PURPOSE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly used to identify actionable mutations for oncology treatment. We examined the results and use of NGS assays at our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 305 consecutive patients who had NGS testing of tumor samples from March 2014 to April 2017. NGS was performed by FoundationOne. RESULTS: Of the 305 tissue samples sent to FoundationOne, 189 reports were potentially usable. Of these reports, 76 (40.21%) demonstrated an aberration targetable by on-label therapies and 126 (66.67%) by off-label therapies, and 170 (89.94%) revealed actionable aberrations via all potential avenues, including clinical trials; 21 of these 189 potentially usable reports (11.1%) yielded a change in management, including use of on-label therapies (n = 7), use of off-label therapies (n = 6), enrollment in a clinical trial (n = 6), and discontinuation of a medication with a predicted poor response (n = 3; one report was used twice). For the six patients with off-label use, median duration of treatment was 46 days and discontinued after death (n = 3) or progression (n = 3). CONCLUSION: Only a minority of NGS assay results (6.9% percent of all tests ordered and 11.1% of useable tests) resulted in a management change. A small minority of patients started off-label therapy on the basis of NSG assay results and overall had poor responses to off-label treatment. Although in theory NGS assays may improve oncologic outcomes, the results of our initial 305 patients showed low clinical utility.
PURPOSE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly used to identify actionable mutations for oncology treatment. We examined the results and use of NGS assays at our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 305 consecutive patients who had NGS testing of tumor samples from March 2014 to April 2017. NGS was performed by FoundationOne. RESULTS: Of the 305 tissue samples sent to FoundationOne, 189 reports were potentially usable. Of these reports, 76 (40.21%) demonstrated an aberration targetable by on-label therapies and 126 (66.67%) by off-label therapies, and 170 (89.94%) revealed actionable aberrations via all potential avenues, including clinical trials; 21 of these 189 potentially usable reports (11.1%) yielded a change in management, including use of on-label therapies (n = 7), use of off-label therapies (n = 6), enrollment in a clinical trial (n = 6), and discontinuation of a medication with a predicted poor response (n = 3; one report was used twice). For the six patients with off-label use, median duration of treatment was 46 days and discontinued after death (n = 3) or progression (n = 3). CONCLUSION: Only a minority of NGS assay results (6.9% percent of all tests ordered and 11.1% of useable tests) resulted in a management change. A small minority of patients started off-label therapy on the basis of NSG assay results and overall had poor responses to off-label treatment. Although in theory NGS assays may improve oncologic outcomes, the results of our initial 305 patients showed low clinical utility.
Authors: Shruti Rao; Beth Pitel; Alex H Wagner; Simina M Boca; Matthew McCoy; Ian King; Samir Gupta; Ben Ho Park; Jeremy L Warner; James Chen; Peter K Rogan; Debyani Chakravarty; Malachi Griffith; Obi L Griffith; Subha Madhavan Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-07