EJE
Circulating cell-free DNA-based biomarkers for prognostication and disease monitoring in adrenocortical carcinoma
Juliane Lippert, 1,2 Gabrielle Smith,3 Silke Appenzeller,4 Laura-Sophie Landwehr,10 Alessandro Prete, 3,5,6[D Sonja Steinhauer,1 Miriam Asia,7 Hanna Urlaub,1 Yasir S. Elhassan, 3,7[D Stefan Kircher,& Wiebke Arlt, 3,9(D Martin Fassnacht,10 Barbara Altieri, 1D and Cristina L. Ronchi3,5,* (D
1Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Medicine, University Hospital, University of Wuerzburg, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany
2Institute of Human Genetics, University of Wuerzburg, 97070 Wuerzburg, Germany
3Institute of Metabolism and System Research, University of Birmingham, B152TT Birmingham, United Kingdom
4Core Unit Bioinformatics, Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken, University of Wuerzburg, 97070 Wuerzburg, Germany
5Centre for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism (CEDAM), Birmingham Health Partners, B152TT Birmingham, United Kingdom 6NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, B152GW Birmingham, United Kingdom
7Endocrine Department, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust, B152GW Birmingham, United Kingdom
8Department of Pathology, University of Wuerzburg, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany
9MRC Laboratory of Medical Sciences, W120TN London, United Kingdom
*Corresponding author: Institute of Metabolism and System Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, West Midlands, UK. Email: C.L.Ronchi@bham.ac.uk
Abstract
Objective: Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare aggressive cancer with heterogeneous behaviour. Disease surveillance relies on frequent imaging, which comes with significant radiation exposure. The aim of the study was to investigate the role of circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA)-related biomarkers (BMs) for prognostication and monitoring of ACC.
Design and Methods: We investigated 34 patients with ACC and 23 healthy subjects (HSs) as controls. Circulating cell-free DNA was extracted by commercial kits and ccfDNA concentrations were quantified by fluorimeter (BM1). Targeted sequencing was performed using a customized panel of 27 ACC-specific genes. Leucocyte DNA was used to discriminate somatic variants (BM2), while tumour DNA was sequenced in 22/34 cases for comparison. Serial ccfDNA samples were collected during follow-up in 19 ACC patients (median period 9 months) and analysed in relationship with standard radiological imaging.
Results: Circulating cell-free DNA concentrations were higher in ACC than HS (mean ± SD, 1.15 ± 1.56 vs 0.05 ± 0.05 ng/uL, P <. 0001), 96% of them being above the cut-off of 0.146 ng/uL (mean HS + 2 SD, positive BM1). At ccfDNA sequencing, 47% of ACC showed at least 1 somatic mutation (positive BM2). A combined ccfDNA-BM score was strongly associated with both progression-free and overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.63; 95% CI, 1.13-6.13; P= . 010, and HR = 5.98; 95% CI, 2.29-15.6; P =. 0001, respectively). During disease monitoring, positive BM2 showed the best specificity (100%) and sensitivity (67%) to detect ACC recurrence or progress compared with BM1.
Conclusion: ccfDNA-related BMs are frequently detected in ACC patients and represent a promising, minimally invasive tool to predict clinical outcome and complement surveillance imaging. Our findings will be validated in a larger cohort of ACCs with long-term follow-up.
Keywords: ccfDNA, adrenal cancer, personalized medicine, liquid biopsy
Significance
Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare and generally highly aggressive cancer. Despite recent developments, there are still critical unmet clinical needs for patients with ACC. In fact, no markers are available that can predict clinical outcomes at the time of the diagnosis. Moreover, follow-up requires frequent imaging that results in increased radiation exposure and cannot always answer diagnostic questions. In this study, we have developed a method for the evaluation of specific alterations in small fragments of genetic information (= DNA) released from tumour cells into the blood. By correlating these alterations with clinical data and standard radiological imaging, we have demonstrated that this approach can identify markers that could help to better predict the clinical course of ACC patients and recognize disease relapses and/or progression.
Introduction
Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignancy with a generally poor but heterogeneous prognosis.1 Five-year survival rates range from 13% to 80% depending on the European Network for the Study of Adrenocortical Tumors (ENSAT) tumour staging, resection status, and Ki67 index.1,2 However, currently available clinical and histopathological factors cannot always reliably distinguish patients with favourable from those with worse prognosis.3 Moreover, disease recurrences after resection of the primary tumour are frequent even in lower-risk ENSAT stages, and effective pharmacological therapies for advanced stages are lacking. Therefore, close disease monitoring is essential to allow timely management but relies on frequent radiological imaging,2 which causes relevant not only radiation exposure for patients but also significant costs for the health systems.
Liquid biopsy, ie, the analysis of tumour material obtained in a minimally invasive manner by sampling of blood or other body fluids, is being increasingly proposed in oncology for mo- lecular profiling, detection of residual disease, and monitoring of disease evolution.4,5 Decades ago, it was demonstrated that plasma from cancer patients contains higher concentrations of circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) than those from healthy individuals6 assuming that at least a part of ccfDNA originates from cancer cells.7-9 As a consequence, even if the origin of ccfDNA cannot be definitively determined, elevated levels of short DNA fragments may be a good marker for the detection of tumour DNA (T-DNA) in blood10,11 and used to monitor tumour evolution and response to therapy.12,13 Furthermore, tumour-associated genetic alterations, such as single nucleotide variants (SNVs), can be detected in ccfDNA.14,15 Sequencing of ccfDNA presents important advantages compared with se- quencing of tumour-derived DNA. Firstly, it holds the poten- tial of detecting all the alterations contained in the tumour, while single tissue samples provide only a limited character- ization of the molecular signature.16-19 This is particularly relevant for heterogeneous cancer types, such as ACC. Secondly, serial blood samples are compatible with dynamic and minimally invasive cancer surveillance.17 Circulating cell-free DNA analysis has been also proposed as a potential prognostic tool. The presence of genetic variants in tumour- specific genes at the ccfDNA level has been associated with worse clinical outcomes and suggested as a predictive marker of response to therapy in multiple cancer types.20-22 More re- cently, elevated total ccfDNA concentrations have also been reported as a simple and cheap marker of shorter survival in patients with different cancers.23, 24 Finally, sequencing of ccfDNA can be used to identify key treatment targets, both at the time of diagnosis and in case of tumour progression or recurrence. 22
Only 2 previous studies performed ccfDNA analysis in pa- tients with ACC.25, 26 However, these included small case co- horts (only 17 patients in these 2 studies combined) and used heterogeneous techniques for both ccfDNA isolation and se- quencing, and their findings cannot be considered conclusive. Moreover, there is only 1 case report providing serial targeted ccfDNA analysis for tumour monitoring to date.27
The aim of the present pilot study was to investigate ccfDNA-based biomarkers (BMs) in a larger, well-characterized cohort of patients with ACC and their potential role both as prognostic factors (AIM 1) and as tools for the detection of tu- mour recurrence or progression (AIM 2).
Material and methods
Patient cohort and study design
In the present study, we investigated consecutive patients older than 18 years examined in 2 tertiary referral centres between 2019 and 2021 (Figure 1). Inclusion criteria were (1) patients with adrenal masses suspicious for ACC according to cur- rent guidelines,2,3 (2) fully available clinical, biochemical, and radiological data at the time of diagnosis, and (3) final diagnosis of ACC based on current guidelines.2,3 These in- cluded histopathological confirmation of ACC for patients that underwent adrenal surgery or biopsies, or large, radio- logically suspicious adrenal masses associated with severe bio- chemical and/or clinical steroid excess. Patients who were diagnosed with benign or malignant adrenocortical lesions other than ACC after workup were excluded from the study. Other exclusion criteria included a diagnosis of other active concomitant cancers and severe alterations in liver or kidney functions. After consideration of inclusion and exclusion cri- teria, the final cohort comprised a total of 34 patients with pri- mary ACC that served for the evaluation of ccfDNA-BMs for prognostic classification of ACC (AIM 1).
Peripheral blood samples were collected before surgery (baseline) in all participants with ACC. Blood samples were also collected from 23, as far as known, healthy subjects (HSs) recruited among university staff that served as controls for the baseline ccfDNA concentration analysis.
For a subgroup of patients with ACC, blood samples were additionally collected during standard follow-up visits after primary surgery (see details below and Figure 1) for the evaluation of the role of ccfDNA-based BMs as a monitor- ing tool (AIM 2).
The study is compliant with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by both local ethics committees (#88/11 at the University Hospital of Wuerzburg; HBRC 11/606 and PrimeAct study REC 20/NW/0207 at the University of Birmingham). Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.
Clinical, histopathological, and radiological data
Patient’s age at diagnosis, symptoms at presentation (related to autonomous steroid secretion or mass effect), and initial ENSAT tumour stage were collected for all patients. Ki67 index and resection (R) status were recorded only for the 22 patients who underwent adrenalectomy (Figure 1) and used to calculate the S-GRAS score as previously published.28 In 4 additional cases, the Ki67 index was available from adrenal biopsies. A to- tal of 15 patients received adjuvant treatment with mitotane after primary surgery according to current guidelines.2
Periodical surveillance imaging, ie, by thorax-abdomen- pelvis computed tomography scan with contrast, was performed every 3 months as per current guidelines.2 The occurrence of dis- ease recurrence or progression as well as the total tumour bur- den was evaluated at baseline and periodical radiology scans as the sum of all measurable target lesions (in accordance with RECIST v1.1) by expert radiologists. The number and localiza- tion of eventual manifestations of disease recurrence were also recorded.
Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from primary tumour resection or diagnosis to death. Progression-free sur- vival (PFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis to the first radiological evidence of disease progression. Disease status and survival information were updated up to June 2023.
Patients with primary ACC - entire cohort (n=34)
AIM 1: Prognostic classification
Patients undergoing surgery (n=22) with available tumour material for comparison
Patients not undergoing surgery (n=12)
Patients amenable for complete resection (n=19)
Patient undergoing debulking surgery (n=3)
No follow-up samples (n=2)
Long-term follow-up (n=10)
Short-term follow-up (n=7)
Short-term follow-up (n=2)
No follow-up samples (n=1)
AIM 2: Monitoring (n=19)
Patients with disease recurrence (n=4/10, 40%)
Patients with disease recurrence (n=2/7, 29%)
Patients with disease progress (n=2/2, 100%)
ACC, adrenocortical carcinoma; BM1, ccfDNA-based biomarker 1 (ccfDNA concentrations); BM2, ccfDNA-based biomarker 2 (somatic variants detected at ccfDNA level); long-term follow-up, at least 9 months after surgery; short-term follow-up, at least 3 months after surgery.
Sample processing and ccfDNA isolation
We have established a systematic and homogeneous pipeline for sample collection and processing in both our centres aim- ing to obtain reliable findings using clinically applicable tech- niques. In brief, 10-20 mL of blood were collected in EDTA tubes and kept on ice until centrifuged (within 2-3 h of blood collection) for 10 min at room temperature and 800 rpm. After centrifugation, plasma was transferred to clean centrifu- gation tubes without disturbing the buffy coat and centrifuged for another 10 min at 4 ℃ and 13.000 rpm. Plasma was trans- ferred to a fresh centrifugation tube without disturbing the pellet and stored at -80 ℃ until analysis. Circulating cell-free DNA was isolated from 2-6 mL of plasma with the QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) or the Cell3™M Xtract kit (Nonacus, Birmingham, UK) according to manufacturers’ instructions. We chose these commercially avail- able kits according to their characteristics of suitability in clinic- al routine (including costings, time requirements and complexity of protocols, the necessity for additional equipment, and the amount of usable plasma). To confirm similarities between the 2 chosen kits, we compared the ccfDNA concentrations ob- tained in a representative subgroup of samples by isolating the same volume of plasma (1 mL) from the same samples. Hereby, we could demonstrate that the ccfDNA concentrations were superimposable between the Nonacus and the Qiagen kit (n=6, 0.434 ± 0.203 vs 0.364 ±0.182 ng/pL, P =. 24).
Circulating cell-free DNA was then eluted in 40 uL of dH20 and stored at -20 ℃ until further processing.
ccfDNA analysis
ccfDNA concentration (BM1)
Circulating cell-free DNA concentrations were determined with a QuantusTM Fluorometer (Promega, Fitchburg, United States) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Different volumes
of plasma taken for ccfDNA isolation were considered for the designation of the final ccfDNA concentration in a sam- ple. A quality control (QC) for the desired fragment length of the ccfDNA (150-200 bp) was performed on a Bioanalyzer with Agilent High Sensitivity DNA Kit or with the TapeStation High Sensitivity 1000D system (both Agilent, Santa Clara, United States). All ccfDNA samples included in the analysis showed good quality in means of fragment length and no contamination with high molecular weight material. Representative examples of QC by TapeStation in both ACC and HS samples are shown in Figure S1. According to the QC analysis, we also calculated the calibrated ccfDNA concen- trations (based on the percentage of concentrations at 100-250 bps) in a subgroup of 18 samples (including 14 patients with ACC and 4 HS). Here, we could observe a very good correl- ation between total and calibrated concentrations (F=73.3, R = 0.906, P <. 0001; Figure S2A and B). We therefore decided to use the total ccfDNA concentrations for all samples (ie, baseline and follow-ups).
ccfDNA sequencing for identification of somatic mutations (BM2)
All 34 baseline ccfDNA samples were sequenced. Longitudinal samples collected during follow-up were sequenced for 19 cases of patients who underwent adrenalectomy. In brief, ccfDNA samples were enriched with a customized gene panel, ie, Cell3TM Target Custom NGS Panel (Nonacus), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The Cell3™M Target is a target enrichment system for converting any type of DNA into librar- ies for next-generation sequencing. It uses error suppression technology to ensure confident calling of all mutations down to 0.1% variant allele frequency (VAF) and is ideal for rare variant detection in liquid biopsies (www.nonacus.com). The custom panel included 27 genes known to be associated with ACC29-31 (Table S1). These included 8 genes that are currently
classified as drug targetable at different levels in the OncoKb database (www.oncokb.org), ie, TP53, KDM6A, EGFR, FGFR3, ATM, BRCA2, NF1, and PTCH1. The protocol in- cluded an end-repair and A-tailing step before adapter ligation at the beginning. After a pre-capture, PCR samples were pooled and target regions were hybridized and therefore enriched with biotin-labelled probes. Unique molecular identifiers were used to reduce the background noise created by PCR and sequencing errors and enable mutation calling of VAF down to 0.1%, espe- cially important when deploying the ultra-deep sequencing ne- cessary for the analysis of cfDNA. After another amplification step via post-capture PCR and quality check, libraries were ready for sequencing. Paired-end sequencing was performed on a NextSeq500 with NextSeq 500/550 Mid Output Kit v2.5 (150 Cycles) or on a NextSeq2000 with NextSeq 1000/ 2000 P2 Reagents (200 Cycles) v3 for estimated 13 Million reads per sample (Illumina, San Diego CA, United States).
To reliably classify ccfDNA variants as somatic or germ- line, reference germline DNA was isolated from matched peripheral blood samples using the NucleoSpin Blood L Kit (Macherey-Nagel, Bethlehem, PA, United States) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Library preparation of germline DNA was also conducted with the Cell3™M Target Custom NGS Panel (Nonacus) following the same protocol as for ccfDNA enrichment except of an initial fragmentation step. For those 12 patients where no tumour material was available for sequencing, we analysed genomic DNA from blood for the variants found in ccfDNA via Sanger sequencing.
Tumour tissue DNA isolation and sequencing
Matched formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumour tissues were available for sequencing in the 22 patients who underwent adrenalectomy. Tumour localization was anno- tated by an expert pathologist, and tumour cell content was assessed in a representative FFPE slide by haematoxylin- eosin staining before DNA isolation. Tumour cell content reached a high fraction (median 90%, range 60-95). DNA was isolated from tumour material using the GeneRead DNA FFPE Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and as previously described.29 Library preparation of tumour was also conducted with the Cell3TM Target Custom NGS Panel (Nonacus) following the same protocol as for ccfDNA enrichment except for an initial fragmentation step.
Sequencing data analysis
Bcl2fastq de-multiplexing was performed as described in the Nonacus user manual (Cell3 TM Target: Data Analysis Guidelines, Protocol Guide v1.0). Consensus BAM file prepar- ation was also conducted according to the manufacturer’s in- structions using NonacusTools v1.0. Additionally, QC of the sequencing reads was carried out with FastQC v0.11.3 (http:/www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/), and read statistics were calculated using in-house scripts. Variant calling was performed with GensearchNGS (Phenosystems SA, Braine le Chateau, Belgium) for sequencing data from DNA isolated from tumour and blood, as well as ccfDNA. Called variants in tumour samples were compared with variants detected in germline DNA and further filtered for variants with minor allele frequency < 0.02, VAF> 0.2 for T-DNA and >0.01 for ccfDNA, coverage >100, variant balance > 0.2, and variant type worse than synonymous.
Detected variants were classified with the use of prediction tools32, 33 and databases, such as COSMIC,34 Clin Var,35 and cBioPortal.36 For the final analysis, only variants classified as uncertain, likely pathogenic and pathogenic, were considered. In cases where variants detected in ccfDNA were not detected in the corresponding T-DNA or vice versa, we manually searched for potential variants within the genomic positions (ie, beyond the given threshold of VAF or coverage).
ccfDNA-based BM definition
BM1 (quantitative analysis) was defined as positive when the total ccfDNA concentrations were above the cut-off derived from HS, ie, 0.146 ng/uL (mean HS + 2 SD). BM1 was defined as very high when the total ccfDNA concentrations were above the arbitrary cut-off of 1 ng/uL.
BM2 (genomic qualitative analysis) was defined as positive when at least 1 somatic variant was detected at targeted NGS at the ccfDNA levels.
Circulating cell-free DNA-based BM score was calculated as fol- lows: baseline BM1 (negative = 0, positive = 1, very high = 2) + baseline BM2 (no variants = 0, one variant = 1, more than one variant = 2) for a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 4 points.
Statistical analysis
Data are shown as mean ± SD or median and range, as appro- priate. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher or X- tests were used to compare baseline continuous and dichot- omic data, respectively. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare multiple variables, followed by the Bonferroni post hoc test. Correlations between 2 continuous variables were investigated by linear regression. Comparison between total and calibrated ccfDNA concentrations was additionally performed by the Bland-Altman test. Kaplan- Meier plots were used to investigate the proportional hazards assumption and to display the unadjusted survival curves for survival outcomes. Hazard ratio (HR), 95% CI, and P-values calculated by log-rank test (Mantel-Cox) were reported for each survival outcome (OS and PFS). Moreover, multivariable Cox survival models were fitted for OS and PFS, including var- iables significant at univariable analysis and available for all pa- tients. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 9, IBM Deutschland GmbH, Ehningen, Germany) or GraphPad Prism (version 25, GraphPad Software, Boston, United States). P-value <. 05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Characteristics of the study cohort
We included a total of 34 patients with primary ACC in place (11M/23F, median age 55.5 years, range 23-83) and followed up in one of the two participating centres (Wuerzburg, Germany, or Birmingham, United Kingdom). The control group included 23 HS (9 M/14 F, median age 35 years, range 23-62). An overview of the demographic, clinical, and histopathological characteris- tics at the time of diagnosis and the results of the ccfDNA ana- lysis are shown in Table 1.
A complete flowchart showing the final ACC cohort and available follow-ups is shown in Figure 1. In brief, a total of 22 patients underwent adrenalectomy (three of whom with de- bulking purposes) and had available tumour tissue material. The remaining 12 patients did not undergo surgery due to the presence of metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis or
| Patient-ID | Sex/ age | Symptoms | ENSAT tumour stage | Metastasis at diagnosis | ccfDNA levels (ng/uL of plasma) | ccfDNA sequencing - Gene name | Surgery | R status | Ki67 index | S-GRAS score | Available Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACC-P1 | F/55 | Yes | 4 | Liver, lung, LN | 0.195 | CTNNB1(NM_001098209.1) | No | NA | NA | NA | No |
| ACC-P2 | M/83 | Yes | 3 | None | 0.301 | No variants identified | Yes | 0 | 9 | 3 | Long |
| ACC-P3 | M/43 | Yes | 3 | None | Yes | MEN1 (NM_130799.2) ZNRF3 (NM_001206998.1) | Yes | 0 | 30 | 4 | Long |
| ACC-P4 | M/71 | No | 3 | None | 0.173 | No variants identified | Yes | 0 | 40 | 4 | Short |
| ACC-P5 | F/23 | Yes | 4 | Lung | 1.935 | No variants identified | Yes | 2 | 40 | 8 | Short |
| ACC-P6 | M/36 | Yes | 2 | None | 0.151 | No variants identified | Yes | 0 | 3 | 1 | Long |
| ACC-P7 | F/68 | Yes | 4 | Liver | 2.325 | No variants identified | Yes | 2 | 30 | 9 | No |
| ACC-P8 | F/74 | No | 3 | None | 1.120 | MEN1 (NM_130799.2) | Yes | 1 | 40 | 6 | Short |
| ZNRF3 (NM_001206998.1) | |||||||||||
| ACC-P9 | M/37 | Yes | 4 | Liver, lung | 0.735 | TP53 (NM_000546.5) | No | NA | NA | NA | No |
| ACC-P10 | F/54 | Yes | 4 | Lung | 2.700 | ZNRF3 (NM_001206998.1) | No | NA | NA | NA | No |
| ACC-P11 | M/64 | Yes | 4 | Liver | 4.350 | CTNNB1 (NM_001098209.1) | No | NA | NA | NA | No |
| DAXX (NM_001141970.1 RB1 (NM_000321.2) TP53 (NM_000546.5) | |||||||||||
| ACC-P12 | F/73 | Yes | 4 | Liver | 6.000 | KMT2D (NM_003482.3) | No | NA | NA | NA | No |
| ACC-P13 | M/57 | Yes | 4 | Liver | 0.401 | KMT2D (NM_003482.3) | No | NA | NA | NA | No |
| ACC-P14 | F/36 | Yes | 3 | None | 0.193 | No variants identified | Yes | 1 | 30 | 6 | Short |
| ACC-P15 | F/57 | Yes | 3 | None | 0.890 | No variants identified | Yes | 1 | 10 | 6 | Long |
| ACC-P16 | M/50 | No | 2 | None | 0.062 | NF1 (NM_000267.3)b | Yes | 0 | 17 | 1 | Short |
| ACC-P17 | F/65 | Yes | 3 | None | 0.385 | GNAS (NM_000516.5) | Yes | 1 | 25 | 7 | Short |
| ACC-P18 | F/60 | Yes | 4 | Lung, LN | 5.500 | CTNNB1 (NM_001098209.1) ATM (NM_000051.3)b | No | NA | NA | NA | No |
| ACC-P21 | F/56 | No | 2 | None | 0.251 | No variants identified | Yes | 0 | 30 | 3 | Long |
| ACC-P22 | F/50 | No | 3 | None | 0.247 | No variants identified | Yes | 0 | 18 | 3 | Long |
| ACC-P23 | F/27 | Yes | 3 | None | 0.189 | No variants identified | Yes | 0 | 40 | 4 | No |
| ACC-P24 | M/31 | Yes | 2 | None | 0.163 | No variants identified | Yes | 0 | 12 | 2 | Long |
| ACC-P25 | F/56 | No | 3 | None | 0.454 | No variants identified | Yes | 0 | 5 | 2 | Long |
| ACC-P26 | F/39 | No | 2 | None | 0.185 | CTNNB1 (NM_001098209.1) | Yes | 0 | 40 | 2 | Short |
| ACC-P27 | M/64 | No | 1 | None | 0.114 | No variants identified | Yes | 0 | 23 | 3 | No |
| ACC-P28 | F/35 | Yes | 4 | Lung | 1.473 | TERT (NM_198253.2) (NM_002734.4) | Yes | 2 | 80 | 8 | Short |
| ACC-P29 | F/56 | Yes | 3 | None | 0.302 | No variants identified | Yes | 0 | 12 | 4 | Short |
| ACC-P30 | F/53 | Yes | 2 | None | 0.368 | APC (NM_000038.5) | Yes | 0 | 30 | 4 | Long |
| ACC-P31 | F/51 | Yes | 2 | None | 1.380 | ATM (NM_000051.3)b | Yes | 0 | 22 | 4 | Long |
| ACC-P32 | F/26 | Yes | 4 | Lung | 0.414 | No variants identified | No | NA | 19ª | NA | No |
| ACC-P33 | M/48 | Yes | 4 | Liver, lung | 0.846 | No variants identified | No | NA | NA | NA | No |
| ACC-P34 | F/62 | Yes | 4 | Liver | 0.781 | No variants identified | No | NA | 20ª | NA | No |
| ACC-P35 | F/58 | Yes | 4 | Liver | 5.758 | No variants identified | No | NA | 75ª | NA | No |
| ACC-P36 | F/59 | Yes | 4 | Liver, lung | 2.800 | MEN1 (NM_130799.2) | No | NA | 20ª | NA | No |
| and LN |
R status = resection status of primary tumour, S-GRAS score calculated as previously published (Elhassan YS et al., Eur J Endocrinol 2021, DOI: 10.1530/EJE-21-0510). Long follow-up: at least 9 months. Short
follow-up: at least 3 months.
Abbreviations: ACC, adrenocortical carcinoma; ccfDNA, circulating cell-free DNA; ENSAT, European Network for the Study of Adrenocortical Tumors; F, female; LN, lymph node; M, male; NA, not applicable. aki67 index available from adrenal tumour biopsy.
“Known drug targetable genes according to OncoKb database.
non-operable primary tumours. Nineteen patients who under- went surgery were also tested during post-surgical follow-up for monitoring purposes: 9 of them for at least 3 months (short term) and 10 for at least 9 months (long term).
Relationship between ccfDNA concentrations (BM1) and clinical parameters
Patients with ACC had higher total ccfDNA concentrations than HS (1.15±1.56 vs 0.050±0.048 ng/pL, P <. 0001; Figure 2A). Overall, 96% of ACC were positive for BM1, while 32% of ACC cases showed very high ccfDNA concentrations, ie, >1 ng/uL (Figure 2B). Higher ccfDNA levels were associ- ated with larger tumour burden and more aggressive disease. In fact, patients with advanced stage ACC-ie, non-amenable for complete surgical resection-presented a higher frequency of very high ccfDNA concentrations (11% vs 60%, respective- ly, P <. 001; Figure S3). Moreover, patients with ENSAT stage 4 had higher ccfDNA concentrations (2.41 ±2.06 ng/uL) compared with patients with stage 3 (0.41 ±0.31 ng/uL, P =. 0117) or 1-2 (0.33 ± 0.43 ng/uL, P =. 0004) (Figure 2C). Finally, ccfDNA levels correlated positively with both the Ki67 index (n=22, P =. 0034, R =0.57; Figure 2D) and the number of distant metastases (n=30, P =. 021, R =0.42). There was no significant correlation between the ccfDNA con- centrations and age or presence of symptoms at diagnosis.
Relationship between somatic variants at ccfDNA (BM2) and clinical parameters
At ccfDNA sequencing, 47% of ACC showed at least 1 som- atic mutation (positive BM2) and 15% at least 2 mutations (Figure 2E and F and Table 1). The most frequently altered genes included CTNNB1 (12%), ZNRF3 (9%), MEN1
(9%), TP53 (6%), ATM (6%), and KMT2D (6%). As ex- pected, the majority of the altered genes belonged to the Wnt/B-catenin pathway (ie, CTNNB1, ZNRF3, APC) fol- lowed by those linked to chromatin remodelling (Figure 2F and Table S1). The VAF was overall comprised between 1.0% and 30.5%. The type of detected genetic variants and the corresponding VAFs are reported in Table 1 and Table S2.
Interestingly, patients with advanced stage ACC-ie, non-amenable for complete surgical resection (n=15)- presented a higher frequency of one or more than 1 somatic variant at baseline ccfDNA compared with those with early stages, ie, 40% and 20% vs 26% and 11%, respectively (P =. 0052, Table 1 and Figure S3). In this subgroup of more aggressive cases, the most frequent alterations were observed in CTNNB1 (n=3), TP53 (n=2), and KMT2D (n=2). Of note, three of these variants affected known drug targetable genes (9% of the total): two patients pre- sented missense mutations in ATM and one presented a mis- sense mutation in NF1.
Comparison between somatic variants in ccfDNA and T-DNA
We compared the ccfDNA mutational status with available corresponding primary T-DNA in 22 patients. These perfectly matched in 68% of cases (Table 2 and Table S2).
In particular, in 12 out of 14 patients with no somatic var- iants at baseline ccfDNA that underwent adrenalectomy, T-DNA also showed also no detectable somatic variants. In 3 cases (13.6%), variants were only found in T-DNA (but not in ccfDNA), including one with APC variant (VAF 66.0%), one with MEN1 variant (VAF 20.9%), and one with variants in NF1 (VAF 26.4%), NOTCH1 (VAF 24.6%), and TP53 (VAF 20.6%) (Table 2).
A
B
E
ccfDNA concentration (ng/uL)
7.5
no variants (BM2=0)
100
ccfDNA negative
5.0-
(BM1=0)
% of patients
one variant (BM2=1)
75-
32%
15%
ccfDNA positive
2.5-
(BM1=1)
ccfDNA very high (BM1=2)
>1 variants (BM2=2)
0.6
50
64%
32%
0.4-
0.2
25-
0.0
0
HS (n=23)
ACC-P (n=34)
HS (n=23)
ACC-P (n=34)
C
D
F
no variants
CTNNB1
ccfDNA concentration (ng/uL)
Wnt/beta-catenin
ns
*
ZNRF3
7.5.
100
APC
P
5.0
CTNNB1+ATM
MEN1+ZNRF3
2.5.
Ki67 index (%)
75
TP53
KMTD2
0.6
50
P=0.0034 R=0.55
MEN1
0.4-
25
ATM
0.2-
NF1
0.0
0
GNAS
ENSAT stage 1-2 ENSAT stage 3 (n=8) (n=11)
ENSAT stage 4
0
PRKAR1A+TERT
(n=15)
1
2
3
4
5
6
ccfDNA concentrations (ng/ul)
CTNNB1+TP53+
DAXX+RB1
Table 2. Comparison between targeted next-generation sequencing in matched T-DNA and ccfDNA in 22 ACC-P.
| Sample- ID | ENSAT tumour stage | T-DNA sequencing | ccfDNA sequencing | Correspondence between T-DNA and ccfDNA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gene name | Variant | VAF (%) | Gene name | Variant | VAF (%) | |||
| ACC-P2 | 3 | No variants identified | No variants identified | Yes | ||||
| ACC-P3 | 3 | MEN1 (NM_130799.2) | p.Tyr351ª | 74.80 | MEN1 (NM_130799.2) | p.Tyr351ª | 8.2 | Yes |
| ZNFR3 (NM_001206998.1) | p.Cys333ª | 3.9 | Only in ccfDNA | |||||
| ACC-P4 | 3 | No variants identified | No variants identified | Yes | ||||
| ACC-P5 | 4 | No variants identified | No variants identified | Yes | ||||
| ACC-P6 | 2 | No variants identified | No variants identified | Yes | ||||
| ACC-P7 | 4 | No variants identified | No variants identified | Yes | ||||
| ACC-P8 | 3 | MEN1 (NM_130799.2) | p.Arg460ª | 84.4 | MEN1 (NM_130799.2) | p.Arg460ª | 2.6 | Yes |
| ZNFR3 (NM_001206998.1) | p.Phe474Argfs#95 | 74.8 | ZNFR3 (NM_001206998.1) | p.Phe474Argfs#95 | 1.9 | Yes | ||
| ACC-P14 | 3 | No variants identified | No variants identified | Yes | ||||
| ACC-P15 | 3 | No variants identified | No variants identified | Yes | ||||
| ACC-P16 | 2 | No variants identified | NF1 (NM_000267.3)ª | p.Leu2735Met | 7.0 | Only in ccfDNA | ||
| ACC-P17 | 3 | No variants identified | GNAS (NM_000516.5) | p.Arg265= | 3.3 | Only in ccfDNA | ||
| ACC-P21 | 2 | No variants identified | No variants identified | Yes | ||||
| ACC-P22 | 3 | No variants identified | No variants identified | Yes | ||||
| ACC-P23 | 3 | APC (NM_000038.5) | p.Arg876ª | 66.0 | No variants identified | Only in T-DNA | ||
| ACC-P24 | 2 | No variants identified | No variants identified | Yes | ||||
| ACC-P25 | 3 | No variants identified | No variants identified | Yes | ||||
| ACC-P26 | 2 | CTNNB1 (NM_001098209.1) | p.Ser45Ala | 74.0 | CTNNB1 (NM_001098209.1) | p.Ser45Ala | 4.5 | Yes |
| MEN1 (NM_130799.2) | p.Asp180_Trp183del | 20.9 | Only in T-DNA | |||||
| ACC-P27 | 1 | NF1 (NM_000267.3) | p.Arg2343Gln | 26.4 | No variants identified | Only in T-DNA | ||
| TP53 (NM_000546.59 | p.Ala159Val | 24.6 | Only in T-DNA | |||||
| NOTCH1 (NM_017617.5) | p.Arg2104His | 20.6 | Only in T-DNA | |||||
| ACC-P28 | 4 | PRKAR1A (NM_002734.49 | c. Glu55ª | 76.6 | PRKAR1A (NM_002734.49 | p.Glu55ª | 10.9 | Yes |
| TERT (NM_198253.2) | p.Leu234Phe | 28.0 | TERT (NM_198253.2) | p.Leu234Phe | 26.5 | |||
| ACC-P29 | 3 | No variants identified | No variants identified | Yes | ||||
| ACC-P30 | 2 | No variants identified | APC (NM_000038.5) | p.Asn32Ile | 30.5 | Only in ccfDNA | ||
| ACC-P31 | 2 | ATM (NM_000051.3)a | p.Arg337Cys | 88.6 | ATM (NM_000051.3)ª | p.Arg337Cys | 9.9 | Yes |
Somatic variants detected in both ccfDNA and T-DNA are in bold.
Abbreviations: ACC-P, primary adrenocortical carcinoma; ccfDNA, circulating cell-free DNA; ENSAT, European Network for the Study of Adrenocortical Tumors; T-DNA, tumour DNA; VAF, variant allele frequency.
aKnown drug targetable genes according to OncoKb database.
Conversely, we observed somatic variants at the ccfDNA level that were not detected at T-DNA in 4 cases (18.2%), ie, affecting APC, GNAS, NF1, and ZNRF3 genes. Specifically, variants detected in ZNRF3 (VAF 3.9%) and NF1 (VAF 7.0%) are classified as pathogenic in the COSMIC database, while variants in APC (VAF 3.3%) and GNAS (VAF 30.5%) are reported as uncertain or not reported yet.
Relationship between ccfDNA-based BMs and clinical outcome (AIM 1)
We then investigated the role of ccfDNA-based BMs for prog- nostic classification (AIM 1). We first performed univariate survival analysis testing the prognostic role of ccfDNA con- centrations (negative BM1, positive BM1, and very high BM1). BM1 was clearly associated with both PFS (HR = 3.45; 95% CI, 1.49-7.96; P =. 0038 by log-rank test, median PFS 2 vs 15 months vs undefined; Figure 3A) and OS (HR = 6.28; 95% CI, 2.43-17.58; P = . 0003, median survival 5 vs 45 months vs undefined; Figure 3B). Also, the presence of one or more som- atic variants in baseline ccfDNA (positive BM2, one or more variants) was able to distinguish patients with unfavourable outcomes, ie, with a shorter PFS (2 vs 18 months vs undefined; HR =1.89; 95% CI, 1.05-3.40; P =. 0256 by log-rank test; Figure 3C) and OS (8 vs 9 vs 40 months; HR =2.47; 95% CI, 1.33-4.56; P = . 0058; Figure 3D).
A ccfDNA-based BM score was then calculated starting from baseline ccfDNA-based BMs as described in “Materials
and methods” for a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 4 points. This score was strongly associated with both PFS and OS at uni- variate analysis (HR = 2.63; 95% CI, 1.13-6.13; P = . 010, and HR = 5.98, 95% CI, 2.29-15.6; P =. 0001, respectively) (Figure 3E and F). Importantly, this prognostic role was con- firmed at multivariable analysis including the ENSAT tumour stage (model 1-dichotomic variable: HR = 2.86, P =. 061 for PFS and HR = 8.80, P =. 004 for OS, respectively) (model 2- non-dichotomic variable: HR = 1.81, P =. 009 for PFS and HR = 3.39, P <. 001 for OS, respectively) (Table 3).
Role of ccfDNA-based BMs in disease monitoring (AIM 2)
Finally, we tested the potential role of ccfDNA-based BMs for longitudinal disease monitoring (AIM 2). Serial blood samples collected during standard follow-up visits after primary sur- gery were available for 19 patients (median duration 9 months, range: 3-12; Figure 1).
In two of the patients who underwent a debulking surgery due to severe steroid excess (ACC-P5 and ACC-P28), ccfDNA con- centrations persisted at very high levels after surgery, which co- incided with rapid disease progression. Importantly, in one case (ACC-P28), 2 somatic variants were detected at baseline and remained detectable at the 3-month follow-up analysis (PRKAR1A VAF from 10.9% to 4.9%, TERT VAF from 26.5% to 5.0%) when the radiological imaging showed enlar- ging liver metastases (Table S2 and Figure S4).
A
B
Progression-free survival
100
0-0
-o · BM1 negative (n=2)
100
-00
-o · BM1 negative (n=2)
-o · BM1 positive (n=21)
75
-·· BM1 very high (n=11)
Overall survival
-o· BM1 positive (n=21)
75
-·· BM1 very high (n=11)
P=0.0038 by log rank test HR 6.28 (95%CI 2.43-17.58)
8-89
50
0- 0-0
median survival undefined vs 15 vs 2 months
50
o
25
0 0- - - — - 00
25
P=0.0003 by log rank test
HR 3.45 (95%CI 1.49-7.96)
median undefined vs 40 vs 5 months
0
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
0
12
24
36
48
60
C
Time (months)
D
Time (months)
Progression-free survival
-o · BM2 negative (n=17)
100
-o · BM2 negative (n=17)
100
-o · BM2 positive - one variant (n=29)
-·· BM2 positive - more variants (n=5)
Overall survival
-o · BM2 positive - one variant (n=29)
75-
75
o- - - 800-0 -0-
-·· BM2 positive - more variants (n=5)
P=0.0256 by log rank test
0 — 89
HR 1.89, 95%CI 1.05-3.40
50
P=0.0058 by log rank
50
median survival 18 vs 4 vs 2 months
00-00
o
HR 2.47, 95%CI 1.33-4.56
o
median survival 40 vs 9 vs 8 months
25
25
0
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
0
12
24
36
48
60
E
Time (months)
F
Time (months)
Progression-free survival
100
ccfDNA score 0-1 (n=16)
100
ccfDNA score 0-1 (n=16)
ccfDNA score 2-4 (n=16)
0 --- 000-0-0
ccfDNA score 2-4 (n=16)
75
P=0.010 by log rank HR 2.63 (95%CI 1.13-6.13)
Overall survival
75-
50
0.0000
median survival 2 vs 21 months
50
o
00
P=0.0001 by log-rank
25
25
HR 5.98 (95%CI 2.29-15.56)
median survival 8 vs 47 months
0
0
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
0
12
24
36
48
60
Time (months)
Time (months)
| Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysis | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PFS | OS | PFS | OS | |||||
| HR (95% CI) | P-value | HR (95% CI) | P-value | HR (95% CI) | P-value | HR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| Parameter (n of patients if different from 34) | ||||||||
| Age (≤50 vs >50 years) | 0.88 (0.33-2.40) | .814 | 0.65 (0.28-1.51) | .314 | ||||
| Symptoms at diagnosis (yes vs no) | 2.44 (0.72-8.30) | .154 | .146 | |||||
| ENSAT tumour stage (1-2 vs 3 vs 4) | 6.40 (2.34-17.5) | <. 001 | 6.60 (2.51-17.3) | <. 001 | 6.02 (2.14-16.9) | <. 001 | 9.49 (2.89-31.2) | <. 001 |
| Resection status (n = 22) | 1.77 (1.06-2.95) | .030 | 2.59 (1.25-5.37) | .011 | ||||
| (R0 vs R1 vs R2) | ||||||||
| Ki67 index (n = 26) | 2.43 (0.92-6.42) | .074 | 5.54 (0.84-36.6) | .075 | ||||
| (<10 vs 10-19 vs ≥20) | ||||||||
| S-GRAS score (n=22) | 2.14 (1.10-4.16) | .025 | 7.52 (1.83-30.9) | .005 | ||||
| (group 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4) | ||||||||
| ccfDNA-based BM1 (0 vs 1 vs 2) | 3.45 (1.49-7.96) | .004 | 6.28 (2.24-17.6) | <. 001 | 2.01 (0.67-6.02) | .213 | 2.25 (0.68-7.39) | .183 |
| ccfDNA-based BM2 (0 vs 1 vs 2) | 1.89 (1.05-3.40) | .033 | 2.47 (1.33-4.56) | .004 | 1.71 (0.86-3.38) | .125 | 4.16 (1.86-9.31) | <. 001 |
| ccfDNA-based scores-Model 1 | ||||||||
| ENSAT tumour stage (1-2 vs 3 vs 4) | 6.40 (2.34-17.5) | <. 001 | 6.60 (2.51-17.3) | <. 001 | 5.51 (2.08-14.6) | <. 001 | 5.43 (2.12-13.9) | <. 001 |
| ccfDNA-based BM score | 2.87 (1.20-6.90) | .018 | 8.24 (2.29-29.7) | .001 | 2.86 (0.95-7.54) | .061 | 8.80 (2.01-38.4) | .004 |
| (positive vs negative) | ||||||||
| ccfDNA-based scores-Model 2 | ||||||||
| ENSAT tumour stage (1-2 vs 3 vs 4) | 6.40 (2.34-17.5) | <. 001 | 6.60 (2.51-17.3) | <. 001 | 6.10 (2.19-16.9) | <. 001 | 7.71 (2.82-21.1) | <. 001 |
| ccfDNA-based BM score | 1.80 (1.22-2.66) | .003 | 2.37 (1.51-3.71) | <. 001 | 1.81 (1.15-2.81) | .009 | 3.39 (1.83-6.29) | <. 001 |
| (0 vs 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4) | ||||||||
S-GRAS score was calculated as previously published (Elhassan et al., Eur J Endocrinol 2021, DOI: 10.1530/EJE-21-0510). Significant variables available in all patients are in bold. Abbreviations: BM, biomarker; BM1, total ccfDNA concentrations; BM2, somatic variants detected in ccfDNA; ccfDNA, circulating cell-free DNA; ENSAT, European Network for the Study of Adrenocortical Tumors; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.
A
ACC-P22: disease recurrence at 12 months
B
ACC-P3: early disease recurrence at 3 months
Months
0
3
6
9
12
Months
0
3
6
9
12
Sx
TF
TF
TF
Rec
Sx
Rec
Mixed
PD
PD
T-DNA
T-DNA
No variants
MEN1 p.Tyr351*
Mitotane
ccfDNA concentrations (ng/u/L)
1
Mitotane
ccfDNA concentrations (ng/uL)
Start EDP-M
50
6
45
0,8
5
40
35
0,6
4
30
VAF %
3
25
0,4
ccf-DNA
No variants
20
2
15
0,2
1
Low coverage
10
5
0
0
0
baseline
3 months
6 months
9 months
12 months
baseline
3 months
6 months
9 months
12 months
ccfDNA concentrations
ccfDNA concentrations
MEN1
ZNRF3
A
ccfDNA concentration (ng/uL)
B
C
1.4
1.2-
ACC-P6
0
3
6
9
Months
ACC-P14
0
3
6
Months
1.0-
Sx
TF
TF
TF
Sx
TF
TF
0.8
14
Mitotane
1.4
Mitotane
0.6-
ccfDNA oconcentrations (ug/L)
12
ccfDNA concentrations (pg/L)
1.2
1
1
0.4-
0.2-
1
0.8
0.8
₹
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.4
0.4
baseline (n=11)
3 months (n=10)
6 months (n=8)
9 months (n=5)
0.2
0.2
0
baseline
3 months
6 months
9 months
0
baseline
3 months
6 months
cfDNA concentrations
ccfDNA concentrations
D
E
F
ACC-P16
0
3
6
Months
ACC-P30
0
3
6
9
Months
ACC-P31
0
3
6
9
Months
Sx
TF
TF
Sx
TF
TF
TF
Sx
TF
TF
TF
1.4
35
1.4
35
1.4
12
ccfDNA concentrations (pg/L)
1.2
Mitotane
30
ccfDNA concentrations (14g/L)
12
30
ccfDNA concentrations (1g/L]
1.2
Mitotane
10
1
25
1
25
1
8
0.8
20
VAF %
0.8
20
a
0.8
6
R
0.6
15
0.6
15
VAF
0.6
2
0.4
10
0.4
10
0.4
4
0.2
S
02
S
0.2
2
0
0
baseline
3 months
6 months
0
baseline
3 months
0
6 months
0
baseline
3 months
0
6 months
9 months
ccfDNA concentrations
-4-NF1
ccfDNA concentrations
-APC
ccfDNA concentrations
ATM
In 6 cases, patients presented with disease recurrences during surveillance, ie, at short-term follow-ups (n=2 at 3 months and n = 1 at 6 months) or long-term follow-ups (n=1 at 9 months and n = 1 at 12 months). In some cases, even if BM2 could not be used during monitoring, ccfDNA concentrations alone could mirror the trend of the radiologic- al imaging, greatly increasing at the time of disease recurrence (representative example shown in Figure 4A). Two cases pre- sented with somatic variants in MEN1 and ZNRF3 at base- line ccfDNA (ACC-P3 and ACC-P8; Figure S4). In one case, these persisted in the 3-month sample when the patient
showed an early disease recurrence (ie, liver metastases). At the 6-month follow-up, the patient showed a mixed response to treatment with mitotane, but variants could not be de- tected due to low coverage. The same patient presented a rapid progression 9 months after surgery with a significant increase in the size of the liver lesions and multiple lung me- tastases (Figure 4B). Simultaneously, both the ccfDNA con- centrations and the VAF % of both variants sharply increased (to 46.4% and 45.8%, respectively). In the other case, no variants were detected at the 3-month follow-up due to low coverage.
Finally, 11 cases showed no evidence of disease recurrence at the last available CT TAP scan. The trend observed in mean total ccfDNA concentrations over time in this group is shown in Figure 5A. Of note, ccfDNA levels progressively de- creased during surveillance, even if in very few cases remained slightly above the chosen cut-off (representative examples in Figure 5B and C). Among these cases, 5 presented somatic var- iants at baseline ccfDNA (Figure S4). Importantly, these var- iants were no more detectable neither at first post-surgical follow-up nor during further surveillance (representative ex- amples are shown in Figure 5D-F).
Overall, even in this relatively small cohort of cases with fully available data, ccfDNA-related BM1 showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 36% (n = 19), while BM2 showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 67% (n = 8).
Of note, we also sequenced longitudinal ccfDNA samples from 10 patients with no somatic variants detected in neither baseline ccfDNA nor T-DNA (ie, 3 short-term and 7 long- term). Among these cases, 4 developed a disease recurrence over the time (40% of the total). Interestingly, none of them showed any somatic variants at the serial ccfDNA sam- ples (Table S3).
Discussion
In the present study, we performed a comprehensive ccfDNA analysis in prospectively collected samples from a large cohort of 34 patients with primary ACC. We could demonstrate that ccfDNA-based BMs can be detected in a noticeable proportion of patients and could be proposed for both prognostic classi- fication and disease monitoring.
We first investigated the relationship between total ccfDNA concentrations (namely BM1) and clinical parameters at time of diagnosis. To this aim, we used a robust pipeline for sample collection and processing, as well as commercially available, ready-to-use, highly sensitive ccfDNA isolation kits. Circulating cell-free DNA levels were significantly higher in patients with ACC compared with HSs and correlated with the tumour burden and aggressiveness, as previously reported for other cancer types.37-39 Importantly, using an arbitrary cut-off based on levels observed in HSs, BM1 was considered positive in 96% of ACC. The proportion of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in the background of overall ccfDNA has been historically reported as highly variable, ranging from 0.01% to 90%.9,16,40 In fact, many factors may influence the concen- tration of ctDNA, including tumour volume, localization and vascularization, hepatic and renal clearance, and anti-cancer treatments.41 In our patient cohort, all baseline samples were collected at the time of diagnosis, when patients were treatment naïve and had normal liver and kidney function, therefore excluding these potential interferences. We could also demonstrate that positive BM1 was strongly associated with the worst clinical outcome, both in terms of PFS and OS, in agreement with recent reports showing the potential prognostic role of ccfDNA concentrations alone.2º These find- ings are of particular interest considering that measuring ccfDNA levels is a minimally invasive, cheap, and straightfor- ward technique that could easily be implemented in clinical practice to further improve prognostic classification of ACC.
The information about somatic genetic events detected at the ccfDNA level was shown to be of additional importance. Here, we used a library preparation procedure incorporating an error suppression technology to ensure confident calling
of mutations down to 0.1% VAF. In fact, almost 50% of primary ACC presented at least 1 somatic variant at ccfDNA. This pro- portion of positive cases is higher than those described in previ- ous studies on smaller cohorts of patients, ie, 20%-30%.25, 26 This could be at least in part due to (1) the use of a more homogeneous series of patients with primary ACC in place; (2) a robust pipeline for collection, processing, isolation, and measurement of ccfDNA; and (3) the utilization of a high- ly sensitive customized ACC-specific gene panel. Another re- cent study, using a different approach, ie, Guardant360 (Guardant Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, United States) that allows to analyse not only SNV/indels but also gene fu- sions and copy number amplifications, identified alterations in ccfDNA in up to 80% of patients with ACC.42
In our cohort, somatic alterations detected in ccfDNA sam- ples matched with available T-DNA in almost 70% of cases. Moreover, in about 20% of cases, variants in ACC-specific genes (ZNRF3, APC, GNAS, and NF1) were detected only in ccfDNA-but not in T-DNA. These findings further con- firm the additional value and the potential clinical utility of ccfDNA sequencing in molecular profiling-compared with tissue sequencing.19,43-45 This is particularly relevant for high- ly heterogeneous cancers such as ACC. Of note, at ccfDNA se- quencing, the most frequently affected pathway confirmed to be Wnt/ß-catenin and chromatin remodelling-as previously reported in multiple pan-genomic or targeted studies on both snap-frozen and FFPE tumour samples.29-31 On the con- trary, only a few variants were detected at the ccfDNA level affecting genes in the p53/Rb pathway.
The presence of somatic variants at ccfDNA showed to have prognostic value (AIM 1), being linked to a shorter progression-free and OS, in agreement with previous studies on other solid tumours .46-48 In fact, the ccfDNA-based BM score calculated by merging BM1 and BM2, was found to be strongly associated with clinical outcomes, remaining a signifi- cant, independent prognostic factor at multivariable analysis including the ENSAT tumour stage. This is of particular inter- est considering that ACC is a generally aggressive cancer with heterogeneous and difficult-to-predict clinical outcomes. Therefore, we could suggest that ccfDNA-based BM evaluated at the time of diagnosis could be used for improving the prog- nostic classification of patients with ACC.
It is important to mention that at least 8 genes contained in our customized panel of ACC-specific genes are classified as drug targetable. At ccfDNA sequencing, somatic variants were detected in one of these genes in three patients (9% of the total), ie, two presented missense mutations in ATM (targetable by PARP inhibitors) and one a missense mutation in NF1 (targetable by MEK inhibitors). Interestingly, in 2 cases, information about druggable genetic events could only be gained by analysing ccfDNA. In fact, in 1 case, the patient did not undergo surgery due to the presence of disse- minated disease, and in the other case, T-DNA sequencing did not detect the presence of any variants. These findings further corroborate the potential clinical utility of ccfDNA analysis for molecular profiling and identification of target- able events in ACC,42 similar to what has been proposed for other cancer types. 18,2
We also evaluated the potential role of ccfDNA analysis for disease monitoring (AIM 2) in serial samples of 19 patients who underwent standard follow-up visits.2 We observed a relatively good correspondence between the ccfDNA-based BMs and the radiological evidence of tumour manifestations.
For instance, patients with advanced ACC who underwent de- bulking surgery presented very high levels of ccfDNA after surgery in agreement with rapid disease progression. When present at baseline, somatic variants remained detectable in most cases during surveillance and matched with the radio- logical disease progression. Moreover, among patients with disease recurrences, one presented with baseline ccfDNA som- atic variants that persisted at the first post-surgical follow-up when the patient showed an early disease recurrence, while both the ccfDNA concentrations and VAF% sharply increased at the time of rapid disease progression. Finally, in patients with no evidence of recurrent disease, somatic variants were not detectable in ccfDNA neither at first post-surgical follow- up nor during further surveillance.
In the relatively small cohort of cases with fully available data, both BM1 and BM2 showed a very high sensitivity (both 100%), while BM2 showed a better specificity than BM1 (67% vs 36%). Therefore, we hypothesize that ccfDNA analysis could be useful to complement radiological surveillance for both the detection of early recurrences in patients with suc- cessfully resected ACC and monitoring of disease evolution and/ or response to treatment in patients with advanced ACC, similar to what has been proposed for other solid tumours.49 However, further studies on larger cohorts of patients with longer follow- up periods are required to validate our findings.
Overall, ccfDNA analysis has evolved since its inception with improvements in the technologies and detection limits and represents a set of research tools that appear poised to enter routine clinical care.50, 51 As a matter of fact, an FDA-approved ctDNA assay, the Cobas epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) Mutation Test (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), is available to detect EGFR mutations and drive the use of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Moreover, there are 2 CLIA-certified commercially available ctDNA platforms: the mentioned Guardant360 panel for the assessment of 73 can- cer genes and the PlasmaSelect (Personal Genome Diagnostics, Inc., Baltimore, MD, United States) with a 64-gene panel. However, this approach is still quite expensive and not readily available, especially for rare cancer types.
Limitations of the study are represented by the relatively short period of follow-up (up to max. 12 months) and the lack of an evaluation of ccfDNA-related BMs in the early post-operative time point (ie, 6-8 weeks). These aspects were beyond the scope of this pilot study and will be the aim of a future long-term project. Moreover, in few cases, some follow-up visits (and therefore blood collections) have been missing due to the restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic that significantly reduced the face-to-face access to the health systems.
In conclusion, ccfDNA-related BMs are frequently detected in patients with ACC and may represent a promising, minim- ally invasive tool to predict early disease progression and com- plement imaging in disease surveillance. Further studies are, however, required before these BMs could be proposed for im- plementation in clinical practice.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Ms. Michaela Haaf for coordin- ating the clinical data record in Wuerzburg and to Antonia Lorey for their skilful technical assistance. This work has been carried out with the help of the Interdisciplinary Bank
of Biomaterials and Data of the University Hospital of Wuerzburg and the Julius Maximilian University of Wuerzburg (IBDW). The implementation of the IBDW has been supported by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (grant number FKZ: 01EY1102). We also thank the EU COST Action CA20122 Harmonization for supportive networking (www.goharmonisation.com).
Supplementary material
Supplementary material is available at European Journal of Endocrinology online.
Funding
This work has been supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe (70113526 to M.F., C.L.R, and S.A.), the patient Association for Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Disorders (AMEND) (ACC Research Award 2019 and 2021 to C.L.R.), and the European Reference Network on Rare Endocrine Conditions (Endo-ERN). A.P. receives support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham (grant reference number NIHR203326), while C.L.R receives support from HRA Pharma Rare Disease (research grant). The funders of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care UK.
Authors’ contributions
Juliane Lippert (Conceptualization [equal], Formal analysis [equal], Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal], Project administration [equal], Writing-original draft [equal]), Gabrielle Smith (Formal analysis [equal], Investigation [equal[, Methodology [equal], Project administration [equal]), Silke Appenzeller (Data curation [equal], Formal analysis [equal], Funding acquisition [equal], Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal], Software [equal], Writing-review & editing [equal]), Laura-Sophie Landwehr (Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal[, Writing-review & editing [equal]), Alessandro Prete (Funding acquisition [equal], Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal], Writing-review & editing [equal]), Sonja Steinhauer (Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal], Project administration [equal]), Miriam Asia (Investigation [equal], Resources [equal]), Hanna Urlaub (Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal], Project administration [equal]), Yasir Elhassan (Resources [equal], Writing-review & editing [equal]), Stefan Kircher (Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal], Resources [equal]), Wiebke Arlt (Conceptualization [equal], Writing-review & ed- iting [equal]), Martin Fassnacht (Conceptualization [equal], Funding acquisition [equal], Supervision [equal], Writing-re- view & editing [equal]), Barbara Altieri (Conceptualization [equal], Data curation [equal], Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal], Resources [equal], Supervision [equal], Writing-review & editing [equal]), and Cristina Ronchi (Conceptualization [equal], Data curation [equal], Formal analysis [equal], Funding acquisition [equal], Project
administration [equal], Resources [equal], Supervision [equal], Writing-original draft [equal])
Conflict of interest: The authors declare no potential conflict of interest in relation to this work. Co-author W.A. is on the editorial board of EJE. They were not involved in the review or editorial process for this paper, on which they are listed as authors.
References
1. Else T, Kim AC, Sabolch A, et al. Adrenocortical carcinoma. Endocr Rev. 2014;35(2):282-326. https://doi.org/10.1210/er. 2013-1029
2. Fassnacht M, Dekkers OM, Else T, et al. European Society of Endocrinology clinical practice guidelines on the management of adrenocortical carcinoma in adults, in collaboration with the European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018;179(4):G1-G46. https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE- 18-0608
3. Fassnacht M, Tsagarakis S, Terzolo M, et al. European Society of Endocrinology clinical practice guidelines on the management of adrenal incidentalomas, in collaboration with the European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors. Eur J Endocrinol. 2023;189(1):G1-G42. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejendo/lvad066
4. Poulet G, Massias J, Taly V. Liquid biopsy: general concepts. Acta Cytol. 2019;63(6):449-455. https://doi.org/10.1159/000499337
5. Wan JCM, Massie C, Garcia-Corbacho J, et al. Liquid biopsies come of age: towards implementation of circulating tumour DNA. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(4):223-238. https://doi.org/10. 1038/nrc.2017.7
6. Leon SA, Shapiro B, Sklaroff DM, Yaros MJ. Free DNA in the se- rum of cancer patients and the effect of therapy. Cancer Res. 1977;37:646-650.
7. Stroun M, Anker P, Maurice P, Lyautey J, Lederrey C, Beljanski M. Neoplastic characteristics of the DNA found in the plasma of cancer patients. Oncology. 1989;46(5):318-322. https://doi.org/10.1159/ 000226740
8. Giacona MB, Ruben GC, Iczkowski KA, Roos TB, Porter DM, Sorenson GD. Cell-free DNA in human blood plasma: length meas- urements in patients with pancreatic cancer and healthy controls. Pancreas. 1998;17(1):89-97. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006676- 199807000-00012
9. Jahr S, Hentze H, Englisch S, et al. DNA fragments in the blood plasma of cancer patients: quantitations and evidence for their ori- gin from apoptotic and necrotic cells. Cancer Res. 2001;61: 1659-1665.
10. Umetani N, Giuliano AE, Hiramatsu SH, et al. Prediction of breast tumor progression by integrity of free circulating DNA in serum. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(26):4270-4276. https://doi.org/10.1200/ JCO.2006.05.9493
11. Yan YY, Guo QR, Wang FH, et al. Cell-free DNA: hope and poten- tial application in cancer. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:639233. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.639233
12. Huang ZH, Li LH, Hua D. Quantitative analysis of plasma circulat- ing DNA at diagnosis and during follow-up of breast cancer pa- tients. Cancer Lett. 2006;243(1):64-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. canlet.2005.11.027
13. Shaw JA, Guttery DS, Hills A, et al. Mutation analysis of cell- free DNA and single circulating tumor cells in metastatic breast cancer patients with high circulating tumor cell counts. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(1):88-96. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078- 0432.CCR-16-0825
14. De Mattos-Arruda L, Caldas C. Cell-free circulating tumour DNA as a liquid biopsy in breast cancer. Mol Oncol. 2016;10(3): 464-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molonc.2015.12.001
15. Adamo P, Cowley CM, Neal CP, et al. Profiling tumour heterogen- eity through circulating tumour DNA in patients with pancreatic
cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8(50):87221-87233. https://doi.org/10. 18632/oncotarget.20250
16. Diehl F, Li M, Dressman D, et al. Detection and quantification of mutations in the plasma of patients with colorectal tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(45):16368-16373. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.0507904102
17. Diehl F, Schmidt K, Choti MA, et al. Circulating mutant DNA to assess tumor dynamics. Nat Med. 2008;14(9):985-990. https:// doi.org/10.1038/nm.1789
18. Joosse SA, Pantel K. Circulating DNA and liquid biopsies in the management of patients with cancer. Cancer Res. 2022;82(12): 2213-2215. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-22-1405
19. Vietsch EE, Graham GT, Mccutcheon JN, et al. Circulating cell- free DNA mutation patterns in early and late stage colon and pan- creatic cancer. Cancer Genet. 2017;218-219:39-50. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cancergen.2017.08.006
20. Tan G, Chu C, Gui X, Li J, Chen Q. The prognostic value of circu- lating cell-free DNA in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(13):e0197. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD. 0000000000010197
21. Bachet JB, Laurent-Puig P, Meurisse A, et al. Circulating tumour DNA at baseline for individualised prognostication in patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic colorectal cancer. An AGEO prospective study. Eur J Cancer. 2023;189:112934. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejca.2023.05.022
22. Cohen SA, Liu MC, Aleshin A. Practical recommendations for using ctDNA in clinical decision making. Nature. 2023;619(7969): 259-268. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06225-y
23. Fernandez-Garcia D, Hills A, Page K, et al. Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) as a predictive and prognostic marker in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2019;21(1):149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-019-1235-8
24. Gristina V, Barraco N, La Mantia M, et al. Clinical potential of cir- culating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) for longitudinally monitoring clin- ical outcomes in the first-line setting of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a real-world prospective study. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(23):6013. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14236013
25. Creemers SG, Korpershoek E, Atmodimedjo PN, et al. Identification of mutations in cell-free circulating tumor DNA in adrenocortical carcinoma: a case series. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(10):3611-3615. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-00174
26. Garinet S, Nectoux J, Neou M, et al. Detection and monitoring of circulating tumor DNA in adrenocortical carcinoma. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2018;25(3):L13-L17. https://doi.org/10.1530/ERC- 17-0467
27. McCabe MJ, Pinese M, Chan CL, et al. Genomic stratification and liquid biopsy in a rare adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) case, with dual lung metastases. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud. 2019;5(2):a003764. https://doi.org/10.1101/mcs.a003764
28. Elhassan YS, Altieri B, Berhane S, et al. S-GRAS score for prognostic classification of adrenocortical carcinoma: an international, multi- center ENSAT study. Eur J Endocrinol. 2021;186(1):25-36. https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-21-0510
29. Lippert J, Appenzeller S, Liang R, et al. Targeted molecular analysis in adrenocortical carcinomas: a strategy toward improved personal- ized prognostication. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(12): 4511-4523. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2018-01348
30. Assie G, Letouze E, Fassnacht M, et al. Integrated genomic charac- terization of adrenocortical carcinoma. Nat Genet. 2014;46(6): 607-612. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2953
31. Zheng S, Cherniack AD, Dewal N, et al. Comprehensive pan- genomic characterization of adrenocortical carcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2016;30(2):363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2016.07.013
32. Schwarz JM, Cooper DN, Schuelke M, Seelow D. MutationTaster2: mutation prediction for the deep-sequencing age. Nat Methods. 2014;11(4):361-362. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2890
33. Pertea M, Lin X, Salzberg SL. GeneSplicer: a new computational method for splice site prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29(5): 1185-1190. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/29.5.1185
34. Bamford S, Dawson E, Forbes S, et al. The COSMIC (Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer) database and website. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(2):355-358. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601894
35. Landrum MJ, Lee JM, Benson M, et al. ClinVar: improving ac- cess to variant interpretations and supporting evidence. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(D1):D1062-D1067. https://doi.org/10.1093/ nar/gkx1153
36. Gao J, Aksoy BA, Dogrusoz U, et al. Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal. 2013;6(269):pl1. https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.2004088
37. Bettegowda C, Sausen M, Leary RJ, et al. Detection of circulating tumor DNA in early- and late-stage human malignancies. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(224):224ra224. https://doi.org/10.1126/ scitranslmed.3007094
38. Abbosh C, Birkbak NJ, Wilson GA, et al. Phylogenetic ctDNA analysis depicts early-stage lung cancer evolution. Nature. 2017;545(7655): 446-451. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22364
39. Volckmar AL, Sultmann H, Riediger A, et al. A field guide for can- cer diagnostics using cell-free DNA: from principles to practice and clinical applications. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2018;57(3): 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1002/gcc.22517
40. Han X, Wang J, Sun Y. Circulating tumor DNA as biomarkers for cancer detection. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics. 2017;15(2): 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gpb.2016.12.004
41. Fleischhacker M, Schmidt B. Circulating nucleic acids (CNAs) and cancer — a survey. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2007;1775(1):181-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2006.10.001
42. Nazha B, Zhuang TZ, Dada HI, et al. Blood-based next-generation sequencing in adrenocortical carcinoma. Oncologist. 2022;27(6): 462-468. https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyac061
43. Oikkonen J, Hautaniemi S. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in pre- cision oncology of ovarian cancer. Pharmacogenomics. 2019;20(18): 1251-1253. https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2019-0126
44. Leighl NB, Page RD, Raymond VM, et al. Clinical utility of compre- hensive cell-free DNA analysis to identify genomic biomarkers in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung can- cer. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(15):4691-4700. https://doi.org/10. 1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0624
45. Aggarwal C, Thompson JC, Black TA, et al. Clinical implications of plasma-based genotyping with the delivery of personalized therapy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(2): 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4305
46. Cullinane C, Fleming C, O’Leary DP, et al. Association of circu- lating tumor DNA with disease-free survival in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(11):e2026921. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen. 2020.26921
47. Schraa SJ, van Rooijen KL, Koopman M, Vink GR, Fijneman RJA. Cell-free circulating (tumor) DNA before surgery as a prognostic factor in non-metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(9):2218. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers 14092218
48. Hallermayr A, Steinke-Lange V, Vogelsang H, et al. Clinical validity of circulating tumor DNA as prognostic and predictive marker for personalized colorectal cancer patient management. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(3):851. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14030851
49. Hallermayr A, Benet-Pages A, Steinke-Lange V, et al. Liquid biopsy hotspot variant assays: analytical validation for application in residual disease detection and treatment monitoring. Clin Chem. 2021;67(11): 1483-1491. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvab124
50. Crowley E, Di Nicolantonio F, Loupakis F, Bardelli A. Liquid bi- opsy: monitoring cancer-genetics in the blood. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013;10(8):472-484. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc. 2013.110
51. Haber DA, Velculescu VE. Blood-based analyses of cancer: circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA. Cancer Discov. 2014;4(6): 650-661. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-1014