Circulating tumour DNA in metastatic breast cancer to guide clinical trial enrolment and precision oncology: A cohort study

Author summaryWhy was this study done? Comprehensive real-time genomic profiling is becoming increasingly important to guide therapeutic decisions in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Tumour biopsies, often taken at the time of primary disease diagnosis, remain the main source of tumour genomic material but may not reliably capture the genomic heterogeneity of a patient's tumour in space and/or time. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) offers a minimally invasive alternative to complement traditional tumour biopsies for molecular profiling. What did the researchers do and find? We established a prospective ctDNA testing program for patients with mBC to assess the feasibility of this approach to guide patient management. Using a combination of different genomic approaches, actionable alterations were identified in 44% of patients, and clinical management was directly altered by ctDNA testing in 39% of these cases. What do these findings mean? Our experience of implementing a prospective ctDNA testing program in mBC demonstrates the feasibility and value of this approach to direct patient management and supports the routine incorporation of ctDNA for molecular profiling in this disease. Background Metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is a heterogenous disease with increasing availability of targeted therapies as well as emerging genomic markers of therapeutic resistance, necessitating timely and accurate molecular characterization of disease. As a minimally invasive test, analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is well positioned for real-time genomic profiling to guide treatment decisions. Here, we report the results of a prospective testing program established to assess the feasibility of ctDNA analysis to guide clinical management of mBC patients. Methods and findings Two hundred thirty-four mBC patients (median age 54 years) were enrolled between June 2015 and October 2018 at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. Median follow-up was 15 months (range 1-46). All patient samples at the time of enrolment were analysed in real time for the presence of somatic mutations. Longitudinal plasma testing during the course of patient management was also undertaken in a subset of patients (n= 67, 28.6%), according to clinician preference, for repeated molecular profiling or disease monitoring. Detection of somatic mutations from patient plasma was performed using a multiplexed droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) approach to identify hotspot mutations inPIK3CA,ESR1,ERBB2, andAKT1. In parallel, subsets of samples were also analysed via next-generation sequencing (targeted panel sequencing and low-coverage whole-genome sequencing [LC-WGS]). The sensitivity of ddPCR and targeted panel sequencing to identify actionable mutations was compared. Results were discussed at a multidisciplinary breast cancer meeting prior to treatment decisions. ddPCR and targeted panel sequencing identified at least 1 actionable mutation at baseline in 80/234 (34.2%) and 62/159 (39.0%) of patients tested, respectively. Combined, both methods detected an actionable alteration in 104/234 patients (44.4%) through baseline or serial ctDNA testing. LC-WGS was performed on 27 patients from the cohort, uncovering several recurrently amplified regions including 11q13.3 encompassingCCND1. Increasing ctDNA levels were associated with inferior overall survival, whether assessed by ddPCR, targeted sequencing, or LC-WGS. Overall, the ctDNA results changed clinical management in 40 patients including the direct recruitment of 20 patients to clinical trials. Limitations of the study were that it was conducted at a single site and that 31.3% of participants were lost to follow-up. Conclusion In this study, we found prospective ctDNA testing to be a practical and feasible approach that can guide clinical trial enrolment and patient management in mBC.