ implication in colorectal cancer from the perspective of the CMS framework. We identify gaps in our current understanding and delineate research avenues for future work.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 1682-1685 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Sveen ◽  
C. Cremolini ◽  
R. Dienstmann

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 1482-1491
Author(s):  
Stina Bodén ◽  
Robin Myte ◽  
Justin Harbs ◽  
Anneli Sundkvist ◽  
Carl Zingmark ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document