No abstract

BackgroundThe clinical utility of molecular profiling of tumor tissue to guide treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors is unknown. Our objectives were to evaluate the frequency of genomic alterations, clinical “actionability” of somatic variants, enrollment in mutation-targeted or other clinical trials, and outcome of molecular profiling for advanced solid tumor patients at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM).MethodsPatients with advanced solid tumors aged ≥18 years, good performance status, and archival tumor tissue available were prospectively consented. DNA from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue was tested using a MALDI-TOF MS hotspot panel or a targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) panel. Somatic variants were classified according to clinical actionability and an annotated report included in the electronic medical record. Oncologists were provided with summary tables of their patients’ molecular profiling results and available mutation-specific clinical trials. Enrolment in genotype-matched versus genotype-unmatched clinical trials following release of profiling results and response by RECIST v1.1 criteria were evaluated.ResultsFrom March 2012 to July 2014, 1893 patients were enrolled and 1640 tested. After a median follow-up of 18 months, 245 patients (15 %) who were tested were subsequently treated on 277 therapeutic clinical trials, including 84 patients (5 %) on 89 genotype-matched trials. The overall response rate was higher in patients treated on genotype-matched trials (19 %) compared with genotype-unmatched trials (9 %; p < 0.026). In a multi-variable model, trial matching by genotype (p = 0.021) and female gender (p = 0.034) were the only factors associated with increased likelihood of treatment response.ConclusionsFew advanced solid tumor patients enrolled in a prospective institutional molecular profiling trial were treated subsequently on genotype-matched therapeutic trials. In this non-randomized comparison, genotype-enrichment of early phase clinical trials was associated with an increased objective tumor response rate.Trial registration NCT01505400 (date of registration 4 January 2012).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13073-016-0364-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The serum-soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2r) level is considered an important diagnostic test and disease marker in hemophagocytic syndromes/hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HPS/HLH). However, this cytokine receptor is rarely measured in clinical practice and has been excluded from recent diagnostic/classification criteria such as the HScore and macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) 16. We performed a systematic scoping review of 64 articles (1975-2016) examining the clinical utility of sIL-2r in HPS/HLH. Twenty-two articles describe sIL-2r as a sensitive diagnostic marker for HLH, but only three distinct datasets actually address sensitivity. The original HLH-2004 Guidelines reported sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 100% for sIL-2r ≥ 2400, based on a pediatric dataset (n = 152) which is published for the first time in this review. Two pediatric studies reported sensitivity of 89% for sIL-2r ≥ 2400 in diagnosis of MAS complicating juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) (n = 27) and 88% for secondary HLH in acute liver failure (n = 9). Twenty articles described sIL-2r as a dynamic marker of disease activity that falls with response to treatment, and 15 described high initial sIL-2r levels >10,000 U/mL as a poor prognostic marker. The ability of sIL-2r to distinguish between subtypes of HPS/HLH was inconsistent. This review confirms the importance of soluble IL-2r as a diagnostic and disease marker in HPS/HLH, but also reveals the need for more primary data about its performance characteristics, particularly in adults. More emphasis should be made in including this simple, inexpensive test in clinical practice and studies of HPS/HLH.

The identified gap in social media use between age cohorts may have negative implications for communication in oncology. Despite advancements in social media and efforts to integrate social media into medical education, most oncologists and trainees use social media rarely, which, along with the age-related gap in use, may have consequences for collaboration and education in oncology. Investigations to further understand barriers to social media use should be undertaken to enhance physician collaboration and knowledge sharing through social media.

No abstract