Marijana Nesic

DNA released from cells into the peripheral blood is known as cell‐free DNA (cfDNA), representing a promising noninvasive source of biomarkers that could be utilized to manage Diffuse Large B‐Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), among other diseases. The procedure for purification and handling of cfDNA is not yet standardized, and various preanalytical variables may affect the yield and analysis of cfDNA, including the purification kits, blood collection tubes, and centrifugation regime. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the impact of these preanalytical variables on the yield of cfDNA by comparing three different purification kits DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen), QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (Qiagen), and Quick‐cfDNA Serum & Plasma Kit (Zymo Research). Two blood collection tubes (BCTs), EDTA‐K2 and Cell‐Free DNA (Streck), stored at four different time points before plasma was separated and cfDNA purified, were compared, and for EDTA tubes, two centrifugation regimes at 2000 × g and 3000 × g were tested. Additionally, we have tested the utility of long‐term archival blood samples from DLBCL patients to detect circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). We observed a higher cfDNA yield using the QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (Qiagen) purification kit, as well as a higher cfDNA yield when blood samples were collected in EDTA BCTs, with a centrifuge regime at 2000 × g . Moreover, ctDNA detection was feasible from archival plasma samples with a median storage time of nine years.

INTRODUCTION: Circulating tumor (ctDNA) can be used to detect residual disease after cancer treatment. Detecting low-level ctDNA is challenging, due to the limited number of recoverable ctDNA fragments at any target loci. In response, we applied tumor-informed whole-genome sequencing (WGS), leveraging thousands of mutations for ctDNA detection. METHODS: Performance was evaluated in serial plasma samples (n = 1283) from 144 stage III colorectal cancer patients. Tumor/normal WGS was used to establish a patient-specific mutational fingerprint, which was searched for in 20x WGS plasma profiles. For reproducibility, paired aliquots of 172 plasma samples were analyzed in two independent laboratories. De novo variant calling was performed for serial plasma samples with a ctDNA level > 10 % (n = 17) to explore genomic evolution. RESULTS: WGS-based ctDNA detection was prognostic of recurrence: post-operation (Hazard ratio [HR] 6.75, 95 %CI 3.18-14.3, p < 0.001), post-adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 28.9, 95 %CI 10.1-82.8; p < 0.001), and during surveillance (HR 22.8, 95 %CI 13.7-37.9, p < 0.0001). The 3-year cumulative incidence of ctDNA detection in recurrence patients was 95 %. ctDNA was detected a median of 8.7 months before radiological recurrence. The independently analyzed plasma aliquots showed excellent agreement (Cohens Kappa=0.9, r = 0.99). Genomic characterization of serial plasma revealed significant evolution in mutations and copy number alterations, and the timing of mutational processes, such as 5-fluorouracil-induced mutations. CONCLUSION: Our study supports the use of WGS for sensitive ctDNA detection and demonstrates that post-treatment ctDNA detection is highly prognostic of recurrence. Furthermore, plasma WGS can identify genomic differences distinguishing the primary tumor and relapsing metastasis, and monitor treatment-induced genomic changes.

Tumor-informed mutation-based approaches are frequently used for detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Not all mutations make equally effective ctDNA markers. The objective was to explore if prioritizing mutations using mutational features-such as cancer cell fraction (CCF), multiplicity, and error rate-would improve the success rate of tumor-informed ctDNA analysis. Additionally, we aimed to develop a practical and easily implementable analysis pipeline for identifying and prioritizing candidate mutations from whole-exome sequencing (WES) data. We analyzed WES and ctDNA data from three tumor-informed ctDNA studies, one on bladder cancer (Cohort A) and two on colorectal cancer (Cohorts I and N). The studies included 390 patients. For each patient, a unique set of mutations (median mutations/patient: 6, interquartile 13, range: 1-46, total n = 4023) were used as markers of ctDNA. The tool PureCN was used to assess the CCF and multiplicity of each mutation. High-CCF mutations were detected more frequently than low-CCF mutations (Cohort A: odds ratio [OR] 20.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.72-173, p = 1.73e-12; Cohort I: OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.44-3.52, p = 1.66e-04; and Cohort N: OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.14-2.79, p = 7.86e-03). The detection-likelihood was additionally improved by selecting mutations with multiplicity of two or above (Cohort A: OR 1.55, 95% CI 1. 14-2.11, p = 3.85e-03; Cohort I: OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.23-2.56, p = 1.34e-03; and Cohort N: OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.63-2.31, p = 2.83e-14). Furthermore, selecting the mutations for which the ctDNA detection method had the lowest error rates, additionally improved the detection-likelihood, particularly evident when plasma cell-free DNA tumor fractions were below 0.1% (p = 2.1e-07). Selecting mutational markers with high CCF, high multiplicity, and low error rate significantly improve ctDNA detection likelihood. We provide free access to the analysis pipeline enabling others to perform qualified prioritization of mutations for tumor-informed ctDNA analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple initiatives aim to develop circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) tests for early cancer detection in asymptomatic individuals. The few studies describing ctDNA-testing in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients report lower ctDNA detection in the asymptomatic patients. Here, we explore if asymptomatic patients differ from symptomatic patients e.g. by including a 'low-ctDNA-shedding' and 'less-aggressive' subgroup. METHODS: ctDNA assessment was performed in two independent cohorts of consecutively recruited patients with asymptomatic colorectal cancer (CRC) (Cohort#1: n = 215, Cohort#2: n = 368) and symptomatic CRC (Cohort#1: n = 117, Cohort#2: n = 722). RESULTS: After adjusting for tumour stage and size, the odds of ctDNA detection was significantly lower in asymptomatic patients compared to symptomatic patients (Cohort#1: OR: 0.4, 95%CI: 0.2-0.8, Cohort#2: OR: 0.7, 95%CI: 0.5-0.9). Further, the recurrence risk was lower in asymptomatic patients (Cohort#1: sHR: 0.6, 95%CI: 0.3-1.2, Cohort#2: sHR: 0.6, 95%CI: 0.4-1.0). Notably, ctDNA-negative asymptomatic patients had the lowest recurrence risk compared to the symptomatic patients (Cohort#1: sHR: 0.2, 95%CI: 0.1-0.6, Cohort#2: sHR: 0.3, 95%CI: 0.2-0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that asymptomatic patients are enriched for a 'low-ctDNA-shedding-low-recurrence-risk' subgroup. Such insights are needed to guide ctDNA-based early-detection initiatives and should prompt discussions about de-escalation of therapy and follow-up for ctDNA-negative asymptomatic CRC patients.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most frequent lymphoid neoplasm among adults,and approximately 30-40% of patients will experience relapse while 5-10% will suffer from primary refractory disease caused by different mechanisms, including treatment-induced resistance. For refractory and relapsed DLBCL (rrDLBCL) patients, early detection and understanding of the mechanisms controlling treatment resistance are of great importance to guide therapy decisions. Here, we have focused on genetic variations in immune surveillance genes in diagnostic DLBCL (dDLBCL) and rrDLBCL patients to elaborate on the suitability of new promising immunotherapies. METHODS: Biopsies from 30 dDLBCL patients who did not progress or relapse during follow up and 17 rrDLBCL patients with refractory disease or who relapsed during follow up were analyzed by whole-exome sequencing, including matched individual germline samples to include only somatic genetic variants in downstream analysis of a curated list of 58 genes involved in major immune surveillance pathways. RESULTS: More than 70% of both dDLBCLs and rrDLBCLs harbored alterations in immune surveillance genes, but rrDLBCL tumor samples have a lower number of genes affected compared to dDLBCL tumor samples. Increased gene mutation frequencies in rrDLBCLs were observed in more than half of the affected immune surveillance genes than dDLBCLs. CONCLUSION: Genetic variants in the antigen-presenting genes affect a higher number of rrDLBCL patients supporting an important role for these genes in tumor progression and development of refractory disease and relapse.