4.7 Article

The correlation between cell-free DNA and tumour burden was estimated by PET/CT in patients with advanced NSCLC

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 110, Issue 2, Pages 363-368

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.705

Keywords

non-small cell lung cancer; NSCLC; PET-CT; cell-free DNA; cfDNA; tumour volume; metabolism; prognosis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) circulating in the blood holds a possible prognostic value in malignant diseases. Under malignant conditions, the level of cfDNA increases but the biological mechanism remains to be fully understood. We aimed to examine the correlation between cfDNA and total tumour burden defined by positron emission tomography (PET) parameters. Methods: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were enrolled into a prospective biomarker trial. Before treatment, plasma was extracted and the level of cfDNA was determined by qPCR. An F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-18-FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT) scan was performed and evaluated in terms of metabolic tumour volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG). Tumour contours were delineated semi-automatically by a threshold standardised uptake value (SUV) of 2.5. The primary end point was correlation among cfDNA, MTV and TLG. The secondary end point was overall survival (OS) according to cfDNA, MTV and TLG. Results: Fifty-three patients were included. There were no correlations between cfDNA and MTV (r = 0.1) or TLG (r = 0.1). cfDNA 475th percentile was correlated with shorter OS (P = 0.02), confirmed in a multivariate analysis. MTV4the median was associated with a significantly shorter OS (P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in OS according to TLG (P = 0.08). Conclusion: Cell-free DNA may not be a simple measure of tumour burden, but seems to reflect more complex mechanisms of tumour biology, making it attractive as an independent prognostic marker.

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