Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale^1–3. Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4–5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter⁴; identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation^5,6; analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution⁷; describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity^8,9; and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes^8,10–18.

This review aims to outline the most up-to-date knowledge of pancreatic adenocarcinoma risk, diagnostics, treatment and outcomes, while identifying gaps that aim to stimulate further research in this understudied malignancy. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a lethal condition with a rising incidence, predicted to become the second leading cause of cancer death in some regions. It often presents at an advanced stage, which contributes to poor five-year survival rates of 2%-9%, ranking firmly last amongst all cancer sites in terms of prognostic outcomes for patients. Better understanding of the risk factors and symptoms associated with this disease is essential to inform both health professionals and the general population of potential preventive and/or early detection measures. The identification of high-risk patients who could benefit from screening to detect pre-malignant conditions such as pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms is urgently required, however an acceptable screening test has yet to be identified. The management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is evolving, with the introduction of new surgical techniques and medical therapies such as laparoscopic techniques and neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, however this has only led to modest improvements in outcomes. The identification of novel biomarkers is desirable to move towards a precision medicine era, where pancreatic cancer therapy can be tailored to the individual patient, while unnecessary treatments that have negative consequences on quality of life could be prevented for others. Research efforts must also focus on the development of new agents and delivery systems. Overall, considerable progress is required to reduce the burden associated with pancreatic cancer. Recent, renewed efforts to fund large consortia and research into pancreatic adenocarcinoma are welcomed, but further streams will be necessary to facilitate the momentum needed to bring breakthroughs seen for other cancer sites.

PURPOSE: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has developed a guideline on testing for mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) for patients considered for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The CAP guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Endorsement Panel subsequently reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS: The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the CAP guideline, published on August 3, 2022, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorses Mismatch Repair and Microsatellite Instability Testing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists in Collaboration With the Association for Molecular Pathology and Fight Colorectal Cancer. RECOMMENDATIONS: Within the guideline, MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), MSI polymerase chain reaction, and MSI next-generation sequencing are all recommended testing options for colorectal cancer, MMR-IHC and MSI-polymerase chain reaction for gastroesophageal and small bowel cancer, and only MMR-IHC for endometrial cancer. No recommendation in favor of any testing method over another could be made for any other cancer. Tumor mutational burden was not recommended as a surrogate for DNA MMR deficiency. If MMR deficiency consistent with Lynch syndrome is detected, it should be communicated to the treating physician. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines .

This multicentre cohort study sought to define a robust pathological indicator of clinically meaningful response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. A questionnaire was distributed to 11 UK upper gastrointestinal cancer centres to determine the use of assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Records of consecutive patients undergoing oesophagogastric resection at seven centres between January 2000 and December 2013 were reviewed. Pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was assessed using the Mandard Tumour Regression Grade (TRG) and lymph node downstaging. TRG (8 of 11 centres) was the most widely used system to assess response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but there was discordance on how it was used in practice. Of 1392 patients, 1293 had TRG assessment; data were available for clinical and pathological nodal status (cN and pN) in 981 patients, and TRG, cN and pN in 885. There was a significant difference in survival between responders (TRG 1–2; median overall survival (OS) not reached) and non-responders (TRG 3–5; median OS 2·22 (95 per cent c.i. 1·94 to 2·51) years; P < 0·001); the hazard ratio was 2·46 (95 per cent c.i. 1·22 to 4·95; P = 0·012). Among local non-responders, the presence of lymph node downstaging was associated with significantly improved OS compared with that of patients without lymph node downstaging (median OS not reached versus 1·92 (1·68 to 2·16) years; P < 0·001). A clinically meaningful local response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was restricted to the small minority of patients (14·8 per cent) with TRG 1–2. Among local non-responders, a subset of patients (21·3 per cent) derived benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy by lymph node downstaging and their survival mirrored that of local responders.

The discovery of underlying mechanisms of drug resistance, and the development of novel agents to target these pathways, is a priority for patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). We previously undertook a systems biology approach to design a functional genomic screen and identified fibroblast growth factor receptor 4 (FGFR4) as a potential mediator of drug resistance. The aim of this study was to examine the role of FGFR4 in drug resistance using RNAi and the small-molecule inhibitor BGJ398 (Novartis). We found that FGFR4 is highly expressed at the RNA and protein levels in colon cancer tumour tissue compared with normal colonic mucosa and other tumours. Silencing of FGFR4 reduced cell viability in a panel of colon cancer cell lines and increased caspase-dependent apoptosis. A synergistic interaction was also observed between FGFR4 silencing and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and oxaliplatin chemotherapy in colon cancer cell lines. Mechanistically, FGFR4 silencing decreased activity of the pro-survival STAT3 transcription factor and expression of the anti-apoptotic protein c-FLIP. Furthermore, silencing of STAT3 resulted in downregulation of c-FLIP protein expression, suggesting that FGFR4 may regulate c-FLIP expression via STAT3. A similar phenotype and downstream pathway changes were observed following FGFR4 silencing in cell lines resistant to 5-FU, oxaliplatin and SN38 and upon exposure of parental cells to the FGFR small-molecule inhibitor BGJ398. Our results indicate that FGFR4 is a targetable regulator of chemo-resistance in CRC, and hence inhibiting FGFR4 in combination with 5-FU and oxaliplatin is a potential therapeutic strategy for this disease.