Research Papers:

Investigating the benefits of molecular profiling of advanced non-small cell lung cancer tumors to guide treatments

Costi Alifrangis, Philip Carter, _ Biancastella Cereser, Pramodh Chandrasinghe, Lisa Del Bel Belluz, Eric Lim, Nina Moderau, Fotini Poyia, Neha Tabassum, Hua Zhang, Jonathan Krell, Justin Stebbing

PDF |  HTML  |  Order a Reprint

Oncotarget. 2018; 9:12805-12811. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.24375

Metrics: PDF 47 views  |   HTML 73 views  |   ?  


Costi Alifrangis1, Philip Carter2, Biancastella Cereser2, Pramodh Chandrasinghe2,3, Lisa Del Bel Belluz2, Eric Lim4, Nina Moderau2, Fotini Poyia2, Neha Tabassum2, Hua Zhang5, Jonathan Krell2 and Justin Stebbing2

1Department of Oncology, University College Hospital, London, UK

2Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK

3Department of Surgery, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka

4National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK

5Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

Correspondence to:

Philip Carter, email: phil.carter@imperial.ac.uk

Keywords: tumor profiling; lung cancer; NSCLC; non-small cell lung cancer; cancer treatment

Abbreviations: 5FU: fluorouracil; IHC: immunohistochemistry; NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer; OS: overall survival

Received: July 29, 2017     Accepted: January 01, 2018     Published: February 01, 2018


In this study we utilized data on patient responses to guided treatments, and we evaluated their benefit for a non-small cell lung cancer cohort. The recommended therapies used were predicted using tumor molecular profiles that involved a range of biomarkers but primarily used immunohistochemistry markers. A dataset describing 91 lung non-small cell lung cancer patients was retrospectively split into two. The first group’s drugs were consistent with a treatment plan whereby all drugs received agreed with their tumor’s molecular profile. The second group each received one or more drug that was expected to lack benefit.

We found that there was no significant difference in overall survival or mortality between the two groups. Patients whose treatments were predicted to be of benefit survived for an average of 402 days, compared to 382 days for those that did not (P = 0.7934). In the matched treatment group, 48% of patients were deceased by the time monitoring had finished compared to 53% in the unmatched group (P = 0.6094). The immunohistochemistry biomarker for the ERCC1 receptor was found to be a marker that could be used to predict future survival; ERCC1 loss was found to be predictive of poor survival.

Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
PII: 24375