4.7 Article

Longitudinal monitoring of circulating tumour DNA improves prognostication and relapse detection in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 123, 期 8, 页码 1271-1279

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-020-1002-8

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. 'Hope Against Cancer', Leicester UK grant [RM60G0494]
  2. UK Department of Health on an Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre grant [C10604/A25151]
  3. Cancer Research UK [C63713/A25951]
  4. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GOA) has poor clinical outcomes and lacks reliable blood markers. Here we present circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) as an emerging biomarker. Methods Forty patients (17 palliative and 23 curative) were followed by serial plasma monitoring. Primary tumour DNA was analysed by targeted next-generation sequencing to identify somatic single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), and Nanostring nCounter(R)to detect copy number alterations (CNAs). Patient-specific SNVs and CNA amplifications (CNA(amp)) were analysed in plasma using digital droplet PCR and quantitative PCR, respectively. Results Thirty-five patients (13 palliative, 22 curative) had >= 1 SNVs and/or CNA(amp)detected in primary tumour DNA suitable for tracking in plasma. Eighteen of 35 patients (nine palliative, nine curative) had >= 1 ctDNA-positive plasma sample. Detection of postoperative ctDNA predicted short RFS (190 vs 934 days, HR = 3.7,p = 0.028) and subsequent relapse (PPV for relapse 0.83). High ctDNA levels (>60.5 copies/ml) at diagnosis of metastatic disease predicted poor OS (90 vs 372 days, HR = 11.7p < 0.001). Conclusion Sensitive ctDNA detection allows disease monitoring and prediction of short OS in metastatic patients. Presence of ctDNA postoperatively predicts relapse and defines a 'molecular relapse' before overt clinical disease. This lead time defines a potential therapeutic window for additional anticancer therapy.

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