2016
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.mct-15-0643
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genomically Driven Tumors and Actionability across Histologies:BRAF-Mutant Cancers as a Paradigm

Abstract: The diagnosis, classification, and management of cancer are traditionally dictated by the site of tumor origin, for example, breast or lung, and by specific histologic subtypes of site-oforigin cancers (e.g., non-small cell versus small cell lung cancer). However, with the advent of sequencing technologies allowing for rapid, low cost, and accurate sequencing of clinical samples, new observations suggest an expanded or different approach to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer-one driven by the unique molecul… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
55
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 127 publications
(74 reference statements)
3
55
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Among the 423 patients with alterations detected, 75.7% had a potentially actionable alteration. The rates of potentially actionable alterations in tissue, as reported in other studies, have varied widely (from about 20% to 93%), probably depending on the panel used, the definition of actionability (14) and the time period of the study (2124). Of special interest was a patient with advanced gastric cancer who showed amplifications in EGFR in her ctDNA, a result that was confirmed by tissue NGS, and attained a rapid partial remission after two months of therapy with an anti-EGFR regimen combining an EGFR antibody and small molecule inhibitor.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Among the 423 patients with alterations detected, 75.7% had a potentially actionable alteration. The rates of potentially actionable alterations in tissue, as reported in other studies, have varied widely (from about 20% to 93%), probably depending on the panel used, the definition of actionability (14) and the time period of the study (2124). Of special interest was a patient with advanced gastric cancer who showed amplifications in EGFR in her ctDNA, a result that was confirmed by tissue NGS, and attained a rapid partial remission after two months of therapy with an anti-EGFR regimen combining an EGFR antibody and small molecule inhibitor.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Actionability implies that the protein product of a genomic abnormality can potentially be impacted by a specific targeted drug (14). A potentially actionable alteration was defined as a characterized alteration that was either the direct target (such as an EGFR inhibitor targeting an EGFR mutation), or a pathway component (such as an mTOR inhibitor for a PIK3CA mutation (since mTOR is downstream of PIK3CA)) that could be targeted by at least one approved (by the Food and Drug Administration–FDA) or investigational drug in a clinical trial.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although less frequent, BRAF V600E mutations were found in 1.6% [7/442] of our CUP patients (Supplemental Table 3). Recent reports suggest that many cancer types, including CUP, with BRAF V600 mutations are targetable with vemurafenib (BRAF inhibitor) (43,44). BRAF alterations are also targetable with trametinib (MEK inhibitor) (42) or with dual suppression by both BRAF and MEK inhibitors (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…BRAF is a therapeutic target of growing relevance across various clinical disciplines (Turski et al , ). Despite all the impressive therapeutic responses elicited by BRAF inhibitors reported since 2010, these drugs often fail to provide sustainable treatment options due to the emergence of drug resistance and side effects associated with the aforementioned “paradoxical ERK activation” observed in cells with elevated RAS activity (Samatar & Poulikakos, ; Yaktapour et al , ; Lavoie & Therrien, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%