lunes, 29 de abril de 2019

Clinical Utility of Comprehensive Cell-Free DNA Analysis to Identify Genomic Biomarkers in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Non-Small Cell ... - PubMed - NCBI

2019 Apr 15. pii: clincanres.0624.2019. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0624. [Epub ahead of print]

Clinical Utility of Comprehensive Cell-Free DNA Analysis to Identify Genomic Biomarkers in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Leighl NB1, Page RD2, Raymond VM3, Daniel DB4, Divers SG5, Reckamp KL6, Villalona-Calero MA7, Dix D8, Odegaard JI9, Lanman RB10, Papadimitrakopoulou VA11.

Author information

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Complete and timely tissue genotyping is challenging, leading to significant numbers of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) being undergenotyped for all eight genomic biomarkers recommended by professional guidelines. We aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority of comprehensive cell-free DNA (cfDNA) relative to physician discretion standard-of-care (SOC) tissue genotyping to identify guideline-recommended biomarkers in patients with mNSCLC.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:

Prospectively enrolled patients with previously untreated mNSCLC undergoing physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping submitted a pre-treatment blood sample for comprehensive cfDNA analysis (Guardant360Ò).

RESULTS:

Among 282 patients, physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping identified a guideline-recommended biomarker in 60 patients versus 77 cfDNA identified patients (21.3% vs 27.3%; p<0.0001 for non-inferiority). In tissue-positive patients, the biomarker was identified alone (12/60) or concordant with cfDNA (48/60), an 80% cfDNA clinical sensitivity for any guideline-recommended biomarker. For FDA-approved targets (EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF) concordance was >98.2% with 100% positive predictive value for cfDNA versus tissue (34/34 EGFR, ALK, or BRAF positive patients). Utilizing cfDNA in addition to tissue increased detection by 48%, from 60 to 89 patients, including those with negative, not assessed, or insufficient tissue results. cfDNA median turnaround time was significantly faster than tissue (9 vs 15 days; p<0.0001). Guideline-complete genotyping was significantly more likely (268 vs. 51; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS:

In the largest cfDNA study in previously untreated mNSCLC, a validated comprehensive cfDNA test identifies guideline-recommended biomarkers at a rate at least as high as SOC tissue genotyping, with high tissue concordance, more rapidly and completely than tissue-based genotyping.