While the parent commenter did exaggerate, they are correct in their idea. You could subclassify cancers all the way down to individual gene mutations, and even then there is heterogeny within the cancer itself.

Medicine tries to draw boundaries where different therapies help differently or where there is different pathophysiology going on. The article was able to draw one such additional boundary. Its relevance is yet to be confirmed with its phenotype or druggability.

I'd guess what they mean is there are two clusters with some clear distinguishing properties, and perhaps some resulting implications for treatment.

it's completely impressive how hackers here are multi-field specialists

I'm always amazed to see all these "well actually" comments on every single post, regardless of the topic :)

and in a year we'll have a new report: "foo bar genomics has revealed that prostate cancer includes 3 new evotypes"

it's all just mutations and there is no upper bound on the number of mutations that can exist