Clinical Benefit and Agenda for Clinical Sequencing Using Cancer Panel Testing: A Retrospective Clinical Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadaaki Nishimura ◽  
Atsushi Sugimoto ◽  
Shuhei Kushiyama ◽  
Shingo Togano ◽  
Kenji Kuroda ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Clinical sequencing using a multiplex gene panel has recently been applied worldwide for patients with refractory solid tumors, but the significance of clinical sequencing using multiplex gene panel testing remains uncertain. Here we sought to clarify the feasibility and utility of clinical sequencing in the treatment of refractory tumors at our hospitalMethods: A total of 28 patients with advanced solid tumors treated at our hospital between 2018 and 2020 were enrolled in the clinical sequencing. Among them, we identified 26 patients whose tissue samples were of suitable quality for clinical sequencing, and we analyzed the genomic profiles of these tumors.Results: Pathogenic alterations were detected in 20 (77%) of the 26 patients. The most common mutation was TP53 (6/26, 35%), followed by KRAS (5/26, 19%), and the highest frequency of gene amplification was ERBB2 (5/26, 19%). Five of the 26 patients were identified as candidates for novel molecular-targeted therapy based on their actionable gene alterations, but none of the cases had an advantage for novel targeted therapy following the genetic tests; the reasons were clinical deterioration, refusal for off-label use, and complexity of clinical trial access.Conclusions: Our current results suggested that clinical sequencing might be useful for the detection of pathogenic alterations and the management of additional cancer treatment. Both improved optimal timing of clinical sequencing and a consensus about its off-label use might help patients receive greater benefit from clinical sequencing.Trial registration: This study was performed as a part of clinical study approved by Ethical Committee of Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine (Permission number: 4199, 3925)

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 604.e1-604.e7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas H. Chakiryan ◽  
Ann Martinez Acevedo ◽  
Mark A. Garzotto ◽  
Yiyi Chen ◽  
Jen-Jane Liu ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0247090
Author(s):  
Sadaaki Nishimura ◽  
Atsushi Sugimoto ◽  
Shuhei Kushiyama ◽  
Shingo Togano ◽  
Kenji Kuroda ◽  
...  

Background Clinical sequencing using a panel of genes has recently been applied worldwide for patients with refractory solid tumors, but the significance of clinical sequencing using gene panel testing remains uncertain. Here we sought to clarify the feasibility and utility of clinical sequencing in the treatment of refractory tumors at our hospital. Methods A total of 39 patients with advanced solid tumors treated at our hospital between 2018 and 2020 were enrolled in the clinical sequencing. Among them, we identified 36 patients whose tissue samples were of suitable quality for clinical sequencing, and we analyzed the genomic profiles of these tumors. Results Pathogenic alterations were detected in 28 (78%) of the 36 patients. The most common mutation was TP53 (55%), followed by KRAS (22%), and the highest frequency of gene amplification was ERBB2 (17%). Nine of the 36 patients were identified as candidates for novel molecular-targeted therapy based on their actionable gene alterations, but only one case ended up receiving novel targeted therapy following the genetic tests. Conclusions Our current results suggested that clinical sequencing might be useful for the detection of pathogenic alterations and the management of additional cancer treatment. However, molecular target based on actionable genomic alteration does not always bridge to subsequent therapy due to clinical deterioration, refusal for unapproved drug, and complexity of clinical trial access. Both improved optimal timing of clinical sequencing and a consensus about its off-label use might help patients receive greater benefit from clinical sequencing.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (04) ◽  
pp. 361-371
Author(s):  
Karl Peter Ittner ◽  
Joachim Koppenberg ◽  
Ute Walter
Keyword(s):  

ZusammenfassungWenn zugelassene Arzneimittel außerhalb der in der entsprechenden Fachinformation dargelegten Beschreibungen angewendet werden, dann spricht man von einer nicht zulassungskonformen Anwendung oder von einem Off-Label-Use. Wie in fast allen medizinischen Fachgebieten gibt es auch im Rettungsdienst sogenannte Off-Label-Use-Pharmakotherapien. Sofern evidenzbasierte Informationen zu einer nicht zulassungskonformen Anwendung vorliegen, und insbesondere im konkreten Notfall keine zulassungskonforme Möglichkeit besteht, dann ist diese gerechtfertigt. Verwendet ein Notarzt aber ein Medizinprodukt außerhalb der Zulassung, dann stellt er ein neues Produkt her und haftet persönlich bei einem Patientenschaden.


2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (09) ◽  
pp. 551-555
Author(s):  
W. N. Vance ◽  
J. Wissel

ZusammenfassungAlle Indikationen zur Anwendung von Botulinumtoxin A (BoNT A) in der Urologie befinden sich im Status des sogenannten off label use, entsprechend sind Kernfragen wie z. B. die Kostenübernahme nicht geklärt. Erst 20 Jahre nach der ersten Anwendung in der Urologie werden Zulassungsstudien durchgeführt. Andererseits sind insbesondere die Behandlungsmöglichkeiten im Bereich der neurogenen Harnblase so etabliert, dass sie bereits in die urologischen Leitlinien Einzug gefunden haben. Hinsichtlich der Dosierung von BoNT A und der optimalen Anwendungstechnik bestehen weder allgemein anerkannte Handlungsanweisungen noch offizielle Empfehlungen. Dies gilt auch im Bereich der Anästhesie zur Injektion von BoNT A im urologischen Gebiet. Nicht wenige Patienten schrecken davor zurück, sich regelmäßig, zum Teil jährlich, einer Allgemeinanästhesie zu unterziehen. Ein besonderer Hoffnungsschimmer stellt für multimorbide Patienten mit hohem OP-Risiko die sich entwickelnde Behandlung der Prostatahyperplasie mittels BoNT A dar, insbesondere da in allen Studien die Lokalanästhesie angewandt wurde und nur wenige Nebenwirkungen auftraten.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document