Get your free personalized podcast brief
We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
Even with contemporaneously collected samples, biomarker concordance between solid tissue and liquid biopsies is not uniform. Data shows ESR1 mutations are consistently more likely to be discordant—often found only in liquid—than PIK3CA or AKT mutations, reinforcing the need for gene-specific testing strategies.
Related Insights
While liquid biopsies are a valuable, less invasive tool, a negative result is inconclusive for ruling out actionable mutations in NSCLC. It may simply mean the tumor isn't shedding enough DNA. Therefore, a negative liquid biopsy should never be the final word; it must be followed by a tissue biopsy to ensure patients don't miss out on targeted therapies.
ctDNA testing (liquid biopsy) is more effective than tissue biopsy for identifying ESR1 mutations. It samples DNA from all metastatic sites, capturing the disease's genetic heterogeneity and reflecting the most active resistance mechanisms, unlike a single-site needle biopsy which can miss them.
A key distinction for oncologists is that PIK3CA mutations are typically "truncal" (present from baseline), whereas ESR1 mutations are "acquired" after exposure to aromatase inhibitors. This biological difference dictates when and how to test for each biomarker throughout a patient's treatment journey.
When a colorectal tumor loses HER2 protein expression (IHC 0) but retains HER2 gene amplification via NGS, the decision to continue HER2-targeted therapy is guided by the amplification copy number. A low copy number argues against continuing the targeted regimen.
ESR1 mutations in breast cancer are acquired alterations, meaning they can be missed by a single test. The speaker advocates for serial testing, especially after disease progression, using blood-based ctDNA analysis. This dynamic monitoring approach is essential for identifying patients who become eligible for targeted therapies over time.
Dr. Bardia emphasizes that ESR1 is an 'acquired alteration,' meaning the mutation can develop during treatment. This necessitates a shift from one-time diagnostic testing to a dynamic, serial testing model. Repeat testing is critical to identify these actionable mutations as they arise, allowing patients to access newly approved targeted therapies.
Clinicians must recognize that liquid and solid biopsies show significant discordance. ESR1 mutations are more frequently detected in liquid assays, while PIK3CA mutations are more often found in solid tissue. This variability by gene directly impacts the optimal testing strategy for patients.
Not all mutations are equal. PIK3CA alterations are often present from the start (truncal mutations), indicating a more aggressive cancer. In contrast, ESR1 mutations are typically acquired later as a direct mechanism of resistance to endocrine therapy, making repeat testing after disease progression crucial.
Post-approval studies of the oral SERD elacestrant confirm its clinical benefit in ESR1-mutant breast cancer. However, this real-world evidence also reveals a new insight: patients who have both an ESR1 and a PIK3CA mutation tend to have a shorter time on treatment, suggesting that the PIK3CA mutation may drive resistance to this therapy.
Hematologic cancers often have a single, common genetic marker per disease, enabling MRD detection with simple PCR for decades. Solid tumors are genetically diverse, lacking a universal marker. This required developing personalized, multi-probe assays like Signatera to track unique mutations, explaining the field's more recent progress.
