The Future of ctDNA-Defined Minimal Residual Disease: Personalizing Adjuvant Therapy in Colorectal Cancer

The aim of this review is to evaluate the present status of the use of cell-free DNA and its fraction of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) because this year July 2022, an ESMO guideline was published regarding the application of ctDNA in patient care. This review is for clinical oncologists to explain the concept, the terms used, the pros and cons of ctDNA; thus, the technical aspects of the different platforms are not reviewed in detail, but we try to help in navigating the current knowledge in liquid biopsy. Since the validated and adequately sensitive ctDNA assays have utility in identifying actionable mutations to direct targeted therapy, ctDNA may be used for this soon in routine clinical practice and in other different areas as well. The cfDNA fragments can be obtained by liquid biopsy and can be used for diagnosis, prognosis, and selecting among treatment options in cancer patients. A great proportion of cfDNA comes from normal cells of the body or from food uptake. Only a small part (<1%) of it is related to tumors, originating from primary tumors, metastatic sites, or circulating tumor cells (CTCs). Soon the data obtained from ctDNA may routinely be used for finding minimal residual disease, detecting relapse, and determining the sites of metastases. It might also be used for deciding appropriate therapy, and/or emerging resistance to the therapy and the data analysis of ctDNA may be combined with imaging or other markers. However, to achieve this goal, further clinical validations are inevitable. As a result, clinicians should be aware of the limitations of the assays. Of course, several open questions are still under research and because of it cfDNA and ctDNA testing are not part of routine care yet.

Section: Cell-free Dna In Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Cell-Free DNA in Cancer Treatment Decision Making

Telekes

Horváth

2022

“…To address this issue, ctDNA-based liquid biopsy has emerged as a non-invasive approach that allows for the real-time monitoring of tumor dynamics, detection of minimal residual disease, and identification of actionable mutations [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. In patients undergoing liver transplant, the use of cell-free DNA has also been applied to detecting rejection [ 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Circulating Tumor DNA Profiling in Liver Transplant for Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Cholangiocarcinoma, and Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Programmatic Proof of Concept

Hong,

Wehrle,

Zhang

et al. 2024

Introduction: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is emerging as a promising, non-invasive diagnostic and surveillance biomarker in solid organ malignancy. However, its utility before and after liver transplant (LT) for patients with primary and secondary liver cancers is still underexplored. Methods: Patients undergoing LT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) with ctDNA testing were included. CtDNA testing was conducted pre-transplant, post-transplant, or both (sequential) from 11/2019 to 09/2023 using Guardant360, Guardant Reveal, and Guardant360 CDx. Results: 21 patients with HCC (n = 9, 43%), CRLM (n = 8, 38%), CCA (n = 3, 14%), and mixed HCC/CCA (n = 1, 5%) were included in the study. The median follow-up time was 15 months (range: 1–124). The median time from pre-operative testing to surgery was 3 months (IQR: 1–4; range: 0–5), and from surgery to post-operative testing, it was 9 months (IQR: 2–22; range: 0.4–112). A total of 13 (62%) patients had pre-transplant testing, with 8 (62%) having ctDNA detected (ctDNA+) and 5 (32%) not having ctDNA detected (ctDNA-). A total of 18 (86%) patients had post-transplant testing, 11 (61%) of whom were ctDNA+ and 7 (33%) of whom were ctDNA-. The absolute recurrence rates were 50% (n = 5) in those who were ctDNA+ vs. 25% (n = 1) in those who were ctDNA- in the post-transplant setting, though this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.367). Six (29%) patients (HCC = 3, CCA = 1, CRLM = 2) experienced recurrence with a median recurrence-free survival of 14 (IQR: 6–40) months. Four of these patients had positive post-transplant ctDNA collected following diagnosis of recurrence, while one patient had positive post-transplant ctDNA collected preceding recurrence. A total of 10 (48%) patients had sequential ctDNA testing, of whom n = 5 (50%) achieved ctDNA clearance (+/−). The remainder were ctDNA+/+ (n = 3, 30%), ctDNA−/− (n = 1, 10%), and ctDNA−/+ (n = 1, 11%). Three (30%) patients showed the acquisition of new genomic alterations following transplant, all without recurrence. Overall, the median tumor mutation burden (TMB) decreased from 1.23 mut/Mb pre-transplant to 0.00 mut/Mb post-transplant. Conclusions: Patients with ctDNA positivity experienced recurrence at a higher rate than the ctDNA- patients, indicating the potential role of ctDNA in predicting recurrence after curative-intent transplant. Based on sequential testing, LT has the potential to clear ctDNA, demonstrating the capability of LT in the treatment of systemic disease. Transplant providers should be aware of the potential of donor-derived cell-free DNA and improved approaches are necessary to address such concerns.

“…For ctDNA detection in the total pool of cfDNA, a myriad of tests can be performed, including the assessment of single nucleotide variants (SNVs), chromosomal copy number variations (CNVs), microsatellite instability (MSI), and DNA methylation, or a combination of all the above, and ctDNA is often determined via a multitude of assays currently applied in various settings [ 17 ]. For example, tumor-specific SNV or methylation patterns detected in ctDNA correlate with prognosis [ 18 , 19 ] and can be used for disease monitoring [ 20 , 21 , 22 ], while genomic copy number instability (CNI) scores based on CNVs detected in the ctDNA are helpful in determining more tailored treatment strategies [ 23 ]. Theoretically, ctDNA analyses can also be used for cancer diagnosis; however, generally, more ctDNA is shed into the circulation in more advanced stages [ 24 , 25 , 26 ], indicating that a highly sensitive assay is required for this purpose.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Liquid Biopsies for Colorectal Cancer and Advanced Adenoma Screening and Surveillance: What to Measure?

Eikenboom,

Wilting,

Deger

et al. 2023

Colorectal cancer (CRC) colonoscopic surveillance is effective but burdensome. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis has emerged as a promising, minimally invasive tool for disease detection and management. Here, we assessed which ctDNA assay might be most suitable for a ctDNA-based CRC screening/surveillance blood test. In this prospective, proof-of-concept study, patients with colonoscopies for Lynch surveillance or the National Colorectal Cancer screening program were included between 7 July 2019 and 3 June 2022. Blood was drawn, and if advanced neoplasia (adenoma with villous component, high-grade dysplasia, ≥10 mm, or CRC) was detected, it was analyzed for chromosomal copy number variations, single nucleotide variants, and genome-wide methylation (MeD-seq). Outcomes were compared with corresponding patients’ tissues and the MeD-seq results of healthy blood donors. Two Lynch carriers and eight screening program patients were included: five with CRC and five with advanced adenomas. cfDNA showed copy number variations and single nucleotide variants in one patient with CRC and liver metastases. Eight patients analyzed with MeD-seq showed clustering of Lynch-associated and sporadic microsatellite instable lesions separate from microsatellite stable lesions, as did healthy blood donors. In conclusion, whereas copy number changes and single nucleotide variants were only detected in one patient, cfDNA methylation profiles could discriminate all microsatellite instable advanced neoplasia, rendering this tool particularly promising for LS surveillance. Larger studies are warranted to validate these findings.