Open Access

Current development of molecular classifications of gastric cancer based on omics (Review)

  • Authors:
    • Yubo Ma
    • Zhengchen Jiang
    • Libin Pan
    • Ying Zhou
    • Ruihong Xia
    • Zhuo Liu
    • Li Yuan
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: August 1, 2024     https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2024.5677
  • Article Number: 89
  • Copyright: © Ma et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Gastric cancer (GC) is a complex and heterogeneous disease with significant phenotypic and genetic variation. Traditional classification systems rely mainly on the evaluation of clinical pathological features and conventional biomarkers and might not capture the diverse clinical processes of individual GCs. The latest discoveries in omics technologies such as next‑generation sequencing, proteomics and metabolomics have provided crucial insights into potential genetic alterations and biological events in GC. Clustering strategies for identifying subtypes of GC might offer new tools for improving GC treatment and clinical trial outcomes by enabling the development of therapies tailored to specific subtypes. However, the feasibility and therapeutic significance of implementing molecular classifications of GC in clinical practice need to addressed. The present review examines the current molecular classifications, delineates the prevailing landscape of clinically relevant molecular features, analyzes their correlations with traditional GC classifications, and discusses potential clinical applications.

Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) stands as one of the most prevalent types of cancer worldwide. As outlined in the 2020 GLOBOCAN report, GC ranks fifth globally in incidence and fourth in mortality (1). Notably, East Asia, Eastern Europe and South America exhibit particularly elevated rates of both incidence and mortality associated with GC (2). As a highly heterogeneous disease, personalized treatment approaches are essential for GC (3). In the early stages of GC development, due to limitations in detection technologies, the most common classification systems were based on morphology; these included the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system (tubular, papillary, mucinous and poorly cohesive) (4), the Lauren classification system (diffuse, intestinal, and mixed) (5), and the Nakamura classification system (differentiated and undifferentiated) (6). Early-stage and advanced-stage GCs are characterized by extensive morphological differences, leading to an increasing number of classification systems (2). However, relying solely on histological classification is insufficient for effectively stratifying patients for individualized treatment and improving clinical outcomes (7).

In the late 1980s, the discovery of targeted molecules such as HER2 (8,9) and VEGF (10,11) played a significant role in GC treatment, marking the era of targeted therapy for GC (12). Individual gene typing, compared with morphological typing, is more precise and enables gene-targeted treatment with corresponding medications. However, with ongoing practice, it has become evident that targeting a single molecular pathway has limitations, including size of the application patient population, drug resistance and side effects. There is a pressing need to comprehensively clarify the molecular characteristics of GC to realize the potential of precision oncology and improve patient survival rates (13).

With technological advancements, omics techniques such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), metabolomics and proteomics have facilitated significant breakthroughs in the medical field, providing direct evidence at the microscopic level to understand the heterogeneity of GC. In 2011, Shah et al (14) differentiated GC subtypes with epidemiological and histological differences using gene expression data, demonstrating favorable consistency and enhancing understanding of tumor biology. In the same year, Tan et al (15) identified two major intrinsic subgroups of GC (G-INT and G-DIF) through gene expression analysis of 37 GC cell lines, laying a solid foundation for subsequent clinical genomic classification research. The use of various omics approaches contributes to a deeper understanding of the detailed biological characteristics of GC, providing a foundation for personalized treatment and drug development and improving the effectiveness of cancer treatment and patient survival rates. The present review summarizes the latest research on GC omics classification, elucidating its potential clinical applications in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment response prediction, and drug design.

Cluster-based molecular classification of GC

Research on the cluster-based classification of GC has gained significant momentum in the past decade. To date, 27 articles related to the cluster classification of GC patient samples have been published, 14 of which provided further validation of the studies (Table I). A milestone study was reported in 2014 by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) research network, which included the most comprehensive molecular characteristics of gastric adenocarcinoma at that time (16). Numerous subsequent cluster-based subtyping studies have been conducted based on the TCGA database (17-28). Apart from the TCGA research, a major gene expression profile study conducted by the Asian Cancer Research Group (ACRG) in 2015 revealed fresh expression subtypes of GC. This classification scheme is intricately linked to diverse molecular alterations, disease progression and prognosis patterns (29). An increasing number of countries and regions, such as Singapore (3,30), South Korea (29,31-33) and China (34-38), have started similar research. These studies commonly employ mainstream classification methods such as consensus clustering (3,18-20,33,34), K-value clustering (24,39) and non-negative matrix factorization (21,26,36,37,40), among others, to conduct cluster-based subtyping of GC patient samples. This finding not only correlates with different genomic alteration patterns but also with GC recurrence patterns, prognosis and drug sensitivity.

Table I

Basic information on the molecular classifications of gastric cancer.

Table I

Basic information on the molecular classifications of gastric cancer.

TimeSource/CountryTypes of GCNumberClustering methodsGroup nameValidation cohorts (N)(Refs.)
2013SingaporeGC (201)201CCMesenchymal, proliferative, metabolicMelbourne Cancer Center (80)(3)
2014SingaporeGC (60)60RPMMH, L/(30)
2014United States, South Korea, Japan, Canada, AustraliaGC (295)295UCEBV, MSI, GS, CIN/(16)
2015South KoreaGC (300)300PCAMSI, MSS/EMT, MSS/TP53+, MSS/TP53−TCGA cohort; GSE15459(29)
2017South KoreaGC (65)65HCsubtype 1-4PMID: 24816253 (100)(31)
2018South KoreaGC (93)93UCMP, EPYonsei University Severance Hospital (65); Kosin University College of Medicine (109); MDACC cohort (40); SMC cohort (432); ACRG cohort (300)(32)
2018ChinaDGC (84)84CCPX1-3/(34)
2019UK, GermanyAEG (107)107Mclust algorithmGroup1-3OCCAMS cohort (158); BELFAST cohort (63); ACRG cohort (300); Singapore cohort (191)(56)
2019South KoreaEOGC (80)80CCsubtype 1-4TCGA cohort (268); ACRG cohort (306); Singapore cohort (192)(33)
2019ChinaDGC (83)83CCPh1-3/(35)
2021TCGA-STADGC (375)375HCL1-3/(17)
2021TCGA-STAD, ACRG-STAD, GSE84437GC (1148)1,148CCImD, StE, ImE/(18)
2021TCGA-STADGC (375)375CCCholesterogenic, Glycolytic, Mixed, Quiescent/(19)
2021ChinaGC (70)70NMFsubtype1-4Zhejiang University (23)(36)
2021TCGA-STADGC (243)243Ten classical clustering algorithmsaCS1-2GSE62254; GSE26253; GSE15459; GSE84437(28)
2021TCGA-STADGC (375)375CCC1-2/(20)
2021TCGA-STADGC (371)371NMFC1-2GSE62254 (300); GSE15459 (192); GSE84437 (433); Tianjin (90)(21)
2021GSE84433GC (357)357NMFsubtype1-3GSE84426 (76)(40)
2022GermanyGC (362)362K-MeansT1-3; S1-3VARIANZ cohort (42)(39)
2022TCGA-STAD, GSE13861, GSE26899, GSE26901, GSE57303, ACRG-STAD, GSE15459, GSE34942, GSE84426, GSE8443GC (1673)1,673HC hypoxiaCluster-high, hypoxiaCluster-medium, hypoxiaCluster-low/(22)
2022TCGA-STAD, GSE84437, GSE62254GC (996)996CCIS1-3/(23)
2022TCGA-STADGC (443)443K-MeansC1-3GSE84437 (433); China (20)(24)
2023ChinaAEG (103)103NMFS-I, S-II, S-III/(37)
2023TCGA-STADGC (323)323CCGroup1 (ARID1A+ type), Group2 (TP53+ type), Group3 (CDH1+ type)GSE26253 (432); ACRG cohort (300); GSE26899 (93); GSE13861 (65); GSE26901 (109)(25)
2023TCGA-STADGC (348)348NMFNMF1-3GSE84437 (433); GSE26253 (432)(26)
2023ChinaGC (196)196CCDGC clusters 1-3, IGC clusters 1-3/DGC TF clusters 1-2, IGC TF clusters 1-2/DGC phospho-proteomic clusters 1-3, IGC phospho-proteomic clusters 1-3/(38)
2023TCGA-STADGC (350)350CCcluster1-2GSE62254; GSE15459; GSE57303; GSE34942; GSE84437; GSE26942; GSE29272; GSE28541; GSE13861(27)

a The ten classical clustering algorithms used include iClusterBayes, moCluster, CIMLR, IntNMF, CC, COCA, NEMO, PINSPlus, SNF, and LRA. N, number; GC, gastric cancer; CC, consensus clustering; RPMM, recursively partitioned mixture model; UC, unsupervised clustering; HC, hierarchy clustering; TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas; EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; MSI, microsatellite instability; GS, genomically stable; CIN, chromosomal instability; PCA, principal component analysis; ACRG, Asian Cancer Research Group; MSS/EMT, microsatellite stable/epithelial-mesenchymal transition; MSS/TP53+, microsatellite stable/epithelial/TP53 intact; MSS/TP53-, microsatellite stable/epithelial/TP53 loss; MP, mesenchymal phenotype; EP, epithelial phenotype; DGC, diffuse-type gastric cancer; AEG, adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction; ImD, immune-deprived; StE, stroma-enriched; ImE, immune-enriched; EOGC, early-onset gastric cancer; NMF, nonnegative matrix factorization; IGC, intestinal-type gastric cancer.

TCGA and ACRG classifications

The TCGA database categorizes gastric adenocarcinoma into four subtypes based on the following features: Epstein-Barr virus (EBV; 8.8%), microsatellite instability (MSI; 21.7%), genomically stable (GS; 19.7%) and chromosomal instability (CIN; 49.8%) (16). EBV-positive tumors exhibit recurrent mutations in phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PIK3CA) and AT-rich interactive domain-containing protein 1A (ARID1A), as well as extreme DNA hypermethylation and overexpression of programmed death-ligand 1/2 (PD-L1/2) (41). Amplifications of Janus-activated kinase 2 (JAK2) and Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2) (42) were also observed. MSI tumors, characterized by mismatch repair deficiency, were more common in elderly (median age 72 years) and female (56%) patients than in male (early) patients. MSI-high GC also had a high rate of PD-L1 expression. The GS subtype had low somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs), was rich in diffuse histological variations, and had mutations in Ras homolog family member A (RHOA) and E-cadherin (CDH1). CIN tumors were more common in the gastroesophageal junction/cardia and exhibited noticeable non-diploidy and focal amplification of receptor tyrosine kinase-Ras (RTK/Ras). There was also a high frequency of TP53 mutations in CIN tumors (Fig. 1).

Another major gene expression profile study conducted by the ACRG (29) reported four expression subtypes of GC, referred to as MSI (22.7%), microsatellite stable/epithelial-mesenchymal transition (MSS/EMT; 15.3%), microsatellite stable/epithelial/TP53 loss (MSS/TP53-; 35.7%) and microsatellite stable/epithelial/TP53 intact (MSS/TP53+; 26.3%). The MSI subtype predominantly occurred in the gastric antrum (75%) and typically presented as an intestinal subtype (>60%). The majority of cases of this type were diagnosed at an early stage (>50%) and exhibited a high frequency of loss of MLH1 RNA expression and elevated DNA methylation (43). This subtype was associated with hypermutation of genes including those in KRAS (23.3%), ARID1A (44.2%), the PI3K-PTEN-mTOR pathway (42%) and ALK (16.3%), as confirmed in multiple studies (44-48). Numerous research results have indicated a significant correlation between MSI and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) (49,50) and PD-L1 levels (51-53). The MSS/EMT subtype is often observed in cases in younger late-stage patients (III/IV), typically exhibiting a diffuse Lauren subtype (>80%); these cases include a significant number of signet ring cell carcinomas and exhibit loss of CDH1 expression (29). The MSS/TP53+ subtype has a high rate of EBV infection (54), with higher mutation rates for PIK3CA, ARID1A, SMAD4, APC and KRAS than the other subtypes. The MSS/TP53-subtype had the highest TP53 mutation rate (60%) and showed enrichment of recurrent focal amplifications in ERBB2, epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR), CCND1, MDM2, CCNE1, GATA6, ROBO2 and MYC. The MSI subtype is linked to a favorable prognosis, while MSS/EMT GC is associated with an unfavorable prognosis (Fig. 1).

The TCGA (16) and ACRG (29) classifications exhibit some similarities (Fig. 1). Both classifications include an MSI subtype, and the TCGA GS, EBV and CIN subtypes correspond to the ACRG MSS/EMT, MSS/TP53+ and MSS/TP53 subtypes, respectively. However, there are also numerous differences, primarily in terms of molecular mechanisms, driver genes, and prognostic associations: i) Tumors classified as TCGA GS and CIN subtypes were included in all ACRG subtypes in the TCGA dataset; ii) RHOA and CDH1 mutations were common in the TCGA GS subgroup but not prevalent in the ACRG MSS/EMT subgroup, while RHOA mutations were more common in the ACRG MSS/TP53+ and MSS/TP53-subtypes; and iii) the correlation between TCGA classification and prognosis is much weaker than the correlation between ACRG classification and prognosis.

Genomic/transcriptomic classifications

The rapid development of genomics and transcriptomics has been propelled by the widespread adoption of NGS technologies. This has significantly enhanced the understanding of GC biology, providing novel insights into the complex interactions among tumor cells, normal cells and their microenvironment (55). Genomic subtypes and transcriptomic subtypes are inherently interconnected. The research on genomic/transcriptomic clustering subtypes encompasses a total of 16 studies (Table II), with four studies (3,18,19,32) characterizing the subtypes descriptively. These studies cover various aspects but primarily focus on EMT (3,18,21,22,32), metabolic characteristics (3,19,20,26,27,56), and immune features (18,20-24,27,40,56). The following is a summary of these aspects.

Table II

Features of gastric cancer subtypes based on genomic/transcriptomic clustering studies.

Table II

Features of gastric cancer subtypes based on genomic/transcriptomic clustering studies.

Sequencing type (Basis)Group name (N)SurvivalHistologyTCGA Clinical/ImmuneMolecular findings(Refs.)
Transcriptome (DEGs)Mesenchymal (60)Diffuse (58.2)High CD44 and low CD24 expression(3)
Proliferative (93)Intestinal (73.6)Characterized by gene sets related to the cell cycle
High GI, TP53 mutations DNA hypomethylation
Metabolic (48)Intestinal (53.6)SPEM
Transcriptome (DEGs)Subtype 1 (11) miR-202/CACNA1E/type II diabetes mellitus(31)
Subtype 2 (29)miR-338/CCL21/NF-κB signaling
Subtype 3 (13) miR-146B/PSMD3/proteasome
Subtype 4 (12)miR-34A (C)/VCL/focal adhesion
Transcriptome (DEGs)MesenchymalPoorDiffuse (61.9)High genomic integrity; MSS(33)
Phenotype/MP (27)Intact MLH1 activity
High Signaling pathways driving EMT and the IGF1/IGF1R pathway activation
EpithelialGoodLow genomic integrity
Phenotype/EP (66)Uniform downregulation of all SFRPs
Transcriptome (DEGs)Group 1 (28)PoorEnriched in pathways involved in cell turnover
High CTSE and membranous CLDN18 scores
(56)
Group 2 (39)Enriched in metabolic processes
Group 3 (40)GoodEnriched in immune-response pathways
High IDO1 positive immune cells and IP10 expression
Transcriptome (tumor-specific lncRNAs)L1 (171)GoodIntestinalMSIHigh LINC01614 expression Mutations in ARID1A, PIK3CA, KMT2B, KRAS, and FBXW7(17)
L2 (104)DiffuseEBV; GSMutations in CDH1
L3 (100)PoorIntestinalCINPresence of TP53 mutations Low methylation Overexpression of oncogenic lncRNAs
Transcriptome (15 pathways associated with immune, DNA repair, oncogenic, and stromal signatures) Immunity-deprived/ImDIntestinalCINLow immune infiltrationHigh DNA damage repair activity, high tumor aneuploidy level, high ITH, high TMB, and frequent TP53 mutations(18)
Stroma-enriched/StEPoorDiffuseGSHigher proportion of advanced tumors; high stromal signaturesLow DNA damage repair activity
Low ITH
High EMT
Immunity-enriched/ImEGoodIntestinalMSI; EBVHigh immune infiltrationHigh DNA damage repair activity; high TMB
High PD-L1 expression; mutations in ARID1A
Transcriptome (23 GLYCOLYSIS genes and 20 CHOLESTEROL genes)Cholesterogenic (53)PoorAbnormal amplification of TP53 and MYC(19)
Glycolytic (47)High PDCD1 and CTLA4 expression
Mixed (110)High MPC1/2 expression
Quiescent (122)
Exome (Based on mutational signature, copy number variation, neoantigen, clonality, and essential genomic alterations)Subtype 1 (22)Intestinal (72.7)CIN (90.9)Liver metastasis tendencyRecurrent TP53 mutation and ERBB2 amplification High TMB/TNB; intratumoral heterogeneity(36)
Subtype 2 (16)Intestinal (62.5)CIN (50);Elderly patientsFrequent TP53, LRP1B, and SYNE1 mutations
GS (50)High TMB/TNB
Subtype 3 (12)Diffuse/Mixed (66.7)GSPeritoneal metastasis tendencyFrequent deletion of ARID1A
Subtype 4 (20)GoodDiffuse/Mixed (70)GSPeritoneal metastasis tendencyFrequent deletion of ARID1A Mutational signature 1 dominant
Transcriptome (metabolism-related lncRNA regulators)C1 (299)EBV; MSIHigh immune infiltrationEnriched in interferon-gamma response, interferon-alpha response, and inflammatory response Mutations in ARID1A, AHNAK2, PIK3CA, and ZBTB20(20)
C2 (67)Enriched in bile acid metabolism; mutations in TP53 High CNV
Transcriptome (Immune DEGs)C1 (175)PoorDiffuseElderly patients; immune restingEnriched in epithelial mesenchymal transition, Angiogenesis, and UV response Mutations in BNC2, CDH1, and CTNNB1(21)
C2 (196)GoodIntestinalEnriched in MYC Target, oxidative phosphorylation, and E2F target; high TMB Mutations in APC, NBEA, PIC3CA, XIRP2, RNF43, SMAD4, TP53, KRAS, and BNCA
Transcriptome (significant genes)Subtype 1 (171)High HLADQA1, HLA-DPA1, and TRIM22 expression(40)
Subtype 2 (103)PoorHigh stromal signaturesHigh SPARC, COL3A1, and CCN expression
Subtype 3 (83)GoodHigh immune infiltrationHigh FGL2 and DLGAP1-AS5 expression
Transcriptome (m6A-related hypoxia pathway DEGs)HypoxiaCluster-high (279)PoorHigh immune Higher proportion of advanced tumors infiltrationEnriched in stromal and metastatic activation pathways, such as EMT, angiogenesis, myogenesis, hedgehog signaling, and TNFa signaling via NFkB(22)
HypoxiaCluster-medium (657)
HypoxiaCluster-low (378)GoodEnriched in signaling pathways associated with MYC targets V2, MYC targets V1, E2F targets, and the G2 M checkpoint
Transcriptome (TIME-associated signature genes)IS1 (369)PoorHigh Notch, Hippo, Wnt, TGF-beta, and PI3K expression(23)
IS2 (324)Enriched in the cell cycle pathway
IS3 (303)GoodHigh immune infiltrationEnriched in immunity-related oncogenic pathways
Transcriptome (prognostic aging-relevant genes)C1 (143)GoodEBV; MSIHigh TMB(24)
C2 (117)GSHigh immune infiltrationLow TMB and SCNA Upregulation of immune activation pathways and stromal activation pathways High MHC molecules and most chemokines (receptors) expression
C3 (91)CINHigh SCNA
Transcriptome (metabolism-associated genes)NMF1 (135)GoodHigh TMB; Mutations in TTN, MUC16, and TP53 High incidence of chain mutation and unique mutations(26)
NMF2 (98)Mutations in TTN, TP53, and LRP1B
NMF3 (115)PoorMutations in TP53, TTN, and MUC16 Driver gene: CNBD1
Transcriptome (metabolism-associated genes)Cluster1 (164)PoorGSHigh immune infiltrationHypomethylation; activation of multiple intercellular communication-related signaling pathways(27)
Cluster 2 (186)GoodMSIHigh metabolic features; high TMB; activation of nucleotide processing and repair-related pathways

[i] N, number; TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas; DEGs, differentially expressed genes; GI, genomic instability; SPEM, spasmolytic polypeptide-expressing metaplasia; miR, miRNA; CACNA1E, calcium voltage-gated channel subunit α1; CCL21, C-C motif chemokine ligand 21; PSMD3, proteasome 26S subunit, non-ATPase 3; VCL, vinculin; MSS, microsatellite stability; IGF1, insulin-like growth factor 1; EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; GS, genomically stable; CIN, chromosomal instability; MSI, microsatellite instability; ITH, intratumor heterogeneity; EMT, epithelial-mesenchymal transition; TMB, tumor mutation burden; MPC1/2, mitochondrial pyruvate carriers 1 and 2; TNB, tumor neoantigen burden; CNV, copy number variation; TIME, tumor immune microenvironment; SCNA, somatic copy number alteration.

In total, five articles discussed the differences in the EMT pathways among subtypes, with two articles providing characteristic names for them (3,32). In 2013, Lei et al (3) classified gastric adenocarcinoma patients into three main subtypes, with the mesenchymal subtype exhibiting high activity in the cancer stem cell pathway. Oh et al (32) suggested that the mesenchymal phenotype (MP) subtype within the intrinsic subtypes exhibits clinical and molecular features akin to those of the Genomic Diffuse (G-DIF) tumors classified by Tan et al (15). The ACRG research also reached a similar conclusion. Furthermore, the MSS/EMT subtype (ACRG classification) (29) was considered a subset of the MP subtype, and both were suggested to be linked with an unfavorable prognosis (18,21,22). Li et al (18) reported that the stroma-enriched (StE) subtype shares similar characteristics with Oh et al's MP subtype (32), including high genomic stability, prominent EMT features, resistance to standard chemotherapy and poor prognosis. Ning et al (22) suggested that high hypoxia status is positively correlated with high m6A methylation in tumors of the MSS/EMT subtype (ACRG classification) (29). Previous research has indicated that EMT significantly enhances the movement and spreading of cancer cells, playing a central role in tumor progression (57-59). Additionally, Oh et al (32) reported high activation of the insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1)/IGF1 receptor (IGF1R) pathway in patients in the MP group, and this pathway is considered a crucial therapeutic target for numerous cancers (60-62). Several studies have identified immune suppression features in groups with enrichment of EMT characteristics (18,21,22). Previous studies reported that the activation of EMT and TGF-related signaling pathways led to weakened transport of T cells to tumors, reducing the cytotoxicity of tumor cells (63-65).

Disruption of cellular energy metabolism stands as one of the core hallmarks of cancer cells (66). Lei et al (3) reported a significant correlation between the metabolic subtype classified in their study and a pathway associated with spasmolytic polypeptide-expressing metaplasia (5), considered an intermediate step in gastric adenocarcinoma development (67). Bornschein et al (56) classified gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma into three groups based on differentially expressed genes and revealed enrichment of fatty acid metabolism pathways in the stroma-enhanced and poor prognosis subgroups (Group 1). Previous research has suggested that adipose tissue can create a proinflammatory microenvironment in obese patients, contributing to stromal activation associated with more aggressive tumor behavior and an unfavorable prognosis (68-70). The presence of Barrett's esophagus was strongly correlated with a Group 1 designation. Group 2 was characterized by metabolic pathways, which are typically active in the intestinal and hepatobiliary systems. A total of four studies (19,20,26,27) conducted analyses on the TCGA dataset, classifying subtypes based on metabolism-related genes. Zhu et al (19) classified the TCGA samples into four subtypes based on the express of glycolysis-related genes and cholesterol-related genes and identified abnormal amplification of MYC and TP53 in the cholesterol subtype. Upregulated MYC expression is linked to a more invasive phenotype in GC cell lines. MYC amplification represents a common mechanism of MYC mutation in cancer (71). MYC amplification has been reported in plasma samples from patients with GC (72). The glycolysis subgroup had increased expression of cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and PDCD1. Li et al (20) reported that the C2 subtype, which has a high TP53 mutation rate, was enriched in bile acid metabolism. Tao et al (27) reported that cluster 2, which presented activation of numerous metabolic pathways, also exhibited activation of nucleotide processing and repair-related pathways and a higher tumor mutation burden (TMB). This was associated with an improved prognosis for patients with GC (26,27).

Tumor tissues and cells undergo varying degrees of metabolic dysregulation and immune dysfunction (73). Li et al (18) classified patients with GC not only into the StE subgroup but also into the immune-deprived (ImD) and immune-enriched (ImE) subtypes. The ImD and ImE subtypes share several common features with Oh et al's epithelial phenotype (EP) (32), such as high genomic instability, elevated DNA damage repair activity and sensitivity to standard chemotherapy. However, Li et al's classification (18) could capture the intratumoral heterogeneity within the EP, including significantly different tumor immune microenvironments, somatic cell mutations and SCNA patterns, responses to chemotherapy and immunotherapy and clinical outcomes. Both ImD and ImE subtypes had high TMB, but their levels of immune infiltration vary significantly. The primary reason might be that ImD exhibits a high frequency of SCNAs that suppress antitumor immune responses (74). Similarly, Wu et al (21) used the TCGA dataset to classify major classes based on immune-related genes: C1 and C2. The C1 subtype exhibited immune quiescence, EMT and angiogenesis pathway activity. By contrast, the C2 subtype primarily exhibited enrichment of MYC targets, oxidative phosphorylation and the E2F target pathway, along with a higher TMB. TMB could serve as an indicator for predicting immunotherapy response, and patients with high TMB had improved clinical outcomes (75-77). Several studies have reported that high TMB is associated with a favorable prognosis in patients with GC (24,26,27,78,79). Interestingly, cluster 1, classified by Tao et al (27), had a poor prognosis despite the enrichment of immune cells, conflicting with previous research results (18,21,23,40,56). Tao et al (27) suggested that this difference might be due to the innate immune and memory cell status of immune cells in cluster 1, as well as the presence of various immune cells with immunosuppressive effects.

Additionally, numerous classification studies have focused simultaneously on the correlation between their own molecular classification and the traditional Lauren classification (3,17,18,21,29,32,36), as well as the classical TCGA classification (17,18,20,24,27,29,36). It was found that the diffuse subtype according to Lauren classification was mostly associated with EMT features (18,21,29), genomic stability (17,18,36) and late-stage GC (18,21). The intestinal subtype is often found in patients with MSI (18,29), TP53 mutations (3,17,18,36), or high TMB (18,21,36).

Proteomic classifications

Proteomic technologies, predominantly reliant on liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry, are gaining traction in cancer research. They are utilized to identify and quantify proteins and post-translational modifications that undergo modulation in cancer. These technologies also help elucidate their associations with copy number variations, epigenetic silencing and alterations in microRNA (miRNA) expression (80). In recent years, several proteomic studies on various cancers have rediscovered numerous of the same subtypes identified through gene expression and proposed new disease classifications (81-85).

Four studies classified GC molecularly based on proteomic subtyping, all of which were conducted on Chinese cohorts (Table III) (34). Based on gene products significantly differentially expressed between tumor and normal tissues, Ge et al (34) classified 84 patients with diffuse-type GC (DGC) from the Beijing Cancer Hospital into PX1-3 subtypes. PX1 and PX2 subtypes exhibited dysregulation throughout the cell cycle, and the PX2 subtype also displayed promotion of EMT. The PX3 subtype was enriched in immune-related proteins and drug-target proteins such as TMEM173 (STING), CD276, CD40, FCGR1A, ARG1, SIRPA, NT5E and IDO1 (86-88). DNA mutations in the PI3K-AKT, CXCR4, and focal adhesion pathways were enriched in the PX3 subtype. According to the prognostic analysis of advanced GC, patients with PX1 GC had the best prognosis, while patients with PX3 GC had the worst prognosis, which might be related to the abnormal enrichment of immune-regulating proteins. Subsequently, this institution conducted a proteomics analysis of phosphorylated proteins (35), which classified 83 patients with DGC into the Ph1-3 subtypes. The Ph1 subtype had the best prognosis and was enriched in TILs and stromal cells. Elevated levels of intratumoral and stromal TILs have been confirmed to correlate with improved prognosis in various cancers (89-92). The Ph1 subtype also showed upregulation of rRNA processing and RNA polymerase II promoter activity. The Ph2 subtype mainly presented upregulation of DNA metabolism and repair processes with loss of essential functions of the stomach, including gastric acid secretion. The Ph3 subtype presented upregulation of chromosome segregation with loss of cell-to-cell interactions and communication. Additionally, compared with the previous proteomic subtypes, the Ph1 subgroup included some patients assigned to the PX2 and PX3 groups, but these patients had improved overall survival (OS) than those in the original PX2 and PX3 groups, indicating that subtyping based on phosphorylated proteomic data may be more accurate (35).

Table III

Features of gastric cancer subtypes based on proteomic clustering studies.

Table III

Features of gastric cancer subtypes based on proteomic clustering studies.

Sequencing type (Basis)Group name (N)Survival Clinical/ImmuneMolecular findings(Refs.)
Proteome (DEPs)PX1 (16)GoodEnriched in cell cycle-related proteins(34)
PX2 (34)Enriched in cell cycle-related and the EMT process proteins
PX3 (34)PoorEnriched in immune response proteins Mutations in the CXCR4, PI3K-AKT, and focal adhesion pathways High TMEM173 (STING), ARG1, NT5E, CD40, IDO1, SIRPA, CD276, and FCGR1A expression
Phosphoproteome (Differentially expressed phosphorylation sites)Ph1 (22)GoodYounger (<50); early-stage (stage II) enriched in higher intratumoral TILs and mesenchymal cellsUpregulated rRNA processing and RNA polymerase II promoter activity(35)
Ph2 (33)Older (>50); advanced stage (stage III-IV)Upregulated DNA metabolic process and DNA repair while losing the basic function of the stomach including gastric acid secretion
Ph3 (28)Older (>50); advanced stage (stage III-IV)Upregulated chromosome segregation and mainly lost cell-cell interaction and communications
Proteome, phosphoproteome, and TF activityDGC (83)Poor (ARID1A mutation)High immune infiltrationEnriched in immune system, complement cascade, ECM organization, and cell migration proteins Potential targets: CDK4/6(38)
IGC (102)Good (ARID1A mutation)Enriched in DNA damage, ERBB signaling, metabolism, and VEGF signaling pathway proteins Potential targets: ATM/ATR
Proteome (Differentially expressed upregulated proteins)DGC cluster 1 (23)GoodCharacterized by the cell cycle and DNA replication Upregulated S phase signature proteins
DGC cluster 2 (28)Characterized by ECM organization, collagen formation and biosynthesis
DGC cluster 3 (28)Overexpression of numerous immune response-related proteins and proteins regulating neutrophil degranulation and complement cascade
IGC cluster 1 (18)GoodOverexpression of numerous immune response-related proteins and proteins regulating neutrophil degranulation and complement cascade
IGC cluster 2 (49)Characterized by ECM organization, collagen formation and biosynthesis; high stroma score
IGC cluster 3 (25)PoorCharacterized by the cell cycle and DNA Replication
Upregulated G2M phase transition signature proteins
TF activity (Detected in >50% of patients)DGC TF cluster 1 (40)GoodMaster TFs: MLX and SMARCC1; the SWI/SNF complex involved in RNA splicing and DNA replication
DGC TF cluster 2 (43)PoorLymphovascular invasion (75.6) Antrum (46.7)Master TFs: NFKB1, RELA, and IRF2; the NFKB complex involved in immune response, CAMs translation, and cell migration
IGC TF cluster 1 (42)GoodEarly-stageMaster TFs: NFKB2; the NFKB complex involved in Rho protein signal transduction and platelet activation
IGC TF cluster 2 (60)PoorMaster TFs: SMARCE1 and TFAP4; the SWI/SNF complex involved in translation and cell cycle progression
Phosphoproteome (Detected in >50% of patients)DGC phosphoproteomic cluster 1 (27)Characterized by RNA splicing, cell cycle, DNA repair and RHO GTPase cycle
DGC phosphoproteomic cluster 2 (37)Characterized by cytoskeleton organization
DGC phosphoproteomic cluster 3 (16)Characterized by cadherin binding and cell adhesion molecule binding
IGC phosphoproteomic cluster 1 (27)Characterized by cytoskeleton organization and actin cytoskeleton organization
IGC phosphoproteomic cluster 2 (26)Characterized by RNA splicing and DNA repair
IGC phosphoproteomic cluster 3 (30)Characterized by cell cycle
Proteome (DEPs)S-I (40)PoorOlder (75%≥65); Siewert type IIMutation in LEPR; CSMD1 and ANKRD36C genes showed significant mutation co-occurrence Enrichment of IKBKB and PRKDC kinases(37)
S-II (23)Low immune infiltrationMutation in NCKAP1; characteristic protein: FBXO44; MUC4 and CPED1 genes showed significant mutation co-occurrence Enrichment of HIPK2 kinase Protein kinase target: CSNK2A1
S-III (40)GoodSiewert type IIIMutation in WIZ; mutually exclusive mutations in RYR2 and TTN FAT4 and PRKDC genes showed significant mutation co-occurrence Enrichment of CHEK2 and AURKB kinases High integrated protein abundance of the 'G2M checkpoint' hallmark Low integrated protein abundance of the 'pancreas beta cells'

[i] N, number; EMT, epithelial-mesenchymal transition; TILs, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes; DGC, diffuse-type gastric cancer; IGC, intestinal-type gastric cancer; TF, transcription factor; DEPs, differentially expressed proteins; CSNK2A1, casein kinase II subunit α

Shi et al (38) reported that ARID1A mutations have opposite prognostic implications for DGC and intestinal-type GC (IGC). The prognosis is worse in DGC but improved in IGC. Therefore, comparing DGC and IGC based on multilevel proteomic data is highly important. Shi et al (38) molecularly classified 196 Chinese patients with DGC and IGC based on proteomics, phosphorylated proteomics, transcription factor (TF) activity profiling, and the relative abundance of different cell types in the tumor microenvironment (Table III). Clustering analysis of the differentially upregulated proteins revealed that DGC cluster 1 and IGC cluster 3 were characterized by enrichment of cell cycle-related proteins (such as CDK6 and CDK1/2) and DNA replication-related proteins (such as AHCTF1 and ORCS3). Numerous immune response-related proteins (such as IDO1, ICAM1 and CD163) as well as proteins regulating neutrophil degranulation and complement cascades (such as C5, IL 16 and FCER1G) were overexpressed in DGC cluster 3 and IGC cluster 1. DGC cluster 1 had a favorable prognosis but was insensitive to chemotherapy, while IGC cluster 3 had a poor prognosis but was sensitive to chemotherapy, indicating significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups with similar protein expression profiles. ATM/ATR are key kinases involved in DNA mismatch repair and may be potential targets for DGC treatment (93). The potential target for IGC was CDK4/6. It has been previously shown that CDK4/6 inhibitors not only induce tumor cell cycle arrest but also enhance antitumor immunity (94). Subtypes based on TF activity demonstrated the importance of the TFs SMARCC1 and NFKB1 in DGC and IGC. Patients with high SMARCC1 activity in IGC or low NFKB1 activity in DGC who received adjuvant chemotherapy had a favorable prognosis. The NFKB complex has been reported to play a crucial role in the immune response (95), cell proliferation/death and inflammation (96), among other functions (97). Conversely, the SWI/SNF complex was implicated in translation and cell cycle progression in IGC TF cluster 2, while it was involved in RNA splicing and DNA replication in DGC TF cluster 1. There was a correlation between the phosphorylated proteomic subtype and the proteomic subtype. According to the subtyping of the relative abundance of different cell types in the tumor microenvironment, the difference in prognosis between DGC and IGC was reversed in immune cluster 3, which was enriched in matrix components.

The incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has been increasing annually (98,99), and the prognosis has been poor (100). Li et al (37) classified 103 AEG tumor samples based on proteomic clustering. The S-I subtype was more abundant in Siewert type II patients, while the S-III subtype was more common in Siewert type III patients. The S-III subgroup had the best prognosis, followed by the S-II subgroup, and the S-I subgroup had the worst prognosis. The most common leptin receptor (LEPR) and significant co-occurrence of the CSMD1 and ANKRD36C genes were found in the S-I subtype. LEPR is a receptor for leptin, a protein hormone mainly secreted by adipose tissue (101). LEPR genotypes have been found to be associated with the risk of various cancers, including esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (102), breast cancer (103) and GC (104). RYR2 and TTN mutations found in the S-III subtype were mutually exclusive, and the FAT4 and PRKDC genes exhibited a significant co-mutation relationship. The RYR2 gene plays a crucial role in steroid metabolism and could reduce the risk of breast cancer (105). In the S-II subtype, specific cooccurring mutations in the MUC4 and CPED1 genes were identified, with NCKAP1 mutations being the most common. In addition, in the S-I and S-III subtypes, there was a significant correlation between CDK1/2 and their phosphorylated substrates. Moreover, CSNK2A1 was found to be significantly correlated with the phosphorylation of Occludin S408 in the S-II subtype, and CSNK2A1 may be a target for the S-II subtype. Moreover, CSNK2A1 has been shown to participate in tumorigenesis by phosphorylating various proteins, including SIRTs (106,107). Li et al (37) found and validated that the characteristic protein of the S-II subtype (FBXO44) could promote tumor progression and metastasis in vitro and in vivo. Recent research has indicated that FBXO44 serves as a crucial inhibitor of DNA replication-coupled repeat elements in human cancer (108).

DNA methylation, metabolomic and multi-omic classifications

Since the discovery of 5-methylcytosine in bacteria in 1925 (109), research on DNA methylation has gradually progressed. DNA methylation profiling, as an emerging tool, serves as an adjunctive means to enhance the accuracy of pathological diagnosis (110). In 2014, Lei et al (3) classified patients into low methylation (L) and high methylation (H) subgroups based on the methylation status of 1421 CpG sites in 768 cancer-related genes. High methylation in females was correlated with MSI in GC. CpG sites with high methylation in the H group were more frequently located on CpG islands and marked with polycomb occupancy.

Metabolomics involves examining metabolites present in biological fluids, cells and tissues, and is widely utilized for the identification of biomarkers (111). Wang et al (39) conducted spatial metabolomic studies on 362 patients with GC and identified three tumor (T1-3)- and three stroma (S1-3)-specific subtypes with distinct tissue metabolism patterns. The tumor-specific T1 subtype exhibited positive correlations with CD3, CD8, FOXP3, MIB1 and HER2 expression, while displaying negative correlations with MMR status. The T1 subtype exhibited 45 significantly upregulated metabolic pathways, including 13 associated with carbohydrate metabolism and 10 associated with amino acid metabolism. Notably, nucleotide metabolism, as well as ascorbic acid and citric acid metabolism, was upregulated only in T1. In a recent study on psoriasis, the upregulation of ascorbic acid and citric acid metabolism was shown to enhance the immunosuppression of Tregs (112). Conversely, the tumor-specific subtype T2 exhibited downregulation HER2, MIB1, CD3 and FOXP3 but a high rate of MMR status. Additionally, 17 notably upregulated metabolic pathways were identified, comprising 7 associated with carbohydrate metabolism and 4 associated with amino acid metabolism. Additionally, this subtype is associated with an unfavorable prognosis. The tumor-specific subtype T3 was shown to be associated with biotin metabolism and cytoplasmic DNA sensing pathways. The cGAS-STING pathway was identified as a vital DNA-sensing mechanism in innate immunity and viral defense. The cGAS-STING signaling pathway also functions in promoting tumor metastasis, and chronic activation of this pathway can paradoxically induce immunosuppressive tumor microenvironments (113). Subtype similarities were observed between T1 and S3, T2 and S2, and T3 and S1.

Integrated single-cell genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and/or metabolomics analyses are reshaping our understanding of cellular biology in health and disease (114). Molecular classification based on multi-omics data has been conducted for various cancers (115-117). Hu et al (28) subtyped GC samples into CS1 and CS2 subtypes based on data for mRNAs, long non-coding RNAs, miRNAs and DNA methylation CpG sites associated with prognosis. The main pathways enriched in the CS1 subtype, which has a favorable prognosis, were involved in the activation of extracellular-related biological processes, including EMT, cell adhesion tissue, response to growth factors and cell-matrix adhesion pathways. SMOC2, which promotes EMT, was significantly upregulated in the CS1 subtype (118). The CS2 subtype, which has an unfavorable prognosis, was primarily enriched in pathways related to the cell cycle, including the G1/S-specific transcription, G2M checkpoint, E2F targets, DNA replication and repair biological processes. Patients in the CS2 subgroup exhibited activated programmed death-1 (PD-1) signaling, which is associated with most EBV and MSI subtypes found in CS2 patients.

Mun et al (33) conducted a proteogenomic analysis on paired tumor and adjacent normal tissues from 80 cases of early-onset GC (EOGC), classifying them into four subtypes (subtypes 1-4). Each subtype exhibited distinct genetic and protein characteristics. Subtype 1 was primarily involved in processes related to cell proliferation; Subtype 2 was mainly associated with immune response processes; Subtype 3 was primarily engaged in metabolism-related processes; Subtype 4 was mainly involved in invasion-related processes. Notably, the more favorable prognosis subtype 2 demonstrated that mutations in CXCR5 and its downstream G-proteins (GNAI3, GNB3-5 and GNG4) could modulate phagosome activity in antigen-presenting cells and TCR signaling in T cells through their interactions with phosphorylated proteins in these pathways (NCF2/4 and CYBA/B in phagosomes, and CD8A, CD247, LCK and PLCG in T cell signaling). Conversely, the poorer prognosis subtype 4 revealed that the activity of the actin cytoskeleton, primarily regulated by RHOA and RAC1 signaling, could be influenced by mutations in two genes, PLK4 and NEK3, in their upstream pathways via their associations with phosphorylated proteins involved in actin cytoskeleton regulation (MSN, PPP1R12B/C, MYLK, ACTN4, VCL, PXN, PAK4 and ARHGEF7 in RHOA or RAC1 signaling).

Li et al (25) used a multivariate Cox regression model to identify crucial features from mRNA, miRNA and DNA methylation datasets, dividing patients into three subtypes. Tumors of subtypes 1 and 3 were located mainly in the gastric antrum, while tumors of subtype 2 were located predominantly in the cardia. Features of subtype 1 (ARID1A+ type) included high ARID1A and PIK3CA mutations, which are correlated with a favorable prognosis and mainly correspond to previously reported EBV, MSI, and EP subtypes (16,32). ARID1A plays a crucial role in multiple regulatory processes (119), including the modulation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, steroid receptor regulation, DNA damage checkpoints, and regulation of p53 and KRAS targets, contributing significantly to the regulation of oncogenic or tumor-suppressive gene expression. Tumors of subtype 2 (TP53+ type) had highly recurrent TP53 mutations, which are linked to an unfavorable prognosis, and mainly corresponded to the previously reported CIN and EP subtypes (83%) (16,32). Tumors of subtype 3 (CDH1+ type) had high CDH1 and apolipoprotein (APO) A1 mutations and was associated with an unfavorable prognosis; this type mainly corresponded to the previously reported GS and MP subtypes (72%) (16,32). CDH1 is the basis of hereditary diffuse GC syndrome (120). APO A1 is the major apolipoprotein among plasma high-density lipoproteins and has therapeutic potential for various diseases (121). Detailed information is included in Table IV.

Table IV

Features of gastric cancer subtypes based on DNA methylation/metabolomic/multiomics clustering studies.

Table IV

Features of gastric cancer subtypes based on DNA methylation/metabolomic/multiomics clustering studies.

Sequencing type (Basis)Group name (N)SurvivalTCGA Clinical/ImmuneMolecular findings(Refs.)
DNA methylation profiling (Tumor-specific CpG methylation sites)L/low methylation (17)
H/high methylation (43)
Female (36%)CpG sites that were hypermethylated were more frequently located in CpG islands and marked for polycomb occupancy SEZ6L, FLT4 and ALK CpG sites with the greatest differences(3)
Spatial metabolomics (Differentially metabolized products in tumor/stromal regions)T1/HER2+MIB+CD3+ (161)/S3/HER2+MIB+ CD3+FOXP3+ (164)GoodEarly pathological UICC stage High TILsPositively correlated with HER2, MIB1, DEFA-1, CD3, CD8, FOXP3, but negatively correlated with MMR and pEGFR; enriched nucleotide metabolism Upregulated nucleotide metabolism and ascorbate and aldarate metabolism(39)
T2/HER2+ MIB+CD3+ (55)/S2/HER2-MIB-CD3− (50)PoorLate pathological UICC stage Low TILsNegatively correlated with HER2, MIB1, CD3, FOXP3, but positively correlated with MMR
T3/pEGFR+ (131)/S1/FOXP3− (125)Positively correlated with pEGFR Related to biotin metabolism and cytosolic DNA sensing pathway
Transcriptome, DNA methylation (OS-associated mRNA, LncRNA, miRNA, DNA methylation CpG sites, and mutant genes)CS1 (131)PoorCIN (71.5)White patients; YoungerEnriched in the activation of extracellular associated biological processes, including EMT, cell adhesion tissue, cell component morphogenesis, response to growth factors, and cell-matrix adhesion pathways High SMOC2 expression(28)
CS2 (112)GoodEBV; MSIEnriched in the cell cycle, including G2M checkpoint, cell cycle, E2F targets, G1/S-specific transcription, DNA replication, and repair biological processes High TMB; High immune activation feature score Mutations in TTN, MUC16, and ARID1A
Proteome, Genome (mRNA)Subtype 1Cell proliferation-related processes: cell cycle and DNA replication, RNA processing, translation, and protein degradation(33)
Subtype 2GoodEBV; MSIImmune response-related processes: antigen presentation, BCR/TNF/Toll-like receptor signaling, TCR signaling, and phagosome; phagocytosis and antigen presentation; TCR signaling
Subtype 3Metabolism-related processes: oxidative phosphorylation, fatty acid β-oxidation, and citrate cycle
Subtype 4PoorGSInvasion-related processes: actin cytoskeleton, MAPK, PI3K-AKT, WNT, RHOA, and cadherin signaling; RHOA
Genome, transcriptome, DNA methylation (the important features of mRNA, microRNA, and DNA methylation data selected by the multivariate Cox regression model)Subtype 1/ARID1A+ type (151)GoodEBV; MSIMutations in ARID1A and PIK3CA
Cosmic signature: SBS6
GSVA gene sets: KRAS_SIGNALING_DN, CDC73_TARGET_GENES, STK33_SKM_DN
Diver genes: ORC1, EZH2, CDC7, ASF1B, CENPU, CDCA7, MAPK4 and DUSP26
(25)
Subtype 2/TP53+ type (94)CINMutations in TP53; Cosmic signature: SBS17b GSVA gene sets: ANDROGEN_RESPONSE, MYCMAX_ 03, STK33_SKM_UP Diver genes: DKK1, IGFBP1, MATN3
Subtype 3/CDH1+ type (78)GSMutations in CDH1 and APOA1; Cosmic signature: SBS1 GSVA gene sets: TGF_BETA_SIGNALING, AHRARNT_01, CAHOY_ASTROGLIAL Diver genes: APOA1

[i] N, number; TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas; MMR, mismatch repair; HER2, epidermal growth factor receptor 2; p-EGFR, phospho-epidermal growth factor receptor; MIB1, E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase; CD3, cluster of differentiation 3; CD8, cluster of differentiation 8; FOXP3, forkhead box the P3; EMT, epithelial-mesenchymal transition; EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; MSI, microsatellite instability; GS, genomically stable; CIN, chromosomal instability; TMB, tumor mutation burden.

Personalized treatment based on molecular classifications

GC is one of the most prevalent malignant tumors of the digestive system, exhibiting notable heterogeneity and complex molecular features (122). Historically, targeted therapies focused on single genes have shown promise in prolonging survival and improving quality of life compared with treatment based on pathological or morphological classifications. Claudin 18.2, due to its unique biological behaviour-being almost exclusively expressed in the gastric mucosa and appearing on the tumour cell surface during malignant transformation-has emerged as a promising target for GC therapy (123). In several international multicentre phase II/III clinical trials, zolbetuximab (an anti-claudin 18.2 monoclonal antibody) demonstrated the ability to improve OS and progression-free survival in previously untreated patients with GC with high levels of claudin 18.2 when used in combination with chemotherapy (124-127). A recent systematic review has detailed the biological behaviour of claudin 18.2 and the clinical efficacy of its targeted therapies (123). However, these approaches have limitations, including limited therapeutic efficacy and severe side effects. With the advent of the era of precision medicine in GC, personalized treatments involving multigene clustering are gradually demonstrating their advantages, as they effectively address the suboptimal outcomes associated with the high heterogeneity of GC (128). Among 27 studies on GC molecular subtyping, 10 described suitable treatment options based on their own molecular subtyping results (Fig. 2).

Adjuvant chemotherapy, primarily based on fluoropyrimidine, includes single-agent treatment with S1 (a combination of tegafur, gimeracil and oteracil) or combination therapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or S1 and docetaxel (129,130). Adjuvant chemotherapy has shown favorable survival benefits in East Asian countries (2). Lei et al (3) reported that the metabolic subtype of GC was more sensitive to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) than were the other two subtypes, possibly due to the significantly reduced expression of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase and thymidylate synthase (TS) (131,132). Additionally, sensitivity to 5-FU in a specific molecular subtype was also identified in three other studies (23,27,28). A prospective study suggested that MSI (dMMR) patients with GC may not benefit from 5-FU adjuvant chemotherapy (133). Li et al (18) investigated the response rates to four different chemotherapies (cisplatin, capecitabine, oxaliplatin and doxorubicin) among GC subtypes. They found that almost all drugs followed the same sensitivity pattern: ImE > StE > ImD. Cisplatin had the highest efficacy in treating ImD (ImD: 73%; StE: 46%; ImE: 67%). This may be due to the high prevalence of homologous recombination defects in ImD, which might increase the sensitivity to cisplatin chemotherapy (134,135), a phenomenon extensively studied in BRCA1/2-negative triple-negative breast cancer (136-138). Cisplatin was also effective in Tao et al's (27) cluster 1 and Zhu et al's (23) subtype IS3. A previous study revealed that patients with CIN GC with a high level of fractional allelic loss were more likely to benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on cisplatin (139). Shi et al (38) discovered that patients with elevated SMARCC1 activity in IGC and reduced NFKB1 activity in DGC may derive benefits from chemotherapy. Notably, NFKB1 has been linked to chemotherapy resistance in breast cancer (140,141). SMARCC1 is the core subunit of the switching or sucrose non-fermentable (SWI/SNF) complex (142). Multiple pieces of evidence suggest that SWI/SNF complex alterations can serve as biomarkers for the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy (143,144). Abnormal expression of the SWI/SNF complex was identified as an independent adverse prognostic factor in patients with GS GC (based on TCGA classification). Detecting abnormalities in the SWI/SNF complex might help identify patients likely to benefit from novel treatment approaches (145). A clinical study revealed that SMARCC1-positive patients benefit from gemcitabine treatment after recurrence, as SMARCC1 can regulate cancer cell resistance to gemcitabine (146). Regarding gemcitabine, Li et al (20) reported that the C1 subtype was more sensitive than the C2 subtype was.

Oh et al (32) suggested that 5-FU-based chemotherapy could improve the prognosis of EP-subtype tumor patients but that this chemotherapy regimen did not benefit patients with MP-subtype tumors. MP-subtype GC cells were more sensitive to an inhibitor of the IGF1/IGF1R pathway (linsitinib). Lei et al (3) found that cell lines of the mesenchymal subtype were particularly sensitive to targeted phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-AKT-mTOR pathway (PAM) inhibition. Previous studies have indicated that excessive activation of the PAM pathway promotes EMT and metastasis by significantly affecting cell migration (147,148). Although some inhibitors of this pathway have received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, concerns remain about resistance and toxicities, and sensitivity markers are still needed (149).

Additionally, in patients with HER2 (also known as ERBB2) overexpression or amplification, trastuzumab should be added to first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy (39,128). Immunotherapy has proven to be an effective treatment for various cancers (150). PD-1 and CTLA-4, belonging to the immunoglobulin-related receptor family, play diverse roles in regulating T-cell immune responses (151). Subtypes enriched in immune cells, such as Li et al's (18) ImE subtype, Zhu et al's (19) glycolysis subtype, and Zhu et al's (23) IS3 subtype, are more likely to benefit from immunotherapy than other subtypes. The MSI and EBV subtypes (based on TCGA classification) have been largely confirmed to be sensitive to immunotherapy (18,28). MSI subtype GC, identified in several studies, might not benefit from chemotherapy, possibly because of elevated TS levels (152,153). Patients with MSI subtype GC exhibit increased reactivity to immunotherapy due to elevated PD-L1 expression (153-156). Patients with MSI subtype GC with high mutation rates in the PAM pathway often exhibit lower TIL numbers and primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors, suggesting that immunotherapy could be used as a stratification approach in patients with advanced MSI-H GC (48,157). Similarly, EBV-positive GC might also respond to immune checkpoint therapy (158), but its efficacy awaits verification. High CTLA-4 levels and lower TILs might have impacted the effectiveness of anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies in patients with EBV GC (156,159). Ge et al (34) reported that the PX3 subtype of DGC, which exhibits high expression of IDO1 and ARG1, might benefit from IDO1 and ARG1 inhibitors. Various IDO1 and ARG1 inhibitors have been evaluated in clinical trials (160,161).

Conclusions and outlook

GC, characterized by strong heterogeneity, is a complex malignancy of the digestive system with unique epidemiological, histological and molecular differences (13). Cluster-based subtyping has great value in GC research. Unlike traditional molecular classification methods, cluster classification methods allow for the subdivision of GC into subgroups with distinct molecular characteristics, tumor biological features and clinical presentations. This approach forms the basis for personalized treatment, optimized clinical trial designs and improved patient management, driving medical advancements.

Immunohistochemistry, in situ hybridization, or reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses, which assess protein and mRNA expression, could serve as valuable and cost-effective tools for stratifying GC in clinical practice (162). However, in clinical application, the selection of appropriate biomarkers or gene sets, the adoption of standardized experimental procedures, and the integration of clinical data for comprehensive analysis are indispensable to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of the results.

Although cluster-based subtyping of GC provides crucial information for clinical diagnosis and treatment, there are still limitations: i) Most research findings are derived from bioinformatic analyses in basic research, and unlike conventional pathological classifications or single-gene classifications, they have not been widely used in clinical settings. This may be the focus of the next step in GC genomic subtype research; ii) the current genomic subtyping system for GC, although diverse, has not been validated in large cohorts (n>1,000), and simultaneous comparisons in large cohorts to explore the most adaptive genomic subtype are needed for precise application; iii) with the development of GC, molecular changes are dynamic, therefore identifying stable molecules to establish a consistent classification system is crucial; and iv) GC often exhibits both inter-tumor and intratumor heterogeneity, thus further exploration of the role of spatial genomics, single-cell technologies and other new techniques in GC cluster classification is needed.

In conclusion, GC should not be treated as a single disease. Cluster-based molecular classifications could aid in GC research, allowing us to delve deeper into the biological characteristics of different subtypes of GC, laying the foundation for personalized treatment and precision medicine. Additionally, utilizing new information from clustering subtypes will help in the design of more accurate and targeted clinical trials, enhancing the effectiveness and credibility of related research. This approach is expected to accelerate the discovery of new treatment methods, providing more effective treatment options for patients with GC and propelling medical research toward more rational and individualized treatment.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors' contributions

YM and ZJ wrote and revised the manuscript. ZJ, LY and ZL conceived and designed the review. YM, ZJ, YZ, LP and RX performed the literature review. LP and LY revised the manuscript. ZL and LY acquired funding. Data authentication is not applicable. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The present study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (grant no. 2021YFA0910100), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 82374544, 82204828, 92259302 and 82074245), the Healthy Zhejiang One Million People Cohort (grant no. K-20230085), the Program of Zhejiang Provincial TCM Sci-tech Plan (grant nos. GZY-ZJ-KJ-230003 and GZY-ZJ-KJ-23048), the Medical Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang (grant nos. 2022KY114, 2018KY305 and 2021KY582) and the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang (grant nos. R24H290003 and HDMY22H160008).

References

1 

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A and Bray F: Global Cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 71:209–249. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Smyth EC, Nilsson M, Grabsch HI, van Grieken NC and Lordick F: Gastric cancer. Lancet. 396:635–648. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Lei Z, Tan IB, Das K, Deng N, Zouridis H, Pattison S, Chua C, Feng Z, Guan YK, Ooi CH, et al: Identification of molecular subtypes of gastric cancer with different responses to PI3-kinase inhibitors and 5-fluorouracil. Gastroenterology. 145:554–565. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D, Paradis V, Rugge M, Schirmacher P, Washington KM, Carneiro F and Cree IA; WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board: The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology. 76:182–188. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar :

5 

Lauren P: The two histological main types of gastric carcinoma: Diffuse and So-called intestinal-type carcinoma. An attempt at a Histo-clinical classification. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 64:31–49. 1965. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Nakamura K, Sugano H and Takagi K: Carcinoma of the stomach in incipient phase: Its histogenesis and histological appearances. Gan. 59:251–258. 1968.PubMed/NCBI

7 

Korfer J, Lordick F and Hacker UT: Molecular targets for gastric cancer treatment and future perspectives from a clinical and translational point of view. Cancers (Basel). 13:52162021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Lewis GD, Figari I, Fendly B, Wong WL, Carter P, Gorman C and Shepard HM: Differential responses of human tumor cell lines to anti-p185HER2 monoclonal antibodies. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 37:255–263. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Park JB, Rhim JS, Park SC, Kimm SW and Kraus MH: Amplification, overexpression, and rearrangement of the erbB-2 protooncogene in primary human stomach carcinomas. Cancer Res. 49:6605–6609. 1989.PubMed/NCBI

10 

Maeda K, Chung YS, Ogawa Y, Ko T, Ogawa M, Onoda N, Kato Y, Arimoto Y, Nitta A and Sowa M: Expression of vascular endothelial cell growth factor as a predictor of recurrence in gastric carcinoma. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 22:699–701. 1995.In Japanese. PubMed/NCBI

11 

Maeda K, Chung YS, Ogawa Y, Takatsuka S, Kang SM, Ogawa M, Sawada T and Sowa M: Prognostic value of vascular endothelial growth factor expression in gastric carcinoma. Cancer. 77:858–863. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Guan WL, He Y and Xu RH: Gastric cancer treatment: Recent progress and future perspectives. J Hematol Oncol. 16:572023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Alsina M, Arrazubi V, Diez M and Tabernero J: Current developments in gastric cancer: From molecular profiling to treatment strategy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 20:155–170. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar

14 

Shah MA, Khanin R, Tang L, Janjigian YY, Klimstra DS, Gerdes H and Kelsen DP: Molecular classification of gastric cancer: A new paradigm. Clin Cancer Res. 17:2693–2701. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Tan IB, Ivanova T, Lim KH, Ong CW, Deng N, Lee J, Tan SH, Wu J, Lee MH, Ooi CH, et al: Intrinsic subtypes of gastric cancer, based on gene expression pattern, predict survival and respond differently to chemotherapy. Gastroenterology. 141:476–485. e1–e11. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network: Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. Nature. 513:202–209. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Chen Y, Cheng WY, Shi H, Huang S, Chen H, Liu D, Xu W, Yu J and Wang J: Classifying gastric cancer using FLORA reveals clinically relevant molecular subtypes and highlights LINC01614 as a biomarker for patient prognosis. Oncogene. 40:2898–2909. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Li L and Wang X: Identification of gastric cancer subtypes based on pathway clustering. NPJ Precis Oncol. 5:462021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Zhu Z, Qin J, Dong C, Yang J, Yang M, Tian J and Zhong X: Identification of four gastric cancer subtypes based on genetic analysis of cholesterogenic and glycolytic pathways. Bioengineered. 12:4780–4793. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Li L and Ma J: Molecular characterization of metabolic subtypes of gastric cancer based on metabolism-related lncRNA. Sci Rep. 11:214912021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Wu D, Feng M, Shen H, Shen X, Hu J, Liu J, Yang Y, Li Y, Yang M, Wang W, et al: Prediction of two molecular subtypes of gastric cancer based on immune signature. Front Genet. 12:7934942021. View Article : Google Scholar

22 

Ning ZK, Hu CG, Liu J, Tian HK, Yu ZL, Zhou HN, Li H and Zong Z: The hypoxic landscape stratifies gastric cancer into 3 subtypes with distinct M6a methylation and tumor microenvironment infiltration characteristics. Front Immunol. 13:8600412022. View Article : Google Scholar

23 

Zhu Y, Zhao Y, Cao Z, Chen Z and Pan W: Identification of three immune subtypes characterized by distinct tumor immune microenvironment and therapeutic response in stomach adenocarcinoma. Gene. 818:1461772022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

He F, Ding H, Zhou Y, Wang Y, Xie J, Yang S and Zhu Y: Depiction of Aging-Based molecular phenotypes with diverse clinical prognosis and immunological features in gastric cancer. Front Med (Lausanne). 8:7927402021. View Article : Google Scholar

25 

Li B, Zhang F, Niu Q, Liu J, Yu Y, Wang P, Zhang S, Zhang H and Wang Z: A molecular classification of gastric cancer associated with distinct clinical outcomes and validated by an XGBoost-based prediction model. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 31:224–240. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Chen T, Zhao L, Chen J, Jin G, Huang Q, Zhu M, Dai R, Yuan Z, Chen J, Tang M, et al: Identification of three metabolic subtypes in gastric cancer and the construction of a metabolic pathway-based risk model that predicts the overall survival of GC patients. Front Genet. 14:10948382023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Tao G, Wen X, Wang X and Zhou Q: Bulk and single-cell transcriptome profiling reveal the metabolic heterogeneity in gastric cancer. Sci Rep. 13:87872023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Hu X, Wang Z, Wang Q, Chen K, Han Q, Bai S, Du J and Chen W: Molecular classification reveals the diverse genetic and prognostic features of gastric cancer: A multi-omics consensus ensemble clustering. Biomed Pharmacother. 144:1122222021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

29 

Cristescu R, Lee J, Nebozhyn M, Kim KM, Ting JC, Wong SS, Liu J, Yue YG, Wang J, Yu K, et al: Molecular analysis of gastric cancer identifies subtypes associated with distinct clinical outcomes. Nat Med. 21:449–456. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30 

Loh M, Liem N, Vaithilingam A, Lim PL, Sapari NS, Elahi E, Mok ZY, Cheng CL, Yan B, Pang B, et al: DNA methylation subgroups and the CpG island methylator phenotype in gastric cancer: A comprehensive profiling approach. BMC Gastroenterol. 14:552014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

31 

Li Y, Bai W and Zhang X: Identifying heterogeneous subtypes of gastric cancer and subtype-specific subpaths of microRNA-target pathways. Mol Med Rep. 17:3583–3590. 2018.

32 

Oh SC, Sohn BH, Cheong JH, Kim SB, Lee JE, Park KC, Lee SH, Park JL, Park YY, Lee HS, et al: Clinical and genomic landscape of gastric cancer with a mesenchymal phenotype. Nat Commun. 9:17772018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

33 

Mun DG, Bhin J, Kim S, Kim H, Jung JH, Jung Y, Jang YE, Park JM, Kim H, Jung Y, et al: Proteogenomic characterization of human Early-Onset gastric cancer. Cancer Cell. 35:111–124.e10. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

34 

Ge S, Xia X, Ding C, Zhen B, Zhou Q, Feng J, Yuan J, Chen R, Li Y, Ge Z, et al: A proteomic landscape of diffuse-type gastric cancer. Nat Commun. 9:10122018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

35 

Tong M, Yu C, Shi J, Huang W, Ge S, Liu M, Song L, Zhan D, Xia X, Liu W, et al: Phosphoproteomics enables molecular subtyping and nomination of kinase candidates for individual patients of Diffuse-Type gastric cancer. iScience. 22:44–57. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

36 

Wang H, Ding Y, Chen Y, Jiang J, Chen Y, Lu J, Kong M, Mo F, Huang Y, Zhao W, et al: A novel genomic classification system of gastric cancer via integrating multidimensional genomic characteristics. Gastric Cancer. 24:1227–1241. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

37 

Li S, Yuan L, Xu ZY, Xu JL, Chen GP, Guan X, Pan GZ, Hu C, Dong J, Du YA, et al: Integrative proteomic characterization of adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction. Nat Commun. 14:7782023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

38 

Shi W, Wang Y, Xu C, Li Y, Ge S, Bai B, Zhang K, Wang Y, Zheng N, Wang J, et al: Multilevel proteomic analyses reveal molecular diversity between diffuse-type and intestinal-type gastric cancer. Nat Commun. 14:8352023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

39 

Wang J, Kunzke T, Prade VM, Shen J, Buck A, Feuchtinger A, Haffner I, Luber B, Liu DHW, Langer R, et al: Spatial metabolomics identifies distinct Tumor-Specific subtypes in gastric cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 28:2865–2877. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

40 

Cao J, Gong J, Li X, Hu Z, Xu Y, Shi H, Li D, Liu G, Jie Y, Hu B and Chong Y: Unsupervised hierarchical clustering identifies immune gene subtypes in gastric cancer. Front Pharmacol. 12:6924542021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

41 

Wang J, Ge J, Wang Y, Xiong F, Guo J, Jiang X, Zhang L, Deng X, Gong Z, Zhang S, et al: EBV miRNAs BART11 and BART17-3p promote immune escape through the enhancer-mediated transcription of PD-L1. Nat Commun. 13:8662022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

42 

Yang J, Liu Z, Zeng B, Hu G and Gan R: Epstein-Barr virus-associated gastric cancer: A distinct subtype. Cancer Lett. 495:191–199. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

43 

Hirata T, Yamamoto H, Taniguchi H, Horiuchi S, Oki M, Adachi Y, Imai K and Shinomura Y: Characterization of the immune escape phenotype of human gastric cancers with and without high-frequency microsatellite instability. J Pathol. 211:516–523. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

44 

Corso G, Velho S, Paredes J, Pedrazzani C, Martins D, Milanezi F, Pascale V, Vindigni C, Pinheiro H, Leite M, et al: Oncogenic mutations in gastric cancer with microsatellite instability. Eur J Cancer. 47:443–451. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar

45 

Mulkidjan RS, Saitova ES, Preobrazhenskaya EV, Asadulaeva KA, Bubnov MG, Otradnova EA, Terina DM, Shulga SS, Martynenko DE, Semina MV, et al: ALK, ROS1, RET and NTRK1-3 Gene fusions in colorectal and Non-colorectal microsatellite-unstable cancers. Int J Mol Sci. 24:136102023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

46 

Chida K, Kawazoe A, Kawazu M, Suzuki T, Nakamura Y, Nakatsura T, Kuwata T, Ueno T, Kuboki Y, Kotani D, et al: A low tumor mutational burden and PTEN mutations are predictors of a negative response to PD-1 blockade in MSI-H/dMMR gastrointestinal tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 27:3714–3724. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

47 

Polom K, Das K, Marrelli D, Roviello G, Pascale V, Voglino C, Rho H, Tan P and Roviello F: KRAS mutation in gastric cancer and prognostication associated with microsatellite instability status. Pathol Oncol Res. 25:333–340. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar

48 

Hwang HS, Kim D and Choi J: Distinct mutational profile and immune microenvironment in microsatellite-unstable and POLE-mutated tumors. J Immunother Cancer. 9:e0027972021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

49 

Giampieri R, Maccaroni E, Mandolesi A, Del Prete M, Andrikou K, Faloppi L, Bittoni A, Bianconi M, Scarpelli M, Bracci R, et al: Mismatch repair deficiency may affect clinical outcome through immune response activation in metastatic gastric cancer patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. Gastric Cancer. 20:156–163. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar

50 

Kim KJ, Lee KS, Cho HJ, Kim YH, Yang HK, Kim WH and Kang GH: Prognostic implications of tumor-infiltrating FoxP3+ regulatory T cells and CD8+ cytotoxic T cells in microsatellite-unstable gastric cancers. Hum Pathol. 45:285–293. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar

51 

Yoshida T, Ogura G, Tanabe M, Hayashi T, Ohbayashi C, Azuma M, Kunisaki C, Akazawa Y, Ozawa S, Matsumoto S, et al: Clinicopathological features of PD-L1 protein expression, EBV positivity, and MSI status in patients with advanced gastric and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma in Japan. Cancer Biol Ther. 23:191–200. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

52 

Gu L, Chen M, Guo D, Zhu H, Zhang W, Pan J, Zhong X, Li X, Qian H, Wang X, et al: PD-L1 and gastric cancer prognosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 12:e01826922017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

53 

Dislich B, Mertz KD, Gloor B and Langer R: Interspatial distribution of tumor and immune cells in correlation with PD-L1 in molecular subtypes of gastric cancers. Cancers (Basel). 14:17362022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

54 

He CY, Qiu MZ, Yang XH, Zhou DL, Ma JJ, Long YK, Ye ZL, Xu BH, Zhao Q, Jin Y, et al: Classification of gastric cancer by EBV status combined with molecular profiling predicts patient prognosis. Clin Transl Med. 10:353–362. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

55 

Hawkins RD, Hon GC and Ren B: Next-generation genomics: An integrative approach. Nat Rev Genet. 11:476–486. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

56 

Bornschein J, Wernisch L, Secrier M, Miremadi A, Perner J, MacRae S, O'Donovan M, Newton R, Menon S, Bower L, et al: Transcriptomic profiling reveals three molecular phenotypes of adenocarcinoma at the gastroesophageal junction. Int J Cancer. 145:3389–3401. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

57 

Brabletz T: EMT and MET in metastasis: Where are the cancer stem cells? Cancer Cell. 22:699–701. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

58 

Brabletz T, Kalluri R, Nieto MA and Weinberg RA: EMT in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 18:128–134. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

59 

Thiery JP and Sleeman JP: Complex networks orchestrate epithelial-mesenchymal transitions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 7:131–142. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

60 

Pollak M: Insulin and insulin-like growth factor signalling in neoplasia. Nat Rev Cancer. 8:915–928. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

61 

Pollak M: The insulin and insulin-like growth factor receptor family in neoplasia: An update. Nat Rev Cancer. 12:159–169. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

62 

Werner H, Meisel-Sharon S and Bruchim I: Oncogenic fusion proteins adopt the insulin-like growth factor signaling pathway. Mol Cancer. 17:282018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

63 

Tauriello DVF, Palomo-Ponce S, Stork D, Berenguer-Llergo A, Badia-Ramentol J, Iglesias M, Sevillano M, Ibiza S, Cañellas A, Hernando-Momblona X, et al: TGFβ drives immune evasion in genetically reconstituted colon cancer metastasis. Nature. 554:538–543. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

64 

Mariathasan S, Turley SJ, Nickles D, Castiglioni A, Yuen K, Wang Y, Kadel EE III, Koeppen H, Astarita JL, Cubas R, et al: TGFbeta attenuates tumour response to PD-L1 blockade by contributing to exclusion of T cells. Nature. 554:544–548. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

65 

Xie F, Zhou X, Li H, Su P, Liu S, Li R, Zou J, Wei X, Pan C, Zhang Z, et al: USP8 promotes cancer progression and extracellular vesicle-mediated CD8+ T cell exhaustion by deubiquitinating the TGF-β receptor TβRII. EMBO J. 41:e1087912022. View Article : Google Scholar

66 

Hanahan D and Weinberg RA: Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell. 144:646–674. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

67 

Goldenring JR and Nomura S: Differentiation of the gastric mucosa III. Animal models of oxyntic atrophy and metaplasia. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 291:G999–G1004. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

68 

Ma Y, Zhu J, Chen S, Li T, Ma J, Guo S, Hu J, Yue T, Zhang J, Wang P, et al: Activated gastric cancer-associated fibroblasts contribute to the malignant phenotype and 5-FU resistance via paracrine action in gastric cancer. Cancer Cell Int. 18:1042018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

69 

Howe LR, Subbaramaiah K, Hudis CA and Dannenberg AJ: Molecular pathways: Adipose inflammation as a mediator of obesity-associated cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 19:6074–6083. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

70 

Manousopoulou A, Hayden A, Mellone M, Garay-Baquero DJ, White CH, Noble F, Lopez M, Thomas GJ, Underwood TJ and Garbis SD: Quantitative proteomic profiling of primary cancer-associated fibroblasts in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Br J Cancer. 118:1200–1207. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

71 

Calcagno DQ, Leal MF, Assumpcao PP, Smith MA and Burbano RR: MYC and gastric adenocarcinoma carcinogenesis. World J Gastroenterol. 14:5962–5968. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

72 

Park KU, Lee HE, Park DJ, Jung EJ, Song J, Kim HH, Choe G, Kim WH and Lee HS: MYC quantitation in cell-free plasma DNA by real-time PCR for gastric cancer diagnosis. Clin Chem Lab Med. 47:530–536. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

73 

Zhao L, Liu Y, Zhang S, Wei L, Cheng H and Wang J and Wang J: Impacts and mechanisms of metabolic reprogramming of tumor microenvironment for immunotherapy in gastric cancer. Cell Death Dis. 13:3782022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

74 

Davoli T, Uno H, Wooten EC and Elledge SJ: Tumor aneuploidy correlates with markers of immune evasion and with reduced response to immunotherapy. Science. 355:eaaf83992017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

75 

Gibney GT, Weiner LM and Atkins MB: Predictive biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy. Lancet Oncol. 17:e542–e551. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

76 

Gandara DR, Paul SM, Kowanetz M, Schleifman E, Zou W, Li Y, Rittmeyer A, Fehrenbacher L, Otto G, Malboeuf C, et al: Blood-based tumor mutational burden as a predictor of clinical benefit in non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with atezolizumab. Nat Med. 24:1441–1448. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

77 

Mandal R, Samstein RM, Lee KW, Havel JJ, Wang H, Krishna C, Sabio EY, Makarov V, Kuo F, Blecua P, et al: Genetic diversity of tumors with mismatch repair deficiency influences anti-PD-1 immunotherapy response. Science. 364:485–491. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

78 

Cai L, Li L, Ren D, Song X, Mao B, Han B and Zhang H: Prognostic impact of gene copy number instability and tumor mutation burden in patients with resectable gastric cancer. Cancer Commun (Lond). 40:63–66. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

79 

Wang D, Wang N, Li X, Chen X, Shen B, Zhu D, Zhu L, Xu Y, Yu Y and Shu Y: Tumor mutation burden as a biomarker in resected gastric cancer via its association with immune infiltration and hypoxia. Gastric Cancer. 24:823–834. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

80 

Mani DR, Krug K, Zhang B, Satpathy S, Clauser KR, Ding L, Ellis M, Gillette MA and Carr SA: Cancer proteogenomics: Current impact and future prospects. Nat Rev Cancer. 22:298–313. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

81 

Mertins P, Mani DR, Ruggles KV, Gillette MA, Clauser KR, Wang P, Wang X, Qiao JW, Cao S, Petralia F, et al: Proteogenomics connects somatic mutations to signalling in breast cancer. Nature. 534:55–62. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

82 

Pozniak Y, Balint-Lahat N, Rudolph JD, Lindskog C, Katzir R, Avivi C, Pontén F, Ruppin E, Barshack I and Geiger T: System-wide clinical proteomics of breast cancer reveals global remodeling of tissue homeostasis. Cell Syst. 2:172–184. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

83 

Vasaikar S, Huang C, Wang X, Petyuk VA, Savage SR, Wen B, Dou Y, Zhang Y, Shi Z, Arshad OA, et al: Proteogenomic analysis of human colon cancer reveals new therapeutic opportunities. Cell. 177:1035–1049.e19. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

84 

Jayavelu AK, Wolf S, Buettner F, Alexe G, Häupl B, Comoglio F, Schneider C, Doebele C, Fuhrmann DC, Wagner S, et al: The proteogenomic subtypes of acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Cell. 40:301–317.e12. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

85 

Tong Y, Sun M, Chen L, Wang Y, Li Y, Li L, Zhang X, Cai Y, Qie J, Pang Y, et al: Proteogenomic insights into the biology and treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Hematol Oncol. 15:1682022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

86 

Zhang C, Chong X, Jiang F, Gao J, Chen Y, Jia K, Fan M, Liu X, An J, Li J, et al: Plasma extracellular vesicle derived protein profile predicting and monitoring immunotherapeutic outcomes of gastric cancer. J Extracell Vesicles. 11:e122092022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

87 

Melero I, Berman DM, Aznar MA, Korman AJ, Perez Gracia JL and Haanen J: Evolving synergistic combinations of targeted immunotherapies to combat cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 15:457–472. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

88 

Liu M, Wang X, Wang L, Ma X, Gong Z, Zhang S and Li Y: Targeting the IDO1 pathway in cancer: From bench to bedside. J Hematol Oncol. 11:1002018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

89 

Barnes TA and Amir E: HYPE or HOPE: The prognostic value of infiltrating immune cells in cancer. Br J Cancer. 117:451–460. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

90 

Kim RS, Song N, Gavin PG, Salgado R, Bandos H, Kos Z, Floris G, Eynden GGGMVD, Badve S, Demaria S, et al: Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in NRG Oncology/NSABP B-31 adjuvant trial for Early-Stage HER2-Positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 111:867–871. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

91 

Paijens ST, Vledder A, de Bruyn M and Nijman HW: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in the immunotherapy era. Cell Mol Immunol. 18:842–859. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar :

92 

Liu D, Heij LR, Czigany Z, Dahl E, Lang SA, Ulmer TF, Luedde T, Neumann UP and Bednarsch J: The role of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in cholangiocarcinoma. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 41:1272022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

93 

Lascarez-Lagunas LI, Nadarajan S, Martinez-Garcia M, Quinn JN, Todisco E, Thakkar T, Berson E, Eaford D, Crawley O, Montoya A, et al: ATM/ATR kinases link the synaptonemal complex and DNA double-strand break repair pathway choice. Curr Biol. 32:4719–4726.e4. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

94 

Goel S, DeCristo MJ, Watt AC, BrinJones H, Sceneay J, Li BB, Khan N, Ubellacker JM, Xie S, Metzger-Filho O, et al: CDK4/6 inhibition triggers anti-tumour immunity. Nature. 548:471–475. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

95 

Pritzl CJ, Luera D, Knudson KM, Quaney MJ, Calcutt MJ, Daniels MA and Teixeiro E: IKK2/NFkB signaling controls lung resident CD8+ T cell memory during influenza infection. Nat Commun. 14:43312023. View Article : Google Scholar

96 

Chang CP, Su YC, Lee PH and Lei HY: Targeting NFKB by autophagy to polarize hepatoma-associated macrophage differentiation. Autophagy. 9:619–621. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

97 

Zinatizadeh MR, Schock B, Chalbatani GM, Zarandi PK, Jalali SA and Miri SR: The Nuclear Factor Kappa B (NF-kB) signaling in cancer development and immune diseases. Genes Dis. 8:287–297. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

98 

Chevallay M, Bollschweiler E, Chandramohan SM, Schmidt T, Koch O, Demanzoni G, Mönig S and Allum W: Cancer of the gastroesophageal junction: A diagnosis, classification, and management review. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1434:132–138. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

99 

Vial M, Grande L and Pera M: Epidemiology of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, gastric cardia, and upper gastric third. Recent Results Cancer Res. 182:1–17. 2010.PubMed/NCBI

100 

Gao Y, Xin L, Lin H, Yao B, Zhang T, Zhou AJ, Huang S, Wang JH, Feng YD, Yao SH, et al: Machine learning-based automated sponge cytology for screening of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction: A nationwide, multicohort, prospective study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 8:432–445. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

101 

Menghi F, Orzan FN, Eoli M, Farinotti M, Maderna E, Pisati F, Bianchessi D, Valletta L, Lodrini S, Galli G, et al: DNA microarray analysis identifies CKS2 and LEPR as potential markers of meningioma recurrence. Oncologist. 16:1440–1450. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

102 

Qiu H, Lin X, Tang W, Liu C, Chen Y, Ding H, Kang M and Chen S: Investigation of TCF7L2, LEP and LEPR polymorphisms with esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. Oncotarget. 8:109107–109119. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar

103 

Liu CR, Li Q, Hou C, Li H, Shuai P, Zhao M, Zhong XR, Xu ZP and Li JY: Changes in body mass index, leptin, and leptin receptor polymorphisms and breast cancer risk. DNA Cell Biol. 37:182–188. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

104 

Yu H, Pan R, Qi Y, Zheng Z, Li J, Li H, Ying J, Xu M and Duan S: LEPR hypomethylation is significantly associated with gastric cancer in males. Exp Mol Pathol. 116:1044932020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

105 

Wei Y, Wang X, Zhang Z, Zhao C, Chang Y, Bian Z and Zhao X: Impact of NR5A2 and RYR2 3'UTR polymorphisms on the risk of breast cancer in a Chinese Han population. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 183:1–8. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

106 

Cha EJ, Noh SJ, Kwon KS, Kim CY, Park BH, Park HS, Lee H, Chung MJ, Kang MJ, Lee DG, et al: Expression of DBC1 and SIRT1 is associated with poor prognosis of gastric carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 15:4453–4459. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

107 

Bae JS, Park SH, Jamiyandorj U, Kim KM, Noh SJ, Kim JR, Park HJ, Kwon KS, Jung SH, Park HS, et al: CK2alpha/CSNK2A1 Phosphorylates SIRT6 and is involved in the progression of breast carcinoma and predicts shorter survival of diagnosed patients. Am J Pathol. 186:3297–3315. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

108 

Shen JZ, Qiu Z, Wu Q, Finlay D, Garcia G, Sun D, Rantala J, Barshop W, Hope JL, Gimple RC, et al: FBXO44 promotes DNA replication-coupled repetitive element silencing in cancer cells. Cell. 184:352–369.e23. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar :

109 

Mattei AL, Bailly N and Meissner A: DNA methylation: A historical perspective. Trends Genet. 38:676–707. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

110 

Papanicolau-Sengos A and Aldape K: DNA methylation profiling: An emerging paradigm for cancer diagnosis. Annu Rev Pathol. 17:295–321. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar

111 

Johnson CH, Ivanisevic J and Siuzdak G: Metabolomics: Beyond biomarkers and towards mechanisms. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 17:451–459. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

112 

Peng L, Chen L, Wan J, Liu W, Lou S and Shen Z: Single-cell transcriptomic landscape of immunometabolism reveals intervention candidates of ascorbate and aldarate metabolism, fatty-acid degradation and PUFA metabolism of T-cell subsets in healthy controls, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Front Immunol. 14:11798772023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

113 

Kwon J and Bakhoum SF: The cytosolic DNA-Sensing cGAS-STING pathway in cancer. Cancer Discov. 10:26–39. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar :

114 

Vandereyken K, Sifrim A, Thienpont B and Voet T: Methods and applications for single-cell and spatial multi-omics. Nat Rev Genet. 24:494–515. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

115 

Liu Z, Zhao Y, Kong P, Liu Y, Huang J, Xu E, Wei W, Li G, Cheng X, Xue L, et al: Integrated multi-omics profiling yields a clinically relevant molecular classification for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Cell. 41:181–195.e9. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar

116 

Vasaikar SV, Straub P, Wang J and Zhang B: LinkedOmics: Analyzing multi-omics data within and across 32 cancer types. Nucleic Acids Res. 46:D956–D963. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar :

117 

Xu Y, She Y, Li Y, Li H, Jia Z, Jiang G, Liang L and Duan L: Multi-omics analysis at epigenomics and transcriptomics levels reveals prognostic subtypes of lung squamous cell carcinoma. Biomed Pharmacother. 125:1098592020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

118 

Feng D, Gao P, Henley N, Dubuissez M, Chen N, Laurin LP, Royal V, Pichette V and Gerarduzzi C: SMOC2 promotes an epithelial-mesenchymal transition and a pro-metastatic phenotype in epithelial cells of renal cell carcinoma origin. Cell Death Dis. 13:6392022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

119 

Mullen J, Kato S, Sicklick JK and Kurzrock R: Targeting ARID1A mutations in cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 100:1022872021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

120 

Hansford S, Kaurah P, Li-Chang H, Woo M, Senz J, Pinheiro H, Schrader KA, Schaeffer DF, Shumansky K, Zogopoulos G, et al: Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer syndrome: CDH1 mutations and beyond. JAMA Oncol. 1:23–32. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

121 

Cochran BJ, Ong KL, Manandhar B and Rye KA: APOA1: A protein with multiple therapeutic functions. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 23:112021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

122 

Chia NY and Tan P: Molecular classification of gastric cancer. Ann Oncol. 27:763–769. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

123 

Nakayama I, Qi C, Chen Y, Nakamura Y, Shen L and Shitara K: Claudin 18.2 as a novel therapeutic target. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 21:354–369. 2024. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

124 

Shitara K, Lordick F, Bang YJ, Enzinger P, Ilson D, Shah MA, Van Cutsem E, Xu RH, Aprile G, Xu J, et al: Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (SPOTLIGHT): A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 401:1655–1668. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

125 

Shah MA, Shitara K, Ajani JA, Bang YJ, Enzinger P, Ilson D, Lordick F, Van Cutsem E, Gallego Plazas J, Huang J, et al: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX in CLDN18.2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: The randomized, phase 3 GLOW trial. Nat Med. 29:2133–2141. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

126 

Sahin U, Tureci O, Manikhas G, Lordick F, Rusyn A, Vynnychenko I, Dudov A, Bazin I, Bondarenko I, Melichar B, et al: FAST: A randomised phase II study of zolbetuximab (IMAB362) plus EOX versus EOX alone for first-line treatment of advanced CLDN18.2-positive gastric and gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Ann Oncol. 32:609–619. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

127 

Klempner SJ, Lee KW, Shitara K, Metges JP, Lonardi S, Ilson DH, Fazio N, Kim TY, Bai LY, Moran D, et al: ILUSTRO: Phase II multicohort trial of zolbetuximab in patients with advanced or metastatic claudin 18.2-Positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 29:3882–3891. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

128 

Joshi SS and Badgwell BD: Current treatment and recent progress in gastric cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 71:264–279. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

129 

Bang YJ, Kim YW, Yang HK, Chung HC, Park YK, Lee KH, Lee KW, Kim YH, Noh SI, Cho JY, et al: Adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): A phase 3 open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 379:315–321. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

130 

De Vita F, Giuliani F, Galizia G, Belli C, Aurilio G, Santabarbara G, Ciardiello F, Catalano G and Orditura M: Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy of gastric cancer. Ann Oncol. 18(Suppl 6): vi120–vi123. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

131 

Salonga D, Danenberg KD, Johnson M, Metzger R, Groshen S, Tsao-Wei DD, Lenz HJ, Leichman CG, Leichman L, Diasio RB and Danenberg PV: Colorectal tumors responding to 5-fluorouracil have low gene expression levels of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, thymidylate synthase, and thymidine phosphorylase. Clin Cancer Res. 6:1322–1327. 2000.PubMed/NCBI

132 

White C, Scott RJ, Paul C, Ziolkowski A, Mossman D, Fox SB, Michael M and Ackland S: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency and implementation of upfront DPYD genotyping. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 112:791–802. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

133 

Zhao F, Li E, Shen G, Dong Q, Ren D, Wang M, Zhao Y, Liu Z, Ma J, Xie Q, et al: Correlation between mismatch repair and survival of patients with gastric cancer after 5-FU-based adjuvant chemotherapy. J Gastroenterol. 58:622–632. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

134 

Hoppe MM, Sundar R, Tan DSP and Jeyasekharan AD: Biomarkers for homologous recombination deficiency in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 110:704–713. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

135 

Golan T, O'Kane GM, Denroche RE, Raitses-Gurevich M, Grant RC, Holter S, Wang Y, Zhang A, Jang GH, Stossel C, et al: Genomic features and classification of homologous recombination deficient pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterology. 160:2119–2132.e9. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

136 

Rodler E, Sharma P, Barlow WE, Gralow JR, Puhalla SL, Anders CK, Goldstein L, Tripathy D, Brown-Glaberman UA, Huynh TT, et al: Cisplatin with veliparib or placebo in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and BRCA mutation-associated breast cancer (S1416): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 24:162–174. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

137 

Telli ML, Timms KM, Reid J, Hennessy B, Mills GB, Jensen KC, Szallasi Z, Barry WT, Winer EP, Tung NM, et al: Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score predicts response to platinum-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with Triple-Negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 22:3764–3773. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

138 

Zhu Y, Hu Y, Tang C, Guan X and Zhang W: Platinum-based systematic therapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 1877:1886782022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

139 

Ott K, Vogelsang H, Mueller J, Becker K, Müller M, Fink U, Siewert JR, Höfler H and Keller G: Chromosomal instability rather than p53 mutation is associated with response to neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in gastric carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 9:2307–2315. 2003.PubMed/NCBI

140 

Kumar S, Nandi A, Singh S, Regulapati R, Li N, Tobias JW, Siebel CW, Blanco MA, Klein-Szanto AJ, Lengner C, et al: Dll1(+) quiescent tumor stem cells drive chemoresistance in breast cancer through NF-kappaB survival pathway. Nat Commun. 12:4322021. View Article : Google Scholar

141 

Kuo WY, Hwu L, Wu CY, Lee JS, Chang CW and Liu RS: STAT3/NF-κB-regulated lentiviral TK/GCV suicide gene therapy for cisplatin-resistant triple-negative breast cancer. Theranostics. 7:647–663. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar :

142 

Liu W, Wang Z, Liu S, Zhang X, Cao X and Jiang M: RNF138 inhibits late inflammatory gene transcription through degradation of SMARCC1 of the SWI/SNF complex. Cell Rep. 42:1120972023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

143 

Mittal P and Roberts CWM: The SWI/SNF complex in cancer-biology, biomarkers and therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 17:435–448. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

144 

Botta GP, Kato S, Patel H, Fanta P, Lee S, Okamura R and Kurzrock R: SWI/SNF complex alterations as a biomarker of immunotherapy efficacy in pancreatic cancer. JCI Insight. 6:e1504532021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

145 

Gluckstein MI, Dintner S, Arndt TT, Vlasenko D, Schenkirsch G, Agaimy A, Müller G, Märkl B and Grosser B: Comprehensive immunohistochemical study of the SWI/SNF complex expression status in gastric cancer reveals an adverse prognosis of SWI/SNF deficiency in genomically stable gastric carcinomas. Cancers (Basel). 13:38942021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

146 

Iwagami Y, Eguchi H, Nagano H, Akita H, Hama N, Wada H, Kawamoto K, Kobayashi S, Tomokuni A, Tomimaru Y, et al: miR-320c regulates gemcitabine-resistance in pancreatic cancer via SMARCC1. Br J Cancer. 109:502–511. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

147 

Deng J, Bai X, Feng X, Ni J, Beretov J, Graham P and Li Y: Inhibition of PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway alleviates ovarian cancer chemoresistance through reversing epithelial-mesenchymal transition and decreasing cancer stem cell marker expression. BMC Cancer. 19:6182019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

148 

Peng Y, Wang Y, Zhou C, Mei W and Zeng C: PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway and its role in cancer therapeutics: Are we making headway? Front Oncol. 12:8191282022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

149 

Yu M, Chen J, Xu Z Yang B, He Q, Luo P, Yan H and Yang X: Development and safety of PI3K inhibitors in cancer. Arch Toxicol. 97:635–650. 2023. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

150 

Chen DS and Mellman I: Elements of cancer immunity and the cancer-immune set point. Nature. 541:321–330. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

151 

Rowshanravan B, Halliday N and Sansom DM: CTLA-4: A moving target in immunotherapy. Blood. 131:58–67. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar

152 

Pereira MA, Dias AR, Ramos MFKP, Cardili L, Moraes RDR, Zilberstein B, Nahas SC, Mello ES and Ribeiro U Jr: Gastric cancer with microsatellite instability displays increased thymidylate synthase expression. J Surg Oncol. 126:116–124. 2022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

153 

Puliga E, Corso S, Pietrantonio F and Giordano S: Microsatellite instability in gastric cancer: Between lights and shadows. Cancer Treat Rev. 95:1021752021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

154 

Liu X, Choi MG, Kim K, Kim KM, Kim ST, Park SH, Cristescu R, Peter S and Lee J: High PD-L1 expression in gastric cancer (GC) patients and correlation with molecular features. Pathol Res Pract. 216:1528812020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

155 

Kim TS, da Silva E, Coit DG and Tang LH: Intratumoral immune response to gastric cancer varies by molecular and histologic subtype. Am J Surg Pathol. 43:851–860. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

156 

Bai Y, Xie T, Wang Z, Tong S, Zhao X, Zhao F, Cai J, Wei X, Peng Z and Shen L: Efficacy and predictive biomarkers of immunotherapy in Epstein-Barr virus-associated gastric cancer. J Immunother Cancer. 10:e0040802022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

157 

Wang Z, Wang X, Xu Y, Li J, Zhang X, Peng Z, Hu Y, Zhao X, Dong K, Zhang B, et al: Mutations of PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway as predictors for immune cell infiltration and immunotherapy efficacy in dMMR/MSI-H gastric adenocarcinoma. BMC Med. 20:1332022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

158 

Panda A, Mehnert JM, Hirshfield KM, Riedlinger G, Damare S, Saunders T, Kane M, Sokol L, Stein MN, Poplin E, et al: Immune activation and benefit from avelumab in EBV-positive gastric cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 110:316–320. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar

159 

Saito M and Kono K: Landscape of EBV-positive gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 24:983–989. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

160 

Cheong JE and Sun L: Targeting the IDO1/TDO2-KYN-AhR pathway for cancer immunotherapy-challenges and opportunities. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 39:307–325. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar

161 

Niu F, Yu Y, Li Z, Ren Y, Li Z, Ye Q, Liu P, Ji C, Qian L and Xiong Y: Arginase: An emerging and promising therapeutic target for cancer treatment. Biomed Pharmacother. 149:1128402022. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

162 

Ichikawa H, Nagahashi M, Shimada Y, Hanyu T, Ishikawa T, Kameyama H, Kobayashi T, Sakata J, Yabusaki H, Nakagawa S, et al: Actionable gene-based classification toward precision medicine in gastric cancer. Genome Med. 9:932017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

September-2024
Volume 65 Issue 3

Print ISSN: 1019-6439
Online ISSN:1791-2423

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Ma Y, Jiang Z, Pan L, Zhou Y, Xia R, Liu Z and Yuan L: Current development of molecular classifications of gastric cancer based on omics (Review). Int J Oncol 65: 89, 2024.
APA
Ma, Y., Jiang, Z., Pan, L., Zhou, Y., Xia, R., Liu, Z., & Yuan, L. (2024). Current development of molecular classifications of gastric cancer based on omics (Review). International Journal of Oncology, 65, 89. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2024.5677
MLA
Ma, Y., Jiang, Z., Pan, L., Zhou, Y., Xia, R., Liu, Z., Yuan, L."Current development of molecular classifications of gastric cancer based on omics (Review)". International Journal of Oncology 65.3 (2024): 89.
Chicago
Ma, Y., Jiang, Z., Pan, L., Zhou, Y., Xia, R., Liu, Z., Yuan, L."Current development of molecular classifications of gastric cancer based on omics (Review)". International Journal of Oncology 65, no. 3 (2024): 89. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2024.5677