BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy offers the ability to non-invasively analyze the genome of a tumor through circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to identify targetable and prognostic genomic alterations. Few studies have rigorously analyzed ctDNA results and determined the fidelity with which they recapitulate the genomics of a sequenced tissue sample obtained from the same tumor. The clinical utility study (CUS) for the FoundationACT™ ctDNA assay (Foundation Medicine, Cambridge, MA, USA; NCT02620527) is a multi-center prospective clinical study for multiple solid tumor types to compare genomic profiling of paired tissue and blood samples from the same patient. In this subset of the study, paired specimens from 96 patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) were analyzed with comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of the tumor tissue sample (FoundationOne®) and blood sample (FoundationACT™). METHODS: Both samples underwent CGP using the hybrid capture-based Illumina Hi-Seq technology. Maximum somatic allele frequency (MSAF) was used to estimate the fraction of ctDNA in the sample. The set of genes and targeted regions common to both tumor and liquid were compared for each subject. RESULTS: Among these patients, 61% were male; 74% had clinical stage IV disease, 19% had clinical stage III disease, and 7% had clinical stage II disease. Time between the tissue biopsy and liquid biopsy (range, 0-709 days) had a significant impact on the positive percent agreement (PPA) between the two assays. Eighty percent of cases had evidence of ctDNA in the blood (MSAF >0). For all cases with MSAF >0, 171 base substitutions and insertions/deletions (indels) were identified in the tumor, and 79% (PPA) of these identical alterations were also identified in matched ctDNA samples; PPA increased to 87% for cases <270 days between the tissue and liquid biopsy, 95% for <90 days, and 100% PPA for <30 days. All known and likely short variants in KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF were analyzed independently as testing of these genes is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for patients with CRC and have therapeutic implications. For NCCN genes, PPA was 80% for all time points for short variants; PPA increased to 90% for cases <270 days between the tissue and liquid biopsy. There was high concordance for KRAS G12X between tissue and liquid: overall percent agreement (97%), PPA (93%), negative percent agreement (NPA) (100%), positive predictive value (PPV) (100%), and negative predictive value (NPV) (96%) for the <270 day cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In cases where tumor tissue profiling is not possible, these results provide compelling evidence that genomic profiling of ctDNA in late stage CRC shows a high concordance with tumor tissue sequencing results and can be used to identify most clinically relevant alterations capable of guiding therapy for these patients. 2019 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy offers the ability to non-invasively analyze the genome of a tumor through circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to identify targetable and prognostic genomic alterations. Few studies have rigorously analyzed ctDNA results and determined the fidelity with which they recapitulate the genomics of a sequenced tissue sample obtained from the same tumor. The clinical utility study (CUS) for the FoundationACT™ ctDNA assay (Foundation Medicine, Cambridge, MA, USA; NCT02620527) is a multi-center prospective clinical study for multiple solid tumor types to compare genomic profiling of paired tissue and blood samples from the same patient. In this subset of the study, paired specimens from 96 patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) were analyzed with comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of the tumor tissue sample (FoundationOne®) and blood sample (FoundationACT™). METHODS: Both samples underwent CGP using the hybrid capture-based Illumina Hi-Seq technology. Maximum somatic allele frequency (MSAF) was used to estimate the fraction of ctDNA in the sample. The set of genes and targeted regions common to both tumor and liquid were compared for each subject. RESULTS: Among these patients, 61% were male; 74% had clinical stage IV disease, 19% had clinical stage III disease, and 7% had clinical stage II disease. Time between the tissue biopsy and liquid biopsy (range, 0-709 days) had a significant impact on the positive percent agreement (PPA) between the two assays. Eighty percent of cases had evidence of ctDNA in the blood (MSAF >0). For all cases with MSAF >0, 171 base substitutions and insertions/deletions (indels) were identified in the tumor, and 79% (PPA) of these identical alterations were also identified in matched ctDNA samples; PPA increased to 87% for cases <270 days between the tissue and liquid biopsy, 95% for <90 days, and 100% PPA for <30 days. All known and likely short variants in KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF were analyzed independently as testing of these genes is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for patients with CRC and have therapeutic implications. For NCCN genes, PPA was 80% for all time points for short variants; PPA increased to 90% for cases <270 days between the tissue and liquid biopsy. There was high concordance for KRAS G12X between tissue and liquid: overall percent agreement (97%), PPA (93%), negative percent agreement (NPA) (100%), positive predictive value (PPV) (100%), and negative predictive value (NPV) (96%) for the <270 day cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In cases where tumor tissue profiling is not possible, these results provide compelling evidence that genomic profiling of ctDNA in late stage CRC shows a high concordance with tumor tissue sequencing results and can be used to identify most clinically relevant alterations capable of guiding therapy for these patients. 2019 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA); colorectal; genomics; liquid biopsy
Authors: Kim De Keersmaecker; Carlos Graux; Maria D Odero; Nicole Mentens; Riet Somers; Johan Maertens; Iwona Wlodarska; Peter Vandenberghe; Anne Hagemeijer; Peter Marynen; Jan Cools Journal: Blood Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Al B Benson; Alan P Venook; Lynette Cederquist; Emily Chan; Yi-Jen Chen; Harry S Cooper; Dustin Deming; Paul F Engstrom; Peter C Enzinger; Alessandro Fichera; Jean L Grem; Axel Grothey; Howard S Hochster; Sarah Hoffe; Steven Hunt; Ahmed Kamel; Natalie Kirilcuk; Smitha Krishnamurthi; Wells A Messersmith; Mary F Mulcahy; James D Murphy; Steven Nurkin; Leonard Saltz; Sunil Sharma; David Shibata; John M Skibber; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Elena M Stoffel; Eden Stotsky-Himelfarb; Christopher G Willett; Christina S Wu; Kristina M Gregory; Deborah Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Alexa B Schrock; Dean Pavlick; Samuel J Klempner; Jon H Chung; Brady Forcier; Allison Welsh; Lauren Young; Bryan Leyland-Jones; Rodolfo Bordoni; Richard D Carvajal; Joseph Chao; Razelle Kurzrock; Jason K Sicklick; Jeffrey S Ross; Philip J Stephens; Craig Devoe; Fadi Braiteh; Siraj M Ali; Vincent A Miller Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Garrett M Frampton; Alex Fichtenholtz; Geoff A Otto; Kai Wang; Sean R Downing; Jie He; Michael Schnall-Levin; Jared White; Eric M Sanford; Peter An; James Sun; Frank Juhn; Kristina Brennan; Kiel Iwanik; Ashley Maillet; Jamie Buell; Emily White; Mandy Zhao; Sohail Balasubramanian; Selmira Terzic; Tina Richards; Vera Banning; Lazaro Garcia; Kristen Mahoney; Zac Zwirko; Amy Donahue; Himisha Beltran; Juan Miguel Mosquera; Mark A Rubin; Snjezana Dogan; Cyrus V Hedvat; Michael F Berger; Lajos Pusztai; Matthias Lechner; Chris Boshoff; Mirna Jarosz; Christine Vietz; Alex Parker; Vincent A Miller; Jeffrey S Ross; John Curran; Maureen T Cronin; Philip J Stephens; Doron Lipson; Roman Yelensky Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2013-10-20 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: John H Strickler; Jonathan M Loree; Leanne G Ahronian; Aparna R Parikh; Donna Niedzwiecki; Allan Andresson Lima Pereira; Matthew McKinney; W Michael Korn; Chloe E Atreya; Kimberly C Banks; Rebecca J Nagy; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Richard B Lanman; AmirAli Talasaz; Igor F Tsigelny; Ryan B Corcoran; Scott Kopetz Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Jin Zhang; Nicole M White; Heather K Schmidt; Robert S Fulton; Chad Tomlinson; Wesley C Warren; Richard K Wilson; Christopher A Maher Journal: Genome Res Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Reetu Mukherji; Chao Yin; Rumaisa Hameed; Ali Z Alqahtani; Monika Kulasekaran; Aiwu R He; Benjamin A Weinberg; John L Marshall; Marion L Hartley; Marcus S Noel Journal: Biol Direct Date: 2022-06-06 Impact factor: 7.173
Authors: Justin D Finkle; Hala Boulos; Terri M Driessen; Christine Lo; Richard A Blidner; Ashraf Hafez; Aly A Khan; Ariane Lozac'hmeur; Kelly E McKinnon; Jason Perera; Wei Zhu; Afshin Dowlati; Kevin P White; Robert Tell; Nike Beaubier Journal: NPJ Precis Oncol Date: 2021-07-02