Mesenchymal neoplasms with NTRK and other kinase gene alterations

Kinase alterations are increasingly recognised as oncogenic drivers in mesenchymal tumours. Infantile fibrosarcoma and the related renal tumour, congenital mesoblastic nephroma, were among the first solid tumours shown to harbour recurrent tyrosine kinase fusions, with the canonical ETV6::NTRK3 fusion identified more than 20 years ago. Although targeted testing has long been used in diagnosis, the advent of more robust sequencing techniques has driven the discovery of kinase alterations in an array of mesenchymal tumours. As our ability to identify these genetic alterations has improved, as has our recognition and understanding of the tumours that harbour these alterations. Specifically, this study will focus upon mesenchymal tumours harbouring NTRK or other kinase alterations, including tumours with an infantile fibrosarcoma-like appearance, spindle cell tumours resembling lipofibromatosis or peripheral nerve sheath tumours and those occurring in adults with a fibrosarcoma-like appearance. As publications describing the histology of these tumours increase so, too, do the variety kinase alterations reported, now including NTRK1/2/3, RET, MET, RAF1, BRAF, ALK, EGFR and ABL1 fusions or alterations. To date, these tumours appear locally aggressive and rarely metastatic, without a clear link between traditional features used in histological grading (e.g. mitotic activity, necrosis) and outcome. However, most of these tumours are amenable to new targeted therapies, making their recognition of both diagnostic and therapeutic import. The goal of this study is to review the clinicopathological features of tumours with NTRK and other tyrosine kinase alterations, discuss the most common differential diagnoses and provide recommendations for molecular confirmation with associated treatment implications.     

Recent advances with cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors: therapeutic agents for breast cancer and their role in immuno-oncology

Introduction: Collaborative interactions between several diverse biological processes govern the onset and progression of breast cancer. These processes include alterations in cellular metabolism, anti-tumor immune responses, DNA damage repair, proliferation, anti-apoptotic signals, autophagy, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, components of the non-coding genome or onco-mIRs, cancer stem cells and cellular invasiveness. The last two decades have revealed that each of these processes are also directly regulated by a component of the cell cycle apparatus, cyclin D1.

Area covered: The current review is provided to update recent developments in the clinical application of cyclin/CDK inhibitors to breast cancer with a focus on the anti-tumor immune response.

Expert opinion: The cyclin D1 gene encodes the regulatory subunit of a proline-directed serine-threonine kinase that phosphorylates several substrates. CDKs possess phosphorylation site selectivity, with the phosphate-acceptor residue preceding a proline. Several important proteins are substrates including all three retinoblastoma proteins, NRF1, GCN5, and FOXM1. Over 280 cyclin D3/CDK6 substrates have b\een identified. Given the diversity of substrates for cyclin/CDKs, and the altered thresholds for substrate phosphorylation that occurs during the cell cycle, it is exciting that small molecular inhibitors targeting cyclin D/CDK activity have encouraging results in specific tumors.     

Population Genetics Identifies Challenges in Analyzing Rare Variants

Geneticists have, for years, understood the nature of genome‐wide association studies using common genomic variants. Recently, however, focus has shifted to the analysis of rare variants. This presents potential problems for researchers, as rare variants do not always behave in the same way common variants do, sometimes rendering decades of solid intuition moot. In this paper, we present examples of the differences between common and rare variants. We show why one must be significantly more careful about the origin of rare variants, and how failing to do so can lead to highly inflated type I error. We then explain how to best avoid such concerns with careful understanding and study design. Additionally, we demonstrate that a seemingly low error rate in next‐generation sequencing can dramatically impact the false‐positive rate for rare variants. This is due to the fact that rare variants are, by definition, seen infrequently, making it hard to distinguish between errors and real variants. Compounding this problem is the fact that the proportion of errors is likely to get worse, not better, with increasing sample size. One cannot simply scale their way up in order to solve this problem. Understanding these potential pitfalls is a key step in successfully identifying true associations between rare variants and diseases.