Concordance between genomic alterations assessed by next-generation sequencing in tumor tissue or circulating cell-free DNA
Metrics: PDF 1568 views | HTML 1129 views | ?
Young Kwang Chae1,2,3,*, Andrew A. Davis2,*, Benedito A. Carneiro1,2,3, Sunandana Chandra1,2,3, Nisha Mohindra2,3, Aparna Kalyan1,2,3, Jason Kaplan1,2,3, Maria Matsangou1,2,3, Sachin Pai1,3, Ricardo Costa1,3, Borko Jovanovic2,3, Massimo Cristofanilli1,2,3, Leonidas C. Platanias1,2,3,4, Francis J. Giles1,2,3
1Developmental Therapeutics Program of Division of Hematology Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
2Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
3Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
4Department of Medicine, Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Young Kwang Chae, email: email@example.com
Keywords: next-generation sequencing, cell-free DNA, genomic alterations, metastatic disease, lung cancer
Received: April 14, 2016 Accepted: August 10, 2016 Published: August 30, 2016
Genomic analysis of tumor tissue is the standard technique for identifying DNA alterations in malignancies. Genomic analysis of circulating tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) represents a relatively non-invasive method of assessing genomic alterations using peripheral blood. We compared the concordance of genomic alterations between cfDNA and tissue biopsies in this retrospective study. Twenty-eight patients with advanced solid tumors with paired next-generation sequencing tissue and cfDNA biopsies were identified. Sixty-five genes were common to both assays. Concordance was defined as the presence or absence of the identical genomic alteration(s) in a single gene on both molecular platforms. Including all aberrations, the average number of alterations per patient for tissue and cfDNA analysis was 4.82 and 2.96, respectively. When eliminating alterations not detectable in the cfDNA assay, mean number of alterations for tissue and cfDNA was 3.21 and 2.96, respectively. Overall, concordance was 91.9–93.9%. However, the concordance rate decreased to 11.8–17.1% when considering only genes with reported genomic alterations in either assay. Over 50% of mutations detected in either technique were not detected using the other biopsy technique, indicating a potential complementary role of each assay. Across 5 genes (TP53, EGFR, KRAS, APC, CDKN2A), sensitivity and specificity were 59.1% and 94.8%, respectively. Potential explanations for the lack of concordance include differences in assay platform, spatial and temporal factors, tumor heterogeneity, interval treatment, subclones, and potential germline DNA contamination. These results highlight the importance of prospective studies to evaluate concordance of genomic findings between distinct platforms that ultimately may inform treatment decisions.
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.