Lorna Rodriguez-Rodriguez1, Kim M Hirshfield2, Veronica Rojas3, Robert S DiPaola2, Darlene Gibbon2, Mira Hellmann4, Sara Isani2, Aliza Leiser2, Gregory M Riedlinger2, Allison Wagreich5, Siraj M Ali6, Julia A Elvin6, Vincent A Miller6, Shridar Ganesan7. 1. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA. Electronic address: rodriglo@cinj.rutgers.edu. 2. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA. 3. Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, 671 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. 4. Hackensack University Medical Center, John Theurer Cancer Center, 92 2nd Street, Hackensack, NJ, 07601, USA. 5. Morristown Medical Center, Atlantic Health System, 100 Madison Avenue, Morristown, NJ 07960, USA. 6. Foundation Medicine, Inc., 150 Second Street, Cambridge, MA 02141, USA. 7. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA. Electronic address: ganesash@cinj.rutgers.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and clinical utility of using comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in the course of clinical care to identify clinically relevant tumor genomic alterations for patients with either rare or refractory gynecologic cancers to facilitate point-of-care management. Use of an expert, multidisciplinary, institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) assessment is discussed regarding input on putative targeted options for individualized therapy. METHODS: A prospective clinical trial is ongoing. We report on the initial 69 patients with gynecologic cancers that were either rare or refractory to standard therapy. CGP was performed by Foundation Medicine, Inc. Genomic alterations were reviewed by members of an MTB. Consensus recommendations on genomically targeted, FDA-approved, on- and off-label therapies and clinical trials were sent to the treating physician, and decisions and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Study outcomes were available for 64 patients. The mean number of genes altered per tumor was 4.97 (median=4; range, 1-26), and the average turnaround time from testing laboratory report to generation of formal recommendations was approximately three weeks. Evaluation of genomic and clinical data by the MTB led to generation of targeted treatment options in all 64 patients, and the percentage of patients for whom one or more of these recommendations were implemented by the treating physician was 39%. Sixty-four percent of the patients receiving targeted therapy based on a CGP result experienced radiologic response or showed evidence of clinical benefit or stable disease. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that an institutional MTB is a feasible venue for reviewing tumor genomic profiling results and generating clinical recommendations. These data also support the need for further studies and guidelines on clinical decision making with greater availability of broad genomically based diagnostics.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and clinical utility of using comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in the course of clinical care to identify clinically relevant tumor genomic alterations for patients with either rare or refractory gynecologic cancers to facilitate point-of-care management. Use of an expert, multidisciplinary, institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) assessment is discussed regarding input on putative targeted options for individualized therapy. METHODS: A prospective clinical trial is ongoing. We report on the initial 69 patients with gynecologic cancers that were either rare or refractory to standard therapy. CGP was performed by Foundation Medicine, Inc. Genomic alterations were reviewed by members of an MTB. Consensus recommendations on genomically targeted, FDA-approved, on- and off-label therapies and clinical trials were sent to the treating physician, and decisions and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Study outcomes were available for 64 patients. The mean number of genes altered per tumor was 4.97 (median=4; range, 1-26), and the average turnaround time from testing laboratory report to generation of formal recommendations was approximately three weeks. Evaluation of genomic and clinical data by the MTB led to generation of targeted treatment options in all 64 patients, and the percentage of patients for whom one or more of these recommendations were implemented by the treating physician was 39%. Sixty-four percent of the patients receiving targeted therapy based on a CGP result experienced radiologic response or showed evidence of clinical benefit or stable disease. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that an institutional MTB is a feasible venue for reviewing tumor genomic profiling results and generating clinical recommendations. These data also support the need for further studies and guidelines on clinical decision making with greater availability of broad genomically based diagnostics.
Authors: Julia Willner; Kaitlyn Wurz; Kimberly H Allison; Vijaya Galic; Rochelle L Garcia; Barbara A Goff; Elizabeth M Swisher Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2007-01-29 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Laura J Tafe; Ivan P Gorlov; Francine B de Abreu; Joel A Lefferts; Xiaoying Liu; Jason R Pettus; Jonathan D Marotti; Kasia J Bloch; Vincent A Memoli; Arief A Suriawinata; Konstantin H Dragnev; Camilo E Fadul; Gary N Schwartz; Clinton R Morgan; Britt M Holderness; Jason D Peterson; Gregory J Tsongalis; Todd W Miller; Mary D Chamberlin Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-07-23
Authors: Siming Zhao; Murim Choi; John D Overton; Stefania Bellone; Dana M Roque; Emiliano Cocco; Federica Guzzo; Diana P English; Joyce Varughese; Sara Gasparrini; Ileana Bortolomai; Natalia Buza; Pei Hui; Maysa Abu-Khalaf; Antonella Ravaggi; Eliana Bignotti; Elisabetta Bandiera; Chiara Romani; Paola Todeschini; Renata Tassi; Laura Zanotti; Luisa Carrara; Sergio Pecorelli; Dan-Arin Silasi; Elena Ratner; Masoud Azodi; Peter E Schwartz; Thomas J Rutherford; Amy L Stiegler; Shrikant Mane; Titus J Boggon; Joseph Schlessinger; Richard P Lifton; Alessandro D Santin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Diego A Garcia-Dios; Diether Lambrechts; Lieve Coenegrachts; Ingrid Vandenput; An Capoen; Penelope M Webb; Kaltin Ferguson; Lars A Akslen; Bart Claes; Ignace Vergote; Philippe Moerman; Johan Van Robays; Janusz Marcickiewicz; Helga B Salvesen; Amanda B Spurdle; Frédéric Amant Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Zhigang C Wang; Nicolai Juul Birkbak; Aedín C Culhane; Ronny Drapkin; Aquila Fatima; Ruiyang Tian; Matthew Schwede; Kathryn Alsop; Kathryn E Daniels; Huiying Piao; Joyce Liu; Dariush Etemadmoghadam; Alexander Miron; Helga B Salvesen; Gillian Mitchell; Anna DeFazio; John Quackenbush; Ross S Berkowitz; J Dirk Iglehart; David D L Bowtell; Ursula A Matulonis Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-08-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Cyriac Kandoth; Michael D McLellan; Fabio Vandin; Kai Ye; Beifang Niu; Charles Lu; Mingchao Xie; Qunyuan Zhang; Joshua F McMichael; Matthew A Wyczalkowski; Mark D M Leiserson; Christopher A Miller; John S Welch; Matthew J Walter; Michael C Wendl; Timothy J Ley; Richard K Wilson; Benjamin J Raphael; Li Ding Journal: Nature Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Coren A Milbury; James Creeden; Wai-Ki Yip; David L Smith; Varun Pattani; Kristi Maxwell; Bethany Sawchyn; Ole Gjoerup; Wei Meng; Joel Skoletsky; Alvin D Concepcion; Yanhua Tang; Xiaobo Bai; Ninad Dewal; Pei Ma; Shannon T Bailey; James Thornton; Dean C Pavlick; Garrett M Frampton; Daniel Lieber; Jared White; Christine Burns; Christine Vietz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Munveer S Bhangoo; Peter Boasberg; Pareen Mehta; Julia A Elvin; Siraj M Ali; Winnie Wu; Samuel J Klempner Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-01-31
Authors: Kara L Larson; Bin Huang; Heidi L Weiss; Pam Hull; Philip M Westgate; Rachel W Miller; Susanne M Arnold; Jill M Kolesar Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-07-09
Authors: Anna V Gaponova; Alexander Y Deneka; Tim N Beck; Hanqing Liu; Gregory Andrianov; Anna S Nikonova; Emmanuelle Nicolas; Margret B Einarson; Erica A Golemis; Ilya G Serebriiskii Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-03-21
Authors: David J Foran; Wenjin Chen; Huiqi Chu; Evita Sadimin; Doreen Loh; Gregory Riedlinger; Lauri A Goodell; Shridar Ganesan; Kim Hirshfield; Lorna Rodriguez; Robert S DiPaola Journal: Cancer Inform Date: 2017-03-02
Authors: Hossein Taghizadeh; Robert M Mader; Leonhard Müllauer; Stefanie Aust; Stephan Polterauer; Heinz Kölbl; Veronika Seebacher; Christoph Grimm; Alexander Reinthaller; Gerald W Prager Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-05-08
Authors: Dora Čerina; Višnja Matković; Kristina Katić; Ingrid Belac Lovasić; Robert Šeparović; Ivana Canjko; Blanka Jakšić; Ana Fröbe; Stjepko Pleština; Žarko Bajić; Eduard Vrdoljak Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 3.201
Authors: Margaret A Hay; Eric A Severson; Vincent A Miller; David A Liebner; Jo-Anne Vergilio; Sherri Z Millis; James L Chen Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2020-03-18