Added value of whole-exome and RNA sequencing in advanced and refractory cancer patients with no molecular-based treatment recommendation based on a 90-gene panel.
RNA‐sequencing
cancer biology
cancer management
gene panel
molecular tumor board
precision oncology
targeted therapy
whole exome sequencing
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2024
Apr 2024
Historique:
revised:
21
02
2024
received:
25
09
2023
accepted:
04
03
2024
medline:
30
3
2024
pubmed:
30
3
2024
entrez:
30
3
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The objective was to determine the added value of comprehensive molecular profile by whole-exome and RNA sequencing (WES/RNA-Seq) in advanced and refractory cancer patients who had no molecular-based treatment recommendation (MBTR) based on a more limited targeted gene panel (TGP) plus array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). In this retrospective analysis, we selected 50 patients previously included in the PROFILER trial (NCT01774409) for which no MBT could be recommended based on a targeted 90-gene panel and aCGH. For each patient, the frozen tumor sample mirroring the FFPE sample used for TGP/aCGH analysis were processed for WES and RNA-Seq. Data from TGP/aCGH were reanalyzed, and together with WES/RNA-Seq, findings were simultaneously discussed at a new molecular tumor board (MTB). After exclusion of variants of unknown significance, a total of 167 somatic molecular alterations were identified in 50 patients (median: 3 [1-10]). Out of these 167 relevant molecular alterations, 51 (31%) were common to both TGP/aCGH and WES/RNA-Seq, 19 (11%) were identified by the TGP/aCGH only and 97 (58%) were identified by WES/RNA-Seq only, including two fusion transcripts in two patients. A MBTR was provided in 4/50 (8%) patients using the information from TGP/aCGH versus 9/50 (18%) patients using WES/RNA-Seq findings. Three patients had similar recommendations based on TGP/aCGH and WES/RNA-Seq. In advanced and refractory cancer patients in whom no MBTR was recommended from TGP/aCGH, WES/RNA-Seq allowed to identify more alterations which may in turn, in a limited fraction of patients, lead to new MBTR.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e7115Subventions
Organisme : InterSARC
ID : INCa
Organisme : EURACAN
ID : EC 739521
Organisme : Ligue Contre le Cancer
Organisme : Fondation ARC pour la Recherche sur le Cancer
Organisme : NetSARC
Organisme : PLAsCAN
ID : 17-CONV-0002
Organisme : LabEx DEvweCAN
ID : ANR-10-LABX 0061
Organisme : LYriCAN
ID : INCa-DGOS-Inserm_12563
Organisme : LYriCAN+
ID : INCa-DGOS-INSERM-ITMOcancer_18003
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Drilon A, Laetsch TW, Kummar S, et al. Efficacy of Larotrectinib in TRK fusion‐positive cancers in adults and children. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(8):731‐739.
Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD‐1 blockade. Science. 2017;357(6349):409‐413.
Marcus L, Donoghue M, Aungst S, et al. FDA approval summary: Entrectinib for the treatment of NTRK gene fusion solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27(4):928‐932.
Le Tourneau C, Delord JP, Gonçalves A, et al. Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA): a multicentre, open‐label, proof‐of‐concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(13):1324‐1334.
Massard C, Michiels S, Ferté C, et al. High‐throughput genomics and clinical outcome in hard‐to‐treat advanced cancers: results of the MOSCATO 01 trial. Cancer Discov. 2017;7(6):586‐595.
Stockley TL, Oza AM, Berman HK, et al. Molecular profiling of advanced solid tumors and patient outcomes with genotype‐matched clinical trials: the Princess Margaret IMPACT/COMPACT trial. Genome Med. 2016;8(1):109.
Tredan O, Wang Q, Pissaloux D, et al. Molecular screening program to select molecular‐based recommended therapies for metastatic cancer patients: analysis from the ProfiLER trial. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(5):757‐765.
Jardim DL, Schwaederle M, Wei C, et al. Impact of a biomarker‐based strategy on oncology drug development: a meta‐analysis of clinical trials leading to FDA approval. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(11):djv253.
Schwaederle M, Zhao M, Lee JJ, et al. Impact of precision medicine in diverse cancers: a meta‐analysis of phase II clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(32):3817‐3825.
Schwaederle M, Zhao M, Lee JJ, et al. Association of biomarker‐based treatment strategies with response rates and progression‐free Survival in refractory malignant neoplasms: a meta‐analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(11):1452‐1459.
Mateo J, Chakravarty D, Dienstmann R, et al. A framework to rank genomic alterations as targets for cancer precision medicine: the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT). Ann Oncol. 2018;29(9):1895‐1902.
Tredan O, Pouessel D, Penel N, et al. Increasing targeted therapy options for patients with relapsed cancer with broader somatic gene panel analysis from the primary tumor: the Profiler02 randomized phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(suppl 16):3130.
Pleasance E, Bohm A, Williamson LM, et al. Whole‐genome and transcriptome analysis enhances precision cancer treatment options. Ann Oncol. 2022;33(9):939‐949.
Horak P, Heining C, Kreutzfeldt S, et al. Comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic analysis for guiding therapeutic decisions in patients with rare cancers. Cancer Discov. 2021;11(11):2780‐2795.
Koeppel F, Muller E, Harlé A, et al. Standardisation of pathogenicity classification for somatic alterations in solid tumours and haematologic malignancies. Eur J Cancer. 2021;159:1‐15.