Search

Simple Summary: Identifying the mutational landscape of tumors using next-generation sequencing (NGS) has become substantially more common over the past decade, especially in patients with advanced tumors. However, there is still limited real-world evidence for the clinical benefits of NGS-guided precision oncology. This retrospective analysis of breast and gynecological cancer patients referred to our center's multidisciplinary Molecular Tumor Board revealed that treatment recommendations were provided to 63.3% of patients, of whom 29.1% received molecular-matched treatment resulting in significantly prolonged progression-free survival. Commonly altered genes included TP53, PIK3CA, BRCA1/2, and ARID1A. Overall, NGS-guided precision oncology using panel diagnostics demonstrated improved clinical outcomes in a subset of patients with breast and gynecological cancers in a real-world setting. Background: Precision oncology treatments are being applied more commonly in breast and gynecological oncology through the implementation of Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs), but real-world clinical outcome data remain limited. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted in patients with breast cancer (BC) and gynecological malignancies referred to our center's MTB from 2018 to 2023. The analysis covered patient characteristics, next-generation sequencing (NGS) results, MTB recommendations, therapy received, and clinical outcomes. Results: Sixty-three patients (77.8%) had metastatic disease, and forty-four patients (54.3%) had previously undergone three or more lines of systemic treatment. Personalized treatment recommendations were provided to 50 patients (63.3%), while 29 (36.7%) had no actionable target. Ultimately, 23 patients (29.1%) underwent molecular-matched treatment (MMT). Commonly altered genes in patients with pan-gyn tumors (BC and gynecological malignancies) included TP53 (n = 42/81, 51.9%), PIK3CA (n = 18/81, 22.2%), BRCA1/2 (n = 10/81, 12.3%), and ARID1A (n = 9/81, 11.1%). Patients treated with MMT showed significantly prolonged progression-free survival (median PFS 5.5 vs. 3.5 months, p = 0.0014). Of all patients who underwent molecular profiling, 13.6% experienced a major clinical benefit (PFSr ≥ 1.3 and PR/SD ≥ 6 months) through precision oncology. Conclusions: NGS-guided precision oncology demonstrated improved clinical outcomes in a subgroup of patients with gynecological and breast cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Therapy-induced molecular adaptation of triple-negative breast cancer is crucial for immunotherapy response and resistance. We analyze tumor biopsies from three different time points in the randomized neoadjuvant GeparNuevo trial (NCT02685059), evaluating the combination of durvalumab with chemotherapy, for longitudinal alterations of gene expression. Durvalumab induces an activation of immune and stromal gene expression as well as a reduction of proliferation-related gene expression. Immune genes are positive prognostic factors irrespective of treatment, while proliferation genes are positive prognostic factors only in the durvalumab arm. We identify stromal-related gene expression as a contributor to immunotherapy resistance and poor therapy response. The results provide evidence from clinical trial cohorts suggesting a role for stromal reorganization in therapy resistance to immunotherapy and in the generation of an immune-suppressive microenvironment, which might be relevant for future therapy approaches targeting the tumor stroma parallel to immunotherapy, such as combinations of immunotherapy with anti-angiogenic therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests C.D. reports grants from European Commission H2020, grants from German Cancer Aid Translational Oncology, grants from German Breast Group, and grants from BMBF to the institution during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from MSD Oncology, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from AstraZeneca and Molecular Health, grants from Myriad, personal fees from Merck, and other funding from Sividon Diagnostics outside the submitted work; in addition, C.D. has a patent VMScope digital pathology software with royalties paid, a patent WO2020109570A1—cancer immunotherapy pending, and a patent WO2015114146A1 and WO2010076322A1—therapy response issued. J.R. declares to be a GBG Forschungs GmbH employee. GBG Forschungs GmbH received funding for research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche (paid to the institution). Funding was also received (non-financial/medical writing) from Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen (paid to the institution). GBG Forschungs GmbH has royalties in VM Scope and patents pending: EP14153692.0, EP21152186.9, and EP15702464.7. T.K. reports a patent WO2020109570A1 pending. S.R. declares to be a GBG Forschungs GmbH employee. GBG Forschungs GmbH received funding for research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche (paid to the institution). J.H. reports research funding from Lilly; honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Seagen, Gilead, and Daiichi; consulting and advisory relationships with Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Gilead, and Daiichi; travel expenses from Roche, Novartis, Daiichi, and Gilead. P.J. reports research funding and travel expenses from Gilead Sciences GmbH. C.H. reports an advisory role and speakers bureau role for AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, and Aristo Pharma. B.V.S. is an employee of BioNTech SE and reports a patent WO2020109570A1 pending. J.-U.B. reports consultation fees, honoraria, and reimbursement for attending symposia from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen. M.v.M. reports personal fees, honoraria, or travel grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Genomic Health, GSK, Lilly, Molecular Health, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Seagen. C. Schem reports speaker activities for Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Celgen, Novartis, Exact Sciences, MSD, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Seagen, as well as advisory boards for Roche, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Amgen, Exact Sciences, Stemline, Lilly, and Novartis. T.L. reports personal fees from Amgen, Roche, Teva, Clovis, Tesaro, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, GSK, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Stemline, and Seagen outside of the submitted work. T.L. participates in advisory boards from Amgen, MSD, Tesaro, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Myriad, Esai, GSK, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work and T.L. received travel support from Pfizer, PharmaMar, MSD, Celgene, Roche, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Stemline, and Clovis outside of the submitted work. P.S. reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, MSD, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, and Roche. V.M. received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead, and Pierre Fabre; consultancy honoraria from Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead, and Stemline; institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, and Genentech; and travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Gilead. L.P. has received consulting fees and honoraria for advisory board participation from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Personalis, Daiichi, Natera, and Exact Sciences and institutional research funding from Seagen, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, and Bristol Myers Squibb. C.E.G. reports the following competing interests: Exact Sciences, Advisory Board, personal; AbbVie, Steering Committee member, institutional, co-chair of SC for BrighTNess; Daiichi Sankyo, member SC, institutional, co-chair of SC for DESTINY-Breast05; Genentech/Roche, SC member, institutional, co-chair of SC for lidERA; Genentech/Roche, coordinating PI, institutional, NSABP B-59/GeparDouze; and Genentech/Roche, SC member, institutional, co-chair of SC for KATHERINE. C.J. reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi-Aventis, Seagen, Gilead, and Novartis and has a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, MSD Oncology, Agendia, Seagen, Gilead, Lilly, Stemline, and Medac. V.N. declares to be a GBG Forschungs GmbH employee. GBG Forschungs GmbH received funding for research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche (paid to the institution). GBG Forschungs GmbH received other funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen (paid to the institution). GBG Forschungs GmbH has the following royalties/patents: EP14153692.0, EP21152186.9, EP15702464.7, EP19808852.8, and VM Scope GmbH. M.U. reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi-Aventis, Myriad, Seagen, Gilead, and Novartis; has a consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, MSD Oncology, Agendia, Seagen, Gilead, Lily, Stemline, Genzyme, and Medac; and all honoraria and fees are paid to the employer/institution. S.L. reports grants and other funding from AbbVie; other funding from Amgen; grants and other funding from AstraZeneca; other funding from BMS; grants and other funding from Celgene; grants, non-financial support, and other funding from Daiichi Sankyo; other funding from EirGenix; other funding from Eisai Europe Ltd; other funding from GSK; grants, non-financial support, and other funding from Immunomedics/Gilead; other funding from Lilly; other funding from Merck; grants from Molecular Health; grants, non-financial support, and other funding from Novartis; grants, non-financial support, and other funding from Pfizer; other funding from Pierre Fabre; other funding from Relay Therapeutics; grants, non-financial support, and other funding from Roche; other funding from Sanofi; non-financial support and other funding from Seagen; and other funding from Olema Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. In addition, S.L. has a patent EP14153692.0 pending, a patent EP21152186.9 pending, a patent EP15702464.7 issued, a patent EP19808852.8 pending, and a patent Digital Ki67 Evaluator with royalties paid., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: Cystoscopy, the standard diagnostic for bladder tumors, is uncomfortable, invasive, and expensive. The available urine-based marker systems all lack accuracy. Measuring volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from urine is a promising alternative. This pilot study evaluates the feasibility of discriminating bladder cancer patients' urine from healthy controls with an electronic nose., Materials and Methods: Headspace measurements of urine samples of 30 patients with confirmed transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) and 30 healthy controls were performed with Cyranose 320 calculating Mahalanobis distance and linear discriminant analysis. Histology reports following TUR-BT were correlated with urine findings., Results: After storage at -20°C, Cyranose correctly detected 28/30 already confirmed TCC samples and 26/30 healthy controls (p<0.01), sensitivity 93.3%, specificity 86.7%. Storage at -80°C led to similar results: 28/30 tumor samples and 28/30 control samples were correctly allocated; sensitivity and specificity both 93.3%., Conclusion: VOC detection is a promising tool to detect bladder tumors. Further research will test against possible confounders like bacteriuria., (Copyright© 2018, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) is technically demanding, cost-intensive and time-consuming. The measurement of volatile organic compounds by an electronic nose is an innovative method that determines distinct molecular patterns of exhaled breath in different patient groups. We addressed the following questions: What is the diagnostic accuracy of an electronic nose in the detection of OSAS and the ability to detect effects of standard therapy in patients with OSAS? Are these results related to changes in distinct markers of airway inflammation and extracellular remodelling? We included 40 OSAS patients and 20 healthy controls. Exhaled breath of all participants was analysed using the Cyranose 320 electronic nose. Pharyngeal washings were performed to sample the upper airway compartment. For statistical analysis linear discriminant analysis was employed. We identified a linear discriminant function separating OSAS from control (p<0.0001). The corresponding area under the receiver-operating curve was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.96; sensitivity 0.93 and specificity 0.7). In pharyngeal washing fluids of OSAS patients, we observed higher levels of α1-antitrypsin and markers of extracellular remodelling compared to controls. The electronic nose can distinguish between OSAS patients and controls with high accuracy.