BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsies are increasingly tested in patients with colorectal cancer to assess tumor burden, response to therapy, and prognosis. The significance of liquid biopsy results after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLMs) is not well-defined. STUDY DESIGN: Sixty-three patients undergoing CLM resection between 2016 and 2018 had plasma drawn postoperatively for liquid biopsy evaluation. Next-generation sequencing analysis was performed to detect somatic mutations in 70 genes. RESULTS: Liquid biopsy after CLM resection was positive in 42 of 63 patients (67%). Eleven patients (18%) had 1 gene mutation, 14 patients (22%) had 2 to 3 mutations, and 17 patients (27%) had 4 or more mutations. The most common mutation was APC, detected in 32 patients (76%), followed by TP53 (74%) and KRAS (38%). Two-year overall survival rate from date of liver resection was significantly worse among patients with a positive liquid biopsy (70% vs 100%; p = 0.005), particularly for those with 4 or more gene mutations detected, whose 2-year overall survival rate was 41%. Sixteen of the 63 patients underwent serial liquid biopsies, resulting in 100 liquid biopsies with matched serum CEA and CT scan results. Metastases were identified in 74 CT scans, which correlated with positive liquid biopsy in 77% of samples (p < 0.001) and CEA > 3 ng/mL in 45% of samples (p < 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Liquid biopsy results provide information about disease burden and prognosis that is complementary to serum CEA and CT imaging. A positive liquid biopsy after CLM resection is associated with worse overall survival, particularly when multiple gene mutations are detected.
BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsies are increasingly tested in patients with colorectal cancer to assess tumor burden, response to therapy, and prognosis. The significance of liquid biopsy results after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLMs) is not well-defined. STUDY DESIGN: Sixty-three patients undergoing CLM resection between 2016 and 2018 had plasma drawn postoperatively for liquid biopsy evaluation. Next-generation sequencing analysis was performed to detect somatic mutations in 70 genes. RESULTS: Liquid biopsy after CLM resection was positive in 42 of 63 patients (67%). Eleven patients (18%) had 1 gene mutation, 14 patients (22%) had 2 to 3 mutations, and 17 patients (27%) had 4 or more mutations. The most common mutation was APC, detected in 32 patients (76%), followed by TP53 (74%) and KRAS (38%). Two-year overall survival rate from date of liver resection was significantly worse among patients with a positive liquid biopsy (70% vs 100%; p = 0.005), particularly for those with 4 or more gene mutations detected, whose 2-year overall survival rate was 41%. Sixteen of the 63 patients underwent serial liquid biopsies, resulting in 100 liquid biopsies with matched serum CEA and CT scan results. Metastases were identified in 74 CT scans, which correlated with positive liquid biopsy in 77% of samples (p < 0.001) and CEA > 3 ng/mL in 45% of samples (p < 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Liquid biopsy results provide information about disease burden and prognosis that is complementary to serum CEA and CT imaging. A positive liquid biopsy after CLM resection is associated with worse overall survival, particularly when multiple gene mutations are detected.
Authors: Alain R Thierry; Brice Pastor; Zhi-Qin Jiang; Anastasia D Katsiampoura; Christine Parseghian; Jonathan M Loree; Michael J Overman; Cynthia Sanchez; Safia El Messaoudi; Marc Ychou; Scott Kopetz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Yoshikuni Kawaguchi; Scott Kopetz; Timothy E Newhook; Mario De Bellis; Yun Shin Chun; Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Thomas A Aloia; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Bernard Nordlinger; Halfdan Sorbye; Bengt Glimelius; Graeme J Poston; Peter M Schlag; Philippe Rougier; Wolf O Bechstein; John N Primrose; Euan T Walpole; Meg Finch-Jones; Daniel Jaeck; Darius Mirza; Rowan W Parks; Murielle Mauer; Erik Tanis; Eric Van Cutsem; Werner Scheithauer; Thomas Gruenberger Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Keyur P Patel; Mark J Routbort; Russell R Broaddus; Jonathan Yau; Crystal Simien; Wei Chen; David Z Hatfield; L Jeffrey Medeiros; Rajesh R Singh Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Yoshikuni Kawaguchi; Heather A Lillemoe; Elena Panettieri; Yun Shin Chun; Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Thomas A Aloia; Scott Kopetz; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Yun Shin Chun; Guillaume Passot; Suguru Yamashita; Maliha Nusrat; Panagiotis Katsonis; Jonathan M Loree; Claudius Conrad; Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Lianchun Xiao; Thomas A Aloia; Cathy Eng; Scott E Kopetz; Olivier Lichtarge; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: T Gruenberger; J Bridgewater; I Chau; P García Alfonso; M Rivoire; S Mudan; S Lasserre; F Hermann; D Waterkamp; R Adam Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Rodrigo A Toledo; Antonio Cubillo; Estela Vega; Elena Garralda; Rafael Alvarez; Lisardo U de la Varga; Jesús R Pascual; Gema Sánchez; Francesca Sarno; Susana H Prieto; Sofía Perea; Pedro P Lopéz-Casas; Fernando López-Ríos; Manuel Hidalgo Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-05-23