Search

Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has shown unprecedented activity in mismatch repair deficient (MMRd) colorectal cancers, but its effectiveness in MMRd endometrial cancer (EC) remains unknown. In this investigator-driven, phase I, feasibility study (NCT04262089), 10 women with MMRd EC of any grade, planned for primary surgery, received two cycles of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab (200 mg IV) every three weeks. A pathologic response (primary objective) was observed in 5/10 patients, with 2 patients showing a major pathologic response. No patient achieved a complete pathologic response. A partial radiologic response (secondary objective) was observed in 3/10 patients, 5/10 patients had stable disease and 2/10 patients were non-evaluable on magnetic resonance imaging. All patients completed treatment without severe toxicity (exploratory objective). At median duration of follow-up of 22.5 months, two non-responders experienced disease recurrence. In-depth analysis of the loco-regional and systemic immune response (predefined exploratory objective) showed that monoclonal T cell expansion significantly correlated with treatment response. Tumour-draining lymph nodes displayed clonal overlap with intra-tumoural T cell expansion. All pre-specified endpoints, efficacy in terms of pathologic response as primary endpoint, radiologic response as secondary outcome and safety and tolerability as exploratory endpoint, were reached. Neoadjuvant ICB with pembrolizumab proved safe and induced pathologic, radiologic, and immunologic responses in MMRd EC, warranting further exploration of extended neoadjuvant treatment.

Purpose: Next generation sequencing (NGS) is an important tool used in clinical practice to obtain the required molecular information for accurate diagnostics of high-grade adult-type diffuse glioma (HGG). Since individual centers use either in-house produced or standardized panels, interlaboratory variation could play a role in the practice of HGG diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to investigate the current practice in NGS application for both primary and recurrent HGG. Methods: This nationwide Dutch survey used the expertise of (neuro)pathologists and clinical scientists in molecular pathology (CSMPs) by sending online questionnaires on clinical and technical aspects. Primary outcome was an overview of panel composition in the different centers for diagnostic practice of HGG. Secondary outcomes included practice for recurrent HGG and future perspectives. Results: Out of twelve neuro-oncology centers, the survey was filled out by eleven (neuro)pathologists and seven CSMPs. The composition of the diagnostic NGS panels differed in each center with numbers of genes ranging from 12 to 523. Differences are more pronounced when tests are performed to find therapeutic targets in the case of recurrent disease: about half of the centers test for gene fusions (60%) and tumor mutational burden (40%). Conclusion: Current notable interlaboratory variations as illustrated in this study should be reduced in order to refine diagnostics and improve precision oncology. In-house developed tests, standardized panels and routine application of broad gene panels all have their own advantages and disadvantages. Future research would be of interest to study the clinical impact of variation in diagnostic approaches.

Introduction: Patients with life-threatening advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who harbor an exon 20 deletion and/or insertion mutation (EGFRex20 + ) have limited effective treatment options. The high dose 3rd generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib shows promising in vitro activity in EGFRex20 + NSCLC tumors. Methods: The POSITION20 is a single arm phase II, multicenter study investigating 160 mg osimertinib in patients with EGFRex20+, T790M negative NSCLC. We allowed patients to be treatment naïve and to have asymptomatic brain metastases. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary outcomes were duration of response (DoR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment related adverse events (trAEs). Results: From June 2018 to October 2021, 25 patients were enrolled across five centers in the Netherlands. The median age was 70 years (range, 47–87), 20 patients (80%) were women, and the median number of previous lines of therapy was 1 (range, 0–3). The exon 20 mutations were clustered between A763 and L777. The most common exon 20 mutations were p.(N771_H773dup) (n = 3) and p.(A767_V769dup) (n = 3). The ORR was 28% (95% CI, 12–49%), including seven partial responses, with a median DoR of 5.3 months (range, 2.7–27.6). The median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI, 4.6–9.1) and the median OS was 15.2 months (95% CI, 14.3–16.0). The most common trAEs were diarrhea (72%), dry skin (44%), and fatigue (44%). The primary reason for discontinuation was progressive disease in 14 patients (56%). Conclusion: The POSITION20 study showed modest antitumor activity in patients with EGFRex20 + NSCLC treated with 160 mg osimertinib, with a confirmed ORR of 28% and acceptable toxicity.

Background: Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands. Materials and Methods: MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy. Results: Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type–specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%). Conclusion: MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a “Dutch MTB model” for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow. Implications for Practice: Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming