10 research outputs found

    Whole genome sequencing of metastatic colorectal cancer reveals prior treatment effects and specific metastasis features

    Get PDF
    In contrast to primary colorectal cancer (CRC) little is known about the genomic landscape of metastasized CRC. Here we present whole genome sequencing data of metastases of 429 CRC patients participating in the pan-cancer CPCT-02 study (NCT01855477). Unsupervised clustering using mutational signature patterns highlights three major patient groups characterized by signatures known from primary CRC, signatures associated with received prior treatments, and metastasis-specific signatures. Compared to primary CRC, we identify additional putative (non-coding) driver genes and increased frequencies in driver gene mutations. In addition, we identify specific genes preferentially affected by microsatellite instability. CRC-specific 1kb-10Mb deletions, enriched for common fragile sites, and LINC00672 mutations are associated with response to treatment in general, whereas FBXW7 mutations predict poor response specifically to EGFR-targeted treatment. In conclusion, the genomic landscape of mCRC shows defined changes compared to primary CRC, is affected by prior treatments and contains features with potential clinical relevance

    Frailty is associated with in-hospital mortality in older hospitalised COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands:the COVID-OLD study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, older patients had an increased risk of hospitalisation and death. Reports on the association of frailty with poor outcome have been conflicting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to investigate the independent association between frailty and in-hospital mortality in older hospitalised COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, including all patients aged ≥70 years, who were hospitalised with clinically confirmed COVID-19 between February and May 2020. Data were collected on demographics, co-morbidity, disease severity and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1,376 patients were included (median age 78 years (interquartile range 74-84), 60% male). In total, 499 (38%) patients died during hospital admission. Parameters indicating presence of frailty (CFS 6-9) were associated with more co-morbidities, shorter symptom duration upon presentation (median 4 versus 7 days), lower oxygen demand and lower levels of C-reactive protein. In multivariable analyses, the CFS was independently associated with in-hospital mortality: compared with patients with CFS 1-3, patients with CFS 4-5 had a two times higher risk (odds ratio (OR) 2.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-3.0)) and patients with CFS 6-9 had a three times higher risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.8 (95% CI 1.8-4.3)). CONCLUSIONS: The in-hospital mortality of older hospitalised COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands was 38%. Frailty was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality, even though COVID-19 patients with frailty presented earlier to the hospital with less severe symptoms

    Author Correction: Whole genome sequencing of metastatic colorectal cancer reveals prior treatment effects and specific metastasis features (Nature Communications, (2021), 12, 1, (574), 10.1038/s41467-020-20887-6)

    No full text
    The original version of this Article contained an error in Table 4, in which the coefficients of the LASSO regression model of treatment response corresponded to a version that was performed without non-coding genes. The new version of the table, which was generated during revision of the manuscript, contains the coefficients that were obtained after including potential non-coding driver genes in the model. Genomic features that became statistically significant after re-running the model were also added, which included: ‘nr of 10 kb–1Mb deletions’, ‘SBS41’, ‘Non-coding - LINC00672’, ‘Gain 7p12.3 - (PKD1L1)’, ‘Loss 4q22.1 - (CCSER1)’, and ‘Loss 18q23 - (NFATC1*)’. This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article. The original version of this Article also contained an error in the author affiliations. The affiliations of Job van Riet with Cancer Computational Biology Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands and Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands were inadvertently omitted. This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article. The original version of this Article contained an error in the Methods, section “Whole-genome sequencing; identification of somatic changes”, which incorrectly read ‘GATK BQSR and Haplotype Caller v3.4.46 were used to call somatic mutations.’ The correct version is ‘GATK BQSR and Haplotype Caller v3.4.46 and Strelka v1.0.14 were used to call somatic mutations’. This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article

    Author Correction

    No full text
    The original version of this Article contained an error in Table 4, in which the coefficients of the LASSO regression model of treatment response corresponded to a version that was performed without non-coding genes. The new version of the table, which was generated during revision of the manuscript, contains the coefficients that were obtained after including potential non-coding driver genes in the model. Genomic features that became statistically significant after re-running the model were also added, which included: ‘nr of 10 kb–1Mb deletions’, ‘SBS41’, ‘Non-coding - LINC00672’, ‘Gain 7p12.3 - (PKD1L1)’, ‘Loss 4q22.1 - (CCSER1)’, and ‘Loss 18q23 - (NFATC1*)’. This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article. The original version of this Article also contained an error in the author affiliations. The affiliations of Job van Riet with Cancer Computational Biology Center, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands and Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands were inadvertently omitted. This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article. The original version of this Article contained an error in the Methods, section “Whole-genome sequencing; identification of somatic changes”, which incorrectly read ‘GATK BQSR and Haplotype Caller v3.4.46 were used to call somatic mutations.’ The correct version is ‘GATK BQSR and Haplotype Caller v3.4.46 and Strelka v1.0.14 were used to call somatic mutations’. This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.</p

    Evaluation of an integrated care pathway for out-of-hospital treatment of older adults with an acute moderate-to-severe lower respiratory tract infection or pneumonia: protocol of a mixed methods study

    No full text
    Introduction Older adults with an acute moderate-to-severe lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) or pneumonia are generally treated in hospitals causing risk of iatrogenic harm such as functional decline and delirium. These hospitalisations are often a consequence of poor collaboration between regional care partners, the lack of (acute) diagnostic and treatment possibilities in primary care, and the presence of financial barriers. We will evaluate the implementation of an integrated regional care pathway (‘The Hague RTI Care Bridge’) developed with the aim to treat and coordinate care for these patients outside the hospital.Methods and analysis This is a prospective mixed methods study. Participants will be older adults (age≥65 years) with an acute moderate-to-severe LRTI or pneumonia treated outside the hospital (care pathway group) versus those treated in the hospital (control group). In addition, patients, their informal caregivers and treating physicians will be asked about their experiences with the care pathway. The primary outcome of this study will be the feasibility of the care pathway, which is defined as the percentage of patients treated outside the hospital, according to the care pathway, whom fully complete their treatment without the need for hospitalisation within 30 days of follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the safety of the care pathway (30-day mortality and occurrence of complications (readmissions, delirium, falls) within 30 days); the satisfaction, usability and acceptance of the care pathway; the total number of days of bedridden status or hospitalisation; sleep quantity and quality; functional outcomes and quality of life.Ethics and dissemination The Medical Research Ethics Committee Leiden The Hague Delft (reference number N22.078) has confirmed that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act does not apply to this study. The results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number ISRCTN68786381

    Evaluation of the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores for prediction of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

    No full text
    Background: The Khorana score is a validated tool to identify cancer patients at higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective: We compared its predictive performance to that of the clinical PROTECHT and the polygenic 5-SNP scores in patients who participated in the Dutch CPCT-02 study. Patients/methods: Data on VTE and its risk factors were retrospectively collected for 2729 patients with advanced stage solid tumors planned for systemic cancer treatment. Patients were followed for 6 months. Overall discriminatory performance of the scores was evaluated by time-dependent c-indices. The scores were additionally evaluated dichotomously in competing risk models. Results: A total of 160 (5.9%) patients developed VTE during follow-up. Time-dependent c-indices at 6 months for the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores were 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55–0.60), 0.60 (95% CI: 0.57–0.62), and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.51–0.57), respectively. The dichotomous scores classified 9.6%, 16.8%, and 9.5% as high-risk, respectively. VTE risk was about 2-fold higher among high-risk patients than low-risk patients for the Khorana (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3–3.0), PROTECHT (SHR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.5–3.0), and 5-SNP scores (SHR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.03–2.8). The sensitivity at 6 months was 16.6% (95% CI: 10.5–22.7), 28.9% (95% CI: 21.5–36.3), and 14.9% (95% CI: 8.5-21.2), respectively. Conclusions: Performance of the PROTECHT or 5-SNP score was not superior to that of the Khorana score. The majority of cancer patients who developed VTE during 6-month follow-up were not identified by these scores. Future directions for studies on cancer-associated VTE prediction may include combined clinical-genetic scores

    Efficacy, safety and biomarker analysis of durvalumab in patients with mismatch-repair deficient or microsatellite instability-high solid tumours

    No full text
    Background: In this study we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab across various mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumours in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP). This is a clinical study in which patients are treated with drugs outside their labeled indication, based on their tumour molecular profile. Patients and methods: Patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours who had exhausted all standard of care options were eligible. Patients were treated with durvalumab. The primary endpoints were clinical benefit ((CB): objective response (OR) or stable disease ≥16 weeks) and safety. Patients were enrolled using a Simon like 2-stage model, with 8 patients in stage 1, up to 24 patients in stage 2 if at least 1/8 patients had CB in stage 1. At baseline, fresh frozen biopsies were obtained for biomarker analyses. Results: Twenty-six patients with 10 different cancer types were included. Two patients (2/26, 8%) were considered as non-evaluable for the primary endpoint. CB was observed in 13 patients (13/26, 50%) with an OR in 7 patients (7/26, 27%). The remaining 11 patients (11/26, 42%) had progressive disease. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 5 months (95% CI, 2-not reached) and 14 months (95% CI, 5-not reached), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed. We found a significantly higher structural variant (SV) burden in patients without CB. Additionally, we observed a significant enrichment of JAK1 frameshift mutations and a significantly lower IFN-γ expression in patients without CB. Conclusion: Durvalumab was generally well-tolerated and provided durable responses in pre-treated patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours. High SV burden, JAK1 frameshift mutations and low IFN-γ expression were associated with a lack of CB; this provides a rationale for larger studies to validate these findings. Trial registration: Clinical trial registration: NCT02925234. First registration date: 05/10/2016

    Efficacy, safety and biomarker analysis of durvalumab in patients with mismatch-repair deficient or microsatellite instability-high solid tumours

    Get PDF
    Background: In this study we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab across various mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumours in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP). This is a clinical study in which patients are treated with drugs outside their labeled indication, based on their tumour molecular profile. Patients and methods: Patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours who had exhausted all standard of care options were eligible. Patients were treated with durvalumab. The primary endpoints were clinical benefit ((CB): objective response (OR) or stable disease ≥16 weeks) and safety. Patients were enrolled using a Simon like 2-stage model, with 8 patients in stage 1, up to 24 patients in stage 2 if at least 1/8 patients had CB in stage 1. At baseline, fresh frozen biopsies were obtained for biomarker analyses. Results: Twenty-six patients with 10 different cancer types were included. Two patients (2/26, 8%) were considered as non-evaluable for the primary endpoint. CB was observed in 13 patients (13/26, 50%) with an OR in 7 patients (7/26, 27%). The remaining 11 patients (11/26, 42%) had progressive disease. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 5 months (95% CI, 2-not reached) and 14 months (95% CI, 5-not reached), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed. We found a significantly higher structural variant (SV) burden in patients without CB. Additionally, we observed a significant enrichment of JAK1 frameshift mutations and a significantly lower IFN-γ expression in patients without CB. Conclusion: Durvalumab was generally well-tolerated and provided durable responses in pre-treated patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours. High SV burden, JAK1 frameshift mutations and low IFN-γ expression were associated with a lack of CB; this provides a rationale for larger studies to validate these findings. Trial registration: Clinical trial registration: NCT02925234. First registration date: 05/10/2016
    corecore