RESUMEN
IMPORTANCE: Novel sensitive methods for detection and monitoring of residual disease can improve postoperative risk stratification with implications for patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT), ACT duration, intensity of radiologic surveillance, and, ultimately, outcome for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) with recurrence using longitudinal data from ultradeep sequencing of plasma cell-free DNA in patients with CRC before and after surgery, during and after ACT, and during surveillance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this prospective, multicenter cohort study, ctDNA was quantified in the preoperative and postoperative settings of stages I to III CRC by personalized multiplex, polymerase chain reaction-based, next-generation sequencing. The study enrolled 130 patients at the surgical departments of Aarhus University Hospital, Randers Hospital, and Herning Hospital in Denmark from May 1, 2014, to January 31, 2017. Plasma samples (n = 829) were collected before surgery, postoperatively at day 30, and every third month for up to 3 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes were ctDNA measurement, clinical recurrence, and recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients with stages I to III CRC (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [10.1] years; 74 [56.9%] male) were enrolled in the study; 5 patients discontinued participation, leaving 125 patients for analysis. Preoperatively, ctDNA was detectable in 108 of 122 patients (88.5%). After definitive treatment, longitudinal ctDNA analysis identified 14 of 16 relapses (87.5%). At postoperative day 30, ctDNA-positive patients were 7 times more likely to relapse than ctDNA-negative patients (hazard ratio [HR], 7.2; 95% CI, 2.7-19.0; P < .001). Similarly, shortly after ACT ctDNA-positive patients were 17 times (HR, 17.5; 95% CI, 5.4-56.5; P < .001) more likely to relapse. All 7 patients who were ctDNA positive after ACT experienced relapse. Monitoring during and after ACT indicated that 3 of the 10 ctDNA-positive patients (30.0%) were cleared by ACT. During surveillance after definitive therapy, ctDNA-positive patients were more than 40 times more likely to experience disease recurrence than ctDNA-negative patients (HR, 43.5; 95% CI, 9.8-193.5 P < .001). In all multivariate analyses, ctDNA status was independently associated with relapse after adjusting for known clinicopathologic risk factors. Serial ctDNA analyses revealed disease recurrence up to 16.5 months ahead of standard-of-care radiologic imaging (mean, 8.7 months; range, 0.8-16.5 months). Actionable mutations were identified in 81.8% of the ctDNA-positive relapse samples. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Circulating tumor DNA analysis can potentially change the postoperative management of CRC by enabling risk stratification, ACT monitoring, and early relapse detection.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy was implemented in the treatment of early breast cancer with the aim of reducing shoulder and arm morbidity. Relatively few prospective studies have been published where the morbidity was assessed by clinical examination. Very few studies have examined the impact on shoulder mobility of node positive patients having a secondary axillary dissection because of the findings of metastases postoperatively. AIM: We aimed to investigate the objective and subjective arm morbidity in node negative and node positive patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a prospective study, 395 patients with tumors less than 4 cm, were included. Patients were recruited from seven Danish breast cancer clinics. Both subjective and objective arm and shoulder morbidity were measured before, 6 and 18 months after the operation. RESULTS: Comparing node negative patients having a sentinel lymph node biopsy with node negative patients having a lymph node dissection of levels I and II of the axilla, we found significant increase in arm volume among the patients who had an axillary dissection. Only minor, but significant, differences in shoulder mobility were observed comparing the two groups of node negative patients. Highly significant difference was found comparing sensibility. Comparing the morbidity in node positive patients who had a one-step axillary dissection with patients having a two-step procedure (sentinel lymph node biopsy followed by delayed axillary dissection) revealed no difference in objective or subjective arm morbidity. CONCLUSION: Node negative patients operated with sentinel lymph node biopsy have less arm morbidity compared with node negative patients operated with axillary lymph node dissection. Node positive patients who had a secondary axillary lymph node dissection after sentinel lymph node biopsy had no difference in either objective or subjective morbidity compared with node positive patients having a one-step axillary dissection.