Table 2.
Incidence of CD Genes with Hotspots
| Gene ID | Number of cancer types where the gene is among top 20 mutated and represents > 1% of cancers | COSMIC mutated gene incidence across the 10 deadliest cancers (percent)a | Mutated gene incidence based on ACB‐PCR measured mutant subpopulations (percent)b |
|---|---|---|---|
| TP53 | 10 | 13.58 | |
| KRAS | 5 | 11.77 |
Breast: 13.33 Colon: 63.63 Lung: 90.90 Thyroid: 47.06 |
| PIK3CA | 4 | 4.56 |
Breast: 48.88 Colon: 45.00 Lung: 41.67 Thyroid: 45.00 |
| RET | 1 | 3.67 | |
| BCL2 | 1 | 2.47 | |
| CTNNB1 | 2 | 2.14 | |
| PBRM1 | 1 | 1.95 | |
| APC | 1 | 1.42 | |
| MYD88 | 1 | 1.32 | |
| NRAS | 1 | 1.24 | |
| MAP2K2 | 1 | 1.19 | |
| DNMT3A | 1 | 1.09 | |
| BRAF | 1 | 0.97 | Breast: 78.89 |
| ATM | 1 | 0.90 | |
| SOCS1 | 1 | 0.88 | |
| IDH2 | 1 | 0.87 | |
| CD79B | 1 | 0.80 | |
| SRSF2 | 1 | 0.80 | |
| KIT | 1 | 0.70 | |
| STAT6 | 1 | 0.65 | |
| GNAS | 1 | 0.62 | |
| DNM2 | 1 | 0.57 | |
| ESR1 | 1 | 0.57 | |
| EZH2 | 1 | 0.57 | |
| AR | 1 | 0.48 | |
| SPOP | 1 | 0.47 | |
| EGFR | 1 | 0.43 | |
| CREBBP | 1 | 0.40 | |
| SMAD4 | 2 | 0.36 | |
| FBXW7 | 1 | 0.33 | |
| ZNF521 | 1 | 0.30 | |
| B2M | 1 | 0.29 | |
| AKT1 | 1 | 0.24 | |
| BTG1 | 1 | 0.21 | |
| RBM10 | 1 | 0.21 | |
| FLT3 | 1 | 0.19 | |
| TGFBR2 | 1 | 0.19 | |
| IDH1 | 1 | 0.16 | |
| RHOA | 1 | 0.15 | |
| ERBB2 | 1 | 0.14 |
For each gene, the total incidence of hotspot mutations (percentage of total cancers mutated, see Table S3) was added for the 10 cancer types, then the total incidence was divided by 10, to express hCDM representation as a percentage of the 10 deadliest cancers.
Percentages of cancers with MFs greater than the upper 95th confidence level of that present in normal tissue is provided. For KRAS, the values indicate percentages of tumors with KRAS G12D, G12V, or both. For PIK3CA, the values indicate percentages of tumors with PIK3CA H1047R, E545K, or both. For BRAF, the values indicate percentages of tumors with BRAF V600E presented from previously published ACB‐PCR analyses, along with the cancer types analyzed (Myers et al. 2016; Parsons et al. 2017).