Data from Genetic Screen in a Preclinical Model of Sarcoma Development Defines Drivers and Therapeutic Vulnerabilities

Le résumé fourni par la source

AbstractPurpose: High-grade complex karyotype sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of tumors with a uniformly poor prognosis. Within complex karyotype sarcomas, there are innumerable genetic changes but identifying those that are clinically relevant has been challenging. Experimental Design: To address this, we utilized a pooled genetic screening approach, informed by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data, to identify key drivers and modifiers of sarcoma development that were validated in vivo. Results: YAP1 and wild-type KRAS were validated as drivers and transformed human mesenchymal stem cells into two distinct sarcoma subtypes, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma and myxofibrosarcoma, respectively. A subset of tumors driven by CDK4 and PIK3CA reflected leiomyosarcoma and osteosarcoma demonstrating the plasticity of this approach and the potential to investigate sarcoma subtype heterogeneity. All generated tumors histologically reflected human sarcomas and had increased aneuploidy as compared to simple karyotype sarcomas. Comparing differential gene expression of TCGA samples to model data identified increased oxidative phosphorylation signaling in YAP1 tumors. Treatment of a panel of soft tissue sarcomas with a combination of YAP1 and oxidative phosphorylation inhibitors led to significantly decreased viability. Conclusions: Transcriptional co-analysis of TCGA patient samples to YAP1 and KRAS model tumors supports that these sarcoma subtypes lie along a spectrum of disease and adds guidance for further transcriptome-based refinement of sarcoma subtyping. This approach can be used to begin to understand pathways and mechanisms driving human sarcoma development, the relationship between sarcoma subtypes, and to identify and validate new therapeutic vulnerabilities for this aggressive and heterogeneous disease.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.