Clinical implications of circulating tumor DNA in predicting the outcome of first line treatment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients

Miaomiao Li,Lan Mi,Chunyang Wang,Xiaojuan Wang,Jianhua Zhu,Fei Qi,Hui Yu,Yingying Ye,Dedao Wang,Jiaowu Cao,Dingyao Hu,Quanyu Yang,Dandan Zhao,Tonghui Ma,Yuqin Song,Jun Zhu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1478293/v1
2022-01-01
Abstract:Abstract Background: The clinical implication of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as a prognostic or predictive biomarker in DLBCL patients receiving standard immunochemotherapy is uncertain. Methods: Here, using targeted next-generation sequencing, we assessed the prognostic and predictive utility of ctDNA in 73 DLBCL patients before, during and after the first line therapy Results: Pretreatment ctDNA level was an independent prognostic factor for both progression-free survival (PFS, adjusted HR 2.42; 95% CI 1.27 - 4.6; p = 0.007) and overall survival (OS, adjusted HR 2.58; 95% CI 1.204 - 5.5; p = 0.015) by multivariate analysis. Besides, we found for the first time that the phase after two cycles of therapy was also an appropriate timing to predict survival and patients with higher ctDNA levels had an inferior PFS (6.5 months vs. unreached; HR 2.604; 95% CI 0.996 - 6.807; p = 0.043) and OS (6.5 months vs. unreached; HR 2.604; 95% CI 0.996 - 6.807; p = 0.043). Furthermore, the patients classified as molecular responders who presented larger decrease in ctDNA levels after the initial two treatment cycles had more favorable PFS (unreached vs. 6.25 months; HR 5.348; 95% CI 1.698 - 16.85; p = 0.0015) and OS (unreached vs. 25.87; HR 4.0; 95% CI 1.051 - 15.22; p = 0.028) compared with non-responders. Beyond that, interim ctDNA clearance may be an alternative noninvasive method of PET-CT for predicting better PFS (HR 3.65; 95% CI 1.452 - 9.178; p = 0.0033) and OS (HR 3.536; 95% CI 1.192 - 10.49; p = 0.016). In addition, ctDNA was a potential biomarker for tracking minimal residue disease (MRD) at radiographic CR status and ctDNA-MRD identified patients at high risk of recurrence (HR 6.471; 95% CI 1.177 - 35.58; p = 0.014) after treatment. Conclusions: ctDNA was a promising noninvasive tool for prognosis prediction, response assessment, and early relapse prediction of first line treatment in DLBCL patients.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?