Journal of Cancer Sciences
Research Article
Molecular Profiling for Patients with Solid Tumors: A Single- Institution Experience
Ibrahim EM*, Eldahna WM, Refae AA, Bayer AM, Al-Masri OA, Shaheen AY, Ahmed MM, Abu Shakra RI, Saleem NA and Mansoor I
International Medical Center, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
*Address for Correspondence: Ibrahim EM, Professor of Medicine & Oncology Director, Oncology Center, International Medical Center, PO Box 2172, Jeddah 21451, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Fax: +966521-650-9141, ORCID: 0000-0002-6982-6041; E-mail: ezzibrahim@imc.med.sa
Submission: 10 October, 2020;
Accepted: 18 November, 2020;
Published: 20 November, 2020
Copyright: © 2020 Ibrahim EM, et al. This is an open access article
distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Molecular Profiling (MP) of tumors is innovative progress that led
to identifying targetable alterations that could be exploited to deliver
personalized cancer treatment. Lack of data from the region about
the clinical utility of has prompted this study. Tumor tissues from 100
consecutive adult patients with solid tumors were genomically profiled
successfully using commercially available platforms. Outcomes for
patients who received an MP-guided versus MP-unguided therapy
were compared. Progression-Free Survival (PFS) was the primary
endpoint, while Overall Survival (OS) was the secondary endpoint.
Patients’ median age was 57 years, and female patients constituted
65% of the series. Thirty-one patients were newly diagnosed, and
69 patients had the MP performed upon disease recurrence or
progression. Breast, lung, and colorectal cancers were the most
frequent tumors. In 90 of the tested tumors, one or more aberrations
were identified. In 61 patients, the MP results suggested at least one
matched agent and guided therapy in 53 patients. Of all patients who
received further therapy (83 patients), the median PFS was significantly
longer in patients whose MP-guided versus those whose treatment was
not guided (21.8 [95% CI; 14.5 - 29.1] vs. 10.9 [95% CI; 6.2 - 15.6] months,
hazard ratio [HR] = 0.34 [95% CI; 0.17 - 0.69], P = 0.002). The benefit was
largely shown in patients with recurrent or progressive disease (HR =
0.32 [95% CI; 0.14 - 1.20.75]; P = 0.006). While patients who received
MP-guided therapy had numerically higher OS rates, that difference
was not significant. This preliminary experience demonstrated MP’s
feasibility for cancer patients with a significant improvement in PFS,
albeit a lack of OS benefit. Further research is warranted to address the
inherent challenges for the universal adoption of MP in daily practice.