Association of post-operative ctDNA detection with outcomes of patients with early breast cancers.

BACKGROUND: In early breast cancer (EBC) patients, we aimed to determine whether circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis following primary surgery, before systemic therapy, identified molecular residual disease and was associated with risk of relapse and relapse-free survival (RFS). METHODS: Plasma was collected, retrospectively, before surgery, 1-14 weeks post-operatively, and before adjuvant therapy, and in a subset of patients after adjuvant therapy. A personalized, tumor-informed, multiplex PCR next generation sequencing assay (Signatera™) was used for ctDNA detection and quantification. The primary objective was to compare RFS and distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) in patients with detected versus non-detected ctDNA. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients with EBC (median age 50.5 years) [34 hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-), 5 HER2+, 9 triple-negative breast cancer) were included. ctDNA was detected in 64.5% (20/31) of patients before surgery, and 35.4% (17/48) after surgery. ctDNA detection before surgery was associated with tumor grade (P = 0.019), ctDNA detection after surgery was associated with receptor subtype (P = 0.01). Patients with ctDNA detected after surgery had worse DRFS [hazard ratio = 5.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-28.5, P = 0.04]. RFS in patients with ctDNA detected after surgery was worse than in those with lack of ctDNA detection, although not statistically significant (hazard ratio = 3.7, 95% CI 0.9-15.7, P = 0.073). Patients with ctDNA detected preoperatively or post-operatively had a trend towards worse RFS (hazard ratio = 7.8, 95% CI 0.9-63.7, P = 0.05) and DRFS (hazard ratio = 6.8, 95% CI 0.8-57, P = 0.07) compared with those with ctDNA undetected at both timepoints. ctDNA detection anticipated clinical relapse with a median lead time of 16 months. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with treatment-naive EBC, ctDNA is detectable after surgery. The absence of ctDNA at a single post-surgical timepoint is associated with improved DRFS, supporting the development of future trials studying de-escalation of systemic therapy.

Early ctDNA dynamics as a surrogate for progression-free survival in advanced breast cancer in the BEECH trial.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic changes in circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) levels may predict long-term outcome. We utilised samples from a phase I/II randomised trial (BEECH) to assess ctDNA dynamics as a surrogate for progression-free survival (PFS) and early predictor of drug efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive advanced metastatic breast cancer (ER+ mBC) in the BEECH study, paclitaxel plus placebo versus paclitaxel plus AKT inhibitor capivasertib, had plasma samples collected for ctDNA analysis at baseline and at multiple time points in the development cohort (safety run-in, part A) and validation cohort (randomised, part B). Baseline sample ctDNA sequencing identified mutations for longitudinal analysis and mutation-specific digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) assays were utilised to assess change in ctDNA abundance (allele fraction) between baseline and 872 on-treatment samples. Primary objective was to assess whether early suppression of ctDNA, based on pre-defined criteria from the development cohort, independently predicted outcome in the validation cohort. RESULTS: In the development cohort, suppression of ctDNA was apparent after 8 days of treatment (P = 0.014), with cycle 2 day 1 (4 weeks) identified as the optimal time point to predict PFS from early ctDNA dynamics. In the validation cohort, median PFS was 11.1 months in patients with suppressed ctDNA at 4 weeks and 6.4 months in patients with high ctDNA (hazard ratio = 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.083-0.50, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in the level of ctDNA suppression between patients randomised to capivasertib or placebo overall (P = 0.904) nor in the PIK3CA mutant subpopulation (P = 0.071). Clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) was evident in 30% (18/59) baseline samples, although CHIP had no effect on tolerance of chemotherapy nor on PFS. CONCLUSION: Early on-treatment ctDNA dynamics are a surrogate for PFS. Dynamic ctDNA assessment has the potential to substantially enhance early drug development. CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01625286.

Tracking evolution of aromatase inhibitor resistance with circulating tumour DNA analysis in metastatic breast cancer.

Background: Selection of resistance mutations may play a major role in the development of endocrine resistance. ESR1 mutations are rare in primary breast cancer but have high prevalence in patients treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI) for advanced breast cancer. We investigated the evolution of genetic resistance to the first-line AI therapy using sequential ctDNA sampling in patients with advanced breast cancer. Patients and methods: Eighty-three patients on the first-line AI therapy for metastatic breast cancer were enrolled in a prospective study. Plasma samples were collected every 3 months to disease progression and ctDNA analysed by digital droplet PCR and enhanced tagged-amplicon sequencing (eTAm-Seq). Mutations identified in progression samples by sequencing were tracked back through samples before progression to study the evolution of mutations on therapy. The frequency of novel mutations was validated in an independent cohort of available baseline plasma samples in the Study of Faslodex versus Exemestane with or without Arimidex (SoFEA) trial, which enrolled patients with prior sensitivity to AI. Results: Of the 39 patients who progressed on the first-line AI, 56.4% (22/39) had ESR1 mutations detectable at progression, which were polyclonal in 40.9% (9/22) patients. In serial tracking, ESR1 mutations were detectable median 6.7 months (95% confidence interval 3.7-NA) before clinical progression. Utilising eTAm-Seq ctDNA sequencing of progression plasma, ESR1 mutations were demonstrated to be sub-clonal in 72.2% (13/18) patients. Mutations in RAS genes were identified in 15.4% (6/39) of progressing patients (4 KRAS, 1 HRAS, 1 NRAS). In SoFEA, KRAS mutations were detected in 21.2% (24/113) patients although there was no evidence that KRAS mutation status was prognostic for progression free or overall survival. Conclusions: Cancers progressing on the first-line AI show high levels of genetic heterogeneity, with frequent sub-clonal mutations. Sub-clonal KRAS mutations are found at high frequency. The genetic diversity of AI resistant cancers may limit subsequent targeted therapy approaches.