Validates MYC/PRC classification in colorectal cancer organoids, suggesting distinct molecular and therapeutic profiles.
Purpose Colorectal cancer (CRC) exhibits marked genetic, transcriptomic, and phenotypic heterogeneity, limiting the robustness of existing molecular classification systems. We aimed to apply and validate an SMI-based MYC/PRC classification framework in CRC patient-derived organoids and to characterize its molecular, pharmacologic, and clinical relevance across independent cohorts. Methods We established 41 CRC PDOs from 28 patients and performed whole-exome sequencing, RNA sequencing, and high-throughput drug screening. SMI scores (−1 to 1) were used to classify PDOs as MYC-type (stem-like) or PRC-type (differentiated). A concordantly classified subset of 25 PDOs underwent integrative multi-omics analyses. Findings were validated in an expanded cohort of 181 CRC PDOs and in TCGA-COAD. We compared pathway activities, mutational profiles, and drug responses, and performed archetypal modeling ( K = 2) to position samples along a MYC–PRC transcriptional continuum. Results MYC-type PDOs exhibited enrichment of cell-cycle and proliferation-related programs, whereas PRC-type PDOs showed differentiation-associated transcriptional programs, including coagulation and NF-κB signaling. Drug screening showed greater sensitivity of MYC-type PDOs to MEK/EGFR-targeted agents, whereas PRC-type PDOs displayed more heterogeneous responses. Archetypal modeling preserved the α(PRC)–α(MYC) trade-off and sample ordering across feature sets and larger cohorts. Validation in the expanded PDO dataset and TCGA-COAD reproduced subtype-specific transcriptional patterns and supported their clinical relevance. Conclusions SMI-based MYC/PRC classification captures biologically coherent tumor states with distinct molecular features and therapeutic sensitivities. This transcriptome-based framework complements existing classification systems and may support subtype-informed therapeutic prioritization in CRC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: