PURPOSE: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) next-generation sequencing is a noninvasive approach for genomic testing. We report the frequency of identifying alterations and their clinical actionability in patients with advanced/metastatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively consented patients had cfDNA testing performed. Alterations were assessed for therapeutic implications. RESULTS: We enrolled 575 patients with 37 tumor types. Of these patients, 438 (76.2%) had at least one alteration detected, and 205 (35.7%) had one or more alterations of high potential for clinical action. In diseases with 10 or more patients enrolled, 50% or more had at least one alteration deemed of high potential for clinical action. Trials were identified in 80% of patients (286 of 357) with any alteration and in 92% of patients (188 of 205) with one or more alterations of high potential for clinical action of whom 57.6% (118 of 205) had 6 or more months of follow-up available. Of these patients, 10% (12 of 118) had received genomically matched therapy through enrollment in clinical trials (n = 8), off-label drug use (n = 3), or standard of care (n = 1). Although 88.6% of all patients had a performance status of 0 or 1 upon enrollment, the primary reason for not acting on alterations was poor performance status at next treatment change (28.1%; 27 of 96). CONCLUSION: cfDNA testing represents a readily accessible method for genomic testing and allows for detection of genomic alterations in most patients with advanced disease. Utility may be higher in patients interested in investigational therapeutics with adequate performance status. Additional study is needed to determine whether utility is enhanced by testing earlier in the treatment course.
PURPOSE: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) next-generation sequencing is a noninvasive approach for genomic testing. We report the frequency of identifying alterations and their clinical actionability in patients with advanced/metastatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively consented patients had cfDNA testing performed. Alterations were assessed for therapeutic implications. RESULTS: We enrolled 575 patients with 37 tumor types. Of these patients, 438 (76.2%) had at least one alteration detected, and 205 (35.7%) had one or more alterations of high potential for clinical action. In diseases with 10 or more patients enrolled, 50% or more had at least one alteration deemed of high potential for clinical action. Trials were identified in 80% of patients (286 of 357) with any alteration and in 92% of patients (188 of 205) with one or more alterations of high potential for clinical action of whom 57.6% (118 of 205) had 6 or more months of follow-up available. Of these patients, 10% (12 of 118) had received genomically matched therapy through enrollment in clinical trials (n = 8), off-label drug use (n = 3), or standard of care (n = 1). Although 88.6% of all patients had a performance status of 0 or 1 upon enrollment, the primary reason for not acting on alterations was poor performance status at next treatment change (28.1%; 27 of 96). CONCLUSION: cfDNA testing represents a readily accessible method for genomic testing and allows for detection of genomic alterations in most patients with advanced disease. Utility may be higher in patients interested in investigational therapeutics with adequate performance status. Additional study is needed to determine whether utility is enhanced by testing earlier in the treatment course.
Authors: Filip Janku; Shile Zhang; Jill Waters; Li Liu; Helen J Huang; Vivek Subbiah; David S Hong; Daniel D Karp; Siqing Fu; Xuyu Cai; Nishma M Ramzanali; Kiran Madwani; Goran Cabrilo; Debra L Andrews; Yue Zhao; Milind Javle; E Scott Kopetz; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Hyunsung J Kim; Sante Gnerre; Ravi Vijaya Satya; Han-Yu Chuang; Kristina M Kruglyak; Jonathan Toung; Chen Zhao; Richard Shen; John V Heymach; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Gordon B Mills; Jian-Bing Fan; Neeraj S Salathia Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Maria C Schwaederlé; Sandip P Patel; Hatim Husain; Megumi Ikeda; Richard B Lanman; Kimberly C Banks; AmirAli Talasaz; Lyudmila Bazhenova; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Oliver A Zill; Kimberly C Banks; Stephen R Fairclough; Stefanie A Mortimer; James V Vowles; Reza Mokhtari; David R Gandara; Philip C Mack; Justin I Odegaard; Rebecca J Nagy; Arthur M Baca; Helmy Eltoukhy; Darya I Chudova; Richard B Lanman; AmirAli Talasaz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Justin I Odegaard; John J Vincent; Stefanie Mortimer; James V Vowles; Bryan C Ulrich; Kimberly C Banks; Stephen R Fairclough; Oliver A Zill; Marcin Sikora; Reza Mokhtari; Diana Abdueva; Rebecca J Nagy; Christine E Lee; Lesli A Kiedrowski; Cloud P Paweletz; Helmy Eltoukhy; Richard B Lanman; Darya I Chudova; AmirAli Talasaz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Richard B Lanman; Stefanie A Mortimer; Oliver A Zill; Dragan Sebisanovic; Rene Lopez; Sibel Blau; Eric A Collisson; Stephen G Divers; Dave S B Hoon; E Scott Kopetz; Jeeyun Lee; Petros G Nikolinakos; Arthur M Baca; Bahram G Kermani; Helmy Eltoukhy; AmirAli Talasaz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shumei Kato; Maria C Schwaederlé; Paul T Fanta; Ryosuke Okamura; Lawrence Leichman; Scott M Lippman; Richard B Lanman; Victoria M Raymond; AmirAli Talasaz; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2019-01-25
Authors: Andjelija Zivanovic Bujak; Chen-Fang Weng; Maria João Silva; Miriam Yeung; Louisa Lo; Sarah Ftouni; Cassandra Litchfield; Yi-An Ko; Keilly Kuykhoven; Courtney Van Geelen; Sushma Chandrashekar; Mark A Dawson; Sherene Loi; Stephen Q Wong; Sarah-Jane Dawson Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 11.069