P2.01-101 Dynamic Monitoring of Gene Alterations with Ctdna by NGS for EGFR Mutated Lung Adenocarcinoma Treated with Gefitinib in BENEFIT Study (CTONG 1405)

J. Duan,S. Wang,Z. Wang,H. Bai,J. Zhao,H. Gao,Y. Cheng,J. Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2018.08.1156
IF: 20.121
2018-01-01
Journal of Thoracic Oncology
Abstract:Blood-based cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) could be dynamically monitored to provide gene alterations during EGFR-TKI treatment, which might offer critical clue for prognosis and clinical treatment decision. Here we reported the dynamic gene alterations monitoring using next generation sequencing (NGS) in BENEFIT study to explore the mechanisms of different responses and resistances to EGFR-TKI in EGFR-sensitizing-mutated lung-adenocarcinoma (LADC) patients. Patients with systemic treatment-naïve, stage IV LADC and EGFR-sensitizing-mutation in ctDNA were enrolled to receive gefitinib. Blood samples were dynamically obtained at baseline, every 8 weeks and at disease progression (PD). The dynamic analysis of quantity of ctDNA, multiple driver genes and tumor suppressors were investigated with NGS (Nextseq500 sequencer, consisting of critical exons/introns of 168 genes), and were correlated with efficacy and resistance. Totally 181 LADC patients with EGFR-sensitizing-mutation (exon-19-deletion and exon-21-L858R-point-mutation) provided sufficient blood samples for NGS analysis at baseline, of which 143 patients obtained at least four timepoints of dynamic blood sample collection until PD (baseline, 8 weeks, 8 weeks before PD and PD). At baseline, 180 of patients (99.4%) were confirmed as EGFR-sensitizing-mutation with NGS (92 EGFR-19-deletion and 88 EGFR-L858R-point-mutation) including 44 (24.3%) EGFR-amplification, 116 (64%) TP53-mutation, or other known oncogenic drivers including MET (N=5, 2.8%), ERBB2 (N=7,3.9%), KRAS (N=6, 3.3%), BRAF (N=2, 1.2%), RET (N=1, 0.6%), ROS1 (N=1, 0.6%), or EGFR-T790M (N=4, 2.2%), which was correlated with poor efficacy compared with those with only EGFR-sensitizing-mutation (PFS 4.7 months [m] vs. 13.2m , p=0.002). Additionally, tumor suppressor genes exhibiting cumulative effect to poor prognosis: PFS for 164 patients with TP53andRB1andPTEN-mutation≤1 was 11.1m, while for 16 patients with TP53andRB1andPTEN-mutation>1,PFS was 4.7 m, p<0.0001. To cut-off date, 117 patients had PD, among them, 63 (54%) patients acquired EGFR-T790M-mutation presented as dominant resistance mechanism besides MET-amplification/ERBB2-amplification/ERBB2-S310F (N=16, 14%), RET fusion/splice (N=2, 1.7%), ROS1-C2336F-mutation (N=1, 0.9%), RB1-nonsense-mutation (N=2, 1.7%), TP53-Y205S-mutation (N=1, 0.9%) and TP53-Y205S-mutation accompanied with FGFR1-amplification (N=1, 0.9%). The remaining resistance mechanisms (31%) were unknown. Patients with only T790M-mutation had a significantly longer PFS (11.5m) compared with patients obtaining other acquired resistant mechanisms (3.0m). Interestingly, seventy-five (53.2%) patients had molecular progression before radiographic progression, and the median time difference was 8.7 weeks. Dynamic alterations of multi-drivers and suppressors together with EGFR-sensitizing-mutation and T790M-mutation could separate LADC into different subgroups with distinguished molecular features, which may play a vital role during EGFR-TKI treatment for resistance-predicting, and initial/subsequent treatment decision-making.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?