{"title":"Clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor in clinical practice","authors":"Hanae Ida,&nbsp;Takafumi Koyama,&nbsp;Takaaki Mizuno,&nbsp;Kuniko Sunami,&nbsp;Takashi Kubo,&nbsp;Kazuki Sudo,&nbsp;Kayoko Tao,&nbsp;Makoto Hirata,&nbsp;Kan Yonemori,&nbsp;Ken Kato,&nbsp;Takuji Okusaka,&nbsp;Yuichiro Ohe,&nbsp;Yoshiyuki Matsui,&nbsp;Naoya Yamazaki,&nbsp;Chitose Ogawa,&nbsp;Akira Kawai,&nbsp;Yoshitaka Narita,&nbsp;Minoru Esaki,&nbsp;Noboru Yamamoto","doi":"10.1111/cas.15586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Previous clinical trials indicate that 10%–25% of patients received genomically matched therapy after comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests. However, the clinical utility of CGP tests has not been assessed in clinical practice. We assessed the clinical utility of CGP tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor and determined the proportion of patients receiving genomically matched therapy among those with common and non-common cancers. From August 2019 to July 2020, a total of 418 patients had undergone CGP tests, and the results were discussed through the molecular tumor board at our site. The median age of patients was 57 (range: 3–86) years. Colorectal cancer was the most common, with 47 (11%) patients. Actionable genomic alterations (median 3, range: 1–17) were identified in 368 (88.0%) of 418 patients. Druggable genomic alterations were determined in 196 (46.9%) of 418 patients through the molecular tumor board. Genomically matched therapy was administered as the subsequent line of therapy in 51 (12.2%) patients, which is comparable to the proportion we previously reported in a clinical trial (13.4%) (<i>p</i> = 0.6919). The proportion of patients receiving genomically matched therapy was significantly higher among those with common cancers (16.2%) than non-common cancers (9.4%) (<i>p</i> = 0.0365). Genomically matched therapy after the CGP tests was administered to 12.2% of patients, which is similar to the proportion reported in the previous clinical trials. The clinical utility of CGP tests in patients with common cancers greatly exceeded that in patients with non-common cancers.</p>","PeriodicalId":9580,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Science","volume":"113 12","pages":"4300-4310"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/de/24/CAS-113-4300.PMC9746060.pdf","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cas.15586","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Previous clinical trials indicate that 10%–25% of patients received genomically matched therapy after comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests. However, the clinical utility of CGP tests has not been assessed in clinical practice. We assessed the clinical utility of CGP tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor and determined the proportion of patients receiving genomically matched therapy among those with common and non-common cancers. From August 2019 to July 2020, a total of 418 patients had undergone CGP tests, and the results were discussed through the molecular tumor board at our site. The median age of patients was 57 (range: 3–86) years. Colorectal cancer was the most common, with 47 (11%) patients. Actionable genomic alterations (median 3, range: 1–17) were identified in 368 (88.0%) of 418 patients. Druggable genomic alterations were determined in 196 (46.9%) of 418 patients through the molecular tumor board. Genomically matched therapy was administered as the subsequent line of therapy in 51 (12.2%) patients, which is comparable to the proportion we previously reported in a clinical trial (13.4%) (p = 0.6919). The proportion of patients receiving genomically matched therapy was significantly higher among those with common cancers (16.2%) than non-common cancers (9.4%) (p = 0.0365). Genomically matched therapy after the CGP tests was administered to 12.2% of patients, which is similar to the proportion reported in the previous clinical trials. The clinical utility of CGP tests in patients with common cancers greatly exceeded that in patients with non-common cancers.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床实践中晚期或转移性实体瘤的综合基因组分析测试的临床应用
先前的临床试验表明,10%-25%的患者在综合基因组分析(CGP)测试后接受了基因组匹配治疗。然而,CGP试验的临床应用尚未在临床实践中得到评估。我们评估了CGP检测在晚期或转移性实体瘤中的临床应用,并确定了在常见和非常见癌症患者中接受基因组匹配治疗的患者比例。2019年8月至2020年7月,共有418例患者接受了CGP检查,并通过我们现场的分子肿瘤板对结果进行了讨论。患者中位年龄为57岁(范围:3-86岁)。结直肠癌最为常见,有47例(11%)患者。418例患者中有368例(88.0%)发现了可操作的基因组改变(中位数3,范围:1-17)。418例患者中有196例(46.9%)通过分子肿瘤板检测到可药物化的基因组改变。在51例(12.2%)患者中,基因组匹配治疗作为后续治疗,这与我们之前在临床试验中报道的比例(13.4%)相当(p = 0.6919)。常见癌症患者接受基因组匹配治疗的比例(16.2%)显著高于非常见癌症患者(9.4%)(p = 0.0365)。12.2%的患者接受了CGP检测后的基因组匹配治疗,这与之前临床试验中报告的比例相似。CGP检测在常见癌症患者中的临床应用远远超过非常见癌症患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cancer Science
Cancer Science 医学-肿瘤学
自引率
3.50%
发文量
406
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Cancer Science (formerly Japanese Journal of Cancer Research) is a monthly publication of the Japanese Cancer Association. First published in 1907, the Journal continues to publish original articles, editorials, and letters to the editor, describing original research in the fields of basic, translational and clinical cancer research. The Journal also accepts reports and case reports. Cancer Science aims to present highly significant and timely findings that have a significant clinical impact on oncologists or that may alter the disease concept of a tumor. The Journal will not publish case reports that describe a rare tumor or condition without new findings to be added to previous reports; combination of different tumors without new suggestive findings for oncological research; remarkable effect of already known treatments without suggestive data to explain the exceptional result. Review articles may also be published.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information In This Issue In This Issue Issue Information In this issue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1