Image_3_Dynamic cfDNA Analysis by NGS in EGFR T790M-Positive Advanced NSCLC Patients Failed to the First-Generation EGFR-TKIs.jpeg
Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) level has been demonstrated to be associated with efficacy in first generation EGFR TKIs in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the role of dynamic cfDNA analysis using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in patients with subsequent third-generation EGFR TKIs remains unclear.
MethodsFrom 2016 to 2019, 81 NSCLC patients with EGFR T790M mutation either in tissue or plasma who received third-generation EGFR TKIs treatment were enrolled. CfDNA were sequenced by NGS with a 425-gene panel. The association of clinical characteristics, pretreatment, dynamic cfDNA and T790M level with outcomes in patients treated with the third-generation TKIs were analyzed.
ResultsIn univariate analysis, the median PFS of patients with undetectable cfDNA level during treatment was significantly longer than those with detectable cfDNA (16.97 vs. 6.10 months; HR 0.2109; P < 0.0001). The median PFS of patients with undetectable T790M level during treatment was significantly longer than those with detectable T790M (14.1 vs. 4.4 months; HR 0.2192; P < 0.001). Cox hazard proportion model showed that cfDNA clearance was an independent predictor for longer PFS (HR 0.3085; P < 0.001) and longer OS (HR 0.499; P = 0.034). The most common resistant mutations of the third-generation TKIs were EGFR C797S (24%). CDK6 CNV, GRIN2A, BRCA2, EGFR D761N, EGFR Q791H, EGFR V843I, and ERBB4 mutation genes may possibly be new resistant mechanisms.
ConclusionsPatients with undetectable cfDNA during the third-generation EGFR TKI treatment have superior clinical outcomes, and dynamic cfDNA analysis by NGS is valuable to explore potential resistant mechanisms.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s12325-019-00917-6
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jtho.2020.01.010
- https://doi.org//10.1093/annonc/mdz227
- https://doi.org//10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2692
- https://doi.org//10.1002/cncr.32481
- https://doi.org//10.18632/oncotarget.6874
- https://doi.org//10.1097/JTO.0000000000000443
- https://doi.org//10.1002/cncr.32482
- https://doi.org//10.3390/cancers12051125
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.03.017
- https://doi.org//10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206668
- https://doi.org//10.1093/jjco/hyz023
- https://doi.org//10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1022
- https://doi.org//10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316522
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.06.009
- https://doi.org//10.7150/thno.34070
- https://doi.org//10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170
- https://doi.org//10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nbt.2203
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004873
- https://doi.org//10.1093/jnci/djy156
- https://doi.org//10.1093/annonc/mdw531
- https://doi.org//10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2594
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.12.016
- https://doi.org//10.21037/tlcr.2020.03.17
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.11.008
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.03.020
- https://doi.org//10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1260
- https://doi.org//10.21037/tlcr.2020.03.02
- https://doi.org//10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.9027
- https://doi.org//10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.9018
- https://doi.org//10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.9020
- https://doi.org//10.1002/cncr.32503
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s40169-020-0269-y
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nature22364
- https://doi.org//10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0825
- https://doi.org//10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf6219
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41416-019-0573-8
- https://doi.org//10.1093/annonc/mdy424.063
- https://doi.org//10.1093/annonc/mdy424.064
- https://doi.org//10.3390/molecules21091236
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.phrs.2019.104297
- https://doi.org//10.1038/ng.3990
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cllc.2019.04.012
- https://doi.org//10.1038/onc.2015.185
- https://doi.org//10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3563
- https://doi.org//10.3390/cancers13010006
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30785-5
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jtho.2019.12.121
CC BY 4.0