Data from Clinical Utility of Comprehensive Cell-free DNA Analysis to Identify Genomic Biomarkers in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Non–small Cell Lung Cancer

Abstract

<div>AbstractPurpose:<p>Complete and timely tissue genotyping is challenging, leading to significant numbers of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) being undergenotyped for all eight genomic biomarkers recommended by professional guidelines. We aimed to demonstrate noninferiority of comprehensive cell-free DNA (cfDNA) relative to physician discretion standard-of-care (SOC) tissue genotyping to identify guideline-recommended biomarkers in patients with mNSCLC.</p>Patients and Methods:<p>Prospectively enrolled patients with previously untreated mNSCLC undergoing physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping submitted a pretreatment blood sample for comprehensive cfDNA analysis (Guardant360).</p>Results:<p>Among 282 patients, physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping identified a guideline-recommended biomarker in 60 patients versus 77 cfDNA identified patients (21.3% vs. 27.3%; <i>P</i> < 0.0001 for noninferiority). In tissue-positive patients, the biomarker was identified alone (12/60) or concordant with cfDNA (48/60), an 80% cfDNA clinical sensitivity for any guideline-recommended biomarker. For FDA-approved targets (<i>EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF</i>) concordance was >98.2% with 100% positive predictive value for cfDNA versus tissue (34/34 <i>EGFR-, ALK-,</i> or <i>BRAF</i>-positive patients). Utilizing cfDNA, in addition to tissue, increased detection by 48%, from 60 to 89 patients, including those with negative, not assessed, or insufficient tissue results. cfDNA median turnaround time was significantly faster than tissue (9 vs. 15 days; <i>P</i> < 0.0001). Guideline-complete genotyping was significantly more likely (268 vs. 51; <i>P</i> < 0.0001).</p>Conclusions:<p>In the largest cfDNA study in previously untreated mNSCLC, a validated comprehensive cfDNA test identifies guideline-recommended biomarkers at a rate at least as high as SOC tissue genotyping, with high tissue concordance, more rapidly and completely than tissue-based genotyping.</p><p><i>See related commentary by Meador and Oxnard, p. 4583</i></p></div>