{"title":"Paired Tissue and Plasma Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in Advanced Solid Tumors: A Retrospective Study from India.","authors":"Ankur Bahl, Nitesh Rohatgi, Suman S Karanth, Aakriti Aggarwal, Rohit Bharat, Nippun Sandhir","doi":"10.3390/curroncol33100575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tissue and plasma comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) sample different compartments and may yield nonoverlapping clinically relevant findings. We assessed the added patient-level yield of paired testing in a pan-cancer cohort from India.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, single-institution study included patients with stage IV solid tumors who underwent paired tissue and plasma CGP between November 2022 and October 2024. The primary endpoint was detection in a patient of an OncoKB Level 1 or Level 2 or R1 alteration, high tumor mutational burden, or microsatellite instability. Molecularly informed therapy and laboratory turnaround time were assessed descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 158 patients, 123 matched evaluable pairs were analyzed. Either modality detected a clinically relevant finding in 46 of 123 patients (37.4%; 95% confidence interval, 29.4-46.2%): tissue CGP in 33 (26.8%), plasma CGP in 35 (28.5%), both in 22 (17.9%), tissue only in 11 (8.9%) and plasma only in 13 (10.6%). This complementarity remained bidirectional across exploratory analyses, including a subgroup that excluded non-small cell lung cancer (33.0%), all 139 technically successful pairs (33.8%), all 158 paired sample sets (32.3%), and even when the endpoint was restricted to OncoKB alterations (22.0%). Among 91 patients with therapy-alignment data, 25 (27.5%) received molecularly informed therapy. Median laboratory turnaround time was 7 days for plasma and 13 days for tissue CGP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Tissue and plasma CGP were complementary rather than interchangeable in this selected cohort: either modality alone would have missed clinically relevant findings. Whether this improves outcomes is untested; prospective studies linking testing strategy to treatment delivery and survival are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":11012,"journal":{"name":"Current oncology","volume":"33 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13703395/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol33100575","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Tissue and plasma comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) sample different compartments and may yield nonoverlapping clinically relevant findings. We assessed the added patient-level yield of paired testing in a pan-cancer cohort from India.
Methods: This retrospective, single-institution study included patients with stage IV solid tumors who underwent paired tissue and plasma CGP between November 2022 and October 2024. The primary endpoint was detection in a patient of an OncoKB Level 1 or Level 2 or R1 alteration, high tumor mutational burden, or microsatellite instability. Molecularly informed therapy and laboratory turnaround time were assessed descriptively.
Results: Of 158 patients, 123 matched evaluable pairs were analyzed. Either modality detected a clinically relevant finding in 46 of 123 patients (37.4%; 95% confidence interval, 29.4-46.2%): tissue CGP in 33 (26.8%), plasma CGP in 35 (28.5%), both in 22 (17.9%), tissue only in 11 (8.9%) and plasma only in 13 (10.6%). This complementarity remained bidirectional across exploratory analyses, including a subgroup that excluded non-small cell lung cancer (33.0%), all 139 technically successful pairs (33.8%), all 158 paired sample sets (32.3%), and even when the endpoint was restricted to OncoKB alterations (22.0%). Among 91 patients with therapy-alignment data, 25 (27.5%) received molecularly informed therapy. Median laboratory turnaround time was 7 days for plasma and 13 days for tissue CGP.
Conclusions: Tissue and plasma CGP were complementary rather than interchangeable in this selected cohort: either modality alone would have missed clinically relevant findings. Whether this improves outcomes is untested; prospective studies linking testing strategy to treatment delivery and survival are needed.
期刊介绍:
Current Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Canadian-based and internationally respected journal. Current Oncology represents a multidisciplinary medium encompassing health care workers in the field of cancer therapy in Canada to report upon and to review progress in the management of this disease.
We encourage submissions from all fields of cancer medicine, including radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, pediatric oncology, pathology, and cancer rehabilitation and survivorship. Articles published in the journal typically contain information that is relevant directly to clinical oncology practice, and have clear potential for application to the current or future practice of cancer medicine.