Search

Purpose: Even though BRAF fusions are increasingly detected in standard multigene next-generation sequencing panels, few reports have explored their structure and impact on clinical course., Experimental Design: We collected data from patients with BRAF fusion-positive cancers identified through a genotyping protocol of 97,024 samples. Fusions were characterized and reviewed for oncogenic potential (in-frame status, non-BRAF partner gene, and intact BRAF kinase domain)., Results: We found 241 BRAF fusion-positive tumors from 212 patients with 82 unique 5' fusion partners spanning 52 histologies. Thirty-nine fusion partners were not previously reported, and 61 were identified once. BRAF fusion incidence was enriched in pilocytic astrocytomas, gangliogliomas, low-grade neuroepithelial tumors, and acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas. Twenty-four patients spanning multiple histologies were treated with MAPK-directed therapies, of which 20 were evaluable for RECIST. Best response was partial response (N = 2), stable disease (N = 11), and progressive disease (N = 7). The median time on therapy was 1 month with MEK plus BRAF inhibitors [(N = 11), range 0-18 months] and 8 months for MEK inhibitors [(N = 14), range 1-26 months]. Nine patients remained on treatment for longer than 6 months [pilocytic astrocytomas (N = 6), Erdheim-Chester disease (N = 1), extraventricular neurocytoma (N = 1), and melanoma (N = 1)]. Fifteen patients had acquired BRAF fusions., Conclusions: BRAF fusions are found across histologies and represent an emerging actionable target. BRAF fusions have a diverse set of fusion partners. Durable responses to MAPK therapies were seen, particularly in pilocytic astrocytomas. Acquired BRAF fusions were identified after targeted therapy, underscoring the importance of postprogression biopsies to optimize treatment at relapse in these patients., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is characterized by rapid progression after platinum resistance. Circulating tumor (ctDNA) dynamics early in treatment may help determine platinum sensitivity., Materials and Methods: Serial plasma samples were collected from patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy for SCLC on the first 3 days of cycle one and on the first days of subsequent cycles with paired samples collected both before and again after infusions. Tumor-informed plasma analysis was carried out using CAncer Personalized Profiling by deep Sequencing (CAPP-Seq). The mean variant allele frequency (VAF) of all pretreatment mutations was tracked in subsequent blood draws and correlated with radiologic response., Results: ctDNA kinetics were assessed in 122 samples from 21 patients. Pretreatment VAF did not differ significantly between patients who did and did not respond to chemotherapy (mean 22.5% v 4.6%, P = .17). A slight increase in ctDNA on cycle 1, day 1 immediately post-treatment was seen in six of the seven patients with available draws (fold change from baseline: 1.01-1.44), half of whom achieved a response. All patients who responded had a >2-fold decrease in mean VAF on cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in patients with a >2-fold decrease in mean VAF after one treatment cycle (6.8 v 2.6 months, log-rank P = .0004 and 21.7 v 6.4 months, log rank P = .04, respectively)., Conclusion: A >2-fold decrease in ctDNA concentration was observed by C2D1 in all patients who were sensitive to platinum-based therapy and was associated with longer PFS and OS.

Summary: Advances in cancer biology and diagnostics have led to the recognition of a multitude of rare cancer subtypes, emphasizing the pressing need for strategies to accelerate drug development for patients with these cancers. This paper addresses the unique challenges of dose finding in trials that accrue small numbers of patients with rare cancers; strategies for dose optimization are proposed, in line with evolving approaches to dose determination in the age of the US Food and Drug Administration's Project Optimus., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Large-scale tumor molecular profiling has revealed that diverse cancer histologies are driven by common pathways with unifying biomarkers that can be exploited therapeutically. Disease-agnostic basket trials have been increasingly utilized to test biomarker-driven therapies across cancer types. These trials have led to drug approvals and improved the lives of patients while simultaneously advancing our understanding of cancer biology. This review focuses on the practicalities of implementing basket trials, with an emphasis on molecularly targeted trials. We examine the biologic subtleties of genomic biomarker and patient selection, discuss previous successes in drug development facilitated by basket trials, describe certain novel targets and drugs, and emphasize practical considerations for participant recruitment and study design. This review also highlights strategies for aiding patient access to basket trials. As basket trials become more common, steps to ensure equitable implementation of these studies will be critical for molecularly targeted drug development.

Summary: This article presents a review of recent major advances in precision oncology and the future implications of these advances, specifying the iterative progress achieved from the end of 2022 through 2023. We discuss the different classes of precision oncology drugs and associated biomarkers as well as the improvements in clinical trial design that have enabled the efficient testing of these drugs., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Metastatic and localized mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) tumors are exquisitely sensitive to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). The ability of ICB to prevent dMMR malignant or pre-malignant neoplasia development in patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) is unknown. Of 172 cancer-affected patients with LS who had received ≥1 ICB cycles, 21 (12%) developed subsequent malignancies after ICB exposure, 91% (29/32) of which were dMMR, with median time to development of 21 months (interquartile range, 6-38). Twenty-four of 61 (39%) ICB-treated patients who subsequently underwent surveillance colonoscopy had premalignant polyps. Within matched pre-ICB and post-ICB follow-up periods, the overall rate of tumor development was unchanged; however, on subgroup analysis, a decreased incidence of post-ICB visceral tumors was observed. These data suggest that ICB treatment of LS-associated tumors does not eliminate risk of new neoplasia development, and LS-specific surveillance strategies should continue. These data have implications for immunopreventative strategies and provide insight into the immunobiology of dMMR tumors., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Background: Sensitive and reliable biomarkers for early detection of recurrence are needed to improve post-definitive radiation risk stratification, disease management, and outcomes for patients with unresectable early-stage or locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are treated with definitive radiation therapy (RT). This prospective, multistate single-center, cohort study investigated the association of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) status with recurrence in patients with unresectable stage I-III NSCLC who underwent definitive RT., Methods: A total of 70 serial plasma samples from 17 NSCLC patients were collected before, during, and after treatment. A personalized, tumor-informed ctDNA assay was used to track a set of up to 16 somatic, single nucleotide variants in the associated patient's plasma samples., Results: Pre-treatment ctDNA detection rate was 82% (14/17) and varied based on histology and stage. ctDNA was detected in 35% (6/17) of patients at the first post-RT timepoint (median of 1.66 months following the completion of RT), all of whom subsequently developed clinical progression. At this first post-RT time point, patients with ctDNA-positivity had significantly worse progression-free survival (PFS) [hazard ratio (HR): 24.2, p=0.004], and ctDNA-positivity was the only significant prognostic factor associated with PFS (HR: 13.4, p=0.02) in a multivariate analysis. All patients who developed clinical recurrence had detectable ctDNA with an average lead time over radiographic progression of 5.4 months, and post-RT ctDNA positivity was significantly associated with poor PFS (p<0.0001)., Conclusion: Personalized, longitudinal ctDNA monitoring can detect recurrence early in patients with unresectable NSCLC patients undergoing curative radiation and potentially risk-stratify patients who might benefit most from treatment intensification., Competing Interests: NS reports research funding from Novartis. DG reports research funding from Astra Zeneca and Varian and receives Honoraria from Johnson and Johnson, MedLearning Gropu, and GRAIL. YM-G reports travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZeneca and Loxo Oncology/Eli Lilly. She acknowledges honoraria from Virology Education and Projects in Knowledge for a CME program funded by an educational grant from Amgen. She acknowledges associated research funding to the institution from Mirati Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology at Eli Lilly, Elucida Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Hengrui USA, Ltd/Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Luzsana Biotechnology, and Endeavor Biomedicines. She acknowledges royalties from Rutgers University Press and Wolters Kluwer. She acknowledges food/beverages from Endeavor Biomedicines. YM-G acknowledges receipt of training through an institutional K30 grant from the NIH CTSA UL1TR00457. She has received funding from a Kristina M. Day Young Investigator Award from Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, endowed by Dr. Charles M. Baum and Carol A. Baum. She is also funded by the Fiona and Stanley Druckenmiller Center for Lung Cancer Research, the Andrew Sabin Family Foundation, the Society for MSK, and a Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology NIH/NCI K12 CA184746. JJ has a patent licensed by MDSeq Inc. JC has served as a consultant for Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squib, Genentech, Merck, Flame Biosciences, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Guardant Health, and Janssen as well as received research funding to her institution from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squib, Genentech, and Merck. MGK receives personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen, and Daiichi-Sankyo. He has also received honoraria for participation in educational programs from WebMD, OncLive, Physicians Education Resources, Prime Oncology, Intellisphere, Creative Educational Concepts, Peerview, i3 Health, Paradigm Medical Communications, AXIS, Carvive Systems, and AstraZeneca. MGK has received travel support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Genentech as well as editorial support from Hoffman La-Roche. EK, JF, CBS, SS, CCP, MMa, MK, HS, AA, and MCL reported employment and stock ownership or option at Natera, Inc outside the submitted work. MCL reported receiving grants funding to Mayo Clinic from Eisai, Exact Sciences, Genentech, Genomic Health, GRAIL, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Merck, Novartis, Seattle Genetics and Tesaro, and travel support from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health and Ionis, outside the submitted work. AS has stock ownership in ArcellX and Doximity. AW reports research support from CivaTech Oncology, Inc, Honoraria from Nanovi A/S, serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of Simphotek, Inc, and has stock in Simphotek, Inc. CS reports Honoraria from Varian and Novocure and serves in a Leadership position for the Proton Collaborative Group, American Society for Radiation Oncology, NRG Oncology, American Radium Society, and Annals of Palliative Medicine. DG reports research funding to her institution from Merck. CR reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Ascentage, AstraZeneca, Bicycle, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, Ipsen, Jansen, Jazz, Lilly/Loxo, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Syros, Vavotek, Bridge Medicines, and Harpoon Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. DG reports grants to his institutions from Varian, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Varia, AstraZeneca, Merck, US Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Relfexion, WebMD, Vindico, and Medscape; and has served on the advisory board for AstraZeneca; he has also received Honoraria from Johnson and Johnson, MedLearning Group, and GRAIL. PR received institutional grant/funding from Grail, Illumina, Novartis, Epic Sciences, ArcherDx and Consultation/Ad board/Honoraria from Novartis, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca, Epic Sciences, Inivata, Natera, and Tempus. JR-F is a paid consultant of Goldman Sachs, Paige.AI and REPARE Therapeutics, a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Goldman Sachs, Paige.AI and Volition RX, and ad hoc member of the scientific advisory board of Roche, Genetech, Roche Tissue Diagnostics, Ventana, Novartis, InVicro and GRAIL. JR-F reports receiving personal/consultancy fees from Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital, REPARE Therapeutics, Saga Diagnostics and Paige.AI, membership of the scientific advisory boards of VolitionRx, REPARE Therapeutics and Paige.AI, membership of the Board of Directors of Grupo Oncoclinicas, and ad hoc membership of the scientific advisory boards of Astrazeneca, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche Tissue Diagnostics and Personalis, outside the scope of this study. JR-F is funded in part by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, by a Susan G Komen Leadership grant, and by the NIH/NCI P50 CA247749 01 grant. JI reports equity in LumaCyte, LLC and has served as an uncompensated member of a steering committee for Genentech. BL has served as an uncompensated advisor and consultant to Amgen, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo. He has received research grants to his institution from Amgen, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Illumina, GRAIL, Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, MORE Health and Bolt Biotherapeutics. He has received academic travel support from MORE Health, and Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine. He is an inventor on two institutional patents at MSK US62/685,057, US62/514,661 and has intellectual property rights as a book author at Karger Publishers and Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press. AR reports research funding from Varian Medical Systems, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astra Zeneca, Merck, and Pfizer and serves in Leadership Positions for the International Thymic Malignancies Group and International Mesothelioma Interest group. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Lebow, Shaverdian, Eichholz, Kratochvil, McCune, Murciano-Goroff, Jee, Eng, Chaft, Kris, Kalashnikova, Feeney, Scalise, Sudhaman, Palsuledesai, Malhotra, Krainock, Sethi, Aleshin, Liu, Shepherd, Wu, Simone, Gelblum, Johnson, Rudin, Gomez, Razavi, Reis-Filho, Isbell, Li and Rimner.)

Purpose: To evaluate rates of germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PVs) and genetic counseling by ancestry in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC)., Methods: Patients with pathologically confirmed EOC who underwent clinical tumor-normal sequencing from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020, inclusive of germline analysis of ≥76 genes were included. Patients with newly identified PVs were referred for Clinical Genetics Service (CGS) counseling. Ancestry groups were defined using self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) heritage. Genetic ancestry was inferred computationally using validated algorithms. Logistic regression models were built., Results: Of 1,266 patients, self-reported ancestry (AJ, 17%; Asian, 10%; Black/African American, 5.4%; Hispanic, 6.2%; non-Hispanic White, 57%; other, 0.16%; unknown, 4.0%) correlated with genetic ancestry (AJ ancestry, 18%; admixed, 10%; African, 4%; East Asian [EAS], 6%; European, 56%; Native American, 0.2%; South Asian [SAS], 4%; unknown, 2%). Germline PVs were observed in 313 (25%) patients, including 195 (15%) with PVs in EOC-associated genes. Those with PVs were younger at diagnosis (59 v 62 years; P < .001) and more likely to have high-grade serous ovarian cancer (83% v 72%; P = .009). PV prevalence varied between ancestry groups ( P < .001), with highest rates in the AJ (39.9%) and Asian (26.5%) groups and similar rates (>10%) across other ancestry groups. Use of genetic ancestry demonstrated similar findings and further characterized high rates of PV in EAS/SAS groups. Younger age, high-grade serous histology, and self-reported AJ or Asian ancestry were associated with PV in an EOC-associated gene. Rates of CGS counseling for newly identified PVs were high (80%) across ancestry groups., Conclusion: Rates of PV, particularly in EOC-associated genes, were high regardless of ancestry, with similar rates of counseling between groups, emphasizing the importance of universal genetic testing in all patients with EOC.

Background: We sought to determine the prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (gPVs) in unselected patients with endometrial cancer (EC), define biallelic gPVs within tumors, and describe their associations with clinicopathologic features., Methods: Germline assessment of at least 76 cancer predisposition genes was performed in patients with EC undergoing clinical tumor-normal Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets (MSK-IMPACT) sequencing from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2021. In patients with gPVs, biallelic alterations in ECs were identified through analysis of loss of heterozygosity and somatic PVs. Clinicopathologic variables were compared using nonparametric tests., Results: Of 1625 patients with EC, 216 (13%) had gPVs, and 15 patients had 2 gPVs. There were 231 gPVs in 35 genes (75 [32%] high penetrance; 39 [17%] moderate penetrance; and 117 [51%] low, recessive, or uncertain penetrance). Compared with those without gPVs, patients with gPVs were younger (P = .002), more often White (P = .009), and less obese (P = .025) and had differences in distribution of tumor histology (P = .017) and molecular subtype (P < .001). Among 231 gPVs, 74 (32%) exhibited biallelic inactivation within tumors. For high-penetrance gPVs, 63% (47 of 75) of ECs had biallelic alterations, primarily affecting mismatch repair (MMR) and homologous recombination related genes, including BRCA1,BRCA2, RAD51D, and PALB2. Biallelic inactivation varied across molecular subtypes with highest rates in microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or copy-number (CN)-high subtypes (3 of 12 [25%] POLE, 30 of 77 [39%] MSI-H, 27 of 60 [45%] CN-high, 9 of 57 [16%] CN-low; P < .001)., Conclusions: Of unselected patients with EC, 13% had gPVs, with 63% of gPVs in high-penetrance genes (MMR and homologous recombination) exhibiting biallelic inactivation, potentially driving cancer development. This supports germline assessment in EC given implications for treatment and cancer prevention., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Central nervous system (CNS) metastases develop in nearly half of patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLCs and cause morbidity and mortality. The selective RET inhibitor selpercatinib treats existing intracranial disease, but no studies have investigated whether early initiation of selpercatinib is associated with decreased development of CNS metastases., Methods: A total of 61 patients with RET fusion-positive advanced NSCLC with and without CNS metastases treated with selpercatinib on the LIBRETTO-001 trial (NCT03157128) or the LIBRETTO-201 expanded access program (NCT03906331) were identified. Cumulative incidence rates (CIRs) for CNS metastases were assessed as an event of interest; systemic progression of disease and death were considered competing risks., Results: The median age was 65 years, and the most common 5' fusion partners were KIF5B (67%) and CCDC6 (18%). There were 24 patients (39%) who received prior platinum chemotherapy and 20 patients (33%) who received prior multikinase inhibition. The median time on selpercatinib was 21.8 months. Furthermore, 30 patients (49%) had CNS disease at baseline and 31 patients (51%) had no baseline CNS disease. CIRs of CNS progression among patients with baseline CNS disease were 3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0%-10%), 10% (95% CI: 0%-22%), 17% (3%-30%), 17% (3%-30%), and 20% (5%-35%) at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months, respectively. CIR for CNS progression among patients without baseline CNS disease was 0% at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months (95% CI: 0%-0%)., Conclusions: CNS progression was not observed with selpercatinib therapy in patients without baseline CNS disease. CNS progression on selpercatinib was rare in patients with baseline CNS disease. Early initiation of selpercatinib is associated with decreased rates of CNS metastasis formation and progression and may play a preventive role., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

With the combination of KRASG12C and EGFR inhibitors, KRAS is becoming a druggable target in colorectal cancer. However, secondary resistance limits its efficacy. Using cell lines, patient-derived xenografts, and patient samples, we detected a heterogeneous pattern of putative resistance alterations expected primarily to prevent inhibition of ERK signaling by drugs at progression. Serial analysis of patient blood samples on treatment demonstrates that most of these alterations are detected at a low frequency except for KRASG12C amplification, a recurrent resistance mechanism that rises in step with clinical progression. Upon drug withdrawal, resistant cells with KRASG12C amplification undergo oncogene-induced senescence, and progressing patients experience a rapid fall in levels of this alteration in circulating DNA. In this new state, drug resumption is ineffective as mTOR signaling is elevated. However, our work exposes a potential therapeutic vulnerability, whereby therapies that target the senescence response may overcome acquired resistance., Significance: Clinical resistance to KRASG12C-EGFR inhibition primarily prevents suppression of ERK signaling. Most resistance mechanisms are subclonal, whereas KRASG12C amplification rises over time to drive a higher portion of resistance. This recurrent resistance mechanism leads to oncogene-induced senescence upon drug withdrawal and creates a potential vulnerability to senolytic approaches. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

The association between loss of BRCA1/2 and a homologous recombination deficiency phenotype is lineage dependent. In BRCA-associated cancers such as breast, ovarian, pancreas and prostate, this phenotype confers sensitivity to PARP inhibitors and platinum-therapies. Somatic reversion mutations restoring BRCA1/2 function mediate resistance, and have exclusively been reported in BRCA-associated tumors. In this study, we analyze matched tumor and normal sequencing from 31,927 patients and identify 846 (2.7%) patients with germline BRCA1/2 variants across 43 different cancer types, including 11 with somatic reversion mutations. While nine are in BRCA-associated tumors, we find two reversion mutations in non-BRCA-associated histologies, namely lung and esophagogastric adenocarcinomas. Both were detected following platinum therapy. Whole exome sequencing confirms the homologous recombination deficiency phenotype of these tumors. While reversion mutations arise in all BRCA-associated cancer types, here we show that reversion mutations arising post-platinum in non-BRCA associated histologies, while rare, may indicate BRCA1/2 mediated tumorigenesis., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Germline risk assessment is increasing as part of cancer care; however, disparities in subsequent genetic counseling are unknown., Methods: Pan-cancer patients were prospectively consented to tumor-normal sequencing via custom next generation sequencing panel (Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets) inclusive of germline analysis of ≥76 genes from January 2015 through December 2019 (97.5% research nonbillable) with protocol for genetics referral. Rates of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PVs) and downstream counseling were compared across ancestry groups (mutually exclusive groups based on self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish [AJ] heritage) using nonparametric tests and multivariable logistic regression models., Results: Among 15,775 patients (59.6%, non-Hispanic [NH]-White; 15.7%, AJ; 20.5%, non-White [6.9%, Asian; 6.8%, Black/African American (AA); 6.7%, Hispanic; 0.1%, Other], and 4.2%, unknown), 2663 (17%) had a PV. Non-White patients had a lower PV rate (n = 433, 13.4%) compared to NH-Whites (n = 1451, 15.4%) and AJ patients (n = 683, 27.6%), p < .01, with differences in mostly moderate and low/recessive/uncertain penetrance variants. Among 2239 patients with new PV, 1652 (73.8%) completed recommended genetic counseling. Non-White patients had lower rates of genetic counseling (67.7%) than NH-White (73.7%) and AJ patients (78.8%), p < .01, with lower rates occurring in Black/AA (63%) compared to NH-White patients, even after adjustment for confounders (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.97; p = .036). Non-White, particularly Black/AA and Asian, probands had a trend toward lower rates and numbers of at-risk family members being seen for counseling/genetic testing., Conclusions: Despite minimizing barriers to genetic testing, non-White patients were less likely to receive recommended cancer genetics follow-up, with potential implications for oncologic care, cancer risk reduction, and at-risk family members., Lay Summary: Genetic testing is becoming an important part of cancer care, and we wanted to see if genetics care was different between individuals of different backgrounds. We studied 15,775 diverse patients with cancer who had genetic testing using a test called MSK-IMPACT that was covered by research funding. Clinically important genetic findings were high in all groups. However, Black patients were less likely to get recommended counseling compared to White patients. Even after removing many roadblocks, non-White and especially Black patients were less likely to get recommended genetics care, which may affect their cancer treatments and families., (© 2022 American Cancer Society.)

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) sequencing guides therapy decisions but has been studied mostly in small cohorts without sufficient follow-up to determine its influence on overall survival. We prospectively followed an international cohort of 1,127 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and ctDNA-guided therapy. ctDNA detection was associated with shorter survival (hazard ratio (HR), 2.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.74-2.42; P < 0.001) independently of clinicopathologic features and metabolic tumor volume. Among the 722 (64%) patients with detectable ctDNA, 255 (23%) matched to targeted therapy by ctDNA sequencing had longer survival than those not treated with targeted therapy (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76; P < 0.001). Genomic alterations in ctDNA not detected by time-matched tissue sequencing were found in 25% of the patients. These ctDNA-only alterations disproportionately featured subclonal drivers of resistance, including RICTOR and PIK3CA alterations, and were associated with short survival. Minimally invasive ctDNA profiling can identify heterogeneous drivers not captured in tissue sequencing and expand community access to life-prolonging therapy., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

PTEN acts as a potent tumor suppressor within the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. Germline mutations in the PTEN gene are a hallmark of PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome, which includes Cowden syndrome, where they appear to elevate lifetime risk of cancer. Targeted AKT directed therapy has been proposed as an effective approach in cancer patients having germline PTEN mutations. The mechanism of action, safety and dosing regimen for the novel allosteric AKT inhibitor TAS-117 have been explored in a phase I study in Japan in which activity was observed against certain tumor types. Here we describe the study protocol of an international, two-part phase II study evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and antitumor activity of TAS-117 in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring germline PTEN -inactivating mutations.

Background: While 2-4% of lung cancers possess alterations in BRAF, little is known about the immune responsiveness of these tumours., Methods: Clinical and genomic data were collected from 5945 patients with lung cancers whose tumours underwent next-generation sequencing between 2015 and 2018. Patients were followed through 2020., Results: In total, 127 patients with metastatic BRAF-altered lung cancers were identified: 29 tumours had Class I mutations, 59 had Class II/III alterations, and 39 had variants of unknown significance (VUS). Tumour mutation burden was higher in Class II/III than Class I-altered tumours (8.8 mutations/Mb versus 4.9, P < 0.001), but this difference was diminished when stratified by smoking status. The overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) was 9% in Class I-altered tumours and 26% in Class II/III (P = 0.25), with median time on treatment of 1.9 months in both groups. Among patients with Class I-III-altered tumours, 36-month HR for death in those who ever versus never received ICI was 1.82 (1.17-6.11). Nine patients were on ICI for >2 years (two with Class I mutations, two with Class II/III alterations, and five with VUS)., Conclusions: A subset of patients with BRAF-altered lung cancers achieved durable disease control on ICI. However, collectively no significant clinical benefit was seen., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Inactive state-selective KRAS(G12C) inhibitors 1-8 demonstrate a 30-40% response rate and result in approximately 6-month median progression-free survival in patients with lung cancer 9 . The genetic basis for resistance to these first-in-class mutant GTPase inhibitors remains under investigation. Here we evaluated matched pre-treatment and post-treatment specimens from 43 patients treated with the KRAS(G12C) inhibitor sotorasib. Multiple treatment-emergent alterations were observed across 27 patients, including alterations in KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, EGFR, FGFR2, MYC and other genes. In preclinical patient-derived xenograft and cell line models, resistance to KRAS(G12C) inhibition was associated with low allele frequency hotspot mutations in KRAS(G12V or G13D), NRAS(Q61K or G13R), MRAS(Q71R) and/or BRAF(G596R), mirroring observations in patients. Single-cell sequencing in an isogenic lineage identified secondary RAS and/or BRAF mutations in the same cells as KRAS(G12C), where they bypassed inhibition without affecting target inactivation. Genetic or pharmacological targeting of ERK signalling intermediates enhanced the antiproliferative effect of G12C inhibitor treatment in models with acquired RAS or BRAF mutations. Our study thus suggests a heterogenous pattern of resistance with multiple subclonal events emerging during G12C inhibitor treatment. A subset of patients in our cohort acquired oncogenic KRAS, NRAS or BRAF mutations, and resistance in this setting may be delayed by co-targeting of ERK signalling intermediates. These findings merit broader evaluation in prospective clinical trials., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Purpose: Although NRG1 fusions are oncogenic drivers across multiple tumor types including lung cancers, these are difficult to study because of their rarity. The global eNRGy1 registry was thus established to characterize NRG1 fusion-positive lung cancers in the largest and most diverse series to date., Methods: From June 2018 to February 2020, a consortium of 22 centers from nine countries in Europe, Asia, and the United States contributed data from patients with pathologically confirmed NRG1 fusion-positive lung cancers. Profiling included DNA-based and/or RNA-based next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Anonymized clinical, pathologic, molecular, and response (RECIST v1.1) data were centrally curated and analyzed., Results: Although the typified never smoking (57%), mucinous adenocarcinoma (57%), and nonmetastatic (71%) phenotype predominated in 110 patients with NRG1 fusion-positive lung cancer, further diversity, including in smoking history (43%) and histology (43% nonmucinous and 6% nonadenocarcinoma), was elucidated. RNA-based testing identified most fusions (74%). Molecularly, six (of 18) novel 5' partners, 20 unique epidermal growth factor domain-inclusive chimeric events, and heterogeneous 5'/3' breakpoints were found. Platinum-doublet and taxane-based (post-platinum-doublet) chemotherapy achieved low objective response rates (ORRs 13% and 14%, respectively) and modest progression-free survival medians (PFS 5.8 and 4.0 months, respectively). Consistent with a low programmed death ligand-1 expressing (28%) and low tumor mutational burden (median: 0.9 mutations/megabase) immunophenotype, the activity of chemoimmunotherapy and single-agent immunotherapy was poor (ORR 0%/PFS 3.3 months and ORR 20%/PFS 3.6 months, respectively). Afatinib achieved an ORR of 25%, not contingent on fusion type, and a 2.8-month median PFS., Conclusion: NRG1 fusion-positive lung cancers were molecularly, pathologically, and clinically more heterogeneous than previously recognized. The activity of cytotoxic, immune, and targeted therapies was disappointing. Further research examining NRG1 -rearranged tumor biology is needed to develop new therapeutic strategies., Competing Interests: Alexander DrilonHonoraria: Medscape, OncLive, PeerVoice, Physicans' Education Resource, Targeted Oncology, MORE Health, Research to Practice, Foundation Medicine, PeerviewConsulting or Advisory Role: Ignyta, Loxo, TP Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Blueprint Medicines, Genentech/Roche, Helsinn Therapeutics, BeiGene, Hengrui Therapeutics, Exelixis, Bayer, Tyra Biosciences, Verastem, Takeda/Millennium, BerGenBio, MORE Health, Lilly, Verastem, AbbVie, 14ner Oncology/Elevation Oncology, Remedica, Archer, Monopteros Therapeutics, Novartis, EMD Serono/Merck, Melendi, Repare TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Foundation MedicinePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Wolters Kluwer (royalties for Pocket Oncology)Other Relationship: Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Puma Biotechnology Michael DuruisseauxConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Oncology, Amgen, AbbVieTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ji-Youn HanHonoraria: Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, TakedaConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, PfizerResearch Funding: Roche, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda Soo-Ryum YangConsulting or Advisory Role: Invitae Yonina R. Murciano-GoroffTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca Morihito OkadaSpeakers' Bureau: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Johnson & Johnson, Covidien, Lilly, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, CSL BehringResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Chugai Pharma, Covidien, Johnson & Johnson, Daiichi Sankyo, Yakult Honsha, Lilly Japan, Nihon Medi-Physics, Pfizer, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Shionogi, Ono Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Miguel Angel MolinaEmployment: Pangaea OncologyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, In3Bio Marie WislezConsulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, AmgenSpeakers' Bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Roche, MSD Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, MSD Oncology Alexa SchrockEmployment: Foundation MedicineStock and Other Ownership Interests: Foundation Medicine, Roche Siraj AliEmployment: EQRX (I), Foundation Medicine, EQRXLeadership: Incysus Inc, Elevation Oncology, Pillar BiosciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Exelixis, Merus NV, PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Azitra (I), Princepx Tx (I)Patents, Royalties, and Other Intellectual Property:Patents via Seres Health on microbiome in non neoplastic disease (I), Foundation Medicine Valérie GounantConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Chugai Pharma EuropeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda, Roche, Pfizer Alison M. SchramResearch Funding: Merus, Kura Oncology, Surface Oncology, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Northern Biologics, Pfizer, Black Diamond Therapeutics, BeiGene, Relay Therapeutics Isabelle MonnetTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Oncology, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer Jin-Yuan ShihHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Chugai Pharma, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Chugai Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & DohmeResearch Funding: RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Chugai Pharma, Roche Joshua SabariConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Janssen Oncology, Navire, Pfizer, Regeneron, Medscape, Takeda Maurice PérolConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda, Chugai Pharma, Gritstone OncologyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer IngelheimTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Takeda, Chugai Pharma Viola W. ZhuStock and Other Ownership Interests: TP TherapeuticsHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, Blueprint Medicines, XcoveryConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Takeda, TP Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, XcoverySpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, Blueprint MedicinesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, TP Therapeutics Misako NagasakaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Novartis, EMD SeronoSpeakers' Bureau: Blueprint MedicinesResearch Funding: TempusTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Anheart Therapeutics Robert DoebeleEmployment: Rain TherapeuticsLeadership: Rain TherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership: Rain TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: GreenPeptide, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, Takeda, Rain Therapeutics, Anchiano, Blueprint Medicines, Foundation Medicine, Guardant HealthPatents, Royalties, and Other Intellectual Property: Abbott Molecular for Patent PCT/US2013/057495, Rain Therapeutics, Genentech (Inst), Foundation Medicine (Inst), Black Diamond (Inst), Pearl River (Inst), Voronoi (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Rain Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech D. Ross CamidgeHonoraria: Roche, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Bio-Thera, Ribon Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Inivata, AbbVie, Apollomics, Elevation Oncology, EMD Serono, Helsinn Therapeutics, Lilly, Nuvalent Inc, Seattle Genetics, Turning Point Therapeutics, Kestrel Labs, Amgen Astellas BioPharma, Anchiano, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, OnKure, Mersana, Pfizer, QiLu Pharmaceutical, SanofiResearch Funding: Takeda Maria ArcilaHonoraria: Invivoscribe, BiocartisConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Invivoscribe, Raindance Technologies Sai-Hong Ignatius OuStock and Other Ownership Interests: Turning Point Therapeutics, Elevation OncologyHonoraria: Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, Genentech/Roche, ARIAD/Takeda, AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Jassen/JNJSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, AstraZeneca, ARIAD, Revolution Medicines, Mirati Therapeutics, Jassen/JNJ Denis Moro-SibilotConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly/ImClone, Sanofi, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, MSD Oncology, ARIAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, AbbvieResearch Funding: Abbvie (Inst), Boehr (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst)Expert Testimony: MSD OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Lilly/ImClone, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb Lucia Anna MuscarellaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim Stephen V. LiuConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Pfizer, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Regeneron, G1 Therapeutics, Guardant Health, Janssen Oncology, MSD Oncology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Inivata, PharmaMar, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, BeiGene, AmgenResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Merck, Lycera, AstraZeneca, Molecular Partners, Blueprint Medicines, Lilly, Rain Therapeutics, Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, Turning Point Therapeutics, RAPT Therapeutics, Merus, Debiopharm Group, Elevation OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology Jacques CadranelHonoraria: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer IngelheimConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Roche/Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Lilly, NovartisResearch Funding: Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: The aim of this study was to characterize severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) seen among hospitalized patients and to examine risk factors for irAE admissions and clinically relevant outcomes, including length of stay, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) discontinuation, readmission, and death., Methods: Patients who received ICI therapy (ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab, or any ICI combination) at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and were hospitalized at MGH following ICI initiation between January 1, 2011, and October 24, 2018, were identified using pharmacy and hospital admission databases. Medical records of all irAE admissions were reviewed, and specialist review with defined criteria was performed. Demographic data, relevant clinical history (malignancy type and most recent ICI regimen), and key admission characteristics, including dates of admission and discharge, immunosuppressive management, ICI discontinuation, readmission, and death, were collected., Results: In total, 450 admissions were classified as irAE admissions and represent the study's cohort. Alongside the increasing use of ICIs at our institution, the number of patients admitted to MGH for irAEs has gradually increased every year from 9 in 2011 to 92 in 2018. The hospitalization rate per ICI recipient has declined over that same time period (25.0% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2018). The most common toxicities leading to hospitalization in our cohort were gastrointestinal (30.7%; n = 138), pulmonary (15.8%; n = 71), hepatic (14.2%; n = 64), endocrine (12.2%; n = 55), neurologic (8.4%; n = 38), cardiac (6.7%; n = 30), and dermatologic (4.4%; n = 20). Multivariable logistic regression revealed statistically significant increases in irAE admission risk for CTLA-4 monotherapy recipients (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; p < .001) and CTLA-4 plus PD-1 combination therapy recipients (OR, 1.88; p < .001), relative to PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy recipients, and patients with multiple toxicity had a 5-fold increase in inpatient mortality., Conclusion: This study illustrates that cancer centers must be prepared to manage a wide variety of irAE types and that CTLA-4 and combination ICI regimens are more likely to cause irAE admissions, and earlier. In addition, admissions for patients with multi-organ involvement is common and those patients are at highest risk of inpatient mortality., Implications for Practice: The number of patients admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) has gradually increased every year and the most common admissions are for gastrointestinal (30.7%), pulmonary (15/8%), and hepatic (14.2%) events. Readmission rates are high (29% at 30 days, 49% at 180 days) and 64.2% have to permanently discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Importantly, multiple concurrent toxicities were seen in 21.6% (97/450) of irAE admissions and these patients have a fivefold increased risk of inpatient death., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

Purpose: KRAS G12C is the most common KRAS mutation in primary lung adenocarcinoma. Phase I clinical trials have demonstrated encouraging clinical activity of KRAS G12C inhibitors in the metastatic setting. We investigated disease-free survival (DFS) and tumor genomic features in patients with surgically resected KRAS G12C -mutant lung adenocarcinoma., Experimental Design: Patients who underwent resection of stage I-III lung adenocarcinoma and next-generation sequencing (NGS) were evaluated. Exclusion criteria were receipt of induction therapy, incomplete resection, and low-quality NGS. Mutations were classified as KRAS wild-type ( KRAS wt ), G12C ( KRAS G12C ), or non-G12C ( KRAS other ). DFS was compared between groups using the log-rank test; factors associated with DFS were assessed using Cox regression. Mutual exclusivity and cooccurrence, tumor clonality, and mutational signatures were assessed., Results: In total, 604 patients were included: 374 KRAS wt (62%), 95 KRAS G12C (16%), and 135 KRAS other (22%). Three-year DFS was not different between KRAS -mutant and KRAS wt tumors. However, 3-year DFS was worse in patients with KRAS G12C than KRAS other tumors (log-rank P = 0.029). KRAS G12C tumors had more lymphovascular invasion (51% vs. 37%; P = 0.032) and higher tumor mutation burden [median (interquartile range), 7.0 (5.3-10.8) vs. 6.1 (3.5-9.7); P = 0.021], compared with KRAS other tumors. KRAS G12C mutation was independently associated with worse DFS on multivariable analysis. Our DFS findings were externally validated in an independent The Cancer Genome Atlas cohort., Conclusions: KRAS G12C mutations are associated with worse DFS after complete resection of stage I-III lung adenocarcinoma. These tumors harbor more aggressive clinicopathologic and genomic features than other KRAS -mutant tumors. We identified a high-risk group for whom KRAS G12C inhibitors may be investigated to improve survival., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The NCI-MATCH is a national master protocol trial, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, in which diverse tumors are sequenced and patients assigned to treatment. The trial demonstrates the feasibility of identifying rare and common actionable genetic alterations and underscores the strength of academic/community partnerships for improving trial access., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest A.D. acknowledges receipt of honoraria and/or has served on advisory boards for the following companies: Ignyta/Genentech/Roche, Loxo/Bayer/Lilly, Takeda/Ariad/Millenium, TP Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Blueprint Medicines, Helsinn, Beigene, BergenBio, Hengrui Therapeutics, Exelixis,Tyra Biosciences, Verastem, MORE Health, Abbvie, 14ner/Elevation Oncology, Remedica Ltd., ArcherDX, Monopteros, Novartis, EMD Serono, and Melendi. He further discloses associated research paid to the institution from: Pfizer, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKlein, Teva, Taiho, and PharmaMar. He has received research support from Foundation Medicine and royalties from Wolters Kluwer. Z.K.S. acknowledges that an immediate family member in ophthalmology receives consulting and/or advisory role fees from Genentech/Roche, Neurogene, Novartis, Adverum, Allergan, Gyroscope Tx, Regeneron, RegenexBio, and Optos Plc., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) mortality is higher in patients with cancer than in the general population, yet the cancer-associated risk factors for COVID-19 adverse outcomes are not fully characterized., Patients and Methods: We reviewed clinical characteristics and outcomes from patients with cancer and concurrent COVID-19 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center until March 31, 2020 (n = 309), and observed clinical end points until April 13, 2020. We hypothesized that cytotoxic chemotherapy administered within 35 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis is associated with an increased hazard ratio (HR) of severe or critical COVID-19. In secondary analyses, we estimated associations between specific clinical and laboratory variables and the incidence of a severe or critical COVID-19 event., Results: Cytotoxic chemotherapy administration was not significantly associated with a severe or critical COVID-19 event (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.60). Hematologic malignancy was associated with increased COVID-19 severity (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.80). Patients with lung cancer also demonstrated higher rates of severe or critical COVID-19 events (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.30). Lymphopenia at COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with higher rates of severe or critical illness (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.10). Patients with baseline neutropenia 14-90 days before COVID-19 diagnosis had worse outcomes (HR, 4.20; 95% CI, 1.70 to 11.00). Findings from these analyses remained consistent in a multivariable model and in multiple sensitivity analyses. The rate of adverse events was lower in a time-matched population of patients with cancer without COVID-19., Conclusion: Recent cytotoxic chemotherapy treatment was not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Patients with active hematologic or lung malignancies, peri-COVID-19 lymphopenia, or baseline neutropenia had worse COVID-19 outcomes. Interactions among antineoplastic therapy, cancer type, and COVID-19 are complex and warrant further investigation.

Background: The tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) pathway controls appetite, balance, and pain sensitivity. While these functions are reflected in the on-target adverse events (AEs) observed with TRK inhibition, these AEs remain under-recognized, and pain upon drug withdrawal has not previously been reported. As TRK inhibitors are approved by multiple regulatory agencies for TRK or ROS1 fusion-positive cancers, characterizing these AEs and corresponding management strategies is crucial., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced or unresectable solid tumors treated with a TRK inhibitor were retrospectively identified in a search of clinical databases. Among these patients, the frequency, severity, duration, and management outcomes of AEs including weight gain, dizziness or ataxia, and withdrawal pain were characterized., Results: Ninety-six patients with 15 unique cancer histologies treated with a TRK inhibitor were identified. Weight gain was observed in 53% [95% confidence interval (CI), 43%-62%] of patients and increased with time on TRK inhibition. Pharmacologic intervention, most commonly with glucagon-like peptide 1 analogs or metformin, appeared to result in stabilization or loss of weight. Dizziness, with or without ataxia, was observed in 41% (95% CI, 31%-51%) of patients with a median time to onset of 2 weeks (range, 3 days to 16 months). TRK inhibitor dose reduction was the most effective intervention for dizziness. Pain upon temporary or permanent TRK inhibitor discontinuation was observed in 35% (95% CI, 24%-46%) of patients; this was more common with longer TRK inhibitor use. TRK inhibitor reinitiation was the most effective intervention for withdrawal pain., Conclusions: TRK inhibition-related AEs including weight gain, dizziness, and withdrawal pain occur in a substantial proportion of patients receiving TRK inhibitors. This safety profile is unique relative to other anticancer therapies and warrants careful monitoring. These on-target toxicities are manageable with pharmacologic intervention and dose modification., Competing Interests: Disclosure JF has received honoraria from Genentech. AL has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and NantOmics and holds equity in Sanofi. MO has served on advisory boards for PharmaMar, Novartis, and Targeted Oncology, and received travel expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck. YRM-G has received travel expenses from AstraZeneca. BTL holds two institutional patents (US62/685,057, US62/514,661), and has served on advisory boards for Genentech (subsidiary of Roche), Eli Lilly, Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Mersana Therapeutics, and Thermo Fisher Scientific, received travel expenses from MORE Health and Resolution Bioscience, and received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BioMedValley Discoveries, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, GRAIL, Guardant Health, Eli Lilly, Hengrui Therapeutics, Illumina, and MORE Health. JJH has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytomx, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Exelixis, Imvax, QED, and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. GI has received research funding from Janssen, Mirati Therapeutics, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Mirati Therapeutics. MMG has received honoraria from Bayer and Flatiron Health, served on advisory boards for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Epizyme, Daiichi Sankyo, Karyopharm, and Springworks Therapeutics, served on a speakers’ bureau for Amgen, and received travel expenses from Epizyme. AS has received research funding from Eli Lilly, Kura Oncology, Merus, Northern Biologics, and Surface Oncology. DMH owns stock in Fount Therapeutics, has served on advisory boards for ArQule, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharma, CytomX, Debiopharm, Fount Therapeutics, Genentech, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Jazz Pharma, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology, received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Loxo Oncology, and Puma Biotechnology, and received travel expenses from Chugai Pharma and Genentech; he is currently employed by and holds equity in Loxo Oncology, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly. AD has received honoraria and/or served on advisory boards for 14ner/Elevation Oncology, Abbvie, ArcherDX, AstraZeneca, Axis Pharma, Bayer, Beigene, BergenBio, Blueprint Medicines, Exelixis, Helsinn, Hengrui Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology (subsidiary of Eli Lilly), Monopteros, MORE Health, Remedica, Roche (subsidiaries Genentech and Ignyta), Pfizer, Takeda (subsidiaries Ariad and Millennium), TP Therapeutics, Tyra Biosciences, and Verastem; and received research funding from Exelixis, Foundation Medicine GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Teva, and Taiho. All research funding was provided to the institution. All other authors report no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Most patients with KRAS G12C -mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience clinical benefit from selective KRAS G12C inhibition, whereas patients with colorectal cancer bearing the same mutation rarely respond. To investigate the cause of the limited efficacy of KRAS G12C inhibitors in colorectal cancer, we examined the effects of AMG510 in KRAS G12C colorectal cancer cell lines. Unlike NSCLC cell lines, KRAS G12C colorectal cancer models have high basal receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) activation and are responsive to growth factor stimulation. In colorectal cancer lines, KRAS G12C inhibition induces higher phospho-ERK rebound than in NSCLC cells. Although upstream activation of several RTKs interferes with KRAS G12C blockade, we identify EGFR signaling as the dominant mechanism of colorectal cancer resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors. The combinatorial targeting of EGFR and KRAS G12C is highly effective in colorectal cancer cells and patient-derived organoids and xenografts, suggesting a novel therapeutic strategy to treat patients with KRAS G12C colorectal cancer. SIGNIFICANCE: The efficacy of KRAS G12C inhibitors in NSCLC and colorectal cancer is lineage-specific. RTK dependency and signaling rebound kinetics are responsible for sensitivity or resistance to KRAS G12C inhibition in colorectal cancer. EGFR and KRAS G12C should be concomitantly inhibited to overcome resistance to KRAS G12C blockade in colorectal tumors. See related commentary by Koleilat and Kwong, p. 1094 . This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1079 ., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Immunotherapy holds the potential to induce durable responses, but only a minority of patients currently respond. The etiologies of primary and secondary resistance to immunotherapy are multifaceted, deriving not only from tumor intrinsic factors, but also from the complex interplay between cancer and its microenvironment. In addressing frontiers in clinical immunotherapy, we describe two categories of approaches to the design of novel drugs and combination therapies: the first involves direct modification of the tumor, while the second indirectly enhances immunogenicity through alteration of the microenvironment. By systematically addressing the factors that mediate resistance, we are able to identify mechanistically-driven novel approaches to improve immunotherapy outcomes.

Prospective molecular characterization of cancer has enabled physicians to define the genomic changes of each patient's tumor in real time and select personalized therapies based on these detailed portraits. Despite the promise of such an approach, previously unrecognized biological and therapeutic complexity is emerging. Here, we synthesize lessons learned and discuss the steps required to extend the benefits of genome-driven oncology, including proposing strategies for improved drug design, more nuanced patient selection, and optimized use of available therapies. Finally, we suggest ways that next-generation genome-driven clinical trials can evolve to accelerate our understanding of cancer biology and improve patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests Y.R.M.-G. acknowledges receipt of support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from AstraZeneca and has received training through a K30 grant (CTSA UL1TR00457). B.S.T. reports receiving honoraria and research funding from Genentech and Illumina and advisory board activities for Boehringer Ingelheim and Loxo Oncology, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. D.M.H. reports paid consulting work for Chugai, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Genentech/Roche, and Fount Therapeutics, and research grants from AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Loxo Oncology, and Bayer. D.M.H. is currently employed by Loxo, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. A.M.S. has no financial interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The diffusion of genomic testing is critical to the success of precision medicine, but there is limited information on oncologists' uptake of genetic technology. We aimed to assess the frequency with which medical oncologists and surgeons order BRCA 1/2 and Oncotype DX testing for breast cancer patients., Methods: We surveyed 732 oncologists and surgeons treating breast cancer patients. Physicians were from Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and were listed in the 2010 AMA Masterfile or identified by patients., Results: 80.6% of providers ordered BRCA 1/2 testing at least sometimes and 85.4% ordered Oncotype DX (p = 0.01). More frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 was associated with more positive attitudes toward genetic innovation (OR 1.14, p = 0.001), a belief that testing was likely to be covered by patients' insurance (OR 2.84, p < 0.001), and more frequent ordering of Oncotype DX testing (OR 8.69, p < 0.001). More frequent use of Oncotype DX was associated with a belief that testing was likely to be covered by insurance (OR 7.33, p < 0.001), as well as with more frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 testing (OR 9.48, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Nearly one in five providers never or rarely ever ordered BRCA 1/2 testing for their breast cancer patients, and nearly 15% never or rarely ever ordered Oncotype DX. Less frequent ordering of BRCA 1/2 is associated with less frequent use of Oncotype DX testing, and vice versa. Those who do not order BRCA 1/2 testing report less positive attitudes toward genetic innovation. Further education of this subset of providers regarding the benefits of precision medicine may enable more rapid diffusion of genetic technology.

Background: Bundled payment programs play an increasingly important role in transforming reimbursement for oncologic care. We assessed determinants of oncologists' willingness to participate in bundled payment programs for breast cancer. We hypothesized that providers would be more likely to participate in bundled payment programs if offered higher levels of reimbursement for each episode of care., Methods: Oncologists from Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania were identified in the AMA database or by patients listed in state cancer registries. Providers were randomized to receive one of four versions of a survey describing bundled payment programs offering different levels of compensation for the first year of localized breast cancer treatment ($5000, $10,000, $15,000, or $20,000). Physicians rated their likelihood of participation in a bundled program on a Likert scale. Logistic regression was used to analyze determinants of likelihood of participation in bundling., Results: Among 460 respondents, only 17% of oncologists were highly likely to participate in a bundled program paying $5000 for the first year of care, rising to 41% for the $15,000 program, but falling to 34% for the $20,000 program. Likelihood of participation was higher among oncologists who were male, older, and believed that cancer patients should not be offered high-cost drugs with minimal survival benefit., Conclusion: Our results suggest that medical oncologists have limited enthusiasm for bundled payments, and higher payments may not overcome resistance to bundling among a substantial proportion of physicians.

Background: Prostate volume can affect whether patients qualify for brachytherapy (desired size ≥20 mL and ≤60 mL) and/or active surveillance (desired PSA density ≤0.15 for very low risk disease). This study examines variability in prostate volume measurements depending on imaging modality used (ultrasound versus MRI) and volume calculation technique (contouring versus ellipsoid) and quantifies the impact of this variability on treatment recommendations for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer., Methods: We examined 70 patients who presented consecutively for consideration of brachytherapy for favorable-risk prostate cancer who had volume estimates by three methods: contoured axial ultrasound slices, ultrasound ellipsoid (height × width × length × 0.523) calculation, and endorectal coil MRI (erMRI) ellipsoid calculation., Results: Average gland size by the contoured ultrasound, ellipsoid ultrasound, and erMRI methods were 33.99, 37.16, and 39.62 mLs, respectively. All pairwise comparisons between methods were statistically significant (all p < 0.015). Of the 66 patients who volumetrically qualified for brachytherapy on ellipsoid ultrasound measures, 22 (33.33%) did not qualify on ellipsoid erMRI or contoured ultrasound measures. 38 patients (54.28%) had PSA density ≤0.15 ng/dl as calculated using ellipsoid ultrasound volumes, compared to 34 (48.57%) and 38 patients (54.28%) using contoured ultrasound and ellipsoid erMRI volumes, respectively., Conclusions: The ultrasound ellipsoid and erMRI ellipsoid methods appeared to overestimate ultrasound contoured volume by an average of 9.34% and 16.57% respectively. 33.33% of those who qualified for brachytherapy based on ellipsoid ultrasound volume would be disqualified based on ultrasound contoured and/or erMRI ellipsoid volume. As treatment recommendations increasingly rely on estimates of prostate size, clinicians must consider method of volume estimation.

Purpose: We sought to determine whether placing empty catheters within the prostate and then inverse planning iodine-125 seed locations within those catheters (High Dose Rate-Emulating Low Dose Rate Prostate Brachytherapy [HELP] technique) would improve concordance between planned and achieved dosimetry compared with a standard intraoperative technique., Methods and Materials: We examined 30 consecutive low dose rate prostate cases performed by standard intraoperative technique of planning followed by needle placement/seed deposition and compared them to 30 consecutive low dose rate prostate cases performed by the HELP technique. The primary endpoint was concordance between planned percentage of the clinical target volume that receives at least 100% of the prescribed dose/dose that covers 90% of the volume of the clinical target volume (V100/D90) and the actual V100/D90 achieved at Postoperative Day 1., Results: The HELP technique had superior concordance between the planned target dosimetry and what was actually achieved at Day 1 and Day 30. Specifically, target D90 at Day 1 was on average 33.7 Gy less than planned for the standard intraoperative technique but was only 10.5 Gy less than planned for the HELP technique (p < 0.001). Day 30 values were 16.6 Gy less vs. 2.2 Gy more than planned, respectively (p = 0.028). Day 1 target V100 was 6.3% less than planned with standard vs. 2.8% less for HELP (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the urethral and rectal concordance (all p > 0.05)., Conclusions: Placing empty needles first and optimizing the plan to the known positions of the needles resulted in improved concordance between the planned and the achieved dosimetry to the target, possibly because of elimination of errors in needle placement., (Copyright © 2014 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)