Prospective high-throughput genome profiling of advanced cancers: results of the PERMED-01 clinical trial.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biomarkers, Tumor
Biopsy
Combined Modality Therapy
Comparative Genomic Hybridization
Disease Management
Disease Susceptibility
Female
Genetic Variation
Genomics
/ methods
High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques
/ methods
Neoplasm Grading
Neoplasm Staging
Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Precision Medicine
/ methods
Prognosis
Prospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Advanced cancers
Mutation
PERMED-01 trial
Precision medicine
Sequencing
WES
aCGH
t-NGS
Journal
Genome medicine
ISSN: 1756-994X
Titre abrégé: Genome Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101475844
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 05 2021
18 05 2021
Historique:
received:
27
08
2020
accepted:
27
04
2021
entrez:
19
5
2021
pubmed:
20
5
2021
medline:
19
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The benefit of precision medicine based on relatively limited gene sets and often-archived samples remains unproven. PERMED-01 (NCT02342158) was a prospective monocentric clinical trial assessing, in adults with advanced solid cancer, the feasibility and impact of extensive molecular profiling applied to newly biopsied tumor sample and based on targeted NGS (t-NGS) of the largest gene panel to date and whole-genome array-comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) with assessment of single-gene alterations and clinically relevant genomic scores. Eligible patients with refractory cancer had one tumor lesion accessible to biopsy. Extracted tumor DNA was profiled by t-NGS and aCGH. We assessed alterations of 802 "candidate cancer" genes and global genomic scores, such as homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score and tumor mutational burden. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with actionable genetic alterations (AGAs). Secondary endpoints herein reported included a description of patients with AGA who received a "matched therapy" and their clinical outcome, and a comparison of AGA identification with t-NGS and aCGH versus whole-exome sequencing (WES). Between November 2014 and September 2019, we enrolled 550 patients heavily pretreated. An exploitable complete molecular profile was obtained in 441/550 patients (80%). At least one AGA, defined in real time by our molecular tumor board, was found in 393/550 patients (71%, two-sided 90%CI 68-75%). Only 94/550 patients (17%, 95%CI 14-21) received an "AGA-matched therapy" on progression. The most frequent AGAs leading to "matched therapy" included PIK3CA mutations, KRAS mutations/amplifications, PTEN deletions/mutations, ERBB2 amplifications/mutations, and BRCA1/2 mutations. Such "matched therapy" improved by at least 1.3-fold the progression-free survival on matched therapy (PFS2) compared to PFS on prior therapy (PFS1) in 36% of cases, representing 6% of the enrolled patients. Within patients with AGA treated on progression, the use of "matched therapy" was the sole variable associated with an improved PFS2/PFS1 ratio. Objective responses were observed in 19% of patients treated with "matched therapy," and 6-month overall survival (OS) was 62% (95%CI 52-73). In a subset of 112 metastatic breast cancers, WES did not provide benefit in term of AGA identification when compared with t-NGS/aCGH. Extensive molecular profiling of a newly biopsied tumor sample identified AGA in most of cases, leading to delivery of a "matched therapy" in 17% of screened patients, of which 36% derived clinical benefit. WES did not seem to improve these results. ID-RCB identifier: 2014-A00966-41; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02342158 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The benefit of precision medicine based on relatively limited gene sets and often-archived samples remains unproven. PERMED-01 (NCT02342158) was a prospective monocentric clinical trial assessing, in adults with advanced solid cancer, the feasibility and impact of extensive molecular profiling applied to newly biopsied tumor sample and based on targeted NGS (t-NGS) of the largest gene panel to date and whole-genome array-comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) with assessment of single-gene alterations and clinically relevant genomic scores.
METHODS
Eligible patients with refractory cancer had one tumor lesion accessible to biopsy. Extracted tumor DNA was profiled by t-NGS and aCGH. We assessed alterations of 802 "candidate cancer" genes and global genomic scores, such as homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score and tumor mutational burden. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with actionable genetic alterations (AGAs). Secondary endpoints herein reported included a description of patients with AGA who received a "matched therapy" and their clinical outcome, and a comparison of AGA identification with t-NGS and aCGH versus whole-exome sequencing (WES).
RESULTS
Between November 2014 and September 2019, we enrolled 550 patients heavily pretreated. An exploitable complete molecular profile was obtained in 441/550 patients (80%). At least one AGA, defined in real time by our molecular tumor board, was found in 393/550 patients (71%, two-sided 90%CI 68-75%). Only 94/550 patients (17%, 95%CI 14-21) received an "AGA-matched therapy" on progression. The most frequent AGAs leading to "matched therapy" included PIK3CA mutations, KRAS mutations/amplifications, PTEN deletions/mutations, ERBB2 amplifications/mutations, and BRCA1/2 mutations. Such "matched therapy" improved by at least 1.3-fold the progression-free survival on matched therapy (PFS2) compared to PFS on prior therapy (PFS1) in 36% of cases, representing 6% of the enrolled patients. Within patients with AGA treated on progression, the use of "matched therapy" was the sole variable associated with an improved PFS2/PFS1 ratio. Objective responses were observed in 19% of patients treated with "matched therapy," and 6-month overall survival (OS) was 62% (95%CI 52-73). In a subset of 112 metastatic breast cancers, WES did not provide benefit in term of AGA identification when compared with t-NGS/aCGH.
CONCLUSIONS
Extensive molecular profiling of a newly biopsied tumor sample identified AGA in most of cases, leading to delivery of a "matched therapy" in 17% of screened patients, of which 36% derived clinical benefit. WES did not seem to improve these results.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ID-RCB identifier: 2014-A00966-41; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02342158 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 34006291
doi: 10.1186/s13073-021-00897-9
pii: 10.1186/s13073-021-00897-9
pmc: PMC8132379
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02342158']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
87Subventions
Organisme : Ligue Contre le Cancer
ID : EL2016
Organisme : Ligue Contre le Cancer
ID : EL2019
Organisme : Centre d'Investigations Cliniques
ID : CICp1409
Références
Nature. 2013 Jul 11;499(7457):214-218
pubmed: 23770567
Cancers (Basel). 2019 May 13;11(5):
pubmed: 31086113
JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Dec;3:1-8
pubmed: 35100682
N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 20;373(8):726-36
pubmed: 26287849
Ann Oncol. 2018 Sep 1;29(9):1948-1954
pubmed: 29917049
Cancer Discov. 2019 Oct;9(10):1388-1405
pubmed: 31315834
ESMO Open. 2018 Oct 30;3(6):e000446
pubmed: 30425845
Science. 2012 Oct 12;338(6104):221
pubmed: 22923433
JAMA. 2014 May 21;311(19):1998-2006
pubmed: 24846037
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Sep 15;20(18):4827-36
pubmed: 24987059
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Oct 20;34(30):3638-3647
pubmed: 27480147
EBioMedicine. 2020 Jan;51:102624
pubmed: 31923800
Bioinformatics. 2014 Apr 1;30(7):1015-6
pubmed: 24371154
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Apr;21(4):508-518
pubmed: 32135080
Mol Cancer Ther. 2016 Apr;15(4):743-52
pubmed: 26873727
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Nov 20;35(33):3737-3744
pubmed: 28968170
Int J Cancer. 2006 Apr 15;118(8):1963-71
pubmed: 16287073
Biomark Res. 2015 May 01;3:9
pubmed: 26015868
JCO Precis Oncol. 2017;2017:
pubmed: 29082359
Nat Commun. 2019 Jul 18;10(1):3190
pubmed: 31320627
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16(13):1324-34
pubmed: 26342236
Ann Oncol. 2019 May 1;30(5):757-765
pubmed: 30865223
Ann Oncol. 2016 Aug;27(8):1443-8
pubmed: 27143638
Cancer Res. 2016 Jul 1;76(13):3690-701
pubmed: 27197177
Ann Oncol. 2018 Jan 1;29(1):30-35
pubmed: 29140430
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Mar 1;24(5):1038-1047
pubmed: 29217530
Nature. 2017 Aug 17;548(7667):297-303
pubmed: 28783718
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Nov 01;2(11):1452-1459
pubmed: 27273579
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Mar;15(3):267-74
pubmed: 24508104
Sci Transl Med. 2015 Apr 15;7(283):283ra54
pubmed: 25877892
Nat Med. 2019 May;25(5):744-750
pubmed: 31011206
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Oct 15;24(20):5018-5027
pubmed: 29954777
JCO Precis Oncol. 2017 Jul;2017:
pubmed: 28890946
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Aug 1;22(15):3764-73
pubmed: 26957554
Hum Mutat. 2008 Nov;29(11):1282-91
pubmed: 18951446
Nature. 2019 May;569(7757):560-564
pubmed: 31118521
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 20;28(33):4877-83
pubmed: 20921468
Nat Med. 2017 Jun;23(6):703-713
pubmed: 28481359
Br J Cancer. 2012 Nov 6;107(10):1776-82
pubmed: 23047548
Cancer Treat Rev. 2020 Jun;86:102019
pubmed: 32251926
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 10;33(32):3817-25
pubmed: 26304871
JCO Precis Oncol. 2018 Nov;2:1-8
pubmed: 35135132
Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Nov 15;18(22):6373-83
pubmed: 22966018
Ann Oncol. 2020 Nov;31(11):1491-1505
pubmed: 32853681
Oncotarget. 2016 May 10;7(19):27208-19
pubmed: 27028851
Nat Med. 2019 May;25(5):751-758
pubmed: 31011205
Genome Med. 2015 Dec 18;7:129
pubmed: 26684754
Cancer Discov. 2011 Jun;1(1):44-53
pubmed: 22586319
Semin Cancer Biol. 2022 Sep;84:50-59
pubmed: 32950605
Cancer Discov. 2017 Jun;7(6):586-595
pubmed: 28365644
Genome Med. 2016 Oct 25;8(1):109
pubmed: 27782854
J Hematol Oncol. 2017 Feb 8;10(1):45
pubmed: 28179005
Recent Results Cancer Res. 1999;151:71-84
pubmed: 10337719