Publication

Comparison of three commercial decision support platforms for matching of next-generation sequencing results with therapies in patients with cancer

Perakis, S. O., Weber, S., Zhou, Q., Graf, R., Hojas, S., Riedl, J. M., Gerger, A., Dandachi, N., Balic, M., Hoefler, G., Schuuring, E., Groen, H. J. M., Geigl, J. B., Heitzer, E. & Speicher, M. R., 23-Sep-2020, In : ESMO Open. 5, 5, 11 p., 000872.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

  • Samantha O Perakis
  • Sabrina Weber
  • Qing Zhou
  • Ricarda Graf
  • Sabine Hojas
  • Jakob M Riedl
  • Armin Gerger
  • Nadia Dandachi
  • Marija Balic
  • Gerald Hoefler
  • Ed Schuuring
  • Harry J M Groen
  • Jochen B Geigl
  • Ellen Heitzer
  • Michael R Speicher

Objective Precision oncology depends on translating molecular data into therapy recommendations. However, with the growing complexity of next-generation sequencing-based tests, clinical interpretation of somatic genomic mutations has evolved into a formidable task. Here, we compared the performance of three commercial clinical decision support tools, that is, NAVIFY Mutation Profiler (NAVIFY; Roche), QIAGEN Clinical Insight (QCI) Interpret (QIAGEN) and CureMatch Bionov (CureMatch). Methods In order to obtain the current status of the respective tumour genome, we analysed cell-free DNA from patients with metastatic breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer. We evaluated somatic copy number alterations and in parallel applied a 77-gene panel (AVENIO ctDNA Expanded Panel). We then assessed the concordance of tier classification approaches between NAVIFY and QCI and compared the strategies to determine actionability among all three platforms. Finally, we quantified the alignment of treatment suggestions across all decision tools. Results Each platform varied in its mode of variant classification and strategy for identifying druggable targets and clinical trials, which resulted in major discrepancies. Even the frequency of concordant actionable events for tier I-A or tier I-B classifications was only 4.3%, 9.5% and 28.4% when comparing NAVIFY with QCI, NAVIFY with CureMatch and CureMatch with QCI, respectively, and the obtained treatment recommendations differed drastically. Conclusions Treatment decisions based on molecular markers appear at present to be arbitrary and dependent on the chosen strategy. As a consequence, tumours with identical molecular profiles would be differently treated, which challenges the promising concepts of genome-informed medicine.

Original languageEnglish
Article number000872
Number of pages11
JournalESMO Open
Volume5
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 23-Sep-2020

    Keywords

  • circulating tumour DNA, next-generation sequencing, molecular profiling, clinical decision support, variant interpretation, JOINT-CONSENSUS-RECOMMENDATION, CELL LUNG-CANCER, LIQUID BIOPSIES, VARIANTS, ASSOCIATION, GUIDELINES, MUTATIONS, STANDARDS, MEDICINE, ONCOLOGY

Download statistics

No data available

ID: 135089238