Molecular profiling from liquid biopsy, in particular cell-free DNA (cfDNA), represents an attractive alternative to tissue biopsies for the detection of actionable targets and tumor monitoring. In addition to PCR-based assays, Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-based cfDNA assays are now commercially available and are being increasingly adopted in clinical practice. However, the validity of these products as well as the clinical utility of cfDNA in the management of patients with cancer has yet to be proven. Within framework of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) program CANCER-ID we evaluated the use of commercially available reference materials designed for ctDNA testing and cfDNA derived from Diagnostic Leukaphereses (DLA) for inter- and intra-assay as well as intra- and inter-laboratory comparisons. In three experimental setups, a broad range of assays including ddPCR, MassARRAY and various NGS-based assays were tested. We demonstrate that both reference materials with predetermined VAFs and DLA samples are extremely useful for the performance assessment of mutation analysis platforms. Moreover, our data indicate a substantial variability of NGS assays with respect to sensitivity and specificity highlighting the importance of extensive validation of the test performance before offering these tests in clinical routine practice.
PURPOSE Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are increasingly being used in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet biomarkers predicting their benefit are lacking. We evaluated if on-treatment changes of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from ICI start (t0) to after two cycles (t1) assessed with a commercial panel could identify patients with NSCLC who would benefit from ICI. PATIENTS AND METHODS The molecular ctDNA response was evaluated as a predictor of radiographic tumor response and long-term survival benefit of ICI. To maximize the yield of ctDNA detection, de novo mutation calling was performed. Furthermore, the impact of clonal hematopoiesis (CH)–related variants as a source of biologic noise was investigated. RESULTS After correction for CH-related variants, which were detected in 75 patients (44.9%), ctDNA was detected in 152 of 167 (91.0%) patients. We observed only a fair agreement of the molecular and radiographic response, which was even more impaired by the inclusion of CH-related variants. After exclusion of those, a ≥ 50% molecular response improved progression-free survival (10 v 2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.77; P = .0011) and overall survival (18.4 v 5.9 months; HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.62; P < .0001) compared with patients not achieving this end point. After adjusting for clinical variables, ctDNA response and STK11/ KEAP1 mutations (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.0; P < .001) remained independent predictors for overall survival, irrespective of programmed death ligand-1 expression. A landmark survival analysis at 2 months (n = 129) provided similar results. CONCLUSION On-treatment changes of ctDNA in plasma reveal predictive information for long-term clinical benefit in ICI-treated patients with NSCLC. A broader NSCLC patient coverage through de novo mutation calling and the use of a variant call set excluding CH-related variants improved the classification of molecular responders, but had no significant impact on survival.
Circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) may contain DNA originating from the tumor in plasma of cancer patients (ctDNA) and enables noninvasive cancer diagnosis, treatment predictive testing, and response monitoring. A recent multicenter evaluation of workflows by the CANCER-ID consortium using artificial spiked-in plasma showed significant differences and consequently the importance of carefully selecting ccfDNA extraction methods. Here, the quantity and integrity of extracted ccfDNA from the plasma of cancer patients were assessed. Twenty-one cancer patient-derived cell-free plasma samples were selected to compare the Qiagen CNA, Maxwell RSC ccfDNA plasma, and Zymo manual quick ccfDNA kit. High-volume citrate plasma samples collected by diagnostic leukapheresis from six cancer patients were used to compare the Qiagen CNA (2 mL) and QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA kit (8 mL). This study revealed similar integrity and similar levels of amplified short-sized fragments and tumor-specific mutants comparing the CNA and RSC kits. However, the CNA kit consistently showed the highest yield of ccfDNA and short-sized fragments, while the RSC and ME kits showed higher variant allelic frequencies (VAFs). Our study pinpoints the importance of standardizing preanalytical conditions as well as consensus on defining the input of ccfDNA to accurately detect ctDNA and be able to compare results in a clinical routine practice, within and between clinical studies.
Plasma-based tumor mutational profiling is arising as a reliable approach to detect primary and therapy-induced resistance mutations required for accurate treatment decision making. Here, we compared the FDA-approved Cobas® EGFR Mutation Test v2 with the UltraSEEK™ Lung Panel on the MassARRAY® System on detection of EGFR mutations, accompanied with preanalytical sample assessment using the novel Liquid IQ® Panel. 137 cancer patient-derived cell-free plasma samples were analyzed with the Cobas® and UltraSEEK™ tests. Liquid IQ® analysis was initially validated (n = 84) and used to determine ccfDNA input for all samples. Subsequently, Liquid IQ® results were applied to harmonize ccfDNA input for the Cobas® and UltraSEEK™ tests for 63 NSCLC patients. The overall concordance between the Cobas® and UltraSEEK™ tests was 86%. The Cobas® test detected more EGFR exon19 deletions and L858R mutations, while the UltraSEEK™ test detected more T790M mutations. A 100% concordance in both the clinical (n = 137) and harmonized (n = 63) cohorts was observed when >10 ng of ccfDNA was used as determined by the Liquid IQ® Panel. The Cobas® and UltraSEEK™ tests showed similar sensitivity in EGFR mutation detection, particularly when ccfDNA input was sufficient. It is recommended to preanalytically determine the ccfDNA concentration accurately to ensure sufficient input for reliable interpretation and treatment decision making.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.