4.7 Article

Tumor Genomic Profiling Guides Patients with Metastatic Gastric Cancer to Targeted Treatment: The VIKTORY Umbrella Trial

期刊

CANCER DISCOVERY
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 1388-1405

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0442

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI14C3418]
  2. 20 by 20 Project of Samsung Medical Center [GF01140111]
  3. AstraZeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The VIKTORY (targeted agent eValuation In gastric cancer basket KORea) trial was designed to classify patients with metastatic gastric cancer based on clinical sequencing and focused on eight different biomarker groups (RAS aberration, TP53 mutation, PIK3CA mutation/amplification, MET amplification, MET overexpression, all negative, TSC2 deficient, or RIC-TOR amplification) to assign patients to one of the 10 associated clinical trials in second-line (2L) treatment. Capivasertib (AKT inhibitor), savolitinib (MET inhibitor), selumetinib (MEK inhibitor), adavosertib (WEE1 inhibitor), and vistusertib (TORC inhibitor) were tested with or without chemotherapy. Seven hundred seventy-two patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and sequencing was successfully achieved in 715 patients (92.6%). When molecular screening was linked to seamless immediate access to parallel matched trials, 14.7% of patients received biomarker-assigned drug treatment. The biomarker-assigned treatment cohort had encouraging response rates and survival when compared with conventional 2L chemotherapy. Circulating tumor (ctDNA) analysis demonstrated good correlation between high MET copy number by ctDNA and response to savolitinib. SIGNIFICANCE: Prospective clinical sequencing revealed that baseline heterogeneity between tumor samples from different patients affected response to biomarker-selected therapies. VIKTORY is the first and largest platform study in gastric cancer and supports both the feasibility of tumor profiling and its clinical utility.

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