| Literature DB >> 28903445 |
Fleur Weeber1,2, Geert A Cirkel1,3, Marlous Hoogstraat1,4, Sander Bins1,5, Christa G M Gadellaa-van Hooijdonk1,6, Salo Ooft2, Erik van Werkhoven7, Stefan M Willems1,8, Marijn van Stralen9, Wouter B Veldhuis10, Nicolle J M Besselink1,11, Hugo M Horlings12, Neeltje Steeghs1,3,13,14, Maja J de Jonge1,5, Marlies H G Langenberg1,3, Lodewyk F A Wessels4,15,16, Edwin P J G Cuppen1,11,16,17, J H Schellens1,13,14,16,18, Stefan Sleijfer1,5,16, Martijn P Lolkema1,5, Emile E Voest1,13,16.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, our aim was to identify molecular aberrations predictive for response to everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, regardless of tumor type.Entities:
Keywords: biomarkers; clinical study; everolimus; predict response; time to progression ratio
Year: 2017 PMID: 28903445 PMCID: PMC5589684 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.16029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Cell line data
| genetic aberration | Estimate | Std Error | Pr(>|t|) | sign level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FGFR2_mut | -2,014 | 0,505 | -3,989 | 0,000 | *** |
| CCNE1 gain | 0,897 | 0,242 | 3,714 | 0,000 | *** |
| PTEN_mut | -0,536 | 0,192 | -2,788 | 0,005 | ** |
| CDKN2A loss | -0,307 | 0,116 | -2,645 | 0,008 | ** |
| RB1_mut | 0,486 | 0,198 | 2,447 | 0,015 | * |
| CIC_mut | 1,324 | 0,550 | 2,408 | 0,016 | * |
| gain_cnaPANCAN384_,ERCC5,ING1,IRS2,TFDP1, | 0,523 | 0,223 | 2,346 | 0,019 | * |
| SRGAP3 loss | 0,328 | 0,141 | 2,334 | 0,020 | * |
| loss_cnaPANCAN216 | 0,724 | 0,313 | 2,313 | 0,021 | * |
| HGF_mut | 1,408 | 0,700 | 2,011 | 0,045 | * |
| SOX9_mut | 1,048 | 0,544 | 1,927 | 0,054 | . |
| PTEN_mut | -0,457 | 0,189 | -2,422 | 0,016 | * |
| PIK3CA_mut | -0,384 | 0,188 | -2,044 | 0,041 | * |
| gain_cnaPANCAN164_,KRAS, | 0,285 | 0,171 | 1,660 | 0,097 | . |
| gain_cnaPANCAN395_,AKT1,HSP90AA1,PPP2R5C, | 0,411 | 0,316 | 1,298 | 0,195 | |
| loss_cnaPANCAN44_,BMPR1A,FAS,PTEN, | -0,208 | 0,183 | -1,137 | 0,256 | |
| KRAS_mut | -0,193 | 0,195 | -0,985 | 0,325 | |
| TSC1_mut | 0,307 | 0,490 | 0,627 | 0,531 | |
| gain_cnaPANCAN129_,MET, | 0,092 | 0,195 | 0,470 | 0,639 | |
| EGFR_mut | -0,037 | 0,340 | -0,110 | 0,912 | |
| gain_cnaPANCAN301_,CDK12,ERBB2,MED24, | -0,018 | 0,246 | -0,071 | 0,943 | |
| gain_cnaPANCAN124_,EGFR, | 0,010 | 0,180 | 0,055 | 0,956 |
Legend: This table illustrates genetic aberrations that could potentially predict sensitivity to mTOR inhibition, based on an in vitro drug screen with temsirolimus. Part A of the table demonstrates the relation between genetic aberrations and sensitivity to temsirolimus, corrected for tumor type and excluding blood cell tumors. Part B shows similar data, but is analyzed per gene and specifically directed at genetic aberrations previously associated with sensitivity to mTOR inhibition.
Figure 1Evaluability of patients
This figure illustrates the evaluability of patients for the biomarker analyses. A single patient can be evaluable according to both RECIST and TTP ratio. Abbreviations: IC, Informed Consent; PD, Progressive Disease.
Baseline characteristics
| Demographic or Clinical Characteristic | No. of patients | % |
|---|---|---|
| 43 | ||
| 26 | 60.5 | |
| 60 | ||
| 14 | 32.6 | |
| 12 | 27.9 | |
| 9 | 20.9 | |
| 60 | ||
Legend: This table contains the baseline characteristics of all patients of whom both molecular and clinical response data was available. DNA yield is depicted in nanogram.
Genetic aberrations and response
| Gene | Clinical benefit | Statistics | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| 5 | 5 | .327 | |
| 7 | 3 | .377 | |
| 5 | 4 | .623 | |
| 5 | 2 | .326 | |
| 5 | 0 | .046* | |
| 3 | 2 | .625 | |
| 2 | 2 | NA | |
| 2 | 0 | NA | |
| 2 | 0 | NA | |
| 2 | 0 | NA | |
| 1 | 0 | NA | |
| 1 | 0 | NA | |
| 1 | 0 | NA | |
Legend: This table contains the number of patients that have, or have not experienced clinical benefit from treatment, stratified per afflicted gene.
Figure 2Pre-post treatment biopsy
This figure demonstrates the copy number profile of chromosome 7 in patient #2 pre-treatment and post-treatment. Pre-treatment, there is an amplification of MET. This amplification is not present in the post-treatment biopsy. Instead, there is an amplification of BRAF wild-type.