Search

Triple-negative inflammatory breast cancer (TN-IBC) is the most aggressive type of breast cancer, yet its defining genomic, molecular, and immunological features remain largely unknown. In this study, we performed the largest and most comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic analyses of prospectively collected TN-IBC patient samples from a phase II clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02876107, registered on August 22, 2016) and compared them to similarly analyzed stage III TN-non-IBC patient samples (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02276443, registered on October 21, 2014). We found that TN-IBC tumors have distinctive genomic, molecular, and immunological characteristics, including a lower tumor mutation load than TN-non-IBC, and an association of immunosuppressive tumor-infiltrating immune components with an unfavorable response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. To our knowledge, this is the only study in which TN-IBC and TN-non-IBC samples were collected prospectively. Our analysis improves the understanding of the molecular landscape of the most aggressive subtype of breast cancer. Further studies are needed to discover novel prognostic biomarkers and druggable targets for TN-IBC., Competing Interests: Competing interests C.Y. has received research support (to the institution) from Amgen, Merck, Genentech, and GSK. N.T.U. holds consulting roles with the following companies: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (USA and UK), Bayer AG, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Carna Biosciences, Inc., CytoDyn Inc., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Inc., Genomic Health, Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Lavender Health, OncoCyte Corporation, Pear Bio, Peptilogics, Inc., Pfizer Inc., Phoenix Molecular Designs, Preferred Medicine, Carisma Therapeutics, Inc., Sysmex Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (Japan), and Unitech Medical, Inc. N.T.U. holds consulting roles with the following companies: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (USA and UK), Bayer AG, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Carna Biosciences, Inc., CytoDyn Inc., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Inc., Genomic Health, Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Lavender Health, OncoCyte Corporation, Pear Bio, Peptilogics, Inc., Pfizer Inc., Phoenix Molecular Designs, Preferred Medicine, Carisma Therapeutics, Inc., Sysmex Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (Japan), and Unitech Medical, Inc. N.T.U. has ownership of stock: Pear Bio and Phoenix Molecular Designs. N.T.U. holds speaker or preceptorship roles with the following companies: Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., Pfizer Inc., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Total Health Conferencing, and Eli Lilly and Company. N.T.U. has research agreements in place with the following companies: AnHeart Therapeutics Inc., Eisai Co., Ltd., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Phoenix Molecular Designs, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Puma Biotechnology, Inc., Merck Co., Oncolys BioPharma Inc., OBI Pharma Inc., ChemDiv, Inc., Tolero Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and VITRAC Therapeutics, LLC. All other authors have no relevant conflict of interest disclosures., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: Disparity in overall survival (OS) and differences in the frequency of driver gene variants by race and ethnicity have been separately observed in patients with colorectal cancer; however, how these differences contribute to survival disparity is unknown., Objective: To quantify the association of molecular, socioeconomic, and clinical covariates with racial and ethnic disparities in overall survival among patients with colorectal cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center cohort study was conducted at a tertiary-level cancer center using relevant data on all patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer from January 1, 1973, to March 1, 2023. The relative contribution of variables to the disparity was determined using mediation analysis with sequential multivariate Cox regression models., Main Outcome: OS, from diagnosis date and from start of first-line chemotherapy., Results: The study population of 47 178 patients (median [IQR] age, 57.0 [49-66] years; 20 465 [43.4%] females and 26 713 [56.6%] males; 3.0% Asian, 8.7% Black, 8.8% Hispanic, and 79.4% White individuals) had a median (IQR) follow-up from initial diagnosis of 124 (174) months and OS of 55 (145) months. Compared with White patients, Black patients had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24; P <.001), whereas Asian and Hispanic patients had better OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.74; P <.001; and 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92; P <.001, respectively). When restricted to patients with metastatic disease, the greatest disparity was between Black patients compared with White patients (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.06-1.37; P <.001). Evaluating changes in OS disparity over 20 years showed disparity decreasing among Asian, Hispanic, and White patients, but increasing between Black patients and White patients (HRs, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.31 for 2008-2012; 1.24, 95% CI, 1.08-1.42 for 2013-2017; and 1.50; 95% CI, 1.20-1.87 for 2018-2023). Survival outcomes for first-line chemotherapy were worse for Black patients compared with White patients (median OS, 18 vs 26 months; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01-1.70). Among 7628 patients who had clinical molecular testing, APC, KRAS, and PIK3CA showed higher variant frequency in Black patients (false discovery rate [FDR], 0.01; < 0.001; and 0.01, respectively), whereas BRAF and KIT were higher among White patients (FDR, 0.001 and 0.01). Mediation analysis identified neighborhood socioeconomic status as the greatest contributor to OS disparity (29%), followed by molecular characteristics (microsatellite instability status, KRAS variation and BRAF variation, 10%), and tumor sidedness (9%)., Conclusions: This single-center cohort study identified substantial OS disparity and differing frequencies of driver gene variations by race and ethnicity. Socioeconomic status had the largest contribution but accounted for less than one-third of the disparity, with substantial contribution from tumor molecular features. Further study of the associations of genetic ancestry and the molecular pathogenesis of colorectal cancer with chemotherapy response is needed.

Purpose: Appendiceal adenocarcinoma (AA) remains an orphan disease with limited treatment options for patients unable to undergo surgical resection. Evidence supporting the efficacy of combined VEGF and PD-1 inhibition in other tumor types provided a compelling rationale for investigating this combination in AA, where immune checkpoint inhibitors have not been explored previously., Experimental Design: We conducted a prospective, single-arm phase II study evaluating efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in conjunction with bevacizumab (Atezo+Bev) in advanced, unresectable AA., Results: Patients treated with the Atezo+Bev combination had 100% disease control rate (1 partial response, 15 stable disease) with progression-free survival (PFS) of 18.3 months and overall survival not-yet-reached with median duration of follow-up of 40 months. These survival intervals were significantly longer relative to a clinically and molecularly matched synthetic control cohort treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy designed for colorectal cancer (PFS of 4.4 months, P = 0.041)., Conclusions: In light of recent data demonstrating a lack of efficacy of 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy, Atezo+Bev is a promising treatment option for patients with low-grade unresectable AA; further study is warranted., Significance: AA remains an orphan disease with limited systemic therapy options for patients who are not candidates for surgical resection. These data suggest activity from combined VEGF and PD-L1 inhibition that warrants further study., (© 2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Dynamic operations platforms allow for cross-platform data extraction, integration, and analysis, although application of these platforms to large-scale oncology enterprises has not been described. This study presents a pipeline for automated, high-fidelity extraction, integration, and validation of cross-platform oncology data in patients undergoing treatment for rectal cancer at a single, high-volume institution., Methods: A dynamic operations platform was used to identify patients with rectal cancer treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2016 and 2022 who had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging and preoperative treatment details available in the electronic health record (EHR). Demographic, clinicopathologic, tumor mutation, radiographic, and treatment data were extracted from the EHR using a methodology adaptable to any disease site. Data accuracy was assessed by manual review. Accuracy before and after implementation of synoptic reporting was determined for MRI data., Results: A total of 516 patients with localized rectal cancer were included. In the era after institutional adoption of synoptic reports, the dynamic operations platform extracted T (tumor) category data from the EHR with 95% accuracy compared with 87% before the use of synoptic reports, and N (lymph node) category with 88% compared with 58%. Correct extraction of pelvic sidewall adenopathy was 94% compared with 78%, and extramural vascular invasion accuracy was 99% compared with 89%. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation data were 99% accurate for patients who had synoptic data sources., Conclusion: Using dynamic operations platforms enables automated cross-platform integration of multiparameter oncology data with high fidelity in patients undergoing multimodality treatment for rectal cancer. These pipelines can be adapted to other solid tumors and, together with standardized reporting, can increase efficiency in clinical research and the translation of actionable findings toward optimizing patient outcomes.

Importance: Serum tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) have been useful in the management of gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers; however, there is limited information regarding their utility in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma., Objective: To assess the association of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA125) with clinical outcomes and pathologic and molecular features in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center. The median (IQR) follow-up time was 52 (21-101) months. Software was used to query the MD Anderson internal patient database to identify patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma and at least 1 tumor marker measured at MD Anderson between March 2016 and May 2023. Data were analyzed from January to December 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: Association of serum tumor markers with survival in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were also performed to assess associations between clinical factors (serum tumor marker levels, demographics, and patient and disease characteristics) and patient outcomes (overall survival)., Results: A total of 1338 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were included, with a median (range) age at diagnosis of 56.5 (22.3-89.6) years. The majority of the patients had metastatic disease (1080 patients [80.7%]). CEA was elevated in 742 of the patients tested (56%), while CA19-9 and CA125 were elevated in 381 patients (34%) and 312 patients (27%), respectively. Individually, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with worse 5-year survival; elevated vs normal was 81% vs 95% for CEA (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0; 95% CI, 2.9-5.6), 84% vs 92% for CA19-9 (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4), and 69% vs 93% for CA125 (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.7-7.8) (P < .001 for all). Quantitative evaluation of tumor markers was associated with outcomes. Patients with highly elevated (top 10th percentile) CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 had markedly worse survival, with 5-year survival rates of 59% for CEA (HR, 9.8; 95% CI, 5.3-18.0), 64% for CA19-9 (HR, 6.0; 95% CI, 3.0-11.7), and 57% for CA125 (HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 3.5-16.5) (P < .001 for all). Although metastatic tumors had higher levels of all tumor markers, when restricting survival analysis to 1080 patients with metastatic disease, elevated CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were all still associated worse survival (HR for CEA, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.8; P < .001; HR for CA19-9, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7; P = .002; and HR for CA125, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.4-6.4; P < .001). Interestingly, tumor grade was not associated with CEA or CA19-9 level, while CA-125 was slightly higher in high-grade tumors relative to low-grade tumors (mean value, 18.3 vs 15.0; difference, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.9-3.7; P < .001). Multivariable analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with an 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all 3 tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated. Somatic mutations in KRAS and GNAS were associated with significantly higher levels of CEA and CA19-9., Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective study of serum tumor markers in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma, CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 were associated with overall survival in appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Given their value, all 3 biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

The relevance of KRAS mutation alleles to clinical outcome remains inconclusive in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We conducted a retrospective study of 803 patients with PDAC (42% with metastatic disease) at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Overall survival (OS) analysis demonstrated that KRAS mutation status and subtypes were prognostic (p < 0.001). Relative to patients with KRAS wildtype tumors (median OS 38 months), patients with KRAS G12R had a similar OS (median 34 months), while patients with KRAS Q61 and KRAS G12D mutated tumors had shorter OS (median 20 months [HR: 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0, p = 0.006] and 22 months [HR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.3, p < 0.001], respectively). There was enrichment of KRAS G12D mutation in metastatic tumors (34% vs 24%, OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.4, p = 0.001) and enrichment of KRAS G12R in well and moderately differentiated tumors (14% vs 9%, OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.05-2.99, p = 0.04). Similar findings were observed in the external validation cohort (PanCAN's Know Your Tumor® dataset, n = 408)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: Serum tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, & CA125 have been useful in the management of gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers, however there is limited information regarding their utility in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma., Objective: Assessing the association of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA125) with clinical outcomes, pathologic, and molecular features in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma., Design: This is a retrospective study with results reported in 2023. The median follow-up time was 43 months., Setting: Single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center., Participants: Under an approved Institutional Review Board protocol, the Palantir Foundry software system was used to query the MD Anderson internal patient database to identify patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma and at least one tumor marker measured at MD Anderson between 2016 and 2023., Results: A total of 1,338 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were included, with a median age of 56.5 years. The majority of the patients had metastatic disease (80.7%). CEA was elevated in more than half of the patients tested (56%), while CA19-9 and CA125 were elevated in 34% and 27%, respectively. Individually, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with worse 5-year survival; 82% vs 95%, 84% vs 92%, and 69% vs 93% elevated vs normal for CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 respectively (all p<0.0001). Quantitative evaluation of tumor markers increased prognostic ability. Patients with highly elevated (top 10 th percentile) CEA, CA19-9 or CA125 had markedly worse survival with 5-year survival rates of 59%, 64%, and 57%, respectively (HR vs. normal : 9.8, 6.0, 7.6, all p<0.0001). Although metastatic tumors had higher levels of all tumor markers, when restricting survival analysis to 1080 patients with metastatic disease elevated CEA, CA19-9 or CA125 were all still associated worse survival (HR vs. normal : 3.4, 1.8, 3.9, p<0.0001 for CEA and CA125, p=0.0019 for CA19-9). Interestingly tumor grade was not associated with CEA or CA19-9 level, while CA-125 was slightly higher in high relative to low-grade tumors (18.3 vs. 15.0, p=0.0009). Multivariable analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with a 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all three tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated. Mutation in KRAS and GNAS were associated with significantly higher levels of CEA and CA19-9., Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the utility of measuring CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 in the management of appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Given their prognostic value, all three biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients diagnosed with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

The relevance of KRAS mutation alleles to clinical outcome remains inconclusive in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We conducted a retrospective study of 803 PDAC patients (42% with metastatic disease) at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Overall survival (OS) analysis demonstrated that KRAS mutation status and subtypes were prognostic (p<0.001). Relative to patients with KRAS wildtype tumors (median OS 38 months), patients with KRAS G12R had a similar OS (median 34 months), while patients with KRAS Q61 and KRAS G12D mutated tumors had shorter OS (median 20 months [HR: 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0, p=0.006] and 22 months [HR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.3, p<0.001], respectively). There was enrichment of KRAS G12D mutation in metastatic tumors (34% vs 24%, OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.4, p=0.001) and enrichment of KRAS G12R in well and moderately differentiated tumors (14% vs 9%, OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.05-2.99, p=0.04). Similar findings were observed in the external validation cohort (PanCAN's Know Your Tumor ® dataset, n=408)., Competing Interests: Additional Declarations: There is a conflict of interest Dan Zhao is an advisory board member for Affini-T and she has clinical trial contract with CARsgen and Mirati. Disclosures and Competing interests: This data has not been previously presented. COI disclosures pending from authors.

There is scant information on the clinical progression, end-of-life decisions, and cause of death of patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID-19. Therefore, we conducted a case series of patients admitted to a comprehensive cancer center who did not survive their hospitalization. To determine the cause of death, 3 board-certified intensivists reviewed the electronic medical records. Concordance regarding cause of death was calculated. Discrepancies were resolved through a joint case-by-case review and discussion among the 3 reviewers. During the study period, 551 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were admitted to a dedicated specialty unit; among them, 61 (11.6%) were nonsurvivors. Among nonsurvivors, 31 (51%) patients had hematologic cancers, and 29 (48%) had undergone cancer-directed chemotherapy within 3 months before admission. The median time to death was 15 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.8 to 18.2). There were no differences in time to death by cancer category or cancer treatment intent. The majority of decedents (84%) had full code status at admission; however, 53 (87%) had do-not-resuscitate orders at the time of death. Most deaths were deemed to be COVID-19 related (88.5%). The concordance between the reviewers for the cause of death was 78.7%. In contrast to the belief that COVID-19 decedents die because of their comorbidities, in our study only 1 of every 10 patients died of cancer-related causes. Full-scale interventions were offered to all patients irrespective of oncologic treatment intent. However, most decedents in this population preferred care with nonresuscitative measures rather than full support at the end of life., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Clinical management of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) could be informed using accurate predictive tools to identify patients at risk of short-term acute care utilization (ACU). We used routinely collected data to develop and assess machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict unplanned ACU within 90 days of ICI treatment initiation., Methods: We used aggregated electronic health record data from 7,960 patients receiving ICI treatments to train and assess eight ML algorithms. We developed the models using pre-SARS-COV-19 COVID-19 data generated between January 2016 and February 2020. We validated our algorithms using data collected between March 2020 and June 2022 (peri-COVID-19 sample). We assessed performance using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, and calibration plots. We derived intuitive explanations of predictions using variable importance and Shapley additive explanation analyses. We assessed the marginal performance of ML models compared with that of univariate and multivariate logistic regression (LR) models., Results: Most algorithms significantly outperformed the univariate and multivariate LR models. The extreme gradient boosting trees (XGBT) algorithm demonstrated the best overall performance (AUROC, 0.70; sensitivity, 0.53; specificity, 0.74) on the peri-COVID-19 sample. The algorithm performance was stable across both pre- and peri-COVID-19 samples, as well as ICI regimen and cancer groups. Type of ICI agents, oxygen saturation, diastolic blood pressure, albumin level, platelet count, immature granulocytes, absolute monocyte, chloride level, red cell distribution width, and alcohol intake were the top 10 key predictors used by the XGBT algorithm., Conclusion: Machine learning algorithms trained using routinely collected data outperformed traditional statistical models when predicting 90-day ACU. The XGBT algorithm has the potential to identify high-ACU risk patients and enable preventive interventions to avoid ACU.

Importance: Therapies for patients with advanced well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have expanded but remain inadequate, with patients dying of disease despite recent advances in NET therapy. While patients with other cancers have seen long-term disease control and tumor regression with the application of immunotherapies, initial prospective studies of single-agent programmed cell death 1 inhibitors in NET have been disappointing., Objective: To evaluate the response rate following treatment with the combination of the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab with the programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 inhibitor atezolizumab in patients with advanced NETs., Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-arm, open-label nonrandomized clinical study in patients with rare cancers included 40 patients with advanced, progressive grade 1 to 2 NETs (20 with pancreatic NETs [pNETs] and 20 with extrapancreatic NETs [epNETs]) treated at a tertiary care referral cancer center between March 31, 2017, and February 19, 2019. Data were analyzed from June to September 2021., Interventions: Patients received intravenous bevacizumab and atezolizumab at standard doses every 3 weeks until progression, death, or withdrawal., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was objective radiographic response using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, with progression-free survival (PFS) as a key secondary end point., Results: Following treatment of the 40 study patients with bevacizumab and atezolizumab, objective response was observed in 4 patients with pNETs (20%; 95% CI, 5.7%-43.7%) and 3 patients with epNETs (15%; 95% CI, 3.2%-37.9%). The PFS was 14.9 (95% CI, 4.4-32.0) months and 14.2 (95% CI, 10.2-19.6) months in these cohorts, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized clinical trial, findings suggest that clinical responses in patients with NET may follow treatment with the combination of bevacizumab and atezolizumab, with a PFS consistent with effective therapies., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03074513.

Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) is a rare but aggressive malignancy with limited treatment options. VEGF inhibition enhances efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors by reworking the immunosuppressive tumor milieu. Efficacy and safety of combined PD-L1 (atezolizumab) and VEGF (bevacizumab) blockade (AtezoBev) was assessed in 20 patients with advanced and unresectable MPeM with progression or intolerance to prior platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate per RECISTv1.1 by independent radiology review was 40% [8/20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 19.1-64.0] with median response duration of 12.8 months. Six (75%) responses lasted for >10 months. Progression-free and overall survival at one year were 61% (95% CI, 35-80) and 85% (95% CI, 60-95), respectively. Responses occurred notwithstanding low tumor mutation burden and PD-L1 expression status. Baseline epithelial-mesenchymal transition gene expression correlated with therapeutic resistance/response ( r = 0.80; P = 0.0010). AtezoBev showed promising and durable efficacy in patients with advanced MPeM with an acceptable safety profile, and these results address a grave unmet need for this orphan disease. SIGNIFICANCE: Efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab vis-à-vis response rates and survival in advanced peritoneal mesothelioma previously treated with chemotherapy surpassed outcomes expected with conventional therapies. Biomarker analyses uncovered epithelial-mesenchymal transition phenotype as an important resistance mechanism and showcase the value and feasibility of performing translationally driven clinical trials in rare tumors. See related commentary by Aldea et al., p. 2674 . This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 2659 ., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)