Literature DB >> 28196074

Clinical applicability and cost of a 46-gene panel for genomic analysis of solid tumours: Retrospective validation and prospective audit in the UK National Health Service.

Angela Hamblin1,2, Sarah Wordsworth2,3, Jilles M Fermont4, Suzanne Page1,2, Kulvinder Kaur2,5, Carme Camps2,5, Pamela Kaisaki2,5, Avinash Gupta6, Denis Talbot2,6, Mark Middleton2,6, Shirley Henderson1,2, Anthony Cutts1,2, Dimitrios V Vavoulis1,2,5, Nick Housby1,2, Ian Tomlinson2,5, Jenny C Taylor2,5, Anna Schuh1,2,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Single gene tests to predict whether cancers respond to specific targeted therapies are performed increasingly often. Advances in sequencing technology, collectively referred to as next generation sequencing (NGS), mean the entire cancer genome or parts of it can now be sequenced at speed with increased depth and sensitivity. However, translation of NGS into routine cancer care has been slow. Healthcare stakeholders are unclear about the clinical utility of NGS and are concerned it could be an expensive addition to cancer diagnostics, rather than an affordable alternative to single gene testing. METHODS AND
FINDINGS: We validated a 46-gene hotspot cancer panel assay allowing multiple gene testing from small diagnostic biopsies. From 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013, solid tumour samples (including non-small-cell lung carcinoma [NSCLC], colorectal carcinoma, and melanoma) were sequenced in the context of the UK National Health Service from 351 consecutively submitted prospective cases for which treating clinicians thought the patient had potential to benefit from more extensive genetic analysis. Following histological assessment, tumour-rich regions of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections underwent macrodissection, DNA extraction, NGS, and analysis using a pipeline centred on Torrent Suite software. With a median turnaround time of seven working days, an integrated clinical report was produced indicating the variants detected, including those with potential diagnostic, prognostic, therapeutic, or clinical trial entry implications. Accompanying phenotypic data were collected, and a detailed cost analysis of the panel compared with single gene testing was undertaken to assess affordability for routine patient care. Panel sequencing was successful for 97% (342/351) of tumour samples in the prospective cohort and showed 100% concordance with known mutations (detected using cobas assays). At least one mutation was identified in 87% (296/342) of tumours. A locally actionable mutation (i.e., available targeted treatment or clinical trial) was identified in 122/351 patients (35%). Forty patients received targeted treatment, in 22/40 (55%) cases solely due to use of the panel. Examination of published data on the potential efficacy of targeted therapies showed theoretically actionable mutations (i.e., mutations for which targeted treatment was potentially appropriate) in 66% (71/107) and 39% (41/105) of melanoma and NSCLC patients, respectively. At a cost of £339 (US$449) per patient, the panel was less expensive locally than performing more than two or three single gene tests. Study limitations include the use of FFPE samples, which do not always provide high-quality DNA, and the use of "real world" data: submission of cases for sequencing did not always follow clinical guidelines, meaning that when mutations were detected, patients were not always eligible for targeted treatments on clinical grounds.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that more extensive tumour sequencing can identify mutations that could improve clinical decision-making in routine cancer care, potentially improving patient outcomes, at an affordable level for healthcare providers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28196074      PMCID: PMC5308858          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002230

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS Med        ISSN: 1549-1277            Impact factor:   11.069


  46 in total

1.  DOC-MEK: a double-blind randomized phase II trial of docetaxel with or without selumetinib in wild-type BRAF advanced melanoma.

Authors:  A Gupta; S Love; A Schuh; M Shanyinde; J M Larkin; R Plummer; P D Nathan; S Danson; C H Ottensmeier; P Lorigan; L Collins; A Wise; R Asher; R Lisle; M R Middleton
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2014-02-24       Impact factor: 32.976

2.  Biomarker analyses and final overall survival results from a phase III, randomized, open-label, first-line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Asia (IPASS).

Authors:  Masahiro Fukuoka; Yi-Long Wu; Sumitra Thongprasert; Patrapim Sunpaweravong; Swan-Swan Leong; Virote Sriuranpong; Tsu-Yi Chao; Kazuhiko Nakagawa; Da-Tong Chu; Nagahiro Saijo; Emma L Duffield; Yuri Rukazenkov; Georgina Speake; Haiyi Jiang; Alison A Armour; Ka-Fai To; James Chih-Hsin Yang; Tony S K Mok
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-06-13       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Large personalised medicine trial in lung cancer heralds new research partnership.

Authors:  Ingrid Torjesen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-04-16

4.  Next-Generation Sequencing Panels for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer and Polyposis Syndromes: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Carlos J Gallego; Brian H Shirts; Caroline S Bennette; Greg Guzauskas; Laura M Amendola; Martha Horike-Pyne; Fuki M Hisama; Colin C Pritchard; William M Grady; Wylie Burke; Gail P Jarvik; David L Veenstra
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Molecular correlates of imatinib resistance in gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Authors:  Michael C Heinrich; Christopher L Corless; Charles D Blanke; George D Demetri; Heikki Joensuu; Peter J Roberts; Burton L Eisenberg; Margaret von Mehren; Christopher D M Fletcher; Katrin Sandau; Karen McDougall; Wen-bin Ou; Chang-Jie Chen; Jonathan A Fletcher
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-09-05       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Primary and secondary kinase genotypes correlate with the biological and clinical activity of sunitinib in imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumor.

Authors:  Michael C Heinrich; Robert G Maki; Christopher L Corless; Cristina R Antonescu; Amy Harlow; Diana Griffith; Ajia Town; Arin McKinley; Wen-Bin Ou; Jonathan A Fletcher; Christopher D M Fletcher; Xin Huang; Darrel P Cohen; Charles M Baum; George D Demetri
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-10-27       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  EGFR somatic doublets in lung cancer are frequent and generally arise from a pair of driver mutations uncommonly seen as singlet mutations: one-third of doublets occur at five pairs of amino acids.

Authors:  Z Chen; J Feng; J-S Saldivar; D Gu; A Bockholt; S S Sommer
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2008-03-31       Impact factor: 9.867

8.  The impact of genetic heterogeneity on biomarker development in kidney cancer assessed by multiregional sampling.

Authors:  Alexander Sankin; Abraham A Hakimi; Nina Mikkilineni; Irina Ostrovnaya; Mikhail T Silk; Yupu Liang; Roy Mano; Michael Chevinsky; Robert J Motzer; Stephen B Solomon; Emily H Cheng; Jeremy C Durack; Jonathan A Coleman; Paul Russo; James J Hsieh
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 4.452

9.  Effectiveness of gefitinib against non-small-cell lung cancer with the uncommon EGFR mutations G719X and L861Q.

Authors:  Satoshi Watanabe; Yuji Minegishi; Hirohisa Yoshizawa; Makoto Maemondo; Akira Inoue; Shunichi Sugawara; Hiroshi Isobe; Masao Harada; Yoshiki Ishii; Akihiko Gemma; Koichi Hagiwara; Kunihiko Kobayashi
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 15.609

10.  KRAS codon 61, 146 and BRAF mutations predict resistance to cetuximab plus irinotecan in KRAS codon 12 and 13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  F Loupakis; A Ruzzo; C Cremolini; B Vincenzi; L Salvatore; D Santini; G Masi; I Stasi; E Canestrari; E Rulli; I Floriani; K Bencardino; N Galluccio; V Catalano; G Tonini; M Magnani; G Fontanini; F Basolo; A Falcone; F Graziano
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  Biomedical informatics and machine learning for clinical genomics.

Authors:  James A Diao; Isaac S Kohane; Arjun K Manrai
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 6.150

2.  Next-Generation Sequencing in the Clinical Setting Clarifies Patient Characteristics and Potential Actionability.

Authors:  Cheyennedra C Bieg-Bourne; Sherri Z Millis; David E Piccioni; Paul T Fanta; Michael E Goldberg; Juliann Chmielecki; Barbara A Parker; Razelle Kurzrock
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 12.701

3.  Potentially pathogenic germline CHEK2 c.319+2T>A among multiple early-onset cancer families.

Authors:  Mev Dominguez-Valentin; Sigve Nakken; Hélène Tubeuf; Daniel Vodak; Per Olaf Ekstrøm; Anke M Nissen; Monika Morak; Elke Holinski-Feder; Alexandra Martins; Pål Møller; Eivind Hovig
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Differences in Willingness to Undergo BRCA1/2 Testing and Risk Reducing Surgery among the General Public, Cancer Patients, and Healthcare Professionals: A Large Population-Based Survey.

Authors:  Yoon Jung Chang; Seungyeon Cho; Jungnam Joo; Kum Hei Ryu; Sangwon Lee; Juhee Cho; Myong Cheol Lim; So-Youn Jung; Jai Hong Han; Eun Sook Lee; Sun-Young Kong
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-05-18

5.  Characteristics of myeloproliferative neoplasms in patients exposed to ionizing radiation following the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

Authors:  Larysa Poluben; Maneka Puligandla; Donna Neuberg; Christine R Bryke; Yahsuan Hsu; Oleksandr Shumeiko; Xin Yuan; Olga Voznesensky; German Pihan; Miriam Adam; Ernest Fraenkel; Roni Rasnic; Michal Linial; Sergiy Klymenko; Steven P Balk; Paula G Fraenkel
Journal:  Am J Hematol       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 10.047

6.  Clinically actionable mutation profiles in patients with cancer identified by whole-genome sequencing.

Authors:  Anna Schuh; Helene Dreau; Samantha J L Knight; Kate Ridout; Tuba Mizani; Dimitris Vavoulis; Richard Colling; Pavlos Antoniou; Erika M Kvikstad; Melissa M Pentony; Angela Hamblin; Andrew Protheroe; Marina Parton; Ketan A Shah; Zsolt Orosz; Nick Athanasou; Bass Hassan; Adrienne M Flanagan; Ahmed Ahmed; Stuart Winter; Adrian Harris; Ian Tomlinson; Niko Popitsch; David Church; Jenny C Taylor
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud       Date:  2018-04-02

7.  Application of a Neural Network Whole Transcriptome-Based Pan-Cancer Method for Diagnosis of Primary and Metastatic Cancers.

Authors:  Jasleen K Grewal; Basile Tessier-Cloutier; Martin Jones; Sitanshu Gakkhar; Yussanne Ma; Richard Moore; Andrew J Mungall; Yongjun Zhao; Michael D Taylor; Karen Gelmon; Howard Lim; Daniel Renouf; Janessa Laskin; Marco Marra; Stephen Yip; Steven J M Jones
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-04-05

Review 8.  Onco-fertility and personalized testing for potential for loss of ovarian reserve in patients undergoing chemotherapy: proposed next steps for development of genetic testing to predict changes in ovarian reserve.

Authors:  Bei Sun; John Yeh
Journal:  Fertil Res Pract       Date:  2021-06-30

Review 9.  Implementation of genomic medicine for gastrointestinal tumors.

Authors:  Yoichi Furukawa
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2018-06-08

10.  SwissMTB: establishing comprehensive molecular cancer diagnostics in Swiss clinics.

Authors:  Franziska Singer; Anja Irmisch; Nora C Toussaint; Linda Grob; Jochen Singer; Thomas Thurnherr; Niko Beerenwinkel; Mitchell P Levesque; Reinhard Dummer; Luca Quagliata; Sacha I Rothschild; Andreas Wicki; Christian Beisel; Daniel J Stekhoven
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.