Purpose: RNA-sequencing-based subtyping of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been reported by multiple research groups, each using different methodologies and patient cohorts. "Classical" and "basal-like" PDAC subtypes are associated with survival differences, with basal-like tumors associated with worse prognosis. We amalgamated various PDAC subtyping tools to evaluate the potential of such tools to be reliable in clinical practice.
Experimental design: Sequencing data for 574 PDAC tumors was obtained from prospective trials and retrospective public databases. Six published PDAC subtyping strategies (Moffitt regression tools, clustering-based Moffitt, Collisson, Bailey, and Karasinska subtypes) were used on each sample, and results were tested for subtype call consistency and association with survival.
Results: Basal-like and classical subtype calls were concordant in 88% of patient samples, and survival outcomes were significantly different (P < 0.05) between prognostic subtypes. Twelve percent of tumors had subtype-discordant calls across the different methods, showing intermediate survival in univariate and multivariate survival analyses. Transcriptional profiles compatible with that of a hybrid subtype signature were observed for subtype-discordant tumors, in which classical and basal-like genes were concomitantly expressed. Subtype-discordant tumors showed intermediate molecular characteristics, including subtyping gene expression (P < 0.0001) and mutant KRAS allelic imbalance (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Nearly 1 in 6 patients with PDAC have tumors that fail to reliably fall into the classical or basal-like PDAC subtype categories, based on two regression tools aimed toward clinical practice. Rather, these patient tumors show intermediate prognostic and molecular traits. We propose close consideration of the non-binary nature of PDAC subtypes for future incorporation of subtyping into clinical practice.
©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.