Binyam Yilma

Background: Despite advances in metastatic androgen pathway modulation-sensitive prostate cancer (mAPMS) treatment, outcomes remain heterogeneous. Achieving a post-treatment undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a strong prognostic marker. We aimed to identify genomic and transcriptomic determinants of PSA response in a real-world clinical-genomic cohort. Patients and Methods: Patients with mAPMS who underwent DNA (Tempus xT) and, in a subset, RNA (Tempus xR) sequencing were identified from the Tempus Lens database. Inclusion required stage IV disease within 90 days of sample collection and obtained within 12 months before or 3 months after treatment initiation. Patients with PSA at 6 months (n = 525) were classified as PSA-Low (95% PSA decline from baseline. Results: Baseline PSA was lower in PSA-Low versus PSA-High patients (24 vs 36 ng/mL, P = .01). SPOP (17% vs 11%) and ZFHX3 (2.5% vs 6%) alterations differed between groups, but neither persisted after adjustment. Using the relative definition, ZMYM3 and JAK1 alterations were independently associated with failure to achieve a deep PSA response. Expression of PSMA, TROP2, B7-H3, and STEAP1 did not differ between groups. PSA-Low status was independently associated with improved OS, as was deep relative response. Conclusion: Deep PSA response at 6 months correlates with improved OS in mAPMS. Integrating molecular markers with PSA response may inform treatment intensification or de-escalation strategies.

Assessing the prevalence of TP53 mutations based on histological subtypes

Summarized broad trends observed across cancer types

Assessing the Prevalence of TP53 Mutations Based on the Site of Tumor Sequenced

Fischer Exact T-test comparison between racial subgroups

Violin plots depicting somatic TMB

Background: The incidence of gastroesophageal cancer diagnosed at ages younger than 50 years is increasing. Assessment of the clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics of these cancers is limited currently. Methods: This analysis used Tempus’ clinicogenomic database to compare patients diagnosed with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 vs 50 years and older who completed tumor molecular profiling between December 2017 and July 2024. The spectrum of biomarkers, somatic alterations, and germline alterations were compared between those diagnosed with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years and those aged 50 years and older, and a multivariate analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with longer survival. Results: Among 5863 gastroesophageal cancer patients, 785 had gastroesophageal cancer diagnosed at ages younger than 50 years. There were more females (35% vs 25%, P < .001) and fewer White patients (69% vs 80%, P < .001) with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years. Fewer tumors of patients with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years had high tumor mutational burden (3.2% vs 10.2%, P < .001) or high microsatellite instability (1.7% vs 5.1%, P < .001), but there was no difference in PD-L1 positivity (49% vs 51%, P = .3). Higher incidence of somatic CDH1 mutations was seen in those with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years (16.1% vs 6.6%, q < 0.001) with lower incidence of TP53 (65.6% vs 74.1%), CDKN2A (12.5% vs 19.8%), and KRAS (11.7% vs 18.3%, P < .001 for all) alterations. The most statistically significant germline difference was higher incidence of CDH1 (2.2% vs 0.3%, q = 0.001) and TP53 (0.6% vs 0%, q = 0.039) alterations among those with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years. Median survival for patients with metastatic disease was longer for gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years (11 vs 8.5 months, P = .002), and gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years, ERBB2 amplification, and high microsatellite instability were associated with superior survival. Conclusions: Unique molecular and germline profiles were seen in patients with gastroesophageal cancer at ages younger than 50 years, which may suggest differences in causal factors yet undiscovered.

Background: The association of germline pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (GPVs) in hereditary breast cancer genes with underlying tumor biology and clinical outcomes remains incompletely understood. This study characterized differences in somatic alterations and intrinsic subtypes between sporadic and hereditary breast cancers associated with GPVs in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included women with breast cancer and an ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2 GPV who had undergone tumor sequencing and whole transcriptome RNA expression analysis. Clinicopathological features, intrinsic subtypes, somatic alterations, and survival were compared by GPV status and immunohistochemistry-defined subtype and to sporadic cases. All statistical significance tests were 2-sided. Results: The 4988 women with breast cancer in this study included 98 BRCA1, 126 BRCA2, 74 PALB2, 54 ATM, and 83 CHEK2 GPVs. Compared with sporadic cases, hormone receptor–positive/(ERBB2) formerly HER2–negative tumors in BRCA1 GPVs were statistically significantly enriched for basal subtype (45.5% vs 11.4%; P < .001), while CHEK2 carriers had a higher prevalence of luminal A subtype (80.4% vs 60.3%; P = .006). In hormone receptor–positive/(ERBB2)-negative breast cancers, BRCA1 GPVs were enriched for TP53 alterations (84.6% vs 29.8%; q < 0.001), ATM GPVs with FGFR1 alterations (35.4% vs 12.7%; q = 0.04), and BRCA2 GPVs with APC alterations (10.1% vs 1.5%; q = 0.004). Conversely, BRCA2 GPVs were inversely associated with PIK3CA alterations (13.0% vs 34.1%; q = 0.005) and CHEK2 GPVs with TP53 alterations (8.0% vs 29.8%; q = 0.02). Conclusions: The GPVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 are associated with distinct intrinsic breast cancer subtypes and somatic genomic alterations. These findings may enhance precision in risk stratification and guide personalized treatment strategies.