Eintrag weiter verarbeiten
Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology.
Gespeichert in:
| Zeitschriftentitel: | Journal of Clinical Oncology |
|---|---|
| Personen und Körperschaften: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| In: | Journal of Clinical Oncology, 37, 2019, 15_suppl, S. e13033-e13033 |
| Format: | E-Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| veröffentlicht: |
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
|
| Schlagwörter: |
| author_facet |
Lamping, Mario Rieke, Damian Tobias Klauschen, Frederick Jöhrens, Korinna Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis Lenze, Dido Tinhofer, Inge Benary, Manuela Ochsenreither, Sebastian Klinghammer, Konrad Friedrich Burock, Susen Jann, Henning Stüven, Anna Kathrin Ditzen, Doreen Beule, Dieter Messerschmidt, Clemens Blanc, Eric Schäfer, Reinhold Keilholz, Ulrich Lamping, Mario Rieke, Damian Tobias Klauschen, Frederick Jöhrens, Korinna Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis Lenze, Dido Tinhofer, Inge Benary, Manuela Ochsenreither, Sebastian Klinghammer, Konrad Friedrich Burock, Susen Jann, Henning Stüven, Anna Kathrin Ditzen, Doreen Beule, Dieter Messerschmidt, Clemens Blanc, Eric Schäfer, Reinhold Keilholz, Ulrich |
|---|---|
| author |
Lamping, Mario Rieke, Damian Tobias Klauschen, Frederick Jöhrens, Korinna Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis Lenze, Dido Tinhofer, Inge Benary, Manuela Ochsenreither, Sebastian Klinghammer, Konrad Friedrich Burock, Susen Jann, Henning Stüven, Anna Kathrin Ditzen, Doreen Beule, Dieter Messerschmidt, Clemens Blanc, Eric Schäfer, Reinhold Keilholz, Ulrich |
| spellingShingle |
Lamping, Mario Rieke, Damian Tobias Klauschen, Frederick Jöhrens, Korinna Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis Lenze, Dido Tinhofer, Inge Benary, Manuela Ochsenreither, Sebastian Klinghammer, Konrad Friedrich Burock, Susen Jann, Henning Stüven, Anna Kathrin Ditzen, Doreen Beule, Dieter Messerschmidt, Clemens Blanc, Eric Schäfer, Reinhold Keilholz, Ulrich Journal of Clinical Oncology Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. Cancer Research Oncology |
| author_sort |
lamping, mario |
| spelling |
Lamping, Mario Rieke, Damian Tobias Klauschen, Frederick Jöhrens, Korinna Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis Lenze, Dido Tinhofer, Inge Benary, Manuela Ochsenreither, Sebastian Klinghammer, Konrad Friedrich Burock, Susen Jann, Henning Stüven, Anna Kathrin Ditzen, Doreen Beule, Dieter Messerschmidt, Clemens Blanc, Eric Schäfer, Reinhold Keilholz, Ulrich 0732-183X 1527-7755 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Cancer Research Oncology http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.e13033 <jats:p> e13033 </jats:p><jats:p> Background: Panel sequencing (PS) has become a standard-of-care in cancer diagnostics. More comprehensive analyses such as whole-exome (WES) or RNA sequencing (RNAseq) allow for the detection of rare and unknown genetic aberrations that are not covered by predefined assays. The clinical impact of targeted versus comprehensive genomic assays were analyzed in patients presented at the Charité Molecular Tumor Board (MTB). Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced and/or metastatic cancer for whom no standard therapy was available were discussed in the MTB to allocate diagnostic profiling and guide biomarker-based treatment (BBT). Pts had to be < 50 years of age or diagnosed with a rare tumor entity to undergo WES/RNAseq, performed on fresh tissue. If ineligible, standard PS was performed on archival tissue. BBT recommendations, ranked by pre-specified evidence levels, were made by the MTB and pts were followed up. Results: 228 patients (median age 49 years, 108 female and 120 male) were discussed in the MTB between January 2016 and February 2019. We assigned 73 and 155 pts to PS and WES/RNAseq and results were obtained for 78.1% (n = 57/73) and 54.8% (n = 85/155) pts, respectively. Sequencing failed for 11 (PS; 15.1%) and 62 (WES/RNAseq; 40%) pts, most commonly due to insufficient tissue (n = 29). Sequencing was ongoing in 5 (PS) and 8 (WES/RNAseq) pts at the time of analysis. A median of 2 BBTs were recommended for 75.4% (43/57) of PS (range r: 1-3) and 90.6% (77/85) of WES/RNAseq pts (r: 1-6) each. 22% (n = 17/77) of WES/RNAseq pts had ≥4 BBTs made by the MTB. Treatment was initiated in 30.2% (n = 13/43) of PS and 40.2% (n = 31/77) of WES/RNAseq pts. Clinical benefit rates (CBRs) were 23.1% (2 PR, 1 SD) for PS and 45.2% (2 CR, 3 PR, 9 SD) for WES/RNAseq pts. Overall survival data was immature at the time of analysis. Conclusions: Utilizing WES/RNAseq is a feasible approach to perform tumor profiling in a heterogeneous cohort. We here show a higher rate of pts receiving confident evidence-based treatment recommendations in the WES/RNAseq group and a higher rate of treatment initiation. The CBR nearly doubled in the WES/RNAseq cohort when compared to standard PS pts, thus emphasizing the need for larger comparative analyses to guide diagnostic decision-making. </jats:p> Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.e13033 |
| facet_avail |
Online Free |
| finc_class_facet |
Medizin |
| format |
ElectronicArticle |
| fullrecord |
blob:ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTIwMC9qY28uMjAxOS4zNy4xNV9zdXBwbC5lMTMwMzM |
| id |
ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTIwMC9qY28uMjAxOS4zNy4xNV9zdXBwbC5lMTMwMzM |
| institution |
DE-Gla1 DE-Zi4 DE-15 DE-Pl11 DE-Rs1 DE-105 DE-14 DE-Ch1 DE-L229 DE-D275 DE-Bn3 DE-Brt1 DE-D161 DE-Zwi2 |
| imprint |
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2019 |
| imprint_str_mv |
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2019 |
| issn |
0732-183X 1527-7755 |
| issn_str_mv |
0732-183X 1527-7755 |
| language |
English |
| mega_collection |
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (CrossRef) |
| match_str |
lamping2019clinicalimpactofcomprehensiveversustargetedgenomicanalysisforprecisiononcology |
| publishDateSort |
2019 |
| publisher |
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) |
| recordtype |
ai |
| record_format |
ai |
| series |
Journal of Clinical Oncology |
| source_id |
49 |
| title |
Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| title_unstemmed |
Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| title_full |
Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| title_fullStr |
Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| title_short |
Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| title_sort |
clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| topic |
Cancer Research Oncology |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.e13033 |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| physical |
e13033-e13033 |
| description |
<jats:p> e13033 </jats:p><jats:p> Background: Panel sequencing (PS) has become a standard-of-care in cancer diagnostics. More comprehensive analyses such as whole-exome (WES) or RNA sequencing (RNAseq) allow for the detection of rare and unknown genetic aberrations that are not covered by predefined assays. The clinical impact of targeted versus comprehensive genomic assays were analyzed in patients presented at the Charité Molecular Tumor Board (MTB). Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced and/or metastatic cancer for whom no standard therapy was available were discussed in the MTB to allocate diagnostic profiling and guide biomarker-based treatment (BBT). Pts had to be < 50 years of age or diagnosed with a rare tumor entity to undergo WES/RNAseq, performed on fresh tissue. If ineligible, standard PS was performed on archival tissue. BBT recommendations, ranked by pre-specified evidence levels, were made by the MTB and pts were followed up. Results: 228 patients (median age 49 years, 108 female and 120 male) were discussed in the MTB between January 2016 and February 2019. We assigned 73 and 155 pts to PS and WES/RNAseq and results were obtained for 78.1% (n = 57/73) and 54.8% (n = 85/155) pts, respectively. Sequencing failed for 11 (PS; 15.1%) and 62 (WES/RNAseq; 40%) pts, most commonly due to insufficient tissue (n = 29). Sequencing was ongoing in 5 (PS) and 8 (WES/RNAseq) pts at the time of analysis. A median of 2 BBTs were recommended for 75.4% (43/57) of PS (range r: 1-3) and 90.6% (77/85) of WES/RNAseq pts (r: 1-6) each. 22% (n = 17/77) of WES/RNAseq pts had ≥4 BBTs made by the MTB. Treatment was initiated in 30.2% (n = 13/43) of PS and 40.2% (n = 31/77) of WES/RNAseq pts. Clinical benefit rates (CBRs) were 23.1% (2 PR, 1 SD) for PS and 45.2% (2 CR, 3 PR, 9 SD) for WES/RNAseq pts. Overall survival data was immature at the time of analysis. Conclusions: Utilizing WES/RNAseq is a feasible approach to perform tumor profiling in a heterogeneous cohort. We here show a higher rate of pts receiving confident evidence-based treatment recommendations in the WES/RNAseq group and a higher rate of treatment initiation. The CBR nearly doubled in the WES/RNAseq cohort when compared to standard PS pts, thus emphasizing the need for larger comparative analyses to guide diagnostic decision-making. </jats:p> |
| container_issue |
15_suppl |
| container_start_page |
0 |
| container_title |
Journal of Clinical Oncology |
| container_volume |
37 |
| format_de105 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 |
E-Article |
| format_del152 |
Buch |
| format_del189 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 |
Article |
| format_dezwi2 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_finc |
Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw |
Article, E-Article |
| _version_ |
1792320620861587463 |
| geogr_code |
not assigned |
| last_indexed |
2024-03-01T10:49:01.202Z |
| geogr_code_person |
not assigned |
| openURL |
url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fvufind.svn.sourceforge.net%3Agenerator&rft.title=Clinical+impact+of+comprehensive+versus+targeted+genomic+analysis+for+precision+oncology.&rft.date=2019-05-20&genre=article&issn=1527-7755&volume=37&issue=15_suppl&pages=e13033-e13033&jtitle=Journal+of+Clinical+Oncology&atitle=Clinical+impact+of+comprehensive+versus+targeted+genomic+analysis+for+precision+oncology.&aulast=Keilholz&aufirst=Ulrich&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1200%2Fjco.2019.37.15_suppl.e13033&rft.language%5B0%5D=eng |
| SOLR | |
| _version_ | 1792320620861587463 |
| author | Lamping, Mario, Rieke, Damian Tobias, Klauschen, Frederick, Jöhrens, Korinna, Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis, Lenze, Dido, Tinhofer, Inge, Benary, Manuela, Ochsenreither, Sebastian, Klinghammer, Konrad Friedrich, Burock, Susen, Jann, Henning, Stüven, Anna Kathrin, Ditzen, Doreen, Beule, Dieter, Messerschmidt, Clemens, Blanc, Eric, Schäfer, Reinhold, Keilholz, Ulrich |
| author_facet | Lamping, Mario, Rieke, Damian Tobias, Klauschen, Frederick, Jöhrens, Korinna, Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis, Lenze, Dido, Tinhofer, Inge, Benary, Manuela, Ochsenreither, Sebastian, Klinghammer, Konrad Friedrich, Burock, Susen, Jann, Henning, Stüven, Anna Kathrin, Ditzen, Doreen, Beule, Dieter, Messerschmidt, Clemens, Blanc, Eric, Schäfer, Reinhold, Keilholz, Ulrich, Lamping, Mario, Rieke, Damian Tobias, Klauschen, Frederick, Jöhrens, Korinna, Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis, Lenze, Dido, Tinhofer, Inge, Benary, Manuela, Ochsenreither, Sebastian, Klinghammer, Konrad Friedrich, Burock, Susen, Jann, Henning, Stüven, Anna Kathrin, Ditzen, Doreen, Beule, Dieter, Messerschmidt, Clemens, Blanc, Eric, Schäfer, Reinhold, Keilholz, Ulrich |
| author_sort | lamping, mario |
| container_issue | 15_suppl |
| container_start_page | 0 |
| container_title | Journal of Clinical Oncology |
| container_volume | 37 |
| description | <jats:p> e13033 </jats:p><jats:p> Background: Panel sequencing (PS) has become a standard-of-care in cancer diagnostics. More comprehensive analyses such as whole-exome (WES) or RNA sequencing (RNAseq) allow for the detection of rare and unknown genetic aberrations that are not covered by predefined assays. The clinical impact of targeted versus comprehensive genomic assays were analyzed in patients presented at the Charité Molecular Tumor Board (MTB). Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced and/or metastatic cancer for whom no standard therapy was available were discussed in the MTB to allocate diagnostic profiling and guide biomarker-based treatment (BBT). Pts had to be < 50 years of age or diagnosed with a rare tumor entity to undergo WES/RNAseq, performed on fresh tissue. If ineligible, standard PS was performed on archival tissue. BBT recommendations, ranked by pre-specified evidence levels, were made by the MTB and pts were followed up. Results: 228 patients (median age 49 years, 108 female and 120 male) were discussed in the MTB between January 2016 and February 2019. We assigned 73 and 155 pts to PS and WES/RNAseq and results were obtained for 78.1% (n = 57/73) and 54.8% (n = 85/155) pts, respectively. Sequencing failed for 11 (PS; 15.1%) and 62 (WES/RNAseq; 40%) pts, most commonly due to insufficient tissue (n = 29). Sequencing was ongoing in 5 (PS) and 8 (WES/RNAseq) pts at the time of analysis. A median of 2 BBTs were recommended for 75.4% (43/57) of PS (range r: 1-3) and 90.6% (77/85) of WES/RNAseq pts (r: 1-6) each. 22% (n = 17/77) of WES/RNAseq pts had ≥4 BBTs made by the MTB. Treatment was initiated in 30.2% (n = 13/43) of PS and 40.2% (n = 31/77) of WES/RNAseq pts. Clinical benefit rates (CBRs) were 23.1% (2 PR, 1 SD) for PS and 45.2% (2 CR, 3 PR, 9 SD) for WES/RNAseq pts. Overall survival data was immature at the time of analysis. Conclusions: Utilizing WES/RNAseq is a feasible approach to perform tumor profiling in a heterogeneous cohort. We here show a higher rate of pts receiving confident evidence-based treatment recommendations in the WES/RNAseq group and a higher rate of treatment initiation. The CBR nearly doubled in the WES/RNAseq cohort when compared to standard PS pts, thus emphasizing the need for larger comparative analyses to guide diagnostic decision-making. </jats:p> |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.e13033 |
| facet_avail | Online, Free |
| finc_class_facet | Medizin |
| format | ElectronicArticle |
| format_de105 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 | Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 | Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 | E-Article |
| format_del152 | Buch |
| format_del189 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 | Article |
| format_dezwi2 | Article, E-Article |
| format_finc | Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw | Article, E-Article |
| geogr_code | not assigned |
| geogr_code_person | not assigned |
| id | ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTIwMC9qY28uMjAxOS4zNy4xNV9zdXBwbC5lMTMwMzM |
| imprint | American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2019 |
| imprint_str_mv | American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2019 |
| institution | DE-Gla1, DE-Zi4, DE-15, DE-Pl11, DE-Rs1, DE-105, DE-14, DE-Ch1, DE-L229, DE-D275, DE-Bn3, DE-Brt1, DE-D161, DE-Zwi2 |
| issn | 0732-183X, 1527-7755 |
| issn_str_mv | 0732-183X, 1527-7755 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-01T10:49:01.202Z |
| match_str | lamping2019clinicalimpactofcomprehensiveversustargetedgenomicanalysisforprecisiononcology |
| mega_collection | American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (CrossRef) |
| physical | e13033-e13033 |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publishDateSort | 2019 |
| publisher | American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) |
| record_format | ai |
| recordtype | ai |
| series | Journal of Clinical Oncology |
| source_id | 49 |
| spelling | Lamping, Mario Rieke, Damian Tobias Klauschen, Frederick Jöhrens, Korinna Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis Lenze, Dido Tinhofer, Inge Benary, Manuela Ochsenreither, Sebastian Klinghammer, Konrad Friedrich Burock, Susen Jann, Henning Stüven, Anna Kathrin Ditzen, Doreen Beule, Dieter Messerschmidt, Clemens Blanc, Eric Schäfer, Reinhold Keilholz, Ulrich 0732-183X 1527-7755 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Cancer Research Oncology http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.e13033 <jats:p> e13033 </jats:p><jats:p> Background: Panel sequencing (PS) has become a standard-of-care in cancer diagnostics. More comprehensive analyses such as whole-exome (WES) or RNA sequencing (RNAseq) allow for the detection of rare and unknown genetic aberrations that are not covered by predefined assays. The clinical impact of targeted versus comprehensive genomic assays were analyzed in patients presented at the Charité Molecular Tumor Board (MTB). Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced and/or metastatic cancer for whom no standard therapy was available were discussed in the MTB to allocate diagnostic profiling and guide biomarker-based treatment (BBT). Pts had to be < 50 years of age or diagnosed with a rare tumor entity to undergo WES/RNAseq, performed on fresh tissue. If ineligible, standard PS was performed on archival tissue. BBT recommendations, ranked by pre-specified evidence levels, were made by the MTB and pts were followed up. Results: 228 patients (median age 49 years, 108 female and 120 male) were discussed in the MTB between January 2016 and February 2019. We assigned 73 and 155 pts to PS and WES/RNAseq and results were obtained for 78.1% (n = 57/73) and 54.8% (n = 85/155) pts, respectively. Sequencing failed for 11 (PS; 15.1%) and 62 (WES/RNAseq; 40%) pts, most commonly due to insufficient tissue (n = 29). Sequencing was ongoing in 5 (PS) and 8 (WES/RNAseq) pts at the time of analysis. A median of 2 BBTs were recommended for 75.4% (43/57) of PS (range r: 1-3) and 90.6% (77/85) of WES/RNAseq pts (r: 1-6) each. 22% (n = 17/77) of WES/RNAseq pts had ≥4 BBTs made by the MTB. Treatment was initiated in 30.2% (n = 13/43) of PS and 40.2% (n = 31/77) of WES/RNAseq pts. Clinical benefit rates (CBRs) were 23.1% (2 PR, 1 SD) for PS and 45.2% (2 CR, 3 PR, 9 SD) for WES/RNAseq pts. Overall survival data was immature at the time of analysis. Conclusions: Utilizing WES/RNAseq is a feasible approach to perform tumor profiling in a heterogeneous cohort. We here show a higher rate of pts receiving confident evidence-based treatment recommendations in the WES/RNAseq group and a higher rate of treatment initiation. The CBR nearly doubled in the WES/RNAseq cohort when compared to standard PS pts, thus emphasizing the need for larger comparative analyses to guide diagnostic decision-making. </jats:p> Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology |
| spellingShingle | Lamping, Mario, Rieke, Damian Tobias, Klauschen, Frederick, Jöhrens, Korinna, Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis, Lenze, Dido, Tinhofer, Inge, Benary, Manuela, Ochsenreither, Sebastian, Klinghammer, Konrad Friedrich, Burock, Susen, Jann, Henning, Stüven, Anna Kathrin, Ditzen, Doreen, Beule, Dieter, Messerschmidt, Clemens, Blanc, Eric, Schäfer, Reinhold, Keilholz, Ulrich, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology., Cancer Research, Oncology |
| title | Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| title_full | Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| title_fullStr | Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| title_short | Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| title_sort | clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| title_unstemmed | Clinical impact of comprehensive versus targeted genomic analysis for precision oncology. |
| topic | Cancer Research, Oncology |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.e13033 |