4.7 Article

Genomic EWSR1 Fusion Sequence as Highly Sensitive and Dynamic Plasma Tumor Marker in Ewing Sarcoma

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 17, 页码 4356-4365

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-3028

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Madeleine Schickedanz Kinderkrebs-Stiftung
  2. Schornsteinfeger helfen krebskranken Kindern
  3. EURO EWING Consortium (EEC) [602856]
  4. German Cancer Aid [DKH 108128]
  5. EraNet consortium PrOspectiveVAalidationofBiomarkersinEwingSarcoma (PROVABES ERA-Net-TRANSCAN) [01KT1310]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The application of the tumor-specific genomic fusion sequence as noninvasive biomarker for therapy monitoring in Ewing sarcoma (EwS) has been evaluated. Experimental Design: EwS xenograft mouse models were used to explore detectability in small plasma volumes and correlation of genomic EWSR1-FLI1 copy numbers with tumor burden. Furthermore, 234 blood samples from 20 EwS patients were analyzed before and during multimodal treatment. EWSR1 fusion sequence levels in patients' plasma were quantified using droplet digital PCR and compared with tumor volumes calculated from MRI or CT imaging studies. Results: Kinetics of EWSR1 fusion sequence copy numbers in the plasma are correlated with changes of the tumor volume in patients with localized and metastatic disease. The majority of patients showed a fast reduction of cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) during initial chemotherapy. Recurrence of increasing ctDNA levels signalized relapse development. Conclusions: Genomic fusion sequences represent promising noninvasive biomarkers for improved therapy monitoring in EwS. Until now, response assessment is largely based on MRI and CT imaging, implying restrictions on closely repeated performance and limitations on the differentiation between vital tumor and reactive stromal tissue. Particularly in patients with prognostic unfavorable disseminated disease, ctDNA is a valuable addition for the assessment of therapy response. (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