bims-tumhet Biomed News
on Tumor heterogeneity
Issue of 2026–01–18
five papers selected by
Sergio Marchini, Humanitas Research



  1. Genome Biol. 2026 Jan 12.
       BACKGROUND: Spatial transcriptomics (ST) technologies are reshaping our understanding of tissue organization and cellular context in health and disease. However, technical benchmarking across platforms remains limited, particularly in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) clinical samples, which represent the most common tissue format in oncology.
    RESULTS: Here, we systematically benchmark five commercial ST platforms (Visium v1, Visium v2/CytAssist, Visium HD, Xenium, and CosMx) using matched FFPE human tumor sections from six cancer types. Uniquely, our study includes both sequencing-based and imaging-based platforms profiled on the same samples, enabling direct technical comparisons across spatial capture modalities. We evaluate platform performance across multiple dimensions, including transcript and UMI detection, gene-histology concordance, cell type recovery, and integration with a targeted protein panel (Visium v2, 30 proteins), enabling spatial multi-omics. We also quantify the impact of sampling strategies and area coverage on cell type estimation, revealing trade-offs in spatial resolution versus tissue context. Notably, we present the first same-sample comparison of Xenium Multi-Tissue (377 genes) and Xenium Prime (5,000 genes), highlighting key differences in transcript recovery and spatial signal despite shared chemistry and imaging infrastructure. Finally, we integrate Visium targeted protein data with matched RNA profiles, uncovering widespread RNA-protein decoupling and spatial heterogeneity in concordance.
    CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, this work provides a harmonized dataset and technical reference for the spatial transcriptomics community, offering insight into the relative strengths, limitations, and design considerations associated with high-throughput spatial profiling of FFPE tumors.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-026-03937-y
  2. Clin Cancer Res. 2026 Jan 15.
       BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may offer a non-invasive means to evaluate tumor response and to anticipate disease dynamics before radiological changes in advanced endometrial carcinoma (EC).
    METHODS: This ancillary analysis included patients from the multicenter, randomized, phase II, GINECO-UTOLA trial (NCT03745950), evaluating olaparib/placebo as maintenance after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Plasma samples were collected at screening after chemotherapy (baseline), 3 months (M3), and progression. ctDNA detection was assessed by a validated methylation-based digital-droplet PCR (MethddPCR) assay targeting DNA positions universally methylated in EC.
    RESULTS: Among 130 evaluable patients, ctDNA was detected in 25/129 (19%, 1 technical fail) at baseline, 15/80 (19%) at M3, and 33/52 (63%) at progression. Baseline ctDNA positivity was independently associated with poorer progression-free survival (median 1.81 vs 7.39 months; adjusted-HR=5.33 [3.17-8.97]) and overall survival (OS) (10.3 vs 24.7 months; adjusted-HR=3.98 [2.28-6.91]) (adjusted for age, stage IV at diagnosis, p53abn subgroup, and residual measurable lesions after chemotherapy). Patients with baseline ctDNA had median OS of 9.36 months under olaparib versus 19.6 months under placebo (log-rank p=0.05). Patients with rising ctDNA at M3 had median PFS of 1.67 months, versus 9.64 months without, and median OS of 18.8 versus 25.8 months. ctDNA rising was predictive of poor post-progression OS under olaparib but not under placebo (interaction test, p<0.001).
    CONCLUSION: MethddPCR-ctDNA is an independent prognostic biomarker for OS in advanced/metastatic EC. MethddPCR-ctDNA may identify patients unlikely to benefit from PARP inhibition, guide therapeutic decisions, and should be further evaluated as a new stratification parameter in future endometrial carcinoma trials.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-25-2959
  3. Lancet. 2026 Jan 08. pii: S0140-6736(25)02463-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    Lancet Commission on Ovarian Cancer
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)02463-8
  4. Discov Oncol. 2026 Jan 15.
      Ovarian cancer ranks sixth as the most common cancer and fifth as the most deadly malignancy among women worldwide. In addition, it places third among the most common gynecological cancers. Which proves that it is a significant medical problem worldwide. Most ovarian cancers (75-90%) are sporadic and arise from the accumulation of somatic mutations that are confined to the genome of the tumor tissue. However, about 10-25% of all ovarian cancer cases are hereditary. Most hereditary cases of ovarian cancer are associated with one of three genetic syndromes: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), hereditary ovarian site-specific cancer syndrome (HOC-ss) and hereditary non-polyposis-related colorectal cancer syndrome (HNPCC). Mutations in the BRCA1/BRCA2 underlie the majority of hereditary ovarian cancers and belong to the group of genes with high penetrance which means that carriers of their pathogenic variants have a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. Mutations in these genes are inherited in an autosomal dominant disorder, which means that inheriting a single copy of the mutated gene significantly increases the risk of developing this cancer. In contrast, about 5-10% of patients are carriers of pathogenic variants in other genes with moderate or low penetrance, such as ATM, CHEK2, PALB2 or BARD1. More than 75% of all ovarian cancers are detected at FIGO stages III and IV, in which the overall 5-year survival does not exceed 35%. Ovarian cancer is a heterogeneous disease that understanding the hereditary basis of this disease is crucial for its effective diagnosis, management and prevention. This review article aims to discuss the genetic basis of hereditary ovarian cancer, epidemiology, etiology and treatment options.
    Keywords:   BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes; Founder mutations; Genetic susceptibility; Genetic testing; Hereditary ovarian cancer; Risk factors
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12672-026-04418-1
  5. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2025 Dec 22. pii: S1048-891X(25)03567-4. [Epub ahead of print]36(2): 104443
      
    Keywords:  Adjuvant Treatment; Advanced Stage; Endometrial Cancer; POLE
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.104443