Germline EGFR Mutations and Familial Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The genomic underpinnings of inherited lung cancer risk are poorly understood. This prospective study characterized the clinical phenotype of patients and families with germline EGFR pathogenic variants (PVs). METHODS: The Investigating Hereditary Risk from T790M study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01754025) enrolled patients with lung cancer whose tumor profiling harbored possible germline EGFR PVs and their relatives, either in person or remotely, providing germline testing and follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 141 participants were enrolled over a 5-year period, 100 (71%) remotely. Based upon previous genotyping, 116 participants from 59 kindreds were tested for EGFR T790M, demonstrating a pattern of Mendelian inheritance with variable lung cancer penetrance. In confirmed or obligate carriers of a germline EGFR PV from 39 different kindreds, 50/91 (55%) were affected with lung cancer with 34/65 (52%) diagnosed by age 60 years. Somatic testing of lung cancers in carriers revealed that 35 of 37 (95%) had an EGFR driver comutation. Among 36 germline carriers without a cancer diagnosis, 15 had computed tomography (CT) imaging and nine had lung nodules, including a 28-year-old with >10 lung nodules. Given geographic enrichment of germline EGFR T790M in the southeast United States, genome-wide haplotyping of 46 germline carriers was performed and identified a 4.1-Mb haplotype shared by 41 (89%), estimated to originate 223-279 years ago. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective description of familial EGFR-mutant lung cancer, identifying a recent founder germline EGFR T790M variant enriched in the Southeast United States. The high prevalence of EGFR-driver lung adenocarcinomas and lung nodules in germline carriers supports effort to identify affected patients and family members for investigation of CT-based screening for these high-risk individuals.

A New Framework for Co-Creating Telehealth for Cancer Care with the Patient Community.

The increased use of telehealth in cancer care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has added to our knowledge and experience of the modality with benefits in terms of efficacy, cost, and patient and healthcare professional experience reported. However, telehealth has also been found not to be universally available to all patients with cancer, nor to be appropriate for every healthcare interaction; additionally, not all patients prefer it. Now that coronavirus disease restrictions have essentially ended and an opportunity to re-assess telehealth provision in cancer care presents, we offer a framework that aims to ensure that the needs and preferences of the patient community are included in the development of telehealth provision. Stakeholders in this process include patients, patient advocates, healthcare providers, healthcare services commissioners, managers, and policy makers. The framework outlines how patient advocates can work with other stakeholders as equal partners at all stages of telehealth service development. The patient advocate community has a unique understanding of the patient perspective as well as expertise in healthcare design and delivery. This enables advocates to contribute to shaping telehealth provision, from policy and guideline formulation to patient navigation. Appropriate resources, education and training may be needed for all stakeholders to support the development of an effective telehealth system. Together with other stakeholders, patient advocates can make an important contribution to optimizing appropriate patient-centred telehealth provision in cancer care.

The Genomics of Young Lung Cancer: Comprehensive Tissue Genomic Analysis in Patients Under 40 With Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Lung adenocarcinomas in young patients (<40 y) are more likely to harbor targetable genomic alterations. This study aimed to determine whether the prevalence of targetable alterations is greater in young adults with lung carcinoma than in the overall lung cancer population. To reach this rare patient population, a web-based platform was used to recruit and enroll patients remotely. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients less than 40 years old at the time of primary lung cancer diagnosis with confirmed lung carcinoma were recruited from four global sites and remotely by means of a website. Genotyping data were collected, if available, or obtained by means of next-generation sequencing using the FoundationOne platform. The prevalence of targetable alterations was quantified across patients with advanced adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: Overall, 133 patients across five continents were included, 41% of whom enrolled online. The mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 34 (5.2) years; 79% had stage IV disease at diagnosis. Among patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 115), 112 entered the study with previous genomic testing results and 86 (77%) had targetable alterations in EGFR, ALK, ROS1, MET, ERBB2, or RET. Among those without targetable alterations, 14 received further testing and a targetable alteration was identified in eight (57%). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed the feasibility of using a web-based platform to recruit young patients with lung cancer and revealed that 94 of 112 (84%) with adenocarcinoma at any stage had targetable genomic alterations. Among patients with stage IV adenocarcinoma, 85% had a targetable alteration, which is higher than historical expectations for the general population.

Characteristics of Patients With ROS1+ Cancers: Results From the First Patient-Designed, Global, Pan-Cancer ROS1 Data Repository.

PURPOSE: The discovery of driver oncogenes, such as ROS1, has led to the development of targeted therapies. Despite clinical advancements, gaps remain in our understanding of characteristics of patients with ROS1-positive (ROS1+) cancers. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess demographic, clinical, and environmental characteristics associated with ROS1+ cancers worldwide. METHODS: In collaboration with a panel of patients with ROS1+ cancer, we designed and conducted a 204-question online assessment regarding the demographic, clinical, and environmental factors of patients with ROS1+ cancers. We invited patients with ROS1+ cancers to participate in the study from May 2016 to December 2018. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients from 18 countries worldwide responded and completed at least 90% of the survey. The majority of respondents were female (n = 191; 69%), non-Hispanic white (n = 202; 73%), never-smokers (n = 180/240; 75%). Most were diagnosed with lung cancer (n = 261/277; 94%) and stage IV disease (n = 201/277; 76%). The majority received chemotherapy in first (n = 137/199; 69%) and second (n = 103/199; 52%) lines of therapy. For patients diagnosed with lung cancer after the availability of crizotinib (n = 199), only a minority (n = 55/199; 28%) reported receiving crizotinib in the first line of therapy. CONCLUSION: This study is the first global, patient-designed approach, to our knowledge, to comprehensively assess demographic, clinical, and environmental characteristics associated with ROS1+ cancers. Future efforts include assessing these characteristics as well as patient-reported outcomes and treatment responses longitudinally.

Including the patient voice in the development and implementation of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials.

CONTEXT: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in parallel with clinical evidence to inform decisions made by industry, clinicians, regulators, health technology assessment bodies and other health-care decision-makers. In addition, PRO data can also guide shared decision making and individual patient choice. Yet, the quality of many PROs in cancer clinical trials is suboptimal and requires improvement to add value to health care and policy decision making. OBJECTIVE: To show how the integration of the patient and/or patient advocate at all stages of PRO development can help to realize the full potential of PROs. METHODS: We examined the literature to show that the patient voice is often absent from the planning and implementation of PROs in cancer clinical trials. Good practice examples from the literature were combined with guideline recommendations, training or educational resources, and our own experience to create detailed practical steps for the inclusion of patients and/or patient advocates throughout PRO development. RESULTS: Patient or patient advocates can play an active role in shaping PROs that are meaningful to the patient. They can contribute to content, choice of medium and implementation in a way that may support PRO completion and minimize missing data. Patients and their advocates can work to ensure PRO findings are disseminated appropriately in a way that is accessible to patients. CONCLUSION: This practical guidance aims to optimize PRO development and implementation in clinical trials, resulting in robust, relevant data that reflect the patient experience and that support decisions made by all stakeholders involved in research and health care.

Patient value: Perspectives from the advocacy community.

All health-care systems are under financial pressure and many have therefore developed value frameworks to assist decision making regarding access to treatment. Unfortunately, many frameworks simply reflect the clinically focused values held by health-care professionals rather than outcomes that also matter to patients. It is difficult to define one single homogeneous set of patient values as these are shaped by social, religious and cultural factors, and health-care environment, as well as many factors such as age, gender, education, family and friends and personal finances. Instead of focusing on an aggregated set of values, frameworks should attempt to incorporate the broader range of outcomes that patients may regard as more relevant. Patient advocates are well placed to advise assessment bodies on how particular therapies will impact the patient population under consideration and should be closely involved in developing value frameworks. In this paper, a group of patient advocates explore the varying definitions of patient value and make positive recommendations for working together to strengthen the patient voice in this area. The authors call on framework developers, the patient advocacy and research communities, the health-care industry and decision-makers to undertake specific actions to ensure patient value is included in current and future value frameworks. This is justified on compassionate and economic grounds: better health outcomes result when patients receive treatment tailored to individual needs. Paying attention to the patient perspective also results in better use of resources-a goal that should appeal to all stakeholders.