4.7 Article

A Pilot Study for the Feasibility of Exome-Sequencing in Circulating Tumor Cells Versus Single Metastatic Biopsies in Breast Cancer

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21144826

Keywords

breast cancer; circulating tumor cells; metastasis; whole exome sequencing; clinically actionable; whole genome amplification

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [P30CA014089]
  2. Hoag Cancer Center philanthropy collaboration
  3. Woodbury Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The comparison of the landscape of somatic alterations in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) versus metastases is challenging. Here, we comprehensively characterized the somatic landscape in bulk (amplified and non-amplified), spike-in breast cancer cells, CTCs, and metastases from breast cancer patients using whole-exome sequencing (WES). We determined the level of genomic concordance for somatic nucleotide variants (SNVs), copy number alterations (CNAs), and structural variants (SVs). The variant allele fractions (VAFs) of somatic variants were remarkably similar between amplified and non-amplified cell line samples as technical replicates. In clinical samples, a significant fraction of somatic variants had low VAFs in CTCs compared to metastases. The most frequently recurrent gene mutations in clinical samples were associated with an elevated C > T mutational signature. We found complex rearrangement patterns including intra- and inter-chromosomal rearrangements, singleton, and recurrent gene fusions, and tandem duplications. We observed high molecular discordance for somatic alterations between paired samples consistent with marked heterogeneity of the somatic landscape. The most prevalent copy number calls were focal deletion events in CTCs and metastases. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of an integrated workflow for the identification of a complete repertoire of somatic alterations and highlight the intrapatient genomic differences that occur between CTCs and metastases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available