American Association for Cancer Research, Clinical Cancer Research, 12(29), p. 2310-2323, 2023
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-22-2242
Full text: Unavailable
Abstract Purpose: Patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have an exceptionally poor prognosis, calling for improved real-time noninvasive biomarkers of therapeutic response. Experimental Design: We performed targeted error-correction sequencing on 171 serial plasmas and matched white blood cell (WBC) DNA from 33 patients with metastatic SCLC who received treatment with chemotherapy (n = 16) or immunotherapy-containing (n = 17) regimens. Tumor-derived sequence alterations and plasma aneuploidy were evaluated serially and combined to assess changes in total cell-free tumor load (cfTL). Longitudinal dynamic changes in cfTL were monitored to determine circulating cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) molecular response during therapy. Results: Combined tiered analyses of tumor-derived sequence alterations and plasma aneuploidy allowed for the assessment of ctDNA molecular response in all patients. Patients classified as molecular responders (n = 9) displayed sustained elimination of cfTL to undetectable levels. For 14 patients, we observed initial molecular responses, followed by ctDNA recrudescence. A subset of patients (n = 10) displayed a clear pattern of molecular progression, with persistence of cfTL across all time points. Molecular responses captured the therapeutic effect and long-term clinical outcomes in a more accurate and rapid manner compared with radiographic imaging. Patients with sustained molecular responses had longer overall (log-rank P = 0.0006) and progression-free (log-rank P < 0.0001) survival, with molecular responses detected on average 4 weeks earlier than imaging. Conclusions: ctDNA analyses provide a precise approach for the assessment of early on-therapy molecular responses and have important implications for the management of patients with SCLC, including the development of improved strategies for real-time tumor burden monitoring. See related commentary by Pellini and Chaudhuri, p. 2176