Can a Liquid Biopsy Detect Circulating Tumor DNA With Low-passage Whole-genome Sequencing in Patients With a Sarcoma? A Pilot Evaluation.
A liquid biopsy is a test that evaluates the status of a disease by analyzing a sample of bodily fluid, most commonly blood. In recent years, there has been progress in the development and clinical application of liquid biopsy methods to identify blood-based, tumor-specific biomarkers for many cancer types. However, the implementation of these technologies to aid in the treatment of patients who have a sarcoma remains behind other fields of cancer medicine. For this study, we chose to evaluate a sarcoma liquid biopsy based on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). All human beings have normal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) circulating in the blood. In contrast with cfDNA, ctDNA is genetic material present in the blood stream that is derived from a tumor. ctDNA carries the unique genomic fingerprint of the tumor with changes that are not present in normal circulating cfDNA. A successful ctDNA liquid biopsy must be able to target these tumor-specific genetic alterations. For instance, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are common in lung cancers, and ctDNA liquid biopsies are currently in clinical use to evaluate the status of disease in patients who have a lung cancer by detecting EGFR mutations in the blood. As opposed to many carcinomas, sarcomas do not have common recurrent mutations that could serve as the foundation to a ctDNA liquid biopsy. However, many sarcomas have structural changes to their chromosomes, including gains and losses of portions or entire chromosomes, known as copy number alterations (CNAs), that could serve as a target for a ctDNA liquid biopsy. Murine double minute 2 (MDM2) amplification in select lipomatous tumors or parosteal osteosarcoma is an example of a CNA due to the presence of extra copies of a segment of the long arm of chromosome 12. Since a majority of sarcomas demonstrate a complex karyotype with numerous CNAs, a blood-based liquid biopsy strategy that searches for these CNAs may be able to detect the presence of sarcoma ctDNA. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is a next-generation sequencing technique that evaluates the entire genome. The depth of coverage of WGS refers to how detailed the sequencing is, like higher versus lower power on a microscope. WGS can be performed with high-depth sequencing (that is, > 60×), which can detect individual point mutations, or low-depth sequencing (that is, 0.1× to 5×), referred to as low-passage whole-genome sequencing (LP-WGS), which may not detect individual mutations but can detect structural chromosomal changes including gains and losses (that is, CNAs). While similar strategies have shown favorable early results for specific sarcoma subtypes, LP-WGS has not been evaluated for applicability to the broader population of patients who have a sarcoma.
Does an LP-WGS liquid biopsy evaluating for CNAs detect ctDNA in plasma samples from patients who have sarcomas representing a variety of histologic subtypes?
This was a retrospective study conducted at a community-based, tertiary referral center. Nine paired (plasma and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded [FFPE] tissue) and four unpaired (plasma) specimens from patients who had a sarcoma were obtained from a commercial biospecimen bank. Three control specimens from individuals who did not have cancer were also obtained. The paired and unpaired specimens from patients who had a sarcoma represented a variety of sarcoma histologic subtypes. cfDNA was extracted, amplified, and quantified. Libraries were prepared, and LP-WGS was performed using a NextSeq 500 next-generation sequencing machine at a low depth of sequencing coverage (∼1×). The ichorCNA bioinformatics algorithm, which was designed to detect CNAs from low-depth genomic sequencing data, was used to analyze the data. In contrast with the gold standard for diagnosis in the form of histopathologic analysis of a tissue sample, this test does not discriminate between sarcoma subtypes but detects the presence of tumor-derived CNAs within the ctDNA in the blood that should not be present in a patient who does not have cancer. The liquid biopsy was positive for the detection of cancer if the ichorCNA algorithm detected the presence of ctDNA. The algorithm was also used to quantitatively estimate the percent ctDNA within the cfDNA. The concentration of ctDNA was then calculated from the percent ctDNA relative to the total concentration of cfDNA. The CNAs of the paired FFPE tissue and plasma samples were graphically visualized using aCNViewer software.
This LP-WGS liquid biopsy detected ctDNA in 9 of 13 of the plasma specimens from patients with a sarcoma. The other four samples from patients with a sarcoma and all serum specimens from patients without cancer had no detectable ctDNA. Of those 9 patients with positive liquid biopsy results, the percent ctDNA ranged from 6% to 11%, and calculated ctDNA quantities were 0.04 to 5.6 ng/mL, which are levels to be expected when ctDNA is detectable.
In this small pilot study, we were able to detect sarcoma ctDNA with an LP-WGS liquid biopsy searching for CNAs in the plasma of most patients who had a sarcoma representing a variety of histologic subtypes.
These results suggest that an LP-WGS liquid biopsy evaluating for CNAs to identify ctDNA may be more broadly applicable to the population of patients who have a sarcoma than previously reported in studies focusing on specific subtypes. Large prospective clinical trials that gather samples at multiple time points during the process of diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance will be needed to further assess whether this technique can be clinically useful. At our institution, we are in the process of developing a large prospective clinical trial for this purpose.
Anderson CJ
，Yang H
，Parsons J
，Ahrens WA
，Jagosky MH
，Hsu JH
，Patt JC
，Kneisl JS
，Steuerwald NM
... -
《-》
The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints.
To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test.
Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.
We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period.
Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics.
This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2).
When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.
Davenport C
，Arevalo-Rodriguez I
，Mateos-Haro M
，Berhane S
，Dinnes J
，Spijker R
，Buitrago-Garcia D
，Ciapponi A
，Takwoingi Y
，Deeks JJ
，Emperador D
，Leeflang MMG
，Van den Bruel A
，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
