Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Sep 3;16(9):e0256979. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256979

Longitudinal detection of somatic mutations in saliva and plasma for the surveillance of oral squamous cell carcinomas

Ying Cui 1,2,#, Hae-Suk Kim 3,#, Eunae Sandra Cho 2,4, Dawool Han 2,4, Jung Ah Park 3, Ju Yeong Park 3, Woong Nam 1, Hyung Jun Kim 1, In-Ho Cha 1, Yong Hoon Cha 1,2,*
Editor: Zhaoqiang Zhang5
PMCID: PMC8415592  PMID: 34478472

Abstract

Purposes

Although clinical and radiological examinations can be used to diagnose oral cancer, and surgical pathology remains the gold standard, these conventional methods have limitations. We evaluated the feasibility of longitudinal next-generation sequencing-based liquid biopsy for oral squamous cell carcinoma surveillance.

Materials and methods

Eleven patients were enrolled, and plasma and saliva were collected before, and 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery. Tumor-specific mutations were selected using paired, whole-exome analyses of tumor tissues and whole blood. Genes frequently mutated in head and neck cancer were identified using the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) databases to design targeted deep sequencing panels.

Results

In five of the six patients with recurrent cancer, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was detected earlier with liquid biopsy than with conventional monitoring techniques. Moreover, patients without recurrence exhibited decreased ctDNA allele frequency post-treatment.

Conclusions

Longitudinal liquid biopsy of plasma and saliva may be feasible for detecting somatic mutations associated with oral squamous cell carcinomas. It might be attributable to determine early tumor recurrence through genetic analysis of ctDNA.

Introduction

The current clinical methods for cancer diagnosis include clinical examinations, surgical biopsy, and imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET). Among them, surgical biopsy and subsequent pathologic diagnosis are the gold standard for oral cancer diagnosis, even though these procedures have several limitations. Biopsies are invasive, time-consuming procedures that are difficult to repeat [13]. Furthermore, a biopsy does not reflect the spatiotemporal heterogeneity of a solid tumor because it targets only a single tumor site at a specific time point [4]. Unfortunately, owing to the paucity of disease-specific biomarkers for oral cancer, clinicians tend to rely only on conventional diagnostic tools [5, 6].

Although radiological examinations are useful in oral cancer diagnosis, they also have some limitations. Radiological examinations are challenging to use while observing orofacial lesions, not only due to metal artifacts from prostheses, dental implants, fixation plates, and screws, but also owing to post-operation fibrosis and inflammation during all periods of treatment [7]. In this regard, early surveillance using PET/CT may not provide accurate results until 12 m after initial treatment [8].

Perioperative surveillance is closely related to tumor recurrence and overall survival. Several clinical factors, such as nodal status, invasion depth, and surgical margin, have already been identified as prognosticators in oral cancer [6, 9, 10]. As early recurrence tends to significantly decrease overall survival rates in oral cancer [11, 12], early detection of tumor recurrence is crucial to improve the survival rate.

Recently, minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring has emerged as an important technique in tumor surveillance. MRD refers to a microscopic tumor that persists during or after treatment and cannot be diagnosed by conventional clinical or imaging methods [13, 14]. In hematologic cancers, MRD detection and monitoring are well-established and widely used [15, 16]. However, their application for solid tumors remains challenging owing to difficulties in sampling the low concentrations of circulating cells and other factors that cancer cells secrete into the bloodstream [14, 15]. Hence, serial quantitative methods have been unable to fulfill all the requirements of oral cancer diagnosis and surveillance.

The recently developed liquid biopsy technique can be an alternative diagnostic modality for oral cancer [1719]. However, prospective studies examining the use of complex mutation, subset-based liquid biopsies for the quantitative serial detection of tumor recurrence in oral cancer before and after treatment are unavailable. Hence, this study aimed to examine the feasibility of using serial liquid biopsy in detecting MRD in patients with oral cancer.

Materials and methods

Samples

We studied tumor tissues and liquid samples from 11 patients with oral cancer. The study was approved by the institutional review board of Yonsei University Dental Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea (Approval No. 2018–0061), and performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Individual written informed consent was obtained from all participating patients at enrolment. The participants were limited to those who underwent surgery among patients histologically diagnosed with oral squamous cell carcinoma at the research institute between April and July 2019, and all races were asian. Oropharyngeal cancer, salivary gland cancer, mucosal melanoma and sarcoma were excluded, and children and adolescents under the age of 18 and illiteracy were excluded. After the start of the study, we participated in the collection of liquid samples until 6 months after surgery, and clinical recurrence was monitored until 18 months after surgery. All participants voluntarily signed up after hearing the explanation of the study in an independent space before surgery, and sampling was also performed in a blood collection room and in an enclosed independent space. All participants were confirmed as oral squamous cell carcinoma through incisional biopsy by pathologists. Also intraoperative fresh frozen biopsies were performed until acquiring free margin.

Fresh tumor tissues were collected during the operation following macro dissection to ensure that neoplastic cellularity was over 20% and were then snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen. In case fresh tumor tissue was insufficient (patients LB-005, LB-007), formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues were collected through laser captured microdissection (Leica LMD 6500, Leica LMD membrane slide), achieving a tumor cellularity of over 80%. Genomic DNA was isolated from tumor tissue using the QIAamp DNA micro kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Three milliliters of paired whole blood were used to isolate genomic DNA from each patient using Intron G-DexTMIIb (Intron, Seongnam-Si, Korea). Saliva was collected using sterilized 50 ml tubes (Eppendorf, Germany) after oral rinsing with sterilized saline. In total, 5–15 ml of saliva was collected each time and snap-frozen for storage. Chewing paraffin (Ivoclar Vivadent, USA) was used for patients who underwent radiotherapy (RT) or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) if they complained of xerostomia. The saliva was centrifuged at 1,600 g for 10 min at 4°C, and the clear supernatant was transferred to a new 50 ml tube and centrifuged at 1,600 g for 5 min at 4°C. Ten milliliters of whole blood were collected in Cell-Free DNA blood collection tube (BCT) (Streck, USA) for harvesting circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Blood samples were centrifuged at 1,600 g for 10 min at 22°C. Plasma was then separated by centrifugation at 1,600 g for 10 min at 4°C to remove cell debris; subsequently, 1 ml aliquots were placed in Eppendorf tubes and stored at −80°C before extraction. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) was isolated from both saliva and whole blood using MagMax (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. A mean of 4 ml of plasma was used for cfDNA isolation. All DNA samples were stored at –80°C and quantified using the Qubit fluorometer (Invitrogen, USA), and the size distribution was evaluated using the 2200 Tapestation (Agilent Technologies, USA). The schematic workflow of sample collection, DNA isolation, and sequencing is depicted in Fig 1. Both saliva and plasma were longitudinally collected at four time points for the isolation of cfDNA: T1, immediately before surgery; T2, 1 m after surgery, T3, 3 m after surgery, and T4, 6 m after surgery.

Fig 1. Schematic diagram of the longitudinal study design.

Fig 1

Both plasma and saliva were collected for evaluation using liquid biopsy. For example, T2 samples were used to estimate the therapeutic effect of surgery based on T1 sampling data, and T3 samples were used to evaluate the efficiency of adjuvant therapies based on sampling T2 sampling data.

Next-generation sequencing

Whole exome sequencing (WES) was conducted using tumor tissue and paired whole-blood samples to identify tumor-specific somatic mutations. Targeted deep sequencing for cell-free DNA from liquid samples was performed to detect ctDNA. Briefly, genomic DNA from each sample was fragmented by acoustic shearing using a Covaris S2 instrument (Covaris, USA), but cfDNAs were skipped in this step. Fragments of 150–300 bp were ligated to the Illumina adapters and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-amplified. The samples were concentrated and hybridized with RNA probes, and the SureSelect XT Human All Exon V5 Capture library for WES or oral cancer-specific customized gene panel was used for targeted deep sequencing. To design the panel, tumor-specific, high impact somatic mutations were chosen and compared to germline mutations from the paired whole blood sample. In addition to patient-driven mutations, mutations frequent in head and neck cancer were chosen using both The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) from the Genomic Data Commons (GDC) data portal (National Cancer Institute), and the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) Mutant Census v87.

After hybridization, the captured targets were pulled down by biotinylated probe/target hybrids using streptavidin-coated magnetic beads (Dynabeads My One Streptavidin T1; Life Technologies Ltd.) and buffers. The selected regions were then PCR-amplified using Illumina PCR primers. Libraries were quantified using the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies), and KAPA Library Quantification Kit (KK4824, Kapa Biosystems). The resulting purified libraries were applied to an Illumina flow cell for cluster generation and sequenced using 100 bp paired-end reads on an Illumina NovaSeq6000 sequencer using the manufacturer’s protocols.

Sequencing quality control

The quality of the reads was checked using fastQC (v.0.11.8), which revealed the basic quality in terms of the sequence quality score, GC content, N content, length distribution, and duplication level. After checking the read quality, low-quality bases below Q20 were trimmed using Cutadapt (v.2.5) [20].

Sequencing alignment, variant call, and annotation

High-quality reads were then aligned to the human reference genome, hg19, using the Burrows-Wheeler Aligner (BWA) (v.0.7.17) [21]. Subsequently, the duplicated reads without UMI were removed using MarkDuplicates.jar in PicardTools (v.2.20.7). For deduplication reads with UMI, the fgbio (v.1.0.0) packages was used. Intervals showing mismatch were examined for more accurate realignment using the Realigner Target Creator tool in the Genome Analysis toolkit (GATK) (v.4.1.3) [22], and ‘Mills-and-1000G-gold.standard-INDELs.hg19’ was used as the known indel set. The base quality score recalibration (BQSR) process was then performed to adjust the quality score using the Base Recalibrator tool in GATK. For the realigned and recalibrated reads, variants were called using the Mutect2 tool in GATK. All variants were then annotated using SnpEff (v.4.3.1) [23], based on predictions for the deleterious or clinical effect of the variants using dbNSFP [24], COSMIC [25], and ClinVar [26]. Allele frequencies were obtained from the 1000 Genomes [27], ESP6500, and ExAC databases [28]. Mutation allele frequencies over 0.1% indicated the presence of ctDNA in liquid samples. In contrast, high-frequency mutations (frequency over 7.0%) collected from open-source data were considered noise. Additionally, mutations collected from TCGA and COSMIC were considered true mutations when they were detected in pre-treatment liquid samples. Also, all synonymous variants with damaging impact (Low or MODIFIER) as annotated by Ensembl VEP were filtered out.

For generating oncoplot to display somatic landscape between patients, R package maftools (v.0.9.30) was used. The Customized R code was used to generate a swimmer plot to track the occurrence of mutations in patients over time. The variant concordance was demonstrated by customized Python code.

Results

Clinical features and mutations in primary tumors

A total of 11 patients were enrolled in this prospective, longitudinal study. All patients were diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma before surgery by an experienced oral and maxillofacial pathologist. Their average age was 64 and seven of them were female (63.6%). All samples were collected from the oral cavity. Except for individual tongue and cheek samples, nine samples were from the gingiva (five from the maxilla and four from the mandible). Four patients (36.4%) had early (stage II) disease, and the remaining seven patients (63.6%) had advanced (stage III or IV) disease. Among those with advanced disease, three patients had a history of recurrent tumors. In particular, patient LB-002 had five tumor recurrences only in the oral cavity, with a history of three surgical and two RT interventions. Furthermore, patient LB-011 had a history of definitive RT on the right tongue 10 years before this study. In one patient (LB-007), the tumor had recurred at the same site within eight months of initial surgical treatment before this study (Table 1).

Table 1. Summarized clinical information from patients enrolled in the longitudinal liquid biopsy study for the detection of oral squamous cell carcinomas.

Patient no. Age Sex Primary site TNM (stage)
LB-001 40 F Tongue, left T3N0M0 (III)
LB-002* 67 F Mx. gingiva, left T2N0M0 (II)
LB-003 52 M Mn. gingiva, left T4bN0M0 (IVb)
LB-004 73 F Mx. gingiva, anterior T2N0M0 (II)
LB-005 77 F RMT, right T4aN0M0 (IVa)
LB-006 63 M Mx. gingiva, right T4aN0M0 (IVa)
LB-007* 57 F Cheek, right T4bN0M0 (IVb)
LB-008 75 M Mx. gingiva, right T4aN0M0 (IVa)
LB-009 84 F Mx. gingiva, right T2N0M0 (II)
LB-010 53 F Mn. gingiva, right T3N0M0 (III)
LB-011* 62 M Mn. gingiva, left T2N0M0 (II)

Asterisk (*) indicates recurrent tumors at the beginning of the study. The TNM stage was decided based on the 8th edition of the AJCC.

To begin this study, we attempted to identify tumor-only somatic mutations in every patient through WES and compared these to germline mutations from whole blood. TP53 mutations were a driver event in six patients (55%), while CASP8, AJUBA, CDKN2A, and NOTCH1 mutations were also frequent (Fig 2). PIC3CA mutations were not observed in the primary tumors in our cohort.

Fig 2. Oncoplot of the top 20 genes analyzed by whole-exome sequencing from the index tumors of 11 patients.

Fig 2

Sequencing depth was 200 x for the index tumor, and 100 x for whole blood.

Variant selection for panel design

In addition to tumor-specific mutations from tissue samples, frequent somatic mutations were searched for in TCGA and COSMIC to produce a panel optimized for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), involving oral cancer (S1 and S2 Tables). In total, 308 mutations were selected from a total of 508 TCGA HNSCC samples. TP53 was the most frequently mutated gene overall with various mutations (531/834, 63.7%). The most frequent independent mutation in TCGA was PIK3CA c.1633G > A (p.Glu545Lys) with an overall frequency of 5%. TP53 c.524G > A (p.Arg175H) mutation was the most frequent mutation among the TP53 mutations, with a 2% frequency overall. Among the 185 mutations summarized from COSMIC, TP53 showed the most frequent mutation count (588/3613, 16.3%), followed by CDKN2A and PIK3CA. Interestingly, although TP53 was the most mutated gene in both TCGA and COSMIC, the frequency of mutation differed in each set. Furthermore, previously reported driver events were considered for designing the panel involving FAT1, AJUBA, NOTCH1, HRAS, NRAS, FBXW7, KMT2D, and NSD1 [17, 29]. All these given mutations were summarized to produce the panel with the most frequent genes (S3 Table).

Longitudinal liquid biopsy for oral cancer surveillance

Longitudinal liquid biopsies using saliva and plasma were performed on 11 patients. As nine samples (five plasma and four saliva samples) were missed and two saliva samples did not pass the DNA quality control, a total of 77 liquid samples underwent deep sequencing. Targeted deep sequencing was performed to detect the ctDNA based on the previously designed panel.

Of the 11 patients involved in the study, clinical recurrence was confirmed at the 18 m follow-up after initial treatment in six patients. Four of them had an advanced stage (stage III, IV), and four had close or positive surgical margins (close 1/6, 16.7%, positive 3/6, 50.0%), while the rest had a free margin (2/6, 33.3%). In contrast, 4 out of 5 (80%) patients without recurrence had a free margin, and the remaining one had close hard-tissue margin (1/5, 20%). Four of six patients (66.7%) with recurrent cancer received RT (1 patient) or CCRT (3 patients) for adjuvant therapy, while only one patient underwent adjuvant RT in the non-recurrent group (1/5, 20%) (Table 2, Fig 3A and 3B).

Table 2. Summary of longitudinal ctDNA detection results and clinical recurrence.

Patient no. ctDNA detection (months post-surgery) Clinical recurrence Recurrence recognition time (months) Adjuvant therapy Recurrence detection method
0 1 3 6
LB-001 O NA O O Recur 6 RT Clinic, CT
LB-002 O O O O Recur 8.5 - Clinic, pathology
LB-003 O - - - Recur 12 CCRT Clinic, MRI
LB-004 O - - - - - - -
LB-005 O - NA - - - - -
LB-006 O - - O Recur 6 CCRT MRI
LB-007 O O NA NA Recur 7.5 CCRT MRI, CT
LB-008 O O O O Recur 6 - MRI, CT
LB-009 O O - - - - - -
LB-010 O - - - - - RT -
LB-011 O NA - - - - - -

In five out of six patients, locoregional recurrences were detected earlier with liquid biopsy than with conventional methods. NA: not available.

Fig 3. Clinical progress of recurrence and non recurrence group.

Fig 3

Mean allele frequency (MAF) and ctDNA count differences between plasma and saliva based on liquid biopsy examinations. A and B. Clinical monitoring of both recurrence group (A) and non recurrence group (B), C. A swimmer plot to track the occurrence of mutations in patients over time. The purple triangle indicates the detection of ctDNA. D. MAF of both plasma and saliva samples,Sum of ctDNA counts in both plasma and saliva.

In this study, we successfully detected the presence of ctDNA through a combination of liquid samples mainly dependent on saliva from five patients with recurrent cancer (Fig 3C, Table 2, S4 Table). Only one patient (LB-003), who showed clinical recurrence at 12 m, did not show the presence of ctDNA until 6 m after initial treatment. Notably, the recurring lesion was observed in the left temporal space, while the primary tumor was found on the ipsilateral gingiva of the mandible. The mean time difference between first longitudinal ctDNA detection and clinical recurrence diagnosis was 4.4 m (mean 2.4 m versus 6.8 m) in the five patients showing recurrence. Most clinical recurrences were found on regular imaging studies (CT, MRI) and clinical examinations, such as naked-eye inspection or palpation (Table 2). And the mean allele frequency of mutations detected in saliva of each patient was relatively increased in recurred patients at both T2 (1 month after initial treatment) and T3 (3 month after initial treatment) compared with the non-recurred (mean AF, 0.05% for non-recurred versus 1.58% for recurred; median AF, 0% for non-recurred versus 0.6% for recurred; Wilcoxon sighed rank test, p 0.03) (S1 Fig). Based on this result the presence of ctDNA in liquid biopsy indicated a substantial increased possibility of recurrence. Earlier ctDNA detection indicated the need for close clinical monitoring such as interdisciplinarity approach with ctDNA testing at successive time point.

Among the patients without recurrence, patient LB-009 showed the TP53 c.818G > A single nucleotide variant (SNV) in both plasma and saliva initially and at 1 m after surgery which was not observed on the index tumor. However, those ctDNA SNV disappeared after 3 m even though the patient did not receive any adjuvant therapy. Intriguingly, the surgical margin of this patient was positive only in maxilla hard tissue but free in soft tissue. This patient suffered from oroantral fistula and necrosis on the surgical site after surgery.

The efficiency of liquid biopsy for oral cancer was 100% before initial treatment when combining plasma and saliva, while the latter showed higher efficiency alone. Although ctDNA detection with saliva missed only one patient (LB-006) who had stage IV maxilla gingiva cancer, the presence of plasma ctDNA in the same patient compensated for this. When patients were grouped following clinical recurrence, ctDNA detection efficiency was relatively low at T2 (1 m after initial treatment) (Table 3). Considering that a few liquid samples were not collected, ctDNA in saliva was detected with a greater sensitivity than ctDNA in plasma immediately after surgery. In particular, sequencing could not be performed on the two T3 saliva samples from the recurrence group as they did not meet the DNA quality control criteria. Although the detection rate of ctDNA in saliva decreased in the recurrence group at T4 when plasma ctDNA started being detected, the overall tumor monitoring efficiency was higher when saliva and plasma were both used.

Table 3. Summary of surveillance of oral squamous cell carcinoma recurrence by longitudinal liquid biopsy.

Time point (months post-surgery) Recurrence Plasma (%) Saliva (%) Saliva or Plasma (%)
0 - 3/11 (27) 10/11 (91) 11/11 (100)
1 No 1/4 (25) 1/4 (25) 1/4 (25)
Yes 0/5 (0) 3/6 (50) 3/6 (50)
3 No 0/4 (0) 0/4 (0) 0/4 (0)
Yes 0/5 (0) 3/4 (75) 3/6 (50)
6 No 0/5 (0) 0/5 (0) 0/5 (0)
Yes 2/5 (40) 2/5 (40) 4/5 (80)

Saliva samples were better than plasma samples for oral cancer surveillance. Some patients with recurrence exhibited low ctDNA levels in saliva at one and three months post surgery.

Intriguingly, mean allele frequency (MAF) and ctDNA count through targeted deep sequencing in plasma and saliva samples provided quantitative information. Saliva constantly showed a much higher MAF and sum of ctDNA counts than plasma (Fig 3D). Saliva also exhibited that the local residual tumor was absent in the group that did not have cancer recurrence as time progressed. Although plasma had a similar expression pattern as saliva, saliva had much higher quantitative values in both the MAF and ctDNA count.

Concordance of variants between liquid biopsy and index tumor

The concordance of targeted deep sequencing results was estimated in samples from 11 patients using cfDNA and genomic DNA from primary tumor tissues before initial treatment. The concordance rate between salivary cfDNA and tumor tissue DNA was 72.7% (8/11) among all patients while the rate for plasma cfDNA was 9.1% (1/11). In salivary cfDNA, two patients showed complete concordance and six patients showed partial concordance (Fig 4A). The concordance for each gene is depicted in Fig 4B. Although two patients (LB-001,009) did not exhibit concordance between tumor tissue and liquid samples, TP53 mutations that were not found on WES of the index tumor were identified by deep sequencing of liquid samples.

Fig 4. Concordance between cfDNA and index tumors.

Fig 4

A. Summarized concordance between plasma and saliva samples, B. Summarized gene-based concordance.

Discussion

This study was designed to develop a workflow for the detection of SNVs in cfDNA from the plasma and saliva of patients with oral cancer using an identical sequencing panel and to evaluate its feasibility in longitudinally evaluating liquid samples of 11 patients with oral cancer. This method was based on targeted deep sequencing of a panel composed of frequently mutated genes in HNSCC. This panel-based, multiplex next-generation sequencing approach provides several advantages for liquid biopsy. High-resolution data can be acquired through multiplex analysis using the specialized HNSCC panel. It can also help to overcome weakness in the selection of unique mutations from index tumors that cannot fully cover the evolution tracing and dynamic changes in the mutational spectrum and intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity [4, 14, 30, 31].

Overall, we explored the relevance of liquid biopsy to monitor the clinical recurrence of oral cancer using a designed panel at deep coverage. As a result, we successfully detected the presence of ctDNA in both plasma and saliva of patients with oral cancer, and the latter exhibited much higher resolution. The presence of a primary tumor was 100% confirmed before initial treatment by liquid biopsy in a previous report [17]. Quantitatively, increased SNVs from ctDNA were observed approximately three months after surgery mainly in saliva samples and not in plasma samples, which suggests the possibility of locoregional recurrence. The emergence of SNVs of ctDNA in liquid samples was detected approximately four months earlier than clinical recurrence by conventional clinical methods, and until 6 m after surgery, we continued sometimes-blinded radiological examinations as post-operation adjuvant therapy.

As genetic variation in cancer undergoes dynamic changes from emergence to evolution that overcome therapies, intra-tumor and inter-tumor heterogeneity tends to increase [4, 32]. This pattern implies that a few driver mutations from index tumors cannot cover serial tracing of tumor recurrence. Thus, frequent-mutation selection from both TCGA and COSMIC, in addition to index tumor sequencing, can be an alternative to serial liquid biopsy.

Previous reports used HPV-DNA presence in plasma to increase detection efficiency in HPV-positive, oropharyngeal cancer [17]. However, this method is difficult to apply in oral cancer because most oral cavity cancers (e.g., gum, palate, tongue, and cheek) are HPV-negative [33]. Therefore, ctDNA or copy number aberrations (CNA) in local or systemic fluids may be preferable for liquid biopsy in patients with oral cancer. Recent reports have shown advantages to low-coverage, whole genome sequencing in HNSCC patients, while the ctDNA detection method is still too obscure for application in a patient cohort [18]. We also successfully detected the evidence of tumor recurrence with ctDNA in the plasma of patients while the probability of detection was higher in saliva than in plasma. Although it cannot be concluded whether whole genome sequencing or targeted sequencing is clinically more effective in HNSCC, it is important to determine the timing of sampling as liquid biopsy is clinically most useful for monitoring early recurrence after initial treatment than pretreatment or metastatic setting [19].

Ideally, driver-mutation selection from index tumors and subsequent, large-panel-based, serially targeted deep sequencing for ctDNA and low-coverage, whole genome sequencing for CNAs, along with digital droplet PCR for validation, are all important research methods for tracing tumor recurrence and evolution. These techniques remain useful even with restrictions on time, funds, and cfDNA quality. The other unexpected clinical obstacle in collecting saliva for the cfDNA study was xerostomia (severely decreased saliva secretion) in patients that underwent RT or CCRT. As saliva showed better efficiency in locoregional recurrence monitoring in this study, overcoming low quantity and quality of salivary cfDNA would be the main hurdle in future studies. Another limitation is the small sample size of this patient cohort, hampering us to correlate our findings with the clinical outcome. When calculated through G-power [34], it is recommended that the minimum sample size for repeated measurements is 23 or more. However, due to the constraints of cost and time, 11 patients were enrolled in the study. Since it is difficult to represent the entire oral cancer patient population, a study with larger sample size will be needed in the future.

In conclusion, we examined the clinical feasibility of longitudinal liquid biopsies for the analysis of somatic mutations in cfDNA from both plasma and saliva samples of patients with oral cancer. Longitudinal liquid biopsy of plasma and saliva may be feasible for detecting somatic mutations associated with oral squamous cell carcinomas. Future research should focus not only on clinical protocol establishment for the surveillance of locoregional and metastatic disease, but also on designing novel clinical trials to provide practical benefits for these patients.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Statistical analysis of earlier variant detection from recurrent patients.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Frequent somatic mutations found on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of TCGA dataset.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Frequent somatic mutations found on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of COSMIC dataset.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Gene list of customized targeted sequencing panel.

(XLSX)

S4 Table. The results of ctDNA detection in both plasma and saliva.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Next generation sequencing data were uploaded on NCBI SRA with accession number PRJNA718901 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA718901/).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean Government (MSIT) (No. 2018R1C1B600445813). The funder provided support in the form of salaries for author YC, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Theragen Bio., Ltd. provided support in the form of salaries for authors HSK, JAP and JYP, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There are no patents, products in development, or marketed products to declare.

References

  • 1.Bellairs JA, Hasina R, Agrawal N. Tumor DNA: an emerging biomarker in head and neck cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2017;36(3):515–23. Epub 2017/08/13. doi: 10.1007/s10555-017-9685-x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5839661. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lauritano D, Oberti L, Gabrione F, Lucchese A, Petruzzi M, Carinci F, et al. Liquid biopsy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Prognostic significance of circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA. A systematic review. Oral Oncol. 2019;97:7–17. Epub 2019/08/20. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2019.07.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.van Ginkel JH, Huibers MMH, Noorlag R, de Bree R, van Es RJJ, Willems SM. Liquid Biopsy: A Future Tool for Posttreatment Surveillance in Head and Neck Cancer? Pathobiology. 2017;84(3):115–20. Epub 2016/12/16. doi: 10.1159/000452861 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Math M, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(10):883–92. Epub 2012/03/09. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113205 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4878653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Paczkowska J, Szyfter K, Giefing M, Wierzbicka M. Genetic signature and profiling of head and neck cancer: where do we stand? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;25(2):154–8. Epub 2017/02/01. doi: 10.1097/MOO.0000000000000348 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Binahmed A, Nason RW, Abdoh AA. The clinical significance of the positive surgical margin in oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2007;43(8):780–4. Epub 2006/12/19. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2006.10.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zhao X, Rao S. Surveillance imaging following treatment of head and neck cancer. Semin Oncol. 2017;44(5):323–9. Epub 2018/03/28. doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2018.01.010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ho AS, Tsao GJ, Chen FW, Shen T, Kaplan MJ, Colevas AD, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography surveillance at 12 and 24 months for detecting head and neck cancer recurrence. Cancer. 2013;119(7):1349–56. Epub 2012/12/12. doi: 10.1002/cncr.27892 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chandu A, Adams G, Smith AC. Factors affecting survival in patients with oral cancer: an Australian perspective. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34(5):514–20. Epub 2005/08/02. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2004.10.006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.D’Cruz AK, Vaish R, Kapre N, Dandekar M, Gupta S, Hawaldar R, et al. Elective versus Therapeutic Neck Dissection in Node-Negative Oral Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):521–9. Epub 2015/06/02. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1506007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kernohan MD, Clark JR, Gao K, Ebrahimi A, Milross CG. Predicting the prognosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma after first recurrence. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;136(12):1235–9. Epub 2010/12/22. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2010.214 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mucke T, Wagenpfeil S, Kesting MR, Holzle F, Wolff KD. Recurrence interval affects survival after local relapse of oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(8):687–91. Epub 2008/12/20. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.10.011 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pantel K, Alix-Panabieres C, Riethdorf S. Cancer micrometastases. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(6):339–51. Epub 2009/04/29. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.44 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pantel K, Alix-Panabieres C. Liquid biopsy and minimal residual disease—latest advances and implications for cure. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019;16(7):409–24. Epub 2019/02/24. doi: 10.1038/s41571-019-0187-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.van Dongen JJ, Macintyre EA, Gabert JA, Delabesse E, Rossi V, Saglio G, et al. Standardized RT-PCR analysis of fusion gene transcripts from chromosome aberrations in acute leukemia for detection of minimal residual disease. Report of the BIOMED-1 Concerted Action: investigation of minimal residual disease in acute leukemia. Leukemia. 1999;13(12):1901–28. Epub 1999/12/22. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2401592 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ivey A, Hills RK, Simpson MA, Jovanovic JV, Gilkes A, Grech A, et al. Assessment of Minimal Residual Disease in Standard-Risk AML. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(5):422–33. Epub 2016/01/21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507471 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wang Y, Springer S, Mulvey CL, Silliman N, Schaefer J, Sausen M, et al. Detection of somatic mutations and HPV in the saliva and plasma of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(293):293ra104. Epub 2015/06/26. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa8507; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4587492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mes SW, Brink A, Sistermans EA, Straver R, Oudejans CBM, Poell JB, et al. Comprehensive multiparameter genetic analysis improves circulating tumor DNA detection in head and neck cancer patients. Oral Oncol. 2020;109:104852. Epub 2020/06/27. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Galot R, van Marcke C, Helaers R, Mendola A, Goebbels RM, Caignet X, et al. Liquid biopsy for mutational profiling of locoregional recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2020;104:104631. Epub 2020/03/15. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet journal. 2011;17(1):10–2. doi: 10.14806/ej.17.1.200 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(14):1754–60. Epub 2009/05/20. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2705234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.McKenna A, Hanna M, Banks E, Sivachenko A, Cibulskis K, Kernytsky A, et al. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 2010;20(9):1297–303. Epub 2010/07/21. doi: 10.1101/gr.107524.110 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2928508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cingolani P, Platts A, Wang le L, Coon M, Nguyen T, Wang L, et al. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly (Austin). 2012;6(2):80–92. Epub 2012/06/26. doi: 10.4161/fly.19695 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3679285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Liu X, Wu C, Li C, Boerwinkle E. dbNSFP v3.0: A One-Stop Database of Functional Predictions and Annotations for Human Nonsynonymous and Splice-Site SNVs. Hum Mutat. 2016;37(3):235–41. Epub 2015/11/12. doi: 10.1002/humu.22932 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4752381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Forbes SA, Bhamra G, Bamford S, Dawson E, Kok C, Clements J, et al. The Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC). Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2008;Chapter 10:Unit 10 1. Epub 2008/04/23. doi: 10.1002/0471142905.hg1011s57; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2705836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Landrum MJ, Lee JM, Riley GR, Jang W, Rubinstein WS, Church DM, et al. ClinVar: public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D980–5. Epub 2013/11/16. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1113 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3965032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Genomes Project C, Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM, Garrison EP, Kang HM, et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature. 2015;526(7571):68–74. Epub 2015/10/04. doi: 10.1038/nature15393 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4750478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Karczewski KJ, Weisburd B, Thomas B, Solomonson M, Ruderfer DM, Kavanagh D, et al. The ExAC browser: displaying reference data information from over 60 000 exomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45(D1):D840–D5. Epub 2016/12/03. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw971 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5210650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Stransky N, Egloff AM, Tward AD, Kostic AD, Cibulskis K, Sivachenko A, et al. The mutational landscape of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Science. 2011;333(6046):1157–60. Epub 2011/07/30. doi: 10.1126/science.1208130 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3415217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.de Roest RH, Mes SW, Poell JB, Brink A, van de Wiel MA, Bloemena E, et al. Molecular Characterization of Locally Relapsed Head and Neck Cancer after Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(23):7256–65. Epub 2019/08/24. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0628 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Luskin MR, Murakami MA, Manalis SR, Weinstock DM. Targeting minimal residual disease: a path to cure? Nat Rev Cancer. 2018;18(4):255–63. Epub 2018/01/30. doi: 10.1038/nrc.2017.125 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6398166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Campbell PJ, Pleasance ED, Stephens PJ, Dicks E, Rance R, Goodhead I, et al. Subclonal phylogenetic structures in cancer revealed by ultra-deep sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(35):13081–6. Epub 2008/08/30. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0801523105 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2529122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cancer Genome Atlas N. Comprehensive genomic characterization of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Nature. 2015;517(7536):576–82. Epub 2015/01/30. doi: 10.1038/nature14129 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4311405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91. Epub 2007/08/19. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Zhaoqiang Zhang

24 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-08145

Longitudinal detection of somatic mutations in saliva and plasma for the surveillance of oral squamous cell carcinomas

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cha Yong Hoon,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 5/23/2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zhaoqiang Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Theragen Bio Co., Ltd.

2.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2.2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing.

4. Please include details of data analysis methodology in your manuscript Methods.

5. Please provide a sample size and power calculation in the Methods, or discuss the reasons for not performing one before study initiation.

6. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, d) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, d) a description of how participants were recruited, and e) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

7. Please ensure you have discussed any potential limitations of your study in the Discussion, including study design, sample size and/or potential confounders.

8. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Eunae Sandra Cho,, Dawool Han, Jung Ah Park, Ju Yeong Park, Woong Nam, Hyung Jun Kim, In-Ho Cha.

9. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

10. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank for giving me an opportunity to review your interesting study.

I think that your study is so important. But there are some serious concerns as follows:

• First of all, although recurrence group includes some extensive cases (such as T4b case), I have a serious concern about the high rate of recurrence and positive margin. Please add the detailed surgical procedures (It is possible as supplemental information).

• I think that LB003 is not cT2.

• Please add the information of NM stage.

• LB001 is young patient. Why was adjuvant chemotherapy not performed?

• How many patients with oral cancer are treated in your hospital? Please add the detailed criteria of patient enrollment. How about patient selection bias?

I have ethical concerns in this study.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript describes a novel approach of using liquid biopsy for surveillance of patients with oral cancers. The method used is appropriate and well detailed. Though the sample collection part of the methodology could be written with more clarity by creating subsections for the different samples obtained.

The results was well expressed addressing the objectives of the research.

Authors state in the discussion (before limitation statement) that detection of ctDNA was more efficient using plasma than saliva in recurrence cases but stated in the result that saliva provides early detection which wanes in T4 stage of sample collection where plasma values increase. This statement needs to be modified.

In the limitation of the study, authors claim patients were in incurable state but had patients with T2 staged cancer which can be controlled or cured in many cases. The statement needs to be modified.

The limitation on the discussion should commence on a new paragraph.

Overall, it is a well-detailed and drafted manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Masaya Akashi

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 3;16(9):e0256979. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256979.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


14 Jun 2021

Point to Point response to Reviewer’s comments

We thank the Reviewers for their critical comments and helpful suggestions, which we addressed in full to improve the impact of our data and the quality of our manuscript. As described in detail below, we have revised our manuscript in response to the Reviewers’ comments. Below is a point-to-point response to the individual comments.

Editor (Remarks to the Author)

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

(Author’s Response) The format of the title page was changed according to the PLOSONE guidelines.

2. Issues about competing interest of three authors (Hae-Suk Kim, Jung Ah Park, Ju Yeong Park) and role of funder.

(Author’s Response) I would like to declare no competing interests exist, related to financial or non-financial (such as receiving funds, stocks, or shares), with Theragen Bio. Funding for conducting this study solely came from my own governmental grant written in acknowledgement (National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean Government). Hae-Suk Kim, Juyoung Park, and Jeonga Park, who are employees of Theragen Bio, solely contribute their scientific expertise and knowledge to conduct next-generation sequencing and bioinformatics analysis for this study. They do not have any competing interests. Also, I would like to declare that Theragen Bio did not provide any funding for this study and does not alter my adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials

3. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories

(Author’s Response) Following your recommendation, next generation sequencing data were uploaded on NCBI SRA with accession number PRJNA718901 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA718901/)

4. Please include details of data analysis methodology in your manuscript Methods.

(Author’s Response) We included details of data analysis methodology regarding sample collection, sequencing data analysis and data curation in Methods.

5. Please provide a sample size and power calculation in the Methods, or discuss the reasons for not performing one before study initiation.

(Author’s Response) We recorded the limitation and the reason of small sample size of the study as well as optimal sample size for repeated analysis in Discussion section. Altough Wang et al. performed liquid biopsy on 93 patients, repeated samples were only 9 patients within them with median follow up period 12 months after surgery [1].

Please consider that our study tried the earlier detection of circulating tumor DNA from 1 month to 6 months after sugery within 18 months clinical follow up.

6. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, d) a description of how participants were recruited, and e) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

(Author’s Response) We added detailed sample information about the recruitment range, inclusion/exclusion criteria, power and limitation of sample size (in Discussion), recruitment methods in Method section.

7. Please ensure you have discussed any potential limitations of your study in the Discussion, including study design, sample size and/or potential confounders.

(Author’s Response) We revised the manuscript in Discussion section with potential limitations of the study. As the reviewers pointed out, small sample size would be the weakest point of our study. However, longitudinal, serial liquid sample collection as well as paired solid tumor analysis were strong point of our study.

8. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Eunae Sandra Cho,, Dawool Han, Jung Ah Park, Ju Yeong Park, Woong Nam, Hyung Jun Kim, In-Ho Cha.

(Author’s Response) We revised the manuscript with detailed author contribution following the guidelines of your journal. Also all authors were included during resubmission.

9. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

(Author’s Response) Following the guidelines, ethics statement was written only in Methods section.

10. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

(Author’s Response) We revised the manuscript following your journal guidelines.

Reviewer #1

1. First of all, although recurrence group includes some extensive cases (such as T4b case), I have a serious concern about the high rate of recurrence and positive margin. Please add the detailed surgical procedures (It is possible as supplemental information).

(Author's response) The limitations of this study in the discussion are the small sample size and the representativeness of the entire patient group. According to another study conducted in our institution, of 255 SCC patients, Stage I was 27.8%, Stage II 19.6%, Stage III 7.8%, Stage IVA 37.6%, Stage IVB 7.1%, in summary 47.4% for early stage and 52.6% for advanced stage [2]. In this study, the early stage was 36.4% and the advanced stage was 63.6%. LB003 contributed to a higher recurrence rate as this patient was revised to Stage IVB following reviewer's beneficial suggestion.

Summarizing the surgical procedure in relation to the positive margin, after a wide resection of the main mass during the operation, fresh-frozen biopsy was routinely performed at 5 to 7 sites in accordance with insurance criteria, and repeated until all are determined free. In the final pathologic diagnosis, the area that determines the margin cannot be completely consistent with the area where a fresh frozen biopsy was performed. In this reason, close or positive margin is reported in final pathologic diagnosis contrary to intraoperative frozen biopsy. Among the patients included in this study, patients with advanced stage had orbital, ethmoid, and pterygoid extensions where clear margin could not be obtained easily.

2. I think that LB003 is not cT2.

(Author's response) The length of the long axis measured by preoperative MRI of LB003 patient was 3.8cm, but the adjacent muscles were not considered. In fact, the medical oncologist recorded it as Stage II, and the radiation oncologist doctor recorded as Stage IVB. After careful reviewing all participants, patient LB003 was revised to Stage IVB following reviewer’s suggestion.

3. Please add the information of NM stage

(Author's response) As requested by reviewer, we have added the NM stage in Table 1.

4. LB001 is young patient. Why was adjuvant chemotherapy not performed?

(Author's response) Even if CCRT is recommended by the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon following NCCN guidelines, radiation alone is sometimes administered in case of the patient refuses chemotherapy by personal reason after an individual interview with medical oncologist or radiation oncologist. In this case, the patient refused platinum based chemotherapy owing to low body weight and severe anorexia.

5. How many patients with oral cancer are treated in your hospital? Please add the detailed criteria of patient enrollment. How about patient selection bias?

(Author's response) From 2000 to 2017, the total number of SCC patients with oral cancer at the research institute was 444. Among them, 255 patients with complete medical records were considered sufficient for academic study. Recently, about 40 SCC surgeries are performed each year, and sarcoma, mucosal melanoma, and salivary gland tumors are not included in this number. We have added detailed criteria in the Methods section. Although there is an opportunity of bias due to small sample size, more patients' participation in the study was not possible due to budget overruns and time limits.

Reviewer #2:

1. Authors state in the discussion (before limitation statement) that detection of ctDNA was more efficient using plasma than saliva in recurrence cases but stated in the result that saliva provides early detection which wanes in T4 stage of sample collection where plasma values increase. This statement needs to be modified.

(Author's response) We revised the discussion section as review’s clear suggestion. As it has not yet been determined which liquid biopsy method should be applied as a standard for head and neck cancer (low-coverage whole genome sequencing, ctDNA targeted deep sequencing or HPV detection etc.), we wanted to note that the timing of sampling is clinically more important than the method.

2. In the limitation of the study, authors claim patients were in incurable state but had patients with T2 staged cancer which can be controlled or cured in many cases. The statement needs to be modified.

(Author's response) We revised that sentence to avoid confusion.

3. The limitation on the discussion should commence on a new paragraph.

(Author's response) As reviewer’s suggestion, we revised the limitation of study in discussion section on a paragraph.

References

1. Wang Y, Springer S, Mulvey CL, Silliman N, Schaefer J, Sausen M, et al. Detection of somatic mutations and HPV in the saliva and plasma of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(293):293ra104. Epub 2015/06/26. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa8507. PubMed PMID: 26109104; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4587492.

2. Kim DW, Lee S, Kwon S, Nam W, Cha IH, Kim HJ. Deep learning-based survival prediction of oral cancer patients. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):6994. Epub 2019/05/08. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43372-7. PubMed PMID: 31061433; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6502856.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Zhaoqiang Zhang

30 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-08145R1

Longitudinal detection of somatic mutations in saliva and plasma for the surveillance of oral squamous cell carcinomas

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cha Yong Hoon,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Please revise your manuscript further. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 14 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zhaoqiang Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Why was the number ctDNA detection different among patients (Figure 3c)? The authors mention that The presence of ctDNA in liquid biopsy indicated a substantial increased possibility of recurrence. Earlier ctDNA detection indicates the need for close clinical monitoring in the section of Results.

Please explain in more details.

Reviewer #2: Authors have addressed all the issues raised in the review. They have made adjustments to the text as indicated

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 3;16(9):e0256979. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256979.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 Aug 2021

Thank you for the thoughtful comments and suggestions. We revised the manuscript as following.

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed.

Thank you for all your confirmation.

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusion?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I don’t know

We agree with the reviewer. The statistical analysis is important to support for our results from the cohort. Pragmatically, we showed that ctDNA was detected approximately 4 months earlier than clinical recurrence in plasma or saliva of 3 out 6 recurred patients (Table 2 in manuscripts). Although the limitation of cohort size and sampling issue was discussed in discussion page 14, we would like to show whether variants are statistically detected in T2 and T3 which are earlier time point than clinical recurrence observation in our cohort. From this point of view, we used mean allele frequency of mutations detected in each patient at both T2 (1 month after surgery) and T3 (3 month after surgery). As you can see figure S1. below, the recurred group showed significantly positive detection of variant (mean AF, 0.05% for non-recurred versus 1.58% for recurred; median AF, 0% for non-recurred versus 0.6% for recurred; Wilcoxon signed rank test, P = 0.03).

It is unclear whether liquid biopsy could be useful in a real practice, we deemed that the result from this small cohort can be meaningful to evaluate the clinical feasibility of liquid biopsy for oral cancer recurrence early detection. Based on current results, we will have a plan to perform a clinical validation study with our branch hospitals. Therefore, we hope that our results and the new statistical analysis using T2 and T3 data to helpful for our further study design.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Thank you for your comments.

4. Have the authors made all data underlysing the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

6. Review comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Why the number ctDNA detection different among patients (Figure 3c)? The authors mention that the presence of ctDNA in liquid biopsy indicated a substantial increased possibility of recurrence. Earlier ctDNA detection indicates the need for close clinical monitoring in the section of results. Please explain in more details

Response:

Thank you for your comments. We apologize that we did not clearly explained the figure. The purple triangle in Figure 3C indicates only ctDNA detection in either plasma or saliva during the study period. We attributed the missing samples to missed patient clinic visit and unmet the DNA quality to conduct the experiment in the results page 10 (Table 2, S4 table). And, the legend of figure 3C was revised.

And, we revised and added more data (Figure S1) to support the earlier ctDNA detection indicates the need for close clinical monitoring in the section of results page 11.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to a reviewer.20210719.docx

Decision Letter 2

Zhaoqiang Zhang

20 Aug 2021

Longitudinal detection of somatic mutations in saliva and plasma for the surveillance of oral squamous cell carcinomas

PONE-D-21-08145R2

Dear Dr. Cha Yong Hoon,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Zhaoqiang Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Zhaoqiang Zhang

26 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-08145R2

Longitudinal detection of somatic mutations in saliva and plasma for the surveillance of oral squamous cell carcinomas

Dear Dr. Cha:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Zhaoqiang Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Statistical analysis of earlier variant detection from recurrent patients.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Frequent somatic mutations found on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of TCGA dataset.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Frequent somatic mutations found on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of COSMIC dataset.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Gene list of customized targeted sequencing panel.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. The results of ctDNA detection in both plasma and saliva.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to a reviewer.20210719.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Next generation sequencing data were uploaded on NCBI SRA with accession number PRJNA718901 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA718901/).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES