This report describes the first demonstration of a PNA clamping-assisted fluorescence melting curve analysis for the detection of
EGFR and
KRAS mutations in the plasma cfDNA of NSCLC patients. Our data revealed a relatively high concordance (82.0 % for
EGFR and 85.9 % for
KRAS) and specificity (87.4 % for
EGFR and 89.4 % for
KRAS) compared with other reported techniques such as the amplification refractory mutation systems, denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography, and PNA-PCR [
23]. The
EGFR mutation status has clinical significance as a biomarker and can be used to determine the best treatment for advanced NSCLC; thus, most studies that have evaluated novel analysis techniques have focused on detecting EGFR mutations in blood samples from NSCLC patients. The best reported data for patients with NSCLC were obtained with an EGFR mutation test that uses digital PCR, which resulted in a 92 % sensitivity and 100 % specificity [
10]; however, the authors used only 35 samples from NSCLC patients to evaluate the accuracy of the technique. Recently, Douillard et al. reported a high global concordance (94.3 %), specificity (99.8 %) and sensitivity (67.5 %) of the Scorpion ARMS-based EGFR detection kit using 652 samples from patients with advanced NSCLC [
24], and the sensitivity was similar to our results (66.7 %). Because of its low sensitivity, the plasma EGFR mutation status appeared to be less predictive for EGFR-TKI therapy benefits than the tissue EGFR mutation status (Fig.
3a, b). The sensitivity of test can be dependent on the condition of samples. The low sensitivity in our study may be attributed from long period of sample storage and multiple freeze and thaw cycles. The lower concordance observed in our study resulted from the additional detection of rare
EGFR mutations in the plasma samples that were not detected using routine methods. We were able to validate 8 of 10 additional
EGFR mutations using the digital PCR assay. Two mutations identified in the plasma samples could not be validated because the sample was insufficient (total droplet number was too low for the digital PCR). Unfortunately, additional matched tissue samples were unavailable for testing. However, patients with additional
EGFR mutations, such as exon20ins and S768I, and multiple mutations (19DEL, L858R, and exon 20ins) showed primary resistance to EGFR-TKI therapy with a median PFS of 1.7 months (95 % CI, 0.6–2.8). These findings indicate that the additional rare EGFR mutations found in only the plasma samples may be true positive results. In our study, 8 de novo T790M mutations were found in the plasma samples only. However, the clinical impact of the de novo T790M mutation on EGFR-TKI therapy is complicated. Previously, we analyzed 124 EGFR-mutant NSCLC cases using mass spectrometry and identified 31 (25 %) patients with de novo T790M mutations. Although the patients with the de novo T790M mutations showed a shorter time to progression (TTP) following EGFR-TKI therapy than those without this mutation, significant differences were not observed in the response rate (RR). The median TTP and RR of the patients with the de novo T790M mutations were 6.3 months and 72 %, respectively. Furthermore, the de novo T790M mutations showed a dose-dependent effect on the efficacy of EGFR-TKI therapy [
25]. Thus, it is difficult to conclude whether the additional T790M mutations found in only the plasma are true positives. Considering the clinical relevance of T790M mutations with respect to disease progression after EGFR-TKI therapy, further confirmation of the accuracy of T790M mutation detection using our method is required.
To date, most of the blood samples used in KRAS mutation tests have been obtained from colorectal cancer (CRC) patients [
14‐
17]. Thierry et al. reported that a quantitative PCR-based method exhibited 92 % sensitivity and 98 % specificity for CRC [
26]. Very recently, Sacher et al. reported that plasma ddPCR exhibited high specificity of 100 % (62 of 62) but modest specificity of 64 % (16 of 25) for the detection of KRAS G12X in lung cancer patients [
7]. In our study, the concordance, specificity and sensitivity of the KRAS mutation test were 85.9, 89.4, and 50.0 %.
Mutation analyses of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) require highly sensitive techniques because of the small fraction of tumor-specific DNA relative to background levels of normal cfDNA. The sensitivity of conventional analytical methods, such as Sanger sequencing, is not sufficient to detect low-frequency variants. Recent advances in genomics technologies have provided new opportunities for analyzing ctDNA. Therefore, advanced technologies, such as PANAMutyper, BEAMing, castPCR, NGS and digital PCR, can be of clinical utility because they can identify multiple mutations with high sensitivity. These advanced technologies are extremely sensitive (0.01–5 % limit of detection) and suitable for analyzing circulating ctDNA in cancer patients; however, each technology has advantages and disadvantages. The advanced technologies that are currently deployed for analyzing circulating ctDNA in cancer patients are summarized in Table
3. The technologies using digital PCR, such as droplet-based systems and Beads, Emulsions, Amplification and Magnetics (BEAMing), provide quantitative analyses and single-molecule amplification. However, these methods are expensive, have longer assay times and can detect only a limited set of mutations [
6,
17,
26‐
29]. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have the potential to provide cost-effective alternatives for high-throughput analyses of multiple mutations over wider genomic regions. However, NGS is less sensitive and more complex than other technologies and requires an expensive system and longer assay times [
30]. PANAMutyper™ and castPCR are capable of effectively removing background wild-type DNA [
18,
22,
26]; therefore, these techniques can detect a single copy of mutant DNA. Moreover, these approaches can be completed within 3 h, and the analysis can be performed with only a real-time PCR instrument; thus, additional specialized or expensive equipment is not required. Although the castPCR system cannot simultaneously genotype multiple mutations [
22,
26], the PANAMutyper™ can simultaneously perform multiple mutation detections and genotype determinations, and these outstanding abilities are realized through the use of a PNA clamping-assisted fluorescence melting curve analysis [
18].
Table 3
Comparison of the advanced technologies deployed for circulating tumor DNA
Technology | PNA-based mutant enriched PCR and melting curve analysis | Digital PCR and flow cytometry | TaqMan-based mutant enriched PCR | Next generation sequencing | Droplet digital PCR |
Sample | 10 ng (plasma, 1–2 ml) | (plasma, 2 ml) | 10 ng | 10–250 ng | 10 ng |
Genotyping | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Multiplex | YES | YES | NO | YES | NO |
Running time/Workflow | <3 h/Sample | 10 days/complicated | <3 h/sample | 2 days/complicated | 2 days/complicated |
Machine | Real time PCR | Droplet digital PCR, Flow cytometry | Real time PCR | Library machine/PCR/NGS sequencer | Droplet digital PCR/Droplet generator |
Sensitivity | 0.1–0.01 % | 0.1–0.01 % | 0.1 % | 1–5 % | 0.1–0.01 % |
Advantages | Only a real-time PCR system is required; higher sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility; multiplexing; and short run time. | Quantitative analysis; multiplexing | Requires only a real-time PCR system; and short run time. | Multiplexing (target gene panel); Barcoding samples; Quantitative analysis; Detects de novo mutations. | Quantitative analysis |
Disadvantages | Cannot detect novel mutations | Cannot detect novel mutations; requires an expensive system; and a longer assay time. | Cannot detect novel mutations or perform multiplexing. | Requires an expensive system; and longer assay time. | Requires an expensive system; longer assay time; and cannot detect de novo mutations. |