Human solid malignancies harbour a heterogeneous set of cells with distinct genotypes and phenotypes. This heterogeneity is installed at multiple levels. A biological diversity is commonly observed between tumours from different patients (inter-tumour heterogeneity) and cannot be fully captured by the current consensus molecular classifications for specific cancers. To extend the complexity in cancer, there are substantial differences from cell to cell within an individual tumour (intra-tumour heterogeneity, ITH) and the features of cancer cells evolve in space and time. Currently, treatment-decision making usually relies on the molecular characteristics of a limited tumour tissue sample at the time of diagnosis or disease progression but does not take into account the complexity of the bulk tumours and their constant evolution over time. In this review, we explore the extent of tumour heterogeneity with an emphasis on ITH and report the mechanisms that promote and sustain this diversity in cancers. We summarise the clinical strikes of ITH in the management of patients with cancer. Finally, we discuss the current material and technological approaches that are relevant to adequately appreciate ITH.

Fluoropyrimidines (FU) are still the most prescribed anticancer drugs for the treatment of solid cancers. However, fluoropyrimidines cause severe toxicities in 10 to 40% of patients and toxic deaths in 0.2 to 0.8% of patients, resulting in a real public health problem. The main origin of FU-related toxicities is a deficiency of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the rate-limiting enzyme of 5-FU catabolism. DPD deficiency may be identified through pharmacogenetics testing including phenotyping (direct or indirect measurement of enzyme activity) or genotyping (detection of inactivating polymorphisms on the DPYD gene). Approximately 3 to 15% of patients exhibit a partial deficiency and 0.1 to 0.5% a complete DPD deficiency. Currently, there is no regulatory obligation for DPD deficiency screening in patients scheduled to receive a fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. Based on the levels of evidence from the literature data and considering current French practices, the Group of Clinical Pharmacology in Oncology (GPCO)-UNICANCER and the French Network of Pharmacogenetics (RNPGx) recommend the following: (1) to screen DPD deficiency before initiating any chemotherapy containing 5-FU or capecitabine; (2) to perform DPD phenotyping by measuring plasma uracil (U) concentrations (possibly associated with dihydrouracil/U ratio), and DPYD genotyping (variants *2A, *13, p.D949V, HapB3); (3) to reduce the initial FU dose (first cycle) according to DPD status, if needed, and further, to consider increasing the dose at subsequent cycles according to treatment tolerance. In France, 17 public laboratories currently undertake routine screening of DPD deficiency.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death worldwide. PDAC is an aggressive disease with an 11-month median overall survival and a five-year survival of less than 5%. Incidence of PDAC is constantly increasing and is predicted to become the second leading cause of cancer in Western countries within a decade. Despite research and therapeutic development, current knowledge about PDAC molecular mechanisms still needs improvements and it seems crucial to identify novel therapeutic targets. Genomic analyses of PDAC revealed that transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) signaling pathways are modified and the SMAD4 gene is altered in 47% and 60% of cases, respectively, highlighting their major roles in PDAC development. TGFβ can play a dual role in malignancy depending on the context, sometimes as an inhibitor and sometimes as an inducer of tumor progression. TGFβ signaling was identified as a potent inducer of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), a process that confers migratory and invasive properties to epithelial cells during cancer. Therefore, aberrant TGFβ signaling and EMT are linked to promoting PDAC aggressiveness. TGFβ and SMAD pathways were extensively studied but the mechanisms leading to cancer promotion and development still remain unclear. This review aims to describe the complex role of SMAD4 in the TGFβ pathway in patients with PDAC.

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a molecular scar resulting from a defective mismatch repair system (dMMR) and associated with various malignancies. MSI tumours are characterized by the accumulation of mutations throughout the genome and particularly clustered in highly repetitive microsatellite (MS) regions. MSI/dMMR status is routinely assessed in solid tumours for the initial screening of Lynch syndrome, the evaluation of cancer prognosis, and treatment decision-making. Currently, pentaplex PCR-based methods and MMR immunohistochemistry on tumour tissue samples are the standard diagnostic methods for MSI/dMMR. Other tissue methods such as next-generation sequencing or real-time PCR-based systems have emerged and represent viable alternatives to standard MSI testing in specific settings. The evolution of the standard molecular techniques has offered the opportunity to extend MSI determination to liquid biopsy based on the analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma. This review aims at synthetizing the standard and emerging techniques used on tumour tissue samples for MSI/dMMR determination. We also provide insights into the MSI molecular techniques compatible with liquid biopsy and the potential clinical consequences for patients with solid cancers.

Purpose: Use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for diagnosis is limited regarding the low number of target molecules in early-stage tumors. Human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated carcinomas represent a privileged model using circulating viral DNA (ctHPV DNA) as a tumor marker. However, the plurality of HPV genotypes represents a challenge. The next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based CaptHPV approach is able to characterize any HPV DNA sequence. To assess the ability of this method to establish the diagnosis of HPV-associated cancer via a blood sample, we analyzed ctHPV DNA in HPV-positive or HPV-negative carcinomas. Experimental Design: Patients (135) from France and Senegal with carcinoma developed in the uterine cervix (74), oropharynx (25), oral cavity (19), anus (12), and vulva (5) were prospectively registered. Matched tumor tissue and blood samples (10 mL) were taken before treatment and independently analyzed using the CaptHPV method. Results: HPV prevalence in tumors was 60.0% (81/135; 15 different genotypes). Viral analysis of plasmas compared with tumors was available for 134 patients. In the group of 80 patients with HPV-positive tumors, 77 were also positive in plasma (sensitivity 95.0%); in the group of 54 patients with HPV-negative tumors, one was positive in plasma (specificity 98.1%). In most cases, the complete HPV pattern observed in tumors could be established from the analysis of ctHPV DNA. Conclusions: In patients with carcinoma associated with any HPV genotype, a complete viral genome characterization can be obtained via the analysis of a standard blood sample. This should favor the development of noninvasive diagnostic tests providing the identification of personalized tumor markers. See related commentary by Rostami et al., p. 5158

Damage-specific DNA-binding protein 2 (DDB2) was originally identified as a DNA damage recognition factor that facilitates global genomic nucleotide excision repair (GG-NER) in human cells. DDB2 also contributes to other essential biological processes such as chromatin remodeling, gene transcription, cell cycle regulation, and protein decay. Recently, the potential of DDB2 in the development and progression of various cancers has been described. DDB2 activity occurs at several stages of carcinogenesis including cancer cell proliferation, survival, epithelial to mesenchymal transition, migration and invasion, angiogenesis, and cancer stem cell formation. In this review, we focus on the current state of scientific knowledge regarding DDB2 biological effects in tumor development and the underlying molecular mechanisms. We also provide insights into the clinical consequences of DDB2 activity in cancers.