Cargando…

Clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor in clinical practice

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 meta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ida, Hanae, Koyama, Takafumi, Mizuno, Takaaki, Sunami, Kuniko, Kubo, Takashi, Sudo, Kazuki, Tao, Kayoko, Hirata, Makoto, Yonemori, Kan, Kato, Ken, Okusaka, Takuji, Ohe, Yuichiro, Matsui, Yoshiyuki, Yamazaki, Naoya, Ogawa, Chitose, Kawai, Akira, Narita, Yoshitaka, Esaki, Minoru, Yamamoto, Noboru
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9746060/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36106376
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cas.15586
_version_ 1784849285243731968
author Ida, Hanae
Koyama, Takafumi
Mizuno, Takaaki
Sunami, Kuniko
Kubo, Takashi
Sudo, Kazuki
Tao, Kayoko
Hirata, Makoto
Yonemori, Kan
Kato, Ken
Okusaka, Takuji
Ohe, Yuichiro
Matsui, Yoshiyuki
Yamazaki, Naoya
Ogawa, Chitose
Kawai, Akira
Narita, Yoshitaka
Esaki, Minoru
Yamamoto, Noboru
author_facet Ida, Hanae
Koyama, Takafumi
Mizuno, Takaaki
Sunami, Kuniko
Kubo, Takashi
Sudo, Kazuki
Tao, Kayoko
Hirata, Makoto
Yonemori, Kan
Kato, Ken
Okusaka, Takuji
Ohe, Yuichiro
Matsui, Yoshiyuki
Yamazaki, Naoya
Ogawa, Chitose
Kawai, Akira
Narita, Yoshitaka
Esaki, Minoru
Yamamoto, Noboru
author_sort Ida, Hanae
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9746060
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97460602022-12-14 Clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor in clinical practice Ida, Hanae Koyama, Takafumi Mizuno, Takaaki Sunami, Kuniko Kubo, Takashi Sudo, Kazuki Tao, Kayoko Hirata, Makoto Yonemori, Kan Kato, Ken Okusaka, Takuji Ohe, Yuichiro Matsui, Yoshiyuki Yamazaki, Naoya Ogawa, Chitose Kawai, Akira Narita, Yoshitaka Esaki, Minoru Yamamoto, Noboru Cancer Sci ORIGINAL ARTICLES 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-09-29 2022-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9746060/ /pubmed/36106376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cas.15586 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Ida, Hanae
Koyama, Takafumi
Mizuno, Takaaki
Sunami, Kuniko
Kubo, Takashi
Sudo, Kazuki
Tao, Kayoko
Hirata, Makoto
Yonemori, Kan
Kato, Ken
Okusaka, Takuji
Ohe, Yuichiro
Matsui, Yoshiyuki
Yamazaki, Naoya
Ogawa, Chitose
Kawai, Akira
Narita, Yoshitaka
Esaki, Minoru
Yamamoto, Noboru
Clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor in clinical practice
title Clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor in clinical practice
title_full Clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor in clinical practice
title_fullStr Clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor in clinical practice
title_full_unstemmed Clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor in clinical practice
title_short Clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor in clinical practice
title_sort clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor in clinical practice
topic ORIGINAL ARTICLES
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9746060/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36106376
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cas.15586
work_keys_str_mv AT idahanae clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT koyamatakafumi clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT mizunotakaaki clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT sunamikuniko clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT kubotakashi clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT sudokazuki clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT taokayoko clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT hiratamakoto clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT yonemorikan clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT katoken clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT okusakatakuji clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT oheyuichiro clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT matsuiyoshiyuki clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT yamazakinaoya clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT ogawachitose clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT kawaiakira clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT naritayoshitaka clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT esakiminoru clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice
AT yamamotonoboru clinicalutilityofcomprehensivegenomicprofilingtestsforadvancedormetastaticsolidtumorinclinicalpractice