Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jun 16;15(6):e0234505. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234505

Comparative genomics of high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix

R Tyler Hillman 1,2, Robert Cardnell 3, Junya Fujimoto 4, Won-Chul Lee 2,3, Jianjun Zhang 2,3, Lauren A Byers 2, Preetha Ramalingam 4, Mario Leitao 5, Elizabeth Swisher 6, P Andrew Futreal 2, Michael Frumovitz 1,*
Editor: Hari K Koul7
PMCID: PMC7297329  PMID: 32544169

Abstract

In order to improve treatment selection for high grade neuroendocrine carcinomas of the cervix (NECC), we performed a comparative genomic analysis between this rare tumor type and other cervical cancer types, as well as extra-cervical neuroendocrine small cell carcinomas of the lung and bladder. We performed whole exome sequencing on fresh-frozen tissue from 15 NECCs and matched normal tissue. We then identified mutations and copy number variants using standard analysis pipelines. Published mutation tables from cervical cancers and extra-cervical small cell carcinomas were used for comparative analysis. Descriptive statistical methods were used and a two-sided threshold of P < .05 was used for significance. In the NECC cohort, we detected a median of 1.7 somatic mutations per megabase (range 1.0–20.9). PIK3CA p.E545K mutations were the most frequency observed oncogenic mutation (4/15 tumors, 27%). Activating MAPK pathway mutations in KRAS (p.G12D) and GNAS (p.R201C) co-occurred in two tumors (13%). In total we identified PI3-kinase or MAPK pathway activating mutations in 67% of NECC. When compared to NECC, lung and bladder small cell carcinomas exhibited a statistically significant higher rate of coding mutations (P < .001 for lung; P = .001 for bladder). Mutation of TP53 was uncommon in NECC (13%) and was more frequent in both lung (103 of 110 tumors [94%], P < .001) and bladder (18 of 19 tumors [95%], P < .001) small cell carcinoma. These comparative genomics data suggest that NECC may be genetically more similar to common cervical cancer subtypes than to extra-cervical small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the lung and bladder. These results may have implications for the selection of cytotoxic and targeted therapy regimens for this rare disease.

Introduction

High grade neuroendocrine cervical carcinoma (NECC) is a rare malignancy accounting for less than 1% of cervical cancers. The more common cervical cancer types including squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix (SCC), endocervical adenocarcinoma (ACC) and adenosquamous carcinoma typically spread in a predictable fashion by direct extension into adjacent pelvic structures. In contrast, NECC often exhibits early lymphatic or hematogenous spread, leading to high rates of distant metastases detected at the time of diagnosis. As a result of its aggressive clinical behavior, epidemiologic studies have shown significantly worse overall survival for patients with NECC compared to stage-matched patients with other types of cervical cancer [1,2].

The treatment of NECC has been influenced by current practices in the management of the more common cervical cancer histologies, as well as by treatment approaches to pulmonary small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas [3,4]. Small cell neuroendocrine malignancies can arise at many anatomic sites, including small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the lung (SCLC) and bladder (SCCB). These extra-cervical small cell carcinomas share features with NECC including small cell diameter, high nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio, and frequent necrosis. For the treatment of SCLC a combination of cisplatin and etoposide (EP) has emerged as the chemotherapy regimen of choice based on prospective randomized trials demonstrating a superior toxicity profile when compared to older regimens [57]. Although EP is frequently used for NECC, it is not known if this regimen is superior to alternative platinum-based regimens used in the treatment of advanced cervical cancer of other histologic subtypes [4].

The limited NECC genomic data available to date suggest a heterogeneous molecular pathogenesis variably shaped by activating PI3-kinase or MAPK pathway mutations [810]. A previous report by our group described mutations detected among 44 NECCs using a targeted ~50-gene next-generation sequencing panel. In this study PIK3CA was identified as the most frequently mutated gene in NECC (18%), followed by KRAS (14%) and TP53 (11%) [8]. A subsequent independent investigation of 10 NECC tumors also found frequent PIK3CA, TP53, and MAPK pathway mutations in NECC using cancer gene panel sequencing [9]. The only group to apply whole exome sequencing (WES) to NECC analyzed five matched formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples, identifying recurrent ATRX and ERBB4 mutations [10]. Of the reported ATRX mutations, only one (p.R250X) was predicted to result in loss-of-function, and thus the frequency of ATRX inactivation as a driver event in NECC remains an open question. Notably, no PI3-kinase or MAPK pathway mutations were identified in the five tumors analyzed in that study.

No formal comparative genomic analysis of NECC to other cervical cancer subtypes or to small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas from extra-cervical sites has been reported to date and it remains unknown to what extent these tumors resemble extra-cervical small cell malignancies at a genetic level. Through an ongoing multi-institutional collaboration, we performed WES on cryopreserved tumor tissue and matched normal tissue from a cohort of histologically confirmed NECC tumors. In addition to describing the mutational landscape of this rare tumor type, we also performed a comparative genetic analysis between NECC, SCLC, SCCB, and non-NECC cervical carcinomas with a goal of identifying underlying similarities that may guide the selection of chemotherapy or targeted therapies in the treatment of NECC.

Methods

Patients and samples

Tissue samples analyzed in this study were obtained from tissue banks at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, the University of Washington Medical Center, and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Written informed consent for tissue banking and analysis was provided by patients at the appropriate institution, and sequencing was performed at the Cancer Genomics Laboratory at MDACC. This study was approved by the institutional review board at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (protocols PA16-0891 and LAB02-188). Cryopreserved tumor tissue samples and matched cryopreserved normal tissue or peripheral blood samples were obtained. For DNA isolation from tumors, samples were cryosectioned and two adjacent sections underwent H&E staining. These adjacent sections were reviewed by a pathologist (J.F.) to confirm the histopathologic diagnosis and assess tumor cell content. Only tumor samples with an estimated tumor cell content ≥20% in at least one adjacent section without significant necrosis were analyzed. Clinical data was obtained from the medical record.

Whole exome sequencing

Whole exome sequencing was performed as has been previously described [11]. Briefly, DNA was submitted for 76 bp short-read whole exome sequencing on Illumina HiSeq 2000 (Illumina) with a target coverage was 200X for tumor samples and 100X for matched normals. Reads were then processed using a standard workflow, as has been previously described [11]. For one sample without a matched normal (NECC017), a bespoke “common normal” BAM file was used comprised of down-sampled paired-end WES reads derived from peripheral blood from 5 donors, as has been previously described [11]. Tumor purity and ploidy were estimated from B allele frequencies and copy number profiles using Sequenza [12].

Copy-number analysis

Copy number variant (CNV) data were derived from WES data using a bespoke R package, as previously described [11,13]. Briefly, recurrent arm-level and focal CNVs were identified with GISTIC2.0 [14], using a log2 CN ratio threshold of <-.3 or >.3 for deletions and amplifications, respectively. A CNV was determined to be arm-level if it accounted for at least 70% of segments for a particular chromosomal arm. A q-value threshold of < .05 was used. Fraction genome altered was determined as the total length of segments with log2 CN ratio threshold of <-.3 or >.3 for deletions and amplifications, respectively, as a fraction of total genome size.

Detection of HPV integration sites

In order to detect HPV sequences in WES data, we first constructed a custom reference genome consisting of hg19 plus the NCBI reference sequence corresponding to HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, HPV33, HPV45, HPV51, and HPV52. Paired reads were then re-aligned to this custom reference genome using the aforementioned methods. MACS2 [15] was used to identify peaks of aligned reads corresponding to HPV reference sequences. In order to predict intragenic HPV integration events, we ran three structural variation detection tools (DELLY [16], LUMPY [17], and BreakDancer [18]) on the BAM files containing reads aligned to the combined hg19/HPV reference genome. A putative HPV integration site was called if at least two of the three structural variation detection tools independently identified genomic HPV fusion events in the same chromosomal location.

Data from other tumor types

For the comparative genomics analysis, published mutation lists were obtained from individual sequencing projects including those examining small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) [19], small cell carcinoma of the bladder (SCCB) [20], and non-small cell cervical carcinoma including squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix (SCC) and adenocarcinoma of the cervix (ACC) [21]. In order to facilitate comparisons between these datasets, only coding mutations on autosomal or X chromosomes were included.

Whole genome sequencing mutation data for SCLC (N = 110) were obtained from the MAF file published by George, et al [19]. Mutation data for SCCB whole exomes (N = 17) and whole genomes (N = 2) were obtained from the MAF file published by Chang et al [20]. Whole exome sequencing mutation data for cervical squamous cell carcinoma (N = 158) and endocervical adenocarcinoma (N = 26) were obtained from the MAF file published by The Cancer Genome Atlas sequencing project [21]. The fraction of early stage I-II tumors at initial diagnosis in the endocervical adenocarcinoma/squamous cell carcinoma data sets was 77%, similar to the 73% rate of early stage I-II tumors in the NECC cohort. Due to low numbers in rare histopathologic categories, mutations from endometrioid adenocarcinoma of endocervix (N = 2), adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix (N = 4), and mucinous adenocarcinoma of endocervical type (N = 4) were not included in the analysis.

Mutational signature analysis

Mutational signatures were derived using the adjacent tri-nucleotide context for each somatic single-nucleotide variant (SNV), as has been previously described [22,23]. For whole genomes (SCLC: N = 110; SCCB: N = 2) only coding SNVs were included in order to maintain uniformity in trinucleotide composition across datasets. For each SNV, the tri-nucleotide context was first identified using the hg19 reference genome. For each set of SNVs corresponding to a single tumor sample, the YAPSA R package [24] was used to estimate the relative contribution of each of the annotated COSMIC mutational signatures using a minimum signature contribution of 3% across all samples [22]. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of tumor samples was performing with a Euclidean distance metric based on the relative mutational signature exposure, using the ComplexHeatmap [25] R package interface provided by YAPSA [24].

Statistical analyses

Categorical comparisons were performed using a Fisher’s exact test and comparisons between continuous variables were done using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. All statistical comparisons were two-sided and a P value < .05 was considered significant. All statistical analyses were performed using the R statistical platform (version 3.3.1) [26].

Data availability

The whole exome sequencing data related to this study have been deposited with the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) under access code EGAS00001003142.

Results

Mutation analysis

Clinical and demographic characteristics of this NECC cohort are shown in Table 1. We performed WES on 15 cryopreserved NECC tumor samples at 200X target coverage (mean 212X; range 138-295X) and also performed WES on 14 available matched normal samples (S1 Table). Among the tumors with an available matched normal sample, we detected 4,253 total SNVs and indels, corresponding to a median of 1.7 somatic mutations per megabase (Mb) (range 1.0–20.9). One tumor (NECC013) exhibited a somatic mutation rate more than ten times the median for the cohort (Fig 1A), and this tumor also contained a pathogenic MSH2 missense mutation (p.G164R) suggesting that defective DNA mismatch repair (MMR) may explain the hypermutation phenotype observed in this tumor sample.

Table 1. Clinical characteristics of high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix cohort.

Age at Diagnosis 37 (22–63)
Clinical Stage at Diagnosis (FIGO 2009)
Stage I-II 11 (73%)
Stage III-IV 4 (27%)
Mixed Histology
Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma 13 (86%)
Focal Squamous Differentiation 1 (7%)
Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma 1 (7%)
Distant Metastases at Diagnosis
No 4 (27%)
Yes 11 (73%)
Contributing Institution
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center 8 (53%)
University of Washington Medical Center 4 (27%)
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 3 (20%)

Data are mean (minimum–maximum) or n (%) unless otherwise specified.

FIGO, International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics

Fig 1. Somatic mutational landscape of high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix.

Fig 1

(A) NECC somatic mutation burden expressed as somatic mutations per Mb. Gray color indicates sample with no available matched normal tissue. (B) Genes in COSMIC Cancer Gene Census with recurrent (>1) non-silent somatic mutations. (C) Copy number alterations in PI3-kinase pathway members PIK3CA and PTEN, as well as BCL2L11 which was identified as recurrently deleted in NECC (q = .04). NECC = small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix, Mb = megabase.

We next annotated potential NECC driver genes by identifying those genes contained within the COSMIC Cancer Gene Census (Tier 1) that also were found to have non-silent mutations in at least two tumor samples in this cohort (Fig 1B). Using these criteria, activating helical-domain PIK3CA c.1633G>A (p.E545K; COSM763) mutations were the most frequency observed oncogenic mutation in this cohort (4/15 tumors, 27%). Activating MAPK pathway mutations including KRAS c.35G>A (p.G12D; COSM521) and GNAS c.601C>T (p.R201C; COSM27887) were identified in two tumor samples (2/15, 13%), with these mutations co-occurring in both tumors (NECC015, NECC012). Non-silent TP53 mutations were identified in two tumors (2/15, 13%) including a predicted pathogenic missense mutation c.524G>A (p.R175H; COSM10648) and a nonsense mutation c.916C>T (p.R306*; COSM10663).

Examination of focal copy number variants (CNVs) using GISTIC2.0 [14] identified loss of 2q13 as a statistically significant recurrent event in NECC (q < .1), occurring in two tumors (2/15, 13%) (Fig 1C). Gene level analysis identified loss of the genomic region containing PTEN in 5 samples (5/15, 33%), and loss of PTEN was mutually exclusive with PIK3CA activating SNVs. In total we identified PI3-kinase or MAPK activating mutations in 67% of tumors (Fig 1B), including PIK3CA activating mutations, KRAS/GNAS activating mutations, and PTEN loss.

HPV integration events

Using WES data to detect HPV integration events, we identified HPV16 in 2 tumor samples (13%) and HPV18 in 6 samples (40%) with a total of 53% of NECC samples having detectable HPV integration. We did not identify any NECC that were positive for multiple HPV subtypes. No relationship was observed between HPV integration events and the fraction of the genome altered by focal CN events (Fig 2A). In contrast, HPV integration was more often detected in aneuploidy tumors (N>2.5) compared to euploid tumors (Fig 2B).

Fig 2. Gene-adjacent HPV integration events in high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix.

Fig 2

(A) Fraction of genome altered by copy number alterations (.3 > log CN ratio > -.3) as a function of tumor ploidy. Red, HPV genome detected; Blue, HPV genome not detected. (B) The presence of HPV is associated with polyploid karyotype in NECC. *, p < .05. (C) Map of gene-adjacent HPV integration events identified in NECC. Yellow, HPV16; Purple, HPV18.

We were able to map the HPV integration site with high confidence in 6 of the 8 (75%) of the tumor samples for which HPV genomic sequence could be identified in WES data. Of the mapped HPV integration sites, we found that 4 of 6 were located in the 8q24.21 chromosomal region in the vicinity of the MYC and PVT1 genes. Individual HPV integration events were also identified at 14q13.2 and 20q11.21 (Fig 2C).

Comparative genomics

We next examined the overall mutation rate (SNVs + indels) in this NECC cohort in the context of previously published genomic data from SCLC, SCCB, SCC, and ACC (Fig 3A). The median number of coding mutations per tumor was 63.5 (IQR 54.5–99.0) for NECC, 114 (IQR 67.3–192.8) for SCC, 83 (IQR 63.8–169.3) for ACC, 261 (IQR 181.5–440.5) for SCCB, and 313 (IQR 235.3–457.3) for SCLC. When compared to NECC, SCLC and SCCB exhibited more coding mutations and this difference was statistically significant (P < .001 for SCLC, P = .001 for SCCB by two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test). In contrast, the burden of coding mutations did not differ between NECC and ACC (P = .26) or SCC (P = .053).

Fig 3. Comparison of somatic mutation rate among cervical carcinomas and extra-cervical small cell carcinomas of the lung and bladder.

Fig 3

(A) Coding mutation burden by tumor type. Statistical comparisons were performed between NECC and each other tumor type using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test. (B) Fraction of mutated samples by tumor type for frequently mutated genes. For each gene, statistical comparisons were performed between the mutation rate of NECC and each other tumor type using a two-sided Fisher’s exact test. ***, p < .001; **, p < .01; *, p < .05; n.s. = not significant. SNV = single nucleotide variant, indel = small insertion/deletion, SCCB = small cell carcinoma of the bladder, SCLC = small cell lung carcinoma, NECC = small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix, SCC = squamous carcinoma of the cervix, ACC = endocervical adenocarcinoma.

Differences were observed in the frequency of non-silent mutation in specific cancer-related genes between small cell carcinomas of different anatomic origin (Fig 3B). Two NECC tumors (2 of 15 tumors, 13%) had non-silent TP53 mutations and one had a non-silent RB1 mutation (1 of 15 tumors, 7%). Compared to NECC, non-silent mutation of TP53 was significantly more frequent in both SCLC (103 of 110 tumors [94%], P < .001, two-sided Fisher exact test) and SCCB (18 of 19 tumors [95%], P < .001, two-sided Fisher exact test). Non-silent mutation of RB1 was similarly more common in SCLC (86 of 110 tumors [78%], P < .001, two-sided Fisher exact test) and SCCB (17 of 19 tumors [89%], P < .001, two-sided Fisher exact test) compared with NECC. No significant difference in PIK3CA mutation rate was observed between NECC (4 of 15 tumors [27%]) and either SCC (41 of 158 tumors [26%], P = 1) or ACC (9 of 26 tumors [35%], P = .73). No statistically significant differences were observed between rates of KRAS or GNAS mutations in NECC compared to other tumor types (all P>0.05).

Mutational signature decomposition analysis was next used to identify mutational processes acting across tumor types. We found that NECC exhibits contributions from several previously defined mutagenic processes (Fig 4A), including large contributions from an age-related signature related to spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine (Signature 1) and from activation induced cytidine deaminase (AID)/apolipoprotein B editing complex (APOBEC) deaminase activity (COSMIC Signature 2 & Signature 13) [22,23]. We next performed unsupervised hierarchical clustering of tumors based upon the relative signature contribution of each mutational signature. Four clusters were identified which were characterized by a high contribution of defective mismatch repair signature (Cluster 1), age related spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine (Cluster 2), AID/APOBEC cytidine deaminase activity (Cluster 3), and tobacco exposure (Cluster 4) (Fig 4B). SCLC tumors were found almost exclusively in Cluster 4, consistent with prior mutational signature analyses demonstrating a preponderance of tobacco exposure signature in this tumor type (Fig 4C) [19,20]. In contrast, all NECC tumors were found in Cluster 2 or Cluster 3 with a distribution of cluster membership that most closely resembled ACC.

Fig 4. Mutational signature contribution across tumor types.

Fig 4

(A) SNV mutational signature contribution by NECC sample. (B) Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of SNV mutational signature contributions by sample across tumor types. (C) Relative cluster membership of sample by tumor type. SNV = single nucleotide variant, SCCB = small cell carcinoma of the bladder, SCLC = small cell lung carcinoma, NECC = small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix, SCC = squamous carcinoma of the cervix, ACC = endocervical adenocarcinoma.

Discussion

In this study we report the largest series of NECC samples analyzed by WES described to date. Comparative genomics suggests NECC is genetically more similar to common cervical cancer subtypes than to extra-cervical small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the lung and bladder. In particular, all three cervix cancer subtypes exhibit frequent evidence of activating PI3-kinase/MAPK pathway mutations and only rarely carry non-silent mutations in the tumor suppressors TP53 or RB1. Among the three cervix cancer subtypes, the total coding mutational burden is similar and a substantial fraction of these mutations are related to AID/APOBEC cytidine deamination mutational processes. APOBEC enzymes have anti-viral activity and have been shown to modify HPV genomes in precancerous cutaneous lesions [27]. Activation of APOBEC enzymes by HPV infection of cervical epithelium cells may in turn lead to an increased rate of somatic mutation accumulation, particularly at TCW motifs (where W corresponds to either A or T) known to be preferred sites of APOBEC-mediated mutagenesis. As has been previously noted, the PIK3CA c.1633G>A (p.E545K) mutation occurs at one such APOBEC motif and this association may account for the frequency of this mutation across cervix cancer subtypes [21]. In contrast, we found marked differences between NECC and both SCLC and SCCB. Both types of extra-cervical small cell carcinoma exhibit near universal somatic TP53 and RB1 mutation, with mutational burdens in excess of those seen in NECC and distinct mutational signature profiles.

Low frequency mutations were observed among several other genes in NECC. These include the lysine methyltransferase genes KMT2C and KMT2D, which have been implicated in several other tumor types and suggests that chromatin remodeling activity may play a role in a subset of NECC [28]. BRIP1 missense mutation was observed in one NECC tumor. Germline mutation of BRIP1 has been show to increase the risk of hereditary ovarian cancer [29], although the BRIP1 NECC mutation we observed was not clearly pathogenic and that tumor did not exhibit mutational signatures consistent with a defect in homologous recombination. These data thus do not support homologous recombination deficiency as a mechanism of genomic instability in NECC.

HPV is detectable in nearly all SCC and ACC, consistent with the clear oncogenic role played by HPV in these cervical cancer subtypes [21]. A causative relationship between HPV and NECC remains controversial, although a recent meta-analysis of HPV detection in NECC suggest a high prevalence of HPV in this tumor type [30]. In our cohort, we detected a statistically significant association between detectable HPV integration and tumor cell aneuploidy. This finding suggests that HPV may play a role in destabilizing genome integrity and promoting tumor formation in NECC. Interestingly, we identified HPV integration at 8q24.21 in 4 of 15 (27%) of NECC tumor samples analyzed, consistent with previously published rates of HPV integration at this hotspot region in other cervix cancer subtypes [31]. Although 8q24.21 contains the MYC oncogene, a causative role for HPV integration at this site in the pathogenesis of cervix cancer has not been established.

This study has several strengths, most notably the relatively large series of a rare tumor type and the use of WES to provide a comprehensive picture of coding mutations, CNVs, and mutational signatures. By using fresh-frozen tissue and matched normal samples, we are able to report high-confidence somatic mutations free from contamination by germline variants or artifacts of formalin fixation. Lastly, these NECC are likely representative of this rare disease since tumor samples used in this study were assigned histopathologic diagnoses at regional cancer referral centers with extensive experience in the diagnosis and treatment of rare gynecologic malignancies. This study is limited by the inability to reliably identify rare recurrent oncogenic mutations in NECC given the small sample size. In addition, we could not comprehensively map HPV integration events across intergenic regions since only coding exons were sequenced.

The challenge of treating patients with rare malignancies is compounded by the frequent absence of data from large, randomized clinical trials to guide the selection of optimal therapies. One useful approach to this dilemma is to turn to data generated from studies of a histologically similar tumor occurring at a distinct anatomic site with much higher prevalence. This approach led to the adoption of platinum-based chemotherapy for the treatment of ovarian dysgerminoma based on data generated among male patients with histologically similar testicular seminomas [32]. More recently, molecular phenotyping has demonstrated that mucinous ovarian carcinomas have similarities with gastrointestinal malignancies, including frequent KRAS mutation, and preclinical data suggest this subtype of ovarian cancer may respond to agents such as 5-FU and oxaliplatin used in the treatment of colorectal cancer [33,34].

Small retrospective studies suggest that patients with NECC benefit from combination platinum-based chemotherapy in the upfront setting in NECC [35], and EP chemotherapy is often used in this setting based on clinical trials conducted among SCLC patients. In contrast, patients with advanced or recurrent SCC or ACC are most often treated with a combination of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab based on data from large prospective, randomized clinical trials [36,37]. The genetic similarities we observe between NECC and the more common cervical cancer histologies suggest a re-evaluation of chemotherapeutic approaches to this rare disease may be warranted.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Whole exome sequencing summary of high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix cohort.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

An abstract related to this work was presented as a poster at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) 23rd Annual Winter Meeting, Feb 08–10, 2018, Snowmass, CO.

Data Availability

The whole exome sequencing data related to this study have been deposited with the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) under access code EGAS00001003142.

Funding Statement

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Multidisciplinary Gynecologic Cancer Tumor Bank is supported in part by NIH P50CA83639 SPORE in Ovarian Cancer and RTH is supported by an NIH T32 training grant (CA101642).

References

  • 1.Chen J., Macdonald O.K., Gaffney D.K., Incidence, mortality, and prognostic factors of small cell carcinoma of the cervix, Obs. Gynecol. 111 (2008) 1394–1402. doi:111/6/1394 [pii] 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318173570b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.McCusker M.E., Coté T.R., Clegg L.X., Tavassoli F.J., Endocrine tumors of the uterine cervix: incidence, demographics, and survival with comparison to squamous cell carcinoma., Gynecol. Oncol. 88 (2003) 333–9. 10.1016/s0090-8258(02)00150-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wang K.-L., Chang T.-C., Jung S.-M., Chen C.-H., Cheng Y.-M., Wu H.-H., et al. , Primary treatment and prognostic factors of small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a Taiwanese Gynecologic Oncology Group study., Eur. J. Cancer. 48 (2012) 1484–94. 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.12.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Frumovitz M., Munsell M.F.F., Burzawa J.K.K., Byers L.A.A., Ramalingam P., Brown J., et al. , Combination therapy with topotecan, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab improves progression-free survival in recurrent small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix., Gynecol. Oncol. 144 (2017) 46–50. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.10.040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Roth B.J., Johnson D.H., Einhorn L.H., Schacter L.P., Cherng N.C., Cohen H.J., et al. , Randomized study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine versus etoposide and cisplatin versus alternation of these two regimens in extensive small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the Southeastern Cancer Study Group., J. Clin. Oncol. 10 (1992) 282–91. 10.1200/JCO.1992.10.2.282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fukuoka M., Furuse K., Saijo N., Nishiwaki Y., Ikegami H., Tamura T., et al. , Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine versus cisplatin and etoposide versus alternation of these regimens in small-cell lung cancer., J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 83 (1991) 855–61. 10.1093/jnci/83.12.855 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sundstrøm S., Bremnes R.M., Kaasa S., Aasebø U., Hatlevoll R., Dahle R., et al. , Cisplatin and etoposide regimen is superior to cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and vincristine regimen in small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized phase III trial with 5 years’ follow-up., J. Clin. Oncol. 20 (2002) 4665–72. 10.1200/JCO.2002.12.111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Frumovitz M., Burzawa J.K., Byers L.A., Lyons Y.A., Ramalingam P., Coleman R.L., et al. , Sequencing of mutational hotspots in cancer-related genes in small cell neuroendocrine cervical cancer, Gynecol. Oncol. 141 (2016) 588–591. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Xing D., Zheng G., Schoolmeester J.K., Li Z., Pallavajjala A., Haley L., et al. , Next-generation Sequencing Reveals Recurrent Somatic Mutations in Small Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix., Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 42 (2018) 750–760. 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cho S.Y., Choi M., Ban H.J., Lee C.H., Park S., Kim H., et al. , Cervical small cell neuroendocrine tumor mutation profiles via whole exome sequencing, Oncotarget. 8 (2017) 8095–8104. 10.18632/oncotarget.14098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hillman R.T., Celestino J., Terranova C., Beird H.C., Gumbs C., Little L., et al. , KMT2D/MLL2 inactivation is associated with recurrence in adult-type granulosa cell tumors of the ovary., Nat. Commun. 9 (2018) 2496 10.1038/s41467-018-04950-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Malmström H., Högberg T., Risberg B., Simonsen E., Granulosa cell tumors of the ovary: prognostic factors and outcome., Gynecol. Oncol. 52 (1994) 50–5. 10.1006/gyno.1994.1010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhang J., Fujimoto J., Zhang J., Wedge D.C., Song X., Zhang J., et al. , Intratumor heterogeneity in localized lung adenocarcinomas delineated by multiregion sequencing., Science. 346 (2014) 256–9. 10.1126/science.1256930 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mermel C.H., Schumacher S.E., Hill B., Meyerson M.L., Beroukhim R., Getz G., GISTIC2.0 facilitates sensitive and confident localization of the targets of focal somatic copy-number alteration in human cancers, Genome Biol. 12 (2011) R41 10.1186/gb-2011-12-4-r41 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zhang Y., Liu T., Meyer C.A., Eeckhoute J., Johnson D.S., Bernstein B.E., et al. , Model-based analysis of ChIP-Seq (MACS), Genome Biol. 9 (2008). 10.1186/gb-2008-9-9-r137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rausch T., Zichner T., Schlattl A., Stütz A.M., Benes V., Korbel J.O., et al. , DELLY: Structural variant discovery by integrated paired-end and split-read analysis, Bioinformatics. 28 (2012) 333–339. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts378 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Layer R.M., Chiang C., Quinlan A.R., Hall I.M., LUMPY: a probabilistic framework for structural variant discovery., Genome Biol. 15 (2014) R84 10.1186/gb-2014-15-6-r84 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chen K., Wallis J.W., McLellan M.D., Larson D.E., Kalicki J.M., Pohl C.S., et al. , BreakDancer: an algorithm for high-resolution mapping of genomic structural variation., Nat. Methods. 6 (2009) 677–81. 10.1038/nmeth.1363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.George J., Lim J.S., Jang S.J., Cun Y., Ozretić L., Kong G., et al. , Comprehensive genomic profiles of small cell lung cancer, Nature. 524 (2015) 47–53. 10.1038/nature14664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chang M.T., Penson A., Desai N.B., Socci N.D., Shen R., Seshan V.E., et al. , Small-cell carcinomas of the bladder and lung are characterized by a convergent but distinct pathogenesis, Clin. Cancer Res. 24 (2018) 1965–1973. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-2655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Burk R.D., Chen Z., Saller C., Tarvin K., Carvalho A.L., Scapulatempo-Neto C., et al. , Integrated genomic and molecular characterization of cervical cancer, Nature. 228 (2017). 10.1038/nature21386 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Alexandrov L.B., Nik-Zainal S., Wedge D.C., Aparicio S. A J.R., Behjati S., Biankin A. V, et al. , Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer., Nature. 500 (2013) 415–21. 10.1038/nature12477 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Alexandrov L.B., Nik-Zainal S., Wedge D.C., Campbell P.J., Stratton M.R., Deciphering Signatures of Mutational Processes Operative in Human Cancer, Cell Rep. 3 (2013) 246–259. 10.1016/j.celrep.2012.12.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Huebschmann DS.M., Gu Z, YAPSA: Yet Another Package for Signature Analysis, (2015). [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gu Z., Eils R., Schlesner M., Complex heatmaps reveal patterns and correlations in multidimensional genomic data, Bioinformatics. 32 (2016) 2847–2849. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing, (2016). [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Vartanian J., Guétard D., Henry M., Wain-Hobson S., Evidence for editing of human papillomavirus DNA by APOBEC3 in benign and precancerous lesions., Science. 320 (2008) 230–3. 10.1126/science.1153201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rao R.C., Dou Y., Hijacked in cancer: the KMT2 (MLL) family of methyltransferases., Nat. Rev. Cancer. 15 (2015) 334–46. 10.1038/nrc3929 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Norquist B.M., Harrell M.I., Brady M.F., Walsh T., Lee M.K., Gulsuner S., et al. , Inherited Mutations in Women With Ovarian Carcinoma, JAMA Oncol. 2 (2016) 482 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Castle P.E., Pierz A., Stoler M.H., A systematic review and meta-analysis on the attribution of human papillomavirus (HPV) in neuroendocrine cancers of the cervix, Gynecol. Oncol. (2017). 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ferber M.J., Thorland E.C., Brink A.A.T.P., Rapp A.K., Phillips L.A., McGovern R., et al. , Preferential integration of human papillomavirus type 18 near the c-myc locus in cervical carcinoma., Oncogene. 22 (2003) 7233–42. 10.1038/sj.onc.1207006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tewari K., Cappuccini F., Disaia P.J., Berman M.L., Manetta A., Kohler M.F., Malignant germ cell tumors of the ovary., Obstet. Gynecol. 95 (2000) 128–33. 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00470-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sato S., Itamochi H., Kigawa J., Oishi T., Shimada M., Sato S., et al. , Combination chemotherapy of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil may be an effective regimen for mucinous adenocarcinoma of the ovary: a potential treatment strategy., Cancer Sci. 100 (2009) 546–51. 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2008.01065.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Frumovitz M., Schmeler K.M., Malpica A., Sood A.K., Gershenson D.M., Unmasking the complexities of mucinous ovarian carcinoma., Gynecol. Oncol. 117 (2010) 491–6. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.02.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zivanovic O., Leitao M.M., Park K.J., Zhao H., Diaz J.P., Konner J., et al. , Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix: Analysis of outcome, recurrence pattern and the impact of platinum-based combination chemotherapy., Gynecol. Oncol. 112 (2009) 590–3. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Monk B.J., Sill M.W., McMeekin D.S., Cohn D.E., Ramondetta L.M., Boardman C.H., et al. , Phase III trial of four cisplatin-containing doublet combinations in stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent cervical carcinoma: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study, J. Clin. Oncol. 27 (2009) 4649–4655. 10.1200/JCO.2009.21.8909 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tewari K.S., Sill M.W., Long H.J., Penson R.T., Huang H., Ramondetta L.M., et al. , Improved survival with bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer., N. Engl. J. Med. 370 (2014) 734–43. 10.1056/NEJMoa1309748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jingwu Xie

13 Mar 2020

PONE-D-20-05313

Comparative genomics of high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix

PLOS ONE

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please follow reviewers' comments to revise your manuscript. In particular, is the study conclusive with such a small sample size? Are there other ways to validate the results?

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 27 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jingwu Xie

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

 

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please follow reviewer's comments to revise your manuscript. In particular, is the study conclusive with such a small sample? Are there other ways to validate the findings?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Please find below my review of the manuscript entitled “Comparative genomics of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix” submitted by Robert Tyler Hillman et al. The manuscript No. is PONE-D-20-05313.

Robert Tyler Hillman and other co-authors intended to comprehensively investigate the genomics landscape of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix (NECC) through multiple algorithms of computational biology. NECC is a rare type of malignant cervical cancers with worse overall survival compared to other types of cervical cancer. Development of an effective treatment is critical to improve patients’ life quality. The study is meaningful, but the less support for its clinical translational significance.

The topic of this manuscript has potential for a clinical translational apply, but the quality of the studies in it looks a little bit modest and superficial. In the spirit of making the work better, I sincerely provide my advices to the authors.

First, whole exome sequencing and multiple bioinformatics analysis were used to identify the genomics of NECC in this manuscript. The identified mutations in NECC represented the genomic changes under tumor condition, these may have implications in NECC development and therapy response, a deep literature review and discussion will make a more clarity of the Importance of the mutations.

Second, the authors identified and compared mutations and CNVs in NECC and matched normal tissue, the sample size is quite small, the frequency of some mutations was relatively low, the comparison may be invalid. Meanwhile, comparative analysis was performed to explore the difference between NECC and other types of cervical cancers and extra-cervical small cell carcinomas, the clinical stage should be moderately matched.

Third, as the authors declared, the sample size is low, and the clinical implication was limited, although the authors try to extend the results to suggest some potential therapies that patients may benefit. Further validation should be conducted.

In addition, the abstract could be more summative and concise.

In summary, the bioinformatics analysis is ok, but the sample size is relatively small, so the clinical translational significance of the findings may be limited. If a bigger sample size and more clinical data support for the conclusion, the paper will be good to accept.

Reviewer #2: The authors performed the whole exome sequencing for 15 high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix (NECC) samples and matched normals (one common normal). They found 67% of NECC had PI3K or MAPK pathway activation mutations and 13% and 7% of NECC had TP53 and RB1 mutations respectively. When compared with NECC, small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and small cell carcinoma of the bladder (SCCB) had quite different mutation patterns with high frequency in TP53 and RB1 mutations, and relatively low frequency in PIK3CA and KRAS mutations. In contrast, the other two types of cervical cancer, squamous carcinoma of the cervix (SCC) and endocervical adenocarcinoma (ACC), had the similar mutation patterns with the NECC. Based on their results and the current chemotherapy strategy of NECC, the authors suggested to re-evaluate the chemotherapeutic approaches to this rare disease.

There are some questions needed revision.

1 Add the subtitles in the Results section.

2 Please explain the reason why the number of NECC used in analysis is 14 not 15 in Figure 3A

3 The results of PIK3CA and KRAS in Figure 3B did not mentioned in the Results section. They also supported the results that SCC and ACC had the similar mutation patterns with NECC

4 Figure 4C did not cited in the Results.

5 Why did the authors choose GISTIC2.0 to perform the CNV analysis, the software is not commonly used in the field.

6 The authors performed analysis on SNV and CNV, can these results support the conclusion” Comparative genomics suggests NECC is genetically more similar to common cervical cancer subtypes than to extra-cervical small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the lung and bladder.”?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos One-03042020.docx

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 16;15(6):e0234505. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234505.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Apr 2020

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Please find below my review of the manuscript entitled “Comparative genomics of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix” submitted by Robert Tyler Hillman et al. The manuscript No. is PONE-D-20-05313.

Robert Tyler Hillman and other co-authors intended to comprehensively investigate the genomics landscape of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix (NECC) through multiple algorithms of computational biology. NECC is a rare type of malignant cervical cancers with worse overall survival compared to other types of cervical cancer. Development of an effective treatment is critical to improve patients’ life quality. The study is meaningful, but the less support for its clinical translational significance.

The topic of this manuscript has potential for a clinical translational apply, but the quality of the studies in it looks a little bit modest and superficial. In the spirit of making the work better, I sincerely provide my advices to the authors.

First, whole exome sequencing and multiple bioinformatics analysis were used to identify the genomics of NECC in this manuscript. The identified mutations in NECC represented the genomic changes under tumor condition, these may have implications in NECC development and therapy response, a deep literature review and discussion will make a more clarity of the Importance of the mutations.

We have substantially expanded the Discussion section to accommodate additional literature review and discussion of several other rare mutations observed in a subset of NECC (lines 404-412). We remain careful about ascribing functional significance to a mutation observed in only one tumor sample (e.g. BRIP1) since it is not possible to determine with certainty if this represents a passenger mutation or a true driver event. Nevertheless, we agree with the Reviewer that further discussion of these less common mutations was warranted and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

Second, the authors identified and compared mutations and CNVs in NECC and matched normal tissue, the sample size is quite small, the frequency of some mutations was relatively low, the comparison may be invalid. Meanwhile, comparative analysis was performed to explore the difference between NECC and other types of cervical cancers and extra-cervical small cell carcinomas, the clinical stage should be moderately matched.

We agree with the reviewer that clinical stage should be moderately matched across the cervical cancer cohorts. This is indeed the case in our cohorts, with 77% of adenocarcinoma/squamous cell carcinomas being local stage I-II tumors compared to 73% of the NECC cohort. We have updated the manuscript to include a description of the clinical stages in these cohorts [lines 208-210].

Third, as the authors declared, the sample size is low, and the clinical implication was limited, although the authors try to extend the results to suggest some potential therapies that patients may benefit. Further validation should be conducted.

NECC is an extraordinarily rare disease, with only approximately 100 to 200 new cases diagnosed each year in the entire United States. Moreover, the analyses described in this manuscript require fresh frozen tissue along with matched normal somatic tissue – sample types that are not collected under routine clinical practice and thus cannot be obtained from pathology archives. The current study represents a close collaboration between three high-volume referral centers (MD Anderson Cancer Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and the University of Washington), which pooled all available NECC samples. Given these limitations, is therefore not feasible to analyze a true independent validation cohort because none exists.

In the published literature to date only 39 NECC have ever been analyzed by any NGS platform: 24 by 50-gene panel sequencing [1], 10 by ~600-gene panel sequencing [2], and 5 by WES of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue [3]. In this context, our analysis of 15 fresh frozen NECC samples and matched normal tissue by WES represents a substantial contribution to our understanding of this rare disease – increasing the total number of NECC analyzed by WES to date by a factor of 4.

In the absence of an available external validation cohort, similarities between our findings and prior work in NECC suggests that our results are representative of this rare tumor type. For example, we identify PIK3CA activating mutations in 27% of tumors, compared to 18% in Frumovitz et al [1] and 30% in Xing et al [2]. Rates of activating MAPK mutations and TP53 mutations are also similar among the cohorts. Thus our results are broadly consistent with these prior efforts in areas where they can be directly compared, and these similarities serve to give validity and added confidence to the other findings we report.

In addition, the abstract could be more summative and concise.

We have substantially revised the abstract to make it more summative and concise, and to conform more closely with the abstract style typically used in this journal.

In summary, the bioinformatics analysis is ok, but the sample size is relatively small, so the clinical translational significance of the findings may be limited. If a bigger sample size and more clinical data support for the conclusion, the paper will be good to accept.

We agree with the Reviewer that it would be very interesting to have clinical outcomes and treatment histories for all patients included in this NECC cohort. However, these data were not collected under the collaborative data sharing agreement between the three institutions (MD Anderson Cancer Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and the University of Washington). A detailed examination of clinical outcomes stratified by genomic biomarkers would be a very interesting follow up study, but falls outside the scope of the present work which aimed to present comparative genomics between NECC, more common cervical cancer subtypes, and small cell carcinomas of the lung and bladder. Please see above regarding why it is not feasible to increase the sample size, given the extreme rarity of this tumor type.

Reviewer #2: The authors performed the whole exome sequencing for 15 high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix (NECC) samples and matched normals (one common normal). They found 67% of NECC had PI3K or MAPK pathway activation mutations and 13% and 7% of NECC had TP53 and RB1 mutations respectively. When compared with NECC, small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and small cell carcinoma of the bladder (SCCB) had quite different mutation patterns with high frequency in TP53 and RB1 mutations, and relatively low frequency in PIK3CA and KRAS mutations. In contrast, the other two types of cervical cancer, squamous carcinoma of the cervix (SCC) and endocervical adenocarcinoma (ACC), had the similar mutation patterns with the NECC. Based on their results and the current chemotherapy strategy of NECC, the authors suggested to re-evaluate the chemotherapeutic approaches to this rare disease.

There are some questions needed revision.

1 Add the subtitles in the Results section.

We have now added subtitles/sub-headings to the Results section and we agree with the reviewer that these add significant clarity.

2 Please explain the reason why the number of NECC used in analysis is 14 not 15 in Figure 3A

Sample NECC017 did not have matched normal tissue for use in subtracting germline variants from WES data. Thus the rate of somatic mutation cannot be accurately calculated for this sample and it was not included in the comparative analysis of mutation rates across tumor types, as presented in Figure 3A.

3 The results of PIK3CA and KRAS in Figure 3B did not mentioned in the Results section. They also supported the results that SCC and ACC had the similar mutation patterns with NECC

We have added statistical comparisons to the manuscript text between PIK3CA, KRAS, and GNAS mutations rates in NECC and other tumor types [lines 292-295]. We agree with the Reviewer that this adds clarity to the text and supports the overall argument of the manuscript that NECC are genetically similar to SCC and ACC.

4 Figure 4C did not cited in the Results.

We thank the Reviewer for detecting this omission, which has now been corrected (line 308).

5 Why did the authors choose GISTIC2.0 to perform the CNV analysis, the software is not commonly used in the field.

We chose to use GISTIC2.0 for CNV analysis because it is the most updated version of a the widely used GISTIC algorithm that has become a standard in the field for CNV analysis. The two papers that describe this algorithm have collectively been cited more than 2000 times [4,5]. Moreover GISTIC or GISTIC2.0 have been used in numerous publications by The Cancer Genome Atlas consortium, including those projects analyzing prostate cancer [6], ovarian cancer [7], esophageal cancer [8], endometrial cancer [9], cervical cancer [10], and lung cancer [11] to name a few.

6 The authors performed analysis on SNV and CNV, can these results support the conclusion” Comparative genomics suggests NECC is genetically more similar to common cervical cancer

subtypes than to extra-cervical small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the lung and bladder.”?

We agree with the Reviewer that the data presented in this manuscript does indeed support this conclusion, and we have added a similar statement to the Discussion section to emphasize this point (lines 314-316).

REFERENCES

[1] M. Frumovitz, J.K. Burzawa, L.A. Byers, Y.A. Lyons, P. Ramalingam, R.L. Coleman, et al., Sequencing of mutational hotspots in cancer-related genes in small cell neuroendocrine cervical cancer, Gynecol. Oncol. 141 (2016) 588–591. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.04.001.

[2] D. Xing, G. Zheng, J.K. Schoolmeester, Z. Li, A. Pallavajjala, L. Haley, et al., Next-generation Sequencing Reveals Recurrent Somatic Mutations in Small Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix., Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 42 (2018) 750–760. doi:10.1097/PAS.0000000000001042.

[3] S.Y. Cho, M. Choi, H.J. Ban, C.H. Lee, S. Park, H. Kim, et al., Cervical small cell neuroendocrine tumor mutation profiles via whole exome sequencing, Oncotarget. 8 (2017) 8095–8104. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.14098.

[4] C.H. Mermel, S.E. Schumacher, B. Hill, M.L. Meyerson, R. Beroukhim, G. Getz, GISTIC2.0 facilitates sensitive and confident localization of the targets of focal somatic copy-number alteration in human cancers, Genome Biol. 12 (2011) R41. doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-4-r41.

[5] R. Beroukhim, G. Getz, L. Nghiemphu, J. Barretina, T. Hsueh, D. Linhart, et al., Assessing the significance of chromosomal aberrations in cancer: methodology and application to glioma., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104 (2007) 20007–12. doi:10.1073/pnas.0710052104.

[6] A. Abeshouse, J. Ahn, R. Akbani, A. Ally, S. Amin, C.D. Andry, et al., The Molecular Taxonomy of Primary Prostate Cancer, Cell. 163 (2015) 1011–1025. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.10.025.

[7] The Cancer Genome Atlas, Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma., Nature. 474 (2011) 609–615. doi:10.1038/nature10166.

[8] J. Kim, R. Bowlby, A.J. Mungall, A.G. Robertson, R.D. Odze, A.D. Cherniack, et al., Integrated genomic characterization of oesophageal carcinoma, Nature. (2017). doi:10.1038/nature20805.

[9] C. genome A.R. Network, Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma., Nature. 497 (2013) 67–73. doi:10.1038/nature12113.

[10] R.D. Burk, Z. Chen, C. Saller, K. Tarvin, A.L. Carvalho, C. Scapulatempo-Neto, et al., Integrated genomic and molecular characterization of cervical cancer, Nature. 228 (2017). doi:10.1038/nature21386.

[11] T.C.G.A.R. Network, (Participants are arranged by area of contribution and then by institution.), G. sequencing centres: B. Institute, P.S. Hammerman, M.S. Lawrence, D. Voet, et al., Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers., Nature. 489 (2012) 519–525. doi:10.1038/nature11404.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Hari K Koul

28 May 2020

Comparative genomics of high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix

PONE-D-20-05313R1

Dear Dr. Hillman,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Hari K Koul, Ph.D., FACN,FASN

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Editor,

Please find below my re-review of the manuscript entitled “Comparative genomics of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix” submitted by Robert Tyler Hillman et al. The manuscript No. is PONE-D-20-05313R1.

Robert Tyler Hillman and other co-authors intended to comprehensively investigate the genomics landscape of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix (NECC) through multiple algorithms of computational biology. As the author declared, NECC is a very rare type of malignant cervical cancer, which is hence extremely difficult to collect a big sample composed cohort for the analysis. After a careful consideration on this limitation, the review accepted the authors' explain. Also, the authors have adequately addressed my other comments raised in a previous round of review, and looks that this manuscript is acceptable for publication now. So I sincerely hope this simple but interesting work could be published on PLOS ONE in the near future.

Please feel free to contact me if you require further details.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Hari K Koul

29 May 2020

PONE-D-20-05313R1

Comparative genomics of high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix

Dear Dr. Hillman:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof (Dr) Hari K Koul

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Whole exome sequencing summary of high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix cohort.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Plos One-03042020.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The whole exome sequencing data related to this study have been deposited with the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) under access code EGAS00001003142.

    The whole exome sequencing data related to this study have been deposited with the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) under access code EGAS00001003142.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES