Noninvasive Prediction of Response to Cancer Therapy Using Promoter Profiling of Circulating Cell‐free DNA

Zhi-Wei Guo,Wei-Wei Xiao,Xue-Xi Yang,Xu Yang,Geng-Xi Cai,Xiao-Jing Wang,Bo-Wei Han,Kun Li,Xiang-Ming Zhai,Fen-Xia Li,Li-Min Huang,Ying-Song Wu,Yuan-Hong Gao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ctm2.174

IF: 8.554

2020-01-01

Clinical and Translational Medicine

Abstract:Dear Editor, Neoadjuvant radiotherapy and concomitant fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision is the conventional treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).1 However, there are individual differences in the sensitivity of cancer patients to cancer therapies.2 The effectiveness prediction before treatment would assist clinical decisions, effectively avoid indiscriminately using drugs, reduce side effects, and improve the curative effect and quality of life.3 Therefore, it is important to develop a novel noninvasive methodology to predict the effectiveness of cancer therapy before cancer treatment, which would enable timely interventions and provide a more individualized approach for better treatment outcomes. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is mainly derived from tumor andhematopoietic cells in cancer patients and it can reflect the characteristics of its tissue of origin.4,5 For instance, the promoter coverage of cfDNA could be used to infer the expression status of tumor tissue.5 As tumor expression status is closely related to patient’s responses to cancer therapy,6 we hypothesized that the promoter profiling of cfDNA could be used for pathologic complete response (pCR) prediction after neoadjuvant CRT. In this study, we first compared the local chromatin changes of cfDNA between the pCR and non-pCR groups of LARC patients. We further evaluated the potentials of promoter profiling of cfDNA for predicting the effectiveness of cancer therapy by developing classifiers for distinguishing pCR and nonpCR patients (Figure 1A). By comparing the local cfDNA signal between 10 pCR and 10 non-pCR patients, we observed a related loss of cfDNA signals in the mean coverage of transcriptional start site (TSS) in LARC patients with non-pCR (Figure 1B, P-value = 3.4 × 10−21, Wilcoxon rank-sum test). But the cfDNA signals around transcriptional terminal site (TTS) did not show significant difference (Figure 1C, Pvalue = 1, Wilcoxon rank-sum test). Therefore, we further compared their promoter profiling for each TSS, we iden-