Hahn Andrew W, Gill David M, Maughan Benjamin, Agarwal Archana, Arjyal Lubina, Gupta Sumati, Streeter Jessica, Bailey Erin, Pal Sumanta K, Agarwal Neeraj
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Division of Medical Oncology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Oncotarget. 2017 May 16;8(20):33614-33620. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.16833.
Tumor tissue and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing are frequently performed to detect genomic alterations (GAs) to help guide treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), especially after progression on standard systemic therapy. Our objective was to assess if GAs detected by ctDNA NGS are different from those detected by tumor tissue NGS, specifically in patients with mRCC, and if these platforms are interchangeable or complimentary.
When controlling for genes tested by both platforms, the median mutation rate for ctDNA was similar to tissue (median 3.0 vs. 1.0, p = 0.14). However, the concordance rate between the two platforms was only 8.6%. When comparing GAs by molecular pathway, GAs in tumor tissue were more common for the DNA repair and epigenetic pathways.
Results of NGS testing from tumor tissue and ctDNA from 19 sequential mRCC patients were compared. GAs in each were statistically evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The Fischer's exact test was used to compare the incidence of mutations in selected molecular pathways.
When controlling for genes tested by both platforms, similar number of GAs were detected by both tissue and ctDNA based NGS. However, there was discordance in the type of GAs detected suggesting that ctDNA NGS may be more reflective of dynamic tumor genomic heterogeneity. Hence, these two platforms may be considered complementary to each other, rather than interchangeable, for assessment of tumor GAs to guide selection of targeted clinical trial therapies.
肿瘤组织和循环肿瘤DNA(ctDNA)的二代测序(NGS)检测常用于检测基因组改变(GA),以帮助指导转移性肾细胞癌(mRCC)的治疗,特别是在标准全身治疗进展之后。我们的目的是评估ctDNA NGS检测到的GA是否与肿瘤组织NGS检测到的GA不同,特别是在mRCC患者中,以及这两种检测平台是否可互换或互补。
在控制两个平台都检测的基因后,ctDNA的中位突变率与组织相似(中位值分别为3.0和1.0,p = 0.14)。然而,两个平台之间的一致性率仅为8.6%。当按分子途径比较GA时,肿瘤组织中的GA在DNA修复和表观遗传途径中更为常见。
比较了19例序贯mRCC患者肿瘤组织和ctDNA的NGS检测结果。使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验对每个样本中的GA进行统计学评估。采用Fisher精确检验比较选定分子途径中突变的发生率。
在控制两个平台都检测的基因后,基于组织和ctDNA的NGS检测到的GA数量相似。然而,检测到的GA类型存在不一致,这表明ctDNA NGS可能更能反映动态肿瘤基因组异质性。因此,在评估肿瘤GA以指导靶向临床试验治疗的选择时,这两个平台可能被认为是互补的,而不是可互换的。