Search Results for: Nanotubi di DNA per terapie contro i tumori del cervello

Here's what we've found for you

Diagnostic value of BNLF2b antibody, dual-antibody testing and Epstein-Barr virus DNA in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a prospective cohort study in Hunan Province, China

Objectives
This study evaluates the diagnostic value of the BNLF2b antibody, dual antibody testing and Epstein-Barr virus DNA (EBV-DNA) individually and in combination for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) detection.

Design
A prospective cohort study.

Setting
The study was conducted at Hunan Cancer Hospital, in a region in China with a high incidence of NPC, between January 2024 and June 2024.

Participants
A total of 350 patients with suspected NPC were enrolled based on clinical suspicion (eg, metastatic cervical lymph nodes or nasopharyngeal abnormalities with non-specific symptoms). The inclusion criteria included age ≥18 years, residency in Hunan Province, and provision of informed consent. The exclusion criteria included prior history of NPC or other head and neck malignancies, severe immunological/systemic diseases and inability to complete diagnostic evaluations.

Primary and secondary outcome measures
Demographic, clinical and biomarker data were collected, including BNLF2b antibody, EBV-DNA and dual antibody testing. Diagnostic performance metrics were calculated against histopathological confirmation as the gold standard. Follow-up assessments were conducted for non-NPC cases.

Results
Among 350 suspected NPC participants, 74 were diagnosed with NPC through biopsy. BNLF2b antibody exhibited the highest sensitivity (83.78%) and specificity (95.65%) among single biomarkers in NPC diagnosis, outperforming dual-antibody testing and EBV-DNA. Combining BNLF2b with dual-antibody testing improved specificity to 99.64%, although with reduced sensitivity (67.57%). NPC-diagnosed participants and those testing positive for BNLF2b or dual antibody biomarkers had a significantly higher prevalence of family history of NPC (p

Read More →

Impact of comprehensive genomic profiling and molecular tumour board on costs and access to tailored therapies: real-world observational study

Objective
There is limited evidence on the economic implications of assessing patients’ access to personalised treatments through Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) and Molecular Tumour Board (MTB), prompting the need to analyse their impact on the cost of the cancer diagnostic journey (from hospital admission to MTB evaluation) and accessibility to personalised therapies.

Design
Retrospective observational cohort.

Setting
Patients discussed from April 2020 to September 2021 by the institutional MTB operating at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, an Italian centre of excellence in oncology pertaining to the national health system.

Participants
676 patients focused on: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), pancreatic carcinoma (PC) and gastro-oesophageal carcinoma (GEC). We defined two different scenarios: (1) patients tested with small Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) panels (≤60 biomarkers) vs (2) patients tested with comprehensive panels ( >60 biomarkers).

Main outcomes and measures
We measured (1) patients’ eligibility to personalised therapies based on genomic data obtained using targeted somatic NGS panels, (2) MTB cost and the overall diagnostic journey cost and (3) the cost to find a patient eligible to access personalised treatments.

Results
Tumour profiling with comprehensive NGS panels improved patients’ eligibility to personalised therapies compared with small panels (NSCLC: 39% comprehensive panel vs 37% small panel; CCA: 43% vs 17%; PC: 35% vs 3%; GEC: 40% vs 0%). The overall diagnostic journey cost per patient was between 3.2K and 7.4K (NSCLC: 7.4K comprehensive panel vs 6.4K small panel; CCA: 4.9K vs 3.7K; PC: 5.8K vs 4.5K; GEC: 4.2K vs 3.2K). MTB discussion accounted for only 2–3% of the diagnostic journey cost per patient (around 113/patient). The cost to find patient eligible for personalised treatments varied significantly according to panel size and tumour setting (NSCLC: 5K comprehensive panel vs 2.8K small panel; CCA: 4.4K vs 4.4K; PC: 5.5K vs 27K; GEC: 5.2K vs not measurable since none of the patients analysed with small NGS panels were eligible).

Conclusions and relevance
MTB discussion of genomic data obtained with NGS comprehensive panels significantly increases patient eligibility to targeted therapies and optimise the cost to find a patient eligible to personalised treatments, mainly for CCA, PC and GEC patients.

Read More →
← Newer Entries
Older Entries →