Search

Background Genomic fusions are potent oncogenic drivers across cancer types and many are targetable. We demonstrate the clinical performance of DNA-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) for detecting targetable fusions. Materials and Methods We analyzed targetable fusion genes in >450 000 tissue specimens profiled using DNA CGP (FoundationOne CDx, FoundationOne). Using a de-identified nationwide (US-based) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) clinico-genomic database, we assessed outcomes in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC (NonSqNSCLC) who received matched therapy based on a fusion identified using DNA CGP. Lastly, we modeled the added value of RNA CGP for fusion detection in NonSqNSCLC. Results We observed a broad diversity of fusion partners detected with DNA CGP in conjunction with targetable fusion genes (ALK , BRAF , FGFR2 , FGFR3 , NTRK1/2/3 , RET , and ROS1). In NonSqNSCLC with oncogenic ALK , NTRK , RET , and ROS1 fusions detected by DNA CGP, patients treated with a matched tyrosine kinase inhibitor had better real-world progression-free survival than those receiving alternative treatment regimens and benefit was observed regardless of the results of orthogonal fusion testing. An estimated 1.3% of patients with NonSqNSCLC were predicted to have an oncogenic driver fusion identified by RNA, but not DNA CGP, according to a model that accounts for multiple real-world factors. Conclusion A well-designed DNA CGP assay is capable of robust fusion detection and these fusion calls are reliable for informing clinical decision-making. While DNA CGP detects most driver fusions, the clinical impact of fusion detection is substantial for individual patients and exhaustive efforts, inclusive of additional RNA-based testing, should be considered when an oncogenic driver is not clearly identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background One of the most common sporadic homozygous deletions in cancers is 9p21 loss, which includes the genes methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP), CDKN2A , and CDKN2B , and has been correlated with worsened outcomes and immunotherapy resistance. MTAP -loss is a developing drug target through synthetic lethality with MAT2A and PMRT5 inhibitors. The purpose of this study is to investigate the prevalence and genomic landscape of MTAP- loss in advanced gastrointestinal (GI) tumors and investigate its role as a prognostic biomarker. Materials and Methods We performed next-generation sequencing and comparative genomic and clinical analysis on an extensive cohort of 64 860 tumors comprising 5 GI cancers. We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with GI cancer harboring MTAP- loss and MTAP- intact tumors in a retrospective study. Results The prevalence of MTAP -loss in GI cancers is 8.30%. MTAP -loss was most prevalent in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at 21.7% and least in colorectal carcinoma (CRC) at 1.1%. MTAP -loss tumors were more prevalent in East Asian patients with PDAC (4.4% vs 3.2%, P  = .005) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC; 6.4% vs 4.3%, P  = .036). Significant differences in the prevalence of potentially targetable genomic alterations (ATM , BRAF , BRCA2 , ERBB2 , IDH1 , PIK3CA , and PTEN) were observed in MTAP -loss tumors and varied according to tumor type. MTAP -loss PDAC, IHCC, and CRC had a lower prevalence of microsatellite instability or elevated tumor mutational burden. Positive PD-L1 tumor cell expression was less frequent among MTAP -loss versus MTAP -intact IHCC tumors (23.2% vs 31.2%, P  = .017). Conclusion In GI cancers, MTAP -loss occurs as part of 9p21 loss and has an overall prevalence of 8%. MTAP -loss occurs in 22% of PDAC, 15% of IHCC, 8.7% of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, 2.4% of hepatocellular carcinoma, and 1.1% of CRC and is not mutually exclusive with other targetable mutations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We profiled the genomes of over 12,0 0 0 advanced prostate cancer samples and probed a large clinicogenomic database with ~10 0 0 patients to clarify the impact MYCamp in PCa. Results suggest that MYCamp advanced PCa has limited targeted therapies and is an aggressive subset of advanced prostate cancer found disproportionately more common in men with African ancestry. Background: MYC is a commonly amplified, potentially targetable gene in prostate cancer (PCa). We sought to define the molecular, immunologic, and clinicodemographic landscape of MYC amplification (MYCamp) in advanced PCa to establish a rationale for personalized treatment combinations. Methods: Hybrid capture-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) was performed on PCa tumor samples. MYCamp = copy number =6 (CN). Patients treated between January 2011 and December 2020 were selected from a nationwide deidentified (280 clinics) EHR-derived clinicogenomic database (CGDB). Results: Of 12,528 hormone-sensitive and castrate-resistant (CRPC) samples, MYCamp was detected in 10.6% (median CN = 8). MYCamp was more frequent in men with African versus European ancestry (12.9% vs. 10.2% P = .002), in metastatic vs. primary tissue (15.7% vs. 6.2% P < .001), and enriched in metastatic liver lesions (20.2%), but inversely associated with high microsatellite-instability (0.8% vs. 2.4%, P < .001). MYC CN =15 was associated with PD-L1 expression (26.1% vs. 9.8%, P = .025). Amplification of AR, RAD21,LYN, CCND1,ZNF703,FGF3/4/19, and FGFR1 was enriched in MYCamp vs. MYCwt (all P < .001). In liquid samples with tumor fraction [TF] > 0, MYCamp was detected in 2.0% (28/1,402), and 4.5% (20/445) with TF > 20%. In the CGDB, (67 MYCamp and 658 MYCwt), patients received similar treatments; most received hormone therapies (35.8% MYCamp vs. 31.5% MYCwt) or chemotherapy (37.3% MYCamp vs. 27.7% MYCwt) as first therapy after CGP report. Conclusion: MYCamp defines a biologically distinct subset of PCa patients and is characterized with multiple proxies of advanced disease. These data suggest that MYCamp may be prognostic; independent cohorts are needed to validate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background FoundationOneCDx is approved in the US and Japan as a companion diagnostic test to identify patients with cancer who may benefit from treatment with 30 drug therapies in the US and 23 in Japan. Tumor profiling with FoundationOneCDx also detects genomic findings with evidence of clinical significance that may inform clinical care decisions beyond companion diagnostic claims. This observational study reports the breadth and impact of clinical decision insights from FoundationOneCDx solid tumor profiles. Materials and Methods Consecutive test result reports for patients with solid tumor diagnoses (n  = 109 695) were retrospectively analyzed for clinically significant predictive, prognostic, and diagnostic genomic alterations and signatures, determined in accordance with professional guidelines. Interventional clinical trials with targeted therapies or immune checkpoint inhibitors were matched to tumor profiles based on evidence that the genomic finding may be an actionable, investigational, or hypothetical target in the patient's tumor type. Results In 14 predefined cancer types (80.7% of analyzed solid tumors), predictive, prognostic, and diagnostic markers were reported in 47.6%, 13.2%, and 4.5% of samples, respectively, accounting for a total of 51.2% of tumor profiles. Pan-cancer predictive markers of tumor mutational burden (TMB) of 10 or more mutations per megabase, high microsatellite instability (MSI), or NTRK1/2/3 fusions were observed in 15.6%, 2.0%, and 0.1% of solid tumors, respectively. Most solid tumor profiles (89.2%) had genomic results that could theoretically inform decisions on the selection of immunotherapy and targeted therapy clinical trials. Conclusion For this real-world population of patients with FoundationOneCDx solid tumor profiles in the routine course of clinical care, clinically significant findings were reported for approximately half of patients with genomic results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors present a cohort of 661 young adult glioblastomas diagnosed using 2016 WHO World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System , utilizing comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to explore their genomic landscape and assess their relationship to currently defined disease entities. This analysis explored variants with evidence of pathogenic function, common copy number variants (CNVs), and several novel fusion events not described in literature. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) mutational signatures, anatomic location, and tumor recurrence are further explored. Using data collected from CGP, unsupervised machine-learning techniques were leveraged to identify 10 genomic classes in previously assigned young adult glioblastomas. The authors relate these molecular classes to current World Health Organization guidelines and reference current literature to give therapeutic and prognostic descriptions where possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: New treatment strategies for advanced non‐small‐cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) include synthetic lethality targets focused on protein arginine methyl transferases such as PRMT5 that exploit the impact of genomic loss of methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP). Methods: Twenty nine thousand three hundred seventy nine advanced NSCLC cases underwent hybrid‐capture based comprehensive genomic profiling between June 1, 2018 and May 31, 2020. PD‐L1 expression was determined by immunohistochemistry (Dako 22C3 PharmDx assay). Results: 13.4% (3928/29,379) NSCLC cases exhibited MTAP loss distributed in adenocarcinoma (59%), squamous cell carcinoma (22%), NSCLC not otherwise specified (16%), and 1% each for large‐cell neuroendocrine, sarcomatoid, and adenosquamous carcinoma. Statistically significant differences in mitogenic driver alterations included more KRAS G12C mutations in MTAP‐intact versus MTAP‐lost (12% vs. 10%, p = 0.0003) and fewer EGFR short variant mutations in MTAP‐intact versus MTAP‐lost NSCLC (10% vs. 13%, p < 0.0001). Statistically significant differences in currently untargetable genomic alterations included higher frequencies of TP53 (70% vs. 63%, p < 0.0001) and RB1 inactivation (10% vs. 2%, p < 0.0001) in MTAP‐intact compared to MTAP‐lost NSCLC. SMARCA4 inactivation (7% vs. 10%, p < 0.0001) was less frequent in MTAP‐intact versus MTAP‐lost NSCLC. Alterations in ERBB2, MET, ALK, ROS1, and NTRK1 did not significantly differ between the two groups. Predictors of immunotherapy efficacy were higher in MTAP‐intact versus MTAP‐lost NSCLC including tumor mutational burden (9.4 vs. 8.6 mut/Mb, p = 0.001) and low (30% vs. 28%, p = 0.01) and high PD‐L1 (32% vs. 30%, p = 0.01) expression. Alterations in biomarkers potentially predictive of immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance (STK11, KEAP1, and MDM2) were similar in the two groups. Conclusions: MTAP loss occurs in 13% of NSCLC, supporting the development of targeted therapies to exploit PRMT5 hyper‐dependence. MTAP loss is accompanied by small differences in targeted and immunotherapy options which may impact future combination strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]