T.S. Nasrytdinov ¹

1. «Kazakh Institute of Oncology and Radiology» JSC, Almaty, the Republic of Kazakhstan

DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.52532/2521-6414-2023-2-68-76-81

UDC: 616.34-006:076.5

Year: 2023 issure: 68 number: 2 pages: 76-81

Download PDF:

ABSTRACT

Relevance: Liquid biopsy is a modern, quite appropriate, and promising method for diagnosing malignant neoplasms for oncology. The method allows us to determine the level of freely circulating tumor cells – micrometastases, tumor DNA, microRNA, and exosomes in blood plasma- and detect various genetic changes. A literature review of current scientific publications on liquid biopsy techniques, indexed in Medline, PubMed, and Medscape, was carried out as part of the work.
The study aimed to review is to assess the prognostic significance of liquid biopsy, to determine the place of the method in current recommendations, and its expediency from the point of view of the practice.
Methods: The information search was conducted in the Medline, PubMed, and Medscape databases, with a search depth of 8 years. Data from randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were analyzed. The review includes both full-fledged articles in the public domain and abstracts to obtain complete information on the problem.
Results: Liquid biopsy surpasses tissue biopsy in simplicity and speed of research, easy repeatability, and minimal invasiveness, as well as the possibility of dynamic monitoring of progression – the overall clonal transformation of the tumor and the emergence of resistance to treatment.
The disadvantages of this method are low sensitivity, difficulty in correctly interpreting biomarkers and determining their specificity, and high risk of false positive and false negative results due to dormant tumor cells.
Conclusion: At present, the Liquid biopsy method is relevant and in demand, but it needs to be tested on a validated sample of the main population, and in order to achieve effective clinical use, important work needs to be done to standardize both preanalytical and analytical procedures and generalize them for all components of liquid biopsy.
Keywords: Liquid biopsy, colorectal cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, the validity of methods, tissue biopsy, the value of methods, micrometastases.

List of sources used:

1. Cimadamore A., Scarpelli M., Santoni M., Cheng L., Lopez-Beltran A., Montironi R. Droplet-based digital PCR and next generation sequencing for monitoring circulating tumor DNA: a cancer diagnostic perspective // Exp. Rev. Mol. Diagn. – 2018. – Vol. 1(18). – P. 7-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2018.1400384
2. Пасечникова Е.А., Бодня В.Н., Шаров C.В., Кадомцев Д.В., Георгиева А.Ю., Стукань А.И. Жидкостная биопсия: современное состояние проблемы // Инновационная медицина Кубани. – 2021. – №3(23). – С. 57-63 [Pasechnikova E.A., Bodnja V.N., Sharov C.V., Kadomcev D.V., Georgieva A.Ju., Stukan’ A.I. Zhidkostnaja biopsija: sovremennoe sostojanie problemy. Innovacionnaja medicina Kubani. – 2021. – №3(23). – S. 57-63 (in Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.35401/2500-0268-2021-23-3-57-63
3. Barranha R., Costa J.L., Carneiro F., Machado J.C. Genetic heterogeneity in colorectal cancer and its clinical implications // Acta Méd. Port. – 2015. – Vol. 3(28). – P. 370-375. https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.5398
4. Remon J., Majem M. EGFR mutation heterogeneity and mixed response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors of non-small cell lung cancer: a clue to overcoming resistance // Transl. Lung Cancer Res. – 2013. – Vol. 6(2). – P. 445. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2013.10.14
5. Allott E.H., Geradts J., Sun X., Cohen S.M., Zirpoli G.R., Khoury T., Troester M.A Intratumoral heterogeneity as a source of discordance in breast cancer biomarker classification // Breast Cancer Res. – 2016. – Vol. 1(18). – P. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0725-1
6. Van’t Erve I., Marjolein J.E., Greuter Karen Bolhuis. Diagnostic strategies toward clinical implementation of liquid biopsy RAS/BRAF circulating tumor DNA analyses in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer // J. Mol. Diagn. – 2020. – Vol. 12(22). – P. 1430-1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2020.09.002
7. Pastor B., André T., Henriques J., Trouilloud I., Tournigand C., Jary M., Adenis A. Monitoring levels of circulating cell-free DNA in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as a potential biomarker of responses to regorafenib treatment // Mol. Oncol. – 2021. – Vol. 9(15). – P. 2401-2411. https://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.12972
8. Procaccio L., Bergamo F., Daniel F., Rasola C., Munar G., Biason P., Fassan M. A real-world application of liquid biopsy in metastatic colorectal cancer: The Poseidon study // Cancers. – 2021. – Vol. 20(13). – P. 5128. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13205128
9. Fabbri F., Carloni S., Zoli W., Ulivi P., Gallerani G., Fici P., Chiadini E., Passardi A., Frassineti G.L., Ragazzini A. Detection and recovery of circulating colon cancer cells using a dielectrophoresis-based device: KRAS mutation status in pure CTCs // Cancer Lett. – 2013. – Vol. 335. – P. 225-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2013.02.015
10. Vidal J., Muinelo L., Dalmases A., Jones F., Edelstein D., Iglesias M., Orrillo M., Abalo A., Rodríguez C., Brozos E. Plasma ctDNA RAS mutation analysis for the diagnosis and treatment monitoring of metastatic colorectal cancer patients // Ann. Oncol. – 2017. – Vol. 28. – P. 1325–1332. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx125
11. García-Foncillas J., Tabernero J., Élez E., Aranda E., Benavides M., Camps C., Jantus-Lewintre E., López R., Muinelo-Romay L., Montagut C. Prospective multicenter real-world RAS mutation comparison between OncoBEAM-based liquid biopsy and tissue analysis in metastatic colorectal cancer // Br. J. Cancer. – 2018. – Vol. 119. – P. 1464-1470. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0293-5
12. Thierry A., Pastor B., Jiang Z.Q., Katsiampoura A.D., Parseghian C., Loree J., Overman M.J., Sanchez C., El Messaoudi S., Ychou M. Circulating DNA Demonstrates Convergent Evolution and Common Resistance Mechanisms during Treatment of Colorectal Cancer // Clin. Cancer Res. – 2017. – Vol. 23. – P. 4578-4591. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0232
13. De Macedo M.P., De Melo F.M., Ribeiro J.D.S.S., De Mello C.A.L., Begnami M.D.F.D.S., Soares F.A., Carraro D.M., Cunha I.W. RAS mutations vary between lesions in synchronous primary Colorectal Cancer: Testing only one lesion is not sufficient to guide anti-EGFR treatment decisions // Oncoscience. – 2015. – Vol. 2. – P. 125. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncoscience.118
14. Lee K.H., Kim J.S., Lee C.S., Kim J.Y. KRAS discordance between primary and recurrent tumors after radical resection of colorectal cancers // J. Surg. Oncol. – 2015. – Vol. 8(111). – P. 1059-1064. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23936
15. Siravegna G., Marsoni S., Siena S., Bardelli A. Integrating liquid biopsies into the management of cancer // Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. – 2017. – Vol. (9)14. – P. 531-548. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.14
16. Grolz D., Hauch S., Schlumpberger M., Guenther K., Voss T., Sprenger-Haussels M., Oelmüller U. Liquid Biopsy Preservation Solutions for Standardized Pre-Analytical Workflows – Venous Whole Blood and Plasma // Curr. Pathobiol. Rep. – 2018. – Vol. 6. – P. 275-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40139-018-0180-z
17. Misale S., Di Nicolantonio F., Sartore-Bianchi A., Siena S., Bardelli A. Resistance to Anti-EGFR Therapy in Colorectal Cancer: From Heterogeneity to Convergent Evolution // Cancer Discov. – 2014. – Vol. 4. – P. 1269-1280. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-14-0462