Combining cell-free RNA (cfRNA) with cell-free total nucleic acid (cfTNA) as a new paradigm for liquid biopsy

• Published in: Journal of clinical oncology Vol. 40; no. 16_suppl; p. 3048
• Main Authors: Albitar, Maher, Zhang, Hong, Charifa, Ahmad, Ip, Andrew, De Dios, Ivan, Ma, Wanlong, McCloskey, James K., Donato, Michele, Siegel, David Samuel DiCapua, Waintraub, Stanley E., Gutierrez, Martin, Pecora, Andrew L, Goy, Andre
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01.06.2022
• ISSN: 0732-183X; 1527-7755
• DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.3048

3048 Background: Expressed RNA can capture mutations, gene fusions, and biomarker profiles. In principle, each abnormal cell has one copy of mutated gene, but numerous copies of mutated RNA. Cell-free RNA (cfRNA) is not used due to the assumption that it is degraded. Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) by design is particularly adaptable for fragmented DNA and RNA. We developed an approach to isolate cell-free total nucleic acid (cfTNA) and cell-free RNA (cfRNA) from peripheral blood. Using targeted sequencing, we explored the potential of this approach to detect mutations, fusion mRNA, and copy number variation (CNV) in solid tumors and hematologic neoplasms. Methods: Peripheral blood cfTNA and cfRNA were extracted from B-cell lymphoid neoplasms (#105), T-cell neoplasms (#16), Myeloid neoplasms (#73), solid tumors (#44), and Normal individuals (#51), and sequenced using a targeted panel of 1459 genes. Results: Numbers of mutations detected in solid tumors and hematologic neoplasms were significantly (P > 0.0001) higher in cfRNA (No. = 1229) than in cfTNA (No. = 1004). Overall variant allele frequency (VAF) was significantly higher in cfRNA than in cfTNA (P < 0.0001). However, numerous mutations detected by RNA were not detected by cfTNA and vice versa. In general, nonsense mutations were more likely to be detected by cfTNA than by cfRNA and at higher VAF. Low-level mutations (VAF < 10%) were more likely to be detected by cfRNA than by cfTNA. For example, 136 mutations in TP53 gene were detected using cfRNA and only 70 mutations were detected in cfTNA. KRAS mutations were also higher in cfRNA (#33) as compared with cfTNA (#21). In contrast, when most of the mutations were nonsense, as in ASXL1 gene, more mutations were detected by cfTNA (24 vs 23). When mutations were detected in both cfRNA and cfTNA, mutation load (level of mutant copies) was overall slightly higher in cfTNA (P = 0.06), likely due to higher degradation of RNA, but varied significantly dependent on the type of mutated gene and type of mutation. cfRNA was reliable in detecting fusion transcripts in solid tumors and in hematologic neoplasms (SLC34A2-ROS1, DDX5-BCL6, ETV6-RUNX1, RUNX1T1-RUNX1, PML-RARA, RUNX1-ZFPM2, DEK-NUP214, EP300-ZNF384) irrespective of the breakpoint or partner gene. The cfTNA detected various CNVs expected by cytogenetic analysis when tumor fraction was adequate (VAF > 10%). Conclusions: This data demonstrates that using cfRNA and cfTNA provides complementary comprehensive information for evaluating mutations, fusion genes, and CNV. This approach increased sensitivity and reliability of liquid biopsy. Furthermore, the cfRNA provides critical information on relative expression of various genes that can be used as biomarkers in characterizing the neoplastic process (see ASCO abstract, Liquid Biopsy Based on Cell-Free RNA and Biomarkers profiling of hematologic and solid tumors).