Joel M Baumgartner1, Victoria M Raymond2, Richard B Lanman2, Lisa Tran3, Kaitlyn J Kelly4, Andrew M Lowy4, Razelle Kurzrock3. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. j1baumgartner@ucsd.edu. 2. Guardant Health, Inc, Redwood City, CA, USA. 3. Center for Personalized Cancer Therapy, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a useful tool for detecting genomic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). To date, most ctDNA tests have been performed on patients with widely metastatic disease. Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (metastases) present unique prognostic and therapeutic challenges. We therefore explored preoperative ctDNA in patients with peritoneal metastases undergoing surgery. METHODS: Patients referred for surgical resection of peritoneal metastases underwent preoperative blood-derived ctDNA analysis (clinical-grade NGS [68-73 genes]). ctDNA was quantified as the percentage of altered circulating cell-free DNA (% cfDNA). RESULTS: Eighty patients had ctDNA testing: 46 (57.5%) women; median age 55.5 years. The following diagnoses were included: 59 patients (73.8%), appendix cancer; 11 (13.8%), colorectal; five (6.3%), peritoneal mesothelioma; two (2.5%), small bowel; one (1.3%) each of cholangiocarcinoma, ovarian, and testicular cancer. Thirty-one patients (38.8%) had detectable preoperative ctDNA alterations, most frequently in the following genes: TP53 (25.8% of all alterations detected) and KRAS (11.3%). Among 15 patients with tissue DNA NGS, 33.3% also had ctDNA alterations (overall concordance = 96.7%). Patients with high ctDNA quantities (≥ 0.25% cfDNA, n = 25) had a shorter progression-free survival (PFS) than those with lower ctDNA quantities (n = 55; 7.8 vs. 15.0 months; hazard ratio 3.23, 95% confidence interval 1.43-7.28, p = 0.005 univariate, p = 0.044 multivariate). CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients with peritoneal metastases referred for surgical intervention have detectable ctDNA alterations preoperatively. Patients with high levels of ctDNA have a worse prognosis independent of histologic grade.
BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a useful tool for detecting genomic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). To date, most ctDNA tests have been performed on patients with widely metastatic disease. Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (metastases) present unique prognostic and therapeutic challenges. We therefore explored preoperative ctDNA in patients with peritoneal metastases undergoing surgery. METHODS:Patients referred for surgical resection of peritoneal metastases underwent preoperative blood-derived ctDNA analysis (clinical-grade NGS [68-73 genes]). ctDNA was quantified as the percentage of altered circulating cell-free DNA (% cfDNA). RESULTS: Eighty patients had ctDNA testing: 46 (57.5%) women; median age 55.5 years. The following diagnoses were included: 59 patients (73.8%), appendix cancer; 11 (13.8%), colorectal; five (6.3%), peritoneal mesothelioma; two (2.5%), small bowel; one (1.3%) each of cholangiocarcinoma, ovarian, and testicular cancer. Thirty-one patients (38.8%) had detectable preoperative ctDNA alterations, most frequently in the following genes: TP53 (25.8% of all alterations detected) and KRAS (11.3%). Among 15 patients with tissue DNA NGS, 33.3% also had ctDNA alterations (overall concordance = 96.7%). Patients with high ctDNA quantities (≥ 0.25% cfDNA, n = 25) had a shorter progression-free survival (PFS) than those with lower ctDNA quantities (n = 55; 7.8 vs. 15.0 months; hazard ratio 3.23, 95% confidence interval 1.43-7.28, p = 0.005 univariate, p = 0.044 multivariate). CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients with peritoneal metastases referred for surgical intervention have detectable ctDNA alterations preoperatively. Patients with high levels of ctDNA have a worse prognosis independent of histologic grade.
Authors: Jan Franko; Qian Shi; Charles D Goldman; Barbara A Pockaj; Garth D Nelson; Richard M Goldberg; Henry C Pitot; Axel Grothey; Steven R Alberts; Daniel J Sargent Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joel M Baumgartner; Laura Tobin; Sean F Heavey; Kaitlyn J Kelly; Eric J Roeland; Andrew M Lowy Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jan Franko; Zuhaib Ibrahim; Niraj J Gusani; Matthew P Holtzman; David L Bartlett; Herbert J Zeh Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Apostolia-Maria Tsimberidou; Nancy G Iskander; David S Hong; Jennifer J Wheler; Gerald S Falchook; Siqing Fu; Sarina Piha-Paul; Aung Naing; Filip Janku; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Yang Ye; Sijin Wen; Donald Berry; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-09-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Maria Schwaederle; Hatim Husain; Paul T Fanta; David E Piccioni; Santosh Kesari; Richard B Schwab; Sandip P Patel; Olivier Harismendy; Megumi Ikeda; Barbara A Parker; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Marco Gerlinger; Andrew J Rowan; Stuart Horswell; James Larkin; David Endesfelder; Eva Gronroos; Pierre Martinez; Nicholas Matthews; Aengus Stewart; Charles Swanton; M Math; Patrick Tarpey; Ignacio Varela; Benjamin Phillimore; Sharmin Begum; Neil Q McDonald; Adam Butler; David Jones; Keiran Raine; Calli Latimer; Claudio R Santos; Mahrokh Nohadani; Aron C Eklund; Bradley Spencer-Dene; Graham Clark; Lisa Pickering; Gordon Stamp; Martin Gore; Zoltan Szallasi; Julian Downward; P Andrew Futreal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Steven B Maron; Leah M Chase; Samantha Lomnicki; Sara Kochanny; Kelly L Moore; Smita S Joshi; Stacie Landron; Julie Johnson; Lesli A Kiedrowski; Rebecca J Nagy; Richard B Lanman; Seung Tae Kim; Jeeyun Lee; Daniel V T Catenacci Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Joel M Baumgartner; Paul Riviere; Richard B Lanman; Kaitlyn J Kelly; Jula Veerapong; Andrew M Lowy; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: T J Ettrich; D Schwerdel; A Dolnik; F Beuter; T J Blätte; S A Schmidt; N Stanescu-Siegmund; J Steinacker; R Marienfeld; A Kleger; L Bullinger; T Seufferlein; A W Berger Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Lindsey M Charo; Ramez N Eskander; Ryosuke Okamura; Sandip P Patel; Mina Nikanjam; Richard B Lanman; David E Piccioni; Shumei Kato; Michael T McHale; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Iris Van't Erve; Koen P Rovers; Alexander Constantinides; Karen Bolhuis; Emma Ce Wassenaar; Robin J Lurvink; Clément J Huysentruyt; Petur Snaebjornsson; Djamila Boerma; Daan van den Broek; Tineke E Buffart; Max J Lahaye; Arend Gj Aalbers; Niels Fm Kok; Gerrit A Meijer; Cornelis Ja Punt; Onno Kranenburg; Ignace Hjt de Hingh; Remond Ja Fijneman Journal: J Pathol Clin Res Date: 2021-02-26
Authors: Jeanne Tie; Joshua D Cohen; Serigne N Lo; Yuxuan Wang; Lu Li; Michael Christie; Margaret Lee; Rachel Wong; Suzanne Kosmider; Iain Skinner; Hui Li Wong; Belinda Lee; Matthew E Burge; Desmond Yip; Christos S Karapetis; Timothy J Price; Niall C Tebbutt; Andrew M Haydon; Janine Ptak; Mary J Schaeffer; Natalie Silliman; Lisa Dobbyn; Maria Popoli; Cristian Tomasetti; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Peter Gibbs Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 7.396