EGFR gene copy number was a predictor of clinical benefit from gefitinib in ISEL. Additional studies are warranted to assess these biomarkers fully for the identification of patients most likely to benefit from gefitinib treatment.

Somatic mutations in PIK3CA (encoding a class I phosphoinositide 3 kinase (PI3K) subunit) modulate PI3K signalling to influence tumour behaviour and occur in up to 40% of breast cancers. Inhibitors of PI3K signalling are entering clinical trials, but the impact of PIKC3A mutation on tumour response has yet to be clarified. This study investigated the potential utility of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) as a source for PIK3CA mutation detection in patients with breast cancer. cfDNA extracted (QIAamp Virus spin kit) from blood and matched archival tumour from 46 patients with metastatic breast cancer and 30 patients with localised, operable breast cancer was assessed for hotspot PIK3CA mutations using Amplification Refractory Mutation System (ARMS()) allele-specific PCR and Scorpion probes. PIK3CA mutations were detected in 13/46 (28%) plasma-derived and 10/46 (21%) serum-derived cfDNA samples from metastatic breast cancer patients. In 41 cases with matched tumour and plasma-derived cfDNA data, concordance (same mutation status in plasma and tumour) was 95%. Where a PIK3CA mutation was present in tumour, the 'pick up' in plasma-derived cfDNA was 80%. PIK3CA mutations were present in tumours from 14/30 (47%) localised breast cancers, but no PIK3CA mutations were detected in matched cfDNA. These data demonstrate feasibility and potential utility of cfDNA for PIK3CA mutation detection in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Studies are underway to qualify PIK3CA mutation in cfDNA as a predictive biomarker allowing patient stratification in clinical trials of mechanism-based therapeutics that target PI3K signalling pathways.

BackgroundWe have compared mutation analysis by DNA sequencing and Amplification Refractory Mutation System™ (ARMS™) for their ability to detect mutations in clinical biopsy specimens.MethodsWe have evaluated five real-time ARMS assays: BRAF 1799T>A, [this includes V600E and V600K] and NRAS 182A>G [Q61R] and 181C>A [Q61K] in melanoma, EGFR 2573T>G [L858R], 2235-2249del15 [E746-A750del] in non-small-cell lung cancer, and compared the results to DNA sequencing of the mutation 'hot-spots' in these genes in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour (FF-PET) DNA.ResultsThe ARMS assays maximised the number of samples that could be analysed when both the quality and quantity of DNA was low, and improved both the sensitivity and speed of analysis compared with sequencing. ARMS was more robust with fewer reaction failures compared with sequencing and was more sensitive as it was able to detect functional mutations that were not detected by DNA sequencing. DNA sequencing was able to detect a small number of lower frequency recurrent mutations across the exons screened that were not interrogated using the specific ARMS assays in these studies.ConclusionsARMS was more sensitive and robust at detecting defined somatic mutations than DNA sequencing on clinical samples where the predominant sample type was FF-PET.

No abstract

BackgroundTo determine the prevalence of RET rearrangement genes, RET copy number gains and expression in tumor samples from four Phase III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials of vandetanib, a selective inhibitor of VEGFR, RET and EGFR signaling, and to determine any association with outcome to vandetanib treatment.MethodsArchival tumor samples from the ZODIAC (NCT00312377, vandetanib ± docetaxel), ZEAL (NCT00418886, vandetanib ± pemetrexed), ZEPHYR (NCT00404924, vandetanib vs placebo) and ZEST (NCT00364351, vandetanib vs erlotinib) studies were evaluated by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) in 944 and 1102 patients.ResultsThe prevalence of RET rearrangements by FISH was 0.7% (95% CI 0.3–1.5%) among patients with a known result. Seven tumor samples were positive for RET rearrangements (vandetanib, n = 3; comparator, n = 4). 2.8% (n = 26) of samples had RET amplification (innumerable RET clusters, or ≥7 copies in > 10% of tumor cells), 8.1% (n = 76) had low RET gene copy number gain (4–6 copies in ≥40% of tumor cells) and 8.3% (n = 92) were RET expression positive (signal intensity ++ or +++ in >10% of tumor cells). Of RET-rearrangement-positive patients, none had an objective response in the vandetanib arm and one patient responded in the comparator arm. Radiologic evidence of tumor shrinkage was observed in two patients treated with vandetanib and one treated with comparator drug. The objective response rate was similar in the vandetanib and comparator arms for patients positive for RET copy number gains or RET protein expression.ConclusionsWe have identified prevalence for three RET biomarkers in a population predominated by non-Asians and smokers. RET rearrangement prevalence was lower than previously reported. We found no evidence of a differential benefit for efficacy by IHC and RET gene copy number gains. The low prevalence of RET rearrangements (0.7%) prevents firm conclusions regarding association of vandetanib treatment with efficacy in the RET rearrangement NSCLC subpopulation.Trial registrationRandomized Phase III clinical trials (NCT00312377, ZODIAC; NCT00418886, ZEAL; NCT00364351, ZEST; NCT00404924, ZEPHYR).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1146-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Genetic alterations can determine the natural history of cancer and its treatment response. With further advances in DNA sequencing technology, multiple novel genetic alterations will be discovered which could be exploited as prognostic, predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers in the development and use of cancer therapeutics. As such, the importance in clinical practice of efficient and robust somatic mutation testing in solid tumours cannot be overemphasized in the current era of personalized medicine. However, significant challenges remain regarding the testing of genetic biomarkers in clinical practice. Reliance on archived formalin fixed, paraffin embedded tumour, obtained from diagnostic biopsies, for testing somatic genetic alterations could restrict the scientific community in asking relevant questions about a patient's cancer biology. Problems inherent with using formalin fixed, archival tissue are well recognized and difficult to resolve. It could be argued that to achieve rapid and efficient incorporation of genetic biomarkers into clinical practice, somatic mutation testing in cancer patients should be simpler, less invasive using a readily available clinical sample, whilst maintaining robustness and reproducibility. In this regard, use of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) from plasma or serum as an alternative and/or additional source of DNA to test cancer specific genetic alterations is an attractive proposition. In light of encouraging results from recent studies, this mini review will discuss the current role and future potential of somatic mutation testing from circulating or cell free DNA derived from the blood of patients with solid tumours.

Context: In 2013, an evidence-based guideline was published by the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology to set standards for the molecular analysis of lung cancers to guide treatment decisions with targeted inhibitors. New evidence has prompted an evaluation of additional laboratory technologies, targetable genes, patient populations, and tumor types for testing. Objective: To systematically review and update the 2013 guideline to affirm its validity; to assess the evidence of new genetic discoveries, technologies, and therapies; and to issue an evidence-based update. Design: The College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to help define the key questions and literature search terms, review abstracts and full articles, and draft recommendations. Results: Eighteen new recommendations were drafted. The panel also updated 3 recommendations from the 2013 guideline. Conclusions: The 2013 guideline was largely reaffirmed with updated recommendations to allow testing of cytology samples, require improved assay sensitivity, and recommend against the use of

Testing for mutations in the KRAS oncogene for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is generally performed using DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue; however, access to specimens can be limited and analysis challenging. This study assessed the identification of KRAS mutations in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) using a commercially available KRAS polymerase chain reaction (PCR) kit. Matched plasma, serum and tumor samples were available from 71 patients with mCRC who had received prior therapy but whose disease progressed following therapy. Yields of cfDNA from plasma and serum samples were comparable. Analyses were successful in 70/71 plasma-extracted samples (specificity: 97%, sensitivity: 31%) and 67/71 serum- extracted samples (specificity: 100%, sensitivity: 25%). This study demonstrates that KRAS mutations can be detected in cfDNA using a commercially available KRAS PCR kit, confirming cfDNA as a potential alternative source of tumor DNA in a diagnostic setting if access to archival tumor specimens is limited.