Leveraging the replication stress response to optimize cancer therapy

Somatic mutations in cancer genomes are caused by multiple mutational processes, each of which generates a characteristic mutational signature 1 . Here, as part of the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium 2 of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we characterized mutational signatures using 84,729,690 somatic mutations from 4,645 whole-genome and 19,184 exome sequences that encompass most types of cancer. We identified 49 single-base-substitution, 11 doublet-base-substitution, 4 clustered-base-substitution and 17 small insertion-and-deletion signatures. The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses 3–15 , enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated—but distinct—DNA damage, repair and/or replication mechanisms. By estimating the contribution of each signature to the mutational catalogues of individual cancer genomes, we revealed associations of signatures to exogenous or endogenous exposures, as well as to defective DNA-maintenance processes. However, many signatures are of unknown cause. This analysis provides a systematic perspective on the repertoire of mutational processes that contribute to the development of human cancer.

Abstract Background Treatment with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with agents such as anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), and/or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) can result in impressive response rates and durable disease remission but only in a subset of patients with cancer. Expression of PD-L1 has demonstrated utility in selecting patients for response to ICB and has proven to be an important biomarker for patient selection. Tumor mutation burden (TMB) is emerging as a potential biomarker. However, refinement of interpretation and contextualization is required. Materials and methods In this review, we outline the evolution of TMB as a biomarker in oncology, delineate how TMB can be applied in the clinic, discuss current limitations as a diagnostic test, and highlight mechanistic insights unveiled by the study of TMB. We review available data to date studying TMB as a biomarker for response to ICB by tumor type, focusing on studies proposing a threshold for TMB as a predictive biomarker for ICB activity. Results High TMB consistently selects for benefit with ICB therapy. In lung, bladder and head and neck cancers, the current predictive TMB thresholds proposed approximate 200 non-synonymous somatic mutations by whole exome sequencing (WES). PD-L1 expression influences response to ICB in high TMB tumors with single agent PD-(L)1 antibodies; however, response may not be dependent on PD-L1 expression in the setting of anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD-1/CTLA-4 combination therapy. Disease-specific TMB thresholds for effective prediction of response in various other malignancies are not well established. Conclusions TMB, in concert with PD-L1 expression, has been demonstrated to be a useful biomarker for ICB selection across some cancer types; however, further prospective validation studies are required. TMB determination by selected targeted panels has been correlated with WES. Calibration and harmonization will be required for optimal utility and alignment across all platforms currently used internationally. Key challenges will need to be addressed before broader use in different tumor types.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are important for DNA double-strand break repair by homologous recombination, and mutations in these genes predispose to breast and other cancers. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) is an enzyme involved in base excision repair, a key pathway in the repair of DNA single-strand breaks. We show here that BRCA1 or BRCA2 dysfunction unexpectedly and profoundly sensitizes cells to the inhibition of PARP enzymatic activity, resulting in chromosomal instability, cell cycle arrest and subsequent apoptosis. This seems to be because the inhibition of PARP leads to the persistence of DNA lesions normally repaired by homologous recombination. These results illustrate how different pathways cooperate to repair damage, and suggest that the targeted inhibition of particular DNA repair pathways may allow the design of specific and less toxic therapies for cancer.