3.8 Article

Extended Antitumor Response of a BRAF V600E Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma to Vemurafenib

期刊

CASE REPORTS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 343-348

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000363377

关键词

Papillary thyroid carcinoma; BRAF V600E; Vemurafenib

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: For patients with metastatic papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) refractory to radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment, systemic chemotherapy has limited efficacy. Such tumors frequently harbor BRAF V600E, and this alteration may predict responsiveness to vemurafenib treatment. Objective: We report a metastatic PTC patient refractory to RAI treatment that underwent genomic profiling by next-generation sequencing. The sole genomic alteration identified was BRAF V600E on a near diploid genome with trisomy 1q. With vemurafenib treatment, the patient experienced a dramatic radiographic and clinical improvement, with the duration of an ongoing antitumor response exceeding 23 months. Design: Hybridization capture of 3,769 exons of 236 cancer-related genes and the introns of 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer was applied to >50 ng of DNA extracted from a formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded biopsy of a lymph node containing metastatic PTC and was sequenced to a high, uniform coverage of x616. Results: A BRAF V600E alteration was identified with no other somatic genomic alterations present within a near diploid tumor genome. The patient initially received vemurafenib at 960 mg twice daily that was reduced to 480 mg twice daily due to rash and diarrhea and has experienced an ongoing antitumor response exceeding 23 months by both PET-CT and dedicated CT imaging. Conclusions: Genomic profiling in metastatic, RAI-refractory PTC can reveal a targetable BRAF V600E alteration without compounding somatic alterations, and such patients may derive a more prolonged benefit from vemurafenib treatment. Prospective clinical trials are ongoing to confirm our preliminary observation. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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

3.8
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