We performed an integrated genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic characterization of 373 endometrial carcinomas using array- and sequencing-based technologies. Uterine serous tumours and ∼25% of high-grade endometrioid tumours had extensive copy number alterations, few DNA methylation changes, low oestrogen receptor/progesterone receptor levels, and frequent TP53 mutations. Most endometrioid tumours had few copy number alterations or TP53 mutations, but frequent mutations in PTEN, CTNNB1, PIK3CA, ARID1A and KRAS and novel mutations in the SWI/SNF chromatin remodelling complex gene ARID5B. A subset of endometrioid tumours that we identified had a markedly increased transversion mutation frequency and newly identified hotspot mutations in POLE. Our results classified endometrial cancers into four categories: POLE ultramutated, microsatellite instability hypermutated, copy-number low, and copy-number high. Uterine serous carcinomas share genomic features with ovarian serous and basal-like breast carcinomas. We demonstrated that the genomic features of endometrial carcinomas permit a reclassification that may affect post-surgical adjuvant treatment for women with aggressive tumours.

Cancer cell lines are frequently used as in vitro tumour models. Recent molecular profiles of hundreds of cell lines from The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia and thousands of tumour samples from the Cancer Genome Atlas now allow a systematic genomic comparison of cell lines and tumours. Here we analyse a panel of 47 ovarian cancer cell lines and identify those that have the highest genetic similarity to ovarian tumours. Our comparison of copy-number changes, mutations and mRNA expression profiles reveals pronounced differences in molecular profiles between commonly used ovarian cancer cell lines and high-grade serous ovarian cancer tumour samples. We identify several rarely used cell lines that more closely resemble cognate tumour profiles than commonly used cell lines, and we propose these lines as the most suitable models of ovarian cancer. Our results indicate that the gap between cell lines and tumours can be bridged by genomically informed choices of cell line models for all tumour types.

We analyzed molecular data on 2,579 tumors from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) of four gynecological types plus breast. Our aims were to identify shared and unique molecular features, clinically significant subtypes, and potential therapeutic targets. We found 61 somatic copy-number alterations (SCNAs) and 46 significantly mutated genes (SMGs). Eleven SCNAs and 11 SMGs had not been identified in previous TCGA studies of the individual tumor types. We found functionally significant estrogen receptor-regulated long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) and gene/lncRNA interaction networks. Pathway analysis identified subtypes with high leukocyte infiltration, raising potential implications for immunotherapy. Using 16 key molecular features, we identified five prognostic subtypes and developed a decision tree that classified patients into the subtypes based on just six features that are assessable in clinical laboratories.

Despite the existence of morphologically indistinguishable disease, patients with advanced ovarian tumors display a broad range of survival end points. We hypothesize that gene expression profiling can identify a prognostic signature accounting for these distinct clinical outcomes. To resolve survival-associated loci, gene expression profiling was completed for an extensive set of 185 (90 optimal/95 suboptimal) primary ovarian tumors using the Affymetrix human U133A microarray. Cox regression analysis identified probe sets associated with survival in optimally and suboptimally debulked tumor sets at a P value of <0.01. Leave-one-out cross-validation was applied to each tumor cohort and confirmed by a permutation test. External validation was conducted by applying the gene signature to a publicly available array database of expression profiles of advanced stage suboptimally debulked tumors. The prognostic signature successfully classified the tumors according to survival for suboptimally (P = 0.0179) but not optimally debulked (P = 0.144) patients. The suboptimal gene signature was validated using the independent set of tumors (odds ratio, 8.75; P = 0.0146). To elucidate signaling events amenable to therapeutic intervention in suboptimally debulked patients, pathway analysis was completed for the top 57 survival-associated probe sets. For suboptimally debulked patients, confirmation of the predictive gene signature supports the existence of a clinically relevant predictor, as well as the possibility of novel therapeutic opportunities. Ultimately, the prognostic classifier defined for suboptimally debulked tumors may aid in the classification and enhancement of patient outcome for this high-risk population. [Cancer Res 2008;68(13):5478–86]