Blood-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis of Appendiceal Cancers.
Appendiceal Cancer
Next-generation sequencing
ctDNA
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
received:
23
07
2019
accepted:
16
10
2019
pubmed:
1
12
2019
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
1
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Appendiceal cancers (ACs) are rare. The genomic landscape of ACs has not been well studied. The aim of this study was to confirm the feasibility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in ACs and characterize common genomic alterations. Molecular alterations in 372 plasma samples from 303 patients with AC using clinical-grade NGS of ctDNA (Guardant360) across multiple institutions were evaluated. Test detects single nucleotide variants in 54-73 genes, copy number amplifications, fusions, and indels in selected genes. A total of 303 patients with AC were evaluated, of which 169 (56%) were female. Median age was 56.8 (25-83) years. ctDNA NGS testing was performed on 372 plasma samples; 48 patients had testing performed twice, 9 patients had testing performed three times, and 1 patient had testing performed four times. Genomic alterations were defined in 207 (n = 207/372, 55.6%) samples, and 288 alterations were identified excluding variants of uncertain significance and synonymous mutations. Alterations were identified in at least one sample from 184 patients; TP53-associated genes (n = 71, 38.6%), KRAS (n = 33, 17.9%), APC (n = 14, 7.6%), EGFR (n = 12, 6.5%), BRAF (n = 11, 5.9%), NF1 (n = 10, 5.4%), MYC (n = 9, 4.9%), GNAS (n = 8, 4.3%), MET (n = 6, 3.3%), PIK3CA (n = 5, 2.7%), and ATM (n = 5, 2.7%). Other low-frequency but clinically relevant genomic alterations were as follows: AR (n = 4, 2.2%), TERT (n = 4, 2.2%), ERBB2 (n = 4, 2.2%), SMAD4 (n = 3, 1.6%), CDK4 (n = 2, 1.1%), NRAS (n = 2, 1.1%), FGFR1 (n = 2, 1.1%), FGFR2 (n = 2, 1.1%), PTEN (n = 2, 1.1%), RB1 (n = 2, 1.1%), and CDK6, CDKN2A, BRCA1, BRCA2, JAK2, IDH2, MAPK, NTRK1, CDH1, ARID1A, and PDGFRA (n = 1, 0.5%). Evaluation of ctDNA is feasible among patients with AC. The frequency of genomic alterations is similar to that previously reported in tissue NGS. Liquid biopsies are not invasive and can provide personalized options for targeted therapies in patients with AC. The complexity of appendiceal cancer and its unique genomic characteristics suggest that customized combination therapy may be required for many patients. Theoretically, as more oncogenic pathways are discovered and more targeted therapies are approved, customized treatment based on the patient's unique molecular profile will lead to personalized care and improve patient outcomes. Liquid biopsies are noninvasive, cost-effective, and promising methods that provide patients with access to personalized treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Appendiceal cancers (ACs) are rare. The genomic landscape of ACs has not been well studied. The aim of this study was to confirm the feasibility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in ACs and characterize common genomic alterations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Molecular alterations in 372 plasma samples from 303 patients with AC using clinical-grade NGS of ctDNA (Guardant360) across multiple institutions were evaluated. Test detects single nucleotide variants in 54-73 genes, copy number amplifications, fusions, and indels in selected genes.
RESULTS
A total of 303 patients with AC were evaluated, of which 169 (56%) were female. Median age was 56.8 (25-83) years. ctDNA NGS testing was performed on 372 plasma samples; 48 patients had testing performed twice, 9 patients had testing performed three times, and 1 patient had testing performed four times. Genomic alterations were defined in 207 (n = 207/372, 55.6%) samples, and 288 alterations were identified excluding variants of uncertain significance and synonymous mutations. Alterations were identified in at least one sample from 184 patients; TP53-associated genes (n = 71, 38.6%), KRAS (n = 33, 17.9%), APC (n = 14, 7.6%), EGFR (n = 12, 6.5%), BRAF (n = 11, 5.9%), NF1 (n = 10, 5.4%), MYC (n = 9, 4.9%), GNAS (n = 8, 4.3%), MET (n = 6, 3.3%), PIK3CA (n = 5, 2.7%), and ATM (n = 5, 2.7%). Other low-frequency but clinically relevant genomic alterations were as follows: AR (n = 4, 2.2%), TERT (n = 4, 2.2%), ERBB2 (n = 4, 2.2%), SMAD4 (n = 3, 1.6%), CDK4 (n = 2, 1.1%), NRAS (n = 2, 1.1%), FGFR1 (n = 2, 1.1%), FGFR2 (n = 2, 1.1%), PTEN (n = 2, 1.1%), RB1 (n = 2, 1.1%), and CDK6, CDKN2A, BRCA1, BRCA2, JAK2, IDH2, MAPK, NTRK1, CDH1, ARID1A, and PDGFRA (n = 1, 0.5%).
CONCLUSION
Evaluation of ctDNA is feasible among patients with AC. The frequency of genomic alterations is similar to that previously reported in tissue NGS. Liquid biopsies are not invasive and can provide personalized options for targeted therapies in patients with AC.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The complexity of appendiceal cancer and its unique genomic characteristics suggest that customized combination therapy may be required for many patients. Theoretically, as more oncogenic pathways are discovered and more targeted therapies are approved, customized treatment based on the patient's unique molecular profile will lead to personalized care and improve patient outcomes. Liquid biopsies are noninvasive, cost-effective, and promising methods that provide patients with access to personalized treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31784493
pii: theoncologist.2019-0558
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0558
pmc: PMC7216457
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Circulating Tumor DNA
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
414-421Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© AlphaMed Press 2019.
Références
Nat Med. 1996 Jun;2(6):630-1
pubmed: 8640546
Clin Lung Cancer. 2017 Jan;18(1):e27-e34
pubmed: 27530054
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 7;375(1):4-6
pubmed: 27353537
Breast Cancer Res. 2014 May 20;16(3):210
pubmed: 25928070
Ann Oncol. 2014 Sep;25(9):1729-35
pubmed: 25009010
Genome Res. 2012 Feb;22(2):220-31
pubmed: 21990379
Med Oncol. 2016 May;33(5):39
pubmed: 27034263
Gastroenterology. 2000 Sep;119(3):854-65
pubmed: 10982779
Oncologist. 2017 Sep;22(9):1107-1116
pubmed: 28663356
Mol Oncol. 2016 Apr;10(4):635-43
pubmed: 26725968
N Engl J Med. 2013 Mar 28;368(13):1199-209
pubmed: 23484797
Mod Pathol. 2002 Jun;15(6):599-605
pubmed: 12065772
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995 Aug 2;87(15):1114-25
pubmed: 7674315
Cancer Res. 2016 Jul 1;76(13):3690-701
pubmed: 27197177
Sci Transl Med. 2013 Oct 16;5(207):207ps14
pubmed: 24132635
Nature. 2013 May 2;497(7447):108-12
pubmed: 23563269
Mol Cancer Ther. 2018 Jan;17(1):297-305
pubmed: 29133621
N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 8;366(10):883-892
pubmed: 22397650
Sci Transl Med. 2012 Mar 28;4(127):127ps10
pubmed: 22461637
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 16;10(10):e0140712
pubmed: 26474073
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 20;28(33):4877-83
pubmed: 20921468
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;882:259-76
pubmed: 26987539
Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Nov 15;18(22):6373-83
pubmed: 22966018
Mod Pathol. 2018 May;31(5):829-839
pubmed: 29327707
Cancer Discov. 2019 May;9(5):570-571
pubmed: 30833376
Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 1;7(9):9707-17
pubmed: 26848768
Nat Med. 2015 Jul;21(7):827
pubmed: 26151329
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 May 15;25(10):3096-3103
pubmed: 30692096
Oncologist. 2013;18(12):1270-7
pubmed: 24149137
ESMO Open. 2018 Jun 12;3(Suppl 1):e000370
pubmed: 29942670
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2017 Feb;8(1):164-172
pubmed: 28280620
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013 Jul;10(7):377-89
pubmed: 23712187
J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Apr;214(4):599-606; discussion 606-7
pubmed: 22342786
Oncotarget. 2015 Jun 30;6(18):16411-21
pubmed: 25915538