The transition from primary colorectal cancer to isolated peritoneal malignancy is associated with a hypermutant, hypermethylated state

Coloretcal Peritoneal metastases (CPM) develop in 15% of colorectal cancers. Cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS & HIPEC) is the current standard of care in selected patients with limited resectable CPM. Despite selection using known prognostic factors survival is varied and morbidity and mortality are relatively high. There is a need to improve patient selection and a paucity of research concerning the biology of isolated CPM. We aimed to determine the biology associated with transition from primary CRC to CPM and poor prognosis CPM, to identify those suitable for treatment with CRS & HIPEC and to identify targets for existing repurposed or novel treatment strategies. A cohort of patients with CPM treated with CRS & HIPEC was recruited and divided according to prognosis. Molecular profiling of the transcriptome, epigenome and genome of CPM and matched primary CRC was performed.CPM were characterised by frequent Wnt/ β catenin negative regulator mutations, mismatch repair mutations and resulting high tumour mutational burden and dysregulation of methylation suggested by frequent TET2 mutations and mutations suggesting an immune evasive phenotype. Several novel therapies could be targeted to these frequent mutations including porcupine inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors and methylation inhibitors. Here we show the molecular features associated with CPM development and with poor prognosis. Potential applications include improving patient selection for treatment and in the development of novel and personalised treatments.Colorectal peritoneal metastasis (CPM) are associated with limited and variable survival despite patient selection using known prognostic factors and optimal currently available treatments. There is a paucity of research concerning the biology of CPM. This study describes the biological landscape of CPM and the molecular features associated with CPM development, conferring poor prognosis and has identified that the majority of CPM develop a hypermutant phenotype that may be suitable for treatment with anti-PD1/CTLA4 immunotherapy.


INTRODUCTION
using the Illumina iScan system. Initial data quality was checked using GenomeStudio Methylation Module Software.
Raw data was loaded into the RStudio version 3.5.0 software using the minifi package.
Bioinformatics analysis was performed using the Chip Analysis Methylation Pipeline (ChAMP) R package, version 2. 10.2.(29, 30) Probes with signals from less than three functional beads, low confidence with a detection p-value >0.01, covering SNPs, non-CpG and those located on the X and Y chromosome where filtered. Beta-mixture quantile normalization (BMIQ) was applied and a singular value decomposition (SVD) performed to identify batch effects. The association between methylation and prognosis was determined using the Bioconductor R package limma and bumphunter functions. Copy number alteration calling was performed using the CHAMP CNA function with a significance threshold of, p-value < p < x10 -10 .

Exome capture, high-throughput sequencing and bioinformatics
DNA was sheared using the Covaris E220 evolution focused-ultrasonicator to produce a uniform 150bp fragment size. Libraries were prepared using the TruSeq® Exome Kit then denatured, diluted, loaded onto a 150-cycle High output flow cell and sequenced using the NextSeq500.
Sequencing reads were assessed using FastQC. Sequences with a Phred score of <30 were removed giving a base call accuracy of 99.9%. Sequence reads were aligned to the human reference genome, (hg19) using the Burrows-Wheeler Aligner (BWA) package (31). SAMTools was used to generate chromosomal coordinatesorted BAM files and Picard was used to remove PCR duplicates (32). Somatic . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020 variants were called from matched tumour-normal samples using Strelka2 in tumour/normal mode (33). Somatic variants were viewed, filtered and annotated in genomics workbench (34). Mutations with a MAF of >1% in known variant databases, (dbSNP and 100,000 genomes) were filtered. Mutations were annotated with information from known variant databases, (dbSNP and 100,000 genomes), PhastCons score and functional consequences. The prognostic groups were compared using Fischer exact test to identify potential candidate driver mutations for poor prognosis CPM. Somatic mutations were entered into the IntOGen platform for further analysis (35). The IntOGen-mutation platform incorporates a number of pipelines to identify cancer driver mutations and activated pathways (35). The OncodriveFM pipeline identifies mutations with a high functional impact using three scoring methods (Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant, (SIFT) (36), PolyPhen2 (37), and Mutation Assessor scores) (35,38). and assess the likelihood that such mutations are cancer drivers. The OncodriveCLUST pipeline assesses the clustering of mutations to identify relevant activated pathways (35). MSI assessment was carried out using MSI_classifier_v3 (https://rpubs.com/sigven/msi_classification_v3).

Patient cohort
From 2011-2017 a total of n=161 patients underwent CRS & HIPEC at University Hospitals Birmingham, n=88 patients for metachronous CPM.
Patients were excluded for the following reasons: rectal primary n=5, incomplete CC2 resection n=8, peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) of ≥ 12 n=20, follow up period of ≤ 12 months n=27 leaving n=28 patients. Complete information regarding the primary . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020 CRC pathology and treatment was available for n=26 patients who form the basis of this study. Each patient had matched normal, primary CRC and CPM samples.
Thirteen patients had a DFS of 24 months (15-72 range) following CRS & HIPEC and formed the 'good prognosis' cohort, thirteen patients had a DFS of 6 months (2-11 range) and formed the poor prognosis cohort. There were no significant differences between cohorts in demographics, primary CRC or CPM tumour, treatment or follow up (table 1).
Following nucleic acid extraction all patients had adequate CPM RNA for RNAseq (n=13 good, n=13 poor prognosis), n=25 had matched primary CRC samples. For methylation array n=24 patients (n=12 good, n=12 poor prognosis) had adequate DNA. As the Infinium methylation array comprises a 32-prep kit, n=4 good and n=4 poor prognosis primary tumours were matched to these. For exome sequencing n=24 patients (n=12 good, n=12 poor prognosis) had adequate DNA from both the primary and CPM samples, extraction of DNA from normal tissue resulted in n=21 samples (n=9 good, n=12 poor prognosis).

Primary tumours:
Across all six sequencing runs, we obtained a median of 59.6X coverage (42.3-166.4) with a median uniformity of 88. 1% (70.67-89.32). In the primary CRC cohort, after normal subtraction, there was a total of n=112,420 somatic SNV's, (primary-normal . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020 subtraction). Variants present at >1% in the dbSNP common or 1000-Genomes databases were filtered leaving n=38,366 variants.. Seven (7/24, 30%) samples had a high tumour mutational burden, TMB ≥ 10 mut/Mb (39). Mutations were present in 64 of 95 known CRC driver genes (supplementary table S1) (40).

CPM:
In the matched CPM cohort, a total of n=244,531 somatic SNV's were identified (CPMprimary subtraction). Nine samples, (56%) had a high tumour mutational burden TMB ≥ 10 mut/Mb (39). Mutations were identified in n=69 of n=95 known CRC driver genes, n=51 were shared between the primary and CPM, n=13 were novel (supplementary table S1) (40). Of the somatic variants identified in CPM, n=58,958 (29%) were present in the primary CRC, n=205,552 variants occurred exclusively in the CPM suggesting a significant accumulation of mutations in the transition to CPM (figure 1).
OncodriveFM identified n=265 potential driver genes with high levels of functional is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. Clonality analysis with SuperFreq showed distinct differences between the good and poor prognosis groups, with a median of 2 clones in the good prognosis group of primary tumours (range 1-4) and 3 clones in the poor prognosis group (range 2-7). In the peritoneal metastases there were a median of 3 clones in both the good (range 1-4) and poor (range 2-5) groups. Of note, in the poor prognosis group during clonal expansion, the dominant clone in the peritoneal metastasis group arose de-novo rather than being a prior clone that existed in the primary tumour (Supplementary figure 1).
Patients with poor prognosis CPM had a higher frequency of somatic mutations: 60% of all mutations in CPM cohort vs. 40%. Patients with poor prognosis more commonly had a high tumour mutational burden, TMB ≥ 10 mut/Mb (39), 56% vs. 44%. Of the somatic mutations identified in poor prognosis CPM, n=35,461 (30%) were present in patients with good prognosis CPM, n=145,089 variants occurred exclusively in patients with poor prognosis CPM, suggesting a high tumour mutational burden was associated with the development of poor prognosis CPM (figure 1).
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020 Comparison of somatic mutations in patients with good and poor prognosis identified two potential candidate genes, FAM13A and PIEZO2 (Fishers exact p<0.05, FDR=0.53) (table 2).

Differences between primary CRC and matched CPM:
Primary CRC and matched CPM showed differential expression of n=65 genes with an FDR <0.1. (Figure 2) Sixteen genes showed significantly decreased expression in CPM compared with primary CRC (table 3). Forty-nine genes showed significantly increased expression in CPM compared with primary CRC (table 3) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.24.20027318 doi: medRxiv preprint

Differential gene expression profile Poor vs. Good prognosis CPM
One hundred and fifty-nine genes showed increased expression in poor prognosis CPM (table 5, figure 3). Five genes showed decreased expression in in poor prognosis CPM, however none had a fold change ≥ 1.5 suggesting minimal difference in expression between the good and poor prognosis cohorts (table 5) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020 and CPM samples n=42 were representative of each CRIS subtype, the remaining nine samples did not have a consistent pattern (figure 5). There was no significant difference in CRIS classification between primary and CPM, p-value 0.365, or between good and poor prognosis CPM, p-value 0.148, (table 6). The non-concordance with CMS subtypes may reflect the increased stromal mesenchymal tissue present in patients with CPM and particularly those with CPM. As CRIS classification is based only on tumour cells such changes in intratumoural heterogeneity are not accounted for. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint
Comparison of CNA between primary and CPM via methylation arrays did not identify and significant differences in CNA between primary and CPM at a stringent p-value of < x10 -10 however a number of CNA were identified at a lower significance threshold, p=2.78 x10-07 (table 8)

Methylation Microarray Analysis, Poor vs. Good prognosis CPM
The top ranked differentially methylated probe was cg07951355, BF=6, (chr1:40123717) which tags an intergenic region 1076 bp before gene NT5C1A. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020 suggesting persistent activation of MAPK and Wnt pathways. Multiple mutations of negative Wnt signalling regulators make this an attractive therapeutic target.
Porcupine inhibitors mediate the palmitoylation of Wnt ligands, blocking Wnt signalling.
The porcupine inhibitor LGK974 inhibits the upstream negative Wnt regulator mutant RNF43 and is a potential therapeutic target in CPM (48).
CPM contained a high proportion of MSH6 somatic mutations suggesting deficiency in the mismatch repair pathway and MSI. MSH6 mutations are commonly found in isolated peritoneal metastasis (49). As expected for tumours with mismatch repair deficiency both the primary CRC and CPM cohort had a high tumour mutational burden, crucially this suggests they may have a good response to treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors such as pembrolizumab (50), a new therapeutic avenue for these difficult to treat patients. The frequency of hypermutatation seen in our study (48%) was considerably higher than that observed for both the MSKCC metastatic disease cohort (5%) and the TCGA Colorectal (51) cohort (10%). The expression of genes regulating innate immunity however was downregulated, (DEFA6, DMBT1, MUC2) or altered via somatic mutations, (HLA-A antigen) suggesting immune evasion in the transition to CPM which may reduce the likelihood of successful PD-1 therapy.
The expression of genes supressing invasion, migration and EMT was downregulated or hypermethylated, (MUC2, MMP26, ILK, FLNB, SPTB, PPL, and SVEP1) and those triggering these processes upregulated, (CYR61, CXCL12, CTGF, CSTB). These changes suggest a mechanism by which CPM cells metastasise from the primary CRC. In keeping with changes in EMT regulators there appeared to be a transition in CMS subtypes towards CMS4 from primary CRC to CPM. The CMS4 subtype is an interesting therapeutic target, TGFβ signalling inhibitors and targeted immunotherapies have been trialled with success in pre-clinical models to block cross . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. A relative weakness of this study is the small cohort of patients, the biological changes identified here form a starting point in identifying the tumour biology associated with the development of CPM and predicting poor prognosis disease. However, we have identified multiple potential targets for therapy, along with the important finding that CPM appears to be a hypermutated, hypermethylated, immune evasive cancer which allows it to be potentially targeted by emerging novel therapeutics. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020 Patients with colorectal peritoneal metastasis (CPM) secondary to colorectal cancer have limited survival with the best available treatments. Despite selection for treatment using known prognostic factors survival varies widely and can be difficult to predict.
There is a paucity of knowledge concerning the biology of CPM, it is likely that there are additional biological markers of response to currently available as well as novel or re-purposed alternative treatments. Here we have comprehensively profiled a cohort of patients with isolated CPM and identified a number of therapeutically targetable alterations including mutations in Wnt/β catenin regulators, the mismatch repair pathway and methylation regulators.

DATA AVAILABILITY:
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020.  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020.  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020.  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020 Supplementary is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted February 25, 2020. . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020