scholarly journals Utility of comprehensive genomic profiling in directing treatment and improving patient outcomes in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BMC Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shen Zhao ◽  
Zhonghan Zhang ◽  
Jianhua Zhan ◽  
Xin Zhao ◽  
Xinru Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Targeted Drugs ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Recent Emergence ◽  
Comprehensive Genomic Profiling

Abstract Background With the identification of new targetable drivers and the recent emergence of novel targeted drugs, using comprehensive genomic profiling in lieu of the routine testing for classic drivers in the clinical care for advanced NSCLC has been increasingly advocated. However, the key assumption justifying this practice, that comprehensive genomic profiling could lead to effective anticancer therapies and improve patient outcomes, remains unproved. Methods Comprehensive genomic profiling was prospectively applied in 1564 advanced NSCLC patients to identify potentially actionable genomic alterations. Patients were assigned to genotype-matched targeted therapies or nonmatched therapies based on the profiling results. Its utility in directing treatments was determined by the proportion of patients receiving genotype-matched targeted therapies and the proportion of patients being enrolled into genotype-matched clinical trials. Its impacts on patient outcomes were assessed by comparing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between patients who received a genotype-matched and nonmatched therapy. Results From October 2016 to October 2019, tumor genomic profiles were established in 1166 patients, leading to a matched targeted therapy in 37.7% (n = 440) and a genotype-matched trial enrollment in 20.9% of patients (n = 244). Potentially actionable alterations were detected in 781 patients (67.0%). For these patients, a genomic profiling-directed matched therapy significantly improved PFS (9.0 months vs 4.9 months, P < 0.001) and OS (3.9 years vs 2.5 years, P < 0.001) compared with a nonmatched therapy. Excluding patients with standard targeted therapies, genomic profiling led to a matched targeted therapy in 16.7% (n = 24) and a matched trial enrollment in 11.2% (n = 16) of patients. No PFS (4.7 months vs 4.6 months, P = 0.530) or OS (1.9 years vs 2.4 years, P = 0.238) benefit was observed with the use of genotype-matched targeted therapies in this population. Conclusions Comprehensive genomic profiling is of clinical utility in assisting treatment selection, facilitating clinical trial enrollment, and improving patient outcomes in advanced NSCLC. However, for patients carrying alterations without standard-of-care targeted drugs, the interpretation of genomic profiling results should be careful given the low likelihood of benefit from the investigational or off-label use of targeted therapies in this population in the current treatment landscape. Trial registration ChiCTR1900027582 (retrospectively registered on 19 November 2019)

scholarly journals Identifying Opportunities and Challenges for Patients With Sarcoma as a Result of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling of Sarcoma Specimens

2020 ◽  
pp. 176-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret A. Hay ◽  
Eric A. Severson ◽  
Vincent A. Miller ◽  
David A. Liebner ◽  
Jo-Anne Vergilio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Bone Biopsy ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcomas ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Tumor Location ◽  
Treatment Selection ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Comprehensive Genomic Profiling

PURPOSE Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of sarcomas is rapidly being integrated into routine clinical care to help refine diagnosis and prognosis and determine treatment. However, little is known about barriers to successful CGP or its clinical utility in sarcoma. We set out to determine whether CGP alters physician treatment decision-making, and whether sarcoma subtypes influence the frequency of successful technical performance of CGP. METHODS A single-institution study evaluated profiling outcomes of 392 samples from patients with sarcoma, using a commercially available CGP panel. Of this group, 34 patients were evaluated prospectively (Decision Impact Trial) to evaluate the utility of CGP in physician decision-making. All cases were retrospectively analyzed to identify causes of CGP failure. RESULTS CGP successfully interrogated 75.3% (n = 295 of 392) of patients with sarcoma. Bone sarcomas had lower passing rates at 65.3% (n = 32 of 49) compared with soft tissue sarcomas at 76.7% (n = 263 of 343; P = .0008). Biopsy location also correlated with profiling efficiency. Bone biopsy specimens had a 52.8% (n = 19 of 36) passing rate versus lung (61.1%; n = 33 of 54) and abdomen (80.1%; n = 109 of 136) specimens. CGP altered physician treatment selection in 25% of evaluable patients (n = 7 of 28) and was associated with improved progression-free survival. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the largest technical evaluation of the performance of CGP in sarcoma. CGP was effectively performed in the vast majority of sarcoma samples and altered physician treatment selection. Tumor location and tissue subtype were key determinants of profiling success and associated with preanalytic variables that affect DNA and RNA quality. These results support standardized biopsy collection protocols to improve profiling outcomes.

Comprehensive genomic profiling of advanced colorectal carcinoma in the course of clinical care to identify KRAS insertions not detected by focused molecular testing.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 497-497
Author(s):  
Andrew Rankin ◽  
Alexa Betzig Schrock ◽  
Julia Andrea Elvin ◽  
Juliann Chmielecki ◽  
Rachel Erlich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Large Set ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Kras Mutations ◽  
Exon 2 ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Comprehensive Genomic Profiling

497 Background: As activating RAS mutations have been shown to predict lack of benefit from anti-EGFR therapies in advanced CRC, NCCN guidelines recommend testing for KRAS exon 2 and non-exon 2 mutations; however, these alterations are thought to explain only a subset of de novo resistance to targeted therapy. In a large set of CRC assayed with comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in the course of clinical care, we assessed the frequency of less common KRAS short insertions that may predict failure of anti-EGFR therapy. Methods: 4,422 CRC cases were assayed with CGP performed on hybridization-captured, adaptor ligation based libraries to a mean coverage depth of > 650X for at least 236 cancer-related genes plus 47 introns from 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer. All classes of genomic alterations (GA) were identified, including base pair substitutions, insertions/deletions, copy number alterations, and rearrangements. Pertinent available prior molecular testing results and clinical history was reviewed for selected cases. Results: Out of 4,422 CRC cases analyzed, KRAS short variants were identified in 50.9% of cases. A majority of cases contained a KRAS alteration at either codon G12 (35.5%) or G13 (9.1%), while alterations at codons Q61 or A146 were identified in 2.2% and 3.1% of cases, respectively. KRAS insertions were identified in 8 ( < 0.5%) cases. All KRAS insertions identified fell within codons 9-13, and 6/8 cases harbored V9_G10 insertions. Out of 6 patients with prior KRAS testing results available, 5 (83%) were negative by previous testing. Conclusions: CGP identifies KRAS insertions within or adjacent to hotspot regions in CRC cases which have previously tested negative for KRAS mutations. Given the importance of KRAS alterations in predicting lack of response to anti-EGFR therapies in CRC, accurate detection of these alterations in the course of clinical care is essential for effective treatment. CGP offers the possibility of identifying KRAS insertions that may impact efficacy of anti-EGFR targeted therapy and should be considered when previous focused testing for KRAS mutations is negative.

Comprehensive genomic profiling of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma reveals a long tail of therapeutic targets

2015 ◽  
Vol 69 (5) ◽  
pp. 403-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hwajeong Lee ◽  
Kai Wang ◽  
Adrienne Johnson ◽  
David M Jones ◽  
Siraj M Ali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Gene Fusions ◽  
Single Patient ◽  
Genomic Alterations ◽  
Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma ◽  
Long Tail ◽  
Comprehensive Genomic Profiling

AimWe queried whether extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma featured clinically relevant genomic alterations that could lead to targeted therapy.MethodsComprehensive genomic profiling by hybridisation capture of up to 315 genes was performed on 99 clinically advanced extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.ResultsThere were 60 male and 39 female patients with a median age of 60.5 years. A total of 400 alterations were identified (mean 4.0; range 0–13) in 84 genes. Eighty-two (83%) of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients featured at least one clinically relevant genomic alterations including KRAS (43%); ERBB2 (9%), PTEN (7%); ATM and NF1 (6%) and CCND1, FBXW7, GNAS, MDM2 and NRAS (all at 5%). BRAF, BRCA2, CDK4, CDK6, FGFR1, FGFR3, PTCH1, RAF1 and STK11 were each altered in a single patient. No IDH1/2 mutations or FGFR2 gene fusions were identified.ConclusionsComprehensive genomic profiling of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma differs significantly from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and reveals diverse opportunities for the use of targeted therapies.

scholarly journals A Combination of Targeted Therapy with Chemotherapy Backbone Induces Response in a Treatment-Resistant Triple-Negative MCL1-Amplified Metastatic Breast Cancer Patient

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siraj M. Ali ◽  
Jessica Watson ◽  
Kai Wang ◽  
Jon H. Chung ◽  
Caitlin McMahon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Hospice Care ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Bcl2 Family ◽  
Comprehensive Genomic Profiling

After failure of anthracycline- and platinum-based therapy, no effective therapies exist for management of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). We report a case of metastatic TNBC harboring MCL1 amplification, as identified by comprehensive genomic profiling in the course of clinical care. MCL1 is an antiapoptotic gene in the BCL2 family, and MCL1 amplification is common in TNBC (at least 20%). A personalized dose-reduced regimen centered on a combination of sorafenib and vorinostat was implemented, based on preclinical evidence demonstrating treatment synergy in the setting of MCL1 amplification. Although hospice care was being considered before treatment initiation, the personalized regimen yielded 6 additional months of life for this patient. Further rigorous studies are needed to confirm that this regimen or derivatives thereof can benefit the MCL1-amplified subset of TNBC patients.

scholarly journals Comprehensive Genomic Profiling of Rare Tumors: Routes to Targeted Therapies

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuhang Wang ◽  
Rongrong Chen ◽  
Yu Tang ◽  
Yue Yu ◽  
Yuan Fang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Rare Tumors ◽  
Comprehensive Genomic Profiling

scholarly journals Personalized Medicine in the Oncology Clinic: Implementation and Outcomes of the Johns Hopkins Molecular Tumor Board

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Brian Dalton ◽  
Patrick M. Forde ◽  
Hyunseok Kang ◽  
Roisin M. Connolly ◽  
Vered Stearns ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Molecular Profiling ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

Purpose Tumor genomic profiling for personalized oncology therapy is being widely applied in clinical practice even as it is being evaluated more formally in clinical trials. Given the complexities of genomic data and its application to clinical use, molecular tumor boards with diverse expertise can provide guidance to oncologists and patients seeking to implement personalized genetically targeted therapy in practice. Methods A multidisciplinary molecular tumor board reviewed tumor molecular profiling reports from consecutive referrals at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins over a 3-year period. The tumor board weighed evidence for actionability of genomic alterations identified by molecular profiling and provided recommendations including US Food and Drug Administration–approved drug therapy, clinical trials of matched targeted therapy, off-label use of such therapy, and additional tumor or germline genetic testing. Results One hundred fifty-five patients were reviewed. Actionable genomic alterations were identified in 132 patients (85%). Off-label therapies were recommended in 37 patients (24%). Eleven patients were treated off-label, and 13 patients were enrolled onto clinical trials of matched targeted therapies. Median progression-free survival of patients treated with matched therapies was 5 months ( 95% CI, 2.9 months to not reached), and the progression-free survival probability at 6 months was 43% (95% CI, 26% to 71%). Lack of locally available clinical trials was the major limitation on clinical actionability of tumor profiling reports. Conclusion The molecular tumor board recommended off-label targeted therapies for a quarter of all patients reviewed. Outcomes were heterogeneous, although 43% of patients receiving genomically matched therapy derived clinical benefit lasting at least 6 months. Until more data become available from precision oncology trials, molecular tumor boards can help guide appropriate use of tumor molecular testing to direct therapy.

TMPRSS-ERG fusion in men with prostate cancer (PCa) and non-prostate malignancies: Defining a role for comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to guide clinical care.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5037-5037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Primo Lara ◽  
Andreas Heilmann ◽  
Julia Andrea Elvin ◽  
Ralph deVere White ◽  
Regina Gandour-Edwards ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Comprehensive Genomic Profiling

Comprehensive genomic profiling of renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid dedifferentiation to pinpoint recurrent genomic alterations.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 537-537
Author(s):  
Gabriel G. Malouf ◽  
Siraj Mahamed Ali ◽  
Kai Wang ◽  
Sohail Balasubramanian ◽  
Jeffrey S. Ross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Genomic Features ◽  
Routine Clinical Care ◽  
Comprehensive Genomic Profiling ◽  
Worse Prognosis

537 Background: Renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid dedifferentiation (sRCC) is found in five percent of all renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cases, and has a significantly worse prognosis relative to matched highgrade RCC with only epithelial elements. The genomic features underpinning sRCC are not well understood, and at present, there are no specific or effective therapies for sRCC. Methods: We conducted comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) on paired epithelial and sarcomatoid areas of 3 sRCC cases. In the course of routine clinical care, CGP was performed on another 23 sRCC harboring diverse epithelial components. CGP was conducted using a hybrid capture next generation DNA sequencing assay(NGS) of 236 cancer-related genes plus 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer. Results were compared with 56 similarly sequenced cases of clear cell RCC devoid of sarcomatoid component, and with clear cell TCGA. Results: Two of three sRCC cases that underwent CGP of both their epithelial and the sarcomatoid components demonstrated identical mutational profiles, and a third case demonstrated commonly disrupted genes. Of the 23 sRCC, TP53(43%), CDKN2A(30%), VHL(26%) and NF2(22%) were the most frequently altered genes. NF2 mutations were mutually exclusive with TP53 but not with VHL mutations. Conclusions: Two of three sRCC cases that underwent CGP of both their epithelial and the sarcomatoid components demonstrated identical mutational profiles, and a third case demonstrated commonly disrupted genes. Of the 23 sRCC, TP53(43%), CDKN2A(30%), VHL(26%) and NF2(22%) were the most frequently altered genes. NF2 mutations were mutually exclusive with TP53 but not with VHL mutations.

Therapeutic impact and timing of gastrointestinal malignancy genomic profiling: A single-institution experience.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 584-584
Author(s):  
Kristin Lynn Koenig ◽  
Jarred Burkart ◽  
Sameh Mikhail ◽  
Christina Sing-Ying Wu ◽  
Anne M. Noonan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Genomic Profiling ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Genomic Alterations ◽  
Generation Sequencing

584 Background: Tumor genomic profiling has become critical in the identification of targeted therapeutic options for patients (pts) with advanced malignancies. Mutational frequencies and their therapeutic importance vary among tumor types. This analysis was undertaken to characterize the landscape of genomic alterations in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies found in a large academic institutional practice, and to determine the frequency of alteration-specific targeted therapy selection based on genomic profiling. Methods: Adult pts with GI malignancies presenting to the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center oncology clinics were offered next generation sequencing through FoundationOne testing as part of routine clinical care. Institutional review board approval was obtained to retrospectively analyze results from FoundationOne testing performed between 2012 and 2015. Results: 265 pts with GI malignancies underwent successful genomic profiling. 1205 genomic alterations were found, with an average of 4.5 per tumor (range 0-20); 365 (30%) of these were potentially actionable and most often found in colorectal or gastroesophageal tumors. 14 pts (5.3%) had actionable alterations in MET, CDKN2A/B, FGFR2, KRAS, BRAF, or NF2 that led to enrollment in genotype-directed clinical trials or off label use of targeted therapies beyond standard of care. Pt performance status at the time of genomic alteration identification was a significant factor in precluding genotype-directed therapy. One variant of unknown significance involving FGFR2 identified at initial testing subsequently became actionable and led to pt enrollment on a clinical trial. One pt with rectal cancer was found to have a KRAS wild-type and BRAF mutant primary but KRAS mutant and BRAF wild-type liver metastasis. Conclusions: Genomic profiling of GI malignancies through next generation sequencing is feasible and can lead to genotype-directed therapy selection; however, it should be considered early in the pt’s course to optimize use of targeted therapies through clinical trials. Consideration should be given to serial tumor testing to identify emerging genomic alterations for optimal therapy selection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document