PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to clinically evaluate circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) with a nine gene, 96 mutation panel among subjects at increased risk for cancer with no previous cancer diagnosis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: DNA from 1059 asymptomatic subjects was analyzed for detection of low levels ctDNA using a blood plasma liquid biopsy assay. Subjects with detectable copies of ctDNA were asked to provide additional blood samples and relevant medical records throughout their one-year of participation. Subjects with a negative result were followed-up at one-year with a questionnaire. RESULTS: Mutations were detected in 58 subjects and not detected in 1001 subjects. Among the subjects who tested positive for one or more mutations, four were diagnosed with cancer, two of which through study-triggered clinical follow-up. Two subjects who tested negative on the screen received an early cancer diagnosis over the course of the year. The sensitivity of the assay at a threshold of ≥2 copies in this population was 66.67% and specificity was 94.87%. While the negative predictive value was 99.8%, the positive predictive value was only 6.9% in this cohort. Analysis of buffy coat DNA from eight positive subjects, including one who was diagnosed with cancer, revealed matching mutations suggesting that the ctDNA could have been derived from clonal hematopoiesis. CONCLUSION: The observed false positive rate of ctDNA on a 96-mutation assay in an asymptomatic high-risk population is much greater than the true positive rate, limiting its usefulness as a cancer screening tool in its current form.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to clinically evaluate circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) with a nine gene, 96 mutation panel among subjects at increased risk for cancer with no previous cancer diagnosis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: DNA from 1059 asymptomatic subjects was analyzed for detection of low levels ctDNA using a blood plasma liquid biopsy assay. Subjects with detectable copies of ctDNA were asked to provide additional blood samples and relevant medical records throughout their one-year of participation. Subjects with a negative result were followed-up at one-year with a questionnaire. RESULTS: Mutations were detected in 58 subjects and not detected in 1001 subjects. Among the subjects who tested positive for one or more mutations, four were diagnosed with cancer, two of which through study-triggered clinical follow-up. Two subjects who tested negative on the screen received an early cancer diagnosis over the course of the year. The sensitivity of the assay at a threshold of ≥2 copies in this population was 66.67% and specificity was 94.87%. While the negative predictive value was 99.8%, the positive predictive value was only 6.9% in this cohort. Analysis of buffy coat DNA from eight positive subjects, including one who was diagnosed with cancer, revealed matching mutations suggesting that the ctDNA could have been derived from clonal hematopoiesis. CONCLUSION: The observed false positive rate of ctDNA on a 96-mutation assay in an asymptomatic high-risk population is much greater than the true positive rate, limiting its usefulness as a cancer screening tool in its current form.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cell-free DNA; biomarkers; cancer; circulating tumor DNA; early detection of cancer; liquid biopsy; mutation
Authors: Tim Forshew; Muhammed Murtaza; Christine Parkinson; Davina Gale; Dana W Y Tsui; Fiona Kaper; Sarah-Jane Dawson; Anna M Piskorz; Mercedes Jimenez-Linan; David Bentley; James Hadfield; Andrew P May; Carlos Caldas; James D Brenton; Nitzan Rosenfeld Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Isaac Garcia-Murillas; Gaia Schiavon; Britta Weigelt; Charlotte Ng; Sarah Hrebien; Rosalind J Cutts; Maggie Cheang; Peter Osin; Ashutosh Nerurkar; Iwanka Kozarewa; Javier Armisen Garrido; Mitch Dowsett; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Ian E Smith; Nicholas C Turner Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Suzan Tug; Susanne Helmig; Eva Ricarda Deichmann; Anna Schmeier-Jürchott; Eva Wagner; Tim Zimmermann; Markus Radsak; Mauro Giacca; Perikles Simon Journal: Exerc Immunol Rev Date: 2015 Impact factor: 6.308
Authors: Michael S Anglesio; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Ayse Ayhan; Tayyebeh M Nazeran; Michaël Noë; Hugo M Horlings; Amy Lum; Siân Jones; Janine Senz; Tamer Seckin; Julie Ho; Ren-Chin Wu; Vivian Lac; Hiroshi Ogawa; Basile Tessier-Cloutier; Rami Alhassan; Amy Wang; Yuxuan Wang; Joshua D Cohen; Fontayne Wong; Adnan Hasanovic; Natasha Orr; Ming Zhang; Maria Popoli; Wyatt McMahon; Laura D Wood; Austin Mattox; Catherine Allaire; James Segars; Christina Williams; Cristian Tomasetti; Niki Boyd; Kenneth W Kinzler; C Blake Gilks; Luis Diaz; Tian-Li Wang; Bert Vogelstein; Paul J Yong; David G Huntsman; Ie-Ming Shih Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jillian Phallen; Mark Sausen; Vilmos Adleff; Alessandro Leal; Carolyn Hruban; James White; Valsamo Anagnostou; Jacob Fiksel; Stephen Cristiano; Eniko Papp; Savannah Speir; Thomas Reinert; Mai-Britt Worm Orntoft; Brian D Woodward; Derek Murphy; Sonya Parpart-Li; David Riley; Monica Nesselbush; Naomi Sengamalay; Andrew Georgiadis; Qing Kay Li; Mogens Rørbæk Madsen; Frank Viborg Mortensen; Joost Huiskens; Cornelis Punt; Nicole van Grieken; Remond Fijneman; Gerrit Meijer; Hatim Husain; Robert B Scharpf; Luis A Diaz; Siân Jones; Sam Angiuoli; Torben Ørntoft; Hans Jørgen Nielsen; Claus Lindbjerg Andersen; Victor E Velculescu Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Giulio Genovese; Anna K Kähler; Robert E Handsaker; Johan Lindberg; Samuel A Rose; Samuel F Bakhoum; Kimberly Chambert; Eran Mick; Benjamin M Neale; Menachem Fromer; Shaun M Purcell; Oscar Svantesson; Mikael Landén; Martin Höglund; Sören Lehmann; Stacey B Gabriel; Jennifer L Moran; Eric S Lander; Patrick F Sullivan; Pamela Sklar; Henrik Grönberg; Christina M Hultman; Steven A McCarroll Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Miguel R Ossandon; Lokesh Agrawal; Eric J Bernhard; Barbara A Conley; Sumana M Dey; Rao L Divi; Ping Guan; Tracy G Lively; Tawnya C McKee; Brian S Sorg; James V Tricoli Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M Cisneros-Villanueva; L Hidalgo-Pérez; M Rios-Romero; A Cedro-Tanda; C A Ruiz-Villavicencio; K Page; R Hastings; D Fernandez-Garcia; R Allsopp; M A Fonseca-Montaño; S Jimenez-Morales; V Padilla-Palma; J A Shaw; A Hidalgo-Miranda Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 7.640