Oncology and therapy · 2026
Real-World Actionability Analysis of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Versus Single/Small-Gene Panels.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Spin Paul, Bapat Bela, Moretz Chad, Dumanois Robert, Gilligan Adrienne M, Shokoohi Mostafa, Borgundvaag Emily, Fox John, Bifulco Carlo, Bartlett David
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) enables identification of patients eligible for targeted treatments, making it essential in the management of advanced cancer. This retrospective real-world study compared actionable mutations in CGP-tested patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors to those who received single-gene/small-panel (SP) tests.
METHODS: Patients aged > 18 years with advanced/metastatic solid tumors (including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, or melanoma) with a CGP or SP test reported between 1 January 2018, and 31 December 2022, were included. OncoKB-derived actionability was compared between the two cohorts. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for baseline characteristics. A weighted generalized linear model with log link was used to report actionability ratio (AR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Among 406 patients (CGP-tested cohort: 202, SP-tested cohort: 204), approximately half were diagnosed with NSCLC. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, CGP testing detected more actionable alterations than SP: OncoKB level 1 (50.0% versus 31.4%; AR 1.76 [95% CI: 1.24, 2.51]; p = 0.002), OncoKB level 2 (22.8% versus 10.3%; AR 2.53 [95% CI: 1.17, 5.48]; p = 0.018), and OncoKB level 1 or level 2 or level R1 (55.9% versus 41.2%; AR 1.5 [95% CI: 1.11, 2.01]; p = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS: CGP testing identified more actionable genetic alterations compared with SP testing methods for patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, or melanoma. Expanding reimbursement and coverage for CGP testing as well as expanding CGP use can facilitate equitable treatment access for patients with advanced/metastatic cancer.
METHODS: Patients aged > 18 years with advanced/metastatic solid tumors (including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, or melanoma) with a CGP or SP test reported between 1 January 2018, and 31 December 2022, were included. OncoKB-derived actionability was compared between the two cohorts. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for baseline characteristics. A weighted generalized linear model with log link was used to report actionability ratio (AR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Among 406 patients (CGP-tested cohort: 202, SP-tested cohort: 204), approximately half were diagnosed with NSCLC. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, CGP testing detected more actionable alterations than SP: OncoKB level 1 (50.0% versus 31.4%; AR 1.76 [95% CI: 1.24, 2.51]; p = 0.002), OncoKB level 2 (22.8% versus 10.3%; AR 2.53 [95% CI: 1.17, 5.48]; p = 0.018), and OncoKB level 1 or level 2 or level R1 (55.9% versus 41.2%; AR 1.5 [95% CI: 1.11, 2.01]; p = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS: CGP testing identified more actionable genetic alterations compared with SP testing methods for patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, or melanoma. Expanding reimbursement and coverage for CGP testing as well as expanding CGP use can facilitate equitable treatment access for patients with advanced/metastatic cancer.