S Chen1, J Zhao2, L Cui3, Y Liu4. 1. Department of Academic Affairs, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, 442000, Hubei, China. 2. Department of Oncology, Xiangyang Central Hospital (The Affiliated Hospital of Hubei College of Arts and Science), Xiangyang, 441021, Hubei, China. 3. Department of Nephrology, Xiangyang Central Hospital (The Affiliated Hospital of Hubei College of Arts and Science), Xiangyang, 441021, Hubei, China. 4. Department of Oncology, Xiangyang Central Hospital (The Affiliated Hospital of Hubei College of Arts and Science), Xiangyang, 441021, Hubei, China. yyliuXYcentral@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Changes in EGFR profiles of non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients correlates to clinical outcome. Extracting quality tumor tissue remains a challenge for molecular profiling. Our study aims to ascertain the clinical relevance of urinary cell free DNA as an alternative tumor material source. METHODS:150 patients with activating EGFR mutation and received EGFR-TKIs were recruited to participate in the serial monitoring study. Matched primary tumor samples were taken together with blood and urine specimens before the initiation of TKIs. The EGFR mutation testing was performed and quantified using ddPCR. For serial time point measurements, urine and blood samples were extracted at 1-month intervals for duration of 9 months. RESULTS: Urinary ctDNA yielded a close agreement of 88 % on EGFR mutation status when compared to primary tissue at baseline. Almost all samples detected via urine specimens were uncovered in plasma samples. Analysis of urinary cell free DNA at different time points showed a strong correlation to treatment efficacy. Interestingly, a secondary EGFR mutation T790M was detected for 53 % of the patients during monitoring. The results were corroborated with the plasma ctDNA analysis. The T790M+ group had a reduced median survival when compared to the wildtype group. CONCLUSION: Urinary cell free DNA may be a potential alternative to conventional primary tissue based EGFR mutation testing. Our findings showed that the assay sensitivity was comparable to results from blood plasma. Urinary samples being noninvasive and readily available have clinical utility for monitoring of EGFR TKI treatment.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Changes in EGFR profiles of non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients correlates to clinical outcome. Extracting quality tumor tissue remains a challenge for molecular profiling. Our study aims to ascertain the clinical relevance of urinary cell free DNA as an alternative tumor material source. METHODS: 150 patients with activating EGFR mutation and received EGFR-TKIs were recruited to participate in the serial monitoring study. Matched primary tumor samples were taken together with blood and urine specimens before the initiation of TKIs. The EGFR mutation testing was performed and quantified using ddPCR. For serial time point measurements, urine and blood samples were extracted at 1-month intervals for duration of 9 months. RESULTS: Urinary ctDNA yielded a close agreement of 88 % on EGFR mutation status when compared to primary tissue at baseline. Almost all samples detected via urine specimens were uncovered in plasma samples. Analysis of urinary cell free DNA at different time points showed a strong correlation to treatment efficacy. Interestingly, a secondary EGFR mutation T790M was detected for 53 % of the patients during monitoring. The results were corroborated with the plasma ctDNA analysis. The T790M+ group had a reduced median survival when compared to the wildtype group. CONCLUSION: Urinary cell free DNA may be a potential alternative to conventional primary tissue based EGFR mutation testing. Our findings showed that the assay sensitivity was comparable to results from blood plasma. Urinary samples being noninvasive and readily available have clinical utility for monitoring of EGFR TKI treatment.
Authors: Juliann Chmielecki; Jasmine Foo; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Katherine Hutchinson; Kadoaki Ohashi; Romel Somwar; Lu Wang; Katherine R Amato; Maria Arcila; Martin L Sos; Nicholas D Socci; Agnes Viale; Elisa de Stanchina; Michelle S Ginsberg; Roman K Thomas; Mark G Kris; Akira Inoue; Marc Ladanyi; Vincent A Miller; Franziska Michor; William Pao Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Frank Diehl; Kerstin Schmidt; Michael A Choti; Katharine Romans; Steven Goodman; Meng Li; Katherine Thornton; Nishant Agrawal; Lori Sokoll; Steve A Szabo; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Luis A Diaz Journal: Nat Med Date: 2007-07-31 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Hua Bai; Li Mao; Hang Shu Wang; Jun Zhao; Lu Yang; Tong Tong An; Xin Wang; Chun Jian Duan; Na Mei Wu; Zhi Qing Guo; Yi Xu Liu; Hong Ning Liu; Ye Yu Wang; Jie Wang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Szpechcinski; J Chorostowska-Wynimko; R Struniawski; W Kupis; P Rudzinski; R Langfort; E Puscinska; P Bielen; P Sliwinski; T Orlowski Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: D Zheng; X Ye; M Z Zhang; Y Sun; J Y Wang; J Ni; H P Zhang; L Zhang; J Luo; J Zhang; L Tang; B Su; G Chen; G Zhu; Y Gu; J F Xu Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Caitlin M Stewart; Prachi D Kothari; Florent Mouliere; Richard Mair; Saira Somnay; Ryma Benayed; Ahmet Zehir; Britta Weigelt; Sarah-Jane Dawson; Maria E Arcila; Michael F Berger; Dana Wy Tsui Journal: J Pathol Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 7.996