Liquid biopsy of wash samples obtained via endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: Comparison with liquid biopsy of plasma in pancreatic cancer.
genomics
liquid biopsy
mutation
neoplasms
oncogenes
pancreas
Journal
Diagnostic cytopathology
ISSN: 1097-0339
Titre abrégé: Diagn Cytopathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8506895
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Mar 2024
22 Mar 2024
Historique:
revised:
11
03
2024
received:
17
02
2024
accepted:
13
03
2024
medline:
22
3
2024
pubmed:
22
3
2024
entrez:
22
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Pancreatic cancer (PC) has a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Liquid biopsy, which analyzes circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in blood, holds promise for precision medicine; however, low ctDNA detection rates pose challenges. This study aimed to investigate the utility of wash samples obtained via endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) as a liquid biopsy for PC. A total of 166 samples (42 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded [FFPE] tissues, 80 wash samples, and 44 plasma samples) were collected from 48 patients with PC for genomic analysis. DNA was extracted and quantified, and 60 significantly mutated genes were sequenced. The genomic profiles of FFPE tissues, wash samples, and plasma samples were compared. Finally, the ability to detect druggable mutations in 80 wash samples and 44 plasma samples was investigated. The amount of DNA was significantly lower in plasma samples than in wash samples. Genomic analysis revealed a higher detection rate of oncogenic mutations in FFPE tissues (98%) and wash samples (96%) than in plasma samples (18%) and a comparable detection rate in FFPE tissues and wash samples. Tumor-derived oncogenic mutations were detected more frequently in wash samples than in plasma samples. Furthermore, the oncogenic mutations detection rate remained high in wash samples at all PC stages but low in plasma samples even at advanced PC stages. Using wash samples was more sensitive than plasma samples for identifying oncogenic and druggable mutations. The wash sample obtained via EUS-FNB is an ideal specimen for use as a liquid biopsy for PC.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Uehara Memorial Foundation
Organisme : Takeda Science Foundation
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Organisme : Pancreas Research Foundation of Japan
Organisme : Chiba Foundation for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
Organisme : the Medical and Welfare Network Chiba
Organisme : Yasuda Memorial Medical Foundation
Organisme : KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
ID : 20H03668
Organisme : KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists
ID : 21K15963
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Rahib L, Smith BD, Aizenberg R, Rosenzweig AB, Fleshman JM, Matrisian LM. Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States. Cancer Res. 2014;74(11):2913‐2921. doi:10.1158/0008‐5472.Can‐14‐0155
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73(1):17‐48. doi:10.3322/caac.21763
Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1817‐1825. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1011923
von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab‐paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(18):1691‐1703. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1304369
Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Electronic address aadhe, cancer genome atlas research N. Integrated genomic characterization of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2017;32(2):185‐203 e13. doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2017.07.007
Shroff RT, Hendifar A, McWilliams RR, et al. Rucaparib monotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer and a known deleterious BRCA mutation. JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2018:1‐15. doi:10.1200/po.17.00316
Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD‐1 blockade. Science. 2017;357(6349):409‐413. doi:10.1126/science.aan6733
Sunami K, Ichikawa H, Kubo T, et al. Feasibility and utility of a panel testing for 114 cancer‐associated genes in a clinical setting: a hospital‐based study. Cancer Sci. 2019;110(4):1480‐1490. doi:10.1111/cas.13969
Sicklick JK, Kato S, Okamura R, et al. Molecular profiling of cancer patients enables personalized combination therapy: the I‐PREDICT study. Nat Med. 2019;25(5):744‐750. doi:10.1038/s41591‐019‐0407‐5
Larson BK, Tuli R, Jamil LH, Lo SK, Deng N, Hendifar AE. Utility of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided biopsy for next‐generation sequencing of pancreatic exocrine malignancies. Pancreas. 2018;47(8):990‐995. doi:10.1097/mpa.0000000000001117
Bardelli A, Pantel K. Liquid biopsies, what we do not know (yet). Cancer Cell. 2017;31(2):172‐179. doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2017.01.002
Scherer F. Capturing tumor heterogeneity and clonal evolution by circulating tumor DNA profiling. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2020;215:213‐230. doi:10.1007/978‐3‐030‐26439‐0_11
Nakamura Y, Taniguchi H, Ikeda M, et al. Clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA sequencing in advanced gastrointestinal cancer: Scrum‐Japan GI‐screen and Gozila studies. Nat Med. 2020;26(12):1859‐1864. doi:10.1038/s41591‐020‐1063‐5
Zhou W, Gao L, Wang SM, et al. Comparison of smear cytology and liquid‐based cytology in EUS‐guided FNA of pancreatic lesions: experience from a large tertiary center. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91(4):932‐942. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.10.033
Sekita‐Hatakeyama Y, Fujii T, Nishikawa T, et al. Evaluation and diagnostic value of next‐generation sequencing analysis of residual liquid‐based cytology specimens of pancreatic masses. Cancer Cytopathol. 2022;130(3):202‐214. doi:10.1002/cncy.22525
Hirotsu Y, Otake S, Ohyama H, et al. Dual‐molecular barcode sequencing detects rare variants in tumor and cell free DNA in plasma. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):3391. doi:10.1038/s41598‐020‐60361‐3
Amemiya K, Hirotsu Y, Goto T, et al. Touch imprint cytology with massively parallel sequencing (TIC‐seq): a simple and rapid method to snapshot genetic alterations in tumors. Cancer Med. 2016;5(12):3426‐3436. doi:10.1002/cam4.950
Nakamura H, Arai Y, Totoki Y, et al. Genomic spectra of biliary tract cancer. Nat Genet. 2015;47(9):1003‐1010. doi:10.1038/ng.3375
Chakravarty D, Gao J, Phillips SM, et al. OncoKB: a precision oncology Knowledge Base. JCO Precis Oncol. 2017;2017:1‐16. doi:10.1200/po.17.00011
Diehl F, Schmidt K, Choti MA, et al. Circulating mutant DNA to assess tumor dynamics. Nat Med. 2008;14(9):985‐990. doi:10.1038/nm.1789
Bettegowda C, Sausen M, Leary RJ, et al. Detection of circulating tumor DNA in early‐ and late‐stage human malignancies. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(224):224ra24. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3007094
Hong DS, Fakih MG, Strickler JH, et al. KRAS(G12C) inhibition with Sotorasib in advanced solid tumors. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(13):1207‐1217. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1917239
Hofmann MH, Gmachl M, Ramharter J, et al. BI‐3406, a potent and selective SOS1‐KRAS interaction inhibitor, is effective in KRAS‐driven cancers through combined MEK inhibition. Cancer Discov. 2021;11(1):142‐157. doi:10.1158/2159‐8290.Cd‐20‐0142
Wang X, Allen S, Blake JF, et al. Identification of MRTX1133, a noncovalent, potent, and selective KRAS(G12D) inhibitor. J Med Chem. 2022;65(4):3123‐3133. doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.1c01688
Tsagiopoulou M, Maniou MC, Pechlivanis N, et al. UMIc: a preprocessing method for UMI deduplication and reads correction. Front Genet. 2021;12:660366. doi:10.3389/fgene.2021.660366
Luthra R, Patel KP, Routbort MJ, et al. A targeted high‐throughput next‐generation sequencing panel for clinical screening of mutations, gene amplifications, and fusions in solid tumors. J Mol Diagn. 2017;19(2):255‐264. doi:10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.09.011
Lanman RB, Mortimer SA, Zill OA, et al. Analytical and clinical validation of a digital sequencing panel for quantitative, highly accurate evaluation of cell‐free circulating tumor DNA. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140712. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140712