Parallel Analysis of Pre- and Postoperative Circulating Tumor DNA and Matched Tumor Tissues in Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising biomarker for early tumor detection and minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in early-stage cancer, but quantifying minute amounts of ctDNA is challenging and well-designed studies on ctDNA in early-stage cancer are still lacking. Here, we adapted a sensitive next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology and performed parallel analysis of pre- and postoperative ctDNA and matched tumor tissues in a prospective cohort of patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: In total, 70 consecutive patients undergoing curative resection for resectable PDAC were enrolled. We performed integrated digital error suppression-enhanced cancer personalized profiling by deep sequencing NGS of triple-matched samples (pre/postoperative plasma cell-free DNA [cfDNA], tumor tissue, and genomic DNA) targeting 77 genes. RESULTS: Preoperative ctDNA was detected in 37.7% of the evaluable patients, with a median variant allele frequency of 0.09%. Twelve additional oncogenic mutations were detected exclusively in preoperative ctDNA but not in tissue. When quantitative concentrations of ctDNA were estimated in haploid genome equivalents per milliliter (hGE/mL), the risk of early recurrence was high in patients with postoperative ctDNA >1 hGE/mL. cfDNA variants from 24.5% of patients had features compatible with clonal hematopoiesis. CONCLUSIONS: An optimized NGS approach might add value beyond tissue analysis through the highly sensitive detection of minute amounts of ctDNA in resectable PDAC. Postoperative ctDNA concentration could be a tool for MRD assessment. Moreover, parallel analyses of matched tissues and leukocytes might be required to accurately detect clinically relevant ctDNA.

Communication: Comparison of Respiratory Specimens for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

We compared SARS-CoV-2 detection rate of different respiratory specimens (nasopharyngeal swab [NPS], n=92; oropharyngeal swab [OPS], n=18; sputum, n=11). We also compared cycle threshold (Ct) values of paired specimen types obtained from the same patient on the same day. Then we characterized viral load kinetics of NPS (n=142), OPS (n=126), and sputum (n=75), during disease course. Sputum samples showed higher detection rate than NPS, and OPS exhibited the lowest detection rate. The median Ct values in NPS were significantly lower than in paired OPS, and higher than in paired sputum, respectively (P<0.05). During the disease course, viral load was the lowest in OPS and the highest in sputum samples.

Evidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Reinfection After Recovery from Mild Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Positive results from real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) in recovered patients raise concern that patients who recover from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be at risk of reinfection. Currently, however, evidence that supports reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has not been reported. METHODS: We conducted whole-genome sequencing of the viral RNA from clinical specimens at the initial infection and at the positive retest from 6 patients who recovered from COVID-19 and retested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via rRT-PCR after recovery. A total of 13 viral RNAs from the patients' respiratory specimens were consecutively obtained, which enabled us to characterize the difference in viral genomes between initial infection and positive retest. RESULTS: At the time of the positive retest, we were able to acquire a complete genome sequence from patient 1, a 21-year-old previously healthy woman. In this patient, through the phylogenetic analysis, we confirmed that the viral RNA of positive retest was clustered into a subgroup distinct from that of the initial infection, suggesting that there was a reinfection of SARS-CoV-2 with a subtype that was different from that of the primary strain. The spike protein D614G substitution that defines the clade "G" emerged in reinfection, while mutations that characterize the clade "V" (ie, nsp6 L37F and ORF3a G251V) were present at initial infection. CONCLUSIONS: Reinfection with a genetically distinct SARS-CoV-2 strain may occur in an immunocompetent patient shortly after recovery from mild COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 infection may not confer immunity against a different SARS-CoV-2 strain.