BackgroundPrevious studies have reported the prognostic impact of primary tumor sidedness in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and its influence on cetuximab efficacy. The present retrospective analysis of two panitumumab trials investigated a possible association between tumor sidedness and treatment efficacy in first-line mCRC patients with RAS wild-type (WT) primary tumors.Materials and methodsData from two randomized first-line panitumumab trials were analyzed for treatment outcomes by primary tumor sidedness for RAS WT patients. PRIME (phase 3; NCT00364013) compared panitumumab plus FOLFOX versus FOLFOX alone; PEAK (phase 2; NCT00819780) compared panitumumab plus FOLFOX versus bevacizumab plus FOLFOX. Primary tumors located in the cecum to transverse colon were coded as right-sided, while tumors located from the splenic flexure to rectum were considered left-sided.ResultsTumor sidedness ascertainment (RAS WT population) was 83% (n = 559/675); 78% of patients (n = 435) had left-sided and 22% (n = 124) had right-sided tumors. Patients with right-sided tumors did worse for all efficacy parameters compared with patients with left-sided disease in the RAS WT population and also in the RAS/BRAF WT subgroup. In patients with left-sided tumors, panitumumab provided better outcomes than the comparator treatment, including on median overall survival (PRIME: 30.3 versus 23.6 months, adjusted hazard ratio = 0.73, P = 0.0112; PEAK: 43.4 versus 32.0 months, adjusted hazard ratio = 0.77, P = 0.3125).ConclusionThe results of these retrospective analyses confirm that in RAS WT patients, right-sided primary tumors are associated with worse prognosis than left-sided tumors, regardless of first-line treatment received. RAS WT patients with left-sided tumors derive greater benefit from panitumumab-containing treatment than chemotherapy alone or combined with bevacizumab, including an overall survival advantage (treatment difference: PRIME 6.7 months; PEAK 11.4 months). No final conclusions regarding optimal treatment could be drawn for RAS WT patients with right-sided mCRC due to the relatively low number of paxtients. Further research in this field is warranted.Trial registration (Clinicaltrials.gov)PRIME (NCT00364013), PEAK (NCT00819780).
Although there are nearly 100 different causative genes identified for nonsyndromic hearing loss (NSHL), Sanger sequencing-based DNA diagnostics usually only analyses three, namely, GJB2, SLC26A4, and OTOF. As this is seen as inadequate, there is a need for high-throughput diagnostic methods to detect disease-causing variations, including single-nucleotide variations (SNVs), insertions/deletions (Indels), and copy-number variations (CNVs). In this study, a targeted resequencing panel for hearing loss was developed including 79 genes for NSHL and selected forms of syndromic hearing loss. One-hundred thirty one presumed autosomal-recessive NSHL (arNSHL) patients of Western-European ethnicity were analyzed for SNVs, Indels, and CNVs. In addition, we established a straightforward variant classification system to deal with the large number of variants encountered. We estimate that combining prescreening of GJB2 with our panel leads to a diagnosis in 25%-30% of patients. Our data show that after GJB2, the most commonly mutated genes in a Western-European population are TMC1, MYO15A, and MYO7A (3.1%). CNV analysis resulted in the identification of causative variants in two patients in OTOA and STRC. One of the major challenges for diagnostic gene panels is assigning pathogenicity for variants. A collaborative database collecting all identified variants from multiple centers could be a valuable resource for hearing loss diagnostics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.