Literature DB >> 20921468

Pilot study using molecular profiling of patients' tumors to find potential targets and select treatments for their refractory cancers.

Daniel D Von Hoff1, Joseph J Stephenson, Peter Rosen, David M Loesch, Mitesh J Borad, Stephen Anthony, Gayle Jameson, Susan Brown, Nina Cantafio, Donald A Richards, Tom R Fitch, Ernesto Wasserman, Cristian Fernandez, Sylvan Green, William Sutherland, Michael Bittner, Arlet Alarcon, David Mallery, Robert Penny.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the progression-free survival (PFS) using a treatment regimen selected by molecular profiling (MP) of a patient's tumor with the PFS for the most recent regimen on which the patient had experienced progression (ie, patient as his own control). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with refractory metastatic cancer had tissue samples submitted for MP in two formats including formalin-fixed tissue for immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in situ hybridization assays and immediately frozen tissue for oligonucleotide microarray (MA) gene expression assays (all performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments [CLIA]-certified laboratory). The MP approach was deemed of clinical benefit for the individual patient who had a PFS ratio (PFS on MP-selected therapy/PFS on prior therapy) of ≥ 1.3.
RESULTS: In 86 patients who had MP attempted, there was a molecular target detected in 84 (98%). Sixty-six of the 84 patients were treated according to MP results. Eighteen (27%) of 66 patients had a PFS ratio of ≥ 1.3 (95% CI, 17% to 38%; one-sided, one-sample P = .007). Therefore, the null hypothesis (that ≤ 15% of this patient population would have a PFS ratio of ≥ 1.3) was rejected.
CONCLUSION: It is possible to identify molecular targets in patients' tumors from nine different centers across the United States. In 27% of patients, the MP approach resulted in a longer PFS on an MP-suggested regimen than on the regimen on which the patient had just experienced progression. Issues to be considered in interpretation of this study include limited prior experience with patients as their own controls as a study end point and overall patient attrition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20921468     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.5983

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  243 in total

Review 1.  Molecular prescreening to select patient population in early clinical trials.

Authors:  Jordi Rodón; Cristina Saura; Rodrigo Dienstmann; Ana Vivancos; Santiago Ramón y Cajal; José Baselga; Josep Tabernero
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  Impact of a Biomarker-Based Strategy on Oncology Drug Development: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials Leading to FDA Approval.

Authors:  Denis L Jardim; Denis L Fontes Jardim; Maria Schwaederle; Caimiao Wei; J Jack Lee; David S Hong; Alexander M Eggermont; Richard L Schilsky; John Mendelsohn; Vladimir Lazar; Razelle Kurzrock
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Image-Guided Biopsy in the Era of Personalized Cancer Care: Proceedings from the Society of Interventional Radiology Research Consensus Panel.

Authors:  Alda L Tam; Howard J Lim; Ignacio I Wistuba; Anobel Tamrazi; Michael D Kuo; Etay Ziv; Stephen Wong; Albert J Shih; Robert J Webster; Gregory S Fischer; Sunitha Nagrath; Suzanne E Davis; Sarah B White; Kamran Ahrar
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 3.464

Review 4.  Implementing personalized cancer care.

Authors:  Richard L Schilsky
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 66.675

5.  Chronic Activation of Innate Immunity Correlates With Poor Prognosis in Cancer Patients Treated With Oncolytic Adenovirus.

Authors:  Kristian Taipale; Ilkka Liikanen; Juuso Juhila; Riku Turkki; Siri Tähtinen; Matti Kankainen; Lotta Vassilev; Ari Ristimäki; Anniina Koski; Anna Kanerva; Iulia Diaconu; Vincenzo Cerullo; Markus Vähä-Koskela; Minna Oksanen; Nina Linder; Timo Joensuu; Johan Lundin; Akseli Hemminki
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 11.454

6.  Application of molecular profiling in clinical trials for advanced metastatic cancers.

Authors:  Shivaani Kummar; P Mickey Williams; Chih-Jian Lih; Eric C Polley; Alice P Chen; Larry V Rubinstein; Yingdong Zhao; Richard M Simon; Barbara A Conley; James H Doroshow
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Array comparative genomic hybridization identifies novel potential therapeutic targets in cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  Siobhan C McKay; Kristian Unger; Stephanos Pericleous; Gordon Stamp; Gerry Thomas; Robert R Hutchins; Duncan R C Spalding
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2011-03-10       Impact factor: 3.647

8.  Initiative for Molecular Profiling and Advanced Cancer Therapy (IMPACT): An MD Anderson Precision Medicine Study.

Authors:  Apostolia-Maria Tsimberidou; David S Hong; Yang Ye; Carrie Cartwright; Jennifer J Wheler; Gerald S Falchook; Aung Naing; Siqing Fu; Sarina Piha-Paul; Filip Janku; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Patrick Hwu; Bryan Kee; Merrill S Kies; Russell Broaddus; John Mendelsohn; Kenneth R Hess; Razelle Kurzrock
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2017-09-08

9.  Predictive Factors of Eribulin Activity in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Rita De Sanctis; Elisa Agostinetto; Giovanna Masci; Emanuela Ferraro; Agnese Losurdo; Alessandro Viganò; Lidija Antunovic; Monica Zuradelli; Rosalba Maria Concetta Torrisi; Armando Santoro
Journal:  Oncology       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 2.935

10.  Mass spectrometry in cancer biomarker research: a case for immunodepletion of abundant blood-derived proteins from clinical tissue specimens.

Authors:  Darue A Prieto; Donald J Johann; Bih-Rong Wei; Xiaoying Ye; King C Chan; Dwight V Nissley; R Mark Simpson; Deborah E Citrin; Crystal L Mackall; W Marston Linehan; Josip Blonder
Journal:  Biomark Med       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.851

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.