PURPOSE: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with a poor prognosis. Multianalyte signatures, including liquid biopsy and traditional clinical variables, have shown promise for improving prognostication in other solid tumors but have not yet been rigorously assessed for PDAC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) or metastatic PDAC (mPDAC) who were planned to undergo systemic therapy. We collected peripheral blood before systemic therapy and assessed circulating tumor cells (CTCs), cell-free DNA concentration (cfDNA), and circulating tumor KRAS (ctKRAS)-variant allele fraction (VAF). Association of variables with overall survival (OS) was assessed in univariate and multivariate survival analysis, and comparisons were made between models containing liquid biopsy variables combined with traditional clinical prognostic variables versus models containing traditional clinical prognostic variables alone. RESULTS: One hundred four patients, 40 with LAPC and 64 with mPDAC, were enrolled. CTCs, cfDNA concentration, and ctKRAS VAF were all significantly higher in patients with mPDAC than patients with LAPC. ctKRAS VAF (cube root; 0.05 unit increments; hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.21; P = .01), and CTCs ≥ 1/mL (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.34 to 3.69; P = .002) were significantly associated with worse OS in multivariate analysis while cfDNA concentration was not. A model selected by backward selection containing traditional clinical variables plus liquid biopsy variables had better discrimination of OS compared with a model containing traditional clinical variables alone (optimism-corrected Harrell's C-statistic 0.725 v 0.681). CONCLUSION: A multianalyte prognostic signature containing CTCs, ctKRAS, and cfDNA concentration outperformed a model containing traditional clinical variables alone suggesting that CTCs, ctKRAS, and cfDNA provide prognostic information complementary to traditional clinical variables in advanced PDAC.
PURPOSE: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with a poor prognosis. Multianalyte signatures, including liquid biopsy and traditional clinical variables, have shown promise for improving prognostication in other solid tumors but have not yet been rigorously assessed for PDAC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) or metastatic PDAC (mPDAC) who were planned to undergo systemic therapy. We collected peripheral blood before systemic therapy and assessed circulating tumor cells (CTCs), cell-free DNA concentration (cfDNA), and circulating tumor KRAS (ctKRAS)-variant allele fraction (VAF). Association of variables with overall survival (OS) was assessed in univariate and multivariate survival analysis, and comparisons were made between models containing liquid biopsy variables combined with traditional clinical prognostic variables versus models containing traditional clinical prognostic variables alone. RESULTS: One hundred four patients, 40 with LAPC and 64 with mPDAC, were enrolled. CTCs, cfDNA concentration, and ctKRAS VAF were all significantly higher in patients with mPDAC than patients with LAPC. ctKRAS VAF (cube root; 0.05 unit increments; hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.21; P = .01), and CTCs ≥ 1/mL (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.34 to 3.69; P = .002) were significantly associated with worse OS in multivariate analysis while cfDNA concentration was not. A model selected by backward selection containing traditional clinical variables plus liquid biopsy variables had better discrimination of OS compared with a model containing traditional clinical variables alone (optimism-corrected Harrell's C-statistic 0.725 v 0.681). CONCLUSION: A multianalyte prognostic signature containing CTCs, ctKRAS, and cfDNA concentration outperformed a model containing traditional clinical variables alone suggesting that CTCs, ctKRAS, and cfDNA provide prognostic information complementary to traditional clinical variables in advanced PDAC.
Authors: Sabine Riethdorf; Herbert Fritsche; Volkmar Müller; Thomas Rau; Christian Schindlbeck; Brigitte Rack; Wolfgang Janni; Cornelia Coith; Katrin Beck; Fritz Jänicke; Summer Jackson; Terrie Gornet; Massimo Cristofanilli; Klaus Pantel Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: G Vona; A Sabile; M Louha; V Sitruk; S Romana; K Schütze; F Capron; D Franco; M Pazzagli; M Vekemans; B Lacour; C Bréchot; P Paterlini-Bréchot Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Zijian Yang; Michael J LaRiviere; Jina Ko; Jacob E Till; Theresa Christensen; Stephanie S Yee; Taylor A Black; Kyle Tien; Andrew Lin; Hanfei Shen; Neha Bhagwat; Daniel Herman; Andrew Adallah; Mark H O'Hara; Charles M Vollmer; Bryson W Katona; Ben Z Stanger; David Issadore; Erica L Carpenter Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Andrew V Biankin; Nicola Waddell; Karin S Kassahn; Marie-Claude Gingras; Lakshmi B Muthuswamy; Amber L Johns; David K Miller; Peter J Wilson; Ann-Marie Patch; Jianmin Wu; David K Chang; Mark J Cowley; Brooke B Gardiner; Sarah Song; Ivon Harliwong; Senel Idrisoglu; Craig Nourse; Ehsan Nourbakhsh; Suzanne Manning; Shivangi Wani; Milena Gongora; Marina Pajic; Christopher J Scarlett; Anthony J Gill; Andreia V Pinho; Ilse Rooman; Matthew Anderson; Oliver Holmes; Conrad Leonard; Darrin Taylor; Scott Wood; Qinying Xu; Katia Nones; J Lynn Fink; Angelika Christ; Tim Bruxner; Nicole Cloonan; Gabriel Kolle; Felicity Newell; Mark Pinese; R Scott Mead; Jeremy L Humphris; Warren Kaplan; Marc D Jones; Emily K Colvin; Adnan M Nagrial; Emily S Humphrey; Angela Chou; Venessa T Chin; Lorraine A Chantrill; Amanda Mawson; Jaswinder S Samra; James G Kench; Jessica A Lovell; Roger J Daly; Neil D Merrett; Christopher Toon; Krishna Epari; Nam Q Nguyen; Andrew Barbour; Nikolajs Zeps; Nipun Kakkar; Fengmei Zhao; Yuan Qing Wu; Min Wang; Donna M Muzny; William E Fisher; F Charles Brunicardi; Sally E Hodges; Jeffrey G Reid; Jennifer Drummond; Kyle Chang; Yi Han; Lora R Lewis; Huyen Dinh; Christian J Buhay; Timothy Beck; Lee Timms; Michelle Sam; Kimberly Begley; Andrew Brown; Deepa Pai; Ami Panchal; Nicholas Buchner; Richard De Borja; Robert E Denroche; Christina K Yung; Stefano Serra; Nicole Onetto; Debabrata Mukhopadhyay; Ming-Sound Tsao; Patricia A Shaw; Gloria M Petersen; Steven Gallinger; Ralph H Hruban; Anirban Maitra; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; Richard D Schulick; Christopher L Wolfgang; Richard A Morgan; Rita T Lawlor; Paola Capelli; Vincenzo Corbo; Maria Scardoni; Giampaolo Tortora; Margaret A Tempero; Karen M Mann; Nancy A Jenkins; Pedro A Perez-Mancera; David J Adams; David A Largaespada; Lodewyk F A Wessels; Alistair G Rust; Lincoln D Stein; David A Tuveson; Neal G Copeland; Elizabeth A Musgrove; Aldo Scarpa; James R Eshleman; Thomas J Hudson; Robert L Sutherland; David A Wheeler; John V Pearson; John D McPherson; Richard A Gibbs; Sean M Grimmond Journal: Nature Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: A Fatih Sarioglu; Nicola Aceto; Nikola Kojic; Maria C Donaldson; Mahnaz Zeinali; Bashar Hamza; Amanda Engstrom; Huili Zhu; Tilak K Sundaresan; David T Miyamoto; Xi Luo; Aditya Bardia; Ben S Wittner; Sridhar Ramaswamy; Toshi Shioda; David T Ting; Shannon L Stott; Ravi Kapur; Shyamala Maheswaran; Daniel A Haber; Mehmet Toner Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2015-05-18 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Julie Earl; Sandra Garcia-Nieto; Jose Carlos Martinez-Avila; José Montans; Alfonso Sanjuanbenito; Mercedes Rodríguez-Garrote; Eduardo Lisa; Elena Mendía; Eduardo Lobo; Núria Malats; Alfredo Carrato; Carmen Guillen-Ponce Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-10-24 Impact factor: 4.430