Urine tumor DNA detection of minimal residual disease in muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated with curative-intent radical cystectomy: A cohort study

Pradeep S Chauhan, Kevin Chen, Ramandeep K Babbra, Wenjia Feng, Nadja Pejovic, Armaan Nallicheri, Peter K Harris, Katherine Dienstbach, Andrew Atkocius, Lenon Maguire, Faridi Qaium, Jeffrey J Szymanski, Brian C Baumann, Li Ding, Dengfeng Cao, Melissa A Reimers, Eric H Kim, Zachary L Smith, Vivek K Arora, Aadel A Chaudhuri
2021-08-31
Abstract:Background The standard of care treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is radical cystectomy, which is typically preceded by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, the inability to assess minimal residual disease (MRD) noninvasively limits our ability to offer bladder-sparing treatment. Here, we sought to develop a liquid biopsy solution via urine tumor DNA (utDNA) analysis. Methods and findings We applied urine Cancer Personalized Profiling by Deep Sequencing (uCAPP-Seq), a targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) method for detecting utDNA, to urine cell-free DNA (cfDNA) samples acquired between April 2019 and November 2020 on the day of curative-intent radical cystectomy from 42 patients with localized bladder cancer. The average age of patients was 69 years (range: 50 to 86), of whom 76% (32/42) were male, 64% (27/42) were smokers, and 76% (32/42) had a confirmed diagnosis of MIBC. Among MIBC patients, 59% (19/32) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. utDNA variant calling was performed noninvasively without prior sequencing of tumor tissue. The overall utDNA level for each patient was represented by the non-silent mutation with the highest variant allele fraction after removing germline variants. Urine was similarly analyzed from 15 healthy adults. utDNA analysis revealed a median utDNA level of 0% in healthy adults and 2.4% in bladder cancer patients. When patients were classified as those who had residual disease detected in their surgical sample (n = 16) compared to those who achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR; n = 26), median utDNA levels were 4.3% vs. 0%, respectively …
What problem does this paper attempt to address?