| Literature DB >> 33167975 |
Kris G Samsom1, Linda J W Bosch1, Luuk J Schipper2, Paul Roepman3, Ewart de Bruijn3, Louisa R Hoes2, Immy Riethorst3, Lieke Schoenmaker3, Lizet E van der Kolk4, Valesca P Retèl, Geert W J Frederix, Tineke E Buffart5, Jacobus J M van der Hoeven3, Emile E Voest2,6, Edwin Cuppen3,6, Kim Monkhorst7, Gerrit A Meijer1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 'Precision oncology' can ensure the best suitable treatment at the right time by tailoring treatment towards individual patient and comprehensive tumour characteristics. In current molecular pathology, diagnostic tests which are part of the standard of care (SOC) only cover a limited part of the spectrum of genomic changes, and often are performed in an iterative way. This occurs at the expense of valuable patient time, available tissue sample, and interferes with 'first time right' treatment decisions. Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) captures a near complete view of genomic characteristics of a tumour in a single test. Moreover, WGS facilitates faster implementation of new treatment relevant biomarkers. At present, WGS mainly has been applied in study settings, but its performance in a routine diagnostic setting remains to be evaluated. The WIDE study aims to investigate the feasibility and validity of WGS-based diagnostics in clinical practice.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarker; Cancer; Diagnostics; Personalized medicine; Whole genome sequencing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33167975 PMCID: PMC7654005 DOI: 10.1186/s12920-020-00814-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Genomics ISSN: 1755-8794 Impact factor: 3.063
Fig. 1Workflow of the WIDE study. Patients with (a suspicion) of stage IV cancer undergoing a tumour biopsy as part of the routine standard of care at NKI are eligible for inclusion in the WIDE study. In addition, a blood sample is drawn. Subsequently, both a fresh frozen tumour and a blood sample are shipped to HMF for WGS analysis, and a tumour sample will be assessed according to standard of care (SOC). Both the results from WGS and SOC are discussed in a dedicated molecular tumour board and reported for clinical decision making. Alongside, a cost-effectiveness comparison of WGS versus SOC diagnostics will be performed
| Primary study endpoint | Primary outcome measure |
|---|---|
| Feasibility | Percentage of patients for whom processing from biopsy to WGS report is successful and the turnaround time (TAT) of biopsy until WGS report in working days |
| Clinical validation | Percentage of concordant variants between WGS and SOC molecular based diagnostics |
| Secondary study endpoint | Secondary outcome measure |
|---|---|
| Additional treatment options | Percentage of patients for whom potential treatment options (in clinical trials in the Netherlands) are identified by WGS, which have not been identified with SOC diagnostics |
| Health Technology Assessment | Costs and benefits associated with WGS and SOC diagnostics |
| Better informed decision making and experience of the treating clinician | Opinion of treating clinicians on the added value of WGS for clinical decision making compared to SOC diagnostics evaluated through questionnaires |
| Expand HMF database | The number of patients for whom clinical and WGS data are added to the HMF database for biomarker discovery in cancer research |