RESUMO
AIM: An in silico pathway analysis was performed in an attempt to identify new biomarkers for cervical carcinoma. METHODS: Three publicly available Affymetrix gene expression data sets (GSE5787, GSE7803, GSE9750) were retrieved, vouching for a total 9 cervical cancer cell lines, 39 normal cervical samples, 7 CIN3 samples and 111 cervical cancer samples. An Agilent data set (GSE7410; 5 normal cervical samples, 35 samples from invasive cervical cancer) was selected as a validation set. Predication analysis of microarrays was performed in the Affymetrix sets to identify cervical cancer biomarkers. We compared the lists of differentially expressed genes between normal and CIN3 samples on the one hand (n=1923) and between CIN3 and invasive cancer samples on the other hand (n=628). RESULTS: Seven probe sets were identified that were significantly overexpressed (at least 2 fold increase expression level, and false discovery rate <5%) in both CIN3 samples respective to normal samples and in cancer samples respective to CIN3 samples. From these, five probes sets could be validated in the Agilent data set (P<0.001) comparing the normal with the invasive cancer samples, corresponding to the genes DTL, HMGB3, KIF2C, NEK2 and RFC4. These genes were additionally overexpressed in cervical cancer cell lines respective to the cancer samples. The literature on these markers was reviewed. CONCLUSION: Novel biomarkers in combination with primary human papilloma virus (HPV) testing may allow complete cervical screening by objective, non-morphological molecular methods, which may be particularly important in developing countries.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The complexity of delivering precision medicine to oncology patients has led to the creation of molecular tumourboards (MTBs) for patient selection and assessment of treatment options. New technologies like the liquid biopsy are augmenting available therapeutic opportunities. This report aims to analyse the experience of our MTB in the implementation of personalised medicine in a cancer network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with solid tumours progressing to standard treatments were referred to our Phase I unit. They underwent comprehensive next generation sequencing (NGS) of either tumour tissue or cell-free circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) or both. The MTB expressed either a positive or negative opinion for the treatment of the patients with discovered druggable alterations inside a clinical trial, in an expanded access programme, with a compassionate use. Afterwards, discovered alterations were matched with OncoKB levels of evidence for the choice of alteration-specific treatments in order to compare MTB outcomes with a standardised set of recommendations. RESULTS: NGS was performed either on ctDNA or tumour tissue or in both of them in 204 patients. The MTB evaluated 173 of these cases. Overall, the MTB proposed alteration-specific targeted therapy to 72 patients (41.6%). 49 patients (28.3% of the total evaluated) were indicated to enter a clinical trial. In 29 patients with matched liquid biopsy NGS (lbNGS), tumour tissue NGS (ttNGS) and MTB evaluation, the MTB changed the treatment strategy coming from standardised recommendations based on lbNGS and ttNGS alone in 10 patients (34.5%), thanks to the evaluation of other clinical parameters. In our cohort, lbNGS was more likely, compared with ttNGS, to detect point mutations (OR 11, 95% CI 2.9 to 24.1, p<0.001) and all-type alterations (OR 13.6, 95% CI 5.5 to 43.2, p<0.001) from the same genes of matched patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our MTB allows patients with refractory cancer to be included in clinical trials and improves the precision of clinical decisions compared with a standardised set of mutation-driven recommendations.