Cited by 70Colorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

Guardant360 Circulating Tumor DNA Assay Is Concordant with FoundationOne Next-Generation Sequencing in Detecting Actionable Driver Mutations in Anti-EGFR Naive Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Open access
Gupta, Rohan, Othman, Tamer, Chen, Chen, Sandhu, Jaideep, Ouyang, Ching, Fakih, Marwan·2020·The Oncologist

Abstract

Background: Direct comparisons between Guardant360 (G360) circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and FoundationOne (F1) tumor biopsy genomic profiling in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are limited. We aim to assess the concordance across overlapping genes tested in both F1 and G360 in patients with mCRC. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 75 patients with mCRC who underwent G360 and F1 testing. We evaluated the concordance among gene mutations tested by both G360 and F1 among three categories of patients: untreated, treated without, and treated with EGFR inhibitors, while considering the clonal and/or subclonal nature of each genomic alteration. Results: There was a high rate of concordance in APC, TP53, KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations in the treatment-naive and non–anti-EGFR-treated cohorts. There was increased discordance in the anti-EGFR treated patients in three drivers of anti-EGFR resistance: KRAS, NRAS, and EGFR somatic mutations. Based on percentage of ctDNA, discordant somatic mutations were mostly subclonal instead of clonal and may have limited clinical significance. Most discordant amplifications noted on G360 showed the magnitude below the top decile, occurred in all three cohorts of patients, and were of unknown clinical significance. Serial ctDNA in anti-EGFR treated patients showed the emergence of multiple new alterations that affected the EGFR pathway: EGFR and RAS mutations and MET, RAS, and BRAF amplifications. Conclusion: G360 Next-Generation Sequencing platform may be used as an alternative to F1 to detect targetable somatic alterations in non–anti-EGFR treated mCRC, but larger prospective studies are needed to further validate our findings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0441

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Higher rates of BRAF copy number variants have been observed in other colorectal cancer studies employing blood-based sequencing.

    “Higher rates of BRAF copy number variants have been observed in other colorectal cancer studies employing blood-based sequencing. 29,30”

    From Sotorasib with panitumumab in chemotherapy-refractory KRASG12C-mutated colorectal cancer: a phase 1b trial (2024) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Genomic Landscape section (page unavailable) reports BRAF amplifications in three patients tested with the blood-based Guardant360 assay and says Guardant360 reported more amplifications overall than tissue-based FoundationOne. It does not establish a specifically higher rate of BRAF copy-number variants, so the comparative part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]10. Eliasova P, Pinkas M, Kolostova K et al. Cir- culating tumor cells in different stages of colo- rectal cancer. Folia Histochem Cytobiol 2017; 55:1-5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gupta, R., Othman, T., Chen, C., Sandhu, J., Ouyang, C., & Fakih, M.
Affiliations
  • City Of Hope National Medical Center (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Fakih, Marwan
Venue
The Oncologist
Published
2019-11-19
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
235-243
ISSN
  • 1083-7159 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-490X
OpenAlex
W2983584265
Cited by
70
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
4.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Oncologist (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
circulating tumor DNA, Guardant360, FoundationOne, metastatic colorectal cancer, anti-EGFR therapy, EGFR inhibitors, actionable driver mutations, concordance, subclonal mutations, KRAS mutation, NRAS mutation, EGFR mutation, BRAF amplification, MET amplification, liquid biopsy, EGFR resistance
MeSH terms
Circulating Tumor DNA, Colonic Neoplasms, Humans, Mutation, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Biomarkers, Tumor, Colorectal Neoplasms, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review