Liquid profiling of circulating tumor DNA in colorectal cancer: steps needed to achieve its full clinical value as standard care.

The analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is at the threshold of implementation into standard care for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. However, data about the clinical utility of liquid profiling (LP), its acceptance by clinicians, and its integration into clinical workflows in real-world settings remain limited. Here, LP tests requested as part of routine care since 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Results show restrained request behavior that improved moderately over time, as well as reliable diagnostic performance comparable to translational studies, with an overall agreement of 91.7%. Extremely low ctDNA levels at < 0.1% in over 20% of cases, a high frequency of concomitant driver mutations (in up to 14% of cases), and ctDNA levels reflecting the clinical course of disease were revealed. However, certain limitations hampering successful translation of ctDNA into clinical practice were uncovered, including the lack of clinically relevant ctDNA thresholds, appropriate time points of LP requests, and integrative evaluation of ctDNA, imaging, and clinical findings. In conclusion, these results highlight the potential clinical value of LP for CRC patient management and demonstrate issues that need to be addressed for successful long-term implementation in clinical workflows.

Direct comparison study between droplet digital PCR and a combination of allele-specific PCR, asymmetric rapid PCR and melting curve analysis for the detection of BRAF V600E mutation in plasma from melanoma patients.

Background In metastatic melanoma, 40%-50% of patients harbor a BRAF V600E mutation and are thereby eligible to receive a combined BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Compared to standard-of-care tissue-based genetic testing, analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from blood enables a comprehensive assessment of tumor mutational status in real-time and can be used for monitoring response to therapy. The aim of our study was to directly compare the performance of two highly sensitive methodologies, droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and a combination of ARMS/asymmetric-rapid PCR/melting curve analysis, for the detection of BRAF V600E in plasma from melanoma patients. Methods Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) was isolated from 120 plasma samples of stage I to IV melanoma patients. Identical plasma-cfDNA samples were subjected to BRAF V600E mutational analysis using in parallel, ddPCR and the combination of ARMS/asymmetric-rapid PCR/melting curve analysis. Results BRAF V600E mutation was detected in 9/117 (7.7%) ctDNA samples by ddPCR and in 22/117 (18.8%) ctDNA samples by the combination of ARMS/asymmetric- rapid PCR/melting curve analysis. The concordance between these two methodologies was 85.5% (100/117). The comparison of plasma-ctDNA analysis using ddPCR and tissue testing revealed an overall agreement of 79.4% (27/34), while the corresponding agreement using the combination of ARMS/asymmetric-rapid PCR/melting curve analysis was 73.5% (25/34). Moreover, comparing the detection of BRAF-mutant ctDNA with the clinics, overall agreement of 87.2% (48/55) for ddPCR and 79.2% (42/53) was demonstrated. Remarkably, the duration of sample storage was negatively correlated with correctness of genotyping results highlighting the importance of pre-analytical factors. Conclusions Our direct comparison study has shown a high level of concordance between ddPCR and the combination of ARMS/asymmetric-rapid PCR/melting curve analysis for the detection of BRAF V600E mutations in plasma.

Liquid Profiling of Circulating Tumor DNA in Plasma of Melanoma Patients for Companion Diagnostics and Monitoring of BRAF Inhibitor Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The current standard for determining eligibility of patients with metastatic melanoma for BRAF-targeted therapy is tissue-based testing of BRAF mutations. As patients are rarely rebiopsied, detection in blood might be advantageous by enabling a comprehensive assessment of tumor mutational status in real time and thereby representing a noninvasive biomarker for monitoring BRAF therapy. METHODS: In all, 634 stage I to IV melanoma patients were enrolled at 2 centers, and 1406 plasma samples were prospectively collected. Patients were assigned to 3 separate study cohorts: study 1 for assessment of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as part of companion diagnostics, study 2 for assessment of ctDNA for patients with low tumor burden and for follow-up, and study 3 for monitoring of resistance to BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) or mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitor therapy. RESULTS: Overall, a high degree of concordance between plasma and tissue testing results was observed at 90.9% (study 1) and 90.1% (study 2), respectively. Interestingly, discrepant results were in some cases associated with nonresponse to BRAFi (n = 3) or a secondary BRAF-mutant malignancy (n = 5). Importantly, ctDNA results correlated with the clinical course of disease in 95.7% and with response to treatment. Significantly, the detection of BRAF mutant ctDNA preceded relapse assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and was more specific than serum S100 and lactate dehydrogenase. CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based testing compares favorably with standard-of-care tissue-based BRAF mutation testing. Importantly, blood-based BRAF testing correlates with the clinical course, even for early-stage patients, and may be used to predict response to treatment, recurrence, and resistance before radioimaging under BRAFi therapy, thereby enabling considerable improvements in patient treatment.

Results of the first external quality assessment scheme (EQA) for isolation and analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA).

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is considered to have a high potential for future management of malignancies. This pilot external quality assessment (EQA) scheme aimed to address issues of analytical quality in this new area of laboratory diagnostics. METHODS: The EQA scheme consisted of three 2-mL EDTA-plasma samples spiked with fragmented genomic DNA with a mutant allele frequency ranging from 0% to 10% dedicated to the analysis of nine known sequence variations in KRAS codon 12/13 and of BRAF V600E. Laboratories reported: (1) time elapsed for processing, (2) storage temperatures, (3) methods for extraction and quantification, (4) genotyping methodologies and (5) results. RESULTS: Specimens were sent to 42 laboratories from 10 European countries; 72.3% reported to isolate cell-free DNA (cfDNA) manually, 62.5% used the entire plasma volume for cfDNA isolation and 38.5% used >10% of cfDNA extracted for downstream genotyping. Of the methods used for quantification, PicoGreen demonstrated the lowest coefficient of variation (33.7%). For genotyping, 11 different methods were reported with the highest error rate observed for Sanger sequencing and the lowest for highly sensitive approaches like digital PCR. In total, 197 genotypes were determined with an overall error rate of 6.09%. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot EQA scheme illustrates the current variability in multiple phases of cfDNA processing and analysis of ctDNA resulting in an overall error rate of 6.09%. The areas with the greatest variance and clinical impact included specimen volume, cfDNA quantification method, and preference of genotyping platform. Regarding quality assurance, there is an urgent need for harmonisation of procedures and workflows.

Assessing quality and functionality of DNA isolated from FFPE tissues through external quality assessment in tissue banks.

BACKGROUND: Biobanks are becoming increasingly important for assessment of disease risk as well as identification and validation of new diagnostic biomarkers and druggable targets. The validity of data obtained from biobanks is critically limited by the biomaterial quality of the biological samples. External quality assessment (EQA) programs suitable to comprehensively measure the biomaterial quality in archived materials are currently lacking. We report on quantitative assay designs for the analysis of both structural and functional integrity of DNAs that were applied in a first pilot EQA within the priority program on tumor tissue biobanking funded by the German Cancer Aid. METHODS: Participating biobanks isolated DNAs from a standardized set of 10 samples comprising sections of four different formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues using their standard operating procedures. Isolated DNAs and analytical results were returned and analyzed centrally for nucleic acids yield, purity, fragmentation and amplificability at a quantitative level using dedicated assay designs. RESULTS: The amount of extracted DNA varied in isolates ranging between 1.5 µg and 25.8 µg. Quantification of DNA fragmentation and amplificability allowed to highlight considerable discrepancies in DNA quality. Amplicons yielded from the isolates of these identical EQA samples ranged from 105 to 411 bp suggesting differences between residual inhibitors of downstream enzymatic reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of extraction of bioanalytes from biomaterial archives is heterogeneous even for stable biomolecules like DNA isolated with highly standardized methods. EQAs are appropriate tools to uncover strengths and weaknesses in biobanks in a systematic fashion. Biomaterial integrity is insufficiently reflected by standard methods, but needs to be assessed to improve biobank interoperability. Finally, our results also point towards the problem of measuring the quality of more delicate biomolecules like proteins or metabolites.