↓ Skip to main content

Molecular profiling of advanced solid tumors and patient outcomes with genotype-matched clinical trials: the Princess Margaret IMPACT/COMPACT trial

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
43 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
217 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Molecular profiling of advanced solid tumors and patient outcomes with genotype-matched clinical trials: the Princess Margaret IMPACT/COMPACT trial
Published in
Genome Medicine, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13073-016-0364-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tracy L. Stockley, Amit M. Oza, Hal K. Berman, Natasha B. Leighl, Jennifer J. Knox, Frances A. Shepherd, Eric X. Chen, Monika K. Krzyzanowska, Neesha Dhani, Anthony M. Joshua, Ming-Sound Tsao, Stefano Serra, Blaise Clarke, Michael H. Roehrl, Tong Zhang, Mahadeo A. Sukhai, Nadia Califaretti, Mateya Trinkaus, Patricia Shaw, Theodorus van der Kwast, Lisa Wang, Carl Virtanen, Raymond H. Kim, Albiruni R. A. Razak, Aaron R. Hansen, Celeste Yu, Trevor J. Pugh, Suzanne Kamel-Reid, Lillian L. Siu, Philippe L. Bedard

Abstract

The clinical utility of molecular profiling of tumor tissue to guide treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors is unknown. Our objectives were to evaluate the frequency of genomic alterations, clinical "actionability" of somatic variants, enrollment in mutation-targeted or other clinical trials, and outcome of molecular profiling for advanced solid tumor patients at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM). Patients with advanced solid tumors aged ≥18 years, good performance status, and archival tumor tissue available were prospectively consented. DNA from archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue was tested using a MALDI-TOF MS hotspot panel or a targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) panel. Somatic variants were classified according to clinical actionability and an annotated report included in the electronic medical record. Oncologists were provided with summary tables of their patients' molecular profiling results and available mutation-specific clinical trials. Enrolment in genotype-matched versus genotype-unmatched clinical trials following release of profiling results and response by RECIST v1.1 criteria were evaluated. From March 2012 to July 2014, 1893 patients were enrolled and 1640 tested. After a median follow-up of 18 months, 245 patients (15 %) who were tested were subsequently treated on 277 therapeutic clinical trials, including 84 patients (5 %) on 89 genotype-matched trials. The overall response rate was higher in patients treated on genotype-matched trials (19 %) compared with genotype-unmatched trials (9 %; p < 0.026). In a multi-variable model, trial matching by genotype (p = 0.021) and female gender (p = 0.034) were the only factors associated with increased likelihood of treatment response. Few advanced solid tumor patients enrolled in a prospective institutional molecular profiling trial were treated subsequently on genotype-matched therapeutic trials. In this non-randomized comparison, genotype-enrichment of early phase clinical trials was associated with an increased objective tumor response rate. NCT01505400 (date of registration 4 January 2012).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 185 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Other 18 10%
Student > Master 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 38 20%
Unknown 46 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Computer Science 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 53 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,153,026
of 25,040,629 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#234
of 1,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,246
of 320,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#8
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,040,629 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.