Prospective clinical study of precision oncology in solid tumors

DPS Sohal, BI Rini, AA Khorana… - Journal of the …, 2016 - academic.oup.com
DPS Sohal, BI Rini, AA Khorana, R Dreicer, J Abraham, GW Procop, Y Saunthararajah
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2016academic.oup.com
Systematic studies evaluating clinical benefit of tumor genomic profiling are lacking. We
conducted a prospective study in 250 patients with select solid tumors at the Cleveland
Clinic. Eligibility required histopathologic diagnosis, age of 18 years or older, Eastern
Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2, and written informed consent. Tumors
were sequenced using FoundationOne (Cambridge, MA). Results were reviewed at the
Cleveland Clinic Genomics Tumor Board. Outcomes included feasibility and clinical impact …
Abstract
Systematic studies evaluating clinical benefit of tumor genomic profiling are lacking. We conducted a prospective study in 250 patients with select solid tumors at the Cleveland Clinic. Eligibility required histopathologic diagnosis, age of 18 years or older, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2, and written informed consent. Tumors were sequenced using FoundationOne (Cambridge, MA). Results were reviewed at the Cleveland Clinic Genomics Tumor Board. Outcomes included feasibility and clinical impact. Colorectal (25%), breast (18%), lung (13%), and pancreatobiliary (13%) cancers were the most common diagnoses. Median time from consent to result was 25 days (range = 3–140). Of 223 evaluable samples, 49% (n = 109) of patients were recommended a specific therapy, but only 11% (n = 24) received such therapy: 12 on clinical trials, nine off-label, three on-label. Lack of clinical trial access (n = 49) and clinical deterioration (n = 29) were the most common reasons for nonrecommendation/nonreceipt of genomics-driven therapy.
Oxford University Press