4.7 Article

Use of Liquid Biopsies in Clinical Oncology: Pilot Experience in 168 Patients

Journal

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue 22, Pages 5497-5505

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0318

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Joan and Irwin Jacobs Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: There is a growing interest in using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing in patients with cancer. Experimental Design: A total of 168 patients with diverse cancers were analyzed. Patients had digital next-generation sequencing (54 cancer-related gene panel including amplifications in ERBB2, EGFR, and MET) performed on their plasma. Type of genomic alterations, potential actionability, concordance with tissue testing, and patient outcome were examined. Results: Fifty-eight percent of patients (98/168) had >= 1 ctDNA alteration(s). Of the 98 patients with alterations, 71.4% had >= 1 alteration potentially actionable by an FDA-approved drug. The median time interval between the tissue biopsy and the blood draw was 2.7 months for patients with >= 1 alteration in common compared with 14.4 months (P = 0.006) for the patients in whom no common alterations were identified in the tissue and plasma. Overall concordance rates for tissue and ctDNA were 70.3% for TP53 and EGFR, 88.1% for PIK3CA, and 93.1% for ERBB2 alterations. There was a significant correlation between the cases with >= 1 alteration with ctDNA >= 5% and shorter survival (median = 4.03 months vs. not reached at median follow-up of 6.1 months; P < 0.001). Finally, 5 of the 12 evaluable patients (42%) matched to a treatment targeting an alteration(s) detected in their ctDNA test achieved stable disease >= 6 months/partial remission compared with 2 of 28 patients (7.1%) for the unmatched patients, P = 0.02. Conclusions: Our initial study demonstrates that ctDNA tests provide information complementary to that in tissue biopsies and may be useful in determining prognosis and treatment. (C)2016 AACR.

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