Literature DB >> 32923860

Prospective Decision Analysis Study of Clinical Genomic Testing in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Impact on Outcomes and Patient Perceptions.

Daniel G Stover1,2, Raquel E Reinbolt1,2, Elizabeth J Adams3, Sarah Asad3, Katlyn Tolliver3,2, Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul4, Cynthia D Timmers1,3, Susan Gillespie3,2, James L Chen1,3, Siraj Mahamed Ali5, Katharine A Collier1,3, Mathew A Cherian1,2, Anne M Noonan1,2, Sagar Sardesai1,2, Jeffrey VanDeusen1,2, Robert Wesolowski1,2, Nicole Williams1,2, Clara N Lee3,6, Charles L Shapiro7, Erin R Macrae8, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy1,2, Maryam B Lustberg1,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of targeted DNA sequencing on selection of cancer therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, single-center, single-arm trial, patients with MBC were enrolled within 10 weeks of starting a new therapy. At enrollment, tumor samples underwent next-generation sequencing for any of 315 cancer-related genes to high depth (> 500×) using FoundationOne CDx. Sequencing results were released to providers at the time of disease progression, and physician treatment recommendations were assessed via questionnaire. We evaluated three prespecified questions to assess patients' perceptions of genomic testing.
RESULTS: In all, 100 patients underwent genomic testing, with a median of five mutations (range, 0 to 13 mutations) detected per patient. Genomic testing revealed one or more potential therapies in 98% of patients (98 of 100), and 60% of patients (60 of 100) had one or more recommended treatments with level I/II evidence for actionability. Among the 94 genomic text reports that were released, there was physician questionnaire data for 87 patients (response rate, 92.6%) and 31.0% of patients (27 of 87) had treatment change recommended by their physician. Of these, 37.0% (10 of 27) received the treatment supported by genomic testing. We did not detect a statistically significant difference in time-to-treatment failure (log-rank P = .87) or overall survival (P = .71) among patients who had treatment change supported by genomic testing versus those who had no treatment change. For patients who completed surveys before and after genomic testing, there was a significant decrease in confidence of treatment success, specifically among patients who did not have treatment change supported by genomic testing (McNemar's test of agreement P = .001).
CONCLUSION: In this prospective study, genomic profiling of tumors in patients with MBC frequently identified potential treatments and resulted in treatment change in a minority of patients. Patients whose therapy was not changed on the basis of genomic testing seemed to have a decrease in confidence of treatment success.
© 2019 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 32923860      PMCID: PMC7446448          DOI: 10.1200/PO.19.00090

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol        ISSN: 2473-4284


  41 in total

Review 1.  Extending survival with chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Joyce O'Shaughnessy
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2005

2.  Decrease in depression symptoms is associated with longer survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a secondary analysis.

Authors:  Janine Giese-Davis; Kate Collie; Kate M S Rancourt; Eric Neri; Helena C Kraemer; David Spiegel
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-12-13       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Integrated Analysis of RNA and DNA from the Phase III Trial CALGB 40601 Identifies Predictors of Response to Trastuzumab-Based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Maki Tanioka; Cheng Fan; Joel S Parker; Katherine A Hoadley; Zhiyuan Hu; Yan Li; Terry M Hyslop; Brandelyn N Pitcher; Matthew G Soloway; Patricia A Spears; Lynn N Henry; Sara Tolaney; Chau T Dang; Ian E Krop; Lyndsay N Harris; Donald A Berry; Elaine R Mardis; Eric P Winer; Clifford A Hudis; Lisa A Carey; Charles M Perou
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 12.531

4.  BRCA mutation-negative women from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: a qualitative study of the BRCA-negative experience.

Authors:  Alexis D Bakos; Sadie P Hutson; Jennifer T Loud; June A Peters; Ruthann M Giusti; Mark H Greene
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  The impact of predictive genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: three years after testing.

Authors:  Veronica R Collins; Bettina Meiser; Obioha C Ukoumunne; Clara Gaff; D James St John; Jane L Halliday
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  The Genomic Landscape of Endocrine-Resistant Advanced Breast Cancers.

Authors:  Pedram Razavi; Matthew T Chang; Guotai Xu; Chaitanya Bandlamudi; Dara S Ross; Neil Vasan; Yanyan Cai; Craig M Bielski; Mark T A Donoghue; Philip Jonsson; Alexander Penson; Ronglai Shen; Fresia Pareja; Ritika Kundra; Sumit Middha; Michael L Cheng; Ahmet Zehir; Cyriac Kandoth; Ruchi Patel; Kety Huberman; Lillian M Smyth; Komal Jhaveri; Shanu Modi; Tiffany A Traina; Chau Dang; Wen Zhang; Britta Weigelt; Bob T Li; Marc Ladanyi; David M Hyman; Nikolaus Schultz; Mark E Robson; Clifford Hudis; Edi Brogi; Agnes Viale; Larry Norton; Maura N Dickler; Michael F Berger; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; Sarat Chandarlapaty; Maurizio Scaltriti; Jorge S Reis-Filho; David B Solit; Barry S Taylor; José Baselga
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2018-09-10       Impact factor: 31.743

Review 7.  A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing.

Authors:  Jodi T Heshka; Crystal Palleschi; Heather Howley; Brenda Wilson; Philip S Wells
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  GenVisR: Genomic Visualizations in R.

Authors:  Zachary L Skidmore; Alex H Wagner; Robert Lesurf; Katie M Campbell; Jason Kunisaki; Obi L Griffith; Malachi Griffith
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2016-06-10       Impact factor: 6.937

9.  Oncologists' and cancer patients' views on whole-exome sequencing and incidental findings: results from the CanSeq study.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Elyse R Park; Julie Najita; Yolanda Martins; Lara Traeger; Elizabeth Bair; Joshua Gagne; Judy Garber; Pasi A Jänne; Neal Lindeman; Carol Lowenstein; Nelly Oliver; Lynette Sholl; Eliezer M Van Allen; Nikhil Wagle; Sam Wood; Levi Garraway; Steven Joffe
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Precision medicine in heritable cancer: when somatic tumour testing and germline mutations meet.

Authors:  Joanne Ngeow; Charis Eng
Journal:  NPJ Genom Med       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 8.617

View more
  3 in total

1.  Expert Discussion: Predictive Markers.

Authors:  Angelo Paradiso; Giovanni Codacci-Pisanelli; Elisabetta Munzone; Hope S Rugo; Pierre Etienne Heudel
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2021-09-29       Impact factor: 2.268

Review 2.  Triple-negative breast cancer: promising prognostic biomarkers currently in development.

Authors:  Jasmine Sukumar; Kelly Gast; Dionisia Quiroga; Maryam Lustberg; Nicole Williams
Journal:  Expert Rev Anticancer Ther       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 4.512

Review 3.  Multi-Gene Testing Overview with a Clinical Perspective in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Martina Dameri; Lorenzo Ferrando; Gabriella Cirmena; Claudio Vernieri; Giancarlo Pruneri; Alberto Ballestrero; Gabriele Zoppoli
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 5.923

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.