Precision treatment for cancer: Role of prognostic and predictive markers

References

• Duffy MJ, Crown J. Companion biomarkers: paving the pathway to personalised treatment for cancer. Clin Chem 2013;59:1447–56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khleif SN, Doroshow JH, Hait WN; AACR-FDA-NCI Cancer Biomarkers Collaborative. AACR-FDA-NCI Cancer Biomarkers Collaborative consensus report: advancing the use of biomarkers in cancer drug development. Clin Cancer Res 2010;452:16:3299–318
   Google Scholar
• Poste G, Carbone DP, Parkinson DR, et al. Levelling the playing field: bringing development of biomarkers and molecular diagnostics up to the standards for drug development. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:1515–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyers CL. The cancer biomarker problem. Nature 2008;548–52
   Google Scholar
• Duffy MJ. Tumor markers in clinical practice: a review focusing on common solid cancers. Med Princ Pract 2013;22:4–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• , Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG)Peto R, Davies C, Godwin J, et al. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet 2012;379:432–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilt TJ, Ahmed HU. Prostate cancer screening and the management of clinically localized disease. BMJ 2013;346:f325--34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiwari M. Microarrays and cancer diagnosis. J Cancer Res Ther 2012;8:3–10
   Google Scholar
• McShane LM, Hayes DF. Publication of tumor marker research results: the necessity for complete and transparent reporting. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:4223–32
   Google Scholar
• Riley RD, Hayden JA, Steyerberg EW, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: prognostic factor research. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001380
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steyerberg EW, Moons KG, van der Windt DA, et al. Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy MJ. CEA as a marker for colorectal cancer: is it clinically useful? Clin Chem 2001;47:624–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes DF, Bast RC, Desch CE, et al. Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:1456–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1446–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Febbo PG, Ladanyi M, Aldape KD, et al. Evaluating the clinical utility of tumor markers in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2011;9(Suppl 5):S1–32
   Google Scholar
• Duffy MJ. Prostate-specific antigen: does the current evidence support its use in prostate cancer screening? Ann Clin Biochem 2011;48:310–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roach M, Weinberg V, Sandler H, Thompson I. Staging for prostate cancer, time to incorporate pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen and Gleason score. Cancer 2007;109:213–20
   Google Scholar
• Kattan MW. Do we need more nomograms for predicting outcomes in patients with prostate cancer? Nat Clin Pract Urol 2008;5:366–7
   Google Scholar
• Hammerer PG, Kattan MW, Mottet N, Prayer-Galetti T. Using prostate-specific antigen screening and nomograms to assess risk and predict outcomes in the management of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006;98:11–9
   Google Scholar
• Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, et al. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prostatic nomogram. J Urol 2007;177:107–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter HB. Differentiation of lethal and non-lethal prostate cancer: PSA and PSA isoforms and kinetics. Asian J Androl 2012;14:355–60
   Google Scholar
• Sengupta S, Amling C, D’Amico A, et al. Prostate specific antigen kinetics in the management of prostate cancer. J Urol 2008;179:821–6
   Google Scholar
• D'Amico AV, Chen MH. Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen velocity and the risk of death from prostate cancer in the individual with low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3575–6
   Google Scholar
• NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Cancer. Version 4.2013. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf [last accessed 2 Nov2013]
   Google Scholar
• Loeb S, Sutherland DE, D'Amico AV, et al. PSA velocity is associated with Gleason score in radical prostatectomy specimen: marker for prostate cancer aggressiveness. Urology 2008;72:1116–20
   Google Scholar
• D'Amico AV. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA velocity: competitors or collaborators in the prediction of curable and clinically significant prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:823–4
   Google Scholar
• Sutcliffe P, Hummel S, Simpson E, et al. Use of classical and novel biomarkers as prognostic risk factors for localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Health Technol Asses 2009;13:1–219
   Google Scholar
• Kristai AR, Chi C, Tangen AR, et al. Association of demographic and lifestyle characteristics with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration and rate of PSA increase. Cancer 2006;106:320–8
   Google Scholar
• Soletermos G, Semjonow A, Sibley PEC, et al. Biological variation of total prostate-specific antigen: a survey of published estimates and consequences for clinical practice. Clin Chem 2005;51:1342–51
   Google Scholar
• Arlen PM, Bianco F, Dahut WL, et al. Prostate specific antigen working group guidelines on prostate specific antigen doubling time. J Urol 2008;179:2181–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horwich A, Shipley J, Huddart R. Testicular germ-cell cancer. Lancet 2006;367:754–65. Erratum in: Lancet 2006;367:1398
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Eyben FE. Laboratory markers and germ cell tumors. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2003;40:377–427
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krege S, Albers P, Heidenreich A. The role of tumour markers in diagnosis and management of testicular germ cell tumors. Urology A. 2011;50:313–21
   Google Scholar
• International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group. International germ cell consensus classification: a prognostic factor-based staging system for metastatic germ cell cancers. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:594–603
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gori S, Porrozzi S, Roila F, et al. Germ cell tumours of the testis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2005;53:141–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albers P, Albrecht W, Algaba F, et al. Guidelines on testicular cancer. Eur Urol 2005;48:885–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UK, et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for use of tumor markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast and ovarian cancers. Clin Chem 2008;54:e11–79
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilligan TD, Seidenfeld J, Basch EM, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline on uses of serum tumor markers in adult males with germ cell tumors. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3388–404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horwich A, Parker C, Bangma C, Kataja V; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2010;21(Suppl 5):v129–33
   Google Scholar
• Duffy MJ. Urokinase plasminogen activator and its inhibitor, PAI-1, as prognostic markers in breast cancer: from pilot to level 1 evidence. Clin Chem 2002;48:1194–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt M, Mengele K, Napieralski R, et al. Clinical utility of level-of-evidence-1 disease forecast cancer biomarkers uPA and its inhibitor PAI-1. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2010;10:1051–67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janicke F, Prechtl A, Thomssen C, et al.; for the German Chemo N0 Study Group. Randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial in high-risk node-negative breast cancer patients identified by urokinase-type plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1. J Natl Cancer Instit 2001;93:913–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Look M P, van Putten WLJ, Duffy MJ, et al. Pooled analysis of prognostic impact of tumor biological factors uPA and PAI-1 in 8377 breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Instit 2002;94:116–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harbeck N, Schmitt M, Meisner C, et al. Ten-year analysis of the prospective multicentre Chemo-N0 trial validates American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-recommended biomarkers uPA and PAI-1 for therapy decision making in node-negative breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 2013;49:1825–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5287–312
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina R, Barak V, van DA, et al. Tumor markers in breast cancer – European Group on Tumor Markers recommendations. Tumour Biol 2005;26:281–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang DS, Heilenkötter U, Schumm W, et al. Optimized immunohistochemistry in combination with image analysis: a reliable alternative to quantitative ELISA determination of uPA and PAI-1 for routine risk group discrimination in breast cancer. Breast 2013;22:736–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomssen C, Harbeck N, Dittmer J, et al. Feasibility of measuring the prognostic factors uPA and PAI-1 in core needle biopsy breast cancer specimens. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1028–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multi-gene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;347:2817–26
   Google Scholar
• Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, et al. Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1829–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:55–65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Breast Cancer. Version 3.2013. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#breast [last accessed 2 Nov 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Oakman C, Santarpia L, Di Leo A. Breast cancer assessment tools and optimizing adjuvant therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2010;7:725–32
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reis-Filho JS, Pusztai L. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: classification, prognostication, and prediction. Lancet 2011;378:1812–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagaraj G, Ma CX. Adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in clinical practice for early-stage node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer: challenges and considerations. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2013;11:246–50
   Google Scholar
• Iwamoto T, Lee JS, Bianchini G, et al. First generation prognostic gene signatures for breast cancer predict both survival and chemotherapy sensitivity and identify overlapping patient populations. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;130:155–64
   Google Scholar
• Salazar R, Roepman P, Capella G, et al. Gene expression signature to improve prognosis prediction of stage II and III colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:17–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy RD, Bylesjo M, Kerr P, et al. Development and independent validation of a prognostic assay for stage II colon cancer using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:4620–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray RG, Quirke P, Handley K, et al. Validation study of a quantitative multigene reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction assay for assessment of recurrence risk in patients with stage II colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:4611–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• , Director's Challenge Consortium for the Molecular Classification of Lung AdenocarcinomaShedden K, Taylor JM, Enkemann SA, et al. Gene expression-based survival prediction in lung adenocarcinoma: a multi-site, blinded validation study. Nat Med 2008;14:822–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glinsky GV, Glinskii AB, Stephenson AJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of prostate cancer. J Clin Invest 2004;113:913–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenwald A, Wright G, Chan WC, et al. Lymphoma/leukemia molecular profiling project. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1937–47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popat S, Hubner R, Houlston RS. Systematic review of microsatellite instability and colorectal cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:609–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribic CM, Sargent DJ, Moore MJ, et al. Tumor microsatellite-instability status as a predictor of benefit from fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;349:247–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sargent DJ, Marsoni S, Monges G, et al. Defective mismatch repair as a predictive marker for lack of efficacy of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy in colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3219–26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth AD, Delorenzi M, Tejpar S, et al. Integrated analysis of molecular and clinical prognostic factors in stage II/III colon cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:1635–46
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Duffy MJ, Evoy D, McDermott EW. CA 15-3: uses and limitation as a biomarker for breast cancer. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411:1869–74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luporsi E, André F, Spyratos F, et al. Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;132:895–915
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy MJ, Lamerz R, Haglund C, et al. Tumor markers in colorectal cancer, gastric cancer and gastrointestinal stromal cancers: European group on tumor markers (EGTM) 2014 guidelines update. Int J Cancer 2013 Jul 13. doi: 10.1002/ijc.28384. [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Duffy MJ, Bonfrer JM, Kulpa J, et al. CA125 in ovarian cancer: European Group on Tumor Markers (EGTM) guidelines for clinical use. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005;15:679–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruijff S, Hoekstra HJ. The current status of S-100B as a biomarker in melanoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2012;38:281–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pujol JL, Molinier O, Ebert W, et al. CYFRA 21-1 is a prognostic determinant in non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a meta-analysis in 2063 patients. Br J Cancer 2004;90:2097–105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire WL, Carbone PP, Sears ME, Escher GC. Estrogen receptors in human breast cancer: an overview: In: McGuire WL, Carbone PP, Vollner EP, eds. Estrogen Receptors in Human Breast Cancer, 1975. New York: Raven Press, 1–8
   Google Scholar
• Petit T, Dufour P, Tannock I. A critical evaluation of the role of aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 2011;18:R79–89
   Google Scholar
• Cuzick J, Sestak I, Baum M, et al; ATAC/LATTE investigators. Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 10-year analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:1135–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regan MM, Neven P, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. BIG 1-98 Collaborative Group; International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG). Assessment of letrozole and tamoxifen alone and in sequence for postmenopausal women with steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: the BIG 1-98 randomised clinical trial at 8.1 years median follow-up. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:1101–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J; for the Adjuvant Tamoxifen: Longer Against Shorter (ATLAS) Collaborative Group. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet 2013;381:805–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy MJ. Estrogen receptors: role in breast cancer. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2006;43:325–47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• , Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG)Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2011;378:771–84
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC, et al. Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer. JAMA 2006;295:1658–67. Erratum in: JAMA 2006;295:2356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, ER-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3726–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viale G, Regan MM, Maiorano E, et al. Chemo endocrine compared with endocrine adjuvant therapies for node-negative breast cancer: predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors – International Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1404–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aebi S, Sun Z, Braun D, et al. Differential efficacy of three cycles of CMF followed by tamoxifen in patients with ER-positive and ER-negative tumors: long-term follow up on IBCSG Trial IX. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1981–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, et al; Panel Members. Strategies for subtypes-dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1736–47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aebi S, Davidson T, Gruber G, Cardoso F; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2011;22(Suppl 6):vi12–24
   Google Scholar
• Goldhirsch A. Personalized adjuvant therapies: lessons from the past: the opening address by the St. Gallen 2013 award recipient. Breast 2013;22(Suppl 2):S3–7
   Google Scholar
• Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2784–95. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3543
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goncalves R, Bose R. Using multigene tests to select treatment for early-stage breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2013;11:174–82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harbeck N, Kates RE, Schmitt M. Clinical relevance of invasion factors urokinase-type plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 for individualised therapy in primary breast cancer is greatest when used in combination. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1000–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harbeck N, Kates RE, Look MP, et al. Enhanced benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients classified high-risk according to urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (n = 3424). Cancer Res 2002;62:4617–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weller M, Stupp R, Reifenberger G, et al. MGMT promoter methylation in malignant gliomas: ready for personalized medicine? Nat Rev Neurol 2010;6:39–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romero A, Caldés T, Díaz-Rubio E, Martín M. Topoisomerase 2 alpha: a real predictor of anthracycline efficacy? Clin Transl Oncol 2012;14:163–8
   Google Scholar
• Besse B, Olaussen KA, Soria JC. ERCC1 and RRM1: ready for prime time? J Clin Oncol 2013;31:1050–60
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smoter M, Bodnar L, Duchnowska R, et al. The role of tau protein in resistance to paclitaxel. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2011;68:553–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang K, Deng QT, Liao N, et al. Tau expression correlated with breast cancer sensitivity to taxanes-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Tumour Biol 2013;34:33–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mohd Sharial MS, Crown J, Hennessy BT. Overcoming resistance and restoring sensitivity to HER2-targeted therapies in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2012;23:3007–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff A, Hammond M, Schwartz J, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:118–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abramson V, Arteaga CL. New strategies in HER2-overexpressing breast cancer: many combinations of targeted drugs available. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:952–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobleigh MA, Vogel CL, Tripathy D, et al. Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2639–48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogel CL, Cobleigh MA, Tripathy D, et al. Efficacy and safety of trastuzumab as a single agent in first-line treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:719–26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baselga J, Carbonell X, Castañeda-Soto NJ, et al. Phase II study of efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of trastuzumab monotherapy administered on a 3-weekly schedule. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2162–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen DL, Kümler I, Palshof JA, Andersson M. Efficacy of HER2-targeted therapy in metastatic breast cancer. Monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Breast 2013;22:1–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin W, Jiang Y, Shen Z, et al. Trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2011;6:e21030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dent S, Oyan B, Honig A, et al. HER2-targeted therapy in breast cancer: a systematic review of neoadjuvant trials. Cancer Res Treat 2013; 39:622–31
   Google Scholar
• Rana P, Sridhar SS. Efficacy and tolerability of lapatinib in the management of breast cancer. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 2012;6:67–77
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Larsen PB, Kümler I, Nielsen DL. A systematic review of trastuzumab and lapatinib in the treatment of women with brain metastases from HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 2013;39:720–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geyer CE, Forster J, Lindquist D, et al. Lapatinib plus capecitabine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;355:2733–43. Erratum in: N Engl J Med 2007;356:1487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartzberg LS, Franco SX, Florance A, et al. Lapatinib plus letrozole as first-line therapy for HER-2+ hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist 2010;15:122–9. Erratum in: Oncologist 2010;15:327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finn RS, Press MF, Dering J, et al. Estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and epidermal growth factor receptor expression and benefit from lapatinib in a randomized trial of paclitaxel with lapatinib or placebo as first-line treatment in HER2-negative or unknown metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3908–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Press MF, Finn RS, Cameron D, et al. HER-2 gene amplification, HER-2 and epidermal growth factor receptor mRNA and protein expression, and lapatinib efficacy in women with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:7861–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Untch M, Loibl S, Bischoff J, et al; for the German Breast Group (GBG); the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie-Breast (AGO-B) Study Group. Lapatinib versus trastuzumab in combination with neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy (GeparQuinto, GBG 44): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:135–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baselga J, Bradbury I, Eidtmann H, Di; On behalf of the NeoALTTO Study Team. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2012;379:633–40
   Google Scholar
• Baselga J, Cortés J, Kim SB, et al; CLEOPATRA Study Group. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;366:109–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma S, Miles D, Gianni L; the EMILIA Study Group. Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1783–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheuer W, Friess T, Burtscher H, et al. Strongly enhanced antitumor activity of trastuzumab and pertuzumab combination treatment on HER2-positive human xenograft tumor models. Cancer Res 2009;69:9330–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurvitz SA, Dirix L, Kocsis J, et al. Phase II randomized study of trastuzumab emtansine versus trastuzumab plus docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:1157–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bose R, Kavuri SM, Searleman AC, et al. Activating HER2 mutations in HER2 gene amplification negative breast cancer. Cancer Discov 2013;3:224–37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weigelt B, Reis-Filho JS. Activating mutations in HER2: new opportunities and new challenges. Cancer Discov 2013;3:145–7
   Google Scholar
• Bardelli A, Siena S. Molecular mechanisms of resistance to cetuximab and panitumumab in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1254–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malapelle U, Bellevicine C, Salatiello M, et al. Sanger sequencing in routine KRAS testing: a review of 1720 cases from a pathologist's perspective. J Clin Pathol 2012;65:940–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung KY, Shia J, Kemeny NE, et al. Cetuximab shows activity in colorectal cancer patients with tumors that do not express the epidermal growth factor receptor by immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:1803–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adelstein BA, Dobbins TA, Harris CA, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of KRAS status as the determinant of response to anti-EGFR antibodies and the impact of partner chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:1343–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann V, Douillard JY, Ducreux M, Peeters M. Targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer – an example of personalised medicine in action. Cancer Treat Rev 2013;39:592–601
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Roock W, Jonker DJ, Di Nicolantonio F, et al. Association of KRAS p.G13D mutation with outcome in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. JAMA 2010;304:1812–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen CC, Er TK, Liu YY, et al. Computational analysis of KRAS mutations: implications for different effects on the KRAS p.G12D and p.G13D mutations. PLoS One 2013;8:e55793
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allegra CJ, Jessup JM, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2091–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Colon Cancer. Version 2.2014. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf [last accessed 2 Nov 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Shackelford RE, Whitling NA, McNab P, et al. KRAS Testing: a tool for the implementation of personalized medicine. Genes Cancer 2012;3:459–66
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Govindan R, Subramanian J. Optimising therapy for EGFR-addicted NSCLC: just the start. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:216–7
   Google Scholar
• Lee CK, Brown C, Gralla RJ, et al. Impact of EGFR inhibitor in non-small cell lung cancer on progression-free and overall survival: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105:595–605
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soria JC, Mok TS, Cappuzzo F, Jänne PA. EGFR-mutated oncogene-addicted non-small cell lung cancer: current trends and future prospects. Cancer Treat Rev 2012;38:416–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi A, Pasquale R, Esposito C, Normanno N. Should epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors be considered ideal drugs for the treatment of selected advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients? Cancer Treat Rev 2013;39:489--97
   Google Scholar
• Keedy VL, Temin S, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion: epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation testing for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer considering first-line egfr tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2121–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Version 2.2014. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/nscl.pdf [last accessed 2 Nov 2013]
   Google Scholar
• Ellis PM, Blais N, Soulieres D, et al. A systematic review and Canadian consensus recommendations on the use of biomarkers in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6:1379–91
   Google Scholar
• Cantwell-Dorris ER, O'Leary JJ, Sheils OM. BRAFV600E: implications for carcinogenesis and molecular therapy. Mol Cancer Ther 2011;10:385–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodman SE, Lazar AJ, Aldape KD, Davies MA. New strategies in melanoma: molecular testing in advanced disease. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:1195–200
   Google Scholar
• Søndergaard JN, Nazarian R, Wang Q, et al. Differential sensitivity of melanoma cell lines with BRAFV600E mutation to the specific Raf inhibitor PLX4032. J Transl Med 2010;8:39--50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flaherty KT, Puzanov I, Kim KB, et al. Inhibition of mutated, activated BRAF in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010;363:809–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sosman JA, Kim KB, Schuchter L, et al. Survival in BRAF V600-mutant advanced melanoma treated with vemurafenib. N Engl J Med 2012;366:707–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al; the BRIM-3 Study Group. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2507–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menzies AM, Haydu LE, Visintin L, et al. Distinguishing clinicopathologic features of patients with V600E and V600K BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:3242–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauschild A, Grob JJ, Demidov LV, et al. Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012;380:358–65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, et al; EGAPP Working Group. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genet Med 2009;11:3–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aparicio S, Caldas C. The implications of clonal genome evolution for cancer medicine. N Engl J Med 2013;368:842–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multi region sequencing. N Engl J Med 2012;366:883–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dekker TJ, Smit VT, Hooijer GK, et al. Reliability of core needle biopsy for determining ER and HER2 status in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2013;24:931–7
   Google Scholar
• Warneke VS, Behrens HM, Böger C, et al. HER2/new testing in gastric cancer: evaluating the risk of sampling errors. Ann Oncol 2013;24:725–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindström LS, Karlsson E, Wilking UM, et al. Clinically used breast cancer markers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are unstable throughout tumor progression. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2601–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson AM, Jordan LB, Quinlan P, et al; Breast Recurrence in Tissues Study Group. Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: the Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS). Breast Cancer Res 2010;12:R92--101
   Google Scholar
• Han C, Ma J, Zhao J, et al. EGFR mutations, gene amplification, and protein expression and KRAS mutations in primary and metastatic tumors of non-small cell lung cancers and their clinical implications: a meta-analysis. Cancer Invest 2011;29:626–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knijn N, Mekenkamp LJ, Klomp M, et al. KRAS mutation analysis: a comparison between primary tumours and matched liver metastases in 305 colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2011;104:1020–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santini D, Loupakis F, Vincenzi B, et al. High concordance of KRAS status between primary colorectal tumors and related metastatic sites: implications for clinical practice. Oncologist 2008;13:1270–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar