Literature DB >> 28000172

Implementation of a Precision Pathology Program Focused on Oncology-Based Prognostic and Predictive Outcomes.

Michael J Donovan1, Carlos Cordon-Cardo2.   

Abstract

Personalized or precision medicine as a diagnostic and therapeutic paradigm was introduced some 10-15 years ago, with the advent of biomarker discovery as a mechanism for identifying prognostic and predictive attributes associated with treatment indication and outcome. While the concept is not new, the successful development and implementation of novel 'companion diagnostics', especially in oncology, continues to represent a significant challenge and is currently at the forefront of smart trial design and therapeutic choice. The ability to determine patient selection for a specific therapy has broad implications including better chances for a positive outcome, limited exposure to potentially toxic drugs and improved health economics. Importantly, a significant step in this paradigm is the role of predictive pathology or the accurate assessment of morphology at the microscopic level. In breast cancer, this has been most useful where histologic attributes such as the classification of tubular and cribriform carcinoma dictates surgery while neoadjuvant studies suggest that patients with lobular carcinoma are not likely to benefit from chemotherapy. The next level of 'personalized pathology' at the tissue-cellular level is the use of 'protein biomarker panels' to classify the disease process and ultimately drive tumor characterization and treatment. The following review article will focus on the evolution of predictive pathology from a subjective, 'opinion-based' approach to a quantitative science. In addition, we will discuss the individual components of the precise pathology platform including advanced image analysis, biomarker quantitation with mathematical modeling and the integration with fluid-based (i.e. blood, urine) analytics as drivers of next generation precise patient phenotyping.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28000172     DOI: 10.1007/s40291-016-0249-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther        ISSN: 1177-1062            Impact factor:   4.074


  50 in total

1.  Isolation of prostate cancer-related exosomes.

Authors:  Kosuke Mizutani; Riyako Terazawa; Koji Kameyama; Taku Kato; Kengo Horie; Tomohiro Tsuchiya; Kensaku Seike; Hidetoshi Ehara; Yasunori Fujita; Kyojiro Kawakami; Masafumi Ito; Takashi Deguchi
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.480

2.  Suppression of acquired docetaxel resistance in prostate cancer through depletion of notch- and hedgehog-dependent tumor-initiating cells.

Authors:  Josep Domingo-Domenech; Samuel J Vidal; Veronica Rodriguez-Bravo; Mireia Castillo-Martin; S Aidan Quinn; Ruth Rodriguez-Barrueco; Dennis M Bonal; Elizabeth Charytonowicz; Nataliya Gladoun; Janis de la Iglesia-Vicente; Daniel P Petrylak; Mitchell C Benson; Jose M Silva; Carlos Cordon-Cardo
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2012-09-11       Impact factor: 31.743

3.  Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne L Topalian; F Stephen Hodi; Julie R Brahmer; Scott N Gettinger; David C Smith; David F McDermott; John D Powderly; Richard D Carvajal; Jeffrey A Sosman; Michael B Atkins; Philip D Leming; David R Spigel; Scott J Antonia; Leora Horn; Charles G Drake; Drew M Pardoll; Lieping Chen; William H Sharfman; Robert A Anders; Janis M Taube; Tracee L McMiller; Haiying Xu; Alan J Korman; Maria Jure-Kunkel; Shruti Agrawal; Daniel McDonald; Georgia D Kollia; Ashok Gupta; Jon M Wigginton; Mario Sznol
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-06-02       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.394

Review 5.  The prostate cancer genome: perspectives and potential.

Authors:  Christopher E Barbieri; Scott A Tomlins
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 3.498

Review 6.  New insights into prostate cancer stem cells.

Authors:  Xin Chen; Kiera Rycaj; Xin Liu; Dean G Tang
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 4.534

7.  Risk Stratification System for Oral Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Lutécia H Mateus Pereira; Isildinha M Reis; Erika P Reategui; Claudia Gordon; Sandra Saint-Victor; Robert Duncan; Carmen Gomez; Stephanie Bayers; Penelope Fisher; Aymee Perez; W Jarrard Goodwin; Jennifer J Hu; Elizabeth J Franzmann
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2016-03-28

8.  Integrin β3 links therapy resistance and cancer stem cell properties.

Authors:  Nagarajan Kannan; Long V Nguyen; Connie J Eaves
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 28.824

Review 9.  Circulating tumor cells as promising novel biomarkers in solid cancers.

Authors:  Evi S Lianidou; Areti Strati; Athina Markou
Journal:  Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 6.250

10.  Monitoring PD-L1 positive circulating tumor cells in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with the PD-1 inhibitor Nivolumab.

Authors:  Chiara Nicolazzo; Cristina Raimondi; MariaLaura Mancini; Salvatore Caponnetto; Angela Gradilone; Orietta Gandini; Maria Mastromartino; Gabriella Del Bene; Alessandra Prete; Flavia Longo; Enrico Cortesi; Paola Gazzaniga
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  2 in total

1.  The implementation of a commercially available multi-gene profile test for breast cancer characterization in a department of pathology: what have we learned from the first 100 cases?

Authors:  Cristina Pelliccia; Emanuele Caselli; Martina Mandarano; Rachele Del Sordo; Guido Bellezza; Angelo Sidoni
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 2.  2b or Not 2b: How Opposing FGF Receptor Splice Variants Are Blocking Progress in Precision Oncology.

Authors:  Richard J Epstein; Li Jun Tian; Yan Fei Gu
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 4.375

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.