Hanadi El Achi1, Joseph D Khoury2, Sanam Loghavi3. 1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 2. Department of Hematopathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 3. Department of Hematopathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. SLoghavi@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While liquid biopsy is still relatively a new concept, the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has recently generated a revolution in the field and will be the focus of this review. RECENT FINDINGS: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) derives from tumor cells and provides information about the genetic alterations of tumors. However, ctDNA concentration in plasma can be below the level of detection by conventional methods; therefore, screening for actionable genetic information is challenging. Clinical trials exploring targeted and untargeted sequencing to improve the outcomes of ctDNA detection are showing promising results, having reached a limit of detection as low as 0.001% of ctDNA in a background of normal circulating DNA. Most of the challenges related to the sensitivity of detection of ctDNA have been defeated by dint of NGS-based approaches. Despite all the efforts, these methods are still expensive, time-consuming, and require advanced skills for appropriate interpretation. Nevertheless, the technology is rapidly improving, and the expectations for the implementation of liquid biopsy into the clinical practice in the near future are high.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While liquid biopsy is still relatively a new concept, the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has recently generated a revolution in the field and will be the focus of this review. RECENT FINDINGS: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) derives from tumor cells and provides information about the genetic alterations of tumors. However, ctDNA concentration in plasma can be below the level of detection by conventional methods; therefore, screening for actionable genetic information is challenging. Clinical trials exploring targeted and untargeted sequencing to improve the outcomes of ctDNA detection are showing promising results, having reached a limit of detection as low as 0.001% of ctDNA in a background of normal circulating DNA. Most of the challenges related to the sensitivity of detection of ctDNA have been defeated by dint of NGS-based approaches. Despite all the efforts, these methods are still expensive, time-consuming, and require advanced skills for appropriate interpretation. Nevertheless, the technology is rapidly improving, and the expectations for the implementation of liquid biopsy into the clinical practice in the near future are high.
Authors: Johannes Fredebohm; Daniel H Mehnert; Ann-Kathrin Löber; Frank Holtrup; Vanessa van Rahden; Philipp Angenendt; Frank Diehl Journal: Adv Exp Med Biol Date: 2016 Impact factor: 2.622
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: Joseph D Khoury; Dorothy M Adcock; Fanny Chan; James T Symanowski; Stefan Tiefenbacher; Oscar Goodman; Lazara Paz; Yupo Ma; David C Ward; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Louis M Fink Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Aadel A Chaudhuri; Jacob J Chabon; Alexander F Lovejoy; Aaron M Newman; Henning Stehr; Tej D Azad; Michael S Khodadoust; Mohammad Shahrokh Esfahani; Chih Long Liu; Li Zhou; Florian Scherer; David M Kurtz; Carmen Say; Justin N Carter; David J Merriott; Jonathan C Dudley; Michael S Binkley; Leslie Modlin; Sukhmani K Padda; Michael F Gensheimer; Robert B West; Joseph B Shrager; Joel W Neal; Heather A Wakelee; Billy W Loo; Ash A Alizadeh; Maximilian Diehn Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2017-09-24 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Cloud P Paweletz; Adrian G Sacher; Chris K Raymond; Ryan S Alden; Allison O'Connell; Stacy L Mach; Yanan Kuang; Leena Gandhi; Paul Kirschmeier; Jessie M English; Lee P Lim; Pasi A Jänne; Geoffrey R Oxnard Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Stepan M Esagian; Georgia Ι Grigoriadou; Ilias P Nikas; Vasileios Boikou; Peter M Sadow; Jae-Kyung Won; Konstantinos P Economopoulos Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 4.553