IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v595y2021i7867d10.1038_s41586-021-03642-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

ctDNA guiding adjuvant immunotherapy in urothelial carcinoma

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Powles

    (Queen Mary University of London ECMC, Barts Health)

  • Zoe June Assaf

    (Roche/Genentech)

  • Nicole Davarpanah

    (Roche/Genentech)

  • Romain Banchereau

    (Roche/Genentech)

  • Bernadett E. Szabados

    (Queen Mary University of London)

  • Kobe C. Yuen

    (Roche/Genentech)

  • Petros Grivas

    (University of Washington
    Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
    Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

  • Maha Hussain

    (Northwestern University)

  • Stephane Oudard

    (University of Paris)

  • Jürgen E. Gschwend

    (Technical University Munich)

  • Peter Albers

    (University Hospital Düsseldorf)

  • Daniel Castellano

    (University Hospital 12 de Octubre, Medical Oncology Department CIBER-ONC)

  • Hiroyuki Nishiyama

    (Faculty of Medicine University of Tsukuba)

  • Siamak Daneshmand

    (USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center)

  • Shruti Sharma

    (Natera, Inc)

  • Bernhard G. Zimmermann

    (Natera, Inc)

  • Himanshu Sethi

    (Natera, Inc)

  • Alexey Aleshin

    (Natera, Inc)

  • Maurizio Perdicchio

    (F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd)

  • Jingbin Zhang

    (Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Mississauga)

  • David S. Shames

    (Roche/Genentech)

  • Viraj Degaonkar

    (Roche/Genentech)

  • Xiaodong Shen

    (Roche/Genentech)

  • Corey Carter

    (Roche/Genentech)

  • Carlos Bais

    (Roche/Genentech)

  • Joaquim Bellmunt

    (Harvard Medical School)

  • Sanjeev Mariathasan

    (Roche/Genentech)

Abstract

Minimally invasive approaches to detect residual disease after surgery are needed to identify patients with cancer who are at risk for metastatic relapse. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) holds promise as a biomarker for molecular residual disease and relapse1. We evaluated outcomes in 581 patients who had undergone surgery and were evaluable for ctDNA from a randomized phase III trial of adjuvant atezolizumab versus observation in operable urothelial cancer. This trial did not reach its efficacy end point in the intention-to-treat population. Here we show that ctDNA testing at the start of therapy (cycle 1 day 1) identified 214 (37%) patients who were positive for ctDNA and who had poor prognosis (observation arm hazard ratio = 6.3 (95% confidence interval: 4.45–8.92); P

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Powles & Zoe June Assaf & Nicole Davarpanah & Romain Banchereau & Bernadett E. Szabados & Kobe C. Yuen & Petros Grivas & Maha Hussain & Stephane Oudard & Jürgen E. Gschwend & Peter Albers & Dan, 2021. "ctDNA guiding adjuvant immunotherapy in urothelial carcinoma," Nature, Nature, vol. 595(7867), pages 432-437, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:595:y:2021:i:7867:d:10.1038_s41586-021-03642-9
    DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03642-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03642-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41586-021-03642-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. A. Gordon Robertson & Khyati Meghani & Lauren Folgosa Cooley & Kimberly A. McLaughlin & Leigh Ann Fall & Yanni Yu & Mauro A. A. Castro & Clarice S. Groeneveld & Aurélien Reyniès & Vadim I. Nazarov & V, 2023. "Expression-based subtypes define pathologic response to neoadjuvant immune-checkpoint inhibitors in muscle-invasive bladder cancer," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:595:y:2021:i:7867:d:10.1038_s41586-021-03642-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.