Search

Supplementary Table 7 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Table 1 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Table 3 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Table 5 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Table 6 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Figures 8-12 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Figure 5 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Table 4 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Figure 1 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Table 2 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Figure 2 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Figure 4 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary References from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Figure 6 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Figure 7 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Figure 3 from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Supplementary Table and Figure Legends from Transcriptional Pathway Signatures Predict MEK Addiction and Response to Selumetinib (AZD6244)

Ovarian cancer patients with germline or somatic pathogenic variants benefit from treatment with poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Tumor BRCA1/2 testing is more challenging than germline testing as the majority of samples are formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE), the tumor genome is complex, and the allelic fraction of somatic variants can be low. We collaborated with 10 laboratories testing BRCA1/2 in tumors to compare different approaches to identify clinically important variants within FFPE tumor DNA samples. This was not a proficiency study but an inter-laboratory comparison to identify common issues. Each laboratory received the same tumor DNA samples ranging in genotype, quantity, quality, and variant allele frequency (VAF). Each laboratory performed their preferred next-generation sequencing method to report on the variants. No false positive results were reported in this small study and the majority of methods detected the low VAF variants. A number of variants were not detected due to the bioinformatics analysis, variant classification, or insufficient DNA. The use of hybridization capture or short amplicon methods are recommended based on a bioinformatic assessment of the data. The study highlights the importance of establishing standards and standardization for tBRCA testing particularly when the test results dictate clinical decisions regarding life extending therapies.

Subjects with germline BRCA1/2 mutations (gBRCAm) have an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer and enhanced sensitivity to platinum-containing agents and PARP (poly[ADP-ribose] polymerase) inhibitors. BRCA mutations in Asian patients are poorly understood compared with other populations. We aimed to investigate gBRCAm prevalence and characteristics in Chinese ovarian cancer patients.We conducted the first nationwide multicenter gBRCAm prevalence study in China. Eight hundred twenty-six unselected ovarian cancer patients from 5 clinical centers were enrolled and tested for gBRCAm status. Medical data including age, family history, previous treatments, clinical diagnosis, histopathologic diagnosis, tumor grade, platinum sensitivity, and CA-125 test result were reviewed and collected.Prevalence rate or gBRCAm was determined as 28.5%, with 20.8% of patients harboring BRCA1 mutation and 7.6% harboring BRCA2 mutation. The group had a higher percentage of high-grade serous (73.0%), late-stage (III and IV [85.5%]) patients and a younger median age at diagnosis (52 years) compared with other reported studies. Twnety-seven BRCA1 and 17 BRCA2 mutations have not been reported previously in public databases or the literature. Statistically significant correlations were observed between gBRCAm status and family history (P0.001), gBRCAm status, and tumor stage (P = 0.02). A numerical higher prevalence of gBRCAm in patients with high-grade serous histopathology (30.9%), platinum-sensitive phenotype (34%), and late-line chemotherapy was observed.Germline BRCA1/2 mutations is common in Chinese ovarian cancer patients. This study implies that all ovarian patients should be tested for gBRCAm status regardless of family history and histopathology.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has enabled new approaches for detection of mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes responsible for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). The search for germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is of importance with respect to oncogenetic and surgical (bilateral mastectomy, ovariectomy) counselling. Testing tumor material for BRCA mutations is of increasing importance for therapeutic decision making as the poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, olaparib, is now available to treat patients with specific forms of ovarian cancer and BRCA mutations. Molecular genetics laboratories should develop reliable and sensitive techniques for the complete analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This is a challenge due to the size of the coding sequence of the BRCA1/2 genes, the absence of hot spot mutations, and particularly by the lower DNA quality obtained from Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded (FFPE) tissue. As a result, a number of analyses are uninterpretable and do not always provide a result to the clinician, limiting the optimal therapeutic management of patients. The availability of Fresh Frozen Tissue (FFT) for some laboratories and the excellent quality of the DNA extracted from it offers an alternative. For this reason, we evaluated Multiplicom's BRCA MASTR Dx assay on a set of 97 FFT derived DNA samples, in combination with the MID for Illumina MiSeq for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation detection. We obtained interpretable NGS results for all tested samples and showed > 99,7% sensitivity, specificity and accuracy., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

AimsActivating mutations in the gene encoding epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) can confer sensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Testing for mutations in EGFR is therefore an important step in the treatment-decision pathway. We reviewed reported methods for EGFR mutation testing in patients with lung cancer, initially focusing on studies involving standard tumour tissue samples. We also evaluated data on the use of cytology samples in order to determine their suitability for EGFR mutation analysis.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE database for studies reporting on EGFR mutation testing methods in patients with lung cancer.ResultsVarious methods have been investigated as potential alternatives to the historical standard for EGFR mutation testing, direct DNA sequencing. Many of these are targeted methods that specifically detect the most common EGFR mutations. The development of targeted mutation testing methods and commercially available test kits has enabled sensitive, rapid and robust analysis of clinical samples. The use of screening methods, subsequent to sample micro dissection, has also ensured that identification of more rare, uncommon mutations is now feasible. Cytology samples including fine needle aspirate and pleural effusion can be used successfully to determine EGFR mutation status provided that sensitive testing methods are employed.ConclusionsSeveral different testing methods offer a more sensitive alternative to direct sequencing for the detection of common EGFR mutations. Evidence published to date suggests cytology samples are viable alternatives for mutation testing when tumour tissue samples are not available.

People (parents, carers, teachers, adults, other professionals) seeking the involvement of an educational psychologist (EP) frequently bring longstanding and difficult concerns. Usually, many ways have already been tried to address the difficulty and generally these have been felt to be unsuccessful. The problem then often becomes one that is described as belonging to the person or setting – the angry child, the bad parent, the weak teacher, the inexperienced leader. Once labelled as such, it becomes less likely to remedy a concern that has become part of someone’s identity – the label becomes an established fact. The problem is stuck.Narrative approaches construct problems in a different way; the educational psychology team in Darlington has been interested in applying narrative ideas to the practice and ethos of the service over a number of years. Narrative approaches (White, 2007) view problems as separate from the person or setting and as such are one story amongst many that people have in their lives.This paper presents a reflection on the work of Darlington Educational Psychology Service (DEPS) in developing narrative approaches to practice. The work is considered through a number of case studies including direct work with children and young people, training to bring about organisational change and research. It is suggested that a narrative approach provides a challenge to prevailing socio-cultural narratives and offers alternative richer understandings of behaviours often characterised as problematic.

Genetic alterations can determine the natural history of cancer and its treatment response. With further advances in DNA sequencing technology, multiple novel genetic alterations will be discovered which could be exploited as prognostic, predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers in the development and use of cancer therapeutics. As such, the importance in clinical practice of efficient and robust somatic mutation testing in solid tumours cannot be overemphasized in the current era of personalized medicine. However, significant challenges remain regarding the testing of genetic biomarkers in clinical practice. Reliance on archived formalin fixed, paraffin embedded tumour, obtained from diagnostic biopsies, for testing somatic genetic alterations could restrict the scientific community in asking relevant questions about a patient’s cancer biology. Problems inherent with using formalin fixed, archival tissue are well recognized and difficult to resolve. It could be argued that to achieve rapid and efficient incorporation of genetic biomarkers into clinical practice, somatic mutation testing in cancer patients should be simpler, less invasive using a readily available clinical sample, whilst maintaining robustness and reproducibility. In this regard, use of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) from plasma or serum as an alternative and/or additional source of DNA to test cancer specific genetic alterations is an attractive proposition. In light of encouraging results from recent studies, this mini review will discuss the current role and future potential of somatic mutation testing from circulating or cell free DNA derived from the blood of patients with solid tumours.

Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886) is a selective, non–ATP-competitive inhibitor of mitogen-activated protein/extracellular signal–regulated kinase kinase (MEK)-1/2. The range of antitumor activity seen preclinically and in patients highlights the importance of identifying determinants of response to this drug. In large tumor cell panels of diverse lineage, we show that MEK inhibitor response does not have an absolute correlation with mutational or phospho-protein markers of BRAF/MEK, RAS, or phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) activity. We aimed to enhance predictivity by measuring pathway output through coregulated gene networks displaying differential mRNA expression exclusive to resistant cell subsets and correlated to mutational or dynamic pathway activity. We discovered an 18-gene signature enabling measurement of MEK functional output independent of tumor genotype. Where the MEK pathway is activated but the cells remain resistant to selumetinib, we identified a 13-gene signature that implicates the existence of compensatory signaling from RAS effectors other than PI3K. The ability of these signatures to stratify samples according to functional activation of MEK and/or selumetinib sensitivity was shown in multiple independent melanoma, colon, breast, and lung tumor cell lines and in xenograft models. Furthermore, we were able to measure these signatures in fixed archival melanoma tumor samples using a single RT-qPCR–based test and found intergene correlations and associations with genetic markers of pathway activity to be preserved. These signatures offer useful tools for the study of MEK biology and clinical application of MEK inhibitors, and the novel approaches taken may benefit other targeted therapies. Cancer Res; 70(6); 2264–73

Background: This study investigated the potential clinical utility of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) as a source of BRAF mutation detection in patients enrolled into a phase II study of AZD6244, a specific MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods: BRAF mutations were detected using Amplification Refractory Mutation System allele-specific PCR. BRAF mutation status was assessed in serum-derived cfDNA from 126 patients enrolled into the study and from 94 matched tumour samples. Results: Of 94 tumour samples, 45 (47.9%) were found to be BRAF mutation positive (BRAF+). Serum-derived cfDNA was BRAF+ in 33 of 126 (26.2%) samples, including in five samples for which tumour data were unavailable. Of BRAF+ tumours, 25 of 45 (55.6%) were BRAF+ in cfDNA. In three cases in which the tumour was negative, cfDNA was BRAF+. Progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with BRAF+ tumour and cfDNA was not significantly different compared with tumour BRAF+ but cfDNA BRAF-negative patients, indicating that cfDNA BRAF detection is not associated with poorer prognosis on PFS in stage III/IV advanced melanoma. Conclusions: These data demonstrate the feasibility of BRAF mutation detection in cfDNA of patients with advanced melanoma. Future studies should aim to incorporate BRAF mutation testing in cfDNA to further validate this biomarker for patient selection.

Background Germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 lead to a high lifetime probability of developing ovarian or breast cancer. These genes can also be involved in the development of non-hereditary tumours as somatic BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants are found in some of these cancers. Since patients with somatic BRCA pathogenic variants may benefit from treatment with poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors, it is important to be able to test for somatic changes in routinely available tumour samples. Such samples are typically formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, where the extracted DNA tends to be highly fragmented and of limited quantity, making analysis of large genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 challenging. This is made more difficult as somatic changes may be evident in only part of the sample, due to the presence of normal tissue. Methods We examined the feasibility of analysing DNA extracted from FFPE ovarian and breast tumour tissue to identify significant DNA variants in BRCA1/ BRCA2 using next generation sequencing methods that were sensitive enough to detect low level mutations, multiplexed to reduce the amount of DNA required and had short amplicon design. The utility of two GeneRead DNAseq Targeted Exon Enrichment Panels with different designs targeting only BRCA1/2 exons, and the Ion AmpliSeq BRCA community panel, followed by library preparation and adaptor ligation using the TruSeq DNA PCR-Free HT Sample Preparation Kit and NGS analysis on the MiSeq were investigated. Results Using the GeneRead method, we successfully analysed over 76% of samples, with >95% coverage of BRCA1/2 coding regions and a mean average read depth of >1000-fold. All mutations identified were confirmed where possible by Sanger sequencing or replication to eliminate the risk of false positive results due to artefacts within FFPE material. Admixture experiments demonstrated that BRCA1/2 variants could be detected if present in >10% of the sample. A sample subset was evaluated using the Ion AmpliSeq BRCA panel, achieving >99% coverage and sufficient read depth for a proportion of the samples. Conclusions Detection of BRCA1/2 variants in fixed tissue is feasible, and could be performed prospectively to facilitate optimum treatment decisions for ovarian or breast cancer patients. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12907-015-0004-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

AimsTo evaluate the suitability of malignant pleural effusion (MPE) and plasma as surrogate samples for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation detection, and compare three different detection methods.MethodsMatched tissue and plasma samples were collected from patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (stage IIIB/IV adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma), with matched MPE samples collected from a subgroup. DNA was extracted from tissue, MPE cell block, MPE supernatant and plasma before mutation detection by amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) (all samples), Sanger sequencing and mutant-specific immunohistochemistry (IHC) (tissue and MPE cell blocks only).ResultsSensitivity of MPE cell block, MPE supernatant and plasma versus tissue: 81.8% (9/11), 63.6% (7/11) and 67.5% (27/40); specificity was 80.0% (8/10), 100% (10/10) and 100% (46/46), respectively. Sensitivity of Sanger sequencing versus ARMS: 81.8% (27/33) for tissue, 40% (4/10) for MPE cell blocks; specificity was 100% (36/36 and 12/12) for both. Sensitivity of mutant-specific IHC versus ARMS: 54.8% (17/31) for tissue, 50.0% (6/12) for MPE cell blocks; specificity was 97.1% (34/35) and 100% (14/14), respectively.ConclusionsMPE and plasma are valid surrogates for NSCLC tumour EGFR mutation detection when tissue is not available. ARMS is most suitable for mutation detection in tissue and MPE cell blocks; however, mutant-specific IHC could be a complementary method when DNA-based molecular testing is unavailable.

BRAF mutation testing from circulating free DNA (cfDNA) using the amplification refractory mutation testing system (ARMS) holds potential as a surrogate for tumor mutation testing. Robust assay validation is needed to establish the optimal clinical matrix for measurement and cfDNA-specific mutation calling criteria. Plasma- and serum-derived cfDNA samples from 221 advanced melanoma patients were analyzed for BRAF c.1799T>A (p.V600E) mutation using ARMS in two stages in a blinded fashion. cfDNA-specific mutation calling criteria were defined in stage 1 and validated in stage 2. cfDNA concentrations in serum and plasma, and the sensitivities and specificities of BRAF mutation detection in these two clinical matrices were compared. Sensitivity of BRAF c.1799T>A (p.V600E) mutation detection in cfDNA was increased by using mutation calling criteria optimized for cfDNA (these criteria were adjusted from those used for archival tumor biopsies) without compromising specificity. Sensitivity of BRAF mutation detection in serum was 44% (95% CI, 35% to 53%) and in plasma 52% (95% CI, 43% to 61%). Specificity was 96% (95% CI, 90% to 99%) in both matrices. Serum contains significantly higher total cfDNA than plasma, whereas the proportion of tumor-derived mutant DNA was significantly higher in plasma. Using mutation calling criteria optimized for cfDNA improves sensitivity of BRAF c.1799T>A (p.V600E) mutation detection. The proportion of tumor-derived cfDNA in plasma was significantly higher than in serum.

Background We have compared mutation analysis by DNA sequencing and Amplification Refractory Mutation System™ (ARMS™) for their ability to detect mutations in clinical biopsy specimens. Methods We have evaluated five real-time ARMS assays: BRAF 1799T>A, [this includes V600E and V600K] and NRAS 182A>G [Q61R] and 181C>A [Q61K] in melanoma, EGFR 2573T>G [L858R], 2235-2249del15 [E746-A750del] in non-small-cell lung cancer, and compared the results to DNA sequencing of the mutation 'hot-spots' in these genes in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour (FF-PET) DNA. Results The ARMS assays maximised the number of samples that could be analysed when both the quality and quantity of DNA was low, and improved both the sensitivity and speed of analysis compared with sequencing. ARMS was more robust with fewer reaction failures compared with sequencing and was more sensitive as it was able to detect functional mutations that were not detected by DNA sequencing. DNA sequencing was able to detect a small number of lower frequency recurrent mutations across the exons screened that were not interrogated using the specific ARMS assays in these studies. Conclusions ARMS was more sensitive and robust at detecting defined somatic mutations than DNA sequencing on clinical samples where the predominant sample type was FF-PET.

Endothelin-1 is overexpressed in several tumor types. Activation of the endothelin-A (ETA) receptor may promote cell growth, angiogenesis and invasion, and inhibits the apoptotic process, while activation of the endothelin-B (ETB) receptor may induce cell death by apoptosis and inhibit tumor progression. Hypermethylation and subsequent silencing of the ETB receptor gene promoter has been reported in some cancer types. As the endothelin pathway is subject to research for pharmacological cancer treatment, we investigated the extent of epigenetic deregulation of the ETB receptor gene in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We scanned 64 NSCLC paired tumor/normal surgical specimens for the ETB receptor promoter for methylation by developing four pyrosequencing assays that covered 24 CpGs. The ETB receptor promoter was significantly hypermethylated in 31 (48%) of tumor samples, presenting considerably higher methylation in 22/24 CpG sites compared with the normal counterpart tissues. ETB receptor mRNA levels were reduced in all lung tumors compared with normal adjacent lung tissue, indicating the potentially important involvement of this gene in lung cancer development. Furthermore, tumor samples with ETB receptor gene methylation tended to have lower receptor mRNA levels compared with unmethylated tumor specimens, suggesting a primary epigenetic role in ETB receptor silencing. Our results point to a significant involvement of ETB receptor epigenetic deregulation in the pathogenesis of lung cancer making the gene a promising candidate biomarker for response to regimens modulating the endothelin axis.

PurposeThe phase III Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer (ISEL) trial compared gefitinib with placebo in 1,692 patients with refractory advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. We analyzed ISEL tumor biopsy samples to examine relationships between biomarkers and clinical outcome after gefitinib treatment in a placebo-controlled setting.MethodsBiomarkers included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number by fluorescence in situ hybridization (n = 370); EGFR (n = 379) and phosphorylated Akt (p-Akt) protein expression (n = 382) by immunohistochemistry; and mutations in EGFR (n = 215), KRAS (n = 152), and BRAF (n = 118).ResultsHigh EGFR gene copy number was a predictor of a gefitinib-related effect on survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61 for high copy number and HR, 1.16 for low copy number; comparison of high v low copy number HR, P = .045). EGFR protein expression was also related to clinical outcome (HR for positive, 0.77; HR for negative, 1.57; comparison of high v low protein expression HR, P = .049). Patients with EGFR mutations had higher response rates than patients without EGFR mutations (37.5% v 2.6%); there were insufficient data for survival analysis. No relationship was observed between p-Akt protein expression and survival outcome, and the limited amount of data collected for KRAS and BRAF mutations prevented any meaningful evaluation of clinical outcomes in relation to these mutations.ConclusionEGFR gene copy number was a predictor of clinical benefit from gefitinib in ISEL. Additional studies are warranted to assess these biomarkers fully for the identification of patients most likely to benefit from gefitinib treatment.

Somatic mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) affect non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sensitivity to the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib. In many countries, prospective testing of NSCLC patients for EGFR mutations is required to determine patient suitability for gefitinib. Mutation profiling is usually performed on DNA extracted from tumour biopsy samples, however the acquisition of biopsy material from NSCLC patients is often difficult and, in some cases is not available, as diagnosis is routinely made by other means. Diagnostic cytology samples, obtained by fine needle aspiration (FNA), may provide an additional source of tumour material for molecular analysis. The aims of this project were to assess the suitability of FNA for EGFR mutation testing and optimisation of DNA extraction and mutation detection methods suitable for analysis of FNA material. FNA smears of 3 human cell lines, obtained from mouse xenografts, were used to optimise DNA extraction methods. DNA was extracted from diagnostic FNA smears or paraffin embedded FNA derived cells, from 25 NSCLC patients of Indian origin, using the optimised protocols. Following successful DNA extraction from all patient samples, EGFR mutation status was determined by both DNA sequencing and using the therascreen EGFR Mutation Test Kit (L858R and exon 19 deletion mutations only). Twelve of the 25 patients harboured an EGFR mutation. For this sample type, the therascreen EGFR Mutation Test Kit was more effective at identifying mutation positive patients with only 4 of 12 detected mutations also evident by DNA sequencing. DNA extracted using a spin column based kit and quantified by real time PCR prior to performing molecular analysis gave the most robust, reproducible results. In conclusion, these data suggest that diagnostic FNA smears or cell blocks are suitable for assessing EGFR mutation status of NSCLC patients and may prove a useful source of tumour material when biopsies are unavailable. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 3065. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-3065

The analysis of a patient's tumor mutation status has become increasingly important. Pharmaceuticals such as gefitinib require that a mutation test is performed prior to treatment to help predict a positive outcome to the patient before the drug is administered. However, obtaining a suitable tumor sample for analysis is not always possible and therefore some patients that may benefit will not receive the drug. The use of easily obtainable samples such as plasma or serum would be ideal if tumor derived material could be readily extracted and contained the same predictive mutations as the source tumor. We have evaluated circulating free (cf) DNA from plasma, and to a lesser extent serum, from lung cancer patients for EGFR and KRAS mutations using allele specific PCR tests (ARMSTM). The majority of the samples had no matched tumor sample available so the mutation detection rate was compared to the expected frequency of mutations in this tumor and population type. EGFR mutations were detected in 21 of 237 plasma cf DNA samples (8.9%) (expected: 10-15%). KRAS mutations were detected in 11 of 168 plasma cf DNA samples (6.6%) (expected: 17%). Where analysis was performed on the matched cf DNA extracted from serum the mutation detection rate was lower than in plasma. Interestingly the EGFR mutation frequency was higher than KRAS in the plasma samples, although the KRAS mutation frequency was expected to be higher than EGFR mutation frequency in the tumors. This could be due to the frequent amplification of mutant EGFR in lung tumors resulting in more target copies in the cf DNA, the EGFR assays could be more sensitive or perhaps the nature of EGFR mutation containing tumors is different making them shed more DNA or survive longer in the blood. In conclusion, cf DNA derived from plasma is a useful surrogate for mutation detection when no tumor sample is available, but the mutation detection rate is not equal for different mutations in different genes.

Endothelin-1 is overexpressed in several tumor types. Activation of the endothelin-A (ETA) receptor may promote cell growth, angiogenesis and invasion, and inhibits the apoptotic process, while activation of the endothelin-B (ETB) receptor may induce cell death by apoptosis and inhibit tumor progression. Hypermethylation and subsequent silencing of the ETB receptor gene promoter has been reported in some cancer types. As the endothelin pathway is subject to research for pharmacological cancer treatment, we investigated the extent of epigenetic deregulation of the ETB receptor gene in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We scanned 64 NSCLC paired tumor/normal surgical specimens for the ETB receptor promoter for methylation by developing four pyrosequencing assays that covered 24 CpGs. The ETB receptor promoter was significantly hypermethylated in 31 (48%) of tumor samples, presenting considerably higher methylation in 22/24 CpG sites compared with the normal counterpart tissues. ETB receptor mRNA levels were reduced in all lung tumors compared with normal adjacent lung tissue, indicating the potentially important involvement of this gene in lung cancer development. Furthermore, tumor samples with ETB receptor gene methylation tended to have lower receptor mRNA levels compared with unmethylated tumor specimens, suggesting a primary epigenetic role in ETB receptor silencing. Our results point to a significant involvement of ETB receptor epigenetic deregulation in the pathogenesis of lung cancer making the gene a promising candidate biomarker for response to regimens modulating the endothelin axis.