Drug rediscovery protocol facilitates widespread use of present anti-cancer medicine
Hainsworth, J. D. et al. Focused remedy for superior strong tumors based mostly on molecular profiles: outcomes from MyPathway, an open section IIa a number of basket research. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 536-542 (2018).
Hyman, D.M. et al. HER kinase inhibition in sufferers with HER2 and HER3-mutant cancers. Nature 554, 189-194 (2018).
Hyman, D.M. et al. Vemurafenib in a number of non-melanoma cancers with BRAF V600 mutations. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 726-736 (2015).
The Colwell, J. NCI-MATCH trial is of nice curiosity. Most cancers Discov. 6, 334 (2016).
Massard, C. et al. Excessive throughput genomics and medical outcomes in superior cancers tough to deal with: outcomes of the MOSCATO 01 check. Most cancers Discov. 7, 586-595 (2017).
Meric-Bernstam, F. et al. Feasibility of large-scale genomic testing to facilitate recruitment in genomically suitable medical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 2753-2762 (2015).
Stockley, T. L. et al. Molecular profiling of superior strong tumors and outcomes for sufferers with genotype-matched medical trials: Princess Margaret IMPACT / COMPACT trial. Genome Med. eight, 109 (2016).
Hyman, D.M., Taylor, B.S. and Baselga, J. Implementation of genome-based oncology. Cell 168, 584-599 (2017).
The Tourneau, C. et al. Focused molecular remedy based mostly on the molecular profile of the tumor in comparison with typical superior most cancers remedy (SHIVA): multicentre, open-label, idea validation, randomized and managed section 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 16, 1324-1334 (2015).
Prasad, V. Perspective: precision-oncology phantasm. Nature 537, S63 (2016).
Tannock, I. F. & Hickman, J. A. Limitations to customized most cancers medication. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 1289-1294 (2016).
Sleijfer, S., Bogaerts, J. and Siu, L. L. Design of Transformative Medical Trials within the Most cancers Genome Period. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 1834-1841 (2013).
Ellis, L.M. et al. Perspective of the American Society of Medical Oncology: Elevate the extent of medical trials by defining clinically significant outcomes. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 1277-1280 (2014).
Bins, S. et al. Implementation of a multi-center collaboration of biobanks for the invention of biomarkers based mostly on next-generation sequencing based mostly on recent frozen pre-treatment tumor biopsies Oncologist 22, 33-40 (2016).
Simon, R. Optimum two-step fashions for Part II medical trials. Management. Clin. Trials 10, 1-10 (1989).
Jung, S.H., Lee, T., Kim, Okay. and George, S. L. Two-Step Design Plans Eligible for Part II Most cancers Medical Trials. Stat. Med. 23, 561-569 (2004).
Moreno Garcia, V. et al. Dose-response relationship in section I medical trials: a collaborative research of the European Drug Growth Community (EDDN). Clin. Most cancers Res. 20, 5663-5671 (2014).
Le, D. T. et al. Blocking of PD-1 in tumors with a restore deficit. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 2509-2520 (2015). ten
Overman, M.J. et al. Nivolumab in sufferers with colorectal most cancers presenting with metastatic DNA restore deficiency or microsatellite instability (CheckMate 142): open-label multicentre multicenter section 2 research. Lancet Oncol. 18, 1182-1191 (2017).
van Waalwijk van Doorn-Khosrovani, S.B. et al. Customized reimbursement: a risk-sharing mannequin for biomarker-based remedy of uncommon subgroups of most cancers sufferers. Ann. Oncol. 30, 663-665 (2019).
Priestley, P. et al. Pan-cancer entire genome analyzes of metastatic strong tumors. Pre-print at https://www.biorxiv.org/content material/10.1101/415133v4 (2018).
Griffith, M. et al. CIViC is a community-based information base for participatory interpretation consultants for the medical interpretation of most cancers variants. Nat. Broom. 49, 170-174 (2017).
Chakravarty, D. et al. OncoKB: a information base in precision oncology. JCO Summary. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00011 (2017).
Tamborero, D. et al. The most cancers genome interpreter signifies the organic and medical relevance of tumor alterations. Genome Med. 10, 25 (2018).
Mateo, J. et al. A framework for classifying genomic alterations as targets of precision most cancers medication: the ESMO Scale for Medical Capacity to Act Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Ann. Oncol. 29, 1895-1902 (2018).
Sleijfer, S. & Wagner, A. J. The problem of selecting applicable parameters in single-arm section II research of uncommon illnesses. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 896-898 (2012).
Ray, T. The proposed CMS protection of NGS most cancers exams might result in non-compliant scripts, fear oncologists, https://www.genomeweb.com/molecular-diagnostics/cms-proposed-coverage -ngs-cancer-tests-could-label-scripts-oncologists # .WsJTUOkUk5k (2018).
Meric-Bernstam, F. et al. A Determination Help Framework for Experimental Genomic Most cancers Remedy J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 107, djv098 (2015).
Cheson, B.D. et al. Suggestions for the preliminary evaluation, classification and analysis of the response of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: Lugano classification. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 3059-3067 (2014).
Rajkumar, S.V. et al. The Worldwide Myeloma Activity Drive has up to date diagnostic standards for a number of myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 15, e538 to e548 (2014).
Rustin, G. J. et al. Definitions of response and development in ovarian most cancers medical trials incorporating RECIST 1.1 and CA 125, permitted by the Gynecologic Most cancers Intergroup (GCIG). Int. J. Gynecol. Most cancers 21, 419-423 (2011).
Therasse, P. et al. New pointers for evaluating remedy response in strong tumors. European Group for Analysis and Therapy of Most cancers, United States Nationwide Most cancers Institute, Nationwide Most cancers Institute of Canada. J. Natl. Most cancers Inst. 92, 205-216 (2000).
Wen, P. Y. et al. Up to date response analysis standards for high-grade gliomas: analysis of the response within the neuro-oncology working group. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 1963-1972 (2010).
Huang, M.N. et al. MSIseq: software program for analysis of microsatellite instability from somatic mutation catalogs. Sci. Rep. 5, 13321 (2015).