Personalized biomarkers monitor cancer

Pilot study harnesses sequencing power to track tumours.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Heidi Ledford

By looking for the genetic alterations that occur in tumour cells, a new assay could allow clinicians to use a simple blood test to track cancer during and after treatment.

The technique, developed by Victor Velculescu and Rebecca Leary at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore, Maryland, and their colleagues, generates patient-specific biomarkers using high-throughput DNA sequencing. So far it has only been tested in a proof-of-concept study using six tumours, and there are logistical hurdles to overcome before it could see widespread use. But researchers see the technique, reported today in Science Translational Medicine, as a sign of things to come.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"I am optimistic," says Joe Gray, a cancer researcher at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. "It does seem to be an exciting step in the direction of truly personalized medicine."

A tumour's trail

In tumour cells, the normal means of repairing DNA breaks down. As a result, the genetic landscape of a cancer cell differs from that of the patient's genome, with entire segments of DNA exchanged both within and between chromosomes.

In some cancers of blood or of immune cells there are characteristic rearrangements that can be used to monitor the disease. But it has been difficult to design tests for solid tumours, says Felix Mitelman, a cancer researcher at Lund University in Sweden. It is technically challenging to isolate intact chromosomes from these tumours, he says, and the exact location and kind of rearrangements vary from person to person.

The ability to detect chromosomal aberrations in all cancers would be a "revolution" in cancer diagnostics, he adds.

To do this, Velculescu and his colleagues generated about 40 million high-quality sequencing reads from each of four colorectal cancers and two breast cancers. By comparing these reads to a reference human genome sequence, they were able to find multiple regions that had been shuffled in each cancer.

The team then used this information to develop a test that would specifically target the rearranged regions. Tumours shed DNA into the bloodstream, and because the biomarker-development technique uses the polymerase chain reaction to amplify even minute quantities of DNA -- it could theoretically be used to detect even tiny tumours, Leary says.

To see if this was the case, the team used their test to track the progression of a colon cancer before and after surgery to remove the tumour. They found that 127 days post-surgery, the amount of tumour DNA had dropped substantially, but did not disappear. This was consistent with the finding that some cancer cells still lurked in the patient's liver.

Is the price right?

Leary and her colleagues were able to find multiple rearrangements in each tumour without resorting to full-genome sequencing. Nevertheless, the team estimates that the cost of sequencing is currently about US$5,000 per sample, with another $500 for data analysis and the design and testing of the biomarker.

That may be prohibitively expensive now, says Leary, but sequencing costs are plummeting. In contrast, computed tomography imaging can cost $1,500 per scan, she notes, whereas the biomarkers her team developed will only be expensive during the initial design phase -- subsequent testing using the same markers should be much cheaper.

And yet the most difficult aspect of the work may not be the sequencing, but rather the design and testing of the biomarkers. Each customized biomarker would have to be thoroughly validated before it could be used, says Arul Chinnaiyan, a cancer researcher at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "Right now we are certainly far from being able to handle the cost and the logistics of personalizing it this much," he says. "It would be a mini research project for each patient."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe