| Literature DB >> 32908507 |
Bing Xu1, Guangyu Shan1, Qixi Wu1, Weiwei Li2, Hongjiang Wang3, Hui Li4, Yaping Yang5, Qiming Long4, Ping Zhao6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) served as a noninvasive method with less side effects using peripheral blood. Given the studies on concordance rate between liquid and solid biopsies in Chinese breast cancer (BC) patients were limited, we sought to examine the concordance rate of different kinds of genomic alterations between paired tissue biopsies and ctDNA samples in Chinese BC cohorts.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32908507 PMCID: PMC7474381 DOI: 10.1155/2020/4259293
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.375
Figure 1Comparison of the mutation number in different biopsies. (a) Mutation counts in 41 ctDNA samples and 81 tissue samples. One dot in the figure represented as the mutation counts of one sample. (b) Mutation counts and density of the top 10 genes in two biopsies. Green and blue bars represented the mutation counts or density in ctDNAs and tissues, respectively.
Figure 2Concordant and discordant alterations detected in ctDNAs and tissues. (a) Venn diagrams representing the counting number of alterations, SNVs, InDels, and detected amplifications (AMPs) detected only in tissues (blue), detected only in ctDNAs (green), and detected in both biopsies (overlap). (b) Oncoprint chart for 17 genes which had at least one concordant protein-coding mutation site or concordant gene amplification across all 41 patients. One vertical bar represents one patient. Green bar: mutations in plasma; blue bar: mutations in tissue; red bar: concordant mutation in two biopsies; orange bar: mutations in the same gene, but discordant in ctDNA and tissue.
Concordance of ERBB2 amplification for breast cancer.
| Tissues | Sensitivity | Specificity | Concordance | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (+) | (−) | (%) | (%) | (%) | ||
| ctDNA | (+) | 2 | 1 | |||
| (−) | 5 | 33 | 28.6 | 97.1 | 85.4 | |
Figure 3Comparison of VAF between concordant and discordant ctDNA mutations. Boxplot displayed the minimum, maximum, median, and interquartile range of VAF of ctDNA. Concordant ctDNA mutations had higher frequency than discordant ctDNA mutations (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank sum test).
Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy across 6 genes.
| ctDNA mutations | Tissue mutations | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Diagnostic | Youden's | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (+) | (−) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | Accuracy (%) | J Index | |
|
| ||||||||
| (+) | 10 | 7 | ||||||
| (−) | 9 | 20 | 52.6 | 74.1 | 58.8 | 70.0 | 65.2 | 0.27 |
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| (+) | 4 | 2 | ||||||
| (−) | 10 | 27 | 28.6 | 93.1 | 66.7 | 73.0 | 72.1 | 0.22 |
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| (+) | 2 | 4 | ||||||
| (−) | 1 | 35 | 66.7 | 89.7 | 33.3 | 97.2 | 88.1 | 0.56 |
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| (+) | 4 | 9 | ||||||
| (−) | 2 | 29 | 66.7 | 76.3 | 30.8 | 93.5 | 75.0 | 0.43 |
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| (+) | 4 | 2 | ||||||
| (−) | 3 | 35 | 57.1 | 94.6 | 66.7 | 92.1 | 60.9 | 0.52 |
|
| ||||||||
| Total positive | 24 | 24 | ||||||
| Total negative | 25 | 146 | ||||||
| Total(positive + negative) | 49 | 170 | 49.0 | 85.9 | 50.0 | 85.4 | 77.6 | 0.35 |