The long-term overall survival of Ewing sarcoma (EWS) patients remains poor; less than 30% of patients with metastatic or recurrent disease survive despite aggressive combinations of chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. To identify new therapeutic options, we employed a multi-pronged approach using in silico predictions of drug activity via an integrated bioinformatics approach in parallel with an in vitro screen of FDA-approved drugs. Twenty-seven drugs and forty-six drugs were identified, respectively, to have anti-proliferative effects for EWS, including several classes of drugs in both screening approaches. Among these drugs, 30 were extensively validated as mono-therapeutic agents and 9 in 14 various combinations in vitro. Two drugs, auranofin, a thioredoxin reductase inhibitor, and ganetespib, an HSP90 inhibitor, were predicted to have anti-cancer activities in silico and were confirmed active across a panel of genetically diverse EWS cells. When given in combination, the survival rate in vivo was superior compared to auranofin or ganetespib alone. Importantly, extensive formulations, dose tolerance, and pharmacokinetics studies demonstrated that auranofin requires alternative delivery routes to achieve therapeutically effective levels of the gold compound. These combined screening approaches provide a rapid means to identify new treatment options for patients with a rare and often-fatal disease.

(Cell Reports 23, 313–326; April 3, 2018) In the originally published version of this article, the author list contained two errors. Specifically, David J. Kwiatkowski was misspelled as David J. Kwaitkowski, and William Y. Kim was inadvertently written as William T. Kim. Both names have been corrected online. The authors regret this error.

(Immunity 48, 812–830.e1–e14; April 17, 2018) In the originally published version of this article, the authors neglected to include Younes Mokrab and Aaron M. Newman as co-authors and misspelled the names of authors Charles S. Rabkin and Ilya Shmulevich. The author names have been corrected here and online. In addition, the concluding sentence of the subsection “Immune Signature Compilation” in the Method Details in the original published article was deemed unclear because it did not specify differences among the gene set scoring methods. The concluding sentences now reads “Gene sets from Bindea et al., Senbabaoglu et al., and the MSigDB C7 collection were scored using single-sample gene set enrichment (ssGSEA) analysis (Barbie et al., 2009), as implemented in the GSVA R package (Hänzelmann et al., 2013). All other signatures were scored using methods found in the associated citations.”

(Cell 173, 371–385.e1–e9; April 5, 2018) It has come to our attention that we made two errors in preparation of this manuscript. First, in the STAR Methods, under the subheading of “Hypermutators and Immune Infiltrates” within the “Quantification and Statistical Analysis” section, we inadvertently referred to Figures S7A–S7C for data corresponding to sample stratification by hypermutator status alone in the last sentence. It should have referred to Figure S6A–S6C. Second, the lists of highly frequent missense mutations for COAD (colon adenocarcinoma) and READ (rectum adenocarcinoma) displayed in Figure S7 were incorrect because when we ordered the mutations in the initial analysis, we mistakenly combined the two cancer types COAD and READ for analysis, despite the fact that they were listed as two separate cancer types in the x-axis of the figure. After re-ordering the mutations by frequency for COAD and READ independently, information on highly frequent missense mutations for each of these cancer types is different and updated now in the revised Figure S7. These errors don't change the major conclusions of the paper and have been corrected online. We apologize for any confusion they may have caused. [Figure-presented]

The role of enhancers, a key class of non-coding regulatory DNA elements, in cancer development has increasingly been appreciated. Here, we present the detection and characterization of a large number of expressed enhancers in a genome-wide analysis of 8928 tumor samples across 33 cancer types using TCGA RNA-seq data. Compared with matched normal tissues, global enhancer activation was observed in most cancers. Across cancer types, global enhancer activity was positively associated with aneuploidy, but not mutation load, suggesting a hypothesis centered on "chromatin-state" to explain their interplay. Integrating eQTL, mRNA co-expression, and Hi-C data analysis, we developed a computational method to infer causal enhancer-gene interactions, revealing enhancers of clinically actionable genes. Having identified an enhancer ∼140 kb downstream of PD-L1, a major immunotherapy target, we validated it experimentally. This study provides a systematic view of enhancer activity in diverse tumor contexts and suggests the clinical implications of enhancers.

We conducted the largest investigation of predisposition variants in cancer to date, discovering 853 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 8% of 10,389 cases from 33 cancer types. Twenty-one genes showed single or cross-cancer associations, including novel associations of SDHA in melanoma and PALB2 in stomach adenocarcinoma. The 659 predisposition variants and 18 additional large deletions in tumor suppressors, including ATM, BRCA1, and NF1, showed low gene expression and frequent (43%) loss of heterozygosity or biallelic two-hit events. We also discovered 33 such variants in oncogenes, including missenses in MET, RET, and PTPN11 associated with high gene expression. We nominated 47 additional predisposition variants from prioritized VUSs supported by multiple evidences involving case-control frequency, loss of heterozygosity, expression effect, and co-localization with mutations and modified residues. Our integrative approach links rare predisposition variants to functional consequences, informing future guidelines of variant classification and germline genetic testing in cancer.