4.7 Article

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

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 22, 页码 5497-5505

出版社

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

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Joan and Irwin Jacobs Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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