How to read a next-generation sequencing report-what oncologists need to know.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor cell-derived DNA/RNA to screen for targetable genomic alterations is now widely available and has become part of routine practice in oncology. NGS testing strategies depend on cancer type, disease stage and the impact of results on treatment selection. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has recently published recommendations for the use of NGS in patients with advanced cancer. We complement the ESMO recommendations with a practical review of how oncologists should read and interpret NGS reports. A concise and straightforward NGS report contains details of the tumor sample, the technology used and highlights not only the most important and potentially actionable results, but also other pathogenic alterations detected. Variants of unknown significance should also be listed. Interpretation of NGS reports should be a joint effort between molecular pathologists, tumor biologists and clinicians. Rather than relying and acting on the information provided by the NGS report, oncologists need to obtain a basic level of understanding to read and interpret NGS results. Comprehensive annotated databases are available for clinicians to review the information detailed in the NGS report. Molecular tumor boards do not only stimulate debate and exchange, but may also help to interpret challenging reports and to ensure continuing medical education

A phase I dose-escalation study of the immunocytokine EMD 521873 (Selectikine) in patients with advanced solid tumours

n/

61MO Biomarker analysis of men with enzalutamide (enza)-resistant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with pembrolizumab (pembro) + enza in KEYNOTE-199

Background: In KEYNOTE-199 (NCT02787005), pembro + enza had durable antitumor activity in enza-refractory mCRPC. We evaluated the association between prespecified biomarkers and clinical outcomes. Methods: Cohorts 4 (C4; RECIST-measurable disease) and 5 (C5; nonmeasurable, bone-predominant disease) enrolled men with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC, irrespective of PD-L1 status, that progressed after initial response to enza. We evaluated TMB by whole exome sequencing (n = 64), PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) by IHC (n = 124), and 18-gene T-cell–inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) by NanoString (n = 51). Outcomes were DCR, PFS, PSA response, PSA progression, OS, and ORR per blinded independent review (C4 only). Significance of continuous biomarkers (CPS, TMB, GEP) was prespecified at 0.05 for 1-sided P values from logistic (ORR, DCR, PSA response) and Cox proportional hazard (PFS, OS, PSA progression) regression adjusted for ECOG PS. Results: In C4, ORR was 10% (5/48) in pts with evaluable TMB data and 12% (10/81) in pts with CPS data. In C4 and C5, 16% (10/64) and 14% (17/124) of pts with TMB and CPS data, respectively, achieved a PSA response. TMB was significantly associated with DCR (P = 0.03) and trended toward an association with PSA response (P = 0.08). TMB (AUROC [95% CI]: 0.68 [0.51-0.86]), but not CPS (0.54 [0.41-0.67]) or TcellinfGEP (0.55 [0.37-0.74]), enriched for PSA response. TMB (P = 0.04), but not CPS (P = 0.57) or TcellinfGEP (P = 0.32), was significantly associated with PSA progression. There was 1 MSI-H pt (per Promega PCR assay); this pt achieved an objective and PSA response and had PFS \u3e6 months. TMB, CPS, and TcellinfGEP were not associated with PFS or OS. There was a low prevalence of TMB ≥175 mut/exome (11%) and TcellinfGEP-high (≥−0.318; 16%). Conclusions: In this biomarker analysis of KEYNOTE-199 C4-C5, PD-L1 CPS and TcellinfGEP were not significantly associated with clinical outcome. Despite the low prevalence of TMB ≥175 mut/exome, TMB was positively associated with outcomes of pembro + enza in pts with mCRPC. The sample sizes for the exploratory analyses were small, and results should be interpreted with caution

Feasibility and acceptance of electronic monitoring of symptoms and syndromes using a handheld computer in patients with advanced cancer in daily oncology practice

Purpose: We investigated the feasibility and acceptance of electronic monitoring of symptoms and syndromes in oncological outpatient clinics using a PALM (handheld computer). Methods: The assessment of a combination of symptoms and clinical benefit parameters grouped in four pairs was tested in a pilot phase in advanced cancer patients. Based on these experiences, the software E-MOSAIC was developed, consisting of patient-reported symptoms and nutritional intake and objective assessments (weight, weight loss, performance status and medication for pain, fatigue, and cachexia). E-MOSAIC was then tested in four Swiss oncology centers. In order to compare the methods, patients completed the E-MOSAIC as a paper and a PALM version. Preferences of version and completion times were collected. Assessments were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests , and the test-retest reliability was evaluated. Results: The pilot phase was completed by 22 patients. Most patients and physicians perceived the assessment as useful. Sixty-two patients participated in the feasibility study. Twelve patients reported problems (understanding, optical, tactile), and five patients could not complete the assessment. The median time to complete the PALM-based assessment was 3min. Forty-nine percent of patients preferred the PALM, 23% preferred a paper version, and 28% of patients had no preference. Paper vs. PALM revealed no significant differences in symptoms, but in nutritional intake (p = 0.013). Test-retest (1h, n = 20) reliability was satisfactory (r = 073-98). Conclusion: Electronic symptom and clinical benefit monitoring is feasible in oncology outpatient clinics and perceived as useful by patients, oncology nurses, and oncologists. E-MOSAIC is tested in a prospective randomized trial

Early Post-treatment Prostate-specific Antigen at 4 Weeks and Abiraterone and Enzalutamide Treatment for Advanced Prostate Cancer: An International Collaborative Analysis.

Background Declines in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 12wk are used to evaluate treatment response in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PSA fall by ≥30% at 4wk (PSA4w30) has been reported to be associated with better outcome in a single-centre cohort study.Objective To evaluate clinical relevance of early PSA decline in mCRPC patients treated with next-generation hormonal treatments (NGHTs) such as abiraterone and enzalutamide.Design, setting, and participants This was a retrospective multicentre analysis. Eligible patients received NGHT for mCRPC between 6 January 2006 and 31 December 2017 in 13 cancer centres worldwide, and had PSA levels assessed at baseline and at 4 and/or 12wk after treatment. PSA response was defined as a ≥30% decline (progression as a ≥25% increase) from baseline.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Association with overall survival (OS) was analysed using landmark multivariable Cox regression adjusting for previous chemotherapy, including cancer centre as a shared frailty term.Results and limitations We identified 1358 mCRPC patients treated with first-line NGHT (1133 had PSA available at 4wk, and 948 at both 4 and 12wk). Overall, 583 (52%) had a PSA4w30; it was associated with longer OS (median: 23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 21-25) compared with no change (median: 17; 95% CI: 15-18) and progression (median: 13; 95% CI: 10-15). A PSA12w30 was associated with lower mortality (median OS 22 vs 14; hazard ratio=0.57; 95% CI=0.48-0.67; p<0.001). PSA4w30 strongly correlated with PSA12w30 (ρ=0.91; 95% CI=0.90-0.92; p<0.001). In total, 432/494 (87%) with a PSA4w30 achieved a PSA12w30. Overall, 11/152 (7%) patients progressing at 4wk had a PSA12w30 (1% of the overall population).Conclusions PSA changes in the first 4wk of NGHT therapies are strongly associated with clinical outcome from mCRPC and can help guide early treatment switch decisions.Patient summary Prostate-specific antigen changes at 4wk after abiraterone/enzalutamide treatment are important to determine patients' outcome and should be taken into consideration in clinical practice

Lack of consensus identifies important areas for future clinical research: Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 findings

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging and molecular characterisation have improved outcomes for people with advanced prostate cancer; however, many aspects of clinical management are devoid of high-level evidence. At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019, many of these topics were addressed, and consensus was not always reached. The results from clinical trials will most reliably plus the gaps. METHODS: An invited panel of 57 experts voted on 123 multiple-choice questions on clinical management at APCCC 2019. No consensus was reached on 88 (71.5%) questions defined as <75% of panellists voting for the same answer option. We reviewed clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant ongoing phase III trials in these areas of non-consensus. RESULTS: A number of ongoing phase III trials were identified that are relevant to these non-consensus issues. However, many non-consensus issues appear not to be addressed by current clinical trials. Of note, no phase III but only phase II trials were identified, investigating side effects of hormonal treatments and their management. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of consensus almost invariably indicates gaps in existing evidence. The high percentage of questions lacking consensus at APCCC 2019 highlights the complexity of advanced prostate cancer care and the need for robust, clinically relevant trials that can fill current gaps with high-level evidence. Our review of these areas of non-consensus and ongoing trials provides a useful summary, indicating areas in which future consensus may soon be reached. This review may facilitate academic investigators to identify and prioritise topics for future research

Imaging Diagnosis and Follow-up of Advanced Prostate Cancer: Clinical Perspectives and State of the Art.

The management of advanced prostate cancer has changed substantially with the availability of multiple effective novel treatments, which has led to improved disease survival. In the era of personalized cancer treatments, more precise imaging may help physicians deliver better care. More accurate local staging and earlier detection of metastatic disease, accurate identification of oligometastatic disease, and optimal assessment of treatment response are areas where modern imaging is rapidly evolving and expanding. Next-generation imaging modalities, including whole-body MRI and molecular imaging with combined PET and CT and combined PET and MRI using novel radiopharmaceuticals, create new opportunities for imaging to support and refine management pathways in patients with advanced prostate cancer. This article demonstrates the potential and challenges of applying next-generation imaging to deliver the clinical promise of treatment breakthroughs

Pembrolizumab for Treatment-Refractory Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Multicohort, Open-Label Phase II KEYNOTE-199 Study

PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab has previously shown antitumor activity against programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we assessed the antitumor activity and safety of pembrolizumab in three parallel cohorts of a larger mCRPC population. METHODS: The phase II KEYNOTE-199 study included three cohorts of patients with mCRPC treated with docetaxel and one or more targeted endocrine therapies. Cohorts 1 and 2 enrolled patients with RECIST-measurable PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative disease, respectively. Cohort 3 enrolled patients with bone-predominant disease, regardless of PD-L1 expression. All patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 assessed by central review in cohorts 1 and 2. Secondary end points included disease control rate, duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight patients were enrolled: 133 in cohort 1, 66 in cohort 2, and 59 in cohort 3. Objective response rate was 5% (95% CI, 2% to 11%) in cohort 1 and 3% (95% CI, = 21.8 months) and 10.6 months (range, 4.4 to 16.8 months), respectively. Disease control rate was 10% in cohort 1, 9% in cohort 2, and 22% in cohort 3. Median OS was 9.5 months in cohort 1, 7.9 months in cohort 2, and 14.1 months in cohort 3. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 60% of patients, were of grade 3 to 5 severity in 15%, and led to discontinuation of treatment in 5%. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab monotherapy shows antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile in a subset of patients with RECIST-measurable and bone-predominant mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel and targeted endocrine therapy. Observed responses seem to be durable, and OS estimates are encouraging

Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer : long-term survival results from the STAMPEDE trial

Background STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients. Methods We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional. Results Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69–0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57–0.76, P  0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression). Conclusions The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden