JCO precision oncology · 2024
Biomarker Inference and the Timing of Next-Generation Sequencing in a Multi-Institutional, Cross-Cancer Clinicogenomic Data Set.
Многоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kehl Kenneth L, Lavery Jessica A, Brown Samantha, Fuchs Hannah, Riely Gregory, Schrag Deborah, Newcomb Ashley, Nichols Chelsea, Micheel Christine M, Bedard Philippe L, Sweeney Shawn M, Fiandalo Michael, Panageas Katherine S, AACR Project GENIE BPC Core Team
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Observational clinicogenomic data sets, consisting of tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) data linked to clinical records, are commonly used for cancer research. However, in real-world practice, oncologists frequently request NGS in search of treatment options for progressive cancer. The extent and impact of this dynamic on analysis of clinicogenomic research data are not well understood.
METHODS: We analyzed clinicogenomic data for patients with non-small cell lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, pancreatic, or urothelial cancers in the American Association for Cancer Research Biopharmaceutical Consortium cohort. Associations between baseline and time-varying clinical characteristics and time from diagnosis to NGS were measured. To explore the impact of informative cohort entry on biomarker inference, statistical interactions between selected biomarkers and time to NGS with respect to overall survival were calculated.
RESULTS: Among 7,182 patients, time from diagnosis to NGS varied significantly by clinical factors, including cancer type, calendar year of sequencing, institution, and age and stage at diagnosis. NGS rates also varied significantly by dynamic clinical status variables; in an adjusted model, compared with patients with stable disease at any given time after diagnosis, patients with progressive disease by imaging or oncologist assessment had higher NGS rates (hazard ratio for NGS, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.45 to 1.78] and 2.32 [95% CI, 2.01 to 2.67], respectively). Statistical interactions between selected biomarkers and time to NGS with respect to survival, potentially indicating biased biomarker inference results, were explored.
CONCLUSION: To evaluate the appropriateness of a data set for a particular research question, it is crucial to measure associations between dynamic cancer status and the timing of NGS, as well as to evaluate interactions involving biomarkers of interest and NGS timing with respect to survival outcomes.
METHODS: We analyzed clinicogenomic data for patients with non-small cell lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, pancreatic, or urothelial cancers in the American Association for Cancer Research Biopharmaceutical Consortium cohort. Associations between baseline and time-varying clinical characteristics and time from diagnosis to NGS were measured. To explore the impact of informative cohort entry on biomarker inference, statistical interactions between selected biomarkers and time to NGS with respect to overall survival were calculated.
RESULTS: Among 7,182 patients, time from diagnosis to NGS varied significantly by clinical factors, including cancer type, calendar year of sequencing, institution, and age and stage at diagnosis. NGS rates also varied significantly by dynamic clinical status variables; in an adjusted model, compared with patients with stable disease at any given time after diagnosis, patients with progressive disease by imaging or oncologist assessment had higher NGS rates (hazard ratio for NGS, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.45 to 1.78] and 2.32 [95% CI, 2.01 to 2.67], respectively). Statistical interactions between selected biomarkers and time to NGS with respect to survival, potentially indicating biased biomarker inference results, were explored.
CONCLUSION: To evaluate the appropriateness of a data set for a particular research question, it is crucial to measure associations between dynamic cancer status and the timing of NGS, as well as to evaluate interactions involving biomarkers of interest and NGS timing with respect to survival outcomes.