4.7 Article

Consensus on precision medicine for metastatic cancers: a report from the MAP conference

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 8, Pages 1443-1448

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdw192

Keywords

precision medicine; consensus; biomarkers

Categories

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK [9675] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Pancreatic Cancer UK [FLF2015_04_GLASGOW] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Cancer Research UK [17263, 12100, 16942, 22533, 9675, 19278, 20240] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Medical Research Council [MR/N005813/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0611-10154, NF-SI-0515-10090] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Pancreatic Cancer UK [FLF2015_04_Glasgow] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. MRC [MR/N005813/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper summarizes main recommendations from the MAP2015 consensus conference on precision medicine.Recent advances in biotechnologies have led to the development of multiplex genomic and proteomic analyses for clinical use. Nevertheless, guidelines are currently lacking to determine which molecular assays should be implemented in metastatic cancers. The first MAP conference was dedicated to exploring the use of genomics to better select therapies in the treatment of metastatic cancers. Sixteen consensus items were covered. There was a consensus that new technologies like next-generation sequencing of tumors and ddPCR on circulating free DNA have convincing analytical validity. Further work needs to be undertaken to establish the clinical utility of liquid biopsies and the added clinical value of expanding from individual gene tests into large gene panels. Experts agreed that standardized bioinformatics methods for biological interpretation of genomic data are needed and that precision medicine trials should be stratified based on the level of evidence available for the genomic alterations identified.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available