scholarly journals Clinical results and importance of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in detecting targeted mutations in the treatment of metastatic Lung Cancer: Single center initial results

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 327-332
Author(s):  
Cem Mirili ◽  
Çiğdem Kahraman ◽  
Ali Yılmaz ◽  
Mehmet Bilici ◽  
Salim Başol Tekin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Genetic Variant ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Variant Analysis ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing Ngs ◽  
Generation Sequencing

Objective:  In Lung cancer (LC), which is one of the most deadly cancers, longer survival has been achieved with targeted agents. For this reason, it is important to find the patients who are suitable for targeted therapies. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a method that allows multiple genetic variants to be detected simultaneously by performing massive parallel DNA sequencing at the same time. We wanted to reveal the clinical effects and benefits of genetic variant analysis with NGS for our patients. Material and Methods: Patients with stage 4 non-squamous and not otherwise specified (NOS) Non-small cell LC who underwent genetic variant analysis with NGS were included in the study, retrospectively. Results: Total of the 51 patients, 41 (80.4%) were male and the median age was 64 (35-85) years. According to TNM, 21 (41.2%) patients were stage 4A, 30 (58.8%) patients were stage 4B and 39 (76.5%) patients had adenocarcinoma and 12 (23.5%) had NOS histology. NGS analyzes were performed in median 14 days (8-43) and determined 24 pathogenic variants in 17 (%25) patients: 9EGFR (%17,6), 6PIKC3A (%11,7), 5KRAS (%9,8), 2PTEN (%3,9), 1BRAF (%1,9), 1MET (%1,6) (7 of them concomitantly). Cytotoxic chemotherapy was recommended in 41, anti-EGFR agents in 8 (afatinib in 4, erlotinib in 4 patients) patients and anti-BRAF+MEK inhibitor agent (dabrafenib+trametinib) in 1 patient. Conclusion: With the NGS, in just two weeks, both target and resistance genetic variants of our patients were detected at the same time and individualized treatments were applied. In this way, both time and cost were saved.

scholarly journals Molecular profiling of congenital glioblastoma using a next-generation sequencing panel

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Débora Cabral de Carvalho Corrêa ◽  
Francine Tesser-Gamba ◽  
Nasjla da Silva ◽  
Andrea Capellano ◽  
Maria Teresa Alves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Genetic Variants ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Congenital Brain Tumor ◽  
Molecular Alterations ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Pediatric Neoplasms ◽  
Tumor Entity ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing Ngs ◽  
Generation Sequencing

Background Congenital GBM (cGBM), presenting prenatally or within the first months of life, is among the rarest type of congenital brain tumor, with approximately 120 cases reported. Due to its infrequent occurrence, few studies have focused on the molecular and genetic aspects of this tumor, and the mutational events involved in the pathogenesis and progression of cGBM still remains poorly understood. This study aimed to investigate molecular alterations, with a potential prognostic marker and therapeutic target in cGBM using the next-generation sequencing (NGS) strategy. Methods We selected seven tumor samples from patients diagnosed with cGBM and treated at Pediatric Oncology Institute-GRAACC/UNIFESP. NGS was performed to identify somatic genetic variants in tumor samples using the Oncomine Childhood Cancer Research Assay panel, from ThermoFisher Scientific, designed specifically for pediatric neoplasms. Results Of all seven patients analyzed, three patients exhibited tumors with genetic variants, which include two pathogenic variants in NF1 and SUZ12 genes that have not been reported in cGBM yet, an increase in the number of copies of ALK gene, and two gene fusions, PPP1CB-ALK and TPM3-NTRK1. Also, none of the cases showed variants in H3F3A, TP53 and ATRX genes, alterations which are frequently seen in pediatric and adolescent GBM. Conclusions Our results suggest that cGBM may comprise a unique tumor entity and alterations in ALK and NTRK genes provide a potential target for therapy. Therefore, identification of genetic variants in cGBM is highly relevant in order to define prognosis and therapeutic strategies.

FGFR expression, fusion and mutation as detected by NGS sequencing of DNA and RNA.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16061-e16061
Author(s):  
Ivan De Dios ◽  
Wanlong Ma ◽  
Spiraggelos Antzoulatos ◽  
Jeffrey Estella ◽  
Maher Albitar
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Lung Cancers ◽  
Expression Levels ◽  
Dna And Rna ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
High Incidence ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing Ngs ◽  
Generation Sequencing

e16061 Background: Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptors (FGFR1-4) abnormalities (fusion, amplification and mutations) are common in urothelial, breast and endometrial cancers. However, FGFR1-4 have been shown to play a major role in cell proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis in other types of cancers including colorectal (CRC) and lung cancers. We explored the value of using DNA and RNA next generation sequencing (NGS) in determining the presence of abnormalities in FGFR1-4 in various types of cancer. Methods: Using targeted panel and next generation sequencing (NGS), we analyzed DNA sequencing data (434 genes) in 438 Solid tumors and RNA data (1408 genes) in 160 lung cancers and 53 colorectal cancers (CRC). The expression levels of the CRC and lung cancer were also compared with expression levels of 32 cases of endometrial, urothelial and breast cancers as a group of cancers known to have high incidence. Results: The DNA data showed mutations in 85 samples and CNV in 12 samples. The detected mutations were 18% in FGFR1, 25% in FGFR2, 45% in FGFR3, and 12% in FGFR4. Only 20% of the detected mutations by NGS testing can be detected if the PCR-based FDA-approved kit was used. Analysis of the expression levels of FGFR1-4 mRNA in CRC and lung cancer showed highest expression in FGFR2, followed by FGFR1 then FGFR3. Expression of FGFR4 was the lowest (P < 0.0001). There was no difference between CRC and lung cancer in FGFR1 and FGFR2 mRNA, but FGFR3 was slightly higher in lung cancer as compared with CRC (P = 0.01). FGFR4 was significantly higher in CRC as compared with lung cancer (P < 0.0001). No fusion involving FGFR1-4 was detected in any of the tested CRC or lung cancers. Upon comparing overall expression between CRC/lung cancer with the group of cancers that are known to have high incidence of FGFR1-4 abnormalities (urothelial, breast, and endometrial), FGFR1 and FGFR2 mRNA were significantly lower in CRC/lung cancers (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0002, respectively), but there was no significant difference in FGFR3. However, significant overlap is noted. In contrast, FGFR4 was significantly higher in CRC (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: This data suggests that while FGFR1-3 genes are overall expressed in CRC and lung, some cases may have significantly high expression of FGFR1-3 and perhaps these cases should be singled out for treatment with FGFR inhibitors. Furthermore, NGS testing for mutations significantly more efficient and can detect significant number of mutations that can be missed if PCR-based testing is used. NGS testing of DNA and RNA is the most appropriate testing for abnormalities in FGFR1-4.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document