Literature DB >> 34999837

Clinical reliability of genomic data obtained from spinal metastatic tumor samples.

Ori Barzilai1, Axel Martin2, Anne S Reiner2, Ilya Laufer3, Adam Schmitt4, Mark H Bilsky1,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The role of tumor genomic profiling is rapidly growing as it results in targeted, personalized, cancer therapy. Though routinely used in clinical practice, there are no data exploring the reliability of genomic data obtained from spine metastases samples often leading to multiple biopsies in clinical practice. This study compares the genomic tumor landscape between spinal metastases and the corresponding primary tumors as well as between spinal metastases and visceral metastases.
METHODS: Spine tumor samples, obtained for routine clinical care from 2013 to 2019, were analyzed using MSK-IMPACT, a next-generation sequencing assay. These samples were matched to primary or metastatic tumors from the corresponding patients. A concordance rate for genomic alterations was calculated for matching sample pairs within patients for the primary and spinal metastatic tumor samples as well as for the matching sample pairs within patients for the spinal and visceral metastases. For a more robust and clinically relevant estimate of concordance, subgroup analyses of previously established driver mutations specific to the main primary tumor histologies were performed.
RESULTS: Eighty-four patients contributed next-generation sequencing data from a spinal metastasis and at least one other site of disease: 54 from the primary tumor, 39 had genomic tumor data from another, nonspinal metastasis, 12 patients participated in both subsets. For the cohort of matched primary tumors and spinal metastases (n = 54) comprised of mixed histologies, we found an average concordance rate of 96.97% for all genetic events, 97.17% for mutations, 100% for fusions, 89.81% for deletions, and 97.01% for amplifications across all matched samples. Notably, >25% of patients harbored at least one genetic variant between samples tested, though not specifically for known driver mutations. The average concordance rate of driver mutations was 96.99% for prostate cancer, 95.69% (P = .0004513) for lung cancer, and 96.43% for breast cancer. An average concordance of 99.02% was calculated for all genetic events between spine metastases and non-spinal metastases (n = 41) and, more specifically, a concordance rate of 98.91% was calculated between spine metastases and liver metastases (n = 12) which was the largest represented group of nonspine metastases.
CONCLUSION: Sequencing data performed on spine tumor samples demonstrate a high concordance rate for genetic alterations between the primary tumor and spinal metastasis as well as between spinal metastases and other, visceral metastases, particularly for driver mutations. Spine tumor samples may be reliably used for genomic-based decision making in cancer care, particularly for prostate, NSCLC, and breast cancer.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  genomic; metastases; next generation sequencing; spine; tumor

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34999837      PMCID: PMC9248391          DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noac009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuro Oncol        ISSN: 1522-8517            Impact factor:   13.029


  36 in total

Review 1.  Cancer Genome Evolutionary Trajectories in Metastasis.

Authors:  Nicolai J Birkbak; Nicholas McGranahan
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 31.743

Review 2.  Meta-analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor and KRAS gene status between primary and corresponding metastatic tumours of non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  S Wang; Z Wang
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2014-10-14       Impact factor: 4.126

Review 3.  Lung cancer: current therapies and new targeted treatments.

Authors:  Fred R Hirsch; Giorgio V Scagliotti; James L Mulshine; Regina Kwon; Walter J Curran; Yi-Long Wu; Luis Paz-Ares
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-08-27       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  State-of-the-art strategies for targeting the DNA damage response in cancer.

Authors:  Patrick G Pilié; Chad Tang; Gordon B Mills; Timothy A Yap
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 66.675

5.  Genomic Characterization of Brain Metastases Reveals Branched Evolution and Potential Therapeutic Targets.

Authors:  Priscilla K Brastianos; Scott L Carter; Gad Getz; William C Hahn; Sandro Santagata; Daniel P Cahill; Amaro Taylor-Weiner; Robert T Jones; Eliezer M Van Allen; Michael S Lawrence; Peleg M Horowitz; Kristian Cibulskis; Keith L Ligon; Josep Tabernero; Joan Seoane; Elena Martinez-Saez; William T Curry; Ian F Dunn; Sun Ha Paek; Sung-Hye Park; Aaron McKenna; Aaron Chevalier; Mara Rosenberg; Frederick G Barker; Corey M Gill; Paul Van Hummelen; Aaron R Thorner; Bruce E Johnson; Mai P Hoang; Toni K Choueiri; Sabina Signoretti; Carrie Sougnez; Michael S Rabin; Nancy U Lin; Eric P Winer; Anat Stemmer-Rachamimov; Matthew Meyerson; Levi Garraway; Stacey Gabriel; Eric S Lander; Rameen Beroukhim; Tracy T Batchelor; Jose Baselga; David N Louis
Journal:  Cancer Discov       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 39.397

Review 6.  Resolving genetic heterogeneity in cancer.

Authors:  Samra Turajlic; Andrea Sottoriva; Trevor Graham; Charles Swanton
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 53.242

7.  Tracking the Evolution of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Mariam Jamal-Hanjani; Gareth A Wilson; Nicholas McGranahan; Nicolai J Birkbak; Thomas B K Watkins; Selvaraju Veeriah; Seema Shafi; Diana H Johnson; Richard Mitter; Rachel Rosenthal; Max Salm; Stuart Horswell; Mickael Escudero; Nik Matthews; Andrew Rowan; Tim Chambers; David A Moore; Samra Turajlic; Hang Xu; Siow-Ming Lee; Martin D Forster; Tanya Ahmad; Crispin T Hiley; Christopher Abbosh; Mary Falzon; Elaine Borg; Teresa Marafioti; David Lawrence; Martin Hayward; Shyam Kolvekar; Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos; Sam M Janes; Ricky Thakrar; Asia Ahmed; Fiona Blackhall; Yvonne Summers; Rajesh Shah; Leena Joseph; Anne M Quinn; Phil A Crosbie; Babu Naidu; Gary Middleton; Gerald Langman; Simon Trotter; Marianne Nicolson; Hardy Remmen; Keith Kerr; Mahendran Chetty; Lesley Gomersall; Dean A Fennell; Apostolos Nakas; Sridhar Rathinam; Girija Anand; Sajid Khan; Peter Russell; Veni Ezhil; Babikir Ismail; Melanie Irvin-Sellers; Vineet Prakash; Jason F Lester; Malgorzata Kornaszewska; Richard Attanoos; Haydn Adams; Helen Davies; Stefan Dentro; Philippe Taniere; Brendan O'Sullivan; Helen L Lowe; John A Hartley; Natasha Iles; Harriet Bell; Yenting Ngai; Jacqui A Shaw; Javier Herrero; Zoltan Szallasi; Roland F Schwarz; Aengus Stewart; Sergio A Quezada; John Le Quesne; Peter Van Loo; Caroline Dive; Allan Hackshaw; Charles Swanton
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Clonal status of actionable driver events and the timing of mutational processes in cancer evolution.

Authors:  Nicholas McGranahan; Francesco Favero; Elza C de Bruin; Nicolai Juul Birkbak; Zoltan Szallasi; Charles Swanton
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 17.956

9.  Standardization of Sequencing Coverage Depth in NGS: Recommendation for Detection of Clonal and Subclonal Mutations in Cancer Diagnostics.

Authors:  Anna Petrackova; Michal Vasinek; Lenka Sedlarikova; Tereza Dyskova; Petra Schneiderova; Tomas Novosad; Tomas Papajik; Eva Kriegova
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  The Role of Minimal Access Surgery in the Treatment of Spinal Metastatic Tumors.

Authors:  Ori Barzilai; Mark H Bilsky; Ilya Laufer
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-05-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.