PURPOSE: Outcomes for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma remain heterogeneous, with existing methods failing to consistently predict treatment failure. We examined the additional prognostic value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) before and during therapy for predicting patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied the dynamics of ctDNA from 217 patients treated at six centers, using a training and validation framework. We densely characterized early ctDNA dynamics during therapy using cancer personalized profiling by deep sequencing to define response-associated thresholds within a discovery set. These thresholds were assessed in two independent validation sets. Finally, we assessed the prognostic value of ctDNA in the context of established risk factors, including the International Prognostic Index and interim positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans. RESULTS: Before therapy, ctDNA was detectable in 98% of patients; pretreatment levels were prognostic in both front-line and salvage settings. In the discovery set, ctDNA levels changed rapidly, with a 2-log decrease after one cycle (early molecular response [EMR]) and a 2.5-log decrease after two cycles (major molecular response [MMR]) stratifying outcomes. In the first validation set, patients receiving front-line therapy achieving EMR or MMR had superior outcomes at 24 months (EMR: EFS, 83% v 50%; P = .0015; MMR: EFS, 82% v 46%; P < .001). EMR also predicted superior 24-month outcomes in patients receiving salvage therapy in the first validation set (EFS, 100% v 13%; P = .011). The prognostic value of EMR and MMR was further confirmed in the second validation set. In multivariable analyses including International Prognostic Index and interim positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans across both cohorts, molecular response was independently prognostic of outcomes, including event-free and overall survival. CONCLUSION: Pretreatment ctDNA levels and molecular responses are independently prognostic of outcomes in aggressive lymphomas. These risk factors could potentially guide future personalized risk-directed approaches.
PURPOSE: Outcomes for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma remain heterogeneous, with existing methods failing to consistently predict treatment failure. We examined the additional prognostic value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) before and during therapy for predicting patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied the dynamics of ctDNA from 217 patients treated at six centers, using a training and validation framework. We densely characterized early ctDNA dynamics during therapy using cancer personalized profiling by deep sequencing to define response-associated thresholds within a discovery set. These thresholds were assessed in two independent validation sets. Finally, we assessed the prognostic value of ctDNA in the context of established risk factors, including the International Prognostic Index and interim positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans. RESULTS: Before therapy, ctDNA was detectable in 98% of patients; pretreatment levels were prognostic in both front-line and salvage settings. In the discovery set, ctDNA levels changed rapidly, with a 2-log decrease after one cycle (early molecular response [EMR]) and a 2.5-log decrease after two cycles (major molecular response [MMR]) stratifying outcomes. In the first validation set, patients receiving front-line therapy achieving EMR or MMR had superior outcomes at 24 months (EMR: EFS, 83% v 50%; P = .0015; MMR: EFS, 82% v 46%; P < .001). EMR also predicted superior 24-month outcomes in patients receiving salvage therapy in the first validation set (EFS, 100% v 13%; P = .011). The prognostic value of EMR and MMR was further confirmed in the second validation set. In multivariable analyses including International Prognostic Index and interim positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans across both cohorts, molecular response was independently prognostic of outcomes, including event-free and overall survival. CONCLUSION: Pretreatment ctDNA levels and molecular responses are independently prognostic of outcomes in aggressive lymphomas. These risk factors could potentially guide future personalized risk-directed approaches.
Authors: David M Kurtz; Michael R Green; Scott V Bratman; Florian Scherer; Chih Long Liu; Christian A Kunder; Kazuhiro Takahashi; Cynthia Glover; Colm Keane; Shingo Kihira; Brendan Visser; Jason Callahan; Katherine A Kong; Malek Faham; Karen S Corbelli; David Miklos; Ranjana H Advani; Ronald Levy; Rodney J Hicks; Mark Hertzberg; Robert S Ohgami; Maher K Gandhi; Maximilian Diehn; Ash A Alizadeh Journal: Blood Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Craig H Moskowitz; Heiko Schöder; Julie Teruya-Feldstein; Camelia Sima; Alexia Iasonos; Carol S Portlock; David Straus; Ariela Noy; Maria L Palomba; Owen A O'Connor; Steven Horwitz; Sarah A Weaver; Jessica L Meikle; Daniel A Filippa; James F Caravelli; Paul A Hamlin; Andrew D Zelenetz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Richard I Fisher; Sally F Barrington; Franco Cavalli; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; T Andrew Lister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A A Alizadeh; M B Eisen; R E Davis; C Ma; I S Lossos; A Rosenwald; J C Boldrick; H Sabet; T Tran; X Yu; J I Powell; L Yang; G E Marti; T Moore; J Hudson; L Lu; D B Lewis; R Tibshirani; G Sherlock; W C Chan; T C Greiner; D D Weisenburger; J O Armitage; R Warnke; R Levy; W Wilson; M R Grever; J C Byrd; D Botstein; P O Brown; L M Staudt Journal: Nature Date: 2000-02-03 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: John P Leonard; Kathryn S Kolibaba; James A Reeves; Anil Tulpule; Ian W Flinn; Tatjana Kolevska; Robert Robles; Christopher R Flowers; Robert Collins; Nicholas J DiBella; Steven W Papish; Parameswaran Venugopal; Andrew Horodner; Amir Tabatabai; Julio Hajdenberg; Jaehong Park; Rachel Neuwirth; George Mulligan; Kaveri Suryanarayan; Dixie-Lee Esseltine; Sven de Vos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andreas Rosenwald; George Wright; Wing C Chan; Joseph M Connors; Elias Campo; Richard I Fisher; Randy D Gascoyne; H Konrad Muller-Hermelink; Erlend B Smeland; Jena M Giltnane; Elaine M Hurt; Hong Zhao; Lauren Averett; Liming Yang; Wyndham H Wilson; Elaine S Jaffe; Richard Simon; Richard D Klausner; John Powell; Patricia L Duffey; Dan L Longo; Timothy C Greiner; Dennis D Weisenburger; Warren G Sanger; Bhavana J Dave; James C Lynch; Julie Vose; James O Armitage; Emilio Montserrat; Armando López-Guillermo; Thomas M Grogan; Thomas P Miller; Michel LeBlanc; German Ott; Stein Kvaloy; Jan Delabie; Harald Holte; Peter Krajci; Trond Stokke; Louis M Staudt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Re-I Chin; Kevin Chen; Abul Usmani; Chanelle Chua; Peter K Harris; Michael S Binkley; Tej D Azad; Jonathan C Dudley; Aadel A Chaudhuri Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: Philip A Thompson; Jaya Srivastava; Christine Peterson; Paolo Strati; Jeffrey L Jorgensen; Tyler Hether; Michael J Keating; Susan M O'Brien; Alessandra Ferrajoli; Jan A Burger; Zeev Estrov; Nitin Jain; William G Wierda Journal: Blood Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Sarah C Rutherford; Michael Herold; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Lale Kostakoglu; Robert Marcus; Maurizio Martelli; Laurie H Sehn; Marek Trněný; Judith Trotman; Umberto Vitolo; Tina Nielsen; Federico Mattiello; Deniz Sahin; Gila Sellam; Peter Martin Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-04-28