Real-World Performance of a Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Test Optimized for Small Tumor Samples

Author:

Tomlins Scott A.1ORCID,Hovelson Daniel H.1ORCID,Suga Jennifer M.2,Anderson Daniel M.3,Koh Han A.4,Dees Elizabeth C.5,McNulty Brendan6,Burkard Mark E.7ORCID,Guarino Michael8,Khatri Jamil8,Safa Malek M.9ORCID,Matrana Marc R.10,Yang Eddy S.11ORCID,Menter Alex R.12ORCID,Parsons Benjamin M.13ORCID,Slim Jennifer N.14,Thompson Michael A.15ORCID,Hwang Leon16ORCID,Edenfield William J.17ORCID,Nair Suresh18,Onitilo Adedayo19ORCID,Siegel Robert20ORCID,Miller Alan21,Wassenaar Timothy22,Irvin William J.23,Schulz William24,Padmanabhan Arvinda25,Harish Vallathucherry26,Gonzalez Anneliese27,Mansoor Abdul Hai28,Kellum Andrew29,Harms Paul30ORCID,Drewery Stephanie1,Falkner Jayson1,Fischer Andrew1,Hipp Jennifer1,Kwiatkowski Kat1ORCID,Lazo de la Vega Lorena131ORCID,Mitchell Khalis1ORCID,Reeder Travis1,Siddiqui Javed1,Vakil Hana1,Johnson D. Bryan1,Rhodes Daniel R.1

Affiliation:

1. Strata Oncology, Ann Arbor, MI

2. Kaiser Permanente, Dept of Medical Oncology, Vallejo, CA

3. Metro-Minnesota Community Oncology Research Consortium (MMCORC), St Louis Park, MN

4. Kaiser Permanente, Bellflower, CA

5. The University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC

6. UNC Rex Healthcare, Raleigh, NC

7. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI

8. ChristianaCare's Helen F. Graham Cancer Center & Research Institute, Newark, DE

9. Kettering Cancer Center, Kettering, OH

10. Ochsner Cancer Institute, New Orleans, LA

11. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL

12. Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, Denver, CO

13. Gundersen Health System, La Crosse, WI

14. MultiCare, Auburn, WA

15. Advocate Aurora Health Care, Milwaukee, WI

16. Kaiser Permanente Mid Atlantic, Rockville, MD

17. Prisma Health Cancer Institute, Greenville, SC

18. Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PA

19. Marshfield Clinic, Marshfield WI

20. Bon Secours St Francis Cancer Center, Greenville, SC

21. SCL Health Colorado, Broomfield, CO

22. ProHealth Care, Waukesha, WI

23. Bon Secours St Francis Medical Center Midlothian, Midlothian, VA

24. Swedish American, Rockford, IL

25. Baptist Health, Lexington, KY

26. High Point Medical Center, High Point, NC

27. UT Health-Memorial Hermann Cancer Institute, Houston, TX

28. Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR

29. North Mississippi Medical Center, Tupelo, MS

30. University of Michigan Health Systems, Ann Arbor, MI

31. Current address: Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA

Abstract

PURPOSE Tissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is increasingly used for treatment selection in patients with advanced cancer; however, tissue availability may limit widespread implementation. Here, we established real-world CGP tissue availability and assessed CGP performance on consecutively received samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a post hoc, nonprespecified analysis of 32,048 consecutive tumor tissue samples received for StrataNGS, a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR)–based comprehensive genomic profiling (PCR-CGP) test, as part of an ongoing observational trial ( NCT03061305 ). Sample characteristics and PCR-CGP performance were assessed across all tested samples, including exception samples not meeting minimum input quality control (QC) requirements (< 20% tumor content [TC], < 2 mm2 tumor surface area [TSA], DNA or RNA yield < 1 ng/µL, or specimen age > 5 years). Tests reporting ≥ 1 prioritized alteration or meeting TC and sequencing QC were considered successful. For prostate carcinoma and lung adenocarcinoma, tests reporting ≥ 1 actionable or informative alteration or meeting TC and sequencing QC were considered actionable. RESULTS Among 31,165 (97.2%) samples where PCR-CGP was attempted, 10.7% had < 20% TC and 59.2% were small (< 25 mm2 tumor surface area). Of 31,101 samples evaluable for input requirements, 8,089 (26.0%) were exceptions not meeting requirements. However, 94.2% of the 31,101 tested samples were successfully reported, including 80.5% of exception samples. Positive predictive value of PCR-CGP for ERBB2 amplification in exceptions and/or sequencing QC-failure breast cancer samples was 96.7%. Importantly, 84.0% of tested prostate carcinomas and 87.9% of lung adenocarcinomas yielded results informing treatment selection. CONCLUSION Most real-world tissue samples from patients with advanced cancer desiring CGP are limited, requiring optimized CGP approaches to produce meaningful results. An optimized PCR-CGP test, coupled with an inclusive exception testing policy, delivered reportable results for > 94% of samples, potentially expanding the proportion of CGP-testable patients and impact of biomarker-guided therapies.

Publisher

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3