Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Sep 1;30(9):1472-1478.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz200.

Circulating tumor DNA as a potential marker of adjuvant chemotherapy benefit following surgery for localized pancreatic cancer

Affiliations

Circulating tumor DNA as a potential marker of adjuvant chemotherapy benefit following surgery for localized pancreatic cancer

B Lee et al. Ann Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: In early-stage pancreatic cancer, there are currently no biomarkers to guide selection of therapeutic options. This prospective biomarker trial evaluated the feasibility and potential clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis to inform adjuvant therapy decision making.

Materials and methods: Patients considered by the multidisciplinary team to have resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma were enrolled. Pre- and post-operative samples for ctDNA analysis were collected. PCR-based-SafeSeqS assays were used to identify mutations at codon 12, 13 and 61 of KRAS in the primary pancreatic tumor and to detect ctDNA. Results of ctDNA analysis were correlated with CA19-9, recurrence-free and overall survival (OS). Patient management was per standard of care, blinded to ctDNA data.

Results: Of 112 patients consented pre-operatively, 81 (72%) underwent resection. KRAS mutations were identified in 91% (38/42) of available tumor samples. Of available plasma samples (N = 42), KRAS mutated ctDNA was detected in 62% (23/37) pre-operative and 37% (13/35) post-operative cases. At a median follow-up of 38.4 months, ctDNA detection in the pre-operative setting was associated with inferior recurrence-free survival (RFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 4.1; P = 0.002)] and OS (HR 4.1; P = 0.015). Detectable ctDNA following curative intent resection was associated with inferior RFS (HR 5.4; P < 0.0001) and OS (HR 4.0; P = 0.003). Recurrence occurred in 13/13 (100%) patients with detectable ctDNA post-operatively, including in seven that received gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy.

Conclusion: ctDNA studies in localized pancreatic cancer are challenging, with a substantial number of patients not able to undergo resection, not having sufficient tumor tissue for analysis or not completing per protocol sample collection. ctDNA analysis, pre- and/or post-surgery, is a promising prognostic marker. Studies of ctDNA guided therapy are justified, including of treatment intensification strategies for patients with detectable ctDNA post-operatively who appear at very high risk of recurrence despite gemcitabine-based adjuvant therapy.

Keywords: adjuvant therapy; biomarkers; circulating tumor DNA; liquid biopsy; pancreatic cancer; pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Consort diagram of patient enrolment, specimen collection and clinical management.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
(A) Kaplan–Meier estimates of recurrence-free survival (RFS) for all assessable patients undergoing curative intent surgery for early pancreatic cancer, stratified by pre-operative ctDNA status: detectable (positive) versus undetectable (negative). (B) Kaplan–Meier estimate for overall survival (OS) for matched patients, stratified by pre-operative ctDNA status. (C) Kaplan–Meier estimates for RFS, stratified by postoperative ctDNA status. (D) Kaplan–Meier estimates for OS, stratified by post-operative ctDNA status. (E, F) Kaplan–Meier estimates for RFS (E) and OS (F) for patients’ whose ctDNA status changes from detectable (positive) pre-operatively to undetectable (negative) post-operatively compared with patients whose ctDNA status remains undetectable (negative) both pre- and post-operatively.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books Canberra: AIHW.
    1. Conroy T, Hammel P, Hebbar M. et al. FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; 379(25): 2395–2406. - PubMed
    1. Neopotelomos JPP, Palmer DH, Ghaneh P. et al. Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017; 389(10073): 1011–1024. - PubMed
    1. Update-on-ABRAXANE-Combination-Therapy-in-the-Treatment-of-Metastatic-Triple-Negative-Breast-Cancer-and-Pancreatic-Cancer. 2019; https://ir.celgene.com/ (12 March 2019, date last accessed).
    1. Diehl F, Li M, Dressman D. et al. Detection and quantification of mutations in the plasma of patients with colorectal tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005; 102(45): 16368–16373. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms