Feasibility of Next-generation Sequencing of Liquid Biopsy (Circulating Tumor DNA) Samples and Tumor Tissue from Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer in a Real-world Clinical Setting in Germany.


Journal

European urology focus
ISSN: 2405-4569
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Focus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101665661

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 02 12 2023
revised: 02 02 2024
accepted: 20 02 2024
medline: 17 3 2024
pubmed: 17 3 2024
entrez: 16 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

With European Medicines Agency approval of PARP inhibitors in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and ongoing trials in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, detection of genetic alterations in BRCA1/2 and other homologous recombination repair genes has gained an important role. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and comparability of comprehensive next-generation sequencing (NGS) of liquid biopsy (LB; circulating tumor DNA) and tumor tissue (TT) samples in a real-world clinical setting. The study cohort consisted of 50 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) who had TT NGS performed for BRCA1/2 alterations and consent for additional LB NGS. The Oncomine Comprehensive Assay v3 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) was used for TT NGS. The Guardant360 83-gene assay (Guardant Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used for LB NGS, including all types of somatic alterations, microsatellite instability, and blood tumor mutational burden. We calculated BRCA1/2 alteration rates and the negative percentage agreement (NPA) and positive percentage agreement (PPA) between TT and LB results. TT NGS was successful in 44/50 patients (88%), with pathogenic BRCA1/2 alterations detected in four (9%). LB NGS was successful in all 50 patients (100%), with BRCA1/2 alterations detected in ten (20%). In a subgroup analysis for the 44 patients with successful TT NGS, NPA was 85% and PPA was 50%. The median time between TT sample collection and blood sampling for NGS was 132 wk (IQR 94-186). The limited sample size and differences in the time of NGS assessment are limitations. LB NGS resulted in a higher detection rate for BRCA1/2 alterations in comparison to conventional TT NGS (20% vs 9%). Ideally, BRCA1/2 testing should be based on both approaches to identify all patients with mPC eligible for PARP inhibitor therapy. Our study shows that genetic tests for both tumor tissue and blood samples results in higher rates of detection of BRCA1/2 gene alterations in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
With European Medicines Agency approval of PARP inhibitors in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and ongoing trials in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, detection of genetic alterations in BRCA1/2 and other homologous recombination repair genes has gained an important role. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and comparability of comprehensive next-generation sequencing (NGS) of liquid biopsy (LB; circulating tumor DNA) and tumor tissue (TT) samples in a real-world clinical setting.
METHODS METHODS
The study cohort consisted of 50 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) who had TT NGS performed for BRCA1/2 alterations and consent for additional LB NGS. The Oncomine Comprehensive Assay v3 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) was used for TT NGS. The Guardant360 83-gene assay (Guardant Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used for LB NGS, including all types of somatic alterations, microsatellite instability, and blood tumor mutational burden. We calculated BRCA1/2 alteration rates and the negative percentage agreement (NPA) and positive percentage agreement (PPA) between TT and LB results.
KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS UNASSIGNED
TT NGS was successful in 44/50 patients (88%), with pathogenic BRCA1/2 alterations detected in four (9%). LB NGS was successful in all 50 patients (100%), with BRCA1/2 alterations detected in ten (20%). In a subgroup analysis for the 44 patients with successful TT NGS, NPA was 85% and PPA was 50%. The median time between TT sample collection and blood sampling for NGS was 132 wk (IQR 94-186). The limited sample size and differences in the time of NGS assessment are limitations.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSIONS
LB NGS resulted in a higher detection rate for BRCA1/2 alterations in comparison to conventional TT NGS (20% vs 9%). Ideally, BRCA1/2 testing should be based on both approaches to identify all patients with mPC eligible for PARP inhibitor therapy.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
Our study shows that genetic tests for both tumor tissue and blood samples results in higher rates of detection of BRCA1/2 gene alterations in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38493067
pii: S2405-4569(24)00043-9
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2024.02.007
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Philipp Mandel (P)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Electronic address: philipp.mandel@kgu.de.

Benedikt Hoeh (B)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Clara Humke (C)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Claudia Doering (C)

Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Mike Wenzel (M)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Cristina Cano Garcia (C)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Nina Fuhr (N)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Florestan Koll (F)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Anne Fassl (A)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Derya Tilki (D)

Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Thomas Steuber (T)

Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Iris Faull (I)

Guardant Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

Jan Jeroch (J)

Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Silvana Ebner (S)

Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Christina Schmitt (C)

Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Henning Reis (H)

Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Jens Köllermann (J)

Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Konstantinos D Kokkaliaris (KD)

Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Frankfurt Cancer Institute, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, Frankfurt/Mainz Partner Site, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Melanie C Demes (MC)

Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Felix K H Chun (FKH)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Peter J Wild (PJ)

Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies (FIAS), Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Classifications MeSH