Circulating tumor DNA quantity is related to tumor volume and both predict survival in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Aged
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ blood
Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal
/ blood
Circulating Tumor DNA
/ blood
Female
Follow-Up Studies
High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
Humans
Liver Neoplasms
/ blood
Male
Middle Aged
Pancreatic Neoplasms
/ blood
Prognosis
Prospective Studies
Retrospective Studies
Tumor Burden
KRAS
circulating tumor DNA
pancreatic cancer
prognosis
tumor volume
Journal
International journal of cancer
ISSN: 1097-0215
Titre abrégé: Int J Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0042124
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2020
01 03 2020
Historique:
received:
08
04
2019
revised:
19
06
2019
accepted:
26
06
2019
pubmed:
25
7
2019
medline:
15
2
2020
entrez:
25
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is assumed to reflect tumor burden and has been suggested as a tool for prognostication and follow-up in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). However, the prognostic value of ctDNA and its relation with tumor burden has yet to be substantiated, especially in mPDAC. In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected samples, cell-free DNA from plasma samples of 58 treatment-naive mPDAC patients was isolated and sequenced using a custom-made pancreatobiliary NGS panel. Pathogenic mutations were detected in 26/58 (44.8%) samples. Cross-check with droplet digital PCR showed good agreement in Bland-Altman analysis (p = 0.217, nonsignificance indicating good agreement). In patients with liver metastases, ctDNA was more frequently detected (24/37, p < 0.001). Tumor volume (3D reconstructions from imaging) and ctDNA variant allele frequency (VAF) were correlated (Spearman's ρ = 0.544, p < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 3.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-4.9) versus 8.4 (95% CI 1.6-15.1) months in patients with detectable versus undetectable ctDNA (p = 0.005). Both ctDNA VAF and tumor volume independently predicted OS after adjustment for carbohydrate antigen 19.9 and treatment regimen (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.005; HR 1.00, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, p = 0.003). In conclusion, our study showed that ctDNA detection rates are higher in patients with larger tumor volume and liver metastases. Nevertheless, measurements may diverge and, thus, can provide complementary information. Both ctDNA VAF and tumor volume were strong predictors of OS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31340061
doi: 10.1002/ijc.32586
pmc: PMC7004068
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Circulating Tumor DNA
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1445-1456Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.
Références
Mol Oncol. 2016 Apr;10(4):635-43
pubmed: 26725968
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7
pubmed: 18064739
Cancer Res. 2014 Jun 1;74(11):2913-21
pubmed: 24840647
Clin Chem. 2018 Apr;64(4):726-734
pubmed: 29352043
Sci Transl Med. 2014 Feb 19;6(224):224ra24
pubmed: 24553385
Cancer Cell. 2017 Aug 14;32(2):185-203.e13
pubmed: 28810144
Transl Oncol. 2018 Oct;11(5):1220-1224
pubmed: 30086420
Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2017 Dec;1868(2):394-403
pubmed: 28801248
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Br J Cancer. 2016 Jun 28;115(1):59-65
pubmed: 27280632
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 11;11(1):e0146638
pubmed: 26752634
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D941-D947
pubmed: 30371878
Cell Physiol Biochem. 2018;47(4):1556-1564
pubmed: 29940591
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Aug 17;97(16):1180-4
pubmed: 16106022
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 04;11(1):e0146275
pubmed: 26727500
PLoS Med. 2016 Dec 20;13(12):e1002198
pubmed: 27997533
Ann Oncol. 2018 May 1;29(5):1211-1219
pubmed: 29438522
Cancer Med. 2017 Dec;6(12):2840-2849
pubmed: 29035014
Oncologist. 2018 May;23(5):566-572
pubmed: 29371474
Science. 2018 Feb 23;359(6378):926-930
pubmed: 29348365
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010 Jan;3(1):98-105
pubmed: 20123676
Cancer. 2015 Jul 1;121(13):2271-80
pubmed: 25823825
Sci Transl Med. 2016 Jul 6;8(346):346ra92
pubmed: 27384348
Nature. 2015 Feb 26;518(7540):495-501
pubmed: 25719666
Sci Transl Med. 2018 Nov 7;10(466):
pubmed: 30404863
Nat Commun. 2015 Apr 09;6:6744
pubmed: 25855536
Nature. 2016 Mar 3;531(7592):47-52
pubmed: 26909576
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jun 1;36(16):1631-1641
pubmed: 29504847
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Sep 15;23(18):5437-5445
pubmed: 28600478
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Jul;62:132-7
pubmed: 27189322
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 01;379(18):1754-1765
pubmed: 30380390
BMC Cancer. 2017 Mar 22;17(1):210
pubmed: 28330468
Gene. 2018 Dec 30;679:328-334
pubmed: 30227250
Ann Oncol. 2015 Aug;26(8):1715-22
pubmed: 25851626
Biomol Detect Quantif. 2014 Aug 20;1(1):8-22
pubmed: 27920993
Cancer Invest. 2015 Mar;33(3):78-85
pubmed: 25647443
Ann Surg. 2015 Jan;261(1):12-7
pubmed: 25599322
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 May 15;23(10):2471-2477
pubmed: 27827317
Biomol Detect Quantif. 2018 Jan 09;15:6-12
pubmed: 29349042
Nature. 2012 Nov 15;491(7424):399-405
pubmed: 23103869
Nat Rev Cancer. 2017 Apr;17(4):223-238
pubmed: 28233803
Int J Cancer. 2017 May 15;140(10):2344-2350
pubmed: 28205231
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010 Jul;36(7):657-62
pubmed: 20542658
Nat Commun. 2015 Jul 07;6:7686
pubmed: 26154128
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Jan 1;23(1):116-123
pubmed: 27993964
Br J Cancer. 2014 Jan 21;110(2):363-8
pubmed: 24231948
Br J Surg. 2018 Jan;105(2):e110-e120
pubmed: 29341153
Oncotarget. 2018 Apr 20;9(30):21122-21131
pubmed: 29765524