Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) as a predictive and prognostic marker in patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biomarkers, Tumor
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Circulating Tumor DNA
Clinical Decision-Making
Disease Management
Female
Humans
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Liquid Biopsy
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Middle Aged
Neoplastic Cells, Circulating
/ metabolism
Odds Ratio
Prognosis
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Biomarkers
Breast cancer
CTCs
Liquid biopsy
cfDNA
Journal
Breast cancer research : BCR
ISSN: 1465-542X
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100927353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 12 2019
19 12 2019
Historique:
received:
16
07
2019
accepted:
26
11
2019
entrez:
21
12
2019
pubmed:
21
12
2019
medline:
19
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women, and despite the introduction of new screening programmes, therapies and monitoring technologies, there is still a need to develop more useful tests for monitoring treatment response and to inform clinical decision making. The purpose of this study was to compare circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and circulating tumour cells (CTCs) with conventional breast cancer blood biomarkers (CA15-3 and alkaline phosphatase (AP)) as predictors of response to treatment and prognosis in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). One hundred ninety-four female patients with radiologically confirmed MBC were recruited to the study. Total cfDNA levels were determined by qPCR and compared with CELLSEARCH® CTC counts and CA15-3 and alkaline phosphatase (AP) values. Blood biomarker data were compared with conventional tumour markers, treatment(s) and response as assessed by RECIST and survival. Non-parametric statistical hypothesis tests were used to examine differences, correlation analysis and linear regression to determine correlation and to describe its effects, logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve) to estimate the strength of the relationship between biomarkers and clinical outcomes and value normalization against standard deviation to make biomarker values comparable. Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression models were used to assess survival. Univariate and multivariate models were performed where appropriate. Multivariate analysis showed that both the amount of total cfDNA (p value = 0.024, HR = 1.199, CI = 1.024-1.405) and the number of CTCs (p value = 0.001, HR = 1.243, CI = 1.088-1.421) are predictors of overall survival (OS), whereas total cfDNA levels is the sole predictor for progression-free survival (PFS) (p value = 0.042, HR = 1.193, CI = 1.007-1.415) and disease response when comparing response to non-response to treatment (HR = 15.917, HR = 12.481 for univariate and multivariate analysis, respectively). Lastly, combined analysis of CTCs and cfDNA is more informative than the combination of two conventional biomarkers (CA15-3 and AP) for prediction of OS. Measurement of total cfDNA levels, which is a simpler and less expensive biomarker than CTC counts, is associated with PFS, OS and response in MBC, suggesting potential clinical application of a cheap and simple blood-based test.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women, and despite the introduction of new screening programmes, therapies and monitoring technologies, there is still a need to develop more useful tests for monitoring treatment response and to inform clinical decision making. The purpose of this study was to compare circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and circulating tumour cells (CTCs) with conventional breast cancer blood biomarkers (CA15-3 and alkaline phosphatase (AP)) as predictors of response to treatment and prognosis in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).
METHODS
One hundred ninety-four female patients with radiologically confirmed MBC were recruited to the study. Total cfDNA levels were determined by qPCR and compared with CELLSEARCH® CTC counts and CA15-3 and alkaline phosphatase (AP) values. Blood biomarker data were compared with conventional tumour markers, treatment(s) and response as assessed by RECIST and survival. Non-parametric statistical hypothesis tests were used to examine differences, correlation analysis and linear regression to determine correlation and to describe its effects, logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve) to estimate the strength of the relationship between biomarkers and clinical outcomes and value normalization against standard deviation to make biomarker values comparable. Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression models were used to assess survival. Univariate and multivariate models were performed where appropriate.
RESULTS
Multivariate analysis showed that both the amount of total cfDNA (p value = 0.024, HR = 1.199, CI = 1.024-1.405) and the number of CTCs (p value = 0.001, HR = 1.243, CI = 1.088-1.421) are predictors of overall survival (OS), whereas total cfDNA levels is the sole predictor for progression-free survival (PFS) (p value = 0.042, HR = 1.193, CI = 1.007-1.415) and disease response when comparing response to non-response to treatment (HR = 15.917, HR = 12.481 for univariate and multivariate analysis, respectively). Lastly, combined analysis of CTCs and cfDNA is more informative than the combination of two conventional biomarkers (CA15-3 and AP) for prediction of OS.
CONCLUSION
Measurement of total cfDNA levels, which is a simpler and less expensive biomarker than CTC counts, is associated with PFS, OS and response in MBC, suggesting potential clinical application of a cheap and simple blood-based test.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31856868
doi: 10.1186/s13058-019-1235-8
pii: 10.1186/s13058-019-1235-8
pmc: PMC6924016
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
149Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 13462
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Pancreatic Cancer UK
ID : 2013 RIF - SHAW
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C14315/A23464
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C14315/A13462
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
N Engl J Med. 2004 Aug 19;351(8):781-91
pubmed: 15317891
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Jan 1;23(1):88-96
pubmed: 27334837
Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Nov 1;12(21):6403-9
pubmed: 17085652
Cancer. 2001 Mar 1;91(5):909-17
pubmed: 11251942
Ann Oncol. 2007 Apr;18(4):701-8
pubmed: 17237474
N Engl J Med. 2013 Mar 28;368(13):1199-209
pubmed: 23484797
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Nature. 2012 Jun 28;486(7404):537-40
pubmed: 22722843
Med Sci Monit. 2016 Sep 06;22:3154-62
pubmed: 27596019
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Jan;88:1-9
pubmed: 29175734
Cancer Treat Rev. 2000 Apr;26(2):91-102
pubmed: 10772967
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 18;8(10):e77963
pubmed: 24205045
Cancer Res. 1977 Mar;37(3):646-50
pubmed: 837366
Clin Chem. 2017 Feb;63(2):532-541
pubmed: 27940449
Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Jul 15;12(14 Pt 1):4218-24
pubmed: 16857794
PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51862
pubmed: 23251644
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jan;106:133-143
pubmed: 30528798
Nat Med. 2014 May;20(5):548-54
pubmed: 24705333
Sci Transl Med. 2014 Feb 19;6(224):224ra24
pubmed: 24553385
Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 19;7:40737
pubmed: 28102343
Breast Cancer Res. 2011 Jun 15;13(3):R67
pubmed: 21699723
Nature. 2012 Jun 28;486(7404):532-6
pubmed: 22722830
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019 Feb;134:39-45
pubmed: 30771872
Nature. 2017 Apr 26;545(7655):446-451
pubmed: 28445469
Nat Med. 2014 May;20(5):474-5
pubmed: 24804754
J Clin Med. 2016 Jul 14;5(7):null
pubmed: 27429011
J Oncol. 2010;2010:617421
pubmed: 20016752