Broad versus limited gene panels to guide treatment in patients with advanced solid tumors: a randomized controlled trial

IF 58.7 1区 医学 Q1 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Olivier Trédan, Damien Pouessel, Nicolas Penel, Sylvie Chabaud, Carlos Gomez-Roca, Jean-Pierre Delord, Diane Pannier, Mehdi Brahmi, Michel Fabbro, Marie-Eve Garcia, Delphine Larrieu-Ciron, Isabelle Ray-Coquard, Marie Viala, Antoine Italiano, Diego Tosi, Philippe Cassier, Armelle Dufresne, Valery Attignon, Sandrine Boyault, Isabelle Treilleux, Alain Viari, David Pérol, Jean Yves Blay
{"title":"Broad versus limited gene panels to guide treatment in patients with advanced solid tumors: a randomized controlled trial","authors":"Olivier Trédan, Damien Pouessel, Nicolas Penel, Sylvie Chabaud, Carlos Gomez-Roca, Jean-Pierre Delord, Diane Pannier, Mehdi Brahmi, Michel Fabbro, Marie-Eve Garcia, Delphine Larrieu-Ciron, Isabelle Ray-Coquard, Marie Viala, Antoine Italiano, Diego Tosi, Philippe Cassier, Armelle Dufresne, Valery Attignon, Sandrine Boyault, Isabelle Treilleux, Alain Viari, David Pérol, Jean Yves Blay","doi":"10.1038/s41591-025-03613-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Large genomic programs have contributed to improving drug development in cancer. To assess the potential benefit of using larger gene panels to guide molecular-based treatments, we conducted a multicenter randomized trial in patients with advanced and/or metastatic solid cancer. Molecular alterations were determined using either a panel of 324 cancer-related genes (Foundation OneCDX (F1CDX)) or a limited panel of 87 single-nucleotide/indel genes and genome-wide copy number variations (CTL) and reviewed by a molecular tumor board to identify molecular-based recommended therapies (MBRTs). Using paired data from both panels for each patient, the primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an MBRT identified. Main secondary endpoints included the number of patients with at least one actionable alteration leading to MBRT identification, the number of patients with and without MBRTs initiated, progression-free survival, best overall response, duration of response and safety. Among the 741 patients screened, 45.7% had quality-checked tumor samples. MBRTs were identified with F1CDX in 175 (51.6%) patients and with CTL in 125 (36.9%) patients, translating to a significant increase of 14.8 percentage points (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001) with the more comprehensive gene panel versus the more limited panel, meeting the primary endpoint. However, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed in these patients with advanced and/or metastatic cancer in need of treatment beyond standard genomic alterations. These findings illustrate the potential for larger gene panels to increase the number of molecularly matched therapies. Larger studies are needed to assess the clinical benefit of expanded MBRTs. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03163732.</p>","PeriodicalId":19037,"journal":{"name":"Nature Medicine","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":58.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03613-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Large genomic programs have contributed to improving drug development in cancer. To assess the potential benefit of using larger gene panels to guide molecular-based treatments, we conducted a multicenter randomized trial in patients with advanced and/or metastatic solid cancer. Molecular alterations were determined using either a panel of 324 cancer-related genes (Foundation OneCDX (F1CDX)) or a limited panel of 87 single-nucleotide/indel genes and genome-wide copy number variations (CTL) and reviewed by a molecular tumor board to identify molecular-based recommended therapies (MBRTs). Using paired data from both panels for each patient, the primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an MBRT identified. Main secondary endpoints included the number of patients with at least one actionable alteration leading to MBRT identification, the number of patients with and without MBRTs initiated, progression-free survival, best overall response, duration of response and safety. Among the 741 patients screened, 45.7% had quality-checked tumor samples. MBRTs were identified with F1CDX in 175 (51.6%) patients and with CTL in 125 (36.9%) patients, translating to a significant increase of 14.8 percentage points (P < 0.001) with the more comprehensive gene panel versus the more limited panel, meeting the primary endpoint. However, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed in these patients with advanced and/or metastatic cancer in need of treatment beyond standard genomic alterations. These findings illustrate the potential for larger gene panels to increase the number of molecularly matched therapies. Larger studies are needed to assess the clinical benefit of expanded MBRTs. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03163732.

Abstract Image

广泛与有限的基因面板指导晚期实体瘤患者的治疗:一项随机对照试验
大型基因组计划有助于改善癌症药物的开发。为了评估使用更大的基因面板指导基于分子的治疗的潜在益处,我们在晚期和/或转移性实体癌患者中进行了一项多中心随机试验。使用324个癌症相关基因(基金会OneCDX (F1CDX))或87个单核苷酸/indel基因和全基因组拷贝数变异(CTL)的有限小组来确定分子改变,并由分子肿瘤委员会审查以确定基于分子的推荐疗法(mbrt)。使用来自每个患者的两个小组的配对数据,主要终点是确定的MBRT患者的比例。主要次要终点包括至少有一个可操作的改变导致MBRT鉴定的患者数量,已启动和未启动MBRT的患者数量,无进展生存期,最佳总体反应,反应持续时间和安全性。在筛查的741例患者中,45.7%的患者进行了肿瘤样本质量检查。175例(51.6%)患者中鉴定出mbrt含有F1CDX, 125例(36.9%)患者中鉴定出CTL,与更有限的基因组相比,更全面的基因组显著增加了14.8个百分点(P < 0.001),达到了主要终点。然而,在这些需要标准基因组改变治疗的晚期和/或转移性癌症患者中,没有观察到临床结果的差异。这些发现说明了更大的基因面板增加分子匹配疗法数量的潜力。需要更大规模的研究来评估扩展mbrt的临床益处。ClinicalTrials.gov注册:NCT03163732。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nature Medicine
Nature Medicine 医学-生化与分子生物学
CiteScore
100.90
自引率
0.70%
发文量
525
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Nature Medicine is a monthly journal publishing original peer-reviewed research in all areas of medicine. The publication focuses on originality, timeliness, interdisciplinary interest, and the impact on improving human health. In addition to research articles, Nature Medicine also publishes commissioned content such as News, Reviews, and Perspectives. This content aims to provide context for the latest advances in translational and clinical research, reaching a wide audience of M.D. and Ph.D. readers. All editorial decisions for the journal are made by a team of full-time professional editors. Nature Medicine consider all types of clinical research, including: -Case-reports and small case series -Clinical trials, whether phase 1, 2, 3 or 4 -Observational studies -Meta-analyses -Biomarker studies -Public and global health studies Nature Medicine is also committed to facilitating communication between translational and clinical researchers. As such, we consider “hybrid” studies with preclinical and translational findings reported alongside data from clinical studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信