Longitudinal Circulating Tumor DNA Profiling in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer During Anti-EGFR Therapy.
circulating tumor DNA
colorectal cancer
dynamic monitoring
next-generation sequencing
prognosis
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
07
12
2021
accepted:
31
01
2022
entrez:
14
3
2022
pubmed:
15
3
2022
medline:
15
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogenous disease with limited precision medicine and targeted therapy options. Monoclonal antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been a crucial treatment option for mCRC. However, proper biomarkers for predicting therapeutic response remain unknown. As a non-invasive test, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is appropriately positioned to reveal tumor heterogeneity and evolution, as it can be used in real-time genomic profiling. To evaluate the significance of ctDNA in monitoring the dynamic therapeutic response and prognosis of mCRC, we detected the baseline and dynamic changes of ctDNA in mCRC patients receiving anti-EGFR therapies. A single-center study was conducted retrospectively. Plasma samples from mCRC patients who received anti-EGFR therapies were collected at baseline and continuous treatment points. The ctDNA was extracted and sequenced with a target panel of tumor-related genes We conducted dynamic sampling of 22 mCRC patients, analyzed 130 plasma samples, obtained a baseline genomic mutation profile of the patients. In total, 54 variations were detected in 22 plasma samples, with a positive rate of 77.3% (17/22). TP53 was the most mutated gene (59.1%, 13/22), followed by APC (18.2%, 4/22). There was a high concordance rate of genomic characteristics between the tumor tissue test by polymerase chain reaction and ctDNA test by NGS. The mutation discrepancy increased with an extended course of treatment. During remission TP53 and APC were the most frequently decreased clonal mutations and KRAS, NRAS, ERBB2 and PIK3CA were the most decreased subclonal mutations. Both mutation types were increased during progression. The ctDNA decreased earlier than did the responses of computed tomography and traditional tumor markers (carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA]). Lactate dehydrogenase level This study demonstrates that ctDNA is a promising biomarker for monitoring the dynamic response to treatment and determining the prognosis of mCRC.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogenous disease with limited precision medicine and targeted therapy options. Monoclonal antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been a crucial treatment option for mCRC. However, proper biomarkers for predicting therapeutic response remain unknown. As a non-invasive test, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is appropriately positioned to reveal tumor heterogeneity and evolution, as it can be used in real-time genomic profiling. To evaluate the significance of ctDNA in monitoring the dynamic therapeutic response and prognosis of mCRC, we detected the baseline and dynamic changes of ctDNA in mCRC patients receiving anti-EGFR therapies.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A single-center study was conducted retrospectively. Plasma samples from mCRC patients who received anti-EGFR therapies were collected at baseline and continuous treatment points. The ctDNA was extracted and sequenced with a target panel of tumor-related genes
Results
UNASSIGNED
We conducted dynamic sampling of 22 mCRC patients, analyzed 130 plasma samples, obtained a baseline genomic mutation profile of the patients. In total, 54 variations were detected in 22 plasma samples, with a positive rate of 77.3% (17/22). TP53 was the most mutated gene (59.1%, 13/22), followed by APC (18.2%, 4/22). There was a high concordance rate of genomic characteristics between the tumor tissue test by polymerase chain reaction and ctDNA test by NGS. The mutation discrepancy increased with an extended course of treatment. During remission TP53 and APC were the most frequently decreased clonal mutations and KRAS, NRAS, ERBB2 and PIK3CA were the most decreased subclonal mutations. Both mutation types were increased during progression. The ctDNA decreased earlier than did the responses of computed tomography and traditional tumor markers (carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA]). Lactate dehydrogenase level
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
This study demonstrates that ctDNA is a promising biomarker for monitoring the dynamic response to treatment and determining the prognosis of mCRC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35280779
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.830816
pmc: PMC8908369
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
830816Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Yang, Zou, Li, Liu, Yan, Chen, Zhao, Guo, Huang, Li, Zhu and Chen.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Authors ZY and SC were employed by the company 3D Medicines Inc., Shanghai, China. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Dec 1;25(23):7098-7112
pubmed: 31427281
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Sep 15;23(18):5416-5425
pubmed: 28576867
Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Sep;6(9):681-690
pubmed: 30017884
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Oct 01;18(10):1312-1320
pubmed: 33022639
Nat Commun. 2016 Dec 08;7:13665
pubmed: 27929064
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jun 01;28(6):1325-1332
pubmed: 28419195
J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Sep 7;36(1):121
pubmed: 28882180
Nat Commun. 2021 Jan 4;12(1):11
pubmed: 33397889
Cancer Discov. 2013 Jun;3(6):658-73
pubmed: 23729478
Gut. 2021 Sep 6;:
pubmed: 34489309
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2019 May 22;4(4):748-752
pubmed: 31673668
Int J Cancer. 2021 Mar 15;148(6):1452-1461
pubmed: 32949150
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Oct;17(10):1426-1434
pubmed: 27575024
Cancer Discov. 2017 Dec;7(12):1394-1403
pubmed: 28899864
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Oct;96(40):e8242
pubmed: 28984783
Ann Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;29(3):700-706
pubmed: 29216356
Clin Transl Med. 2020 Dec;10(8):e254
pubmed: 33377634
Nature. 2012 Jun 28;486(7404):537-40
pubmed: 22722843
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;5(3):343-350
pubmed: 30476968
Gut. 2018 Nov;67(11):1995-2005
pubmed: 28982739
Cancer Discov. 2018 Oct;8(10):1270-1285
pubmed: 30166348
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Dec 1;5(12):1710-1717
pubmed: 31621801
Ann Oncol. 2011 Jul;22(7):1535-1546
pubmed: 21228335
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020 Dec;17(12):757-770
pubmed: 32632268
Cancer Discov. 2018 Feb;8(2):164-173
pubmed: 29196463
Nat Med. 2012 Jan 22;18(2):221-3
pubmed: 22270724
Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Jan 1;32(Database issue):D493-6
pubmed: 14681465
Sci Transl Med. 2014 Feb 19;6(224):224ra24
pubmed: 24553385
ESMO Open. 2020 Jan;5(Suppl 1):e000600
pubmed: 32830648
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Oct 1;7(10):1529-1535
pubmed: 34382998
Mol Oncol. 2019 Sep;13(9):1827-1835
pubmed: 31322322
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Jun 13;12(6):
pubmed: 32545750
Mol Oncol. 2017 Feb;11(2):208-219
pubmed: 28106345
Oncologist. 2020 Mar;25(3):235-243
pubmed: 32162812
Nature. 2012 Jun 28;486(7404):532-6
pubmed: 22722830
Clin Cancer Res. 2015 Mar 1;21(5):1087-97
pubmed: 25248381
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 1;5(8):1124-1131
pubmed: 31070691