Serial circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) monitoring in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) reveals dynamic profile of actionable alterations.
Authors: Jonathan M. Loree, Jason Henry, Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav, Christine Megerdichian Parseghian, Kimberly Banks, Victoria M. Raymond, Rebecca Nagy, Chuck Hensel, John H. Strickler, Ryan Bruce Corcoran, Michael J. Overman, AmirAli Talasaz, Scott Kopetz
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2021)

3572 Background: Serial ctDNA can measure dynamic changes in disease burden over time, however utility of serial profiling to detect changes in actionable alterations remains unclear. Methods: We evaluated 501 patients with ≥3 serial Guardant360 assays performed between 09/2016 and 11/2020 and compared MSI, fusion, amplification and single nucleotide variant (SNV) detection over time. This comprised 2147 assays with a median of 4 assays per patient (min 3, max 18) occurring an average of 163 days apart (+/- SD of 147 days). Maximum detected variant allele frequency in samples (maxVAF) was assessed for relation to changes in detected alterations as a surrogate for tumor volume. Results: Among 406 patients with assays assessable for MSI-status, 17 (4.2%) had MSI detected. New MSI detection on a subsequent assay always occurred with a rising maxVAF (3/3) that was also ≥0.7%, while loss of detectable MSI between assays always associated with falling maxVAFs (7/7) with 6/7 occurring when maxVAF fell below 0.4%. Fusions were noted in 9/501 (2%) patients. Among 3 patients who lost a detectable fusion, maxVAF decreased in 1 patient and changed ≤0.2% between assays in 2, while 2/3 patients with new fusions had rising maxVAFs and 1 patient had a falling maxVAF. Amplifications were detected in 242/501 patients (48%). While most genes had highly variable amplification detection between assays (9% serially detected), ERBB2 amplifications were more consistent and serially detected in 39% of detected cases (P &lt; 0.0001). New detection of amplifications occurred more commonly in cases with rising maxVAF (OR 11.70, 95% CI 7.61-18.00, P &lt; 0.0001) and loss of detectable amplifications occurred more between samples with falling maxVAF (OR 12.37, 95% CI 8.35-18.66, P &lt; 0.0001). Change in maxVAF correlated with change in number of detected amplifications (r = 0.62, P &lt; 0.0001), but only partially explained changes seen (R 2 = 0.39). Between serial assays, SNVs changed a median of 0 variants (IQR -1 to 1), however some patients had significant changes (max gain 21/max loss 18). Among 1646 serial time points, 454 (28%) had no change in SNVs, 674 (41%) gained SNVs, and 518 (31%) lost SNVs on subsequent assays. Gains were more common in samples with rising maxVAF (OR 7.76, 95% CI 6.18-9.73, P &lt; 0.0001) while losses were more common when maxVAF fell (OR 6.90, 95% CI 5.47-8.66, P &lt; 0.0001). The correlation between maxVAF change and SNV change was significant (r = 0.29, P &lt; 0.0001), but minimally explained SNV changes (R 2 = 0.086) and was a much weaker association than noted for amplification changes. Conclusions: We noted significant differences in detection of actionable alterations across serial ctDNA assays. Increased ctDNA volume (higher maxVAF) due to tumor progression may explain some variation over time, but variability also occurs outside these changes, likely reflecting clonal evolution following therapy.