Clinical Impact of High Throughput Sequencing on Liquid Biopsy in Advanced Solid Cancer.
cancer
liquid biopsy
molecular profiling
precision oncology
targeted therapy
Journal
Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)
ISSN: 1718-7729
Titre abrégé: Curr Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9502503
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 03 2022
10 03 2022
Historique:
received:
10
02
2022
revised:
03
03
2022
accepted:
08
03
2022
entrez:
24
3
2022
pubmed:
25
3
2022
medline:
15
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cancer therapies targeting actionable molecular alterations (AMA) have developed, but the clinical routine impact of high-throughput molecular profiling remains unclear. We present a monocentric experience of molecular profiling based on liquid biopsy in patients with cancer. Patients included had solid cancer and underwent cfDNA genomic profiling with FoudationOne Liquid CDx (F1LCDx) test, analyzing 324 genes. Primary endpoint was to describe patients with an AMA for whom clinical decisions were impacted by F1LCDx test results. 191 patients were included, mostly with lung cancer (46%). An AMA was found in 52%. The most common molecular alterations were: TP53 (52%), KRAS (14%) and DNMT3 (11%). The most common AMA were: CHEK2 (10%), PIK3CA (9%), ATM (7%). There was no difference in progression-free survival (2.66 months vs. 3.81 months, Routine cfDNA molecular profiling is feasible and can lead to the access of targeted therapies. However, no notable benefit in patient's outcomes was shown in this unselected pan-cancer study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cancer therapies targeting actionable molecular alterations (AMA) have developed, but the clinical routine impact of high-throughput molecular profiling remains unclear. We present a monocentric experience of molecular profiling based on liquid biopsy in patients with cancer.
METHODS
Patients included had solid cancer and underwent cfDNA genomic profiling with FoudationOne Liquid CDx (F1LCDx) test, analyzing 324 genes. Primary endpoint was to describe patients with an AMA for whom clinical decisions were impacted by F1LCDx test results.
RESULTS
191 patients were included, mostly with lung cancer (46%). An AMA was found in 52%. The most common molecular alterations were: TP53 (52%), KRAS (14%) and DNMT3 (11%). The most common AMA were: CHEK2 (10%), PIK3CA (9%), ATM (7%). There was no difference in progression-free survival (2.66 months vs. 3.81 months,
CONCLUSIONS
Routine cfDNA molecular profiling is feasible and can lead to the access of targeted therapies. However, no notable benefit in patient's outcomes was shown in this unselected pan-cancer study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35323355
pii: curroncol29030155
doi: 10.3390/curroncol29030155
pmc: PMC8947301
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cell-Free Nucleic Acids
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1902-1918Références
Nature. 2013 Jul 11;499(7457):214-218
pubmed: 23770567
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb;21(2):271-282
pubmed: 31838007
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 10;33(32):3701-9
pubmed: 26416997
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Jun 30;10(7):
pubmed: 32629823
Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;29(Suppl 4):iv192-iv237
pubmed: 30285222
Genes Cancer. 2016 Sep;7(9-10):301-308
pubmed: 28050231
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Apr;15(4):504-535
pubmed: 28404761
ESMO Open. 2018 Jul 23;3(5):e000398
pubmed: 30094075
Cancers (Basel). 2019 Dec 19;12(1):
pubmed: 31861557
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018 Jun;15(6):353-365
pubmed: 29599476
Oncotarget. 2020 Dec 15;11(50):4648-4654
pubmed: 33400739
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Mol Cancer Ther. 2016 Apr;15(4):743-52
pubmed: 26873727
Biomark Res. 2015 May 01;3:9
pubmed: 26015868
Ann Oncol. 2019 Apr 1;30(4):597-603
pubmed: 30891595
Nat Commun. 2020 Oct 2;11(1):4965
pubmed: 33009371
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16(13):1324-34
pubmed: 26342236
Nat Commun. 2020 Nov 4;11(1):5584
pubmed: 33149131
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Jun 1;111(6):575-583
pubmed: 30496436
Cell. 2011 Mar 4;144(5):646-74
pubmed: 21376230
Cancer Res. 2016 Jul 1;76(13):3690-701
pubmed: 27197177
JCO Precis Oncol. 2018 Aug 16;2:
pubmed: 32913998
N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 20;371(21):1963-71
pubmed: 25264305
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 25;15(9):e0237802
pubmed: 32976510
Oncologist. 2022 Feb 3;27(1):13-21
pubmed: 34516023
Nat Med. 2019 May;25(5):744-750
pubmed: 31011206
JCO Precis Oncol. 2017 Jul;2017:
pubmed: 28890946
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jun 24;362(25):2380-8
pubmed: 20573926
Genome Med. 2021 May 18;13(1):87
pubmed: 34006291
JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2018:
pubmed: 30234181
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 20;28(33):4877-83
pubmed: 20921468
Cancer Treat Rev. 2020 Jun;86:102019
pubmed: 32251926
J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Sep;13(9):1248-1268
pubmed: 29885479
Nature. 2014 Jan 23;505(7484):495-501
pubmed: 24390350
Ann Oncol. 2020 Nov;31(11):1491-1505
pubmed: 32853681
N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 30;364(26):2507-16
pubmed: 21639808
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Apr 20;33(12):1397-406
pubmed: 25779564
N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 20;373(8):726-36
pubmed: 26287849
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 1;38(1):1-10
pubmed: 31682550
Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Jun 1;26(11):2487-2496
pubmed: 32086346
Genome Biol. 2014 Aug 27;15(8):453
pubmed: 25222836
N Engl J Med. 2003 Mar 13;348(11):994-1004
pubmed: 12637609
Cancer Discov. 2017 Jun;7(6):586-595
pubmed: 28365644
Int J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb;24(2):115-122
pubmed: 30515675
Genome Med. 2016 Oct 25;8(1):109
pubmed: 27782854
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jun 20;368(25):2385-94
pubmed: 23724913
Oncologist. 2020 Dec;25(12):e1996-e2005
pubmed: 32557976
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Sep 15;20(18):4827-36
pubmed: 24987059
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jul;17(7):984-993
pubmed: 27283860
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 10;28(11):1963-72
pubmed: 20231676
EBioMedicine. 2020 Jan;51:102624
pubmed: 31923800
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 29;373(18):1697-708
pubmed: 26510020