Andreas Jung1, Thomas Kirchner. 1. Institute of Pathology, Medical Faculty of the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy involves the analysis of cell-free nucleic acids, mainly circulating free DNA (cfDNA), in bodily fluids such as blood. The obtaining of specimens is easier for patients and less invasive than tissue biopsy, but the method has certain limitations. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search. RESULTS: Because the concentration of cfDNA in plasma is less than 0.001%, special amplifying techniques must be used to enable a search for specific mutations. Liquid biopsy can be used in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) if no tissue is available for biopsy; when performed for this indication, it has 67% sensitivity and 94% specificity. If liquid biopsy does not reveal a mutation, this may be due either to the absence of the mutation in the tumor or to the inadequate sensitivity of the measuring technique. This uncertainty associated with negative findings can be reduced by the simultaneous demonstration of reference mutations derived from a primary tumor tissue analysis. In comparison to tissue studies, the search for tumor-specific mutations by liquid biopsy is 70% sensitive and 69% specific; this corresponds to a positive predictive value of 86% and a negative predictive value of 46%. CONCLUSION: Liquid biopsy and tumor tissue analysis are complementary, rather than alternative, techniques for therapeutically relevant genetic investigation of tumors. Comparative studies are needed so that further indications can be determined for liquid biopsy in the diagnostic evaluation of cancer.
BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy involves the analysis of cell-free nucleic acids, mainly circulating free DNA (cfDNA), in bodily fluids such as blood. The obtaining of specimens is easier for patients and less invasive than tissue biopsy, but the method has certain limitations. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search. RESULTS: Because the concentration of cfDNA in plasma is less than 0.001%, special amplifying techniques must be used to enable a search for specific mutations. Liquid biopsy can be used in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) if no tissue is available for biopsy; when performed for this indication, it has 67% sensitivity and 94% specificity. If liquid biopsy does not reveal a mutation, this may be due either to the absence of the mutation in the tumor or to the inadequate sensitivity of the measuring technique. This uncertainty associated with negative findings can be reduced by the simultaneous demonstration of reference mutations derived from a primary tumor tissue analysis. In comparison to tissue studies, the search for tumor-specific mutations by liquid biopsy is 70% sensitive and 69% specific; this corresponds to a positive predictive value of 86% and a negative predictive value of 46%. CONCLUSION: Liquid biopsy and tumor tissue analysis are complementary, rather than alternative, techniques for therapeutically relevant genetic investigation of tumors. Comparative studies are needed so that further indications can be determined for liquid biopsy in the diagnostic evaluation of cancer.
Authors: Frank Diehl; Meng Li; Devin Dressman; Yiping He; Dong Shen; Steve Szabo; Luis A Diaz; Steven N Goodman; Kerstin A David; Hartmut Juhl; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-10-28 Impact factor: 11.205
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: Geoffrey R Oxnard; Kenneth S Thress; Ryan S Alden; Rachael Lawrance; Cloud P Paweletz; Mireille Cantarini; James Chih-Hsin Yang; J Carl Barrett; Pasi A Jänne Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David R Parkinson; Nicholas Dracopoli; Brenda Gumbs Petty; Carolyn Compton; Massimo Cristofanilli; Albert Deisseroth; Daniel F Hayes; Gordon Kapke; Prasanna Kumar; Jerry Sh Lee; Minetta C Liu; Robert McCormack; Stanislaw Mikulski; Larry Nagahara; Klaus Pantel; Sonia Pearson-White; Elizabeth A Punnoose; Lori T Roadcap; Andrew E Schade; Howard I Scher; Caroline C Sigman; Gary J Kelloff Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Peter T Campbell; Christine B Ambrosone; Timothy R Rebbeck; Shuji Ogino; Reiko Nishihara; Hugo J W L Aerts; Melissa Bondy; Nilanjan Chatterjee; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Marios Giannakis; Jeffrey A Golden; Yujing J Heng; N Sertac Kip; Jill Koshiol; X Shirley Liu; Camila M Lopes-Ramos; Lorelei A Mucci; Jonathan A Nowak; Amanda I Phipps; John Quackenbush; Robert E Schoen; Lynette M Sholl; Rulla M Tamimi; Molin Wang; Matty P Weijenberg; Catherine J Wu; Kana Wu; Song Yao; Kun-Hsing Yu; Xuehong Zhang Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 2.506