Paweletz Cloud P, Urvalek Alison, Ha Minh, Garg Kavita, Bence Lin Aimee, Szpurka Anna M, Sireci Anthony, Oxnard Geoffrey R, Janne Pasi A
Belfer Center for Applied Cancer Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Clin Cancer Res. 2025 Jun 13;31(12):2406-2412. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-24-3747.
Next-generation sequencing assays for ctDNA analysis are routinely used in the care of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. However, variable assay sensitivities in detection of fusions have been reported. Here, we report on the performance of detecting RET rearrangements in plasma across three commercial next-generation sequencing laboratories.
Banked plasma from the phase 3 LIBRETTO-431 trial was studied. For each patient (n = 60) with a known RET fusion by local tumor tissue genotyping, pretreatment plasma was divided into two 3-mL aliquots and tested on two of three: Guardant Health's Guardant360, Foundation Medicine's FoundationOneLiquid CDx, and Resolution Bioscience's ctDx-First. A round-robin comparison was performed across vendors using three pairwise comparisons of 20 patients each. On an exploratory basis, agreement of fusion breakpoint calling between plasma and tissue and determinants of false negatives in plasma were assessed.
Of 40 samples received by each laboratory, 100% (40/40), 92.5% (37/40), and 90% (36/40) were successfully sequenced by Guardant360, FoundationOne Liquid CDx, and ctDx-First, with a RET fusion or rearrangement detected in 60% (24/40), 63.9% (23/36), and 67.6% (25/37) of cases, respectively. Discordant results included rare and common RET translocations but were usually below allelic frequency of 0.5%. Of samples with a RET fusion detected in plasma and a reported fusion partner by tumor assay, the same fusion partner was identified in tissue and liquid 81% to 89% of the time.
Our results support the utility of ctDNA assays concurrently with tissue testing for detection of translocations, with opportunities to further optimize performance. See related commentary by Davies, p. 2264.
用于循环肿瘤DNA(ctDNA)分析的下一代测序检测方法常用于晚期非小细胞肺癌患者的治疗。然而,已有报道称检测融合时检测方法的灵敏度存在差异。在此,我们报告了三个商业下一代测序实验室检测血浆中RET重排的性能。
对3期LIBRETTO - 431试验的储存血浆进行了研究。对于通过局部肿瘤组织基因分型已知存在RET融合的每位患者(n = 60),将预处理血浆分成两个3毫升的等分试样,并在以下三个中的两个上进行检测:Guardant Health公司的Guardant360、Foundation Medicine公司的FoundationOneLiquid CDx以及Resolution Bioscience公司的ctDx - First。通过对每组20名患者进行三次两两比较,在不同供应商之间进行了循环比较。在探索性基础上,评估了血浆和组织之间融合断点判定的一致性以及血浆中假阴性的决定因素。
每个实验室收到的40个样本中,Guardant360、FoundationOne Liquid CDx和ctDx - First分别成功测序了100%(40/40)、92.5%(37/40)和90%(36/40),分别在60%(24/40)、63.9%(23/36)和67.6%(25/37)的病例中检测到RET融合或重排。不一致的结果包括罕见和常见的RET易位,但通常低于等位基因频率的0.5%。在血浆中检测到RET融合且肿瘤检测报告了融合伙伴的样本中,81%至89%的时间在组织和液体中鉴定出相同的融合伙伴。
我们的结果支持ctDNA检测与组织检测同时用于检测易位的实用性,并有进一步优化性能的机会。见戴维斯的相关评论,第2264页。