Precision oncology is predicated on optimal molecular profiling that is “fit for purpose” to identify therapeutic vulnerabilities. Liquid biopsies may compensate for inadequate genotyping, but remain less sensitive and specific compared with tissue biopsies. The liquid biopsy toolbox is poised to expand through novel assays and insights from longitudinal profiling.

See related article by Sugimoto et al., p. 1506

In this issue of Clinical Cancer Research, Sugimoto and colleagues present one of the largest concordance studies under the auspices of LC-SCRUM, a National lung cancer profiling study in Japan, comparing tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis against circulating free DNA (cfDNA) profiling using Guardant360 (1). In paired analysis of 1,062 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tissue-plasma samples, targetable gene alterations were identified in 44.5% and 51.6% of plasma and tissue samples, respectively. When examining the eight oncogenic drivers including EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, HER2, MET exon14 skipping mutations and fusions of ALK, ROS1, RET, positive percent agreement (sensitivity) was 72% between tissue and liquid NGS, and negative percent agreement (specificity) 87% (Table 1). The positive percent agreement was expectedly higher for mutations (77%) than fusions (47%), with very low concordance observed for ROS1 fusions (18%), likely due to the heterogeneity of ROS1 fusion partners. It is important to evaluate and consider these observations in the context that tissue-based NGS was performed in a central laboratory, where DNA and RNA were extracted from largely fresh-frozen tissue (90%) and subjected to Oncomine Comprehensive Assay v1 and v3, in a setting with optimal preanalytical conditions for successful tissue-based molecular profiling.

Table 1.

List of studies comparing cfDNA- and tissue-based molecular profiling using NGS.

PublicationSamples analyzedPopulationcfDNA-based assayPrevalence of actionable alterations (cfDNA)Tissue-based assayPrevalence of actionable alterations (Tissue)SensitivitySpecificity
Sugimoto et al. Clin Cancer Res 2022 (11,062 Japan Guardant360 44.5% Oncomine Comprehensive Assay v1/v3 51.6% 72% 87% 
Cui et al. Eur J Cancer 2022 (3243 UK (Caucasian 90%, Asian 5%, Others 4%) Guardant360 38% NHS SoC tests (NGS, EGFR Cobas, ALK IHC, ROS1 IHC) 27% 75% 75% 
Schwartzberg et al. JTO Clin Res Rep 2022 (4131 US (White 73.3%, African 5.34%, Others 12.2%, Unknown 9.16%) FoundationOne Liquid/Liquid CDx 43% FoundationOne CDx 66% 69% 96% 
Palmero et al. JCO Precis Oncol 2021 (13) 186 Spain (Caucasian 97%, Others 3%) Guardant360 80.7% SoC tissue genotyping (NGS, FISH, IHC, PCR, RT-PCR) 57.1% 66.7% (EGFR) 40% (ALK100% (EGFR) 99.2% (ALK
Park et al. Cancer 2021 (6262 Korea Guardant360 46.6% Oncomine Focus Assay 62.6% 67.7% 88.8% 
Leighl et al. Clin Cancer Res 2019 (2282 US (White 81.9%, African 6.4%, Asian 6.0%, Others 3.2%, Unknown 2.5%) Guardant360 21.3% SoC tissue genotyping (NGS, PCR, FISH, IHC, Sanger) 27.3% 80% NR 
PublicationSamples analyzedPopulationcfDNA-based assayPrevalence of actionable alterations (cfDNA)Tissue-based assayPrevalence of actionable alterations (Tissue)SensitivitySpecificity
Sugimoto et al. Clin Cancer Res 2022 (11,062 Japan Guardant360 44.5% Oncomine Comprehensive Assay v1/v3 51.6% 72% 87% 
Cui et al. Eur J Cancer 2022 (3243 UK (Caucasian 90%, Asian 5%, Others 4%) Guardant360 38% NHS SoC tests (NGS, EGFR Cobas, ALK IHC, ROS1 IHC) 27% 75% 75% 
Schwartzberg et al. JTO Clin Res Rep 2022 (4131 US (White 73.3%, African 5.34%, Others 12.2%, Unknown 9.16%) FoundationOne Liquid/Liquid CDx 43% FoundationOne CDx 66% 69% 96% 
Palmero et al. JCO Precis Oncol 2021 (13) 186 Spain (Caucasian 97%, Others 3%) Guardant360 80.7% SoC tissue genotyping (NGS, FISH, IHC, PCR, RT-PCR) 57.1% 66.7% (EGFR) 40% (ALK100% (EGFR) 99.2% (ALK
Park et al. Cancer 2021 (6262 Korea Guardant360 46.6% Oncomine Focus Assay 62.6% 67.7% 88.8% 
Leighl et al. Clin Cancer Res 2019 (2282 US (White 81.9%, African 6.4%, Asian 6.0%, Others 3.2%, Unknown 2.5%) Guardant360 21.3% SoC tissue genotyping (NGS, PCR, FISH, IHC, Sanger) 27.3% 80% NR 

Abbreviation: NR, not reported.

Tissue-based NGS, while regarded as the preferred assay for molecular profiling, has its challenges. First, not all patients have lesions amenable to biopsy or may have medical contraindications for invasive procedures. Second, the longer turnaround time for tissue-based assays, particularly in the presence of organ-threatening disease, can lead to delay in commencing effective therapy. Several studies, including the current study by Sugimoto and colleagues, have demonstrated that compared with tissue biopsies, cfDNA was associated with significantly shorter turnaround time due to bypassing steps involved in scheduling interventional procedures as well as tissue fixation and processing (1–4).

Where tissue is obtained through a needle biopsy, specimen attrition and low tumor purities can compromise the accuracy of results. Indeed, as reported by Sugimoto and colleagues, 6% of patients had unavailable tissue or no mutations identified with the tissue NGS, yet the liquid biopsy was able to identify actionable alterations in these patients. Previous studies have highlighted the issue of inadequate tissue genotyping in the real-world setting. Leighl and colleagues demonstrated that with standard-of-care (SoC) tissue-based profiling, only 18.1% of patients with NSCLC completed genotyping for eight guideline-recommended biomarkers, of which only two-thirds were utilizing panel-based NGS (2). In contrast, 95% of patients had requisite biomarkers evaluated by cfDNA, with identification of a biomarker in 27.3% in plasma versus 21.3% with SoC testing, highlighting the value of liquid biopsies in compensating for inadequate genotyping. Moreover, prospective studies have confirmed the positive predictive value of blood-based ALK fusion detection using FoundationACT, where overall response rate was 87.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 78.5–93.5] and 12-month progression-free survival rate of 78.4% (95% CI, 69.1–87.7; ref. 5). This was comparable with previous trials using tissue-based ALK detection with IHC or FISH.

Liquid biopsies are gaining traction in molecular profiling due to specimen accessibility. However, multiple studies have highlighted the limitations of liquid biopsies. When comparing the same Guardant 360 liquid biopsy assay against a smaller Oncomine tissue panel, detection of National Comprehensive Cancer Network–recommended biomarkers in Korean patients with metastatic NSCLC was 46.6% in cfDNA versus 62.6% in tissue, with a sensitivity of 67.7% and specificity of 88.8% (summarized in Table 1; ref. 6). Similarly, liquid biopsies in this study only detected 18% (3/16) of ROS1 fusions and just under half the ALK fusions (46%, 21/45) when compared with RNA-based tissue NGS analysis. In a study utilizing a tissue and liquid NGS panel (FoundationOne/FoundationACT) in 131 paired samples, adding liquid to comprehensive tissue NGS did not result in incremental yield, with up to 23% of guideline-recommended biomarkers missed by liquid testing alone (4). Low cfDNA burden and variant allele frequencies observed in most plasma samples further complicates interpretation of the results. In addition, when the plasma sample is analyzed without a matching normal sample, some mutations may turn out to be false positives attributable to clonal hematopoiesis in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (7). Taken together, these studies to date underscore the importance and continuing role for tissue-based testing.

With rapid developments in the liquid biopsy space, we can also anticipate increased dimensionality in information gleaned from plasma NGS. This can include longitudinal tracking of disease, dynamic readouts of response or resistance, as well as depicting molecular portraits of resistance. The latter was illustrated in resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors recently, where cfDNA could reveal multiple parallel resistance mutations in downstream BRAF, KRAS, MEK pathways after adagrasib treatment (8). Finally, to make timely treatment recommendations in patients with lung cancer, it would be necessary to consider other actionable biomarkers, such as PDL1 expression, tumor mutational burden, and copy-number amplifications (e.g., MET).

Emerging computational and NGS-based technologies are also bringing new tools and capabilities to the liquid biopsy toolbox. Whole-genome sequencing at low sequencing depth, in combination with artificial intelligence–based error correction, may offer a highly sensitive approach for detection of minimal residual disease in plasma (9). Plasma-based methylation profiling is a versatile approach that could enable both sensitive detection and localization of cancer (10). In addition, the fragmentation patterns of cfDNA could provide a window into the epigenetic state of cancer cells (11), enabling joint cancer genotyping and epigenetic profiling across time (12). Some of the key considerations when selecting fit for purpose cfDNA assays are shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1.

Key considerations when selecting cfDNA assay.

Figure 1.

Key considerations when selecting cfDNA assay.

Close modal

In summary, Sugimoto and colleagues reinforce the complementary role of liquid biopsies in enabling precision oncology approaches, where access to some form of comprehensive liquid profiling would be preferred to suboptimal profiling. The challenge remains how to determine the minimal burden of proof required to demonstrate clinical utility as a dynamic predictive biomarker for changing therapies, for example, combinatorial approaches or treatment de-escalation. Subsequently, how best to implement these technologies will require close dialogue between key stakeholders, including academics, industry partners, patient advocacy groups, regulatory agencies and payers, to chart a path into routine clinical use.

D.S.W. Tan reports non-financial support from C2i Genomics and personal fees from Guardant during the conduct of the study, as well as grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, and Pfizer and personal fees from Novartis, Genentech, Bayer, DKSH, Merck, MSD, and BMS outside the submitted work. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.

A. Jacobsen Skanderup is supported by Ministry of Health-National Medical Research Council, Singapore OFIRG21nov-0083. D.S.W. Tan is supported by Ministry of Health-National Medical Research Council, Singapore NMRC/OFLCG/002/2018 and MOH-CSAINV-19nov-0005, and Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore 08/FY2021/EX(SL)/102-A156(a).

1.
Sugimoto
A
,
Matsumoto
S
,
Udagawa
H
,
Itotani
R
,
Usui
Y
,
Umemura
S
, et al
.
A large-scale prospective concordance study of plasma- and tissue-based next-generation targeted sequencing for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LC-SCRUM-Liquid)
.
Clin Cancer Res
2023
;
29
:
1506
14
.
2.
Leighl
NB
,
Page
RD
,
Raymond
VM
,
Daniel
DB
,
Divers
SG
,
Reckamp
KL
, et al
.
Clinical utility of comprehensive cell-free DNA analysis to identify genomic biomarkers in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2019
;
25
:
4691
700
.
3.
Cui
W
,
Milner-Watts
C
,
O'Sullivan
H
,
Lyons
H
,
Minchom
A
,
Bhosle
J
, et al
.
Up-front cell-free DNA next generation sequencing improves target identification in UK first line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients
.
Eur J Cancer
2022
;
171
:
44
54
.
4.
Schwartzberg
LS
,
Li
G
,
Tolba
K
,
Bourla
AB
,
Schulze
K
,
Gadgil
R
, et al
.
Complementary roles for tissue- and blood-based comprehensive genomic profiling for detection of actionable driver alterations in advanced NSCLC
.
JTO Clin Res Rep
2022
;
3
:
100386
.
5.
Dziadziuszko
R
,
Mok
T
,
Peters
S
,
Han
JY
,
Alatorre-Alexander
J
,
Leighl
N
, et al
.
Blood first assay screening trial (BFAST) in treatment-naive advanced or metastatic NSCLC: initial results of the phase 2 ALK-positive cohort
.
J Thorac Oncol
2021
;
16
:
2040
50
.
6.
Park
S
,
Olsen
S
,
Ku
BM
,
Lee
MS
,
Jung
HA
,
Sun
JM
, et al
.
High concordance of actionable genomic alterations identified between circulating tumor DNA-based and tissue-based next-generation sequencing testing in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: The Korean Lung Liquid Versus Invasive Biopsy Program
.
Cancer
2021
;
127
:
3019
28
.
7.
Ptashkin
RN
,
Mandelker
DL
,
Coombs
CC
,
Bolton
K
,
Yelskaya
Z
,
Hyman
DM
, et al
.
Prevalence of clonal hematopoiesis mutations in tumor-only clinical genomic profiling of solid tumors
.
JAMA Oncol
2018
;
4
:
1589
93
.
8.
Awad
MM
,
Liu
S
,
Rybkin
II
,
Arbour
KC
,
Dilly
J
,
Zhu
VW
, et al
.
Acquired resistance to KRASG12C inhibition in cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2021
;
384
:
2382
93
.
9.
Zviran
A
,
Schulman
RC
,
Shah
M
,
Hill
STK
,
Deochand
S
,
Khamnei
CC
, et al
.
Genome-wide cell-free DNA mutational integration enables ultra-sensitive cancer monitoring
.
Nat Med
2020
;
26
:
1114
24
.
10.
Liu
MC
,
Oxnard
GR
,
Klein
EA
,
Swanton
C
,
Seiden
MV
,
Consortium
C
.
Sensitive and specific multi-cancer detection and localization using methylation signatures in cell-free DNA
.
Ann Oncol
2020
;
31
:
745
59
.
11.
Lo
YMD
,
Han
DSC
,
Jiang
P
,
Chiu
RWK
.
Epigenetics, fragmentomics, and topology of cell-free DNA in liquid biopsies
.
Science
2021
;
372
:
eaaw3616
.
12.
Zhu
G
,
Guo
YA
,
Ho
D
,
Poon
P
,
Poh
ZW
,
Wong
PM
, et al
.
Tissue-specific cell-free DNA degradation quantifies circulating tumor DNA burden
.
Nat Commun
2021
;
12
:
2229
.
13.
Palmero
R
,
Taus
A
,
Viteri
S
,
Majem
M
,
Carcereny
E
,
Garde-Noguera
J
, et al
.
Biomarker discovery and outcomes for comprehensive cell-free circulating tumor DNA versus standard-of-care tissue testing in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer
.
JCO Precis Oncol
2021
;
5
:
93
102
.