Lipson, Jafi A.

To examine the extent of the evaluation required to achieve diagnostic resolution and the test performance characteristics of a targeted methylation cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test, ~6200 participants ≥50 years with (cohort A) or without (cohort B) ≥1 of 3 additional specific cancer risk factors will be enrolled in PATHFINDER (NCT04241796), a prospective, longitudinal, interventional, multi-center study. Plasma cfDNA from blood samples will be analyzed to detect abnormally methylated DNA associated with cancer (i.e., cancer “signal”) and a cancer signal origin (i.e., tissue of origin). Participants with a “signal detected” will undergo further diagnostic evaluation per guiding physician discretion; those with a “signal not detected” will be advised to continue guideline-recommended screening. The primary objective will be to assess the number and types of subsequent diagnostic tests needed for diagnostic resolution. Based on microsimulations (using estimates of cancer incidence and dwell times) of the typical risk profiles of anticipated participants, the median (95% CI) number of participants with a “signal detected” result is expected to be 106 (87–128). Subsequent diagnostic evaluation is expected to detect 52 (39–67) cancers. The positive predictive value of the MCED test is expected to be 49% (39–58%). PATHFINDER will evaluate the integration of a cfDNA-based MCED test into existing clinical cancer diagnostic pathways. The study design of PATHFINDER is described here.

Abstract Background: Early detection decreases patient mortality for many cancers, but prevailing paradigms focus on distinct screening modalities for each cancer type. A minimally invasive test that detects multiple tumor types could substantially reduce cancer mortality and improve screening efficiency. In preliminary studies, we showed that a targeted methylation cell-free DNA (cfDNA) test can detect cancer and determine the tissue of origin (TOO) of abnormally methylated cfDNA with high sensitivity and specificity; however, blood was collected at the time of diagnosis and results were not disclosed to inform care. The current study includes disclosure of results to the study investigator to understand the care pathways prompted by a “signal detected” test result, and the benefits, harms, and burdens associated with a multi-cancer detection test. Methods: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) is a prospective, longitudinal, multi-center clinical study. Approximately 6,200 participants with varying levels of cancer risk will be enrolled at 5-10 clinical sites in the United States. Participants must be ≥50 years of age. If participants have at least 1 of the following–a smoking history of ≥100 cigarettes, a genetic cancer predisposition, or a history of invasive or hematologic malignancy with definitive treatment completed >3 years prior to enrollment–they are eligible for the Elevated Risk Cohort (n = 4340); otherwise, they are eligible for the Non-Elevated Risk Cohort (n = 1860). Individuals being evaluated for cancer or who have a history of invasive or hematologic malignancy within 3 years of enrollment will be excluded. Blood drawn at study sites will be analyzed at GRAIL, Inc. (Menlo Park, CA). Participants and study investigators will be informed of the test results. Participants with “signal not detected” results will be advised to continue routine clinical care, including age- and risk-based cancer screening. Those with “signal detected” test results will be informed of the predicted origin and undergo diagnostic evaluation. The primary study objective is to determine the extent of diagnostic testing required to achieve diagnostic resolution following a “signal detected” test result, defined as the date when the study investigator determines to end diagnostic evaluation triggered by a “signal detected” test result. Health resource utilization, the number and types of tests and time required to reach this point, is the primary endpoint. Secondary objectives include evaluation of test performance (specificity, positive predictive value, and TOO accuracy), and assessment of participants' perceptions about the test and changes in anxiety and health-related quality of life. Exploratory aims include assessment of the number and types of invasive cancer diagnoses among participants with “signal not detected” test results and changes in attitude toward adherence to guideline-recommended screening. Citation Format: Lincoln Nadauld, Charles H. McDonnell III, Minetta C. Liu, Eric Klein, Tomasz M. Beer, Deborah Schrag, Andrew G. Hudnut, Richard Whittington, Bruce Taylor, Joanna Tierney, Catherine Marinac, Jafi Lipson, Margarita Lopatin, Karen C. Chung, Eric Fung, Anne-Renee Hartman, Geoffrey R. Oxnard. The PATHFINDER Study: Assessment of the implementation of an investigational multi-cancer early detection test into clinical practice [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT291.

Abstract Background The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA; NCT02889978) study is a prospective, multi-center, observational, case-control study with longitudinal follow-up to support the development of a plasma cfDNA-based multi-cancer early detection assay. We previously reported that the fraction of tumor-derived cfDNA fragments in plasma (estimated tumor fraction [TF]) is associated with detection of multiple cancer types using a prototype whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) assay in a pre-specified substudy. In addition, detectability of breast cancer varied by hormone-receptor (HR) status: HR negative (HR-) breast cancer had a higher detection rate than the overall breast cancer cohort. Here, we performed a planned in-depth analysis of the breast cancer cohort to understand the main clinical and biological determinants of detectability using our WGBS assay. Methods Blood samples were prospectively collected from participants (pts) with newly-diagnosed, untreated breast cancer. In a pre-specified CCGA substudy, 511 (31.4%) of 1,628 pts had a clinicopathologic diagnosis of breast cancer (any stage, excluding stage 0) and a WGBS result. Pre-specified biological and clinical factors were assessed for correlation with TF: clinical stage, pathologic N stage, lesion size (by imaging), T stage, histologic grade, hormone receptor (HR) status, and proliferative rate (Ki-67 by IHC [MIB-1 clone]) via univariate and multivariate analyses. Ki-67 was obtained from pathology reports provided by enrollment sites and also assessed centrally (Mayo Clinic [Rochester, MN]). Stage-specific differences in detection rates between HR positive (HR+) and HR- breast cancers due to biological differences such as histologic grade and/or proliferative rate was also assessed. Results Of 511 pts, 94 (18.4%; 48.9% HR- and 12.3% in HR+) had WGBS-detected cancer. Higher TF was significantly associated with cancer detection (p<0.001). In univariate analyses, the variables significantly associated with TF were clinical stage, pathological N stage, and histologic grade (p<0.001 each). Primary lesion size was modestly correlated with TF (all stages combined: Spearman's correlation coefficient rs=0.4, p<0.001), and when grouped by early and late stages (stages I/II: rs=0.27, p<0.01; stages III/IV: rs=0.50, p<0.01); clinical T stage was significantly associated with TF only when all stages were combined (p<0.001). Proliferative rate (Ki-67) was positively correlated with TF at stages I/II (rs=0.29, p<0.05) but not III/IV (rs=-0.24, p=0.34); Ki-67 results obtained through Mayo were similar to that from enrollment sites (Pearson’s correlation coefficient rp=0.68, p<0.001). HR- breast cancers had significantly higher TF versus HR+ breast cancers only at stage II (p<0.001). In addition, compared to HR+ breast cancers, HR- breast cancers had a significantly higher proportion of high histologic grade (p<0.001 at stages I and II) and proliferative rate at earlier stages (p<0.05 at stages I, II, and III). In the multivariate analysis, clinical stage (stage III vs I and IV vs I) and HR status remained the most significantly associated with TF (p<0.001 each). Conclusions Using a prototype methylation-based plasma cfDNA cancer detection assay, TF was found to be associated with detection, and with clinical and biological features of breast cancer. Features routinely used to assess clinical aggressiveness (eg, HR- status and histologic grade) also demonstrated stage-specific associations with TF. Given the known relationship between TF and detection, these data suggest that clinical and biological cancer features may also provide insight into the variability of cancer detection using plasma-based cfDNA tests. Citation Format: Minetta C. Liu, Jodi M. Carter, Daniel W. Visscher, Karla Kopp, Rita Shaknovich, Xiaoji Chen, Kathryn N. Kurtzman, Shilpen Patel, Jacqueline D. Brooks, Carlo R. Cosenza, Jafi A. Lipson, Donald A. Richards, Fergus J. Couch, Zhao Dong, Hai Liu, Oliver Venn, Joerg Bredno, Eric T. Fung, Anne-Renee Hartman. Blood-based cancer detection in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA): Evaluating clinical and pathologic tumor characteristics in participants with breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-01-01.

1545 Background: Screening tests for early cancer detection are often criticized due to risk of overdiagnosis—detection of good prognosis cancers which may not require immediate treatment. We recently reported development of cfDNA sequencing approaches for cancer detection; longitudinal follow-up (F/U) data were utilized here to evaluate prognostic significance of cancer detection using cfDNA. Methods: Plasma cfDNA samples were subjected to whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS, 30X) as part of a previously-reported Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA; NCT02889978) substudy. This exploratory analysis evaluated the overall survival (OS) of training and test set participants (pts) with cancer (20 cancer types, any stage I-IV). Combining train and test set pts, univariate and multivariate analyses (Cox proportional hazards) assessed OS association with WGBS result (cancer detected vs not detected, set at 98% specificity), clinical stage (IV vs I-III), diagnostic method (symptom- vs screen-detected), sex, age, and histologic grade. Results: Of 827 pts from the training set with F/U (median 12.2 mo), 334 (40.4%) had WGBS-detected cancer. Among 127 (15.4%) pts with cancer that died during F/U, cancer was detected in 104 (81.9%). Results were similar in the test set. In univariate analyses all variables were associated with prognosis, including WGBS result (HR 7.7 p<0.001). In multivariate analyses accounting for other covariates, the three variables that most significantly remained prognostic were WGBS (HR 3.0, p<0.001), clinical stage (HR 3.3, p<0.001), and diagnostic method (HR 3.0, p<0.001). Validation of these findings is ongoing in an independent cohort of ~5,000 cancer pts from CCGA using an optimized assay; updated performance results will be reported. Conclusions: Cancers detected using WGBS of cfDNA had a worse prognosis than cancers not detected. WGBS cancer detection carried comparable prognostic significance as clinical stage. By preferentially detecting higher risk cancers, cancer detection using plasma cfDNA may avoid some of the overdiagnosis that has been seen with some existing cancer screening methods. Clinical trial information: NCT02889978.