Cancer cells carry different types of mutations that are associated with the cell starting to multiply uncontrollably. Certain changes only affect one or a few letters of the genetic code. Others, known as copy number alterations, or CNA, involve larger portions of the genome that can either be lost (deletions) or duplicated (amplifications). Tumors in different patients carry variable amounts of these deletions or amplifications, which together are known as the CNA burden.

New technologies allow scientists to scan the genomes of tumors and examine the type of mutations present in each patient. The results can help to decide on the best course of action. For example, in prostate cancer, patients whose tumors have a high CNA burden are at greater risk of relapse after treatment. However, it has been unclear whether these people also have lower survival rates, and if CNA burden can predict outcome of other types of cancers.

Hieronymus et al. conducted genetic analyses on over a hundred samples from prostate cancer patients who were not treated with surgery or radiation. The results showed that a higher CNA burden in the tumors is correlated with more deaths due to the disease. The findings in prostate cancer were also true across different types of cancers. These conclusions also emerged when Hieronymus et al. then looked at genomic data obtained from patients with various cancers using a different DNA sequencing test, which is certified for clinical use. This demonstrates that CNA burden could be a useful marker in clinical settings to help assess risk in cancer patients.

Somatic copy number alterations (CNAs) are nearly ubiquitous in cancer (Zack et al., 2013; Heitzer et al., 2016) and alter a greater portion of the cancer genome than any other type of somatic genetic alteration (Heitzer et al., 2016). Different cancer types vary in their balance of copy number alterations to somatic point mutations, with prostate cancer having relatively high rates of CNA compared to point mutation. Given the prevalence of CNAs in cancer, significant effort has been directed towards identifying specific CNAs associated with cancer clinical characteristics and prognosis as well as the potential driver genes they contain (Liang et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Nibourel et al., 2017). There are well demonstrated associations between specific CNAs and CNA signatures to cancer state and characteristics (Visakorpi et al., 1995; Williams et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2010). CNV patterns or clusters have been associated with high Gleason prostate cancer (Gleason 8 + compared to Gleason 6–7 [Williams et al., 2014]) and recurrent disease (compared to primary [Visakorpi et al., 1995; Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, 2015; Viswanathan et al., 2018]). Nonetheless, most CNAs are large, (Zack et al., 2013; Beroukhim et al., 2010) and their associations with cancer outcome may not be well identified by gene-specific approaches. Increasing evidence indicates that large CNAs harbor multiple drivers (Tschaharganeh et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2016), emphasizing the need to study their biological and clinical significance beyond individual gene-focused standpoints.

The CNA burden of a tumor is the degree to which a tumor's genome is altered as a percentage of genome length and represents a fundamental measure of genome copy number alteration level. As such, tumor CNA burden, rather than individual CNAs, may be associated with cancer outcomes. While tumor mutational burden (TMB) predicts response to immunotherapy across multiple cancer types (Bergerot et al., 2018; Goodman et al., 2017), tumor CNA burden may be prognostic for outcomes such as recurrence and survival. Indeed, we and others have previously found CNA burden and genome-wide CNA patterns to be associated with biochemical recurrence and metastasis in primary prostate cancer, the most common cancer in men, across multiple cohorts (Taylor et al., 2010; Hieronymus et al., 2014; Camacho et al., 2017). This prognostic significance of tumor CNA burden extends to low and intermediate risk prostate cancer (Gleason scores of 7 and less) (Hieronymus et al., 2014) and has the potential to better stratify risk in patients who are considering conservative treatment approaches such as active surveillance to reduce overtreatment (Chen et al., 2016; Tosoian et al., 2016).

In addition to questions about the prognostic potential and overall landscape of CNA in conservatively treated prostate cancer, it is unknown whether CNA burden is prognostic for prostate cancer survival, rather than only recurrence and metastasis. Nor is it known whether the prognostic significance of tumor CNA burden extends to other cancer types. Here we set out to address these questions, as well as whether tumor CNA burden can be prognostic in a clinical practice setting, including (i) in cancers treated conservatively rather than through immediate surgery or radiation, (ii) in biopsy or resection samples, and (iii) using a clinical targeted sequencing that allows rapid and cost-effective measurement of tumor CNA burden.

To address these questions, we first examine the genomic CNA landscape of conservatively treated prostate cancer in more than a hundred diagnostic biopsy and resection specimens from a conservatively treated cohort; this cohort consisted of patients with localized prostate who were not treated with surgery or radiation within six months of diagnosis. We demonstrate that tumor CNA burden is associated with cancer-specific death, independent of standard clinical predictors. To explore the prognostic significance of tumor CNA burden more broadly in other cancer types, we find that tumor CNA burden is also associated with disease-free and overall survival in TCGA cohorts of primary breast, endometrial, renal clear cell, thyroid, and colorectal cancer in addition to prostate cancer, with the degree of association varying in some cancer types. We then establish the clinical feasibility of measuring tumor CNA burden using the FDA-cleared MSK-IMPACT clinical next generation sequencing (NGS) assay and confirm that tumor CNA burden is associated with overall and disease-specific survival in both primary and metastatic tumors across cancer types. In all, we demonstrate that tumor CNA burden is a prognostic factor associated with cancer recurrence and death in multiple cancer types, including in conservatively treated prostate cancer which would benefit from increased risk stratification.

Many specific genes altered by CNA have been associated with cancer outcomes (Liang et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Nibourel et al., 2017), however the relationship between outcome and the overall level of CNA harbored by a tumor is less well studied. Here we expanded on our previous work showing that tumor CNA burden is associated with recurrence in surgically treated primary prostate cancer (Taylor et al., 2010; Hieronymus et al., 2014) by showing a significant association with death from prostate cancer, including in conservatively treated patients where the tumor CNA burden measurement was made from biopsies. Importantly, this association remains significant even after adjusting for Gleason score or for CAPRA score, demonstrating that CNA burden is independent of previously identified associations with these measures of cancer pathology or disease state. Thus, tumor CNA burden assessment from prostate biopsies could have a role in deciding between surgery and surveillance for men at the low end of intermediate risk. Conversely, it may also have role in men at high risk where multimodal treatment may be needed.

An unanticipated outcome of our analysis beyond prostate cancer is the prognostic role of tumor CNA burden across a range of tumor types. The pan-cancer tumor CNA burden association is significant but also heterogeneous depending on cancer type. Recent work has similarly found that the presence of any CNA, regardless of gene identity, is associated with overall and event-free survival in pediatric AML (Vujkovic et al., 2017) and that the percentage of subclonal CNAs but not subclonal somatic point mutations is associated with overall survival in non-small cell lung cancer (Jamal-Hanjani et al., 2017). Moreover, survival time was associated with a CNA signature derived from supervised analyses in prostate cancer and extended to breast and lung cancer (Pearlman et al., 2018). Prognostic individual CNAs or sets of CNAs, as opposed to the broader measure of genome-wide CNA level examined here may be specific to individual cancer types, whereas we have demonstrated the prognostic potential of a generalized measure of overall copy number dysregulation. Further work will be needed to address the trade-offs between generalizability of CNA burden and discriminatory power. In addition, it will be important to investigate whether the prognostic associations of CNA burden from the pan-cancer analysis are independent of known cancer- or subtype-specific prognostic factors, such as ER receptor status in breast cancer, ultra- and hypermutated (POLE and MSI+) status in endometrial cancer and MSI-positive/CIN-negative status in colorectal cancer (Walther et al., 2008).

We find it notable that tumor CNA burden assessment using a targeted sequencing can serve as a surrogate for tumor CNA burden calculated using more comprehensive genomic assays such as array CGH. With the proliferation of different clinical sequencing panels for mutation detection, it will be of interest to see how much resolution, depth, and coverage can be reduced and still retain the prognostic association of CNA burden; future work in this area will also need to incorporate the predictive clinical utility of the point mutation data to address the multimodal uses of clinical sequencing assays. Another important variable is tumor purity. The prognostic significance of CNA burden can be affected by sample tumor purity, with purity being independently associated with outcome. The effect of purity on the association between CNA burden and outcome appears complex and may be influenced by the analysis platform, cancer type, and outcome type. For example, pan-cancer CNA burden from clinical sequencing panel remained prognostic for survival after purity adjustment in primary tumors and was just below significance for metastatic tumors, though the CNA burden of the prostate tumor subset assayed by IMPACT sequencing panel did not. However, the CNA burden of prostate tumors assayed by SNP array showed continued association with recurrence after adjustment for purity. Tumor purity alone was also independently associated with survival, revealing a complex interaction between these tumor features that will need further exploration. As targeted sequencing moves from tumor samples to liquid biopsy in the form of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) (Heitzer et al., 2016; Xia et al., 2015; Hyman et al., 2017), it will be important to determine whether tumor CNA burden determined by analysis of cfDNA has similar prognostic utility as that determined by direct analysis of tumor DNA. There is already some evidence this may be possible, as the summed CNA level of the most highly copy number altered genes assayed from whole genome sequencing of cfDNA in twenty metastatic prostate cancer patients correlated with overall survival (Xia et al., 2015). As sequencing costs continue to drop and computational power improves, it would be interesting to investigate low pass whole genome sequencing as an alternative approach for determining tumor CNA burden that provides complete genome coverage.

Another interesting feature of the association of tumor CNA burden with outcome demonstrated here is that it has prognostic significance independent of tumor mutation burden (TMB). This is consistent with recent work in glioblastoma, breast, lung, and ovarian cancer showing that CNA-derived signatures have more prognostic power than somatic point mutation-based signatures, as measured by concordance index (Gómez-Rueda et al., 2015). Thus, tumor CNA burden could complement clinical analyses of actionable driver mutations using a single panel-based sequencing assay.

The prognostic significance of tumor CNA burden raises intriguing questions regarding the underlying biology. Tumor CNA burden may be a simple measure that correlates with the extent of oncogenic driver alterations. Yet, we show that tumor CNA burden retains its prognostic significance after adjustment for a number of known oncogenic alterations in primary prostate cancer, including PTEN loss associated with increased tumor CNA burden (Castro et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2014). In metastatic tumors, combining tumor CNA burden with TP53 or RB1 loss in multivariable analyses renders both slightly below conventional significance thresholds, raising the possibility of biological interplay between these genes (particularly TP53) and subsequent copy number alteration that develops during tumor evolution. Further, the prognostic associations of tumor CNA burden are independent of tumor ploidy, which suggests that tumor CNA burden may not simply reflect aneuploidy, defined as abnormal DNA content (Danielsen et al., 2016). It is also possible that tumor CNA burden captures prognostic information about currently unidentified driver alterations and/or the rate of ongoing CNA within a tumor that may generate additional driver alterations, including those reflecting intratumoral heterogeneity, thereby affecting outcome. Ongoing work by others has begun to develop genomic methods for identifying mechanisms of somatic CNA (Wala et al., 2017); and identify prognostic CNA signatures and the mechanisms underlying the component CNA (Macintyre et al., 2018). Ultimately, the biology underlying the significant association of tumor CNA burden with multiple cancer outcomes will be a fruitful area for future investigation.

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files and reference materials. The conservative treatment TAPG copy number cohort array data was deposited in NCBI GEO under accession number GSE103665 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE103665).

1. 1. Hieronymus H
   2. Taylor BS
   3. Sawyers CL

   (2018) Copy number alteration burden is a pan-cancer prognostic factor associated with metastasis and death in conservatively treated prostate cancer: TAPG1 CNA cohort aCGH data

   Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (accession no: GSE103665).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE103665

1. 1. Abida W
   2. Armenia J
   3. Gopalan A
   4. Brennan R
   5. Walsh M
   6. Barron D
   7. Danila D
   8. Rathkopf D
   9. Morris M
   10. Slovin S
   11. McLaughlin B
   12. Curtis K
   13. Hyman DM
   14. Durack JC
   15. Solomon SB
   16. Arcila ME
   17. Zehir A
   18. Syed A
   19. Gao J
   20. Chakravarty D
   21. Vargas HA
   22. Robson ME
   23. Vijai J
   24. Offit K
   25. Donoghue MTA
   26. Abeshouse AA
   27. Kundra R
   28. Heins ZJ
   29. Penson AV
   30. Harris C
   31. Taylor BS
   32. Ladanyi M
   33. Mandelker D
   34. Zhang L
   35. Reuter VE
   36. Kantoff PW
   37. Solit DB
   38. Berger MF
   39. Sawyers CL
   40. Schultz N
   41. Scher HI

   (2017) Prospective genomic profiling of prostate Cancer across disease states reveals germline and somatic alterations that may affect clinical decision making

   JCO Precision Oncology 2017:1–16.

   https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00029

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Bergerot PG
   2. Hahn AW
   3. Bergerot CD
   4. Jones J
   5. Pal SK

   (2018) The role of circulating tumor DNA in renal cell carcinoma

   Current Treatment Options in Oncology 19:10.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-018-0530-4

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Beroukhim R
   2. Mermel CH
   3. Porter D
   4. Wei G
   5. Raychaudhuri S
   6. Donovan J
   7. Barretina J
   8. Boehm JS
   9. Dobson J
   10. Urashima M
   11. Mc Henry KT
   12. Pinchback RM
   13. Ligon AH
   14. Cho YJ
   15. Haery L
   16. Greulich H
   17. Reich M
   18. Winckler W
   19. Lawrence MS
   20. Weir BA
   21. Tanaka KE
   22. Chiang DY
   23. Bass AJ
   24. Loo A
   25. Hoffman C
   26. Prensner J
   27. Liefeld T
   28. Gao Q
   29. Yecies D
   30. Signoretti S
   31. Maher E
   32. Kaye FJ
   33. Sasaki H
   34. Tepper JE
   35. Fletcher JA
   36. Tabernero J
   37. Baselga J
   38. Tsao MS
   39. Demichelis F
   40. Rubin MA
   41. Janne PA
   42. Daly MJ
   43. Nucera C
   44. Levine RL
   45. Ebert BL
   46. Gabriel S
   47. Rustgi AK
   48. Antonescu CR
   49. Ladanyi M
   50. Letai A
   51. Garraway LA
   52. Loda M
   53. Beer DG
   54. True LD
   55. Okamoto A
   56. Pomeroy SL
   57. Singer S
   58. Golub TR
   59. Lander ES
   60. Getz G
   61. Sellers WR
   62. Meyerson M

   (2010) The landscape of somatic copy-number alteration across human cancers

   Nature 463:899–905.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08822

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Brajtbord JS
   2. Leapman MS
   3. Cooperberg MR

   (2017) The CAPRA Score at 10 years: contemporary perspectives and analysis of supporting studies

   European Urology 71:705–709.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.065

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Camacho N
   2. Van Loo P
   3. Edwards S
   4. Kay JD
   5. Matthews L
   6. Haase K
   7. Clark J
   8. Dennis N
   9. Thomas S
   10. Kremeyer B
   11. Zamora J
   12. Butler AP
   13. Gundem G
   14. Merson S
   15. Luxton H
   16. Hawkins S
   17. Ghori M
   18. Marsden L
   19. Lambert A
   20. Karaszi K
   21. Pelvender G
   22. Massie CE
   23. Kote-Jarai Z
   24. Raine K
   25. Jones D
   26. Howat WJ
   27. Hazell S
   28. Livni N
   29. Fisher C
   30. Ogden C
   31. Kumar P
   32. Thompson A
   33. Nicol D
   34. Mayer E
   35. Dudderidge T
   36. Yu Y
   37. Zhang H
   38. Shah NC
   39. Gnanapragasam VJ
   40. Isaacs W
   41. Visakorpi T
   42. Hamdy F
   43. Berney D
   44. Verrill C
   45. Warren AY
   46. Wedge DC
   47. Lynch AG
   48. Foster CS
   49. Lu YJ
   50. Bova GS
   51. Whitaker HC
   52. McDermott U
   53. Neal DE
   54. Eeles R
   55. Cooper CS
   56. Brewer DS
   57. CRUK-ICGC Prostate Group

   (2017) Appraising the relevance of DNA copy number loss and gain in prostate cancer using whole genome DNA sequence data

   PLOS Genetics 13:e1007001.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007001

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Cancer Genome Atlas Network

   (2012) Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer

   Nature 487:330–337.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11252

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network

   (2013) Comprehensive molecular characterization of clear cell renal cell carcinoma

   Nature 499:43–49.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12222

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network
   2. Kandoth C
   3. Schultz N
   4. Cherniack AD
   5. Akbani R
   6. Liu Y
   7. Shen H
   8. Robertson AG
   9. Pashtan I
   10. Shen R
   11. Benz CC
   12. Yau C
   13. Laird PW
   14. Ding L
   15. Zhang W
   16. Mills GB
   17. Kucherlapati R
   18. Mardis ER
   19. Levine DA

   (2013) Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma

   Nature 497:242–273.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12113

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network

   (2014) Integrated genomic characterization of papillary thyroid carcinoma

   Cell 159:676–690.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.050

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network

    (2015) The molecular taxonomy of primary prostate Cancer

    Cell 163:1011–1025.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.10.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Carter SL
    2. Cibulskis K
    3. Helman E
    4. McKenna A
    5. Shen H
    6. Zack T
    7. Laird PW
    8. Onofrio RC
    9. Winckler W
    10. Weir BA
    11. Beroukhim R
    12. Pellman D
    13. Levine DA
    14. Lander ES
    15. Meyerson M
    16. Getz G

    (2012) Absolute quantification of somatic DNA alterations in human cancer

    Nature Biotechnology 30:413–421.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2203

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Castro E
    2. Jugurnauth-Little S
    3. Karlsson Q
    4. Al-Shahrour F
    5. Piñeiro-Yañez E
    6. Van de Poll F
    7. Leongamornlert D
    8. Dadaev T
    9. Govindasami K
    10. Guy M
    11. Eeles R
    12. Kote-Jarai Z
    13. UKGPCS, EMBRACE and IMPACT studies

    (2015) High burden of copy number alterations and c-MYC amplification in prostate cancer from BRCA2 germline mutation carriers

    Annals of Oncology 26:2293–2300.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv356

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Chen RC
    2. Rumble RB
    3. Loblaw DA
    4. Finelli A
    5. Ehdaie B
    6. Cooperberg MR
    7. Morgan SC
    8. Tyldesley S
    9. Haluschak JJ
    10. Tan W
    11. Justman S
    12. Jain S

    (2016) Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (cancer care ontario guideline): american society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement

    Journal of Clinical Oncology 34:2182–2190.

    https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7759

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Cheng DT
    2. Mitchell TN
    3. Zehir A
    4. Shah RH
    5. Benayed R
    6. Syed A
    7. Chandramohan R
    8. Liu ZY
    9. Won HH
    10. Scott SN
    11. Brannon AR
    12. O'Reilly C
    13. Sadowska J
    14. Casanova J
    15. Yannes A
    16. Hechtman JF
    17. Yao J
    18. Song W
    19. Ross DS
    20. Oultache A
    21. Dogan S
    22. Borsu L
    23. Hameed M
    24. Nafa K
    25. Arcila ME
    26. Ladanyi M
    27. Berger MF

    (2015) Memorial sloan kettering-integrated mutation profiling of actionable cancer targets (MSK-IMPACT): A hybridization Capture-Based Next-Generation sequencing clinical assay for solid tumor molecular oncology

    The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics : JMD 17:251–264.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2014.12.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Ciriello G
    2. Gatza ML
    3. Beck AH
    4. Wilkerson MD
    5. Rhie SK
    6. Pastore A
    7. Zhang H
    8. McLellan M
    9. Yau C
    10. Kandoth C
    11. Bowlby R
    12. Shen H
    13. Hayat S
    14. Fieldhouse R
    15. Lester SC
    16. Tse GM
    17. Factor RE
    18. Collins LC
    19. Allison KH
    20. Chen YY
    21. Jensen K
    22. Johnson NB
    23. Oesterreich S
    24. Mills GB
    25. Cherniack AD
    26. Robertson G
    27. Benz C
    28. Sander C
    29. Laird PW
    30. Hoadley KA
    31. King TA
    32. Perou CM
    33. TCGA Research Network

    (2015) Comprehensive molecular portraits of invasive lobular breast cancer

    Cell 163:506–519.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Cooperberg MR
    2. Pasta DJ
    3. Elkin EP
    4. Litwin MS
    5. Latini DM
    6. Du Chane J
    7. Carroll PR

    (2005) The university of california, san francisco cancer of the prostate risk assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy

    The Journal of Urology 173:1938–1942.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000158155.33890.e7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Cuzick J
    2. Fisher G
    3. Kattan MW
    4. Berney D
    5. Oliver T
    6. Foster CS
    7. Møller H
    8. Reuter V
    9. Fearn P
    10. Eastham J
    11. Scardino P
    12. Transatlantic Prostate Group

    (2006) Long-term outcome among men with conservatively treated localised prostate cancer

    British Journal of Cancer 95:1186–1194.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603411

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Danielsen HE
    2. Pradhan M
    3. Novelli M

    (2016) Revisiting tumour aneuploidy - the place of ploidy assessment in the molecular era

    Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 13:291–304.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.208

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Gómez-Rueda H
    2. Martínez-Ledesma E
    3. Martínez-Torteya A
    4. Palacios-Corona R
    5. Trevino V

    (2015) Integration and comparison of different genomic data for outcome prediction in cancer

    BioData Mining 8:32.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13040-015-0065-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Goodman AM
    2. Kato S
    3. Bazhenova L
    4. Patel SP
    5. Frampton GM
    6. Miller V
    7. Stephens PJ
    8. Daniels GA
    9. Kurzrock R

    (2017) Tumor mutational burden as an independent predictor of response to immunotherapy in diverse cancers

    Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 16:2598–2608.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-0386

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Heitzer E
    2. Ulz P
    3. Geigl JB
    4. Speicher MR

    (2016) Non-invasive detection of genome-wide somatic copy number alterations by liquid biopsies

    Molecular Oncology 10:494–502.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molonc.2015.12.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Hieronymus H
    2. Schultz N
    3. Gopalan A
    4. Carver BS
    5. Chang MT
    6. Xiao Y
    7. Heguy A
    8. Huberman K
    9. Bernstein M
    10. Assel M
    11. Murali R
    12. Vickers A
    13. Scardino PT
    14. Sander C
    15. Reuter V
    16. Taylor BS
    17. Sawyers CL

    (2014) Copy number alteration burden predicts prostate cancer relapse

    PNAS 111:11139–11144.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1411446111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Hyman DM
    2. Taylor BS
    3. Baselga J

    (2017) Implementing genome-driven oncology

    Cell 168:584–599.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.12.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Jamal-Hanjani M
    2. Wilson GA
    3. McGranahan N
    4. Birkbak NJ
    5. Watkins TBK
    6. Veeriah S
    7. Shafi S
    8. Johnson DH
    9. Mitter R
    10. Rosenthal R
    11. Salm M
    12. Horswell S
    13. Escudero M
    14. Matthews N
    15. Rowan A
    16. Chambers T
    17. Moore DA
    18. Turajlic S
    19. Xu H
    20. Lee SM
    21. Forster MD
    22. Ahmad T
    23. Hiley CT
    24. Abbosh C
    25. Falzon M
    26. Borg E
    27. Marafioti T
    28. Lawrence D
    29. Hayward M
    30. Kolvekar S
    31. Panagiotopoulos N
    32. Janes SM
    33. Thakrar R
    34. Ahmed A
    35. Blackhall F
    36. Summers Y
    37. Shah R
    38. Joseph L
    39. Quinn AM
    40. Crosbie PA
    41. Naidu B
    42. Middleton G
    43. Langman G
    44. Trotter S
    45. Nicolson M
    46. Remmen H
    47. Kerr K
    48. Chetty M
    49. Gomersall L
    50. Fennell DA
    51. Nakas A
    52. Rathinam S
    53. Anand G
    54. Khan S
    55. Russell P
    56. Ezhil V
    57. Ismail B
    58. Irvin-Sellers M
    59. Prakash V
    60. Lester JF
    61. Kornaszewska M
    62. Attanoos R
    63. Adams H
    64. Davies H
    65. Dentro S
    66. Taniere P
    67. O'Sullivan B
    68. Lowe HL
    69. Hartley JA
    70. Iles N
    71. Bell H
    72. Ngai Y
    73. Shaw JA
    74. Herrero J
    75. Szallasi Z
    76. Schwarz RF
    77. Stewart A
    78. Quezada SA
    79. Le Quesne J
    80. Van Loo P
    81. Dive C
    82. Hackshaw A
    83. Swanton C
    84. TRACERx Consortium

    (2017) Tracking the evolution of non-small-cell lung cancer

    New England Journal of Medicine 376:2109–2121.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1616288

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Liang L
    2. Fang JY
    3. Xu J

    (2016) Gastric cancer and gene copy number variation: emerging cancer drivers for targeted therapy

    Oncogene 35:1475–1482.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2015.209

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Liu Y
    2. Chen C
    3. Xu Z
    4. Scuoppo C
    5. Rillahan CD
    6. Gao J
    7. Spitzer B
    8. Bosbach B
    9. Kastenhuber ER
    10. Baslan T
    11. Ackermann S
    12. Cheng L
    13. Wang Q
    14. Niu T
    15. Schultz N
    16. Levine RL
    17. Mills AA
    18. Lowe SW

    (2016) Deletions linked to TP53 loss drive cancer through p53-independent mechanisms

    Nature 531:471–475.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17157

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Macintyre G
    2. Goranova TE
    3. De Silva D
    4. Ennis D
    5. Piskorz AM
    6. Eldridge M
    7. Sie D
    8. Lewsley LA
    9. Hanif A
    10. Wilson C
    11. Dowson S
    12. Glasspool RM
    13. Lockley M
    14. Brockbank E
    15. Montes A
    16. Walther A
    17. Sundar S
    18. Edmondson R
    19. Hall GD
    20. Clamp A
    21. Gourley C
    22. Hall M
    23. Fotopoulou C
    24. Gabra H
    25. Paul J
    26. Supernat A
    27. Millan D
    28. Hoyle A
    29. Bryson G
    30. Nourse C
    31. Mincarelli L
    32. Sanchez LN
    33. Ylstra B
    34. Jimenez-Linan M
    35. Moore L
    36. Hofmann O
    37. Markowetz F
    38. McNeish IA
    39. Brenton JD

    (2018) Copy number signatures and mutational processes in ovarian carcinoma

    Nature Genetics.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0179-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Nibourel O
    2. Guihard S
    3. Roumier C
    4. Pottier N
    5. Terre C
    6. Paquet A
    7. Peyrouze P
    8. Geffroy S
    9. Quentin S
    10. Alberdi A
    11. Abdelali RB
    12. Renneville A
    13. Demay C
    14. Celli-Lebras K
    15. Barbry P
    16. Quesnel B
    17. Castaigne S
    18. Dombret H
    19. Soulier J
    20. Preudhomme C
    21. Cheok MH

    (2017) Copy-number analysis identified new prognostic marker in acute myeloid leukemia

    Leukemia 31:555–564.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2016.265

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Pearlman A
    2. Upadhyay K
    3. Cole K
    4. Loke J
    5. Sun K
    6. Fineberg S
    7. Freedland SJ
    8. Shao Y
    9. Ostrer H

    (2018) Robust genomic copy number predictor of pan cancer metastasis

    Genes & Cancer 9:66–77.

    https://doi.org/10.18632/genesandcancer.165

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Prandi D
    2. Baca SC
    3. Romanel A
    4. Barbieri CE
    5. Mosquera JM
    6. Fontugne J
    7. Beltran H
    8. Sboner A
    9. Garraway LA
    10. Rubin MA
    11. Demichelis F

    (2014) Unraveling the clonal hierarchy of somatic genomic aberrations

    Genome Biology 15:439.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0439-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Shen R
    2. Seshan VE

    (2016) FACETS: allele-specific copy number and clonal heterogeneity analysis tool for high-throughput DNA sequencing

    Nucleic Acids Research 44:e131.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw520

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Taylor BS
    2. Schultz N
    3. Hieronymus H
    4. Gopalan A
    5. Xiao Y
    6. Carver BS
    7. Arora VK
    8. Kaushik P
    9. Cerami E
    10. Reva B
    11. Antipin Y
    12. Mitsiades N
    13. Landers T
    14. Dolgalev I
    15. Major JE
    16. Wilson M
    17. Socci ND
    18. Lash AE
    19. Heguy A
    20. Eastham JA
    21. Scher HI
    22. Reuter VE
    23. Scardino PT
    24. Sander C
    25. Sawyers CL
    26. Gerald WL

    (2010) Integrative genomic profiling of human prostate cancer

    Cancer Cell 18:11–22.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2010.05.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Tosoian JJ
    2. Carter HB
    3. Lepor A
    4. Loeb S

    (2016) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice

    Nature Reviews Urology 13:205–215.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2016.45

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Tschaharganeh DF
    2. Bosbach B
    3. Lowe SW

    (2016) Coordinated tumor suppression by chromosome 8p

    Cancer Cell 29:617–619.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2016.04.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Visakorpi T
    2. Kallioniemi AH
    3. Syvänen AC
    4. Hyytinen ER
    5. Karhu R
    6. Tammela T
    7. Isola JJ
    8. Kallioniemi OP

    (1995)

    Genetic changes in primary and recurrent prostate Cancer by comparative genomic hybridization

    Cancer Research 55:342–347.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Viswanathan SR
    2. Ha G
    3. Hoff AM
    4. Wala JA
    5. Carrot-Zhang J
    6. Whelan CW
    7. Haradhvala NJ
    8. Freeman SS
    9. Reed SC
    10. Rhoades J
    11. Polak P
    12. Cipicchio M
    13. Wankowicz SA
    14. Wong A
    15. Kamath T
    16. Zhang Z
    17. Gydush GJ
    18. Rotem D
    19. Love JC
    20. Getz G
    21. Gabriel S
    22. Zhang CZ
    23. Dehm SM
    24. Nelson PS
    25. Van Allen EM
    26. Choudhury AD
    27. Adalsteinsson VA
    28. Beroukhim R
    29. Taplin ME
    30. Meyerson M
    31. PCF/SU2C International Prostate Cancer Dream Team

    (2018) Structural alterations driving castration-resistant prostate cancer revealed by linked-read genome sequencing

    Cell 174:433–447.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.036

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Vujkovic M
    2. Attiyeh EF
    3. Ries RE
    4. Goodman EK
    5. Ding Y
    6. Kavcic M
    7. Alonzo TA
    8. Wang YC
    9. Gerbing RB
    10. Sung L
    11. Hirsch B
    12. Raimondi S
    13. Gamis AS
    14. Meshinchi S
    15. Aplenc R

    (2017) Genomic architecture and treatment outcome in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia: a Children's Oncology Group report

    Blood 129:3051–3058.

    https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2017-03-772384

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. Preprint

    1. Wala JAL
    2. Craft Yilong;
    3. Schumacher David;
    4. Steven E
    5. Imielinski M
    6. Haber JE
    7. Roberts N
    8. Yao X
    9. Stewart C
    10. Zhang C-Z
    11. Tubio J
    12. Ju YS
    13. Campbell P
    14. Weischenfeldt J
    15. Beroukhim R

    (2017) Selective and mechanistic sources of recurrent rearrangements across the Cancer genome

    BioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/187609

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Walther A
    2. Houlston R
    3. Tomlinson I

    (2008) Association between chromosomal instability and prognosis in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

    Gut 57:941–950.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2007.135004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Wang H
    2. Liang L
    3. Fang JY
    4. Xu J

    (2016) Somatic gene copy number alterations in colorectal cancer: new quest for cancer drivers and biomarkers

    Oncogene 35:2011–2019.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2015.304

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Williams JL
    2. Greer PA
    3. Squire JA

    (2014) Recurrent copy number alterations in prostate cancer: an in silico meta-analysis of publicly available genomic data

    Cancer Genetics 207:474–488.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cancergen.2014.09.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Xia S
    2. Kohli M
    3. Du M
    4. Dittmar RL
    5. Lee A
    6. Nandy D
    7. Yuan T
    8. Guo Y
    9. Wang Y
    10. Tschannen MR
    11. Worthey E
    12. Jacob H
    13. See W
    14. Kilari D
    15. Wang X
    16. Hovey RL
    17. Huang CC
    18. Wang L

    (2015) Plasma genetic and genomic abnormalities predict treatment response and clinical outcome in advanced prostate cancer

    Oncotarget 6:16411–16421.

    https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.3845

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Zack TI
    2. Schumacher SE
    3. Carter SL
    4. Cherniack AD
    5. Saksena G
    6. Tabak B
    7. Lawrence MS
    8. Zhsng CZ
    9. Wala J
    10. Mermel CH
    11. Sougnez C
    12. Gabriel SB
    13. Hernandez B
    14. Shen H
    15. Laird PW
    16. Getz G
    17. Meyerson M
    18. Beroukhim R

    (2013) Pan-cancer patterns of somatic copy number alteration

    Nature Genetics 45:1134–1140.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2760

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Zehir A
    2. Benayed R
    3. Shah RH
    4. Syed A
    5. Middha S
    6. Kim HR
    7. Srinivasan P
    8. Gao J
    9. Chakravarty D
    10. Devlin SM
    11. Hellmann MD
    12. Barron DA
    13. Schram AM
    14. Hameed M
    15. Dogan S
    16. Ross DS
    17. Hechtman JF
    18. DeLair DF
    19. Yao J
    20. Mandelker DL
    21. Cheng DT
    22. Chandramohan R
    23. Mohanty AS
    24. Ptashkin RN
    25. Jayakumaran G
    26. Prasad M
    27. Syed MH
    28. Rema AB
    29. Liu ZY
    30. Nafa K
    31. Borsu L
    32. Sadowska J
    33. Casanova J
    34. Bacares R
    35. Kiecka IJ
    36. Razumova A
    37. Son JB
    38. Stewart L
    39. Baldi T
    40. Mullaney KA
    41. Al-Ahmadie H
    42. Vakiani E
    43. Abeshouse AA
    44. Penson AV
    45. Jonsson P
    46. Camacho N
    47. Chang MT
    48. Won HH
    49. Gross BE
    50. Kundra R
    51. Heins ZJ
    52. Chen HW
    53. Phillips S
    54. Zhang H
    55. Wang J
    56. Ochoa A
    57. Wills J
    58. Eubank M
    59. Thomas SB
    60. Gardos SM
    61. Reales DN
    62. Galle J
    63. Durany R
    64. Cambria R
    65. Abida W
    66. Cercek A
    67. Feldman DR
    68. Gounder MM
    69. Hakimi AA
    70. Harding JJ
    71. Iyer G
    72. Janjigian YY
    73. Jordan EJ
    74. Kelly CM
    75. Lowery MA
    76. Morris LGT
    77. Omuro AM
    78. Raj N
    79. Razavi P
    80. Shoushtari AN
    81. Shukla N
    82. Soumerai TE
    83. Varghese AM
    84. Yaeger R
    85. Coleman J
    86. Bochner B
    87. Riely GJ
    88. Saltz LB
    89. Scher HI
    90. Sabbatini PJ
    91. Robson ME
    92. Klimstra DS
    93. Taylor BS
    94. Baselga J
    95. Schultz N
    96. Hyman DM
    97. Arcila ME
    98. Solit DB
    99. Ladanyi M
    100. Berger MF

    (2017) Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients

    Nature Medicine 23:703–713.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4333

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Haley Hieronymus

   Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Rajmohan Murali

   Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Methodology, Project administration

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6988-4295

3. Amy Tin

   Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Kamlesh Yadav

   Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation, Project administration

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Wassim Abida

   1. Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
   2. Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Henrik Moller

   Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Population and Global Health, King's College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Resources, Data curation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Daniel Berney

   Department of Molecular Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Resources, Data curation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Howard Scher

   1. Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
   2. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Brett Carver

   Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Peter Scardino

    Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Funding acquisition

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Nikolaus Schultz

    Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Molecular Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States

    Contribution

    Data curation, Writing—review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. Barry Taylor

    1. Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    3. Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Molecular Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Writing—review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

13. Andrew Vickers

    Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing—review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

14. Jack Cuzick

    Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Data curation, Validation, Investigation, Project administration

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Charles L Sawyers

    1. Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—review and editing

    For correspondence

    sawyersc@mskcc.org

    Competing interests

    Senior Editor, eLife; Board of Directors of Novartis; co-founder of ORIC Pharm; co-inventor of enzalutamide and apalutamide; Science advisor to Agios, Beigene, Blueprint, Column Group, Foghorn, Housey Pharma, Nextech, KSQ, Petra and PMV; co-founder of Seragon, purchased by Genentech/Roche in 2014

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4955-6475

• 8,723

  views

• 1,059

  downloads

• 179

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.