Background: First-line decision making is the key to the successful care of mCRC patients and RAS/BRAF status is crucial to select the best targeted agent. In hub centers, a relevant propor-tion of patients referred from small volume centers may not have standard tissue-based (STB) molecular results available at the time of the first visit (T0). Liquid biopsy (LB) may help circumvent these hurdles. Methods: A monoinstitutional prospective head-to-head comparison of LB versus (vs.) STB testing was performed in a real-world setting. Selection criteria included: mCRC diagnosis with unknown RAS/BRAF status at T0, tumoral tissue archived in external centers, no previous treatment with anti-EGFR. At T0, patients underwent plasma sampling for LB testing and proce-dure for tissue recovery. RAS/BRAF genotyping was carried out by droplet digital PCR on circulat-ing-tumoral (ct) DNA. The primary endpoint was the comparison of time to LB (T1) vs. STB (T2) results using the Mann–Whitney U test. Secondary endpoints were the concordance between LB and STB defined as overall percent agreement and the accuracy of LB in terms of specificity, sensi-tivity, positive and negative predictive value. We also performed an exploratory analysis on urinary (u) ctDNA. Results: A total of 33 mCRC patients were included. Mean T1 and T2 was 7 and 22 days(d), respectively (p < 0.00001). T2 included a mean time for archival tissue recovery of 17 d. The overall percent agreement between LB and STB analysis was 83%. Compared to STB testing, LB specificity and sensitivity were 90% and 80%, respectively, with a positive predictive value of 94% and negative one of 69%. In detail, at STB and LB testing, RAS mutation was found in 45% and 42% of patients, respectively; BRAF mutation in 15%. LB results included one false positive and four false negative. False negative cases showed a significantly lower tumor burden at basal CT scan. Concordance between STB and uctDNA testing was 89%. Conclusions: Faster turnaround time, high concordance and accuracy are three key points supporting the adoption of LB in routinary mCRC care, in particular when decision on first-line therapy is urgent and tissue recovery from external centers may require a long time. Results should be interpreted with caution in LB wild-type cases with low tumor burden.

A real-world application of liquid biopsy in metastatic colorectal cancer: The poseidon study

Procaccio L.;Munari G.;Angerilli V.;Paccagnella S.;Di Antonio V.;Zagonel V.;Lonardi S.;Fassan M.
2021

Abstract

Background: First-line decision making is the key to the successful care of mCRC patients and RAS/BRAF status is crucial to select the best targeted agent. In hub centers, a relevant propor-tion of patients referred from small volume centers may not have standard tissue-based (STB) molecular results available at the time of the first visit (T0). Liquid biopsy (LB) may help circumvent these hurdles. Methods: A monoinstitutional prospective head-to-head comparison of LB versus (vs.) STB testing was performed in a real-world setting. Selection criteria included: mCRC diagnosis with unknown RAS/BRAF status at T0, tumoral tissue archived in external centers, no previous treatment with anti-EGFR. At T0, patients underwent plasma sampling for LB testing and proce-dure for tissue recovery. RAS/BRAF genotyping was carried out by droplet digital PCR on circulat-ing-tumoral (ct) DNA. The primary endpoint was the comparison of time to LB (T1) vs. STB (T2) results using the Mann–Whitney U test. Secondary endpoints were the concordance between LB and STB defined as overall percent agreement and the accuracy of LB in terms of specificity, sensi-tivity, positive and negative predictive value. We also performed an exploratory analysis on urinary (u) ctDNA. Results: A total of 33 mCRC patients were included. Mean T1 and T2 was 7 and 22 days(d), respectively (p < 0.00001). T2 included a mean time for archival tissue recovery of 17 d. The overall percent agreement between LB and STB analysis was 83%. Compared to STB testing, LB specificity and sensitivity were 90% and 80%, respectively, with a positive predictive value of 94% and negative one of 69%. In detail, at STB and LB testing, RAS mutation was found in 45% and 42% of patients, respectively; BRAF mutation in 15%. LB results included one false positive and four false negative. False negative cases showed a significantly lower tumor burden at basal CT scan. Concordance between STB and uctDNA testing was 89%. Conclusions: Faster turnaround time, high concordance and accuracy are three key points supporting the adoption of LB in routinary mCRC care, in particular when decision on first-line therapy is urgent and tissue recovery from external centers may require a long time. Results should be interpreted with caution in LB wild-type cases with low tumor burden.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3410831
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact