Circulating tumor DNA as a potential marker of adjuvant chemotherapy benefit following surgery for localized pancreatic cancer.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ blood
Chemotherapy, Adjuvant
/ methods
Circulating Tumor DNA
/ blood
Deoxycytidine
/ administration & dosage
Disease-Free Survival
Female
Humans
Liquid Biopsy
Male
Middle Aged
Mutation
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
/ blood
Pancreatic Neoplasms
/ blood
Prognosis
Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)
/ blood
Gemcitabine
adjuvant therapy
biomarkers
circulating tumor DNA
liquid biopsy
pancreatic cancer
pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
Journal
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology
ISSN: 1569-8041
Titre abrégé: Ann Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9007735
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2019
01 09 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
30
6
2019
medline:
4
6
2020
entrez:
29
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In early-stage pancreatic cancer, there are currently no biomarkers to guide selection of therapeutic options. This prospective biomarker trial evaluated the feasibility and potential clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis to inform adjuvant therapy decision making. Patients considered by the multidisciplinary team to have resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma were enrolled. Pre- and post-operative samples for ctDNA analysis were collected. PCR-based-SafeSeqS assays were used to identify mutations at codon 12, 13 and 61 of KRAS in the primary pancreatic tumor and to detect ctDNA. Results of ctDNA analysis were correlated with CA19-9, recurrence-free and overall survival (OS). Patient management was per standard of care, blinded to ctDNA data. Of 112 patients consented pre-operatively, 81 (72%) underwent resection. KRAS mutations were identified in 91% (38/42) of available tumor samples. Of available plasma samples (N = 42), KRAS mutated ctDNA was detected in 62% (23/37) pre-operative and 37% (13/35) post-operative cases. At a median follow-up of 38.4 months, ctDNA detection in the pre-operative setting was associated with inferior recurrence-free survival (RFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 4.1; P = 0.002)] and OS (HR 4.1; P = 0.015). Detectable ctDNA following curative intent resection was associated with inferior RFS (HR 5.4; P < 0.0001) and OS (HR 4.0; P = 0.003). Recurrence occurred in 13/13 (100%) patients with detectable ctDNA post-operatively, including in seven that received gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy. ctDNA studies in localized pancreatic cancer are challenging, with a substantial number of patients not able to undergo resection, not having sufficient tumor tissue for analysis or not completing per protocol sample collection. ctDNA analysis, pre- and/or post-surgery, is a promising prognostic marker. Studies of ctDNA guided therapy are justified, including of treatment intensification strategies for patients with detectable ctDNA post-operatively who appear at very high risk of recurrence despite gemcitabine-based adjuvant therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In early-stage pancreatic cancer, there are currently no biomarkers to guide selection of therapeutic options. This prospective biomarker trial evaluated the feasibility and potential clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis to inform adjuvant therapy decision making.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients considered by the multidisciplinary team to have resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma were enrolled. Pre- and post-operative samples for ctDNA analysis were collected. PCR-based-SafeSeqS assays were used to identify mutations at codon 12, 13 and 61 of KRAS in the primary pancreatic tumor and to detect ctDNA. Results of ctDNA analysis were correlated with CA19-9, recurrence-free and overall survival (OS). Patient management was per standard of care, blinded to ctDNA data.
RESULTS
Of 112 patients consented pre-operatively, 81 (72%) underwent resection. KRAS mutations were identified in 91% (38/42) of available tumor samples. Of available plasma samples (N = 42), KRAS mutated ctDNA was detected in 62% (23/37) pre-operative and 37% (13/35) post-operative cases. At a median follow-up of 38.4 months, ctDNA detection in the pre-operative setting was associated with inferior recurrence-free survival (RFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 4.1; P = 0.002)] and OS (HR 4.1; P = 0.015). Detectable ctDNA following curative intent resection was associated with inferior RFS (HR 5.4; P < 0.0001) and OS (HR 4.0; P = 0.003). Recurrence occurred in 13/13 (100%) patients with detectable ctDNA post-operatively, including in seven that received gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy.
CONCLUSION
ctDNA studies in localized pancreatic cancer are challenging, with a substantial number of patients not able to undergo resection, not having sufficient tumor tissue for analysis or not completing per protocol sample collection. ctDNA analysis, pre- and/or post-surgery, is a promising prognostic marker. Studies of ctDNA guided therapy are justified, including of treatment intensification strategies for patients with detectable ctDNA post-operatively who appear at very high risk of recurrence despite gemcitabine-based adjuvant therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31250894
pii: S0923-7534(19)45991-7
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz200
pmc: PMC6771221
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Circulating Tumor DNA
0
KRAS protein, human
0
Deoxycytidine
0W860991D6
Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)
EC 3.6.5.2
Gemcitabine
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1472-1478Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P50 CA062924
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 GM136577
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA006973
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01 CA152753
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Br J Cancer. 2016 Jun 28;115(1):59-65
pubmed: 27280632
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 8;102(45):16368-73
pubmed: 16258065
Biomark Med. 2011 Feb;5(1):87-91
pubmed: 21319970
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jun 7;108(23):9530-5
pubmed: 21586637
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018 Oct;142(10):1242-1253
pubmed: 29504834
Ann Oncol. 2015 Aug;26(8):1715-22
pubmed: 25851626
J Gastroenterol. 2004 Jan;39(1):56-60
pubmed: 14767735
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 20;379(25):2395-2406
pubmed: 30575490
Nat Med. 2008 Sep;14(9):985-90
pubmed: 18670422
Gastroenterology. 2019 Jan;156(1):108-118.e4
pubmed: 30240661
Lancet. 2017 Mar 11;389(10073):1011-1024
pubmed: 28129987
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Aug 1;110(8):803-811
pubmed: 29873743
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Aug;195(2):281-9
pubmed: 20651182
Sci Transl Med. 2014 Feb 19;6(224):224ra24
pubmed: 24553385
Cell. 1988 May 20;53(4):549-54
pubmed: 2453289
Nat Commun. 2015 Jul 07;6:7686
pubmed: 26154128
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Jan 1;23(1):116-123
pubmed: 27993964