Overall survival with circulating tumor DNA-guided therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
Authors: Justin Jee, Emily S. Lebow, Yonina R. Murciano-Goroff, Gowtham Jayakumaran, Ronglai Shen, Angela Rose Brannon, Ryma Benayed, Azadeh Namakydoust, Michael Offin, Paul K. Paik, Helena Alexandra Yu, Mark Donoghue, Ahmet Zehir, Alexander E. Drilon, David B. Solit, David Randolph Jones, Charles M. Rudin, Michael F. Berger, James M. Isbell, Bob T. Li
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2021)

9009 Background: The effectiveness of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) at matching patients to life prolonging therapy has been studied mostly in small cohorts with limited follow up. The prognostic value of ctDNA alterations, particularly those absent on tissue, is also unclear. To address these questions, we studied survival outcomes in a prospective cohort of patients (N = 1002) with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Adults with metastatic or recurrent NSCLC were eligible if they had no known driver mutation or a known driver with progression following targeted therapy. Patients were enrolled at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY) starting October 21, 2016; analysis here is from a snapshot November 1, 2020. All patients had ctDNA sequenced via the Resolution ctDx Lung platform. To reduce inclusion of incidental germline mutations, we excluded non-functionally significant mutations with an allele frequency 35-65% that were present in gnomAD. Patients could also receive, at their provider’s discretion, tissue sequencing with MSK-IMPACT, which filters germline and clonal hematopoietic (CH) mutations with matched white blood cell sequencing. We performed survival analyses using Cox proportional hazards models from time of diagnosis of advanced disease to death, left truncating at time of study entry. Results: Of 1002 patients, 348 (35%) were treated with targeted therapy; in 181 of these (52%) the targetable alteration was detected in ctDNA. Patients treated with targeted therapy had prolonged survival whether matched by tissue-based methods (HR 0.39, 95%CI 0.30-0.51) or ctDNA (HR 0.47, 95%CI 0.37-0.61). These benefits persisted across multiple subgroups. ctDNA alterations themselves were associated with worse survival (HR 2.2, 95%CI 1.8-2.8), in a manner that scaled with allele fraction and burden. Of 401 patients with time-matched tissue sampling, 62 (15%) had ctDNA alterations that were absent on IMPACT (“unique” ctDNA alterations). Three such patients had unique ctDNA EGFR T790M mutations leading to changes in therapy. However, unique ctDNA alterations were generally associated with worse survival than no ctDNA alterations (HR 2.5, 95%CI 1.7-3.7) and even tissue-matched ctDNA alterations (HR 1.7, 95%CI 1.1-2.4). Of 98 unique ctDNA mutations, 48 (49%) were detectable in tissue at subthreshold levels, 12 (12%) were filtered by IMPACT as CH or germline, and 38 mutations (39%) were absent even at subthreshold levels. ctDNA alteration burden correlated with radiographic disease extent. In multivariate models with radiographic disease extent and other clinical variables, ctDNA alterations were the strongest independent predictor of worse survival. Conclusions: Our results show that ctDNA may match patients to life-prolonging targeted therapy and have prognostic importance. ctDNA may provide data about a patient’s cancer missed by spatially restricted tissue sequencing. Clinical trial information: NCT01775072.