Detection and Dynamic Changes of <i>EGFR</i> Mutations from Circulating Tumor DNA as a Predictor of Survival Outcomes in NSCLC Patients Treated with First-line Intercalated Erlotinib and Chemotherapy

Tony Mok(Chinese University of Hong Kong), Yi‐Long Wu(Guangdong General Hospital), Jin Soo Lee(National Cancer Center), Chong‐Jen Yu(National Taiwan University Hospital), Virote Sriuranpong(King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital), Jennifer Sandoval-Tan(Philippine General Hospital), Guia Ladrera(University of the Philippines System), Sumitra Thongprasert(Chiang Mai University), Vichien Srimuninnimit(Siriraj Hospital), Meilin Liao(Shanghai Chest Hospital), Yunzhong Zhu(Beijing Chest Hospital), Caicun Zhou(Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital), Fatima Fuerte(University of Asia and the Pacific), Benjamin Margono(Universitas Dr. Soetomo), Wei Wen(Materials Systems (United States)), Julie Tsai(Materials Systems (United States)), Matt Truman(Forest and Wood Products (Australia)), Barbara Klughammer(Roche (Switzerland)), David S. Shames(Biomarker Technologies (China)), Lin Wu(Materials Systems (United States))
Clinical Cancer Research
April 1, 2015
Cited by 469

Abstract

PURPOSE: Blood-based circulating-free (cf) tumor DNA may be an alternative to tissue-based EGFR mutation testing in NSCLC. This exploratory analysis compares matched tumor and blood samples from the FASTACT-2 study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized to receive six cycles of gemcitabine/platinum plus sequential erlotinib or placebo. EGFR mutation testing was performed using the cobas tissue test and the cobas blood test (in development). Blood samples at baseline, cycle 3, and progression were assessed for blood test detection rate, sensitivity, and specificity; concordance with matched tumor analysis (n = 238), and correlation with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Concordance between tissue and blood tests was 88%, with blood test sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 96%. Median PFS was 13.1 versus 6.0 months for erlotinib and placebo, respectively, for those with baseline EGFR mut(+) cfDNA [HR, 0.22; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.14-0.33, P < 0.0001] and 6.2 versus 6.1 months, respectively, for the EGFR mut(-) cfDNA subgroup (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04, P = 0.1076). For patients with EGFR mut(+) cfDNA at baseline, median PFS was 7.2 versus 12.0 months for cycle 3 EGFR mut(+) cfDNA versus cycle 3 EGFR mut(-) patients, respectively (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21-0.48, P < 0.0001); median OS by cycle 3 status was 18.2 and 31.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31-0.84, P = 0.0066). CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based EGFR mutation analysis is relatively sensitive and highly specific. Dynamic changes in cfDNA EGFR mutation status relative to baseline may predict clinical outcomes.


Related Papers