Clinical Impact of extensive molecular profiling (EMP) in advanced cancer patients (pts) referred to early phase trial unit: The BIP (Bergonie Institute Profiling) Program.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11593-11593
Author(s):  
Sophie Cousin ◽  
Maud Toulmonde ◽  
Thomas Grellety ◽  
Celine Auzanneau ◽  
Emmanuel Khalifa ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Cousin ◽  
Thomas Grellety ◽  
Maud Toulmonde ◽  
Céline Auzanneau ◽  
Emmanuel Khalifa ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 206
Author(s):  
Georgia Ι. Grigoriadou ◽  
Stepan M. Esagian ◽  
Han Suk Ryu ◽  
Ilias P. Nikas

Malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) often develop in advanced cancer patients and confer significant morbidity and mortality. In this review, we evaluated whether molecular profiling of MPEs with next generation sequencing (NGS) could have a role in cancer management, focusing on lung cancer. We reviewed and compared the diagnostic performance of pleural fluid liquid biopsy with other types of samples. When applied in MPEs, NGS may have comparable performance with corresponding tissue biopsies, yield higher DNA amount, and detect more genetic aberrations than blood-derived liquid biopsies. NGS in MPEs may also be preferable to plasma liquid biopsy in advanced cancer patients with a MPE and a paucicellular or difficult to obtain tissue/fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Of interest, post-centrifuge supernatant NGS may exhibit superior results compared to cell pellet, cell block or other materials. NGS in MPEs can also guide clinicians in tailoring established therapies and identifying therapy resistance. Evidence is still premature regarding the role of NGS in MPEs from patients with cancers other than lung. We concluded that MPE processing could provide useful prognostic and theranostic information, besides its diagnostic role.


2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 1604-1610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura B. Dunn ◽  
Jim Wiley ◽  
Sarah Garrett ◽  
Fay Hlubocky ◽  
Christopher Daugherty ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9651-9651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Paul Dohan ◽  
Laura Trupin ◽  
Christopher Koenig ◽  
Fay J. Hlubocky ◽  
Christopher Daugherty

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14025-e14025
Author(s):  
Sarah Watson ◽  
Clement Bonnet ◽  
Jessica Menis ◽  
Jean-Marie Michot ◽  
Antoine Hollebecque ◽  
...  

e14025 Background: Progression-free survival ratio (PFSr) has been proposed as a direct evaluation of treatment benefit in advanced cancer patients, based on the hypothesis that the natural history of cancer is accelerating and therefore successive lines of treatments become less efficient over time. Consequently, PFS at line +2 (PFS2) is expected to be shorter than PFS at line +1 (PFS1), whereas a PFS2/PFS1 ratio > 1.3 might reflect treatment benefit. However, this hypothesis has been poorly documented, especially in the context of early phase trials where determining treatment benefit is becoming key. We therefore proposed to evaluate PFSr in a large cohort of cancer patients enrolled in early phase clinical trials at Gustave Roussy Drug Development Department. Methods: Patients enrolled in at least two phase 1 studies for advanced solid tumors or lymphomas were retrospectively identified. Demographical, clinical and therapeutic data were collected. Time to progression (PFS) was measured from treatment initiation to progression, using radiological evaluations. Patients who had gone off-trial for reasons other than progression were censored. PFSr was defined as the ratio of the PFS under line 2 divided by the PFS under line 1 and might be censored in presence of censored PFS2. Ratio distribution in this population was estimated using Kaplan Meier. Calibration of the ratio was proposed for hypothesis testing. The influence of therapeutic class and combination versus monotherapy was studied via non parametric Gehan-Wilcoxon tests or Mick tests. Results: 212 patients enrolled between 2009 and 2016 in at least two phase 1 clinical trials were included, corresponding to 113 different clinical trials. PFSr distribution was described and correlated with demographical, clinical and therapeutic data. The relevance of the usual 1.3 PFSr cut-off to determine treatment benefit was evaluated. Final analysis results will be presented at the time of the congress. Conclusions: This study, one of the first to establish PFSr in a large cohort of patients treated in early phase clinical trials, provides guidelines for using PFSr to assess the impact of treatment sequences in advanced cancer patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document