Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer:A UK Multicenter Real-world Analysis on Efficacy, Safety, Predictive and Prognostic Factors

Background: The orally administered combination trifluridine/tipiracil has been approved as third line treatment in mCRC, demonstrating survival benefit and acceptable toxicity profile in the phase III RECOURSE study.Patient and methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective real-world analysis of patients with mCRC receiving trifluridine/tipiracil between 2016 and 2019 in eight cancer centers across the United Kingdom.Results: A total of 236 patients were included with median age of 69 years. All patients had received at least 2 lines of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy doublet with oxaliplatin or irinotecan. About 10% of patients had ECOG ≥ 2. Median duration of trifluridine/tipiracil treatment was 3 months with an ORR of 2.1% and disease control rate of 21.6%. Median OS was 7.6 and median PFS 3.3 months. A dose reduction was required in 27% of patients, while 7.6% discontinued treatment due to toxicity. The most common grade 3 toxicities were neutropenia (34%), fatigue (10%), anemia (9%) and febrile neutropenia (5%). Baseline NLR &lt;5 and CEA &lt;200 had favorable prognostic (HR: 0.52 and 0.39, P≤ .001) and predictive value (OR: 4.1 and 6.7, P&lt; .05). Development of grade 3 neutropenia predicted treatment response (OR: 0.32, P&lt; .001). Following treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil 41% were referred for phase I trial or rechallenged with chemotherapy.Conclusion: Trifluridine/tipiracil is well tolerated in refractory mCRC patients with comparable efficacy and toxicity profile to that of the phase III RECOURSE. Pretreatment NLR and CEA could serve as potential markers for patient selection, while treatment-induced grade 3 neutropenia predicted response. Prospective validation is needed.</p

Implementation of Multigene Germline and Parallel Somatic Genetic Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: SIGNPOST Study

We present findings of a cancer multidisciplinary-team (MDT) coordinated mainstreaming pathway of unselected 5-panel germline BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 and parallel somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 testing in all women with epithelial-OC and highlight the discordance between germline and somatic testing strategies across two cancer centres. Patients were counselled and consented by a cancer MDT member. The uptake of parallel multi-gene germline and somatic testing was 97.7%. Counselling by clinical-nurse-specialist more frequently needed >1 consultation (53.6% (30/56)) compared to a medical (15.0% (21/137)) or surgical oncologist (15.3% (17/110)) (p 0.001). The median age was 54 (IQR = 51–62) years in germline pathogenic-variant (PV) versus 61 (IQR = 51–71) in BRCA wild-type (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in distribution of PVs by ethnicity, stage, surgery timing or resection status. A total of 15.5% germline and 7.8% somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 PVs were identified. A total of 2.3% patients had RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 PVs. A total of 11% germline PVs were large-genomic-rearrangements and missed by somatic testing. A total of 20% germline PVs are missed by somatic first BRCA-testing approach and 55.6% germline PVs missed by family history ascertainment. The somatic testing failure rate is higher (23%) for patients undergoing diagnostic biopsies. Our findings favour a prospective parallel somatic and germline panel testing approach as a clinically efficient strategy to maximise variant identification. UK Genomics test-directory criteria should be expanded to include a panel of OC genes.Peer reviewe

Cost-effectiveness of unselected multigene germline and somatic genetic testing for epithelial ovarian cancer

Background : Parallel panel germline and somatic genetic testing of all patients with ovarian cancer (OC) can identify more pathogenic variants (PVs) that would benefit from PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy, and allow for precision prevention in unaffected relatives with PVs. In this study, we estimate the cost-effectiveness and population impact of parallel panel germline and somatic BRCA testing of all patients with OC incorporating PARPi therapy in the United Kingdom and the United States compared with clinical criteria/family history (FH)–based germline BRCA testing. We also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multigene panel germline testing alone. Methods: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness modeling using data from 2,391 (UK: n=1,483; US: n=908) unselected, population-based patients with OC was used to compare lifetime costs and effects of panel germline and somatic BRCA testing of all OC cases (with PARPi therapy) (strategy A) versus clinical criteria/FH-based germline BRCA testing (strategy B). Unaffected relatives with germline BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 PVs identified through cascade testing underwent appropriate OC and breast cancer (BC) risk-reduction interventions. We also compared the cost-effectiveness of multigene panel germline testing alone (without PARPi therapy) versus strategy B. Unaffected relatives with PVs could undergo risk-reducing interventions. Lifetime horizon with payer/societal perspectives, along with probabilistic/one-way sensitivity analyses, are presented. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were compared with £30,000/QALY (UK) and $100,000/QALY (US) thresholds. OC incidence, BC incidence, and prevented deaths were estimated. Results: Compared with clinical criteria/FH-based BRCA testing, BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 germline testing and BRCA1/BRCA2 somatic testing of all patients with OC incorporating PARPi therapy had a UK ICER of £51,175/QALY (payer perspective) and £50,202/QALY (societal perspective) and a US ICER of$175,232/QALY (payer perspective) and $174,667/QALY (societal perspective), above UK/NICE and US cost-effectiveness thresholds in the base case. However, strategy A becomes cost-effective if PARPi costs decrease by 45$68,808/QALY and societal-perspective ICERs of £6,923/QALY or $65,786/QALY. One year’s testing could prevent 209 UK BC/OC cases and 192 deaths, and 560 US BC/OC cases and 460 deaths. Conclusions: Unselected panel germline and somatic BRCA testing can become cost-effective, with a 45% to 46% reduction in PARPi costs. Regarding germline testing, unselected panel germline testing is highly cost-effective and should replace BRCA testing alone

Cost-Effectiveness of Unselected Multigene Germline and Somatic Genetic Testing for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Background: Parallel panel germline and somatic genetic testing of all patients with ovarian cancer (OC) can identify more pathogenic variants (PVs) that would benefit from PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy, and allow for precision prevention in unaffected relatives with PVs. In this study, we estimate the cost-effectiveness and population impact of parallel panel germline and somatic BRCA testing of all patients with OC incorporating PARPi therapy in the United Kingdom and the United States compared with clinical criteria/family history (FH)–based germline BRCA testing. We also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multigene panel germline testing alone. Methods: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness modeling using data from 2,391 (UK: n51,483; US: n5908) unselected, population-based patients with OC was used to compare lifetime costs and effects of panel germline and somatic BRCA testing of all OC cases (with PARPi therapy) (strategy A) versus clinical criteria/ FH-based germline BRCA testing (strategy B). Unaffected relatives with germline BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 PVs identified through cascade testing underwent appropriate OC and breast cancer (BC) risk-reduction interventions. We also compared the cost-effectiveness of multigene panel germline testing alone (without PARPi therapy) versus strategy B. Unaffected relatives with PVs could undergo risk-reducing interventions. Lifetime horizon with payer/societal perspectives, along with probabilistic/one-way sensitivity analyses, are presented. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were compared with £30,000/QALY (UK) and $100,000/QALY (US) thresholds. OC incidence, BC incidence, and prevented deaths were estimated. Results: Compared with clinical criteria/FH-based BRCA testing, RCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 germline testing and BRCA1/BRCA2 somatic testing of all patients with OC incorporating PARPi therapy had a UK ICER of £51,175/QALY (payer perspective) and £50,202/QALY (societal perspective) and a US ICER of$175,232/QALY (payer perspective) and $174,667/QALY (societal perspective), above UK/NICE and US cost-effectiveness thresholds in the base case. However, strategy A becomes cost-effective if PARPi costs decrease by 45$68,808/QALY and societal-perspective ICERs of £6,923/QALY or $65,786/QALY. One year’s testing could prevent 209 UK BC/OC cases and 192 deaths, and 560 US BC/OC cases and 460 deaths. Conclusions: Unselected panel germline and somatic BRCA testing can become cost-effective, with a 45% to 46% reduction in PARPicosts. Regarding germline testing, unselected panel germline testing is highly cost-effective and should replace BRCA testing alone