Top

International Journal of Clinical Oncology

Published in:

Open Access 01-02-2019 | Invited Review Article

Knowledge base toward understanding actionable alterations and realizing precision oncology

Authors: Shiho Takeuchi, Shujiro Okuda

Published in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology | Issue 2/2019

Abstract

In Japan, the National Cancer Center and university hospitals have initiated next-generation sequencing-based in vitro diagnostic testing for cancer patients as a method of clinical sequencing. Based on the molecular alterations detected, physicians can provide approved targeted therapy and access to investigational drugs for cancer patients. However, interpretation of the clinical significance of genomic alterations remains the most severe bottleneck of precision medicine in cancer. Although many research institutes in the United States are developing knowledge bases for interpretation of the tumor alterations and clinical decisions, these knowledge bases are unsuited as sources of reference in Japan due to differences in the information on approved drugs and implementation of clinical trials. In this review, we introduce knowledge bases for clinical decision-making based on genomic events in cancer, and discuss the resources of additional information necessary for implementing precision medicine in Japan.

Shigematsu H, Lin L, Takahashi T et al (2005) Clinical and biological features associated with epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations in lung cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:339–346CrossRefPubMed

Midha A, Dearden S, McCormack R (2015) EGFR mutation incidence in non-small-cell lung cancer of adenocarcinoma histology: a systematic review and global map by ethnicity (mutMapII). Am J Cancer Res 5:2892–2911PubMedPubMedCentral

Mitsudomi T, Yatabe Y (2007) Mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene and related genes as determinants of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sensitivity in lung cancer. Cancer Sci 98:1817–1824CrossRefPubMed

Paez JG, Jänne PA, Lee JC et al (2004) EGFR mutations in lung, cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 302:1497–1500CrossRef

Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R et al (2004) Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med 350:2129–2139CrossRefPubMed

Rosell R, Moran T, Queralt C et al (2009) Screening for epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancer. N Engl J Med 361:958–967CrossRefPubMed

Paz-Ares L, Tan E-H, O’Byrne K et al (2017) Afatinib versus gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: overall survival data from the phase IIb LUX-Lung 7 trial. Ann Oncol 28:270–277CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Yang JCH, Sequist LV, Geater SL et al (2015) Clinical activity of afatinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring uncommon EGFR mutations: a combined post-hoc analysis of LUX-Lung 2, LUX-Lung 3, and LUX-Lung 6. Lancet Oncol 16:830–838CrossRefPubMed

Soria J-C, Felip E, Cobo M et al (2015) Afatinib versus erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung (LUX-Lung 8): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 16:897–907CrossRefPubMed

10.

Yang JC-H, Shih J-Y, Su W-C et al (2012) Afatinib for patients with lung adenocarcinoma and epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (LUX-Lung 2): a phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 13:539–548CrossRefPubMed

11.

Wu S-G, Shih J-Y (2018) Management of acquired resistance to EGFR TKI-targeted therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Mol Cancer 17:38CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Pao W, Miller VA, Politi KA et al (2005) Acquired resistance of lung adenocarcinomas to gefitinib or erlotinib is associated with a second mutation in the EGFR kinase domain. PLoS Med 2:e73CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Yu HA, Arcila ME, Rekhtman N et al (2013) Analysis of tumor specimens at the time of acquired resistance to EGFR-TKI therapy in 155 patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancers. Clin Cancer Res 19:2240–2247CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Campo M, Gerber D, Gainor JF et al (2016) Acquired resistance to first-line afatinib and the challenges of prearranged progression biopsies. J Thorac Oncol 11:2022–2026CrossRefPubMed

15.

Sequist LV, Waltman BA, Dias-Santagata D et al (2011) Genotypic and histological evolution of lung cancers acquiring resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Sci Transl Med 3:75ra26CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Cross DAE, Ashton SE, Ghiorghiu S et al (2014) AZD9291, an irreversible EGFR TKI, overcomes T790M-mediated resistance to EGFR inhibitors in lung cancer. Cancer Discov 4:1046–1061CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Ou SHI, Agarwal N, Ali SM (2016) High MET amplification level as a resistance mechanism to osimertinib (AZD9291) in a patient that symptomatically responded to crizotinib treatment post-osimertinib progression. Lung Cancer 98:59–61CrossRefPubMed

18.

Planchard D, Loriot Y, André F et al (2015) EGFR-independent mechanisms of acquired resistance to AZD9291 in EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC patients. Ann Oncol 26:2073–2078CrossRefPubMed

19.

Venderbosch S, Nagtegaal ID, Maughan TS et al (2014) Mismatch repair status and BRAF mutation status in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a pooled analysis of the CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS studies. Clin Cancer Res 20:5322–5330CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Safaee Ardekani G, Jafarnejad SM, Tan L et al (2012) The prognostic value of BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer and melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 7:e47054CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Pietrantonio F, Petrelli F, Coinu A et al (2015) Predictive role of BRAF mutations in patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab and panitumumab: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 51:587–594CrossRefPubMed

22.

Jørgensen JT (2016) Companion and complementary diagnostics: clinical and regulatory perspectives. Trends Cancer 2(12):706–712CrossRefPubMed

23.

Food and Drug Administration (2017) Summary of safety and effectiveness data (SSED). Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring

24.

Forbes SA, Beare D, Gunasekaran P et al (2015) COSMIC: exploring the world’s knowledge of somatic mutations in human cancer. Nucleic Acids Res 43:D805–D811CrossRefPubMed

25.

Rehm HL, Berg JS, Plon SE (2018) ClinGen and ClinVar—enabling genomics in precision medicine. Hum Mutat 39:1473–1475CrossRef

26.

Madhavan S, Ritter D, Micheel C et al (2018) ClinGen Cancer Somatic Working Group—standardizing and democratizing access to cancer molecular diagnostic data to drive translational research. Pac Symp Biocomput 23:247–258PubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Rehm HL, Berg JS, Brooks LD et al (2015) ClinGen—the clinical genome resource. N Engl J Med 372:2235–2242CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Dolman L, Page A, Babb L et al (2018) ClinGen advancing genomic data-sharing standards as a GA4GH driver project. Hum Mutat 39:1686–1689CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Ritter DI, Roychowdhury S, Roy A et al (2016) Somatic cancer variant curation and harmonization through consensus minimum variant level data. Genome Med 8:1–9CrossRef

30.

Chakravarty D, Gao J, Phillips SM et al (2017) OncoKB: a precision oncology knowledge base. JCO Precis Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00011 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Patterson SE, Liu R, Statz CM et al (2016) The clinical trial landscape in oncology and connectivity of somatic mutational profiles to targeted therapies. Hum Genomics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-016-0061-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Huang L, Fernandes H, Zia H et al (2017) The cancer precision medicine knowledge base for structured clinical-grade mutations and interpretations. J Am Med Inform Assoc 24:513–519PubMed

33.

Damodaran S, Miya J, Kautto E et al (2015) Cancer driver log (CanDL) catalog of potentially actionable cancer mutations. J Mol Diagn 17:554–559CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (2010) My cancer genome. Cancer Genet 207:289

35.

Kosarek N, Ho ES (2016) IDICAP: a novel tool for integrating drug intervention based on cancer panel. J Pers Med 6 https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm6040019

36.

Tamborero D, Rubio-Perez C, Deu-Pons J et al (2018) Cancer genome interpreter annotates the biological and clinical relevance of tumor alterations. Genome Med 10:25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Ainscough BJ, Griffith M, Coffman AC et al (2016) DoCM: a database of curated mutations in cancer. Nat Methods 13:806–807CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Griffith M, Spies NC, Krysiak K et al (2017) CIViC is a community knowledgebase for expert crowdsourcing the clinical interpretation of variants in cancer. Nat Genet 49:170–174CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Rosales RA, Drummond RD, Valieris R et al (2016) CIViC: a knowledgebase for expert-crowdsourcing the clinical interpretation of variants in cancer. Nature 23:1–19

40.

Danos AM, Ritter DI, Wagner AH et al (2018) Adapting crowdsourced clinical cancer curation in CIViC to the ClinGen minimum variant level data community-driven standards. Hum Mutat 39:1721–1732CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Use of public human genetic variant databases to support clinical validity for genetic and genomic-based in vitro diagnostics. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM509837.pdf. Accessed Dec 2018

42.

Considerations for design, development, and analytical validation of next generation sequencing (NGS)—Based In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) intended to aid in the diagnosis of suspected germline diseases. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM509838.pdf. Accessed Dec 2018

43.

Wagner AH, Walsh B, Mayfield G et al (2018) A harmonized meta-knowledgebase of clinical interpretations of cancer genomic variants. bioRxiv 366856. https://doi.org/10.1101/366856

44.

Sunami K, Takahashi H, Tsuchihara K et al (2018) Clinical practice guidance for next-generation sequencing in cancer diagnosis and treatment (edition 1.0). Cancer Sci 109:2980–2985CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Knowledge base toward understanding actionable alterations and realizing precision oncology
Authors: Shiho Takeuchi
Shujiro Okuda
Publication date: 01-02-2019
Publisher: Springer Singapore
Published in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1341-9625
Electronic ISSN: 1437-7772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-018-1378-0

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Coadministration of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents with irinotecan is a risk factor for irinotecan-induced cholinergic syndrome in Japanese patients with cancer

Prognostic significance of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and correlation with PET–CT metabolic parameters in small cell lung cancer (SCLC)

Effect of combination of pre- and postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation on onset of postoperative pneumonia: a retrospective cohort study based on data from the diagnosis procedure combination database in Japan

Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia with brain metastasis at initial presentation: a retrospective study

Correlations between CYP3A4 polymorphism and susceptibility to breast cancer in Chinese Han population

Clinical significance of multiple gene detection with a 22-gene panel in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens of 207 colorectal cancer patients

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer