Suchergebnisse

NTRK-Genfusionen sind seltene genetische Alterationen, die tumorentitätenübergreifend vorkommen können. Während sie in den meisten soliden Tumoren nur sehr niederfrequent vorkommen, lassen sie sich in bestimmten Tumoren wie dem infantilen Fibrosarkom, dem kongenitalen mesoblastischen Nephrom und dem sekretorischen Mamma- oder Speicheldrüsenkarzinom jedoch häufig nachweisen. NTRK-Genfusionen bzw. TRK-Fusionsproteine gelten als starke onkogene Treiber. Bei Nachweis von NTRK-Genfusionen können TRK-Inhibitoren unabhängig von der Tumorentität eingesetzt werden. Vertreter sind Entrectinib und Larotrectinib. Bislang ist nur Larotrectinib in der Europäischen Union zugelassen. Für beide wurden Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit in Phase-I- und Phase-II-Studien gezeigt. Die Seltenheit der TRK-Fusionstumoren stellt diagnostische und klinische Prozesse vor große Herausforderungen: Einerseits sollen alle Patienten mit TRK-Fusionstumoren identifiziert werden, andererseits sind epidemiologische und histologische Aspekte sowie Ressourcen zu berücksichtigen. Basierend auf diesen Punkten möchten wir einen Diagnosealgorithmus für TRK-Fusionstumoren vorschlagen, außerdem stellen wir aktuelle Daten zu den TRK-Inhibitoren vor. ; NTRK gene fusions are sporadic genetic alterations that can occur across tumor entities. Whereas they are quite rare in most solid tumors they are present at much higher frequencies in certain rare tumors such as infantile fibrosarcoma, congenital mesoblastic nephroma, secretory breast, or salivary gland carcinoma. NTRK gene fusions or TRK fusion proteins are considered strong oncogenic drivers. If NTRK gene fusions are detected, TRK inhibitors such as entrectinib and larotrectinib can be used regardless of the tumor entity. So far only larotrectinib is approved in the European Union. Both drugs have been shown to be effective and well tolerated in phase I and phase II studies. The low prevalence of TRK fusion-positive cancers poses challenges for diagnostic and clinical work-flows. On one hand, patients with NTRK gene fusions should be identified; on the other hand, epidemiological, histological, and resource-related aspects have to be taken into account. Based on these premises, we suggest a diagnostic algorithm for TRK fusion cancers and present current data on TRK inhibitors.

Rapid and continuing advances in biomarker testing are not being matched by take-up in health systems, and this is hampering both patient care and innovation. It also risks costing health systems the opportunity to make their services more efficient and, over time, more economical. This paper sets out the potential of biomarker testing, the unfolding precision and range of possible diagnosis and prediction, and the many obstacles to adoption. It offers case studies of biomarker testing in breast, ovarian, prostate, lung, thyroid and colon cancers, and derives specific lessons as to the potential and actual use of each of them. It also draws lessons about how to improve access and alignment, and to remedy the data deficiencies that impede development. And it suggests solutions to outstanding issues − notably including funding and the tangled web of obtaining reimbursement or equivalent coverage that Europe's fragmented health system implies. It urges a European evolution towards an initial minimum testing scenario, which would guarantee universal access to a suite of biomarker tests for the currently most common conditions, and, further into the future, to an optimum testing scenario in which a much wider range of biomarker tests would be introduced and become part of a more sophisticated health system articulated around personalised medicine. For exploiting genomics to the full, it argues the need for a new policy framework for Europe. Biomarker testing is not an issue that can be treated in isolation, since the purpose of testing is to improve health. Its use is therefore always closely linked to specific health challenges and needs to be viewed in the broader policy context in the EU and more widely. The paper is the result of extensive engagement with experts and decision makers to develop the framework, and consequently represents a wide consensus of views on how healthcare systems should respond from push and pull factors at local, national and cross-border and EU level. It contains strong views and clear ...

Rapid and continuing advances in biomarker testing are not being matched by take-up in health systems, and this is hampering both patient care and innovation. It also risks costing health systems the opportunity to make their services more efficient and, over time, more economical. This paper sets out the potential of biomarker testing, the unfolding precision and range of possible diagnosis and prediction, and the many obstacles to adoption. It offers case studies of biomarker testing in breast, ovarian, prostate, lung, thyroid and colon cancers, and derives specific lessons as to the potential and actual use of each of them. It also draws lessons about how to improve access and alignment, and to remedy the data deficiencies that impede development. And it suggests solutions to outstanding issues - notably including funding and the tangled web of obtaining reimbursement or equivalent coverage that Europe's fragmented health system implies. It urges a European evolution towards an initial minimum testing scenario, which would guarantee universal access to a suite of biomarker tests for the currently most common conditions, and, further into the future, to an optimum testing scenario in which a much wider range of biomarker tests would be introduced and become part of a more sophisticated health system articulated around personalised medicine. For exploiting genomics to the full, it argues the need for a new policy framework for Europe. Biomarker testing is not an issue that can be treated in isolation, since the purpose of testing is to improve health. Its use is therefore always closely linked to specific health challenges and needs to be viewed in the broader policy context in the EU and more widely. The paper is the result of extensive engagement with experts and decision makers to develop the framework, and consequently represents a wide consensus of views on how healthcare systems should respond from push and pull factors at local, national and cross-border and EU level. It contains strong views and clear recommendations springing from the convictions of patients, clinicians, academics, medicines authorities, HTA bodies, payers, the diagnostic, pharmaceutical and ICT industries, and national policy makers.