P C Barata1, V S Koshkin1, P Funchain1, D Sohal1, A Pritchard1, S Klek1, T Adamowicz2, D Gopalakrishnan3, J Garcia1, B Rini1, P Grivas4. 1. Department of Hematology & Medical Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute. 2. Sandusky (North Coast Cancer Center). 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA. 4. Department of Hematology & Medical Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute. Electronic address: grivasp@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advances in cancer genome sequencing have led to the development of various next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms. There is paucity of data regarding concordance of different NGS tests carried out in the same patient. METHODS: Here, we report a pilot analysis of 22 patients with metastatic urinary tract cancer and available NGS data from paired tumor tissue [FoundationOne (F1)] and cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) [Guardant360 (G360)]. RESULTS: The median time between the diagnosis of stage IV disease and the first genomic test was 23.5 days (0-767), after a median number of 0 (0-3) prior systemic lines of treatment of advanced disease. Most frequent genomic alterations (GA) were found in the genes TP53 (50.0%), TERT promoter (36.3%); ARID1 (29.5%); FGFR2/3 (20.5%), PIK3CA (20.5%) and ERBB2 (18.2%). While we identified GA in both tests, the overall concordance between the two platforms was only 16.4% (0%-50%), and 17.1% (0%-50%) for those patients (n = 6) with both tests conducted around the same time (median difference = 36 days). On the contrary, in the subgroup of patients (n = 5) with repeated NGS in ctDNA after a median of 1 systemic therapy between the two tests, average concordance was 55.5% (12.1%-100.0%). Tumor tissue mutational burden was significantly associated with number of GA in G360 report (P < 0.001), number of known GA (P = 0.009) and number of variants of unknown significance (VUS) in F1 report (P < 0.001), and with total number of GA (non-VUS and VUS) in F1 report (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a significant discordance between clinically available NGS panels in advanced urothelial cancer, even when collected around the same time. There is a need for better understanding of these two possibly complementary NGS platforms for better integration into clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Advances in cancer genome sequencing have led to the development of various next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms. There is paucity of data regarding concordance of different NGS tests carried out in the same patient. METHODS: Here, we report a pilot analysis of 22 patients with metastatic urinary tract cancer and available NGS data from paired tumor tissue [FoundationOne (F1)] and cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) [Guardant360 (G360)]. RESULTS: The median time between the diagnosis of stage IV disease and the first genomic test was 23.5 days (0-767), after a median number of 0 (0-3) prior systemic lines of treatment of advanced disease. Most frequent genomic alterations (GA) were found in the genes TP53 (50.0%), TERT promoter (36.3%); ARID1 (29.5%); FGFR2/3 (20.5%), PIK3CA (20.5%) and ERBB2 (18.2%). While we identified GA in both tests, the overall concordance between the two platforms was only 16.4% (0%-50%), and 17.1% (0%-50%) for those patients (n = 6) with both tests conducted around the same time (median difference = 36 days). On the contrary, in the subgroup of patients (n = 5) with repeated NGS in ctDNA after a median of 1 systemic therapy between the two tests, average concordance was 55.5% (12.1%-100.0%). Tumor tissue mutational burden was significantly associated with number of GA in G360 report (P < 0.001), number of known GA (P = 0.009) and number of variants of unknown significance (VUS) in F1 report (P < 0.001), and with total number of GA (non-VUS and VUS) in F1 report (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a significant discordance between clinically available NGS panels in advanced urothelial cancer, even when collected around the same time. There is a need for better understanding of these two possibly complementary NGS platforms for better integration into clinical practice.
Authors: Pedro C Barata; Dhrmesh Gopalakrishnan; Vadim S Koshkin; Prateek Mendiratta; Matt Karafa; Kimberly Allman; Allison Martin; Jennifer Beach; Pam Profusek; Allison Tyler; Laura Wood; Moshe Ornstein; Timothy Gilligan; Brian I Rini; Jorge A Garcia; Petros Grivas Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: Alice Tzeng; C Marcela Diaz-Montero; Patricia A Rayman; Jin S Kim; Paul G Pavicic; James H Finke; Pedro C Barata; Marcelo Lamenza; Sarah Devonshire; Kim Schach; Hamid Emamekhoo; Marc S Ernstoff; Christopher J Hoimes; Brian I Rini; Jorge A Garcia; Timothy D Gilligan; Moshe C Ornstein; Petros Grivas Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: Neeraj Agarwal; Sumanta K Pal; Andrew W Hahn; Roberto H Nussenzveig; Gregory R Pond; Sumati V Gupta; Jue Wang; Mehmet A Bilen; Gurudatta Naik; Pooja Ghatalia; Christopher J Hoimes; Dharmesh Gopalakrishnan; Pedro C Barata; Alexandra Drakaki; Bishoy M Faltas; Lesli A Kiedrowski; Richard B Lanman; Rebecca J Nagy; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Kenneth M Boucher; Ulka N Vaishampayan; Guru Sonpavde; Petros Grivas Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Pedro C Barata; Prateek Mendiratta; Brandie Heald; Stefan Klek; Petros Grivas; Davendra P S Sohal; Jorge A Garcia Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: Sumanta K Pal; Dean Bajorin; Nazli Dizman; Jean Hoffman-Censits; David I Quinn; Daniel P Petrylak; Matthew D Galsky; Ulka Vaishampayan; Ugo De Giorgi; Sumati Gupta; Howard A Burris; Harris S Soifer; Gary Li; Hao Wang; Carl L Dambkowski; Susan Moran; Siamak Daneshmand; Jonathan E Rosenberg Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alexios-Fotios A Mentis; Petros D Grivas; Efthimios Dardiotis; Nicholas A Romas; Athanasios G Papavassiliou Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 9.261