Circulating Tumor DNA Profiling in Liver Transplant for Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Cholangiocarcinoma, and Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Programmatic Proof of Concept.

Simple Summary: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is emerging as a diagnostic and surveillance tool in cancer and recurrence. The recurrence rates after liver transplant for cancer are significant, highlighting the need for early detection and treatment. We report a cohort of patients who underwent liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, or colorectal cancer liver metastasis and received ctDNA testing pre- and/or post-transplant. We aim to show how ctDNA testing can be incorporated into pre-transplant work-up and post-transplant surveillance and discuss the benefits of this testing modality in the identification of genetic targets and surveillance of recurrence. Introduction: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is emerging as a promising, non-invasive diagnostic and surveillance biomarker in solid organ malignancy. However, its utility before and after liver transplant (LT) for patients with primary and secondary liver cancers is still underexplored. Methods: Patients undergoing LT for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) with ctDNA testing were included. CtDNA testing was conducted pre-transplant, post-transplant, or both (sequential) from 11/2019 to 09/2023 using Guardant360, Guardant Reveal, and Guardant360 CDx. Results: 21 patients with HCC (n = 9, 43%), CRLM (n = 8, 38%), CCA (n = 3, 14%), and mixed HCC/CCA (n = 1, 5%) were included in the study. The median follow-up time was 15 months (range: 1–124). The median time from pre-operative testing to surgery was 3 months (IQR: 1–4; range: 0–5), and from surgery to post-operative testing, it was 9 months (IQR: 2–22; range: 0.4–112). A total of 13 (62%) patients had pre-transplant testing, with 8 (62%) having ctDNA detected (ctDNA+) and 5 (32%) not having ctDNA detected (ctDNA-). A total of 18 (86%) patients had post-transplant testing, 11 (61%) of whom were ctDNA+ and 7 (33%) of whom were ctDNA-. The absolute recurrence rates were 50% (n = 5) in those who were ctDNA+ vs. 25% (n = 1) in those who were ctDNA- in the post-transplant setting, though this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.367). Six (29%) patients (HCC = 3, CCA = 1, CRLM = 2) experienced recurrence with a median recurrence-free survival of 14 (IQR: 6–40) months. Four of these patients had positive post-transplant ctDNA collected following diagnosis of recurrence, while one patient had positive post-transplant ctDNA collected preceding recurrence. A total of 10 (48%) patients had sequential ctDNA testing, of whom n = 5 (50%) achieved ctDNA clearance (+/−). The remainder were ctDNA+/+ (n = 3, 30%), ctDNA−/− (n = 1, 10%), and ctDNA−/+ (n = 1, 11%). Three (30%) patients showed the acquisition of new genomic alterations following transplant, all without recurrence. Overall, the median tumor mutation burden (TMB) decreased from 1.23 mut/Mb pre-transplant to 0.00 mut/Mb post-transplant. Conclusions: Patients with ctDNA positivity experienced recurrence at a higher rate than the ctDNA- patients, indicating the potential role of ctDNA in predicting recurrence after curative-intent transplant. Based on sequential testing, LT has the potential to clear ctDNA, demonstrating the capability of LT in the treatment of systemic disease. Transplant providers should be aware of the potential of donor-derived cell-free DNA and improved approaches are necessary to address such concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]