Despite considerable advances in the management of urothelial carcinoma (UC), better risk stratification and enhanced detection of minimal residual disease are still urgent priorities to prolong survival while avoiding the morbidity of overtreatment. Circulating tumor cells and DNA (CTCs, ctDNA) are two biologically distinct "liquid biopsies" that may potentially address this need, although they have been understudied in UC to date and their relative utility is unknown. To this end, matched CTC and ctDNA samples were collected for a head-to-head comparison in a pilot study of 16 patients with metastatic UC. CTCs were defined as cytokeratin- and/or EpCAM-positive using the RareCyte direct imaging platform. ctDNA was assayed using the PlasmaSelect64 probe-capture assay. 75% of patients had detectable CTCs, and 73% had detectable somatic mutations, with no correlation between CTC count and ctDNA. 91% of patients had tissue confirmation of at least one plasma mutation and, importantly, several clinically actionable mutations were detected in plasma that were not found in the matching tumor. A ctDNA fraction of >2% was significantly associated with worse overall survival (p=0.039) whereas CTC detection was not (p=0.46). Notably, using a predefined gene panel for ctDNA detection had a high but not complete detection rate in metastatic UC, similar to what has been described for a custom tissue-personalized assay approach. In sum, both liquid biopsies show promise in UC and deserve further investigation. PATIENT SUMMARY: New "liquid biopsy" blood tests are emerging for urothelial cancer aimed at early detection and avoiding overtreatment. Our results suggest that two such tests provide complementary information: circulating tumor cells may be best for studying the biological features of a person's cancer, whereas circulating tumor DNA may be better for early detection. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Despite considerable advances in the management of urothelial carcinoma (UC), better risk stratification and enhanced detection of minimal residual disease are still urgent priorities to prolong survival while avoiding the morbidity of overtreatment. Circulating tumor cells and DNA (CTCs, ctDNA) are two biologically distinct "liquid biopsies" that may potentially address this need, although they have been understudied in UC to date and their relative utility is unknown. To this end, matched CTC and ctDNA samples were collected for a head-to-head comparison in a pilot study of 16 patients with metastatic UC. CTCs were defined as cytokeratin- and/or EpCAM-positive using the RareCyte direct imaging platform. ctDNA was assayed using the PlasmaSelect64 probe-capture assay. 75% of patients had detectable CTCs, and 73% had detectable somatic mutations, with no correlation between CTC count and ctDNA. 91% of patients had tissue confirmation of at least one plasma mutation and, importantly, several clinically actionable mutations were detected in plasma that were not found in the matching tumor. A ctDNA fraction of >2% was significantly associated with worse overall survival (p=0.039) whereas CTC detection was not (p=0.46). Notably, using a predefined gene panel for ctDNA detection had a high but not complete detection rate in metastatic UC, similar to what has been described for a custom tissue-personalized assay approach. In sum, both liquid biopsies show promise in UC and deserve further investigation. PATIENT SUMMARY: New "liquid biopsy" blood tests are emerging for urothelial cancer aimed at early detection and avoiding overtreatment. Our results suggest that two such tests provide complementary information: circulating tumor cells may be best for studying the biological features of a person's cancer, whereas circulating tumor DNA may be better for early detection. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Heather J Chalfin; Tiziano Pramparo; Amir Mortazavi; Scot A Niglio; Joseph D Schonhoft; Adam Jendrisak; Yen-Lin Chu; Robin Richardson; Rachel Krupa; Amanda K L Anderson; Yipeng Wang; Ryan Dittamore; Sumanta K Pal; Primo N Lara; Mark N Stein; David I Quinn; Seth M Steinberg; Lisa M Cordes; Lisa Ley; Marissa Mallek; Olena Sierra Ortiz; Rene Costello; Jacqueline Cadena; Carlos Diaz; James L Gulley; William L Dahut; Howard Streicher; John J Wright; Jane B Trepel; Donald P Bottaro; Andrea B Apolo Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: Gillian Vandekerkhove; Jean-Michel Lavoie; Matti Annala; Andrew J Murtha; Nora Sundahl; Simon Walz; Takeshi Sano; Sinja Taavitsainen; Elie Ritch; Ladan Fazli; Antonio Hurtado-Coll; Gang Wang; Matti Nykter; Peter C Black; Tilman Todenhöfer; Piet Ost; Ewan A Gibb; Kim N Chi; Bernhard J Eigl; Alexander W Wyatt Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Carolin Blumendeller; Julius Boehme; Maximilian Frick; Martin Schulze; Antje Rinckleb; Christina Kyzirakos; Simone Kayser; Maria Kopp; Sabine Kelkenberg; Natalia Pieper; Oliver Bartsch; Dirk Hadaschick; Florian Battke; Arnulf Stenzl; Saskia Biskup Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Carlos Casas-Arozamena; Eva Díaz; Cristian Pablo Moiola; Lorena Alonso-Alconada; Alba Ferreirós; Alicia Abalo; Carlos López Gil; Sara S Oltra; Javier de Santiago; Silvia Cabrera; Victoria Sampayo; Marta Bouso; Efigenia Arias; Juan Cueva; Eva Colas; Ana Vilar; Antonio Gil-Moreno; Miguel Abal; Gema Moreno-Bueno; Laura Muinelo-Romay Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 4.241