Discrepancies between tumor genomic profiling and germline genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) often incidentally identifies germline pathogenic variants (PVs) associated with cancer predisposition syndromes. Methods used by somatic testing laboratories, including germline analysis, differ from designated germline laboratories that have optimized the identification of germline PVs. This study evaluated discrepancies between somatic and germline testing results, and their impact on patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chart reviews were carried out at a single institution for patients who had both somatic and designated germline genetic testing. Cases with discrepant results in which germline PVs were not detected by the somatic laboratory or in which variant classification differed are summarized. RESULTS: TGP was carried out on 2811 cancer patients, 600 of whom also underwent designated germline genetic testing. Germline PVs were identified for 109 individuals. Discrepancies between germline genetic testing and tumor profiling reports were identified in 20 cases, including 14 PVs identified by designated germline genetic testing laboratories that were not reported by somatic testing laboratories and six variants with discrepant classifications between the designated germline and somatic testing laboratories. Three PVs identified by designated germline laboratories are targets for poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and resulted in different treatment options. Of the PVs identified by designated germline laboratories, 60% (n = 12) were in genes with established associations to the patients' cancer, and 40% of the PVs were incidental. The majority (90%) of all discrepant findings, both contributory and incidental, changed management recommendations for these patients, highlighting the importance of comprehensive germline assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Methods used by somatic laboratories, regardless of the inclusion of germline analysis, differ from those of designated germline laboratories for identifying germline PVs. Unrecognized germline PVs may harm patients by missing hereditary syndromes and targeted therapy opportunities (e.g. anti-programmed cell death protein 1 immunotherapy, PARP inhibitors). Clinicians should refer patients who meet the criteria for genetic evaluation regardless of somatic testing outcomes.

Preferences in Oncology History Documentation Styles Among Clinical Practitioners.

PURPOSE: Clinical notes function as the de facto handoff between providers and assume great importance during unplanned medical encounters. An organized and thorough oncology history is essential in care coordination. We sought to understand reader preferences for oncology history organization by comparing between chronologic and narrative formats. METHODS: A convenience sample of 562 clinicians from 19 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Member Institutions responded to a survey comparing two formats of oncology histories, narrative and chronologic, for the same patient. Both histories were consensus-derived real-world examples. Each history was evaluated using semantic differential attributes (thorough, useful, organized, comprehensible, and succinct). Respondents choose a preference between the two styles for history gathering and as the basis of a new note. Open-ended responses were also solicited. RESULTS: Respondents preferred the chronologic over the narrative history to prepare for a visit with an unknown patient (66% preference) and as a basis for their own note preparation (77% preference) (P < .01). The chronologic summary was preferred in four of the five measured attributes (useful, organized, comprehensible, and succinct); the narrative summary was favored for thoroughness (P < .01). Open-ended responses reflected the attribute scoring and noted the utility of content describing social determinants of health in the narrative history. CONCLUSION: Respondents of this convenience sample preferred a chronologic oncology history to a concise narrative history. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal structure and content of chronologic documentation for oncology patients and the provider effort to use this format.

Protective autophagy elicited by RAF→MEK→ERK inhibition suggests a treatment strategy for RAS-driven cancers.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) was responsible for ~ 44,000 deaths in the United States in 2018 and is the epitome of a recalcitrant cancer driven by a pharmacologically intractable oncoprotein, KRAS1-4. Downstream of KRAS, the RAF→MEK→ERK signaling pathway plays a central role in pancreatic carcinogenesis5. However, paradoxically, inhibition of this pathway has provided no clinical benefit to patients with PDA6. Here we show that inhibition of KRAS→RAF→MEK→ERK signaling elicits autophagy, a process of cellular recycling that protects PDA cells from the cytotoxic effects of KRAS pathway inhibition. Mechanistically, inhibition of MEK1/2 leads to activation of the LKB1→AMPK→ULK1 signaling axis, a key regulator of autophagy. Furthermore, combined inhibition of MEK1/2 plus autophagy displays synergistic anti-proliferative effects against PDA cell lines in vitro and promotes regression of xenografted patient-derived PDA tumors in mice. The observed effect of combination trametinib plus chloroquine was not restricted to PDA as other tumors, including patient-derived xenografts (PDX) of NRAS-mutated melanoma and BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer displayed similar responses. Finally, treatment of a patient with PDA with the combination of trametinib plus hydroxychloroquine resulted in a partial, but nonetheless striking disease response. These data suggest that this combination therapy may represent a novel strategy to target RAS-driven cancers.

Publisher Correction: Protective autophagy elicited by RAF→MEK→ERK inhibition suggests a treatment strategy for RAS-driven cancers.

In the version of this article initially published, the label over the bottom schematic in Fig. 1a was "pH > 5.0"; it should have been "pH < 5.0". Further, the original article misspelt the surname of Katrin P. Guillen as "Gullien". These errors have been corrected in the print, PDF and HTML versions of the article.

Phase I/II study of everolimus combined with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Background This phase I/II trial evaluated toxicity and antitumor activity of everolimus plus mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods A phase I, modified 3 + 3 Fibonacci schema determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of everolimus, followed by phase II dose expansion. The phase II primary objective was progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS-6 m). Results The everolimus MTD was 10 mg daily with mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab based on safety from phase I (n = 22). Twenty-five patients were treated in the phase II at 10 mg everolimus daily. Frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (64%), leukopenia (28%) and hypokalemia (26%). Grade 2 stomatitis was observed in 62% of patients. Two dose-limiting toxicities were observed with one attributed to everolimus 10 mg daily (grade 3 diarrhea, hypokalemia, and anorexia) and grade 3 coronary vasospasm attributed to fluorouracil. The objective response rate was 53% and was higher (86%) in those with PTEN deficiency. PFS-6 m was 96% (95% CI 89-99.9%) at the MTD (n = 35). The everolimus recommended phase II dose of this regimen is 7.5 mg daily due to frequent stomatitis and dose reductions. Conclusions Everolimus plus mFOLFOX-6 + bevacizumab is tolerable and demonstrated preliminary efficacy for first-line mCRC. Further studies are warranted in PTEN deficiency.

Occult primary, version 3.2014.

The NCCN Guidelines for Occult Primary tumors provide recommendations for the evaluation, workup, management, and follow-up of patients with occult primary tumors (cancers of unknown primary). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points of the 2014 NCCN Occult Primary panel meeting. The panel discussed gene expression profiling (GEP) for the identification of the tissue of origin and concluded that, although GEP has a diagnostic benefit, a clinical benefit has not been demonstrated. The panel recommends against GEP as standard management, although 20% of the panel believes the diagnostic benefit of GEP warrants its routine use. In addition, the panel discussed testing for actionable mutations (eg, ALK) to help guide choice of therapy, but declined to add this recommendation.