Clinical utility of liquid biopsy for EGFR driver, T790M mutation and EGFR amplification in plasma in patients with acquired resistance to afatinib.
Adult
Afatinib
/ pharmacology
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ blood
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
/ blood
Drug Resistance, Neoplasm
/ genetics
ErbB Receptors
/ genetics
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Gene Amplification
Humans
Liquid Biopsy
/ methods
Lung Neoplasms
/ blood
Male
Middle Aged
Mutation
Prognosis
Prospective Studies
Protein Kinase Inhibitors
/ pharmacology
Retrospective Studies
Survival Rate
Afatinib
EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Jan 2021
12 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
19
08
2020
accepted:
28
12
2020
entrez:
13
1
2021
pubmed:
14
1
2021
medline:
11
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) genotyping in plasma using the cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 (cobas) is the first liquid biopsy as a companion diagnosis to identify the EGFR T790M mutation (T790M) after the failure of treatment of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (1st generation, gefitinib [G] and erlotinib [E] and 2nd generation, afatinib [A]). This study investigated the clinical utility of a liquid biopsy for patients who acquired resistance to afatinib. We prospectively collected plasma from 51 patients who had acquired resistance to afatinib between April 2015 and November 2016 to evaluate the frequency of T790M by cobas and digital droplet PCR (UMIN000025112). Additionally, we retrospectively reviewed 38 patients who tested by cobas in plasma after G/E failure to compare for T790M detection between A and with G/E. The detection rate of EGFR-driver and T790M in plasma in patients treated with A (A group) as a first-line EGFR-TKI was lower than with G/E followed by A (G/E→A group), although the differences were not significant (EGFR-driver: 41% [A] vs. 67% [G/E→A], P=0.1867; and T790M: 8% [A] vs. 17% [G/E→A], P=0.5798). In first-line setting, the detection rate for EGFR-driver and T790M in plasma by cobas was lower in A group than in G/E group, although there was no significant difference (EGFR-driver: 34% [A] vs. 52% [G/E], P=0.2072; and T790M: 10% [A] vs. 27% [G/E], P=0.1161). The detection of EGFR-driver and T790M in plasma by cobas in patients treated with afatinib might be lower than with G/E in a real-world setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) genotyping in plasma using the cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 (cobas) is the first liquid biopsy as a companion diagnosis to identify the EGFR T790M mutation (T790M) after the failure of treatment of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (1st generation, gefitinib [G] and erlotinib [E] and 2nd generation, afatinib [A]). This study investigated the clinical utility of a liquid biopsy for patients who acquired resistance to afatinib.
METHODS
METHODS
We prospectively collected plasma from 51 patients who had acquired resistance to afatinib between April 2015 and November 2016 to evaluate the frequency of T790M by cobas and digital droplet PCR (UMIN000025112). Additionally, we retrospectively reviewed 38 patients who tested by cobas in plasma after G/E failure to compare for T790M detection between A and with G/E.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The detection rate of EGFR-driver and T790M in plasma in patients treated with A (A group) as a first-line EGFR-TKI was lower than with G/E followed by A (G/E→A group), although the differences were not significant (EGFR-driver: 41% [A] vs. 67% [G/E→A], P=0.1867; and T790M: 8% [A] vs. 17% [G/E→A], P=0.5798). In first-line setting, the detection rate for EGFR-driver and T790M in plasma by cobas was lower in A group than in G/E group, although there was no significant difference (EGFR-driver: 34% [A] vs. 52% [G/E], P=0.2072; and T790M: 10% [A] vs. 27% [G/E], P=0.1161).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The detection of EGFR-driver and T790M in plasma by cobas in patients treated with afatinib might be lower than with G/E in a real-world setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33435905
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07777-2
pii: 10.1186/s12885-020-07777-2
pmc: PMC7802126
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Protein Kinase Inhibitors
0
Afatinib
41UD74L59M
EGFR protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
ErbB Receptors
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
57Références
J Thorac Oncol. 2017 Jul;12(7):1061-1070
pubmed: 28428148
Lancet Oncol. 2016 May;17(5):577-89
pubmed: 27083334
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jun 24;362(25):2380-8
pubmed: 20573926
Target Oncol. 2019 Feb;14(1):75-83
pubmed: 30539501
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Mar 15;17(6):1616-22
pubmed: 21135146
N Engl J Med. 2017 Feb 16;376(7):629-640
pubmed: 27959700
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Mar;13(3):239-46
pubmed: 22285168
Lung Cancer. 2019 Apr;130:87-92
pubmed: 30885357
N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 3;361(10):947-57
pubmed: 19692680
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Feb 12;105(6):2070-5
pubmed: 18227510
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Transl Oncol. 2019 Jun;12(6):852-858
pubmed: 31030101
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Nov;18(11):1454-1466
pubmed: 28958502
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Aug 1;2(8):1014-22
pubmed: 27055085
Mol Cancer Ther. 2019 Jan;18(1):112-126
pubmed: 30322949
Cancer Res. 2017 Apr 15;77(8):2078-2089
pubmed: 28202511
Lung Cancer. 2016 Nov;101:1-8
pubmed: 27794396
Oncotarget. 2017 Jul 12;8(40):68123-68130
pubmed: 28978102