Literature DB >> 28446639

Concordance of Genomic Alterations by Next-Generation Sequencing in Tumor Tissue versus Circulating Tumor DNA in Breast Cancer.

Young Kwang Chae1,2,3, Andrew A Davis2, Sarika Jain4,2,3, Cesar Santa-Maria4,2,3, Lisa Flaum2,3, Nike Beaubier3,5, Leonidas C Platanias4,2,3,6, William Gradishar2,3, Francis J Giles4,2,3, Massimo Cristofanilli4,2,3.   

Abstract

While identifying genomic alterations in tumor tissue is the current gold-standard technique for molecular profiling, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) represents a noninvasive method of assessing genomic alterations using peripheral blood. The concordance of genomic alterations between two commercially available ctDNA and tissue biopsies was compared in 45 patients with breast cancer using paired next-generation sequencing tissue and ctDNA biopsies. Across all genes, concordance between the two platforms was 91.0% to 94.2%. When only considering genomic alterations in either assay (e.g., excluding wild type/wild type genes), concordance was 10.8% to 15.1% with full plus partial concordance of 13.8% to 19.3%. Concordant mutations were associated with significantly higher variant allele frequency. Over half of mutations detected in either technique were not detected using the other biopsy technique. Including variants of unknown significance, the average number of alterations per patient was significantly higher for tissue (4.56) compared with ctDNA (2.16). When eliminating alterations not detectable in the ctDNA assay, mean number of alterations for tissue and ctDNA was similar (2.67 for tissue, 2.16 for ctDNA). Across five representative genes (TP53, PIK3CA, ERBB2, BRCA1, and BRCA2), sensitivity and specificity were 35.7% and 95.0%, respectively. Concordance when genomic alterations was detected in either tissue or ctDNA was low with each technique detecting a significant amount of nonoverlapping mutations. Potential explanations for the lack of concordance include tumor heterogeneity, different sequencing techniques, spatial and temporal factors, and potential germline DNA contamination. The study indicates that both tissue and blood-based NGS may be necessary to describe the complex biology of breast cancer. Mol Cancer Ther; 16(7); 1412-20. ©2017 AACR. ©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28446639     DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-0061

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther        ISSN: 1535-7163            Impact factor:   6.261


  45 in total

1.  Guardant360 Circulating Tumor DNA Assay Is Concordant with FoundationOne Next-Generation Sequencing in Detecting Actionable Driver Mutations in Anti-EGFR Naive Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Rohan Gupta; Tamer Othman; Chen Chen; Jaideep Sandhu; Ching Ouyang; Marwan Fakih
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-11-19

Review 2.  Emerging Role of Genomics and Cell-Free DNA in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Lorenzo Gerratana; Andrew A Davis; Ami N Shah; Chenyu Lin; Carla Corvaja; Massimo Cristofanilli
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2019-06-29

Review 3.  Understanding preanalytical variables and their effects on clinical biomarkers of oncology and immunotherapy.

Authors:  Lokesh Agrawal; Kelly B Engel; Sarah R Greytak; Helen M Moore
Journal:  Semin Cancer Biol       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 15.707

Review 4.  Analysis of circulating tumor DNA in breast cancer as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker.

Authors:  Mersedeh Rohanizadegan
Journal:  Cancer Genet       Date:  2018-02-24

5.  Guardant360 Circulating Tumor DNA Assay Is Concordant with FoundationOne Next-Generation Sequencing in Detecting Actionable Driver Mutations in Anti-EGFR Naive Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Rohan Gupta; Tamer Othman; Chen Chen; Jaideep Sandhu; Ching Ouyang; Marwan Fakih
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-11-18

6.  Plasma DNA as a "liquid biopsy" incompletely complements tumor biopsy for identification of mutations in a case series of four patients with oligometastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Mary D Chamberlin; Jason D Wells; Kevin Shee; Jennifer R Bean; Jonathan D Marotti; Wendy A Wells; Heidi W Trask; Fred W Kolling; Ananta Bhatt; Peter A Kaufman; Gary N Schwartz; John M Gemery; Nancy J McNulty; Michael J Tsapakos; Richard J Barth; Bradley A Arrick; Jiang Gui; Todd W Miller
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Noninvasive cancer biomarkers in solid malignancies: circulating tumor DNA-clinical utility, current limitations and future perspectives.

Authors:  Debora de Melo Gagliato; Denis L Fontes Jardim
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-06

Review 8.  Liquid biopsy, a paradigm shift in oncology: what interventional radiologists should know.

Authors:  Marco Calandri; Giulia Siravegna; Andrea Veltri; Bruno C Odisio; Steven M Yevich; Giuseppe Stranieri; Carlo Gazzera; Scott Kopetz; Paolo Fonio; Sanjay Gupta; Alberto Bardelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  Implementing Liquid Biopsies in Clinical Trials: State of Affairs, Opportunities, and Challenges.

Authors:  Maryam B Lustberg; Daniel G Stover; Jeffrey J Chalmers
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.360

10.  Single-molecule detection of cancer mutations using a novel PCR-LDR-qPCR assay.

Authors:  Cristian Ruiz; Jianmin Huang; Sarah F Giardina; Philip B Feinberg; Aashiq H Mirza; Manny D Bacolod; Steven A Soper; Francis Barany
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 4.878

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.