PO.CL09.01 · 临床研究
ALK融合断点与亚型的图谱:DNA-NGS与RNA-NGS的比较分析
Landscape of ALK fusion breakpoints and subtypes: A comparative analysis of DNA-NGS versus RNA-NGSs
作者与单位 Authors & Affiliations
摘要 Abstract
中文摘要
背景:ALK融合是各种实体瘤中重要的治疗性生物标志物,越来越多的证据表明,融合断点、异构体和融合方向会影响对ALK酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(TKI)的反应。非典型或互反融合以及罕见断点可能产生无功能转录本并导致较差的结局。因此,理解基于DNA和基于RNA的二代测序(NGS)所检测到的ALK融合谱之间的差异,对于优化分子检测和指导靶向治疗至关重要。
方法:共分析了34,085例实体瘤患者,其中15,957例采用DNA-NGS检测,18,128例采用RNA-NGS检测。比较了DNA和RNA测序方法之间的ALK融合阳性率、融合方向和亚型特征。
结果:DNA-NGS鉴定出358例ALK阳性患者,携带547个融合,而RNA-NGS鉴定出469例患者,携带482个融合。RNA-NGS的阳性率显著高于DNA-NGS(2.6% vs. 2.2%,p = 0.043)。两种方法在融合多重性方面差异显著:57.5%的DNA阳性患者携带多个融合,包括一例携带八个伙伴基因的患者,而只有2.5%的RNA阳性患者表现出多个事件。此外,27例DNA-NGS病例仅携带非典型互反或非互反融合,提示可能存在无功能变异,从而使治疗解读复杂化。融合方向和伙伴基因多样性也存在显著差异。所有RNA检测到的融合均为典型的5′→3′事件,涉及11个伙伴基因;EML4占97%,其次是KLC1、DCTN1和KIF5B(各<1%)。相反,DNA-NGS队列包括3.8%的3′→3′融合、5.6%的5′→5′融合,而在5′→3′事件中,只有70%为典型正向融合。DNA组共鉴定出38个伙伴基因,其中EML4仍最为常见(85.5%),其次是KIF5B(2.0%)和STRN(1.2%)。两种检测方式之间仅有五个融合伙伴基因重叠。DNA-NGS的断点多样性更大(21种断点类型 vs. RNA-NGS的17种)。尽管EML4-ALK异构体分布相似(p = 0.55),但DNA-NGS鉴定出更多非典型短变异断点(3.1% vs. 2.1%),这些断点与较低的蛋白表达和较差的TKI反应相关。
结论:RNA-NGS实现了更高的检出率和更清晰、更具生物学意义的ALK融合谱,多伙伴或非典型事件更少,且以功能性融合异构体为主。DNA-NGS经常鉴定出复杂或潜在无功能的结构,可能误导治疗决策。这些发现提示RNA-NGS能更准确地反映转录活性的ALK驱动因素,可能更适合指导ALK靶向治疗。
查看英文原文 English abstract
Background: ALK fusions are important therapeutic biomarkers across solid tumors, and accumulating evidence shows that fusion breakpoints, isoforms, and fusion orientations influence response to ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Non-canonical or reciprocal fusions and rare breakpoints may yield nonfunctional transcripts and lead to inferior outcomes. Understanding the differences in ALK fusion profiles detected by DNA-based and RNA-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) is therefore critical for optimizing molecular testing and guiding targeted therapy.
Methods: A total of 34,085 solid tumor patients were analyzed, including 15,957 tested by DNA-NGS and 18,128 by RNA-NGS. ALK fusion positivity, fusion orientations, and characteristics of subtypes were compared between DNA- and RNA-based sequencing approaches.
Results: DNA-NGS identified 358 ALK-positive patients carrying 547 fusions, while RNA-NGS identified 469 patients with 482 fusions. RNA-NGS showed a significantly higher positivity rate than DNA-NGS (2.6% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.043). The two approaches differed markedly in fusion multiplicity: 57.5% of DNA-positive patients harbored multiple fusions, including one patient with eight partners, whereas only 2.5% of RNA-positive patients showed multiple events. Additionally, 27 DNA-NGS cases carried exclusively non-canonical reciprocal or non-reciprocal fusions, suggesting potential nonfunctional variants that complicate therapeutic interpretation.Fusion orientation and partner diversity also varied substantially. All RNA-detected fusions were canonical 5′→3′ events, involving 11 partner genes; EML4 accounted for 97%, followed by KLC1, DCTN1, and KIF5B (each <1%). Conversely, the DNA-NGS cohort included 3.8% 3'→3' fusions, 5.6% 5'→5' fusions, and among the 5'→3' events, only 70% represented canonical forward fusions. In total, 38 partner genes were identified in the DNA group, with EML4 remaining most prevalent (85.5%), followed by KIF5B (2.0%) and STRN (1.2%). Only five fusion partners overlapped between the two detection modalities.Breakpoint diversity was greater in DNA-NGS (21 breakpoint types vs. 17 in RNA-NGS). Although EML4-ALK isoform distributions were similar ( p = 0.55), DNA-NGS identified more atypical short-variant breakpoints (3.1% vs. 2.1%), which are associated with lower protein expression and poorer TKI response.
Conclusions: RNA-NGS achieved a higher detection rate and a cleaner, more biologically meaningful ALK fusion profile, with fewer multi-partner or non-canonical events and predominately functional fusion isoforms. DNA-NGS frequently identified complex or potentially nonfunctional structures that may mislead therapeutic decisions. These findings suggest that RNA-NGS provides a more accurate representation of transcriptionally active ALK drivers and may be better suited to guide ALK-targeted therapy.
利益披露 Disclosure
Y. Li, None..
Y. Chen, None..
Y. Cui, None.