Abstract
In advanced or metastatic settings, Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) allows the evaluation of thousands of gene alterations with the goal of offering new opportunities for personalized treatment in solid tumors. This study evaluated the CGP Success Rate in a real-life cohort of 184 patients enrolled in a prospective clinical trial. CGP data were compared with the routine molecular testing strategy adopted in-house. Sample age, tumor area, and the percentage of tumor nuclei were recorded for CGP analysis. We found that 150/184 (81.5%) samples resulted in satisfying CGP reports. The CGP Success Rate was higher in samples from surgical specimens (96.7%) and in specimens that had been stored (sample age) for less than six months (89.4%). Among the inconclusive CGP reports, 7/34 (20.6%) were optimal samples, according to CGP sample requirements. Moreover, with the in-house molecular testing approach, we could obtain clinically relevant molecular data in 25/34 (73.5%) samples that had inconclusive CGP reports. In conclusion, despite the fact that CGP offers specific therapeutical options in selected patients, our data suggest that the standard molecular testing strategy should not be replaced in routine molecular profiling.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
