Prospective evaluation of NGS-based liquid biopsy in untreated late stage non-squamous lung carcinoma in a single institution.
Driver genomic alterations
Liquid biopsy
NGS
Non-small cell lung carcinoma
cfDNA
Journal
Journal of translational medicine
ISSN: 1479-5876
Titre abrégé: J Transl Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 02 2020
17 02 2020
Historique:
received:
30
11
2019
accepted:
05
02
2020
entrez:
19
2
2020
pubmed:
19
2
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
NGS from plasma samples in non-squamous cell lung carcinoma (NSCC) can aid in the detection of actionable genomic alterations. However, the absolute clinical value of NGS in liquid biopsy (LB) made at baseline is currently uncertain. We assessed the impact of plasma-based NGS using an in-house test and an outsourced test in comparison to a routine molecular pathology workflow. Twenty-four advanced/metastatic treatment-naïve NSCC patients were prospectively included. NGS analyses were conducted both in-house using the Oncomine cfTNA Panel and in an external testing center using the Foundation Liquid assay. NGS analysis and/or specific molecular based assays were conducted in parallel on tissue or cytological samples. Both LB tests were well correlated. Tissue NGS results were obtained in 67% of patients and demonstrated good correlation with LB assays. Activating EGFR mutations were detected using LB tests in three patients. PD-L1 expression assessed in tissue sections enabled the initiation of pembrolizumab treatment in five patients. NGS from LB is feasible in routine clinical practice using an in-house or an outsourced test at baseline. However, the impact on therapy selection was limited in this small series of patients and LB was not able to replace tissue-based testing in our hands.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
NGS from plasma samples in non-squamous cell lung carcinoma (NSCC) can aid in the detection of actionable genomic alterations. However, the absolute clinical value of NGS in liquid biopsy (LB) made at baseline is currently uncertain. We assessed the impact of plasma-based NGS using an in-house test and an outsourced test in comparison to a routine molecular pathology workflow.
METHODS
Twenty-four advanced/metastatic treatment-naïve NSCC patients were prospectively included. NGS analyses were conducted both in-house using the Oncomine cfTNA Panel and in an external testing center using the Foundation Liquid assay. NGS analysis and/or specific molecular based assays were conducted in parallel on tissue or cytological samples.
RESULTS
Both LB tests were well correlated. Tissue NGS results were obtained in 67% of patients and demonstrated good correlation with LB assays. Activating EGFR mutations were detected using LB tests in three patients. PD-L1 expression assessed in tissue sections enabled the initiation of pembrolizumab treatment in five patients.
CONCLUSION
NGS from LB is feasible in routine clinical practice using an in-house or an outsourced test at baseline. However, the impact on therapy selection was limited in this small series of patients and LB was not able to replace tissue-based testing in our hands.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32066459
doi: 10.1186/s12967-020-02259-2
pii: 10.1186/s12967-020-02259-2
pmc: PMC7027049
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
87Références
NPJ Genom Med. 2018 Dec 18;3:34
pubmed: 30588329
Clin Lung Cancer. 2020 Jan;21(1):56-65.e8
pubmed: 31519454
Cancers (Basel). 2018 Mar 21;10(4):
pubmed: 29561830
Nat Rev Cancer. 2019 Sep;19(9):495-509
pubmed: 31406302
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1823-1833
pubmed: 27718847
Ann Oncol. 2018 Apr 1;29(4):1049-1055
pubmed: 29325035
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Aug 1;25(15):4691-4700
pubmed: 30988079
Nat Med. 2014 May;20(5):548-54
pubmed: 24705333
Nat Med. 2018 Sep;24(9):1441-1448
pubmed: 30082870
Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;29(Suppl 4):iv192-iv237
pubmed: 30285222
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019 Jul;16(7):409-424
pubmed: 30796368
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Feb 1;5(2):173-180
pubmed: 30325992
Oncotarget. 2015 Feb 20;6(5):2604-14
pubmed: 25605252
Oncotarget. 2017 Oct 4;8(61):103055-103062
pubmed: 29262544
Cancer Discov. 2017 Dec;7(12):1394-1403
pubmed: 28899864
Ann Oncol. 2019 Apr 1;30(4):597-603
pubmed: 30891595
Nat Med. 2019 May;25(5):738-743
pubmed: 31011204
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Jun 1;111(6):575-583
pubmed: 30496436