Carlos S Cabalag1,2, Michael Yates1, Mariana Benitez Corrales1, Paul Yeh1,2, Stephen Q Wong1,2, Bonnie Z Zhang1, Kenji M Fujihara1,2, Lynn Chong3,4, Michael W Hii1,4, Sarah-Jane Dawson1,2,5, Wayne A Phillips1,2,4, Cuong P Duong1,2, Nicholas J Clemons1,2. 1. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, Victoria. 2. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Grattan Street, Parkville, Victoria. 3. Department of Upper GI and Hepatobiliary Surgery, St. Vincent's Hospital, 41 Victoria Parade, Melbourne, Victoria. 4. University of Melbourne Department of Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, 41 Victoria Parade, Melbourne, Victoria; and. 5. The University of Melbourne Centre for Cancer Research, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Level 10, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, Victoria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) by developing a cost-effective and rapid technique utilising targeted amplicon sequencing. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Emerging evidence suggests that levels of ctDNA in the blood can be used to monitor treatment response and in the detection of disease recurrence in various cancer types. Current staging modalities for EAC such as computerised tomography of the chest/abdomen/pelvis (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) do not reliably detect occult micro-metastatic disease, the presence of which signifies a poor prognosis. After curative-intent treatment, some patients are still at high risk of recurrent disease, and there is no widely accepted optimal surveillance tool for patients with EAC. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with EAC were investigated for the presence of ctDNA using a tumor-informed approach. We designed a custom targeted amplicon sequencing panel of target specific primers covering mutational foci in 9 of the most commonly mutated genes in EAC. Serial blood samples were taken before and after neoadjuvant treatment (NAT), and during surveillance. RESULTS: Somatic mutations were detected in pre-treatment biopsy samples of 55 out of 62 (89%) EAC patients. Mutations in TP53 (80%) were the most common. Out of these 55 patients, 20 (36%) had detectable ctDNA at baseline. The majority (90%) of patients with detectable ctDNA had either locally advanced tumors, nodal involvement or metastatic disease. In patients with locally advanced tumors, disease free survival (DFS) was more accurately stratified using pre-treatment ctDNA status [HR 4.34 (95% CI 0.93-20.21); P = 0.05] compared to nodal status on PET-CT. In an exploratory subgroup analysis, patients who are node negative but ctDNA positive have inferior DFS [HR 11.71 (95% CI 1.16-118.80) P = 0.04]. In blood samples taken before and following NAT, clearance of ctDNA after NAT was associated with a favourable response to treatment. Furthermore, patients who are ctDNA positive during post-treatment surveillance are at high risk of relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that ctDNA has potential to provide additional prognostication over conventional staging investigation such as CT and PET. It may also have clinical utility in the assessment of response to NAT and as a biomarker for the surveillance of recurrent disease.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) by developing a cost-effective and rapid technique utilising targeted amplicon sequencing. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Emerging evidence suggests that levels of ctDNA in the blood can be used to monitor treatment response and in the detection of disease recurrence in various cancer types. Current staging modalities for EAC such as computerised tomography of the chest/abdomen/pelvis (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) do not reliably detect occult micro-metastatic disease, the presence of which signifies a poor prognosis. After curative-intent treatment, some patients are still at high risk of recurrent disease, and there is no widely accepted optimal surveillance tool for patients with EAC. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with EAC were investigated for the presence of ctDNA using a tumor-informed approach. We designed a custom targeted amplicon sequencing panel of target specific primers covering mutational foci in 9 of the most commonly mutated genes in EAC. Serial blood samples were taken before and after neoadjuvant treatment (NAT), and during surveillance. RESULTS: Somatic mutations were detected in pre-treatment biopsy samples of 55 out of 62 (89%) EAC patients. Mutations in TP53 (80%) were the most common. Out of these 55 patients, 20 (36%) had detectable ctDNA at baseline. The majority (90%) of patients with detectable ctDNA had either locally advanced tumors, nodal involvement or metastatic disease. In patients with locally advanced tumors, disease free survival (DFS) was more accurately stratified using pre-treatment ctDNA status [HR 4.34 (95% CI 0.93-20.21); P = 0.05] compared to nodal status on PET-CT. In an exploratory subgroup analysis, patients who are node negative but ctDNA positive have inferior DFS [HR 11.71 (95% CI 1.16-118.80) P = 0.04]. In blood samples taken before and following NAT, clearance of ctDNA after NAT was associated with a favourable response to treatment. Furthermore, patients who are ctDNA positive during post-treatment surveillance are at high risk of relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that ctDNA has potential to provide additional prognostication over conventional staging investigation such as CT and PET. It may also have clinical utility in the assessment of response to NAT and as a biomarker for the surveillance of recurrent disease.
Authors: Feiran Lou; Camelia S Sima; Prasad S Adusumilli; Manjit S Bains; Inderpal S Sarkaria; Valerie W Rusch; Nabil P Rizk Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Chetan Bettegowda; Mark Sausen; Rebecca J Leary; Isaac Kinde; Yuxuan Wang; Nishant Agrawal; Bjarne R Bartlett; Hao Wang; Brandon Luber; Rhoda M Alani; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Nilofer S Azad; Alberto Bardelli; Henry Brem; John L Cameron; Clarence C Lee; Leslie A Fecher; Gary L Gallia; Peter Gibbs; Dung Le; Robert L Giuntoli; Michael Goggins; Michael D Hogarty; Matthias Holdhoff; Seung-Mo Hong; Yuchen Jiao; Hartmut H Juhl; Jenny J Kim; Giulia Siravegna; Daniel A Laheru; Calogero Lauricella; Michael Lim; Evan J Lipson; Suely Kazue Nagahashi Marie; George J Netto; Kelly S Oliner; Alessandro Olivi; Louise Olsson; Gregory J Riggins; Andrea Sartore-Bianchi; Kerstin Schmidt; le-Ming Shih; Sueli Mieko Oba-Shinjo; Salvatore Siena; Dan Theodorescu; Jeanne Tie; Timothy T Harkins; Silvio Veronese; Tian-Li Wang; Jon D Weingart; Christopher L Wolfgang; Laura D Wood; Dongmei Xing; Ralph H Hruban; Jian Wu; Peter J Allen; C Max Schmidt; Michael A Choti; Victor E Velculescu; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Luis A Diaz Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: L Tan; S Sandhu; R J Lee; J Li; J Callahan; S Ftouni; N Dhomen; P Middlehurst; A Wallace; J Raleigh; A Hatzimihalis; M A Henderson; M Shackleton; A Haydon; V Mar; D E Gyorki; D Oudit; M A Dawson; R J Hicks; P Lorigan; G A McArthur; R Marais; S Q Wong; S-J Dawson Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Joel Shapiro; J Jan B van Lanschot; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Pieter van Hagen; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Geke A P Hospers; Johannes J Bonenkamp; Miguel A Cuesta; Reinoud J B Blaisse; Olivier R C Busch; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Cornelis J A Punt; John Th M Plukker; Henk M W Verheul; Ernst J Spillenaar Bilgen; Herman van Dekken; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Tom Rozema; Katharina Biermann; Jannet C Beukema; Anna H M Piet; Caroline M van Rij; Janny G Reinders; Hugo W Tilanus; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ate van der Gaast Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Tej D Azad; Aadel A Chaudhuri; Penny Fang; Yawei Qiao; Mohammad S Esfahani; Jacob J Chabon; Emily G Hamilton; Yi D Yang; Alex Lovejoy; Aaron M Newman; David M Kurtz; Michael Jin; Joseph Schroers-Martin; Henning Stehr; Chih Long Liu; Angela Bik-Yu Hui; Viren Patel; Dipen Maru; Steven H Lin; Ash A Alizadeh; Maximilian Diehn Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Simon A Forbes; Nidhi Bindal; Sally Bamford; Charlotte Cole; Chai Yin Kok; David Beare; Mingming Jia; Rebecca Shepherd; Kenric Leung; Andrew Menzies; Jon W Teague; Peter J Campbell; Michael R Stratton; P Andrew Futreal Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 16.971