| Literature DB >> 35280315 |
Dongsheng Yue1, Weiran Liu2, Chen Chen1, Tao Zhang3, Yuchen Ma1, Longgang Cui4, Yajun Gu4, Ting Bei4, Xiaochen Zhao4, Bei Zhang4, Yuezong Bai4, Atocha Romero5, Meng Xu-Welliver6, Changli Wang1, Zhenfa Zhang1, Bin Zhang1.
Abstract
Background: There is currently a lack of effective biomarkers to evaluate efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been investigated as a non-invasive tool for the assessment of tumor burden and minimal residual disease (MRD). The utility of ctDNA profiling in reflecting NAT efficacy, however, has not been confirmed. This study explored the association of ctDNA change with treatment response to NAT and recurrence-free survival (RFS) after surgery.Entities:
Keywords: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA); neoadjuvant therapy (NAT); recurrence
Year: 2022 PMID: 35280315 PMCID: PMC8902085 DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-22-106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res ISSN: 2218-6751
Characteristics of patients with NSCLC at baseline
| Characteristic | All (n=22) | Patients with MPR (n=9) | Patients without MPR (n=13) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, n (%) | |||
| Male | 17 (77.27) | 9 (100.0) | 8 (61.54) |
| Female | 5 (22.73) | 0 (0) | 5 (38.46) |
| Age, years | |||
| Mean ± SD | 61.36±5.76 | 60.78±5.76 | 61.77±5.96 |
| Median (range) | 62.50 (53.00–72.00) | 63.00 (53.00–68.00) | 62.00 (53.00–72.00) |
| Stage, n (%) | |||
| I | 5 (22.73) | 3 33.33) | 2 (15.38) |
| II | 4 (18.18) | 1 (11.11) | 3 (23.08) |
| III | 13 (59.09) | 5 (55.56) | 8 (61.54) |
| Pathology, n (%) | |||
| Sq | 14 (63.64) | 8 (88.89) | 6 (46.15) |
| Non-sq | 8 (36.36) | 1 (11.11) | 7 (53.85) |
| NAT, n (%) | |||
| IO+IO | 4 (18.18) | 1 (11.11) | 3 (23.08) |
| IO+Chemo | 12 (54.55) | 7 (77.78) | 5 (38.46) |
| Chemo | 6 (27.27) | 1 (11.11) | 5 (38.46) |
| Smoking, n (%) | |||
| Yes | 18 (81.82) | 9 (100.0) | 9 (69.23) |
| No | 4 (18.18) | 0 (0) | 4 (30.77) |
| ECOG score, n (%) | |||
| 0 | 21 (95.45) | 9 (100.0) | 12 (92.31) |
| 1 | 1 (4.55) | 0 (0) | 1 (7.69) |
NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; MPR, major pathological response, defined as 10% or less of viable tumor cells in the resected lesions after neoadjuvant therapy; SD, standard deviation; Sq, lung squamous cell carcinomas; NAT, neoadjuvant therapy; IO, immunotherapy; Chemo, chemotherapy; ECOG score, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score.
Figure 1ctDNA and pathological response upon neoadjuvant therapy. (A) Pathologic response of patients with detectable or undetectable ctDNA upon neoadjuvant therapy. Blood samples were collected from patients after neoadjuvant therapy (within one week before surgery) and subjected to ctDNA profiling with LC-MRD panel. ctDNA + was defined as having any mutation detected from the panel used. The horizontal dashed line represents a major pathological response, defined as tumor regression of over 90%. ctDNA− was defined as having no detectable mutation. (B) To evaluate the effects of ctDNA change on predicting pathological response, relative delta mean variant allele fraction (R∆mean VAF) was calculated to depict dynamic changes of ctDNA upon neoadjuvant therapy among MPR and non-responders (non-MPR). Relative delta mean VAF = (mean VAF on treatment − mean VAF at baseline)/mean VAF at baseline. ROC curve showing the sensitivity and specificity of R∆mean VAF to predict pathological response. To aim for a maximum sum of specificity and sensitivity, the threshold for defining responders was determined to −0.98. As the LoD of the panel assay used was 0.25% for fusions and 0.1% for SNV/insertions and deletions (Indels), only variants of AF >0.3% detected at baseline were analyzed to increase the accuracy of prediction. ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA; LC-MRD, lung cancer-specific minimal residual disease; MPR, major pathological response; ROC, receiver operator characteristic; VAF, variant allele frequency; LoD, limit of detection; SNV, single nucleotide variant; AUC, area under the curve.
Concordance between ctDNA/radiologic and pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy in NSCLC
| CT | Relative delta mean VAF | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORR | SD/PD | Responder | Non-responder | ||
| MPR | 8 | 1 | 6 | 0 | |
| Non-MPR | 9 | 4 | 1 | 5 | |
| Sensitivity | 88.89% (51.75–99.72%) | 100% (54.07–100.00%) | |||
| Specificity | 30.77% (9.09–61.43%) | 83.33% (35.88–99.58%) | |||
| Accuracy | 54.55% (32.21–75.61%) | 91.67% (61.52–99.79%) | |||
| PPV | 47.06% (36.64–57.74%) | 85.71% (50.06–97.29%) | |||
| NPV | 80.00% (34.67–96.79%) | 100% (NA) | |||
| P value | 0.360 | 0.015 | |||
A 2-sided Fisher’s exact test was conducted to analyze the association of pathologic response with ctDNA change and radiologic response. Tumor regression was assessed by CT imaging per RECIST v1.1. To aim for a maximum sum of specificity and sensitivity, the threshold for defining responders was determined to −0.98. ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; CT, computed tomography; VAF, variant allele frequency; ORR, objective response rate; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; MPR, major pathologic response, defined as showing no more than 10% residual viable tumor cells; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; NA, not available.
Figure 2ctDNA monitoring at treatment milestones and during follow-ups. Blue circles denote the presence of ctDNA; while yellow triangles denote the absence of ctDNA. Neoadjuvant treatment regimens were represented by the indicated signs. Radiologic recurrence was denoted as multiplication sign. ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA.
Figure 3Monitoring of post-operative ctDNA predicts recurrence prior to radiologic imaging. (A) RFS determined by molecular or radiologic recurrence. The 8 patients with CT confirmed relapse were analyzed herein. Molecularly predicted recurrence was defined as the first presence of ctDNA at any time point after surgery. The presence of ctDNA was defined as having had any mutation detected from the used panel. Gray straight line denotes each patient’s recurrence predicted by molecular profiling and radiologic imaging. (B) Kaplan-Meier survival curves of RFS determined by ctDNA profiling and CT imaging. Paired CT scan and ctDNA profiling were conducted at 3−8 days after surgery and every 2−3 months during the follow-up. ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA; RFS, recurrence-free survival; CT, computed tomography.
Figure 4Absence of ctDNA after surgery correlates with better RFS. Kaplan-Meier survival curves depicting RFS of patients having had ctDNA detection at 1 week (n=22) (A) and 3 months (n=16) (B) after surgery. The performance of ctDNA profiling at 1 week (C) and 3 months (D) postoperatively in predicting recurrence in reference to radiologic imaging. ctDNA was defined as any mutation detected from the used panel. Gray color indicates relapse cases and green color denotes relapse-free events confirmed by radiologic imaging. The characters in the columns represent the number of patients with the corresponding status. ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA; RFS, recurrence-free survival; mRFS, median RFS; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.