Douglas I Lin, Lincoln W Pasquina, Estefany Mavares, Julia A Elvin, Richard S P Huang
{"title":"真实世界泛肿瘤综合基因组图谱样本的充分性和组织与液体标本的成功率。","authors":"Douglas I Lin, Lincoln W Pasquina, Estefany Mavares, Julia A Elvin, Richard S P Huang","doi":"10.1093/oncolo/oyae258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Real-world success rate of liquid and tissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is unknown. We analyzed real-world pan-tumor cohorts that underwent CGP during clinical care via FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) and FoundationOne Liquid CDx (F1LCDx) to determine tissue and liquid sample adequacy based on tumor type. Pan-tumor presequencing adequacy was high (>90%) by both tissue-based F1CDx (median: 92.3%; range: 88.2%-96.9%) and liquid-based F1LCDx (median: 94.8%; range: 86.6%-96.7%). Similarly, postsequencing analysis revealed that most tissue and liquid samples yielded successful sequencing results with a median sequencing success rate of 97.9% and 98.1% for F1CDx and F1LCDx, respectively. One exception is central nervous system (CNS) tumors, for which F1CDx had dramatically higher sample sufficiency (96.9%) and postsequencing success rate (97.0%) compared with F1LCDx (86.6% and 92.9%, respectively). The pan-tumor median sample-to-success rate was 90.4% (range: 84.8%-94.4%) for F1CDx. The equivalent rate for F1LCDx was slightly higher at 93.2% (range: 80.4%-95.7%). Conversely, when examining the prevalence of F1LCDx results with high tumor fraction (TF≥1%), the sample-to-high TF results rate was dramatically lower (median: 37.7%, range: 2.1% [CNS tumors]-46.0%). In conclusion, except in CNS tumors or when accounting for liquid TF, success rates of F1CDx and F1LCDx are equivalently high. These results may guide informed decision on when to pursue tissue vs liquid testing of patients with cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":54686,"journal":{"name":"Oncologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11881061/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-world pan-tumor comprehensive genomic profiling sample adequacy and success rates in tissue and liquid specimens.\",\"authors\":\"Douglas I Lin, Lincoln W Pasquina, Estefany Mavares, Julia A Elvin, Richard S P Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oncolo/oyae258\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Real-world success rate of liquid and tissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is unknown. We analyzed real-world pan-tumor cohorts that underwent CGP during clinical care via FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) and FoundationOne Liquid CDx (F1LCDx) to determine tissue and liquid sample adequacy based on tumor type. Pan-tumor presequencing adequacy was high (>90%) by both tissue-based F1CDx (median: 92.3%; range: 88.2%-96.9%) and liquid-based F1LCDx (median: 94.8%; range: 86.6%-96.7%). Similarly, postsequencing analysis revealed that most tissue and liquid samples yielded successful sequencing results with a median sequencing success rate of 97.9% and 98.1% for F1CDx and F1LCDx, respectively. One exception is central nervous system (CNS) tumors, for which F1CDx had dramatically higher sample sufficiency (96.9%) and postsequencing success rate (97.0%) compared with F1LCDx (86.6% and 92.9%, respectively). The pan-tumor median sample-to-success rate was 90.4% (range: 84.8%-94.4%) for F1CDx. The equivalent rate for F1LCDx was slightly higher at 93.2% (range: 80.4%-95.7%). Conversely, when examining the prevalence of F1LCDx results with high tumor fraction (TF≥1%), the sample-to-high TF results rate was dramatically lower (median: 37.7%, range: 2.1% [CNS tumors]-46.0%). In conclusion, except in CNS tumors or when accounting for liquid TF, success rates of F1CDx and F1LCDx are equivalently high. These results may guide informed decision on when to pursue tissue vs liquid testing of patients with cancer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oncologist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11881061/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oncologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae258\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae258","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Real-world pan-tumor comprehensive genomic profiling sample adequacy and success rates in tissue and liquid specimens.
Real-world success rate of liquid and tissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is unknown. We analyzed real-world pan-tumor cohorts that underwent CGP during clinical care via FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) and FoundationOne Liquid CDx (F1LCDx) to determine tissue and liquid sample adequacy based on tumor type. Pan-tumor presequencing adequacy was high (>90%) by both tissue-based F1CDx (median: 92.3%; range: 88.2%-96.9%) and liquid-based F1LCDx (median: 94.8%; range: 86.6%-96.7%). Similarly, postsequencing analysis revealed that most tissue and liquid samples yielded successful sequencing results with a median sequencing success rate of 97.9% and 98.1% for F1CDx and F1LCDx, respectively. One exception is central nervous system (CNS) tumors, for which F1CDx had dramatically higher sample sufficiency (96.9%) and postsequencing success rate (97.0%) compared with F1LCDx (86.6% and 92.9%, respectively). The pan-tumor median sample-to-success rate was 90.4% (range: 84.8%-94.4%) for F1CDx. The equivalent rate for F1LCDx was slightly higher at 93.2% (range: 80.4%-95.7%). Conversely, when examining the prevalence of F1LCDx results with high tumor fraction (TF≥1%), the sample-to-high TF results rate was dramatically lower (median: 37.7%, range: 2.1% [CNS tumors]-46.0%). In conclusion, except in CNS tumors or when accounting for liquid TF, success rates of F1CDx and F1LCDx are equivalently high. These results may guide informed decision on when to pursue tissue vs liquid testing of patients with cancer.
期刊介绍:
The Oncologist® is dedicated to translating the latest research developments into the best multidimensional care for cancer patients. Thus, The Oncologist is committed to helping physicians excel in this ever-expanding environment through the publication of timely reviews, original studies, and commentaries on important developments. We believe that the practice of oncology requires both an understanding of a range of disciplines encompassing basic science related to cancer, translational research, and clinical practice, but also the socioeconomic and psychosocial factors that determine access to care and quality of life and function following cancer treatment.