The measurement of circulating nucleic acids has transformed the management of chronic viral infections such as HIV. The development of analogous markers for individuals with cancer could similarly enhance the management of their disease. DNA containing somatic mutations is highly tumor specific and thus, in theory, can provide optimum markers. However, the number of circulating mutant gene fragments is small compared to the number of normal circulating DNA fragments, making it difficult to detect and quantify them with the sensitivity required for meaningful clinical use. In this study, we applied a highly sensitive approach to quantify circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in 162 plasma samples from 18 subjects undergoing multimodality therapy for colorectal cancer. We found that ctDNA measurements could be used to reliably monitor tumor dynamics in subjects with cancer who were undergoing surgery or chemotherapy. We suggest that this personalized genetic approach could be generally applied to individuals with other types of cancer.

SUMMARY To provide a detailed analysis of the molecular components and underlying mechanisms associated with ovarian cancer, we performed a comprehensive mass spectrometry-based proteomic characterization of 174 ovarian tumors previously analyzed by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), of which 169 were high-grade serous carcinomas (HGSC). Integrating our proteomic measurements with the genomic data yielded a number of insights into disease such as how different copy number alternations influence the proteome, the proteins associated with chromosomal instability, the sets of signaling pathways that diverse genome rearrangements converge on, as well as the ones most associated with short overall survival. Specific protein acetylations associated with homologous recombination deficiency suggest a potential means for stratifying patients for therapy. In addition to providing a valuable resource, these findings provide a view of how the somatic genome drives the cancer proteome and associations between protein and post-translational modification levels and clinical outcomes in HGSC.

Early detection remains the most promising approach to improve long-term survival of patients with ovarian cancer. In a five-center casecontrol study, serum proteomic expressions were analyzed on 153 patients with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer, 42 with other ovarian cancers, 166 with benign pelvic masses, and 142 healthy women. Data from patients with early stage ovarian cancer and healthy women at two centers were analyzed independently and the results cross-validated to discover potential biomarkers. The results were validated using the samples from two of the remaining centers. After protein identification, biomarkers for which an immunoassay was available were tested on samples from the fifth center, which included 41 healthy women, 41 patients with ovarian cancer, and 20 each with breast, colon, and prostate cancers. Three biomarkers were identified as follows: (a) apolipoprotein A1 (down-regulated in cancer); (b) a truncated form of transthyretin (down-regulated); and (c) a cleavage fragment of inter-␣-trypsin inhibitor heavy chain H4 (up-regulated). In independent validation to detect early stage invasive epithelial ovarian cancer from healthy controls, the sensitivity of a multivariate model combining the three biomarkers and CA125 [74% (95% CI, 52-90%)] was higher than that of CA125 alone [65% (95% CI, 43-84%)] at a matched specificity of 97% (95% CI, 89 -100%). When compared at a fixed sensitivity of 83% (95% CI, 61-95%), the specificity of the model [94% (95% CI, 85-98%)] was significantly better than that of CA125 alone [52% (95% CI, 39 -65%)]. These biomarkers demonstrated the potential to improve the detection of early stage ovarian cancer.

Highlights d Comprehensive LUAD proteogenomics exposes multi-omic clusters and immune subtypes d Phosphoproteomics identifies candidate ALK-fusion diagnostic markers and targets d Candidate drug targets: PTPN11 (EGFR), SOS1 (KRAS), neutrophil degranulation (STK11) d Phospho and acetyl modifications denote tumor-specific markers and druggable proteins

Background: Updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the clinic have been developed. Methods: Published reports relevant to use of tumor markers for 5 cancer sites—testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian—were critically reviewed. Results: For testicular cancer, α-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase are recommended for diagnosis/case finding, staging, prognosis determination, recurrence detection, and therapy monitoring. α-Fetoprotein is also recommended for differential diagnosis of nonseminomatous and seminomatous germ cell tumors. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not recommended for prostate cancer screening, but may be used for detecting disease recurrence and monitoring therapy. Free PSA measurement data are useful for distinguishing malignant from benign prostatic disease when total PSA is <10 μg/L. In colorectal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen is recommended (with some caveats) for prognosis determination, postoperative surveillance, and therapy monitoring in advanced disease. Fecal occult blood testing may be used for screening asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. For breast cancer, estrogen and progesterone receptors are mandatory for predicting response to hormone therapy, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 measurement is mandatory for predicting response to trastuzumab, and urokinase plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 may be used for determining prognosis in lymph node–negative patients. CA15-3/BR27–29 or carcinoembryonic antigen may be used for therapy monitoring in advanced disease. CA125 is recommended (with transvaginal ultrasound) for early detection of ovarian cancer in women at high risk for this disease. CA125 is also recommended for differential diagnosis of suspicious pelvic masses in postmenopausal women, as well as for detection of recurrence, monitoring of therapy, and determination of prognosis in women with ovarian cancer. Conclusions: Implementation of these recommendations should encourage optimal use of tumor markers.