Distinct NGS mutational landscape and prognostic implications in early-onset colorectal cancer: A dual-cohort analysis of TCGA PanCancer Atlas and MSK-IMPACT 50K
- 1Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Ankara Oncology Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey
- 2Department of Medical Genetics, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey
- 3Department of Pediatric Neurology, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey
Abstract
Background: Early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC), defined as CRC diagnosed before age 50, is rising globally. The genomic landscape of EOCRC has been characterized in several prior studies, but the reproducibility of findings across independent cohorts, the impact of adjustment for tumor stage and sample type, and the specificity of prognostic biomarkers to the EOCRC subgroup remain incompletely defined. Furthermore, BRAF mutation frequency is strongly modified by tumor location, which is often not considered in prior analyses. Methods: We performed a dual-cohort analysis using two independent, publicly available genomic databases: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) PanCancer Atlas (discovery cohort) and the MSK-IMPACT 50K Clinical Sequencing Cohort (validation cohort). Patients with any somatic mutation in the four canonical MMR genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2) were excluded to reduce the influence of MMR-deficient tumors on comparisons. After exclusion, the discovery cohort comprised 536 CRC patients (EOCRC n = 67, LOCRC n = 469) and the validation cohort comprised 4,254 CRC patients (EOCRC n = 1,470, LOCRC n = 2,784). Somatic mutation frequencies for 11 genes and MSI status were compared between EOCRC and LOCRC, with BRAF analyses further stratified by BRAF V600E specifically and by tumor location. Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) analyses were performed with number-at-risk tables. Multivariate Cox regression was adjusted for tumor stage (TCGA) or sample type (Primary vs. Metastasis; MSK-IMPACT). An EOCRC-specific multivariate model was also constructed to test whether prognostic effects were specific to the young-onset subgroup. Results: BRAF total mutations were significantly less frequent in EOCRC in the validation cohort (6.5% vs 10.1%, p < 0.001); BRAF V600E specifically showed a similar pattern (3.3% vs 7.5%, p < 0.001). However, stratification by tumor location attenuated this difference substantially, indicating that BRAF depletion in EOCRC is at least partially explained by differential tumor location distribution. Kaplan-Meier median OS in the TCGA cohort was not reached for EOCRC and 81.4 months for LOCRC (log-rank p = 0.212); in the MSK-IMPACT cohort, EOCRC 49.4 vs LOCRC 44.4 months (p = 0.009). Multivariate Cox regression in the MSK-IMPACT cohort adjusted for sample type identified KRAS (HR = 1.23, p < 0.001), NRAS (HR = 1.38, p = 0.009), and BRAF (HR = 1.29, p = 0.005) as independent adverse prognostic factors; MSI-H was protective (HR = 0.55, p = 0.008); metastatic sample was a strong independent predictor (HR = 1.70, p < 0.001). Age group was not independently prognostic. In the EOCRC-specific analysis, KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations were not independently prognostic within EOCRC. Conclusions: After exclusion of MMR-deficient tumors, tumor location adjustment, and sample type adjustment, BRAF mutation depletion in EOCRC is confirmed but is at least partially explained by tumor location distribution differences. KRAS/NRAS/BRAF and MSI-H are validated as CRC prognostic biomarkers, but these effects are driven by the overall cohort and are not specific to the EOCRC subgroup. These findings support comprehensive NGS profiling in EOCRC while cautioning against interpreting general CRC prognostic biomarkers as EOCRC-specific.
Related
- EPIGENETIC MUTATIONAL LANDSCAPE ASSESSED BY WHOLE-EXOME SEQUENCING REVEALS NEW DIAGNOSTIC AND PROGNOSTIC BIOMARKERS IN NODAL PERIPHERAL T-CELL LYMPHOMAS: RESULTS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR PTCL STUDY
- Prognostic value and immune landscape implications of using a novel homologous recombination repair pathway signature in prostate cancer: A retrospective cohort study
- Mutational signature landscape of pancreatic cancer genomes from nine countries
- Deciphering the prognostic and immunological landscape of NFKBIA across human cancers
- Kinase-based molecular subtyping and a prognostic risk model in colorectal cancer with functional validation of PLK4
BibTeX
@article{camoz2026distinct,
title = {{Distinct NGS mutational landscape and prognostic implications in early-onset colorectal cancer: A dual-cohort analysis of TCGA PanCancer Atlas and MSK-IMPACT 50K}},
author = {Elif Sertesen Çamöz and Osman Bilge Kaya and Hakan Erçelebi and Cengiz Karaçin and Yunus Kasım Terzi and Zerrin Yılmaz Çelik},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0359094},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0359094},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Distinct NGS mutational landscape and prognostic implications in early-onset colorectal cancer: A dual-cohort analysis of TCGA PanCancer Atlas and MSK-IMPACT 50K
AU - Elif Sertesen Çamöz
AU - Osman Bilge Kaya
AU - Hakan Erçelebi
AU - Cengiz Karaçin
AU - Yunus Kasım Terzi
AU - Zerrin Yılmaz Çelik
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0359094
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0359094
AB - Background: Early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC), defined as CRC diagnosed before age 50, is rising globally. The genomic landscape of EOCRC has been characterized in several prior studies, but the reproducibility of findings across independent cohorts, the impact of adjustment for tumor stage and sample type, and the specificity of prognostic biomarkers to the EOCRC subgroup remain incompletely defined. Furthermore, BRAF mutation frequency is strongly modified by tumor location, which is often not considered in prior analyses. Methods: We performed a dual-cohort analysis using two independent, publicly available genomic databases: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) PanCancer Atlas (discovery cohort) and the MSK-IMPACT 50K Clinical Sequencing Cohort (validation cohort). Patients with any somatic mutation in the four canonical MMR genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2) were excluded to reduce the influence of MMR-deficient tumors on comparisons. After exclusion, the discovery cohort comprised 536 CRC patients (EOCRC n = 67, LOCRC n = 469) and the validation cohort comprised 4,254 CRC patients (EOCRC n = 1,470, LOCRC n = 2,784). Somatic mutation frequencies for 11 genes and MSI status were compared between EOCRC and LOCRC, with BRAF analyses further stratified by BRAF V600E specifically and by tumor location. Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) analyses were performed with number-at-risk tables. Multivariate Cox regression was adjusted for tumor stage (TCGA) or sample type (Primary vs. Metastasis; MSK-IMPACT). An EOCRC-specific multivariate model was also constructed to test whether prognostic effects were specific to the young-onset subgroup. Results: BRAF total mutations were significantly less frequent in EOCRC in the validation cohort (6.5% vs 10.1%, p < 0.001); BRAF V600E specifically showed a similar pattern (3.3% vs 7.5%, p < 0.001). However, stratification by tumor location attenuated this difference substantially, indicating that BRAF depletion in EOCRC is at least partially explained by differential tumor location distribution. Kaplan-Meier median OS in the TCGA cohort was not reached for EOCRC and 81.4 months for LOCRC (log-rank p = 0.212); in the MSK-IMPACT cohort, EOCRC 49.4 vs LOCRC 44.4 months (p = 0.009). Multivariate Cox regression in the MSK-IMPACT cohort adjusted for sample type identified KRAS (HR = 1.23, p < 0.001), NRAS (HR = 1.38, p = 0.009), and BRAF (HR = 1.29, p = 0.005) as independent adverse prognostic factors; MSI-H was protective (HR = 0.55, p = 0.008); metastatic sample was a strong independent predictor (HR = 1.70, p < 0.001). Age group was not independently prognostic. In the EOCRC-specific analysis, KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations were not independently prognostic within EOCRC. Conclusions: After exclusion of MMR-deficient tumors, tumor location adjustment, and sample type adjustment, BRAF mutation depletion in EOCRC is confirmed but is at least partially explained by tumor location distribution differences. KRAS/NRAS/BRAF and MSI-H are validated as CRC prognostic biomarkers, but these effects are driven by the overall cohort and are not specific to the EOCRC subgroup. These findings support comprehensive NGS profiling in EOCRC while cautioning against interpreting general CRC prognostic biomarkers as EOCRC-specific.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -