Cited by 207Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsGenomics and Rare DiseasesChromatin Remodeling and Cancer

Multicenter Feasibility Study of Tumor Molecular Profiling to Inform Therapeutic Decisions in Advanced Pediatric Solid Tumors: The Individualized Cancer Therapy (iCat) Study

Open access
Harris, Marian H., DuBois, Steven G., Glade Bender, Julia L., Kim, AeRang, Crompton, Brian D., Parker, Erin, Dumont, Ian P., Hong, Andrew L. +11 more·2016·JAMA Oncology

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Pediatric cancers represent a unique case with respect to cancer genomics and precision medicine, as the mutation frequency is low, and targeted therapies are less available. Consequently, it is unknown whether clinical sequencing can be of benefit. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of identifying actionable alterations and making individualized cancer therapy (iCat) recommendations in pediatric patients with extracranial solid tumors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clinical sequencing study at 4 academic medical centers enrolling patients between September 5, 2012, and November 19, 2013, with 1 year of clinical follow-up. Participants were 30 years or younger with high-risk, recurrent, or refractory extracranial solid tumors. The data analysis was performed October 28, 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Tumor profiling performed on archived clinically acquired specimens consisted of mutation detection by a Sequenom assay or targeted next-generation sequencing and copy number assessment by array comparative genomic hybridization. Results were reviewed by a multidisciplinary expert panel, and iCat recommendations were made if an actionable alteration was present, and an appropriate drug was available. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Feasibility was assessed using a 2-stage design based on the proportion of patients with recommendations. RESULTS: Of 100 participants (60 male; median [range] age, 13.4 [0.8-29.8] years), profiling was technically successful in 89 (89% [95% CI, 83%-95%]). Median (range) follow-up was 6.8 (2.0-23.6) months. Overall, 31 (31% [95% CI, 23%-41%]) patients received an iCat recommendation and 3 received matched therapy. The most common actionable alterations leading to an iCat recommendation were cancer-associated signaling pathway gene mutations (n = 10) and copy number alterations in MYC/MYCN (n = 6) and cell cycle genes (n = 11). Additional alterations with implications for clinical care but not resulting in iCat recommendations were identified, including mutations indicating the possible presence of a cancer predisposition syndrome and translocations suggesting a change in diagnosis. In total, 43 (43% [95% CI, 33%-53%]) participants had results with potential clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A multi-institution clinical genomics study in pediatric oncology is feasible and a substantial proportion of relapsed or refractory pediatric solid tumors have actionable alterations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01853345.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5689

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harris, M. H., DuBois, S. G., Glade Bender, J. L., Kim, A., Crompton, B. D., Parker, E., Dumont, I. P., Hong, A. L., Guo, D., Church, A., Stegmaier, K., Roberts, C. W. M., Shusterman, S., London, W. B., MacConaill, L. E., Lindeman, N. I., Diller, L., Rodriguez-Galindo, C., & Janeway, K. A.
Affiliations
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology/Stem Cell Transplantation, NewYork–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital, New York
  • Children's National (US)
  • Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, Massachusetts
Corresponding author
Janeway, Katherine A.
Venue
JAMA Oncology
Published
2016-05-01
Volume
2
Issue
5
Pages
608
ISSN
2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2269136289
Cited by
206
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 14 · 2014: 1
FWCI
13.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (P30CA013696)
  • Hyundai Hope On Wheels
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Keywords
pediatric solid tumors, tumor molecular profiling, actionable alterations, precision oncology, copy number alterations, cell cycle genes, cancer predisposition syndromes, translocation, targeted therapy, extracranial solid tumors, array comparative genomic hybridization, targeted next-generation sequencing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review