Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session

181P - Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing for recurrence and treatment response monitoring in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)

Date

27 Jun 2024

Session

Poster Display session

Presenters

Maen Abdelrahim

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2024) 35 (suppl_1): S75-S93. 10.1016/annonc/annonc1478

Authors

M. Abdelrahim1, A. Esmail2, M. Ouf3, J. W. Franses4, I. Bhan5, K. Sudha6, C. Brdiges7, T. Tin8, C. Brewer7, V. Aushev9, C.C. Palsuledesai7, A. Jurdi7, M.C. Liu7, R.M. Ghobrial6, A.R. He10

Author affiliations

  • 1 Houston Methodist Cancer Center, Houston/US
  • 2 Houston Methodist Neal Cancer Center, Houston/US
  • 3 Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States, Washington, DC/US
  • 4 The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States, Chicago, IL/US
  • 5 Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston/US
  • 6 Houston Methodist, Houston/US
  • 7 Natera, Inc., San Carlos/US
  • 8 Natera, San Carlos/US
  • 9 Natera, Inc., Austin/US
  • 10 Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington/US

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 181P

Background

HCC accounts for ∼90% of primary hepatic cancers. Despite standard of care resection or liver transplantation (LT), relapse rates are still 40-70% and 8-20%, respectively. Here we evaluated the utility of serial ctDNA testing to predict the risk of relapse/progression in patients (pts) with HCC.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 672 plasma samples from 120 pts with HCC. The curative-intent treatments were LT (67/120, 56%), hepatectomy (48/120, 40%), or liver directed/systemic therapy (5/120, 4%) for inoperable pts. Pts were divided into 4 sub-cohorts: Cohort A (N=64): recurrence monitoring after LT; Cohort B (N=47): recurrence monitoring after hepatectomy; Cohort C (N=4): monitoring treatment response in pts with known recurrence; Cohort D (N=5): monitoring treatment response in pts with inoperable disease. A personalized, tumor-informed 16-plex PCR-NGS assay (SignateraTM, Natera, Inc.) was used for ctDNA testing. The MRD window was defined as up to 12 weeks post LT or resection, before starting adjuvant therapy.

Results

The median pts age was 65 (19-83) years; median follow-up was 21.2 (2.5- 60.4) months. The stage distribution included 37 (30.8%)/ 50 (41.6%)/ 19 (15.8%)/ 12 (10.0%)/ 2 (1.6%) with I/II/III/IV/NA respectively. Cohort A: all 36 pts with testing available in the MRD window were ctDNA negative; 97.2% (35/36) remained negative. One pt turned ctDNA positive upon serial testing and had disease-related death 340 days after ctDNA positivity. Longitudinally, among 61 pts with imaging available within 6 months of a ctDNA test, 99.5% (223/224) sample level specificity was observed. In cohort B, ctDNA was detected in 22.5% (7/31) pts within the MRD window, 4 experienced clinical recurrence and 3 had short follow-up. Among 42 of pts with imaging available within 6 months of a ctDNA test, ctDNA positivity was prognostic for recurrence (RFS; HR 12, 95% CI 3.7-38, p<0.0001). Cohorts C and D: on-treatment ctDNA dynamics were concordant with treatment response as measured by imaging.

Conclusions

Serial ctDNA testing is a valuable tool to identify recurrence early post resection and LT. ctDNA is also useful for treatment response monitoring in the recurrence setting and can help resolve ambiguous imaging results.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

C. Brdiges, T. Tin, C. Brewer, V. Aushev, C.C. Palsuledesai, A. Jurdi: Financial Interests, Institutional, Other, Employment and stock/stock option: Natera. M.C. Liu: Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Other, Dr. Minetta C. Liu Liu also reports grants (funding to Mayo Clinic) from Eisai, Exact Sciences, Genentech, Genomic Health, GRAIL, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Merck, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro; travel support from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, and Ionis; and Ad hoc advisory board meetings (all funds to Mayo Clinic): AstraZeneca, Celgene, Roche/Genentech, Genomic Health, GRAIL, Ionis, Merck, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Syndax: Natera. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.