Cargando…

Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service

BACKGROUND: Single gene tests to predict whether cancers respond to specific targeted therapies are performed increasingly often. Advances in sequencing technology, collectively referred to as next generation sequencing (NGS), mean the entire cancer genome or parts of it can now be sequenced at spee...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hamblin, Angela, Wordsworth, Sarah, Fermont, Jilles M., Page, Suzanne, Kaur, Kulvinder, Camps, Carme, Kaisaki, Pamela, Gupta, Avinash, Talbot, Denis, Middleton, Mark, Henderson, Shirley, Cutts, Anthony, Vavoulis, Dimitrios V., Housby, Nick, Tomlinson, Ian, Taylor, Jenny C., Schuh, Anna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28196074
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002230
_version_ 1782507614608818176
author Hamblin, Angela
Wordsworth, Sarah
Fermont, Jilles M.
Page, Suzanne
Kaur, Kulvinder
Camps, Carme
Kaisaki, Pamela
Gupta, Avinash
Talbot, Denis
Middleton, Mark
Henderson, Shirley
Cutts, Anthony
Vavoulis, Dimitrios V.
Housby, Nick
Tomlinson, Ian
Taylor, Jenny C.
Schuh, Anna
author_facet Hamblin, Angela
Wordsworth, Sarah
Fermont, Jilles M.
Page, Suzanne
Kaur, Kulvinder
Camps, Carme
Kaisaki, Pamela
Gupta, Avinash
Talbot, Denis
Middleton, Mark
Henderson, Shirley
Cutts, Anthony
Vavoulis, Dimitrios V.
Housby, Nick
Tomlinson, Ian
Taylor, Jenny C.
Schuh, Anna
author_sort Hamblin, Angela
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Single gene tests to predict whether cancers respond to specific targeted therapies are performed increasingly often. Advances in sequencing technology, collectively referred to as next generation sequencing (NGS), mean the entire cancer genome or parts of it can now be sequenced at speed with increased depth and sensitivity. However, translation of NGS into routine cancer care has been slow. Healthcare stakeholders are unclear about the clinical utility of NGS and are concerned it could be an expensive addition to cancer diagnostics, rather than an affordable alternative to single gene testing. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We validated a 46-gene hotspot cancer panel assay allowing multiple gene testing from small diagnostic biopsies. From 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013, solid tumour samples (including non-small-cell lung carcinoma [NSCLC], colorectal carcinoma, and melanoma) were sequenced in the context of the UK National Health Service from 351 consecutively submitted prospective cases for which treating clinicians thought the patient had potential to benefit from more extensive genetic analysis. Following histological assessment, tumour-rich regions of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections underwent macrodissection, DNA extraction, NGS, and analysis using a pipeline centred on Torrent Suite software. With a median turnaround time of seven working days, an integrated clinical report was produced indicating the variants detected, including those with potential diagnostic, prognostic, therapeutic, or clinical trial entry implications. Accompanying phenotypic data were collected, and a detailed cost analysis of the panel compared with single gene testing was undertaken to assess affordability for routine patient care. Panel sequencing was successful for 97% (342/351) of tumour samples in the prospective cohort and showed 100% concordance with known mutations (detected using cobas assays). At least one mutation was identified in 87% (296/342) of tumours. A locally actionable mutation (i.e., available targeted treatment or clinical trial) was identified in 122/351 patients (35%). Forty patients received targeted treatment, in 22/40 (55%) cases solely due to use of the panel. Examination of published data on the potential efficacy of targeted therapies showed theoretically actionable mutations (i.e., mutations for which targeted treatment was potentially appropriate) in 66% (71/107) and 39% (41/105) of melanoma and NSCLC patients, respectively. At a cost of £339 (US$449) per patient, the panel was less expensive locally than performing more than two or three single gene tests. Study limitations include the use of FFPE samples, which do not always provide high-quality DNA, and the use of “real world” data: submission of cases for sequencing did not always follow clinical guidelines, meaning that when mutations were detected, patients were not always eligible for targeted treatments on clinical grounds. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that more extensive tumour sequencing can identify mutations that could improve clinical decision-making in routine cancer care, potentially improving patient outcomes, at an affordable level for healthcare providers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5308858
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53088582017-02-28 Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service Hamblin, Angela Wordsworth, Sarah Fermont, Jilles M. Page, Suzanne Kaur, Kulvinder Camps, Carme Kaisaki, Pamela Gupta, Avinash Talbot, Denis Middleton, Mark Henderson, Shirley Cutts, Anthony Vavoulis, Dimitrios V. Housby, Nick Tomlinson, Ian Taylor, Jenny C. Schuh, Anna PLoS Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Single gene tests to predict whether cancers respond to specific targeted therapies are performed increasingly often. Advances in sequencing technology, collectively referred to as next generation sequencing (NGS), mean the entire cancer genome or parts of it can now be sequenced at speed with increased depth and sensitivity. However, translation of NGS into routine cancer care has been slow. Healthcare stakeholders are unclear about the clinical utility of NGS and are concerned it could be an expensive addition to cancer diagnostics, rather than an affordable alternative to single gene testing. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We validated a 46-gene hotspot cancer panel assay allowing multiple gene testing from small diagnostic biopsies. From 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013, solid tumour samples (including non-small-cell lung carcinoma [NSCLC], colorectal carcinoma, and melanoma) were sequenced in the context of the UK National Health Service from 351 consecutively submitted prospective cases for which treating clinicians thought the patient had potential to benefit from more extensive genetic analysis. Following histological assessment, tumour-rich regions of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections underwent macrodissection, DNA extraction, NGS, and analysis using a pipeline centred on Torrent Suite software. With a median turnaround time of seven working days, an integrated clinical report was produced indicating the variants detected, including those with potential diagnostic, prognostic, therapeutic, or clinical trial entry implications. Accompanying phenotypic data were collected, and a detailed cost analysis of the panel compared with single gene testing was undertaken to assess affordability for routine patient care. Panel sequencing was successful for 97% (342/351) of tumour samples in the prospective cohort and showed 100% concordance with known mutations (detected using cobas assays). At least one mutation was identified in 87% (296/342) of tumours. A locally actionable mutation (i.e., available targeted treatment or clinical trial) was identified in 122/351 patients (35%). Forty patients received targeted treatment, in 22/40 (55%) cases solely due to use of the panel. Examination of published data on the potential efficacy of targeted therapies showed theoretically actionable mutations (i.e., mutations for which targeted treatment was potentially appropriate) in 66% (71/107) and 39% (41/105) of melanoma and NSCLC patients, respectively. At a cost of £339 (US$449) per patient, the panel was less expensive locally than performing more than two or three single gene tests. Study limitations include the use of FFPE samples, which do not always provide high-quality DNA, and the use of “real world” data: submission of cases for sequencing did not always follow clinical guidelines, meaning that when mutations were detected, patients were not always eligible for targeted treatments on clinical grounds. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that more extensive tumour sequencing can identify mutations that could improve clinical decision-making in routine cancer care, potentially improving patient outcomes, at an affordable level for healthcare providers. Public Library of Science 2017-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5308858/ /pubmed/28196074 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002230 Text en © 2017 Hamblin et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hamblin, Angela
Wordsworth, Sarah
Fermont, Jilles M.
Page, Suzanne
Kaur, Kulvinder
Camps, Carme
Kaisaki, Pamela
Gupta, Avinash
Talbot, Denis
Middleton, Mark
Henderson, Shirley
Cutts, Anthony
Vavoulis, Dimitrios V.
Housby, Nick
Tomlinson, Ian
Taylor, Jenny C.
Schuh, Anna
Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service
title Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service
title_full Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service
title_fullStr Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service
title_full_unstemmed Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service
title_short Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service
title_sort clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: retrospective validation and prospective audit in the uk national health service
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28196074
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002230
work_keys_str_mv AT hamblinangela clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT wordsworthsarah clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT fermontjillesm clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT pagesuzanne clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT kaurkulvinder clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT campscarme clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT kaisakipamela clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT guptaavinash clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT talbotdenis clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT middletonmark clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT hendersonshirley clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT cuttsanthony clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT vavoulisdimitriosv clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT housbynick clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT tomlinsonian clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT taylorjennyc clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice
AT schuhanna clinicalapplicabilityandcostofa46genepanelforgenomicanalysisofsolidtumoursretrospectivevalidationandprospectiveauditintheuknationalhealthservice