Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 41018008

Panorama of Chromosomal Instability in Lung Cancer.

Abstract

Lung cancer is a highly heterogeneous disease primarily driven by tobacco smoking. About 20% of lung cancers occur among patients who have never smoked (LCINS) with differences in patient ancestry, sex, tumor histology, and clinical features. Our understanding of chromosomal instability in lung cancer, especially LCINS, is still limited. Here, we perform a comprehensive study of 182,429 somatic structural variations (SVs) detected in 1,209 whole-genome sequenced lung cancers, of which 864 LCINS. SVs are more abundant in tumors from patients who have smoked (LCSS); however, they are more complex and play more important roles in tumorigenesis in LCINS. EGFR mutations and KRAS mutations profoundly and independently shape the SV landscape. EGFR-mutant tumors have higher SV burden and more cancer-driving SVs. In contrast, KRAS mutations are associated with lower SV burden and less driver SVs. We decompose 16 SV signatures for both complex and simple SVs that likely represent divergent molecular mechanisms. The SV breakpoints have distinct distributions across the genome depending on the signatures due to mutagenic mechanisms and positive selection. Many established cancer-driving genes are recurrently rearranged by multiple SV signatures suggesting functional convergence of these genome instability mechanisms.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yang Yang, Xiaoming Zhong, William Phillips, Wei Zhao, Phuc H Hoang, Christopher Wirth, Soo-Ryum Yang, Charles Leduc, Marina K Baine, William D Travis, Lynette M Sholl, Philippe Joubert, Robert Homer, Jian Sang, Azhar Khandekar, John P McElderry, Thi-Van-Trinh Tran, Caleb Hartman, Mona Miraftab, Monjoy Saha, Olivia W Lee, Sunandini Sharma, Kristine M Jones, Bin Zhu, Marcos Díaz-Gay, Eric S Edell, Jacobo Martínez Santamaría, Matthew B Schabath, Sai S Yendamuri, Marta Manczuk, Jolanta Lissowska, Beata Świątkowska, Anush Mukeria, Oxana Shangina, David Zaridze, Ivana Holcatova, Vladimir Janout, Dana Mates, Simona Ognjanovic, Milan Savic, Milica Kontic, Yohan Bossé, Bonnie E Gould Rothberg, David C Christiani, Valerie Gaborieau, Paul Brennan, Geoffrey Liu, Paul Hofman, Maria Pik Wong, Kin Chung Leung, Chih-Yi Chen, Chao Agnes Hsiung, Angela C Pesatori, Dario Consonni, Nathaniel Rothman, Qing Lan, Martin A Nowak, David C Wedge, Ludmil B Alexandrov, Stephen J Chanock, Jianxin Shi, Tongwu Zhang, Lixing Yang, Maria Teresa Landi. 2025-09-12. Panorama of Chromosomal Instability in Lung Cancer.. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.09.25335109

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article