4.4 Article

Nationwide evaluation of mutation-tailored anti-EGFR therapy selection in patients with colorectal cancer in daily clinical practice

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 75, 期 10, 页码 706-711

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2021-207865

关键词

colorectal neoplasms; pathology; molecular; diagnostic techniques and procedures

资金

  1. research programme Personalised Medicine of the Netherlands Organisation for Health research and Development (ZonMw) [846001001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study in the Netherlands showed an increase in mutation testing rates for CRC patients over time, with anti-EGFR therapy mainly used in KRAS/NRAS wild-type patients after the third treatment line. The national average mutation rate was 63.9%, and NGS-based approaches detected more potential biomarkers.
For a nationwide real-word data study on the application of predictive mutation testing of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy stratification, pathology data were collected from the Dutch Pathology Registry from October 2017 until June 2019 (N=4060) and linked with the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Mutation testing rates increased from 24% at diagnosis of stage IV disease to 60% after 20-23 months of follow-up (p<0.001). Application of anti-EGFR therapy in KRAS/NRAS wild-type patients was mainly observed from the third treatment line onwards (65% vs 17% in first/second treatment line (p<0.001)). The national average KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutation rate was 63.9%, being similar for next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based approaches and single gene tests (64.4% vs 61.2%, p=ns). NGS-based approaches detected more additional potential biomarkers, for example, ERBB2 amplifications (p<0.05). Therefore, single gene tests are suitable to stratify patients with mCRC for anti-EGFR therapy, but NGS is superior enabling upfront identification of therapy resistance or facilitate enrolment into clinical trials.

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

4.4
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