4.7 Article

Plasma total cell-free DNA is a prognostic biomarker of overall survival in metastatic solid tumour patients

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 121, 期 2, 页码 125-130

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-019-0491-9

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Capital Region of Copenhagen, Denmark
  2. Oncological Research Fund, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Selecting patients for early clinical trials is a challenging process and clinicians lack sufficient tools to predict overall survival (OS). Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has recently been shown to be a promising prognostic biomarker. The aim of this study was to investigate whether baseline cfDNA measurement could improve the prognostic information of the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) score. METHODS: Solid tumour patients referred for phase I trials were included in the Copenhagen Personalized Oncology (CoPPO) programme. Baseline characteristics were collected prospectively, including the RMH prognostic score, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and concentration of cfDNA per millilitre plasma. Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the prognostic value of baseline variables. RESULTS: Plasma cfDNA concentration was quantifiable in 302 patients out of a total of 419 included in the study period of 2 years and 5 months. The RMH score was confirmed to be associated with OS. Cell-free DNA was shown to be an independent prognostic marker of OS and improved the risk model, including RMH, performance status and age. Furthermore, both plasma cfDNA concentration and RMH score were associated with treatment allocation (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: Our model based on RMH score, age, ECOG performance status and cfDNA improved prediction of OS and constitutes a clinically valuable tool when selecting patients for early clinical trials. An interactive version of the prognostic model is published on http://bit.ly/phase1survival.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据