4.7 Article

Impact of molecular tumour board discussion on targeted therapy allocation in advanced prostate cancer

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 126, 期 6, 页码 907-916

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01663-9

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Astellas
  2. Janssen
  3. Roche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that almost half of advanced prostate cancer patients receive recommendations for genetically matched therapies, with over 40% of them showing durable responses to the treatment. These findings support the routine referral of selected prostate cancer patients to molecular tumour boards.
Background Molecular tumour boards (MTB) optimally match oncological therapies to patients with genetic aberrations. Prostate cancer (PCa) is underrepresented in these MTB discussions. This study describes the impact of routine genetic profiling and MTB referral on the outcome of PCa patients in a tertiary referral centre. Methods All PCa patients that received next-generation sequencing results and/or were discussed at an MTB between Jan 1, 2017 and Jan 1, 2020 were included. Genetically matched therapies (GMT) in clinical trials or compassionate use were linked to actionable alterations. Response to these agents was retrospectively evaluated. Results Out of the 277 genetically profiled PCa patients, 215 (78%) were discussed in at least one MTB meeting. A GMT was recommended to 102 patients (47%), of which 63 patients (62%) initiated the GMT. The most recommended therapies were PARP inhibitors (n = 74), programmed death-(ligand) 1 inhibitors (n = 21) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (n = 19). Once started, 41.3% had a PFS of >= 6 months, 43.5% a PSA decline >= 50% and 38.5% an objective radiographic response. Conclusion Recommendation for a GMT is achieved in almost half of the patients with advanced prostate cancer, with GMT initiation leading to durable responses in over 40% of patients. These data justify routine referral of selected PCa patients to MTB's.

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