Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics, 2025, Vol.13, No.1, 32-40 http://medscipublisher.com/index.php/cge 36 Some patients have high TMB values. At this time, if camrelizumab and apatinib are used in combination, the effect is also good. Because people with high TMB respond more strongly to this combination (Huang et al., 2021). 5.3 Comparative analysis of treatment results of genotyping and non-genotyping The comparison found that patients who have undergone genotyping usually have better treatment effects than those who have not undergone genotyping. In one study, patients who selected drugs based on genetic information had a 43% response rate, and some were able to control their disease for a long time (Sawada et al., 2021). Conventional treatments without genotyping have only modest effects, and some have high relapse rates (Crowley et al., 2021). Genotyping can also give patients the opportunity to participate in clinical trials and use new treatments that may not be available otherwise (Friedman et al., 2023). 6 Case Studies and Clinical Trials 6.1 Review of significant cases of benefits of genotyping Genotyping is very helpful in improving the treatment of cervical cancer. For example, in a genomic analysis study of cervical cancer, researchers found that many cases had mutations that could be targeted for treatment. These mutations make precision medicine possible. Data from the MSK-IMPACT study showed that approximately 37% of cervical cancer patients had at least one potentially targetable genetic change, which helped doctors choose the right targeted drug for them and allowed more patients to participate in clinical trials (Figure 3) (Friedman et al., 2023). A gynecological cancer patient with PTENand BRIP1 gene mutations, the doctor selected two drugs, everolimus and olaparib, based on her genetic condition. As a result, her condition was well controlled and for a long time (Sawada et al., 2021). Figure 3 Clinical outcomes of MSK-IMPACT testing (Adopted from Friedman et al., 2023) Image caption: A: Distribution of genomic alterations with OncoKB levels of evidence; B: Swimmers plot of clinical outcomes on clinical trials by target; C: Near complete response to combined immune checkpoint inhibition after 6 months of therapy in a patient with adenosquamous carcinoma; The patient went on to achieve a complete response and is disease free; D: Major response to combined immune checkpoint inhibition in a patient with small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma after 6 months of therapy; The patient went on to achieve a complete response and is disease free; CR: Complete response; CT CAP: Computerized tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis; MSI-H: Microsatellite instability-high; NE: Not evaluable; PD: Progression of disease; PR: Partial response; SD: Stable disease; TMB-H: Tumor mutational burden-high (Adopted from Friedman et al., 2023) 6.2 Summary of clinical trials based on genotyping treatment Many clinical trials are studying whether genotyping treatment is effective. The CLAP trial studied the effect of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODYzNA==