Response evaluation for cancer treatment consists primarily of clinical and radiological assessments. In addition, a limited number of serum biomarkers that assess treatment response are available for a small subset of malignancies. Through recent technological innovations, new methods for measuring tumor burden and treatment response are becoming available. By utilization of highly sensitive techniques, tumor-specific mutations in circulating DNA can be detected and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can be quantified. These so-called liquid biopsies provide both molecular information about the genomic composition of the tumor and opportunities to evaluate tumor response during therapy. Quantification of tumor-specific mutations in plasma correlates well with tumor burden. Moreover, with liquid biopsies, it is also possible to detect mutations causing secondary resistance during treatment. This review focuses on the clinical utility of ctDNA as a response and follow-up marker in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer. Relevant studies were retrieved from a literature search using PubMed database. An overview of the available literature is provided and the relevance of ctDNA as a response marker in anti-cancer therapy for clinical practice is discussed. We conclude that the use of plasma-derived ctDNA is a promising tool for treatment decision-making based on predictive testing, detection of resistance mechanisms, and monitoring tumor response. Necessary steps for translation to daily practice and future perspectives are discussed.

BackgroundGastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are characterized by oncogenic KIT mutations that cluster in two exon 11 hotspots. The aim of this study was to develop a single, sensitive, quantitative digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) assay for the detection of common exon 11 mutations in both GIST tumor tissue and in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) isolated from GIST patients’ plasma.MethodsA ddPCR assay was designed using two probes that cover both hotspots. Available archival FFPE tumor tissue from 27 consecutive patients with known KIT exon 11 mutations and 9 randomly selected patients without exon 11 mutations were tested. Plasma samples were prospectively collected in a multicenter bio-databank from December 2014. ctDNA was analyzed of 22 patients with an exon 11 mutation and a baseline plasma sample.ResultsThe ddPCR assay detected the exon 11 mutation in 21 of 22 tumors with exon 11 mutations covered by the assay. Mutations in ctDNA were detected at baseline in 13 of 14 metastasized patients, but in only 1 of 8 patients with localized disease. In serial plasma samples from 11 patients with metastasized GIST, a decrease in mutant droplets was detected during treatment. According to RECIST 1.1, 10 patients had radiological treatment response and one patient stable disease.ConclusionA single ddPCR assay for the detection of multiple exon 11 mutations in ctDNA is a feasible, promising tool for monitoring treatment response in patients with metastasized GIST and should be further evaluated in a larger cohort.

Circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) may contain DNA originating from the tumor in plasma of cancer patients (ctDNA) and enables noninvasive cancer diagnosis, treatment predictive testing, and response monitoring. A recent multicenter evaluation of workflows by the CANCER-ID consortium using artificial spiked-in plasma showed significant differences and consequently the importance of carefully selecting ccfDNA extraction methods. Here, the quantity and integrity of extracted ccfDNA from the plasma of cancer patients were assessed. Twenty-one cancer patient-derived cell-free plasma samples were selected to compare the Qiagen CNA, Maxwell RSC ccfDNA plasma, and Zymo manual quick ccfDNA kit. High-volume citrate plasma samples collected by diagnostic leukapheresis from six cancer patients were used to compare the Qiagen CNA (2 mL) and QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA kit (8 mL). This study revealed similar integrity and similar levels of amplified short-sized fragments and tumor-specific mutants comparing the CNA and RSC kits. However, the CNA kit consistently showed the highest yield of ccfDNA and short-sized fragments, while the RSC and ME kits showed higher variant allelic frequencies (VAFs). Our study pinpoints the importance of standardizing preanalytical conditions as well as consensus on defining the input of ccfDNA to accurately detect ctDNA and be able to compare results in a clinical routine practice, within and between clinical studies.