Clinical implications of the cancer genome atlas molecular classification system in esophagogastric cancer Journal Article


Authors: Walch, H. S.; Borpatragohain, R.; Jee, J.; Chatila, W.; Fong, C.; Maron, S. B.; Ku, G. Y.; Ilson, D. H.; Janjigian, Y. Y.; Wu, A. J.; Shah, P.; Coit, D. G.; Bains, M. S.; Rusch, V. W.; Park, B. J.; Bott, M. J.; Gray, K.; Jones, D. R.; Berger, M.; Schultz, N.; Strong, V. E.; Molena, D.; Sihag, S.
Article Title: Clinical implications of the cancer genome atlas molecular classification system in esophagogastric cancer
Abstract: Purpose: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project defined four distinct molecular subtypes of esophagogastric adenocarcinoma: microsatellite instable (MSI), Epstein–Barr virus (EBV)–associated, genomically stable (GS), and chromosomally instable (CIN). However, an association between molecular subtypes and clinical outcomes has not been clearly demonstrated. Given few actionable biomarkers, we investigated the clinical relevance of TCGA classification system. Experimental Design: We identified all patients with esophagogastric adenocarcinoma whose tumors underwent prospective next-generation sequencing using the Memorial Sloan Kettering–IMPACT assay from 2014 to 2023. We classified all tumors in accordance with TCGA methodology and correlated molecular subtypes with high-quality clinicopathologic data. Results: Among 1,438 included patients, 941 had CIN, 344 had GS, 103 had MSI, and 50 had EBV tumors. Accounting for the clinical stage and tumor grade, molecular classification was independently associated with overall cancer-specific survival (P < 0.001) on Cox multivariable analysis. Furthermore, genomic signatures, patient demographics, pathologic responses to neoadjuvant therapy, patterns of recurrence, and metastatic organotropism differed significantly by molecular subtype. Although most distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction tumors were CIN, up to 25% of these included GS, MSI, or EBV subtypes in contrast to TCGA. Random forest machine learning demonstrated that the molecular subtype is more influential in predicting response to treatment than tumor location. Conclusions: Molecular classification is independently prognostic and may warrant inclusion in future staging and treatment guidelines. Routine molecular profiling is clinically feasible and may play a role in the management of patients to help guide appropriate treatment selection and clinical trial enrollment in the place of tumor location. ©2025 American Association for Cancer Research.
Keywords: aged; middle aged; genetics; mortality; cancer staging; neoplasm staging; adenocarcinoma; classification; pathology; tumor marker; microsatellite instability; stomach neoplasms; therapy; epstein barr virus; esophagus tumor; esophageal neoplasms; stomach tumor; herpesvirus 4, human; high throughput sequencing; high-throughput nucleotide sequencing; humans; prognosis; human; male; female; biomarkers, tumor
Journal Title: Clinical Cancer Research
Volume: 31
Issue: 10
ISSN: 1078-0432
Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research  
Date Published: 2025-05-15
Start Page: 1912
End Page: 1921
Language: English
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-24-3473
PUBMED: 40299774
PROVIDER: scopus
DOI/URL:
Notes: The MSK Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748) is acknowledge in the PDF -- Corresponding authors is MSK author: Smita Sihag -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Valerie W Rusch
    864 Rusch
  2. Geoffrey Yuyat Ku
    230 Ku
  3. Yelena Yuriy Janjigian
    394 Janjigian
  4. Bernard J Park
    263 Park
  5. Abraham Jing-Ching Wu
    399 Wu
  6. Vivian Strong
    264 Strong
  7. Matthew Bott
    135 Bott
  8. Daniel Coit
    542 Coit
  9. David H Ilson
    433 Ilson
  10. Michael Forman Berger
    764 Berger
  11. Manjit S Bains
    338 Bains
  12. Nikolaus D Schultz
    486 Schultz
  13. Pari Mayank Shah
    47 Shah
  14. David Randolph Jones
    417 Jones
  15. Daniela   Molena
    270 Molena
  16. Smita Sihag
    96 Sihag
  17. Walid Khaled Chatila
    102 Chatila
  18. Christopher Joseph Fong
    42 Fong
  19. Steven Maron
    102 Maron
  20. Henry Stuart Walch
    100 Walch
  21. Katherine D. Gray
    24 Gray
  22. Justin Jee
    53 Jee