Search

Objectives Comprehensive data synthesis of the clinical parameters that affect plasma EGFR mutation test results in non–small cell lung carcinoma is lacking. Although individual studies have suggested a variety of patient characteristics that can affect diagnostic accuracy, no unified conclusion has been reached. Methods We analyzed 170 plasma EGFR mutation tests performed between 2015 and 2021 at our institution and carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify clinical and imaging features that correlate with plasma EGFR mutation test sensitivity. Results Data synthesis from 14 studies of 2,576 patients revealed that patients with stage IV disease had a significantly lower false-negative rate than those with stage I through III disease. For our institutional cohort, which consisted of 75 paired plasma and tissue tests that were assessable for diagnostic accuracy, the overall sensitivity was 70.59% (95% confidence interval, 56.17%-82.51%). Patients who had distant metastases and more suspicious lymph nodes on imaging findings correlated with a low false-negative rate. Conclusions While interpreting plasma EGFR mutation results, extra caution should be exercised for patients with early-stage, localized disease to accommodate the possibility of false-negative results. These meta-analyses and clinical data may enable clinicians to make evidence-based judgments for individual patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), and those with diagnosed CRC have a poorer prognosis compared with individuals with normal glucose levels. The inhibition of sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) channels has been associated with a reduction in tumor proliferation in preclinical studies. We aimed to investigate the impact of sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on the outcome of T2DM patients with colorectal cancer. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study comprising adult patients with T2DM and colorectal adenocarcinoma. SGLT2i recipients were matched to non‐SGLT2i recipients in a 1:1 ratio based on age, sex, and cancer stage. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS), and the secondary outcomes were previously reported serious adverse events associated with SGLT2i. Results: We identified 1347 patients with T2DM and colorectal adenocarcinoma, from which 92 patients in the SGLT2i cohort were matched to the non‐SGLT2i cohort. Compared to non‐SGLT2i recipients, SGLT2i recipients had a higher rate of 5‐year OS (86.2% [95% CI: 72.0–93.5] vs 62.3% [95% CI: 50.9–71.8], P = 0.013) and 5‐year PFS (76.6% [95% CI: 60.7–86.7] vs 57.0% [95% CI: 46.2–66.4], P = 0.021). In Cox proportional hazard analyses, SGLT2i were associated with a 50–70% reduction in all‐cause mortality and disease progression. SGLT2i were not associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events. Conclusion: SGLT2i were associated with a higher rate of survival in T2DM patients with colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer-related mortality of solid tumors remains the major cause of death worldwide. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) released from cancer cells harbors specific somatic mutations. Sequencing ctDNA opens opportunities to non-invasive population screening and lays foundations for personalized therapy. In this study, two commercially available platforms, Roche's Avenio ctDNA Expanded panel and QIAgen's QIAseq Human Comprehensive Cancer panel were compared for (1) panel coverage of clinically relevant variants; (2) target enrichment specificity and sequencing performance; (3) the sensitivity; (4) concordance and (5) sequencing coverage using the same human blood sample with ultra-deep next-generation sequencing. Our finding suggests that Avenio detected somatic mutations in common cancers in over 70% of patients while QIAseq covered nearly 90% with a higher average number of variants per patient (Avenio: 3; QIAseq: 8 variants per patient). Both panels demonstrated similar on-target rate and percentage of reads mapped. However, Avenio had more uniform sequencing coverage across regions with different GC content. Avenio had a higher sensitivity and concordance compared with QIAseq at the same sequencing depth. This study identifies a unique niche for the application of each of the panel and allows the scientific community to make an informed decision on the technologies to meet research or application needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]