Comparison of tumor-informed and tumor-naïve sequencing assays for ctDNA detection in breast cancer

Is ctDNA ready to outpace imaging in monitoring early and advanced breast cancer?

INTRODUCTION

circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and radiological imaging are increasingly recognized as crucial elements in breast cancer management. While radiology remains the cornerstone for screening and monitoring, ctDNA holds distinctive advantages in anticipating diagnosis, recurrence or progression, providing concurrent biological insights complementary to imaging results.

AREAS COVERED

this review delves into the current evidence on the synergistic relationship between ctDNA and imaging in breast cancer. It presents data on the clinical validity and utility of ctDNA in both early and advanced settings, providing insights into emerging liquid biopsy techniques like epigenetics and fragmentomics. Simultaneously, it explores the present and future landscape of imaging methodologies, particularly focusing on radiomics.

EXPERT OPINION

numerous are the current technical, strategic and economic challenges preventing the clinical integration of ctDNA analysis in the breast cancer monitoring. Understanding these complexities and devising targeted strategies is pivotal to effectively embedding this methodology into personalized patient care.

Circulating tumor DNA for predicting recurrence in patients with operable breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The incorporation of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) into the management of operable breast cancer (BC) has been hampered by the heterogeneous results from different studies. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of ctDNA in patients with operable (non metastatic) BC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL) and conference proceedings was conducted to identify studies reporting the association of ctDNA detection with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with stage I-III BC. Log-hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled at each timepoint of ctDNA assessment (baseline, after neoadjuvant therapy, and follow-up). ctDNA assays were classified as primary tumor-informed and non tumor-informed.

RESULTS

Of the 3174 records identified, 57 studies including 5779 patients were eligible. In univariate analyses, ctDNA detection was associated with worse DFS at baseline [HR 2.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.92-4.63], after neoadjuvant therapy (HR 7.69, 95% CI 4.83-12.24), and during follow-up (HR 14.04, 95% CI 7.55-26.11). Similarly, ctDNA detection at all timepoints was associated with worse OS (at baseline: HR 2.76, 95% CI 1.60-4.77; after neoadjuvant therapy: HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.44-5.14; and during follow-up: HR 9.19, 95% CI 3.26-25.90). Similar DFS and OS results were observed in multivariate analyses. Pooled HRs were numerically higher when ctDNA was detected at the end of neoadjuvant therapy or during follow-up and for primary tumor-informed assays. ctDNA detection sensitivity and specificity for BC recurrence ranged from 0.31 to 1.0 and 0.7 to 1.0, respectively. The mean lead time from ctDNA detection to overt recurrence was 10.81 months (range 0-58.9 months).

CONCLUSIONS

ctDNA detection was associated with worse DFS and OS in patients with operable BC, particularly when detected after treatment and using primary tumor-informed assays. ctDNA detection has a high specificity for anticipating BC relapse.

Circulating tumor DNA: current implementation issues and future challenges for clinical utility

Over the past decades, liquid biopsy, especially circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), has received tremendous attention as a noninvasive detection approach for clinical applications, including early diagnosis of cancer and relapse, real-time therapeutic efficacy monitoring, potential target selection and investigation of drug resistance mechanisms. In recent years, the application of next-generation sequencing technology combined with AI technology has significantly improved the accuracy and sensitivity of liquid biopsy, enhancing its potential in solid tumors. However, the increasing integration of such promising tests to improve therapy decision making by oncologists still has complexities and challenges. Here, we propose a conceptual framework of ctDNA technologies and clinical utilities based on bibliometrics and highlight current challenges and future directions, especially in clinical applications such as early detection, minimal residual disease detection, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. We also discuss the necessities of developing a dynamic field of translational cancer research and rigorous clinical studies that may support therapeutic strategy decision making in the near future.

Comparison of tumor-informed and tumor-naïve sequencing assays for ctDNA detection in breast cancer

Analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to monitor cancer dynamics and detect minimal residual disease has been an area of increasing interest. Multiple methods have been proposed but few studies have compared the performance of different approaches. Here, we compare detection of ctDNA in serial plasma samples from patients with breast cancer using different tumor-informed and tumor-naïve assays designed to detect structural variants (SVs), single nucleotide variants (SNVs), and/or somatic copy-number aberrations, by multiplex PCR, hybrid capture, and different depths of whole-genome sequencing. Our results demonstrate that the ctDNA dynamics and allele fractions (AFs) were highly concordant when analyzing the same patient samples using different assays. Tumor-informed assays showed the highest sensitivity for detection of ctDNA at low concentrations. Hybrid capture sequencing targeting between 1,347 and 7,491 tumor-identified mutations at high depth was the most sensitive assay, detecting ctDNA down to an AF of 0.00024% (2.4 parts per million, ppm). Multiplex PCR targeting 21-47 tumor-identified SVs per patient detected ctDNA down to 0.00047% AF (4.7 ppm) and has potential as a clinical assay.