Table 3.
Current evidence supporting PBRM1 predictive value for everolimus in metastatic disease.
| Author [Ref.] | Year | Country | Gender M(%)/F(%) |
Age (y) |
N | BAP1 MT (%) |
PBRM1 MT (%) |
Tech | Ab(Dilution) | PBRM1 Cut-off |
Everolimus PFS | Sunitinib PFS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBRM1 MT or LE vs. PBRM1 WT or HE (HR/ p) | PBRM1 MT or LE vs. PBRM1 WT or HE (HR/ p) | |||||||||||
| Hsieh [56] | 2016 | USA | 168 (76)/52(24) | 62 | 220 | 42(19) | 101(46) | NGS | - | - | 12.8 vs. 5.5 (0.53/ 0.004) | 11.0 vs. 8.3 (0.79/ 0.4) |
| Kim [48] | 2015 | Korea | 44(83)/9(17) | 62 | 53 | NA | 25(47) | IHC | PB1 Ab a (1:100) | 2.5 | 3.0 vs. 1.9 (NA/ 0.1) | 7.3 vs. 9 (NA/ 0.8) |
M: male patients. F: female patients. Age: median age. y: years. N: number of patients. MT: mutant patients. NA: not assessed. Tech: technique. NGS: next-generation sequencing. IHC: immunohistochemistry. PFS: progression-free-survival in months. HR: hazard ratio. NA: not assessed. a PB1/BAF180 AB Montgomery, TX.