JCO precision oncology最新文献

Purpose: Tumor-informed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has shown promise as a biomarker for treatment response monitoring (TRM) in a variety of tumor types, with the potential to improve clinical outcomes. We evaluated ctDNA status and dynamics during surveillance and as part of TRM with clinical outcomes in both patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) treated with standard-of-care immunotherapy or targeted therapy regimens.

Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective analysis of real-world data obtained from commercial ctDNA testing (Signatera, Natera, Inc) in patients with metastatic RCC. Clinical data were collected on International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category, pathologic subtype, and grade.

Results: The cohort comprised 92 patients (490 plasma samples) including both clear cell and non-clear cell histological subtypes (ccRCC: 79.3%; nccRCC: 14.1%; unclassified: 6.5%). Most of the patients belonged to the IMDC intermediate-risk category (75%, 69/92). Median follow-up was 10 months (range, 4.2-25.8). ctDNA dynamics were assessed in 56 patients on treatment, and ctDNA status was analyzed in the surveillance cohort (n = 32 patients). Serial ctDNA negativity or clearance correlated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with those who became or were persistently ctDNA positive on therapy (hazard ratio [HR], 3.2; P = .012). In the surveillance cohort, patients with positive ctDNA longitudinally experienced significantly inferior PFS (HR, 18; P = .00026) compared with those who were serially negative.

Conclusion: Collectively, we show that serial ctDNA monitoring provides prognostic information for patients undergoing treatment or surveillance, and our findings demonstrate high concordance between ctDNA status/dynamics and subsequent clinical outcomes.

Purpose: The NCI-MATCH trial assigned patients with solid tumors, lymphomas, or multiple myeloma to targeted therapies on the basis of identified genetic alterations from tumor biopsies. In preclinical models, neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2)-inactivated tumors display sensitivity to focal adhesion kinase (FAK) inhibition. The EAY131-U subprotocol evaluated the efficacy of defactinib, a FAK inhibitor, in patients with NF2-altered tumors.

Methods: Patients whose tumors harbored an inactivating NF2 mutation on next-generation sequencing were assigned to subprotocol U. Defactinib 400 mg was given orally twice a day until progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR), secondary end points included toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), and 6-month PFS.

Results: Of 5,548 patients with sufficient tissue for genomic analysis, 57 patients were found to have NF2 alterations. Thirty-five patients ultimately enrolled and 33 were treated, with one not having central confirmation and two ineligible for outcome analysis. All patients had received previous treatment, with 52% having received three or more previous lines of therapy. The most common treatment-related toxicities were fatigue (36%), nausea (33%), and hyperbilirubinemia (27%), with 27% of patients having grade 3 toxicities. Median follow-up was 35.9 months with an ORR of 3% from one partial response in a patient with choroid meningioma. Among the 12 patients (40%) with a best response of stable disease, eight demonstrated some tumor shrinkage. Median PFS was 1.9 months, and six patients achieved a PFS >5.5 months. No correlation was identified between clinical outcomes and tumor histology or specific NF2 genotype.

Conclusion: This protocol did not meet its prespecified primary end point. Defactinib monotherapy had limited clinical activity in this cohort of previously treated patients with solid tumors exhibiting NF2 loss.

Purpose: KRAS variants are associated with poor outcomes in biliary tract cancers (BTCs). This study assesses the prevalence of KRAS variants and their association with survival and recurrence in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC), extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHC), and gallbladder adenocarcinoma (GB).

Methods: In this cross-sectional, single-institution study at Memorial Sloan Kettering, tumors from 985 patients treated between 2004 and 2022 with IHC, EHC, and GB who underwent either curative-intent resection or were treated with chemotherapy for unresectable disease were used for targeted sequencing.

Results: Of the 985 patients sequenced, 15% had a KRAS mutation. Five hundred and seventy-two had unresectable disease (n = 395 IHC, n = 71 EHC, n = 106 GB) and 413 were treated with curative-intent resection (n = 175 IHC, n = 119 EHC, and n = 119 GB). Median follow-up time was 18 months (IQR, 11-31). KRAS G12D mutations were most common in IHC (38%) and EHC (37%) tumors. Mutations in SF3B1 co-occurred with mutant KRAS in IHC and EHC, with comutant resectable patients having worse survival after adjusting for tumor type (hazard ratio [HR], 4.04 [95% CI, 1.45 to 11.2]; P = .007). KRAS G12 mutations were associated with worse survival in patients with IHC compared with wild-type (WT) or other KRAS mutations, regardless of resection status (unresectable P < .001, resectable P = .011). After adjusting for clinical covariates, KRAS G12 mutations remained a prognostic indicator for patients with IHC compared with WT (HR, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.80]; P < .001).

Conclusion: The adverse impact of KRAS mutations in BTC is driven by G12 alterations in patients with IHC regardless of resection status, which was not observed in GB or EHC. There are unique comutational partners in distinct BTC subsets. These differences have important clinical implications in the era of KRAS-targeted therapeutics.

Purpose: In patients with a variety of malignancies undergoing multigene panel testing (MGPT), we examined the frequency of a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PV) that would not have been predicted on the basis of the patient's personal and family history of cancer.

Methods: This is a retrospective review of patients with cancer ascertained from a single academic cancer center who underwent broad-based MGPT of ≥20 cancer predisposition genes not selected on the basis of personal or family cancer history from 2015 to 2021. Low-penetrance variants and recessive inheritance genes were excluded. Deidentified pedigrees were analyzed to determine clinical suspicion of PV.

Results: MGPT was performed on 10,975 patients with cancer: 1,134 (10.3%) were found to have ≥1 PV in a moderate or highly penetrant cancer susceptibility gene. Three hundred seven (2.8%) of the PVs were not predicted on the basis of patient's personal cancer history alone, and 192 (1.7%) remained unsuspected after patient's cancer diagnosis and review of family cancer histories were considered. Unexpected PVs accounted for 16.9% of the 1,134 patients with a moderate- or high-penetrance PV. Most frequent unexpected variants were MITF (n = 18), PMS2 (n = 18), ATM (n = 17), BRIP1 (n = 17), HOXB13 (n = 14), SDHA (n = 12), CHEK2 (n = 11), BRCA2 (n = 7), MSH6 (n = 7), SDHC (n = 7), PALB2 (n = 6), and TP53 (n = 6). Low-penetrance or recessive variants were found in 519 (4.7%) patients. Variants of uncertain significance were found in 3,775 (34.4%).

Conclusion: In patients with cancer, MGPT identified a rate of 1.7% PV in unexpected actionable cancer predisposition genes. Findings were more often unexpected (2.8%) when considering only the patient cancer history. These findings may justify consideration of broader MGPT panels in patients with cancer, given implications for subsequent surveillance, cascade testing, and treatment options dependent on specific findings.

Purpose: Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We describe our clinical experience in evaluating the use of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-derived circulating tumor cells (CTCs) for the diagnosis of LMD and the detection of genomic alterations in CSF cell-free DNA (cfDNA).

Methods: Patients with NSCLC who had CSF collection as part of routine clinical care for suspected LMD were included in the study. CSF was evaluated for CTCs and cfDNA using a commercial assay (CNSide; Biocept, San Diego, CA), and molecular profiling was performed. Molecular testing results from sequencing of tumor tissue and plasma circulating tumor DNA were collected. cMET and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression analysis was performed using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH).

Results: Twenty-two patients were included (77% female; median age 60 years). Sixty-four percent had sensitizing EGFR mutations, and 32% had an atypical EGFR mutation. Thirteen of the 22 patients (59%) were diagnosed with LMD using the CSF CTC assay. Five of these 13 patients (38%) had negative CSF cytology for LMD, and two patients (15%) had normal magnetic resonance imaging brain imaging. Seven of the 13 patients (54%) had sufficient CTCs to perform molecular profiling. The concordance with tissue next-generation sequencing was 100%, and the driver mutation was identified in all seven patients with the CSF cfDNA assay. cMET expression and HER2 expression via FISH were noted in 11 patients (50%) and four patients (18%) respectively.

Conclusion: We detected higher sensitivity to diagnose LMD using CSF CTC-based assay; 38% of LMD cases identified using this assay were missed by standard CSF cytology. CSF molecular testing using CSF cfDNA demonstrated high concordance with tissue-based molecular testing.

Purpose: Combined BRAF, MEK, and EGFR inhibition can induce clinical responses in BRAF-V600E-mutant colon cancer, but rapid resistance often occurs.

Methods: We use serial monitoring of circulating tumor DNA cell-free plasma DNA (cfDNA) in a patient case study in addition to organoids derived from mouse models of BRAF-V600E-mutant intestinal cancer, which emulated the patient's mutational profile to assess drug treatment efficacy.

Results: We demonstrate dynamic evolution of resistance to combined EGFR/BRAF/MEK inhibition in a pediatric patient with metastatic BRAF-V600E-mutant, mismatch repair-stable colon cancer. Initial resistance to targeted therapy was associated with development of MET amplification. Sequential treatment with chemotherapy and targeted therapy resulted in clearing of the resistant MET-amplified clone. Rechallenge with combined BRAF/EGFR inhibition resulted in clinical and radiographic response, demonstrating these treatments may be non-cross-resistant. Tumor organoids were used to model clinical findings and demonstrated effectiveness of combined targeted therapy and chemotherapy.

Conclusion: These findings suggest rational strategies for combining sequential chemotherapy and BRAF-/EGFR-directed therapy in BRAF-V600E-mutant colon cancer to prevent resistance and improve outcome. The data demonstrate rapid clonal dynamics in response to effective therapies in BRAF-V600E-mutant colon cancer that can be monitored by serial cfDNA analysis. Moreover, in mismatch repair-proficient BRAF-V600E-mutant colon cancers, combined EGFR and BRAF/MEK therapy is not cross-resistant with standard chemotherapy, suggesting new rational combination treatment strategies.

Purpose: The use of up-front tumor genomic sequencing (TGS) is becoming increasingly common in pediatric oncology. Despite this, little is known about how parents receive information about TGS at the time of their child's cancer diagnosis. We aimed to describe parents' experiences with and preferences for receiving information about TGS and to use these findings to inform practical guidance for pediatric oncology clinicians.

Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with English-speaking parents (older than 18 years) of patients (younger than 18 years) who had TGS for a new diagnosis of cancer. We analyzed the interviews thematically. Participants also completed a short demographic survey, and we obtained medical information about participants' children via chart review.

Results: We interviewed 20 parents (14 mothers; median age, 38 years) of children who underwent TGS for a newly diagnosed cancer (10 leukemias/lymphomas, three CNS tumors, seven other solid tumors). Children were 6 months to 17 years at diagnosis (median, 6 years). Fifteen parents and their children were White, two of whom were Hispanic and four of whose children were Hispanic. No participants identified themselves or their child as Black. We identified the following themes regarding information delivery about genomic testing from the interviews: (1) those in the parent role have some universal information needs; (2) information delivery preferences vary among parents, even within one family; and (3) parents desire standard yet tailored information delivery.

Conclusion: Parents made suggestions consistent with elements of established high-quality communication in pediatric oncology. As genomic testing is more standardly incorporated into childhood cancer care, communication with parents may need to adapt to reflect this. Our findings highlight potential opportunities to support parents in receiving information about genomic testing.

Purpose: BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) is a critical cell cycle and DNA damage response (DDR) regulator with mutations (mBAP1) causing a functional protein loss. PARP inhibitors (PARPis) demonstrate synthetic lethality in mBAP1 preclinical models, independent of underlying BRCA status. This study aimed to explore the clinical activity of niraparib in patients with advanced tumors likely to harbor mBAP1.

Methods: This was a phase II multicenter trial in which refractory solid tumor patients were assigned to cohort A (histology-specific tumors likely to harbor mBAP1) or cohort B (histology-agnostic tumors with other known non-BRCA-confirmed DDR mutations). All patients received niraparib 300 mg orally once daily on a 28-day cycle. The primary end point was objective response rate, and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival.

Results: From August 2018 through December 2021, 37 patients were enrolled with 31 evaluable for response (cohort A, n = 18; cohort B, n = 13). In cohort A, the best response was one partial response (PR; 6%), eight stable disease (SD; 44%), and nine progressive disease (PD; 50%). This cohort stopped at the first stage following the prespecified Simon's design. mBAP1 was confirmed in 7/9 patients (78%) with PR or SD but in only 3/9 (33%) in those with PD. The median PFS in patients with mBAP1 (n = 10) was 6.7 months (95% CI, 1.0 to 9.2) versus 1.8 months (95% CI, 0.9 to 4.5) for wild-type (n = 8; P = .020). In cohort B, the best response was six SD (46%) and seven PD (54%), with SD in those with ATM, CHEK2, PTEN, RAD50, and ARID1A mutations.

Conclusion: Niraparib failed to meet the prespecified efficacy end point for response. However, clinical benefit was suggested in a proportion of patients who had a confirmed mBAP1, supporting further investigation.

Purpose: The National Cancer Institute-Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial was implemented to identify actionable genetic alterations across cancer types and enroll patients accordingly onto treatment arms, irrespective of tumor histology. Using multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) next-generation sequencing, NCI-MATCH genotyped 5,540 patients, discovering gene fusions in 202/5,540 tumors (3.65%). This result, substantially lower than the fusion detection prevalence of 8.5% across all patients with cancer screened at Massachusetts General Hospital's (MGH) clinical laboratories, supported reanalysis of NCI-MATCH samples identified as mutations-of-interest (MOI)-negative. The assay used by NCI-MATCH requires previous knowledge of both fusion genes, cannot detect novel fusions, and may underestimate fusion-positive patients. Anchored multiplex PCR (AMP) technology permits fusion detection with knowledge of just one gene of the fusion partners.

Methods: Using AMP-based kits, we reprocessed 663 MOI-negative samples. 200 ng of RNA per sample were shipped from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network biorepository to MGH (n = 319) and Yale University (n = 344), processed, and sequenced on the NextSeq550. Reported fusions were manually reviewed, and novel fusions orthogonally verified via reverse-transcription PCR and Sanger sequencing.

Results: AMP identified 148 fusions in 142/663 MOI-negative patients (21% [95% CI, 18 to 25]), of which 28 were covered by the Oncomine Comprehensive Assay (OCA) panel but missed, while 120 were not covered by OCA. Among AMP-identified positive patients, 32 had actionable fusions, 24 contained novel fusions, and six had two fusion events. We identified fusions in 12/34 (35% [95% CI, 20 to 54]) cholangiocarcinomas and 43/109 (39% [95% CI, 30 to 49]) sarcomas.

Conclusion: Technology and awareness of actionable fusions have improved since the NCI-MATCH trial. With AMP-based technology, we identified 142 patients with fusions not detected during NCI-MATCH screening, many potentially actionable. These striking data underscore the need to optimize the fusion-detection capabilities of genotyping assays used in precision medicine.