Assessing the utility of molecular diagnostic classification for cancers of unknown primary.
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2023
10 2023
Historique:
received:
11
07
2023
accepted:
02
09
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
15
9
2023
entrez:
15
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Roughly 5% of metastatic cancers present with uncertain origin, for which molecular classification could influence subsequent management; however, prior studies of molecular diagnostic classifiers have reported mixed results with regard to clinical impact. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the utility of a novel molecular diagnostic classifier by assessing theoretical changes in treatment and additional testing recommendations from oncologists before and after the review of classifier predictions. We retrospectively analyzed de-identified records from 289 patients with a consensus diagnosis of cancer of uncertain/unknown primary (CUP). Two (or three, if adjudication was required) independent oncologists separately reviewed patient clinical information to determine the course of treatment before they reviewed results from the molecular diagnostic classifier and subsequently evaluated whether the predicted diagnosis would alter their treatment plan. Results from the molecular diagnostic classifier changed the consensus oncologist-reported treatment recommendations for 235 out of 289 patients (81.3%). At the level of individual oncologist reviews (n = 414), 64.7% (n = 268) of treatment recommendations were based on CUP guidelines prior to review of results from the molecular diagnostic classifier. After seeing classifier results, 98.1% (n = 207) of the reviews, where treatment was specified (n = 211), were guided by the tissue of origin-specific guidelines. Overall, 89.9% of the 414 total reviews either expressed strong agreement (n = 242) or agreement (n = 130) that the molecular diagnostic classifier result increased confidence in selecting the most appropriate treatment regimen. A retrospective review of CUP cases demonstrates that a novel molecular diagnostic classifier could affect treatment in the majority of patients, supporting its clinical utility. Further studies are needed to prospectively evaluate whether the use of molecular diagnostic classifiers improves clinical outcomes in CUP patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Roughly 5% of metastatic cancers present with uncertain origin, for which molecular classification could influence subsequent management; however, prior studies of molecular diagnostic classifiers have reported mixed results with regard to clinical impact. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the utility of a novel molecular diagnostic classifier by assessing theoretical changes in treatment and additional testing recommendations from oncologists before and after the review of classifier predictions.
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed de-identified records from 289 patients with a consensus diagnosis of cancer of uncertain/unknown primary (CUP). Two (or three, if adjudication was required) independent oncologists separately reviewed patient clinical information to determine the course of treatment before they reviewed results from the molecular diagnostic classifier and subsequently evaluated whether the predicted diagnosis would alter their treatment plan.
RESULTS
Results from the molecular diagnostic classifier changed the consensus oncologist-reported treatment recommendations for 235 out of 289 patients (81.3%). At the level of individual oncologist reviews (n = 414), 64.7% (n = 268) of treatment recommendations were based on CUP guidelines prior to review of results from the molecular diagnostic classifier. After seeing classifier results, 98.1% (n = 207) of the reviews, where treatment was specified (n = 211), were guided by the tissue of origin-specific guidelines. Overall, 89.9% of the 414 total reviews either expressed strong agreement (n = 242) or agreement (n = 130) that the molecular diagnostic classifier result increased confidence in selecting the most appropriate treatment regimen.
CONCLUSIONS
A retrospective review of CUP cases demonstrates that a novel molecular diagnostic classifier could affect treatment in the majority of patients, supporting its clinical utility. Further studies are needed to prospectively evaluate whether the use of molecular diagnostic classifiers improves clinical outcomes in CUP patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37712677
doi: 10.1002/cam4.6532
pmc: PMC10587948
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19394-19405Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2011 Dec;9(12):1358-95
pubmed: 22157556
Transl Oncol. 2021 Mar;14(3):101016
pubmed: 33465745
Ann Oncol. 2016 Feb;27(2):339-44
pubmed: 26578722
Cancer Treat Rev. 2015 Jul;41(7):598-604
pubmed: 26033502
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jan 10;31(2):217-23
pubmed: 23032625
Cancer Med. 2023 Oct;12(19):19394-19405
pubmed: 37712677
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;37(7):570-579
pubmed: 30653423
Cancer Treat Rev. 2021 Jun;97:102204
pubmed: 33866225
Br J Cancer. 2019 Jan;120(2):141-153
pubmed: 30580378
Acta Oncol. 2007;46(5):592-601
pubmed: 17562435
Eur J Clin Invest. 2013 May;43(5):491-500
pubmed: 23480555
Cancer Med. 2018 Sep;7(9):4814-4824
pubmed: 30019510
Oncotarget. 2019 Mar 22;10(24):2384-2396
pubmed: 31040929
JCO Precis Oncol. 2018 Nov;2:1-12
pubmed: 35135112
Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Nov;37(11):1351-1360
pubmed: 31570899
Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2012 Jun;11(2):112-8
pubmed: 22000811
J Transl Med. 2012 Jan 24;10:12
pubmed: 22272606
Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020 Sep 09;8:564601
pubmed: 33015058
Mol Diagn Ther. 2023 Jul;27(4):499-511
pubmed: 37099070
Oncologist. 2016 May;21(5):594-9
pubmed: 27000463
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Dec 01;6(12):1931-1938
pubmed: 33057591
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Oct;17(10):1386-1395
pubmed: 27575023
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Sep 20;26(27):4442-8
pubmed: 18802157
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Aug 1;19(15):4027-33
pubmed: 23519898