Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLamarca, Angela
dc.contributor.authorFrizziero, Melissa
dc.contributor.authorBarriuso, Jorge
dc.contributor.authorKapacee, Zainul Abedin
dc.contributor.authorMansoor, Was
dc.contributor.authorMcNamara, Mairéad G
dc.contributor.authorHubner, Richard A
dc.contributor.authorValle, Juan W
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-09T13:35:21Z
dc.date.available2022-03-09T13:35:21Z
dc.date.issued2022en
dc.identifier.citationLamarca A, Frizziero M, Barriuso J, Kapacee Z, Mansoor W, McNamara MG, et al. Molecular Profiling of Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumours: The Role of ctDNA in Real-World Practice [Internet]. Vol. 14, Cancers. MDPI AG; 2022. p. 1017.en
dc.identifier.pmid35205766en
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/cancers14041017en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/625117
dc.description.abstractBackground: The role of tumour genomic profiling in the clinical management of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours (WdNETs) is unclear. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) may be a useful surrogate for tumour tissue when the latter is insufficient for analysis. Methods: Patients diagnosed with WdNETs underwent ctDNA genomic profiling (FoundationLiquid®); non-WdNETs (paraganglioma, goblet cell or poorly-differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma) were used for comparison. The aim was to determine the rate of: test failure (primary end-point), “pathological alterations” (PAs) (secondary end-point) and patients for whom ctDNA analysis impacted management (secondary end-point). Results: Forty-five patients were included. A total of 15 patients with WdNETs (18 ctDNA samples) were eligible: 8 females (53.3%), median age 63.2 years (range 23.5–86.8). Primary: small bowel (8; 53.3%), pancreas (5; 33.3%), gastric (1; 6.7%) and unknown primary (1; 6.7%); grade (G)1 (n = 5; 33.3%), G2 (9; 60.0%) and G3 (1; 6.7%); median Ki-67: 5% (range 1–30). A total of 30 patients with non-WdNETs (34 ctDNA samples) were included. Five WdNETs samples (27.78%) failed analysis (vs. 17.65% in non-WdNETs; p-value 0.395). Of the 13 WdNET samples with successful ctDNA analyses, PAs were detected in 6 (46.15%) (vs. 82.14% in non-WdNETs; p-value 0.018). In WdNETs, the PA rate was independent of concomitant administration anti-cancer systemic therapies (2/7; 28.57% vs. 4/6; 66.67%; p-value 0.286) at the time of the ctDNA analysis: four, one and one samples had one, two and three PAs, respectively. These were: CDKN2A mutation (mut) (one sample), CHEK2mut (one), TP53mut (one), FGFR2 amplification (one), IDH2mut (one), CTNNB1mut (one), NF1mut (one) and PALB2mut (one). None were targetable (0%) or impacted clinical management (0%). There was a lower maximum mutant allele frequency (mMAF) in WdNETs (mean 0.33) vs. non-WdNETs (mean 26.99), even though differences did not reach statistical significance (p-value 0.0584). Conclusions: Although feasible, mutation-based ctDNA analysis was of limited clinical utility for patients with advanced WdNETs. The rates of PAs and mMAFs were higher in non-WdNETs. While patients with WdNETs could still be offered genomic profiling (if available and reimbursed), it is important to manage patients’ expectations regarding the likelihood of the results impacting their treatment.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttps://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14041017en
dc.titleMolecular Profiling of Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumours: The Role of ctDNA in Real-World Practiceen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M20 4BX, UK. Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.en
dc.identifier.journalCancers (Basel)en
dc.description.noteen]
refterms.dateFOA2022-06-27T12:47:16Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
cancers-14-01017.pdf
Size:
1.654Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Identified with Open Access button

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record