IRCM, Institute of Research in Oncology of Montpellier, Montpellier.
INSERM, U1194, Montpellier.
Ann Oncol. 2017 Sep 1;28(9):2149-2159. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx330.
While tumor-tissue remains the 'gold standard' for genetic analysis in cancer patients, it is challenged with the advent of circulating cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis from blood samples. Here, we broaden our previous study on the clinical validation of plasma DNA in metastatic colorectal cancer patients, by evaluating its clinical utility under standard management care.
Concordance and data turnaround-time of ctDNA when compared with tumor-tissue analysis were studied in a real-time blinded prospective multicenter clinical study (n = 140 metastatic colorectal patients). Results are presented according to STARD criteria and were discussed in regard with clinical outcomes of patients.
Much more mutations were found by ctDNA analysis: 59%, 11.8% and 14.4% of the patients were found KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutant by ctDNA analysis instead of 44%, 8.8% and 7.2% by tumor-tissue analysis. Median tumor-tissue data turnaround-time was 16 days while 2 days for ctDNA analysis. Discordant samples analysis revealed that use of biopsy, long delay between tumor-tissue and blood collection and resection of the tumor at time of blood draw, tumor site, or type of tissue analyzed seem to affect concordance. Altogether, the clinical data with respect to the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor response (RAS status) and the prognosis (BRAF status) of those discordant patients do not appear contradictory to the mutational status as determined by plasma analysis. Lastly, we present the first distribution profile of the RAS and BRAF hotspot mutations as determined by ctDNA analysis (n = 119), revealing a high proportion of patients with multiple mutations (45% of the population and up to 5 mutations) and only 24% of WT scored patients for both genes. Mutation profile as determined from ctDNA analysis with using various detection thresholds highlights the importance of the test sensitivity.
Our study showed that ctDNA could replace tumor-tissue analysis, and also clinical utility of ctDNA analysis by considerably reducing data turnaround time.
虽然肿瘤组织仍然是癌症患者基因分析的“金标准”,但随着血液样本中循环游离肿瘤 DNA(ctDNA)分析的出现,它受到了挑战。在这里,我们通过评估其在标准管理护理下的临床实用性,扩展了我们之前关于转移性结直肠癌患者血浆 DNA 临床验证的研究。
在一项实时、盲法、前瞻性多中心临床研究(n=140 例转移性结直肠癌患者)中,研究了 ctDNA 与肿瘤组织分析的一致性和数据周转时间。根据 STARD 标准呈现结果,并结合患者的临床结果进行讨论。
ctDNA 分析发现了更多的突变:通过 ctDNA 分析发现 59%、11.8%和 14.4%的患者为 KRAS、NRAS 和 BRAF 突变,而通过肿瘤组织分析发现的比例分别为 44%、8.8%和 7.2%。肿瘤组织数据周转时间中位数为 16 天,而 ctDNA 分析为 2 天。对不一致样本的分析表明,活检的使用、肿瘤组织与血液采集之间的延迟时间长以及在采血时切除肿瘤、肿瘤部位或分析的组织类型似乎会影响一致性。总的来说,与通过血浆分析确定的突变状态相比,这些不一致患者的抗表皮生长因子受体反应(RAS 状态)和预后(BRAF 状态)的临床数据似乎并不矛盾。最后,我们展示了通过 ctDNA 分析确定的 RAS 和 BRAF 热点突变的第一个分布特征(n=119),显示出具有多种突变的患者比例很高(人群中的 45%,多达 5 种突变),只有 24%的 WT 评分患者两种基因均为 WT。通过使用不同检测阈值从 ctDNA 分析确定的突变谱突出了测试灵敏度的重要性。
我们的研究表明,ctDNA 可以替代肿瘤组织分析,并且通过大大减少数据周转时间,还可以提高 ctDNA 分析的临床实用性。