4.7 Article

Circulating tumor DNA identified by targeted sequencing in advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients

期刊

CANCER LETTERS
卷 370, 期 2, 页码 324-331

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2015.11.005

关键词

NSCLC; Circulating tumor DNA; Next generation sequencing; Ion PGM/AmpliSeq cancer panel; Targeted sequencing

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81172233, 81301812]
  2. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20131202110004, 20131202120004]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars of State Education Ministry
  4. Tianjin Science and Technology Support Program [12ZCDZSY16100]
  5. Tianjin Educational Committee Foundation [20120117]
  6. National Institutes of Health [R01 CA90427, R01 AI084811]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) have unique mutation patterns, and some of these mutations may be used to predict prognosis or guide patient treatment. Mutation profiling before and during treatment often requires repeated tumor biopsies, which is not always possible. Recently, cell-free, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) isolated from blood plasma has been shown to contain genetic mutations representative of those found in the primary tumor tissue DNA (tDNA), and these samples can readily be obtained using non-invasive techniques. However, there are still no standardized methods to identify mutations in ctDNA. In the current study, we used a targeted sequencing approach with a semi-conductor based next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform to identify gene mutations in matched tDNA and ctDNA samples from 42 advanced-stage NSCLC patients from China. We identified driver mutations in matched tDNA and ctDNA in EGER, KRAS, PIK3CA, and TP53, with an overall concordance of 76%. In conclusion, targeted sequencing of plasma ctDNA may be a feasible option for clinical monitoring of NSCLC in the near future. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据