Extended Data Fig. 5: Response rates and adjusted PFS of patients treated in the palliative SOC or beyond SOC cohort as per TuPro recommendations versus non-TuPro subjects.
From: Feasibility of multiomics tumor profiling for guiding treatment of melanoma
a, Best response (complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD)) in unselected, palliative treatments (SOC and beyond SOC) in the Tumor Profiler cohort (TuPro, n = 86) and the non-TuPro cohort (n = 132, 3 not evaluable). Combined disease control rate in the TuPro cohort of 61.0% (50/82, 4 not evaluable) vs. 57.6% (76/132, 3 not evaluable) in non-TuPro patients. Adjusted odds ratio of 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75 – 3.16). b, Best response (CR, PR, SD, PD) in unselected, palliative ≥ 3rd treatment line in the TuPro cohort (n = 37) and the non-TuPro cohort (n = 26). Combined disease control rate in the TuPro cohort of 56.8% (21/37) vs. 38.5% (10/26) in non-TuPro patients. Adjusted odds ratio of 3.67 (95% CI, 0.79 – 17). c, Best response of matched TuPro (n = 59) and non-TuPro (n = 59) palliative treatments (SOC and beyond SOC). Combined disease control rate in the TuPro cohort of 63.6% (35/55, 4 not evaluable) compared to 51.7% (30/58, 1 not evaluable), respectively. Adjusted odds ratio of 1.74 (95% CI, 0.68 – 4.45). d, Best response of matched TuPro (n = 17) and non-TuPro (n = 17) palliative ≥ 3rd treatment line. Combined disease control rate in the TuPro cohort of 64.7% (11/17) vs. 23.5% (4/17), respectively. Adjusted odds ratio of 7.18 (95% CI, 0.60 – 85.61). e, f, Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted Progression free survival (PFS) in months, crude hazard ratio, adjusted hazard ratio and Log-rank P-value for the comparison between unmatched treatments: e, palliative (SOC and beyond SOC) TuPro cohort (n = 86 treatment lines) and non-TuPro cohort (n = 135 treatment lines): 6.04 months, (95% CI, 3.75 – 12.06) TuPro cohort vs. 5.62 months (n = 135, 95% CI, 3.09 – 9.46) in the non-TuPro cohort (crude hazard ratio (HR) of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.68 – 1.28), P = 0.5967, adjusted HR 0.89 (95% CI, 0.57 – 1.37). f, patients receiving ≥ 3rd treatment line in the TuPro cohort (n = 37) and non-TuPro cohort (n = 26): 5.35 months (95% CI, 2.89 – 12.06) vs. 2.56 months (n = 26, 95% CI, 2.00 – 5.62) (crude HR 0.52 (95% CI, 0.30 – 0.88), P = .0602, adjusted HR 0.39 (95% CI, 0.15 – 1.05), respectively. g, h, Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted PFS in months, crude hazard ratio, adjusted hazard ratio and Log-rank P-value for the comparison between matched treatments: g, matched palliative (SOC and beyond SOC) TuPro cohort (n = 59 treatment lines) and non-TuPro cohort (n = 59 treatment lines): 9.59 months (95% CI, 3.75 – 17.74) vs. 3.55 months (95% CI, 2.56 – 9.17), respectively (adjusted HR of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.43 – 1.42), P = .4156. h, matched patients receiving ≥ 3 treatment line in the TuPro cohort (n = 17) and non-TuPro cohort (n = 17): 8.34 months (95% CI, 2.76 – NR) vs. 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.08 – 3.06), respectively (adjusted HR of 0.23 (95% CI, 0.07 – 0.79), P = .0201. CI, 95% confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.
