E. Van Allen
Harvard University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by E. Van Allen.
The New England Journal of Medicine | 2016
Colin C. Pritchard; Joaquin Mateo; Michael F. Walsh; N. De Sarkar; Wassim Abida; Himisha Beltran; Andrea Garofalo; Roman Gulati; S. Carreira; Rosalind Eeles; Olivier Elemento; Mark A. Rubin; Daniel H. Robinson; Robert J. Lonigro; Maha Hussain; Arul M. Chinnaiyan; Jake Vinson; Julie Filipenko; Levi A. Garraway; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Saud H. Aldubayan; Garam Han; M. Beightol; Colm Morrissey; B. Nghiem; Heather H. Cheng; Bruce Montgomery; Tom Walsh; Silvia Casadei; Michael F. Berger
BACKGROUND Inherited mutations in DNA-repair genes such as BRCA2 are associated with increased risks of lethal prostate cancer. Although the prevalence of germline mutations in DNA-repair genes among men with localized prostate cancer who are unselected for family predisposition is insufficient to warrant routine testing, the frequency of such mutations in patients with metastatic prostate cancer has not been established. METHODS We recruited 692 men with documented metastatic prostate cancer who were unselected for family history of cancer or age at diagnosis. We isolated germline DNA and used multiplex sequencing assays to assess mutations in 20 DNA-repair genes associated with autosomal dominant cancer-predisposition syndromes. RESULTS A total of 84 germline DNA-repair gene mutations that were presumed to be deleterious were identified in 82 men (11.8%); mutations were found in 16 genes, including BRCA2 (37 men [5.3%]), ATM (11 [1.6%]), CHEK2 (10 [1.9% of 534 men with data]), BRCA1 (6 [0.9%]), RAD51D (3 [0.4%]), and PALB2 (3 [0.4%]). Mutation frequencies did not differ according to whether a family history of prostate cancer was present or according to age at diagnosis. Overall, the frequency of germline mutations in DNA-repair genes among men with metastatic prostate cancer significantly exceeded the prevalence of 4.6% among 499 men with localized prostate cancer (P<0.001), including men with high-risk disease, and the prevalence of 2.7% in the Exome Aggregation Consortium, which includes 53,105 persons without a known cancer diagnosis (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In our multicenter study, the incidence of germline mutations in genes mediating DNA-repair processes among men with metastatic prostate cancer was 11.8%, which was significantly higher than the incidence among men with localized prostate cancer. The frequencies of germline mutations in DNA-repair genes among men with metastatic disease did not differ significantly according to age at diagnosis or family history of prostate cancer. (Funded by Stand Up To Cancer and others.).
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases | 2014
E. Van Allen; Adam Foye; N Wagle; Won Seog Kim; Scott L. Carter; Aaron McKenna; Jeff Simko; Levi A. Garraway; Pg Febbo
Background:Comprehensive molecular characterization of cancer that has metastasized to bone has proved challenging, which may limit the diagnostic and potential therapeutic opportunities for patients with bone-only metastatic disease.Methods:We describe successful tissue acquisition, DNA extraction, and whole-exome sequencing from a bone metastasis of a patient with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa).Results:The resulting high-quality tumor sequencing identified plausibly actionable somatic genomic alterations that dysregulate the phosphoinostide 3-kinase pathway, as well as a theoretically actionable germline variant in the BRCA2 gene.Conclusions:We demonstrate the feasibility of diagnostic bone metastases profiling and analysis that will be required for the widespread application of prospective ‘precision medicine’ to men with advanced PCa.
Nature Communications | 2018
Salomon Manier; Jang-Ung Park; Marzia Capelletti; Mark Bustoros; Sam Freeman; Gavin Ha; Justin Rhoades; Chia-Jen Liu; Daisy Huynh; Sarah C. Reed; Gregory Gydush; Karma Salem; Denisse Rotem; C. Freymond; Amir Yosef; Adriana Perilla-Glen; Laurent Garderet; E. Van Allen; Shaji Kumar; J. C. Love; Gad Getz; Viktor A. Adalsteinsson; Irene M. Ghobrial
Liquid biopsies including circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) have enabled minimally invasive characterization of many cancers, but are rarely analyzed together. Understanding the detectability and genomic concordance of CTCs and cfDNA may inform their use in guiding cancer precision medicine. Here, we report the detectability of cfDNA and CTCs in blood samples from 107 and 56 patients with multiple myeloma (MM), respectively. Using ultra-low pass whole-genome sequencing, we find both tumor fractions correlate with disease progression. Applying whole-exome sequencing (WES) to cfDNA, CTCs, and matched tumor biopsies, we find concordance in clonal somatic mutations (~99%) and copy number alterations (~81%) between liquid and tumor biopsies. Importantly, analyzing CTCs and cfDNA together enables cross-validation of mutations, uncovers mutations exclusive to either CTCs or cfDNA, and allows blood-based tumor profiling in a greater fraction of patients. Our study demonstrates the utility of analyzing both CTCs and cfDNA in MM.Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) enables characterization of a patient’s cancer. Here, the authors analyse CTCs, cfDNA, and tumor biopsies from multiple myeloma patients to show these approaches are complementary for mutation detection, together enabling a greater fraction of patient tumors to be profiled.
Annals of Oncology | 2018
Joaquin Mateo; Debyani Chakravarty; R Dienstmann; Svetlana Jezdic; Abel Gonzalez-Perez; Nuria Lopez-Bigas; C K Y Ng; Philippe L. Bedard; G Tortora; J.-Y. Douillard; E. Van Allen; Nikolaus Schultz; Charles Swanton; Fabrice Andre; Lajos Pusztai
Background In order to facilitate implementation of precision medicine in clinical management of cancer, there is a need to harmonise and standardise the reporting and interpretation of clinically relevant genomics data. Methods The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group (TR and PM WG) launched a collaborative project to propose a classification system for molecular aberrations based on the evidence available supporting their value as clinical targets. A group of experts from several institutions was assembled to review available evidence, reach a consensus on grading criteria and present a classification system. This was then reviewed, amended and finally approved by the ESMO TR and PM WG and the ESMO leadership. Results This first version of the ESMO Scale of Clinical Actionability for molecular Targets (ESCAT) defines six levels of clinical evidence for molecular targets according to the implications for patient management: tier I, targets ready for implementation in routine clinical decisions; tier II, investigational targets that likely define a patient population that benefits from a targeted drug but additional data are needed; tier III, clinical benefit previously demonstrated in other tumour types or for similar molecular targets; tier IV, preclinical evidence of actionability; tier V, evidence supporting co-targeting approaches; and tier X, lack of evidence for actionability. Conclusions The ESCAT defines clinical evidence-based criteria to prioritise genomic alterations as markers to select patients for targeted therapies. This classification system aims to offer a common language for all the relevant stakeholders in cancer medicine and drug development.
Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations | 2017
Raman Jay; Rana R. McKay; Lillian Werner; Michael B. Atkins; E. Van Allen; Kara M. Olivier; Jiaxi Song; Sabina Signoretti; David F. McDermott; Toni K. Choueiri
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2018
K. Fitzpatrick; Justin H. Hwang; M.Y. Cai; David R. Liu; B. Kochupurakkal; E. Van Allen; Alan D. D'Andrea; Kent W. Mouw
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2017
Sophia C. Kamran; Jochen K. Lennerz; Brendan Reardon; Stephanie A. Mullane; Jennifer Y. Wo; Henning Willers; Ryan B. Corcoran; E. Van Allen; Theodore S. Hong
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2017
Zoe J Frazier; Alexis Damish; Elizaveta Reznichenko; David R. Liu; Jonathan E. Rosenberg; E. Van Allen; Jean-Bernard Lazaro; Alan D. D'Andrea; Kent W. Mouw
Annals of Oncology | 2017
A-K.A. Lalani; Wanling Xie; Dylan J. Martini; Craig Norton; John A. Steinharter; Dominick Bossé; Joaquim Bellmunt; E. Van Allen; Bradley Alexander McGregor; Lauren C. Harshman; Toni K. Choueiri
PMC | 2016
Itay Tirosh; Benjamin Izar; Daniel J. Treacy; John J. Trombetta; Assaf Rotem; Christopher Rodman; Christine G. Lian; George F. Murphy; Mohammad Fallahi-Sichani; Ken Dutton-Regester; Jia-Ren Lin; Ofir Cohen; Parin Shah; Diana Lu; Alexandra-Chloé Villani; Aleksandr Andreev; E. Van Allen; Monica M. Bertagnolli; Peter K. Sorger; Ryan J. Sullivan; Keith T. Flaherty; Dennie T. Frederick; Judit Jané-Valbuena; Orit Rozenblatt-Rosen; Sanjay Prakadan; Marc H. Wadsworth; Alex S. Genshaft; Travis K. Hughes; Carly G.K. Ziegler; Samuel W. Kazer