Patients with Rare Cancers in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP) Benefit from Genomics-Guided Treatment

Purpose: Patients with rare cancers (incidence less than 6 cases per 100,000 persons per year) commonly have less treatment opportunities and are understudied at the level of genomic targets. We hypothesized that patients with rare cancer benefit from approved anticancer drugs outside their label similar to common cancers. Experimental Design: In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), patients with therapy-refractory metastatic cancers harboring an actionable molecular profile are matched to FDA/European Medicines Agency–approved targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Patients are enrolled in parallel cohorts based on the histologic tumor type, molecular profile and study drug. Primary endpoint is clinical benefit (complete response, partial response, stable disease ≥ 16 weeks). Results: Of 1,145 submitted cases, 500 patients, including 164 patients with rare cancers, started one of the 25 available drugs and were evaluable for treatment outcome. The overall clinical benefit rate was 33% in both the rare cancer and nonrare cancer subgroup. Inactivating alterations of CDKN2A and activating BRAF aberrations were overrepresented in patients with rare cancer compared with nonrare cancers, resulting in more matches to CDK4/6 inhibitors (14% vs. 4%; P ≤ 0.001) or BRAF inhibitors (9% vs. 1%; P ≤ 0.001). Patients with rare cancer treated with small-molecule inhibitors targeting BRAF experienced higher rates of clinical benefit (75%) than the nonrare cancer subgroup. Conclusions: Comprehensive molecular testing in patients with rare cancers may identify treatment opportunities and clinical benefit similar to patients with common cancers. Our findings highlight the importance of access to broad molecular diagnostics to ensure equal treatment opportunities for all patients with cancer

Characterization of discordance between mismatch repair deficiency and microsatellite instability testing may prevent inappropriate treatment with immunotherapy

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), patients with cancer are treated based on their tumor molecular profile with approved targeted and immunotherapies outside the labeled indication. Importantly, patients undergo a tumor biopsy for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) which allows for a WGS-based evaluation of routine diagnostics. Notably, we observed that not all biopsies of patients with dMMR/MSI-positive tumors as determined by routine diagnostics were classified as microsatellite-unstable by subsequent WGS. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the discordance rate between routine dMMR/MSI diagnostics and WGS and to further characterize discordant cases. We assessed patients enrolled in DRUP with dMMR/MSI-positive tumors identified by routine diagnostics, who were treated with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) and for whom WGS data were available. Patient and tumor characteristics, study treatment outcomes, and material from routine care were retrieved from the patient medical records and via Palga (the Dutch Pathology Registry), and were compared with WGS results. Initially, discordance between routine dMMR/MSI diagnostics and WGS was observed in 13 patients (13/121; 11%). The majority of these patients did not benefit from ICB (11/13; 85%). After further characterization, we found that in six patients (5%) discordance was caused by dMMR tumors that did not harbor an MSI molecular phenotype by WGS. In six patients (5%), discordance was false due to the presence of multiple primary tumors (n = 3, 2%) and misdiagnosis of dMMR status by immunohistochemistry (n = 3, 2%). In one patient (1%), the exact underlying cause of discordance could not be identified. Thus, in this group of patients limited to those initially diagnosed with dMMR/MSI tumors by current routine diagnostics, the true assay-based discordance rate between routine dMMR/MSI-positive diagnostics and WGS was 5%. To prevent inappropriate ICB treatment, clinicians and pathologists should be aware of the risk of multiple primary tumors and the limitations of different tests.</p

Characterization of discordance between mismatch repair deficiency and microsatellite instability testing may prevent inappropriate treatment with immunotherapy

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), patients with cancer are treated based on their tumor molecular profile with approved targeted and immunotherapies outside the labeled indication. Importantly, patients undergo a tumor biopsy for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) which allows for a WGS-based evaluation of routine diagnostics. Notably, we observed that not all biopsies of patients with dMMR/MSI-positive tumors as determined by routine diagnostics were classified as microsatellite-unstable by subsequent WGS. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the discordance rate between routine dMMR/MSI diagnostics and WGS and to further characterize discordant cases. We assessed patients enrolled in DRUP with dMMR/MSI-positive tumors identified by routine diagnostics, who were treated with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) and for whom WGS data were available. Patient and tumor characteristics, study treatment outcomes, and material from routine care were retrieved from the patient medical records and via Palga (the Dutch Pathology Registry), and were compared with WGS results. Initially, discordance between routine dMMR/MSI diagnostics and WGS was observed in 13 patients (13/121; 11%). The majority of these patients did not benefit from ICB (11/13; 85%). After further characterization, we found that in six patients (5%) discordance was caused by dMMR tumors that did not harbor an MSI molecular phenotype by WGS. In six patients (5%), discordance was false due to the presence of multiple primary tumors (n = 3, 2%) and misdiagnosis of dMMR status by immunohistochemistry (n = 3, 2%). In one patient (1%), the exact underlying cause of discordance could not be identified. Thus, in this group of patients limited to those initially diagnosed with dMMR/MSI tumors by current routine diagnostics, the true assay-based discordance rate between routine dMMR/MSI-positive diagnostics and WGS was 5%. To prevent inappropriate ICB treatment, clinicians and pathologists should be aware of the risk of multiple primary tumors and the limitations of different tests

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit