Search

PURPOSE: The Maine Cancer Genomics Initiative (MCGI) aimed to overcome patient- and provider-level barriers to using genomic tumor testing (GTT) in rural practices by providing genomic tumor boards (GTBs), clinician education, and access to comprehensive large-panel next-generation sequencing to all patients with cancer in Maine. This paper describes the successful implementation of the initiative and three key services made operative between 2016 and 2020. METHODS: A community-inclusive, hub-and-spoke approach was taken to implement the three program components: (1) a centralized GTB program; (2) a modular online education program, designed using an iterative approach with broad clinical stakeholders; and (3) GTT free of charge to clinicians and patients. Implementation timelines, participation metrics, and survey data were used to describe the rollout. RESULTS: The MCGI was launched over an 18-month period at all 19 oncology practices in the State. Seventy-nine physicians (66 medical oncologists, 5 gynecologic oncologists, 1 neuro-oncologist, and 7 pediatric oncologists) enrolled on the study, representing 100% of all practicing oncologists in Maine. Between July 2017 and September 2020, 1610 patients were enrolled. A total of 515 cases were discussed by 47 (73%) clinicians in 196 GTBs. Clinicians who participated in the GTBs enrolled significantly more patients on the study, stayed in Maine, and reported less time spent in clinical patient care. CONCLUSION: The MCGI was able to engage geographically and culturally disparate cancer care practices in a precision oncology program using a hub-and-spoke model. By facilitating access to GTT, structured education, and GTBs, we narrowed the gap in the implementation of precision oncology in one of the most rural states in the country. MCGI aimed to overcome patient- and provider-level barriers to GTT in rural practices by providing GTBs, clinician education, and access to large-panel NGS to all oncologists and their patients in Maine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results from cohorts of patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) with FGFR1 and FGFR2 alterations treated with sunitinib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. Simon's two-stage design was used with a primary end point of disease control (DC), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary end points included OR, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety. RESULTS: Forty patients with BC with FGFR1 (N = 30; amplification only n = 26, mutation only n = 1, both n = 3) or FGFR2 (N = 10; amplification only n = 2, mutation only n = 6, both n = 2) alterations were enrolled. Three patients in the FGFR1 cohort were not evaluable for efficacy; all patients in the FGFR2 cohort were evaluable. For the FGFR1 cohort, two patients with partial response and four with SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 27% (90% CI, 13 to 100) and 7% (95% CI, 1 to 24), respectively. The null hypothesis of 15% DC rate was not rejected (P =.169). No patients achieved DC in the FGFR2 cohort (P = 1.00). Thirteen of the 40 total patients across both cohorts had at least one grade 3-4 adverse event or serious adverse event at least possibly related to sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib did not meet prespecified criteria to declare a signal of antitumor activity in patients with BC with either FGFR1 or FGFR2 alterations. Other treatments and clinical trials should be considered for these patient populations. Sunitinib did not demonstrate antitumor activity in patients with FGFR1-/2-amplified or -mutated breast cancer. @ASCO #TAPUR [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Real-world evidence regarding the value of integrating genomic profiling (GP) in managing cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is limited. We assessed this clinical utility using a prospective trial of 158 patients with CUP (October 2016-September 2019) who underwent GP using next-generation sequencing designed to identify genomic alterations (GAs). Only 61 (38.6%) patients had sufficient tissue for successful profiling. GAs were seen in 55 (90.2%) patients of which GAs with US Food and Drug Administration–approved genomically matched therapy were seen in 25 (40.9%) patients. A change in therapy was recommended and implemented (primary endpoint of the study) in 16 (10.1%) and 4 (2.5%) patients of the entire study cohort, respectively. The most common reason for inability to implement the profiling-guided therapy was worsening of performance status (56.3%). Integrating GP in management of CUP is feasible but challenging because of paucity of tissue and aggressive natural history of the disease and requires innovative precision strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Social determinants of health, such as rurality, income, and education, may widen health disparities by driving variation in patients' knowledge and perceptions of medical interventions. This effect may be greatest for medical technologies that are hard to understand and less accessible. This study explored whether knowledge and perceptions (expectations and attitudes) of patients with cancer toward large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT), an emerging cancer technology, vary by patient rurality independent of other socioeconomic characteristics (education and income). METHODS: Patients with cancer enrolled in a large precision oncology initiative completed surveys measuring rurality, sociodemographic characteristics, and knowledge and perceptions of GTT. We used multivariable linear models to examine differences in GTT knowledge, expectations, and attitudes by patient rurality, education, and income level. Models controlled for age, sex and clinical cancer stage and type. RESULTS: Rural patients had significantly lower knowledge of GTT than urban patients using bivariate models (P =.025). However, this association disappeared when adjusting for education and income level: patients with lower educational attainment and lower income had lower knowledge and higher expectations (P ≤.002), whereas patients with higher income had more positive attitudes (P =.005). Urban patients had higher expectations of GTT compared with patients living in large rural areas (P =.011). Rurality was not associated with attitudes. CONCLUSION: Patients' education and income level are associated with knowledge, expectations, and attitudes toward GTT, whereas rurality is associated with patient expectations. These findings suggest that efforts to promote adoption of GTT should focus on improving knowledge and awareness among individuals with low education and income. These differences may lead to downstream disparities in GTT utilization, which should be explored in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Expectations about the future (future expectancies) are important determinants of psychological well-being among cancer patients, but the strategies patients use to maintain positive and cope with negative expectancies are incompletely understood.Objectives: To obtain preliminary evidence on the potential role of one strategy for managing future expectancies: the adoption of "epistemic beliefs" in fundamental limits to medical knowledge.Methods: A sample of 1307 primarily advanced-stage cancer patients participating in a genomic tumor testing study in community oncology practices completed measures of epistemic beliefs, positive future expectancies, and mental and physical health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Descriptive and linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationships between these factors and test two hypotheses: 1) epistemic beliefs affirming fundamental limits to medical knowledge ("fallibilistic epistemic beliefs") are associated with positive future expectancies and mental HRQOL, and 2) positive future expectancies mediate this association.Results: Participants reported relatively high beliefs in limits to medical knowledge (M = 2.94, s.d.=.67) and positive future expectancies (M = 3.01, s.d.=.62) (range 0-4), and relatively low mental and physical HRQOL. Consistent with hypotheses, fallibilistic epistemic beliefs were associated with positive future expectancies (b = 0.11, SE=.03, P< 0.001) and greater mental HRQOL (b = 0.99, SE=.34, P = 0.004); positive expectancies also mediated the association between epistemic beliefs and mental HRQOL (Sobel Z=4.27, P<0.001).Conclusions: Epistemic beliefs in limits to medical knowledge are associated with positive future expectancies and greater mental HRQOL; positive expectancies mediate the association between epistemic beliefs and HRQOL. More research is needed to confirm these relationships and elucidate their causal mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology with great promise but uncertain clinical value. Previous research has documented variability in academic oncologists' perceptions and use of GTT, but little is known about community oncologists' perceptions of GTT and how perceptions relate to clinicians' intentions to use GTT.Methods: Community oncology physicians (N = 58) participating in a statewide initiative aimed at improving access to large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their confidence in using GTT, attitudes regarding the value of GTT, perceptions of barriers to GTT implementation, and future intentions to use GTTs. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to characterize these perceptions and to explore the relationships between them.Results: There was substantial variability in clinicians' perceptions of GTT. Clinicians generally had moderate confidence in their ability to use GTT, but lower confidence in patients' ability to understand test results and access targeted treatment. Clinicians had positive attitudes regarding the value of GTT. Clinicians' future intentions to use GTT were associated with greater confidence in using GTT and greater perceived barriers to implementing GTT, but not with attitudes about the value of GTT.Conclusions: Community oncologists' perceptions of large-panel genomic tumor testing are variable, and their future intentions to use GTT are associated with both their confidence in and perceived barriers to its use, but not with their attitudes towards GTT. More research is needed to understand other factors that determine how oncologists perceive and use GTT in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology that promises to make cancer treatment more precise. Because GTT is novel and complex, patients may have unrealistic expectations and limited knowledge of its benefits. These problems may limit the clinical value of GTT, but their prevalence and associated factors have not been explored. METHODS: Patients with cancer enrolled in a large initiative to disseminate GTT in community oncology practices completed surveys assessing their expectations, knowledge, and attitudes about GTT. The study sample (N = 1,139) consisted of patients with a range of cancer types (22% gynecologic, 14% lung, 10% colon, 10% breast, and 46% other malignancies) and cancer stages (4% stage I, 3% stage II, 15% stage III, and 74% stage IV). Mean age was 64 years (standard deviation = 11); 668 (59%) were women; 71% had no college degree; 57% came from households with less than $50,000 US dollars household income; and 73% lived in a rural area. RESULTS: Generally, patients had high expectations that they would benefit from GTT (M = 2.81 on 0-4 scale) and positive attitudes toward it (M = 2.98 on 0-4 scale). Patients also had relatively poor knowledge about GTT (48% correct answers on an objective test of GTT knowledge). Greater expectations for GTT were associated with lower knowledge (b = –0.46; P <.001), more positive attitudes (b = 0.40; P <.001), and lower education (b = –0.53; P <.001). CONCLUSION: This research suggests patients have high expectations that they will benefit from GTT, which is associated with low knowledge, positive attitudes, and low education. More research is needed to understand the concordance between expectations and actual clinical outcomes. "Patients' have ↑ expectations they will benefit from genomic tumor testing but ↓ knowledge about it" [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Novel medical technologies, like large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT), offer great promise but also substantial uncertainty regarding their clinical value and appropriate use. The goal of this study was to understand how clinicians' perceived uncertainty about GTT, and uncertainty tolerance (UT), a construct that describes trait-level differences in individuals' responses to uncertainty, influence attitudes and self-efficacy regarding GTT. Community-based oncologists participating in a study of large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their perceptions of uncertainty about GTT, and their attitudes and self-efficacy regarding GTT. Multivariable regression analyses examined the relationship between oncologists' perceived uncertainty of GTT and their GTT-related attitudes and self-efficacy, and the potential moderating effect of individual differences in UT. Fifty-seven oncologists completed surveys. Greater perceived uncertainty about GTT was associated with more negative attitudes towards it. This association was moderated by UT, such that lower UT was associated with a stronger negative relationship between perceived uncertainty and attitudes. That is, oncologists who perceive GTT as uncertain, tended to have more negative attitudes, particularly if they were low in the trait of uncertainty tolerance. More research is warranted to understand how uncertainty and uncertainty tolerance influence clinicians' responses to GTT and other novel medical interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology that promises to make cancer treatment more precise. Because GTT is novel and complex, patients may have unrealistic expectations and limited knowledge of its benefits. These problems may limit the clinical value of GTT, but their prevalence and associated factors have not been explored. METHODS: Patients with cancer enrolled in a large initiative to disseminate GTT in community oncology practices completed surveys assessing their expectations, knowledge, and attitudes about GTT. The study sample (N = 1,139) consisted of patients with a range of cancer types (22% gynecologic, 14% lung, 10% colon, 10% breast, and 46% other malignancies) and cancer stages (4% stage I, 3% stage II, 15% stage III, and 74% stage IV). Mean age was 64 years (standard deviation = 11); 668 (59%) were women; 71% had no college degree; 57% came from households with less than $50,000 US dollars household income; and 73% lived in a rural area. RESULTS: Generally, patients had high expectations that they would benefit from GTT (M = 2.81 on 0-4 scale) and positive attitudes toward it (M = 2.98 on 0-4 scale). Patients also had relatively poor knowledge about GTT (48% correct answers on an objective test of GTT knowledge). Greater expectations for GTT were associated with lower knowledge (b = –0.46; P <.001), more positive attitudes (b = 0.40; P <.001), and lower education (b = –0.53; P <.001). CONCLUSION: This research suggests patients have high expectations that they will benefit from GTT, which is associated with low knowledge, positive attitudes, and low education. More research is needed to understand the concordance between expectations and actual clinical outcomes. "Patients' have ↑ expectations they will benefit from genomic tumor testing but ↓ knowledge about it" [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare clinicians' and patients' preferences for disclosure of genomic tumor testing (GTT) results; to determine the sensitivity of these disclosure preferences to uncertainty about the actionability of results; and to explore factors associated with disclosure preferences.Methods: Community-based oncology clinicians (n = 94) and patients (n = 1121) were surveyed about their preferences for disclosing GTT results with varying levels of uncertainty (Tiers 1, 2, 3). Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were used to compare clinicians' and patients' disclosure preferences and their sensitivity to uncertainty, and to explore associations between disclosure preferences and sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors.Results: Relatively more patients than clinicians preferred disclosure, and their preferences were less sensitive to the uncertainty of GTT results. For patients and clinicians, lower uncertainty sensitivity was associated with positive GTT attitudes; for patients it was also associated with greater uncertainty tolerance and knowledge of uncertainty in GTT.Conclusion: Relatively more cancer patients than clinicians prefer disclosure of GTT results, and their preferences are less sensitive to result uncertainty. Uncertainty sensitivity in disclosure preferences is associated with GTT-related attitudes and uncertainty tolerance.Practice Implications: Differences in cancer patients' and clinicians' preferences for disclosure of uncertain GTT results warrant greater attention in cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• This retrospective study evaluates the molecular profiles in 95 gynecologic cancers, in comparison to TCGA and MSK data sets. • Hundred and forty six unique clinically significant variants (Tier I and II) were identified across 45 of the 212 genes (21%), in 87% (83/95) of cases. TP53, PTEN, ARID1A, PIK3CA and ATM were the most commonly mutated genes; CCNE1 and ERBB2 amplifications were the most frequently detected copy-number alterations. • PARP inhibitors were among the most commonly reported drug class with clinical trials, consistent with the frequency of DNA damage-response pathway mutations in our cohort. Molecular features of gynecologic cancers have been investigated in comprehensive studies, but correlation of these molecular signatures with clinical significance for precision medicine is yet to be established. Towards this end, we evaluated 95 gynecologic cancer cases submitted for testing using The JAX ActionSeq™ NGS panel. Molecular profiles were studied and compared to TCGA datasets to identify similarities and distinguishing features among subtypes. We identified 146 unique clinically significant variants (Tier I and II) across 45 of the 212 genes (21%), in 87% (83/95) of cases. TP53, PTEN, ARID1A, PIK3CA and ATM were the most commonly mutated genes; CCNE1 and ERBB2 amplifications were the most frequently detected copy-number alterations. PARP inhibitors were among the most commonly reported drug class with clinical trials, consistent with the frequency of DNA damage-response pathway mutations in our cohort. Overall, our study provides additional insight into the molecular profiles of gynecologic cancers, highlighting regulatory pathways involved, raising the potential implications for targeted therapeutic options currently available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer immunotherapy relies upon the ability of T cells to infiltrate tumors. The endothelium constitutes a barrier between the tumor and effector T cells, and the ability to manipulate local vascular permeability could be translated into effective immunotherapy. Here, we show that in the context of adoptive T cell therapy, antitumor T cells, delivered at high enough doses, can overcome the endothelial barrier and infiltrate tumors, a process that requires local production of C3, complement activation on tumor endothelium and release of C5a. C5a, in turn, acts on endothelial cells promoting the upregulation of adhesion molecules and T-cell homing. Genetic deletion of C3 or the C5a receptor 1 (C5aR1), and pharmacological blockade of C5aR1, impaired the ability of T cells to overcome the endothelial barrier, infiltrate tumors, and control tumor progressionin vivo, while genetic chimera mice demonstrated that C3 and C5aR1 expression by tumor stroma, and not leukocytes, governs T cell homing, acting on the local endothelium.In vitro, endothelial C3 and C5a expressions were required for endothelial activation by type 1 cytokines. Our data indicate that effective immunotherapy is a consequence of successful homing of T cells in response to local complement activation, which disrupts the tumor endothelial barrier. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]