4.7 Article

Personalised selection of experimental treatment in patients with advanced solid cancer is feasible using whole-genome sequencing

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 127, 期 4, 页码 776-783

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-01841-3

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Hartwig Medical Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the feasibility of using whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as a comprehensive test for guided inclusion in early-phase clinical trials. The results showed that WGS on fresh frozen biopsies is a feasible tool for selecting personalized experimental therapy in patients with advanced cancer without standard-of-care options.
BACKGROUND: Biomarker-guided therapy in an experimental setting has been suggested to improve patient outcomes. However, trial-specific pre-screening tests are time and tissue consuming and complicate the personalised treatment of patients eligible for early-phase clinical trials. In this study the feasibility of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as a one-test-for-all for guided inclusion in early-phase trials was investigated. METHODS: Phase I Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) at the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute reviewed patients with advanced cancer without standard-of-care treatment (SOC) options for a 'fresh-frozen' (FF) tumour biopsy for WGS based on clinical-pathological features. Clinical grade WGS was performed by Hartwig Medical Foundation. MTB matched the patient with a trial, if available. RESULTS: From September 2019-March 2021, 31 patients with highly diverse tumour types underwent a tumour biopsy for WGS. The median turnaround time (TAT) was 15 days [10-42 days]. At least one actionable event was found in 84% of the patients (26/ 31). One-third of the patients (11/31) received matched experimental treatment. CONCLUSIONS: WGS on fresh FF biopsies is a feasible tool for the selection of personalised experimental therapy in patients with advanced cancer without SOC options. WGS is now possible in an acceptable TAT and thus could fulfil the role of a universal genomic pre-screening test.

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