Pei N Ding1,2,3,4, Therese Becker1,2,4, Victoria Bray1,3, Wei Chua1,3, Yafeng Ma1,4, Bo Xu5, David Lynch1,2, Paul de Souza1,2,3,4, Tara Roberts1,2,4. 1. Centre for Circulating Tumor Cell Diagnostics & Research, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia. 2. School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Medical Oncology Department, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia. 4. South Western Sydney Medical School, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Thermofisher Scientific, Scoresby, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gene mutation analysis from plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide timely information regarding the mechanism of resistance that could translate to personalised treatment. We compared concordance rate of next generation sequencing (NGS) and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) in the detection of the EGFR activating and T790M mutation from plasma ctDNA with diagnostic tissue biopsy-based assays. The second objective was to test whether putative osimertinib resistance associated mutations were detectable from plasma using NGS. METHODS: From January 2016 to December 2017, we prospectively collected plasma samples from patients prior to commencement of second- or third-line osimertinib therapy and upon disease progression, in a single tertiary hospital in South Western Sydney, Australia. Amplicon-based NGS and ddPCR assays were used to detect activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and T790M mutations in 18 plasma samples from nine patients; all patients were required to have tissue biopsies with known EGFR status. RESULTS: High concordance of allelic fractions were seen in matched plasma NGS and ddPCR for activating EGFR mutations and T790M mutations (R2 = 0.92, P < 0.0001). Using tissue biopsies as reference standard, sensitivity was 100% for NGS and 94% for ddPCR. Several possible osimertinib resistance associated mutations, including PIK3CA, BRAF and TP53 mutations, were detected by NGS in samples upon progression on osimertinib therapy. CONCLUSION: ddPCR assays for EGFR mutations appear to be as sensitive and highly concordant as amplicon-based NGS. NGS has the ability to detect novel resistance mutations.
BACKGROUND: Gene mutation analysis from plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide timely information regarding the mechanism of resistance that could translate to personalised treatment. We compared concordance rate of next generation sequencing (NGS) and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) in the detection of the EGFR activating and T790M mutation from plasma ctDNA with diagnostic tissue biopsy-based assays. The second objective was to test whether putative osimertinib resistance associated mutations were detectable from plasma using NGS. METHODS: From January 2016 to December 2017, we prospectively collected plasma samples from patients prior to commencement of second- or third-line osimertinib therapy and upon disease progression, in a single tertiary hospital in South Western Sydney, Australia. Amplicon-based NGS and ddPCR assays were used to detect activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and T790M mutations in 18 plasma samples from nine patients; all patients were required to have tissue biopsies with known EGFR status. RESULTS: High concordance of allelic fractions were seen in matched plasma NGS and ddPCR for activating EGFR mutations and T790M mutations (R2 = 0.92, P < 0.0001). Using tissue biopsies as reference standard, sensitivity was 100% for NGS and 94% for ddPCR. Several possible osimertinib resistance associated mutations, including PIK3CA, BRAF and TP53 mutations, were detected by NGS in samples upon progression on osimertinib therapy. CONCLUSION: ddPCR assays for EGFR mutations appear to be as sensitive and highly concordant as amplicon-based NGS. NGS has the ability to detect novel resistance mutations.
Authors: Chee Khoon Lee; Yi-Long Wu; Pei Ni Ding; Sarah J Lord; Akira Inoue; Caicun Zhou; Tetsuya Mitsudomi; Rafael Rosell; Nick Pavlakis; Matthew Links; Val Gebski; Richard J Gralla; James Chih-Hsin Yang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N Guibert; Y Hu; N Feeney; Y Kuang; V Plagnol; G Jones; K Howarth; J F Beeler; C P Paweletz; G R Oxnard Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: James C-H Yang; Lecia V Sequist; Sarayut Lucien Geater; Chun-Ming Tsai; Tony Shu Kam Mok; Martin Schuler; Nobuyuki Yamamoto; Chong-Jen Yu; Sai-Hong I Ou; Caicun Zhou; Daniel Massey; Victoria Zazulina; Yi-Long Wu Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-06-04 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Suresh S Ramalingam; James C-H Yang; Chee Khoon Lee; Takayasu Kurata; Dong-Wan Kim; Thomas John; Naoyuki Nogami; Yuichiro Ohe; Helen Mann; Yuri Rukazenkov; Serban Ghiorghiu; Daniel Stetson; Aleksandra Markovets; J Carl Barrett; Kenneth S Thress; Pasi A Jänne Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Xiuning Le; Sonam Puri; Marcelo V Negrao; Monique B Nilsson; Jacqulyne Robichaux; Theresa Boyle; J Kevin Hicks; Katherine L Lovinger; Emily Roarty; Waree Rinsurongkawong; Ming Tang; Huiying Sun; Yasir Elamin; Lara C Lacerda; Jeff Lewis; Jack A Roth; Stephen G Swisher; J Jack Lee; William N William; Bonnie S Glisson; Jianjun Zhang; Vassiliki A Papadimitrakopoulou; Jhanelle E Gray; John V Heymach Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Francis P Young; Therese M Becker; Mohammed Nimir; Thomas Opperman; Wei Chua; Bavanthi Balakrishnar; Paul de Souza; Yafeng Ma Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 4.241