BACKGROUND: Targeted next generation sequencing (tNGS) is increasingly used in oncology for therapeutic decision-making, but is not yet widely used for prostate cancer. The objective of this study was to determine current clinical utility of tNGS for prostate cancer management. METHODS: Seven academic genitourinary medical oncologists recruited and consented patients with prostate cancer, largely with unusual clinical and/or pathologic features, from 2013 to 2015. UW-OncoPlex was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) primary tumors and/or metastatic biopsies. Results were discussed at a multidisciplinary precision tumor board prior to communicating to patients. FFPE tumor DNA was extracted for tNGS analysis of 194 cancer-associated genes. Results, multidisciplinary discussion, and treatment changes were recorded. RESULTS: Forty-five patients consented and 42 had reportable results. Findings included mutations in genes frequently observed in prostate cancer. We also found alterations in genes where targeted treatments were available and/or in clinical trials. 4/42 (10%) cases, change in treatment directly resulted from tNGS and multidisciplinary discussion. In 30/42 (71%) cases additional options were available but not pursued and/or were pending. Notably, 10/42 (24%) of patients harbored suspected germline mutations in moderate or high-penetrance cancer risk genes, including BRCA2, TP53, ATM, and CHEK2. One patient's tumor had bi-allelic MSH6 mutation and microsatellite instability. In total, 34/42 (81%) cases resulted in some measure of treatment actionability. Limitations include small size and limited clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted NGS tumor sequencing may help guide immediate and future treatment options for men with prostate cancer. A substantial subset had germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes with potential clinical management implications for men and their relatives. Prostate 76:1303-1311, 2016.
BACKGROUND: Targeted next generation sequencing (tNGS) is increasingly used in oncology for therapeutic decision-making, but is not yet widely used for prostate cancer. The objective of this study was to determine current clinical utility of tNGS for prostate cancer management. METHODS: Seven academic genitourinary medical oncologists recruited and consented patients with prostate cancer, largely with unusual clinical and/or pathologic features, from 2013 to 2015. UW-OncoPlex was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) primary tumors and/or metastatic biopsies. Results were discussed at a multidisciplinary precision tumor board prior to communicating to patients. FFPE tumor DNA was extracted for tNGS analysis of 194 cancer-associated genes. Results, multidisciplinary discussion, and treatment changes were recorded. RESULTS: Forty-five patients consented and 42 had reportable results. Findings included mutations in genes frequently observed in prostate cancer. We also found alterations in genes where targeted treatments were available and/or in clinical trials. 4/42 (10%) cases, change in treatment directly resulted from tNGS and multidisciplinary discussion. In 30/42 (71%) cases additional options were available but not pursued and/or were pending. Notably, 10/42 (24%) of patients harbored suspected germline mutations in moderate or high-penetrance cancer risk genes, including BRCA2, TP53, ATM, and CHEK2. One patient's tumor had bi-allelic MSH6 mutation and microsatellite instability. In total, 34/42 (81%) cases resulted in some measure of treatment actionability. Limitations include small size and limited clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted NGS tumor sequencing may help guide immediate and future treatment options for men with prostate cancer. A substantial subset had germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes with potential clinical management implications for men and their relatives. Prostate 76:1303-1311, 2016.
Authors: Mark E Robson; Angela R Bradbury; Banu Arun; Susan M Domchek; James M Ford; Heather L Hampel; Stephen M Lipkin; Sapna Syngal; Dana S Wollins; Noralane M Lindor Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kevin E Fisher; Linsheng Zhang; Jason Wang; Geoffrey H Smith; Scott Newman; Thomas M Schneider; Rathi N Pillai; Ragini R Kudchadkar; Taofeek K Owonikoko; Suresh S Ramalingam; David H Lawson; Keith A Delman; Bassel F El-Rayes; Malania M Wilson; H Clifford Sullivan; Annie S Morrison; Serdar Balci; N Volkan Adsay; Anthony A Gal; Gabriel L Sica; Debra F Saxe; Karen P Mann; Charles E Hill; Fadlo R Khuri; Michael R Rossi Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Ethan Basch; D Andrew Loblaw; Thomas K Oliver; Michael Carducci; Ronald C Chen; James N Frame; Kristina Garrels; Sebastien Hotte; Michael W Kattan; Derek Raghavan; Fred Saad; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Cindy Walker-Dilks; James Williams; Eric Winquist; Charles L Bennett; Ted Wootton; R Bryan Rumble; Stacie B Dusetzina; Katherine S Virgo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Colin C Pritchard; Stephen J Salipante; Karen Koehler; Christina Smith; Sheena Scroggins; Brent Wood; David Wu; Ming K Lee; Suzanne Dintzis; Andrew Adey; Yajuan Liu; Keith D Eaton; Renato Martins; Kari Stricker; Kim A Margolin; Noah Hoffman; Jane E Churpek; Jonathan F Tait; Mary-Claire King; Tom Walsh Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2013-11-02 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Kasmintan A Schrader; Donavan T Cheng; Vijai Joseph; Meera Prasad; Michael Walsh; Ahmet Zehir; Ai Ni; Tinu Thomas; Ryma Benayed; Asad Ashraf; Annie Lincoln; Maria Arcila; Zsofia Stadler; David Solit; David M Hyman; David Hyman; Liying Zhang; David Klimstra; Marc Ladanyi; Kenneth Offit; Michael Berger; Mark Robson Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Catherine S Grasso; Yi-Mi Wu; Dan R Robinson; Xuhong Cao; Saravana M Dhanasekaran; Amjad P Khan; Michael J Quist; Xiaojun Jing; Robert J Lonigro; J Chad Brenner; Irfan A Asangani; Bushra Ateeq; Sang Y Chun; Javed Siddiqui; Lee Sam; Matt Anstett; Rohit Mehra; John R Prensner; Nallasivam Palanisamy; Gregory A Ryslik; Fabio Vandin; Benjamin J Raphael; Lakshmi P Kunju; Daniel R Rhodes; Kenneth J Pienta; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Scott A Tomlins Journal: Nature Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Elizabeth H Stover; Coyin Oh; Paula Keskula; Atish D Choudhury; Yuen-Yi Tseng; Viktor A Adalsteinsson; Jens G Lohr; Aaron R Thorner; Matthew Ducar; Gregory V Kryukov; Gavin Ha; Mara Rosenberg; Samuel S Freeman; Zhenwei Zhang; Xiaoyun Wu; Eliezer M Van Allen; David Y Takeda; Massimo Loda; Chin-Lee Wu; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Levi A Garraway; Jesse S Boehm; Franklin W Huang Journal: Prostate Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 4.012
Authors: Maria I Carlo; Veda N Giri; Channing J Paller; Wassim Abida; Joshi J Alumkal; Tomasz M Beer; Himisha Beltran; Daniel J George; Elisabeth I Heath; Celestia S Higano; Rana R McKay; Alicia K Morgans; Akash Patnaik; Charles J Ryan; Edward M Schaeffer; Walter M Stadler; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Noah D Kauff; Jacob Vinson; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Heather H Cheng Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2018-08-16
Authors: Jennifer A Hempelmann; Christina M Lockwood; Eric Q Konnick; Michael T Schweizer; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Tamara L Lotan; Bruce Montgomery; Peter S Nelson; Nola Klemfuss; Stephen J Salipante; Colin C Pritchard Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Derrick L Tao; Shawna Bailey; Tomasz M Beer; Erik Foss; Brooke Beckett; Alice Fung; Bryan R Foster; Alexander Guimaraes; Jeremy P Cetnar; Julie N Graff; Kristine M Eilers; Eric J Small; Christopher L Corless; George V Thomas; Joshi J Alumkal Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2017-06-28
Authors: Shouki Bazarbashi; Wen-Pin Su; Siew W Wong; Ramanujam A Singarachari; Sudhir Rawal; Maria I Volkova; Diogo A Bastos Journal: Oncol Ther Date: 2021-07-08