Title |
ROS1 rearrangements in lung adenocarcinoma: prognostic impact, therapeutic options and genetic variability
|
---|---|
Published in |
Oncotarget, March 2015
|
DOI | 10.18632/oncotarget.3387 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Matthias Scheffler, Anne Schultheis, Cristina Teixido, Sebastian Michels, Daniela Morales-Espinosa, Santiago Viteri, Wolfgang Hartmann, Sabine Merkelbach-Bruse, Rieke Fischer, Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus, Jana Fassunke, Martin Sebastian, Monika Serke, Britta Kaminsky, Winfried Randerath, Ulrich Gerigk, Yon-Dschun Ko, Stefan Krüger, Roland Schnell, Achim Rothe, Cornelia Kropf-Sanchen, Lukas Heukamp, Rafael Rosell, Reinhard Büttner, Jürgen Wolf |
Abstract |
While recent data show that crizotinib is highly effective in patients with ROS1 rearrangement, few data is available about the prognostic impact, the predictive value for different treatments, and the genetic heterogeneity of ROS1- positive patients. 1137 patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung were analyzed regarding their ROS1 status. In positive cases, next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed. Clinical characteristics, treatments and outcome of these patients were assessed. Overall survival (OS) was compared with genetically defined subgroups of ROS1-negative patients. 19 patients of 1035 evaluable (1.8%) had ROS1-rearrangement. The median OS has not been reached. Stage IV patients with ROS1-rearrangement had the best OS of all subgroups (36.7 months, p < 0.001). 9 of 14 (64.2%) patients had at least one response to chemotherapy. Estimated mean OS for patients receiving chemotherapy and crizotinib was 5.3 years. Ten patients with ROS1-rearrangement (52.6%) harbored additional aberrations. ROS1-rearangement is not only a predictive marker for response to crizotinib, but also seems to be the one of the best prognostic molecular markers in NSCLC reported so far. In stage IV patients, response to chemotherapy was remarkable high and overall survival was significantly better compared to other subgroups including EGFR-mutated and ALK-fusion-positive NSCLC. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 91 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 13 | 14% |
Researcher | 12 | 13% |
Other | 10 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
Other | 15 | 16% |
Unknown | 23 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 43% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 10% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
Other | 8 | 9% |
Unknown | 26 | 28% |