PO.CL01.01 · 临床研究
DNA水平的复杂融合与RNA表达高度不一致:一项115例中国病例的验证研究
DNA-level complex fusions show high discordance with RNA expression: A validation study of 115 Chinese cases
作者与单位 Authors & Affiliations
摘要 Abstract
中文摘要
背景:
通过基于DNA的下一代测序(DNA-NGS)鉴定的基因融合在指导实体瘤靶向治疗中发挥关键作用。然而,由于开放阅读框被破坏、转录方向相反或缺乏启动子元件,复杂的融合结构可能并不总能转录为功能性的嵌合RNA或蛋白质。此类差异可能导致DNA-NGS的假阳性发现及随后的不当治疗决策。
方法:
我们使用同步的基于DNA和RNA的NGS(DR-NGS)对115例来自中国人群、经DNA-NGS鉴定出复杂融合的肿瘤样本进行验证分析。7例病理质控不合格的样本被排除。
结果:
肺癌占115例样本的大多数(89例,77.4%)。复杂融合模式包括5′-5′融合、3′-3′融合、原发/互反融合、非经典断裂点或伴侣、多个融合驱动因子共存、UTR区融合和基因间融合。所涉及的基因包括ALK(32)、ROS1(10)、NTRK(6)、EGFR(9)、RET(28)、HER2/3(2)、MET(4)、FGFR1-4(15)、NRG1(1)、BRAF(4)以及多个共存融合基因(3)。
在108例成功检测的病例中,45例经DR-NGS检测未显示融合,但在57.78%的病例中揭示了其他驱动突变,包括EGFR(22,48.89%)、FGFR2(1)、BRAF(1)和KRAS(2)。在其余63例中,DR-NGS检测证实了融合的存在,仅有一例显示共存EGFR突变(1.59%,p<0.001)。其中,55例在转录剪接后于RNA水平呈现经典单一融合,而8例在DNA水平具有罕见融合伴侣的病例经DR-NGS检测验证为真实伴侣。
RNA融合阳性组和阴性组的男女比分别为21:42和23:22(p=0.064),年龄分布(≥65岁 vs. <65岁)分别为9:54和20:25(p<0.001)。
结论:
本研究揭示了DNA水平复杂融合与其RNA表达之间存在显著的不一致。近半数DNA鉴定的复杂融合未被转录,其中许多反而携带其他驱动突变——最常见的是EGFR。相比之下,经RNA验证的融合主要表现为经典的单一转录本,罕见与其他驱动基因突变共存。RNA融合状态还与患者年龄显著相关。这些发现强调了对DNA检测的复杂融合进行RNA确认的必要性,尤其是那些与其他驱动基因突变共存的融合,以防止假阳性解读并优化靶向治疗选择。
查看英文原文 English abstract
Background:
Gene fusions identified by DNA-based next-generation sequencing (DNA-NGS) play a crucial role in guiding targeted therapy for solid tumors. However, complex fusion structures may not always transcribe into functional chimeric RNAs or proteins, due to disrupted open reading frames, opposing transcriptional directions, or absence of promoter elements. Such discrepancies can lead to false-positive DNA-NGS findings and subsequent inappropriate treatment decisions.
Methods:
We analyzed 115 tumor samples from the Chinese population with DNA-NGS-identified complex fusions using simultaneous DNA and RNA-based NGS (DR-NGS) for validation. Seven samples with inadequate pathology quality control were excluded.
Results:
Lung cancer accounted for the majority of the 115 samples (89, 77.4%). Complex fusion patterns included 5′-5′ fusions, 3′-3′ fusions, primary/reciprocal fusions, non-canonical breakpoints or partners, co-occurrence of multiple fusion drivers, UTR-region fusions, and intergenic fusions. The involved genes were ALK (32), ROS1 (10), NTRK (6), EGFR (9), RET (28), HER2/3 (2), MET (4), FGFR1-4 (15), NRG1 (1), BRAF (4), and multiple co-existing fusion genes (3).
Among the 108 successfully tested cases, 45 showed no fusions by DR-NGS testing but revealed other driver mutations in 57.78% of cases, including EGFR (22, 48.89%), FGFR2 (1), BRAF (1), and KRAS (2). In the remaining 63 cases, DR-NGS testing confirmed the presence of fusions, with only one case showing a co-existing EGFR mutation (1.59%, p < 0.001). Among these, 55 exhibited classic single fusions at the RNA level after transcriptional splicing, while 8 cases with rare fusion partners in DNA-level were validated as true partners by DR-NGS testing.
RNA fusion-positive and -negative groups showed male-to-female ratios of 21:42 and 23:22 (p = 0.064), and age distributions (≥65 vs. <65 years) of 9:54 and 20:25 (p < 0.001), respectively.
Conclusion:
This study reveals a substantial discordance between DNA-level complex fusions and their RNA expression. Nearly half of the DNA-identified complex fusions were not transcribed, with many instead harboring other driver mutations-most commonly EGFR. By contrast, RNA-verified fusions predominantly presented as classic single transcripts, with rare co-occurrence of other driver mutations. RNA fusion status was also significantly associated with patient age. These findings underscore the necessity of RNA-based confirmation for DNA-detected complex fusions, especially those coexisting with other driver gene mutations, to prevent false-positive interpretations and to optimize targeted therapy selection.
利益披露 Disclosure
X. Wang, None..
L. Zhang, None..
X. Li, None..
H. Jiang, None..
J. Zhao, None..
R. Jiang, None.