K Allenson1,2, J Castillo2, F A San Lucas3,4, G Scelo5, D U Kim2, V Bernard2, G Davis2, T Kumar2, M Katz1, M J Overman6, L Foretova7, E Fabianova8, I Holcatova9, V Janout10,11, F Meric-Bernstam12, P Gascoyne13, I Wistuba3, G Varadhachary6, P Brennan5, S Hanash14, D Li6, A Maitra2,4, H Alvarez2,4. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 3. Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 4. Sheikh Ahmed Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 5. Genetic Epidemiology Group International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France. 6. Department of GI Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 7. Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic. 8. Regional Authority of Public Health in Banska Bystrica, Banska Bystrica, Slovakia. 9. Institute of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. 10. Department of Preventive Medicine, Palacky University of Medicine, Olomouc, Czech Republic. 11. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic. 12. Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics and the Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy, Houston, USA. 13. Section of Experimental Pathology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA 14. Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Abstract
Background: Exosomes arise from viable cancer cells and may reflect a different biology than circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) shed from dying tissues. We compare exosome-derived DNA (exoDNA) to cfDNA in liquid biopsies of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Patients and methods: Patient samples were obtained between 2003 and 2010, with clinically annotated follow up to 2015. Droplet digital PCR was performed on exoDNA and cfDNA for sensitive detection of KRAS mutants at codons 12/13. A cumulative series of 263 individuals were studied, including a discovery cohort of 142 individuals: 68 PDAC patients of all stages; 20 PDAC patients initially staged with localized disease, with blood drawn after resection for curative intent; and 54 age-matched healthy controls. A validation cohort of 121 individuals (39 cancer patients and 82 healthy controls) was studied to validate KRAS detection rates in early-stage PDAC patients. Primary outcome was circulating KRAS status as detected by droplet digital PCR. Secondary outcomes were disease-free and overall survival. Results: KRAS mutations in exoDNA, were identified in 7.4%, 66.7%, 80%, and 85% of age-matched controls, localized, locally advanced, and metastatic PDAC patients, respectively. Comparatively, mutant KRAS cfDNA was detected in 14.8%, 45.5%, 30.8%, and 57.9% of these individuals. Higher exoKRAS MAFs were associated with decreased disease-free survival in patients with localized disease. In the validation cohort, mutant KRAS exoDNA was detected in 43.6% of early-stage PDAC patients and 20% of healthy controls. Conclusions: Exosomes are a distinct source of tumor DNA that may be complementary to other liquid biopsy DNA sources. A higher percentage of patients with localized PDAC exhibited detectable KRAS mutations in exoDNA than previously reported for cfDNA. A substantial minority of healthy samples demonstrated mutant KRAS in circulation, dictating careful consideration and application of liquid biopsy findings, which may limit its utility as a broad cancer-screening method.
Background: Exosomes arise from viable cancer cells and may reflect a different biology than circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) shed from dying tissues. We compare exosome-derived DNA (exoDNA) to cfDNA in liquid biopsies of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Patients and methods: Patient samples were obtained between 2003 and 2010, with clinically annotated follow up to 2015. Droplet digital PCR was performed on exoDNA and cfDNA for sensitive detection of KRAS mutants at codons 12/13. A cumulative series of 263 individuals were studied, including a discovery cohort of 142 individuals: 68 PDAC patients of all stages; 20 PDAC patients initially staged with localized disease, with blood drawn after resection for curative intent; and 54 age-matched healthy controls. A validation cohort of 121 individuals (39 cancerpatients and 82 healthy controls) was studied to validate KRAS detection rates in early-stage PDAC patients. Primary outcome was circulating KRAS status as detected by droplet digital PCR. Secondary outcomes were disease-free and overall survival. Results:KRAS mutations in exoDNA, were identified in 7.4%, 66.7%, 80%, and 85% of age-matched controls, localized, locally advanced, and metastatic PDAC patients, respectively. Comparatively, mutant KRAS cfDNA was detected in 14.8%, 45.5%, 30.8%, and 57.9% of these individuals. Higher exoKRAS MAFs were associated with decreased disease-free survival in patients with localized disease. In the validation cohort, mutant KRAS exoDNA was detected in 43.6% of early-stage PDAC patients and 20% of healthy controls. Conclusions: Exosomes are a distinct source of tumor DNA that may be complementary to other liquid biopsy DNA sources. A higher percentage of patients with localized PDAC exhibited detectable KRAS mutations in exoDNA than previously reported for cfDNA. A substantial minority of healthy samples demonstrated mutant KRAS in circulation, dictating careful consideration and application of liquid biopsy findings, which may limit its utility as a broad cancer-screening method.
Authors: Joost P G Sluijter; Vera Verhage; Janine C Deddens; Frederieke van den Akker; Pieter A Doevendans Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: A Castells; P Puig; J Móra; J Boadas; L Boix; E Urgell; M Solé; G Capellà; F Lluís; L Fernández-Cruz; S Navarro; A Farré Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H E Mulcahy; J Lyautey; C Lederrey; X qi Chen; P Anker; E M Alstead; A Ballinger; M J Farthing; M Stroun Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Chetan Bettegowda; Mark Sausen; Rebecca J Leary; Isaac Kinde; Yuxuan Wang; Nishant Agrawal; Bjarne R Bartlett; Hao Wang; Brandon Luber; Rhoda M Alani; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Nilofer S Azad; Alberto Bardelli; Henry Brem; John L Cameron; Clarence C Lee; Leslie A Fecher; Gary L Gallia; Peter Gibbs; Dung Le; Robert L Giuntoli; Michael Goggins; Michael D Hogarty; Matthias Holdhoff; Seung-Mo Hong; Yuchen Jiao; Hartmut H Juhl; Jenny J Kim; Giulia Siravegna; Daniel A Laheru; Calogero Lauricella; Michael Lim; Evan J Lipson; Suely Kazue Nagahashi Marie; George J Netto; Kelly S Oliner; Alessandro Olivi; Louise Olsson; Gregory J Riggins; Andrea Sartore-Bianchi; Kerstin Schmidt; le-Ming Shih; Sueli Mieko Oba-Shinjo; Salvatore Siena; Dan Theodorescu; Jeanne Tie; Timothy T Harkins; Silvio Veronese; Tian-Li Wang; Jon D Weingart; Christopher L Wolfgang; Laura D Wood; Dongmei Xing; Ralph H Hruban; Jian Wu; Peter J Allen; C Max Schmidt; Michael A Choti; Victor E Velculescu; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Luis A Diaz Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: F A San Lucas; K Allenson; V Bernard; J Castillo; D U Kim; K Ellis; E A Ehli; G E Davies; J L Petersen; D Li; R Wolff; M Katz; G Varadhachary; I Wistuba; A Maitra; H Alvarez Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Eveline E Vietsch; Garrett T Graham; Justine N McCutcheon; Aamir Javaid; Giuseppe Giaccone; John L Marshall; Anton Wellstein Journal: Cancer Genet Date: 2017-09-14