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. © 2024 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Efficacy of pembrolizumab and biomarker analysis in patients with WGS-based intermediate to high tumor mutational load: results from the Drug Rediscovery Protocol.

PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy of pembrolizumab across multiple cancer types harboring different levels of Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS)-based tumor mutational load (TML; total of non-synonymous mutations across the genome) in patients included in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (NCT02925234). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with solid, treatment-refractory, microsatellite-stable tumors were enrolled in cohort A: breast cancer TML 140-290, cohort B: tumor-agnostic cohort TML 140-290, and cohort C: tumor-agnostic cohort TML >290. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every three weeks. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit (CB: objective response or stable disease (SD) ≥16 weeks). Pre-treatment tumor biopsies were obtained for WGS and RNA-sequencing. RESULTS: Seventy-two evaluable patients with 26 different histotypes were enrolled. CB rate was 13% in cohort A (3/24 with partial response (PR)), 21% in cohort B (3/24 with SD, 2/24 with PR), and 42% in cohort C (4/24 with SD, 6/24 with PR). In cohort C, neoantigen burden estimates and expression of inflammation and innate immune biomarkers were significantly associated with CB. Similar associations were not identified in cohort A and B. In cohort A, CB was significantly associated with mutations in the chromatin remodeling gene PBRM1, while in cohort B, CB was significantly associated with expression of MICA/MICB and butyrophilins. CB and clonal TML were not significantly associated. CONCLUSION: While in cohort A pembrolizumab lacked activity, cohort B and cohort C met the study's primary endpoint. Further research is warranted to refine selection of patients with tumors harboring lower TMLs and may benefit from a focus on innate immunity.

Limited clinical activity of palbociclib and ribociclib monotherapy in advanced cancers with cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations in the Dutch DRUP and Australian MoST trials.

The Dutch Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP) and the Australian Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutic (MoST) Program are similar nonrandomized, multidrug, pan-cancer trial platforms that aim to identify signals of clinical activity of molecularly matched targeted therapies or immunotherapies outside their approved indications. Here, we report results for advanced or metastatic cancer patients with tumors harboring cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors palbociclib or ribociclib. We included adult patients that had therapy-refractory solid malignancies with the following alterations: amplifications of CDK4, CDK6, CCND1, CCND2 or CCND3, or complete loss of CDKN2A or SMARCA4. Within MoST, all patients were treated with palbociclib, whereas in DRUP, palbociclib and ribociclib were assigned to different cohorts (defined by tumor type and alteration). The primary endpoint for this combined analysis was clinical benefit, defined as confirmed objective response or stable disease ≥16 weeks. We treated 139 patients with a broad variety of tumor types; 116 with palbociclib and 23 with ribociclib. In 112 evaluable patients, the objective response rate was 0% and clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks was 15%. Median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI: 3-5 months), and median overall survival 5 months (95% CI: 4-6 months). In conclusion, only limited clinical activity of palbociclib and ribociclib monotherapy in patients with pretreated cancers harboring cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations was observed. Our findings indicate that monotherapy use of palbociclib or ribociclib is not recommended and that merging data of two similar precision oncology trials is feasible.

Codon-specific KRAS mutations predict survival benefit of trifluridine/tipiracil in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Genomics has greatly improved how patients with cancer are being treated; however, clinical-grade genomic biomarkers for chemotherapies are currently lacking. Using whole-genome analysis of 37 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with the chemotherapy trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI), we identified KRAS codon G12 (KRASG12) mutations as a potential biomarker of resistance. Next, we collected real-world data of 960 patients with mCRC receiving FTD/TPI and validated that KRASG12 mutations were significantly associated with poor survival, also in analyses restricted to the RAS/RAF mutant subgroup. We next analyzed the data of the global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 RECOURSE trial (n = 800 patients) and found that KRASG12 mutations (n = 279) were predictive biomarkers for reduced overall survival (OS) benefit of FTD/TPI versus placebo (unadjusted interaction P = 0.0031, adjusted interaction P = 0.015). For patients with KRASG12 mutations in the RECOURSE trial, OS was not prolonged with FTD/TPI versus placebo (n = 279; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.73-1.20; P = 0.85). In contrast, patients with KRASG13 mutant tumors showed significantly improved OS with FTD/TPI versus placebo (n = 60; HR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.15-0.55; P < 0.001). In isogenic cell lines and patient-derived organoids, KRASG12 mutations were associated with increased resistance to FTD-based genotoxicity. In conclusion, these data show that KRASG12 mutations are biomarkers for reduced OS benefit of FTD/TPI treatment, with potential implications for approximately 28% of patients with mCRC under consideration for treatment with FTD/TPI. Furthermore, our data suggest that genomics-based precision medicine may be possible for a subset of chemotherapies.

Efficacy, safety and biomarker analysis of durvalumab in patients with mismatch-repair deficient or microsatellite instability-high solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: In this study we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab across various mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumours in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP). This is a clinical study in which patients are treated with drugs outside their labeled indication, based on their tumour molecular profile. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours who had exhausted all standard of care options were eligible. Patients were treated with durvalumab. The primary endpoints were clinical benefit ((CB): objective response (OR) or stable disease ≥16 weeks) and safety. Patients were enrolled using a Simon like 2-stage model, with 8 patients in stage 1, up to 24 patients in stage 2 if at least 1/8 patients had CB in stage 1. At baseline, fresh frozen biopsies were obtained for biomarker analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with 10 different cancer types were included. Two patients (2/26, 8%) were considered as non-evaluable for the primary endpoint. CB was observed in 13 patients (13/26, 50%) with an OR in 7 patients (7/26, 27%). The remaining 11 patients (11/26, 42%) had progressive disease. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 5 months (95% CI, 2-not reached) and 14 months (95% CI, 5-not reached), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed. We found a significantly higher structural variant (SV) burden in patients without CB. Additionally, we observed a significant enrichment of JAK1 frameshift mutations and a significantly lower IFN-γ expression in patients without CB. CONCLUSION: Durvalumab was generally well-tolerated and provided durable responses in pre-treated patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours. High SV burden, JAK1 frameshift mutations and low IFN-γ expression were associated with a lack of CB; this provides a rationale for larger studies to validate these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration: NCT02925234. First registration date: 05/10/2016.

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.

Patients with Biallelic BRCA1/2 Inactivation Respond to Olaparib Treatment Across Histologic Tumor Types.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor (PARPi) in patients with tumors with BRCA1/2 mutations, regardless of histologic tumor type. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-refractory BRCA1/2-mutated cancer were included for treatment with off-label olaparib 300 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. In Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), patients with treatment-refractory solid malignancies receive off-label drugs based on tumor molecular profiles while whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is performed on baseline tumor biopsies. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit (CB; defined as objective response or stable disease ≥ 16 weeks according to RECIST 1.1). Per protocol patients were enrolled using a Simon-like two-stage model. RESULTS: Twenty-four evaluable patients with nine different tumor types harboring BRCA1/2 mutations were included, 58% had CB from treatment with olaparib. CB was observed in patients with complete loss of function (LoF) of BRCA1/2, while 73% of patients with biallelic BRCA LoF had CB. In 17 patients with and seven without current labeled indication, 10 and four patients had CB, respectively. Treatment resistance in four patients with biallelic loss might be explained by an additional oncogenic driver which was discovered by WGS, including Wnt pathway activation, FGFR amplification, and CDKN2A loss, in three tumor types. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that using PARPis is a promising treatment strategy for patients with non-BRCA-associated histologies harboring biallelic BRCA LoF. WGS allows to accurately detect complete LoF of BRCA and homologous repair deficiency (HRD) signature as well as oncogenic drivers that may contribute to resistance, using a single assay.

Limited evolution of the actionable metastatic cancer genome under therapeutic pressure.

Genomic profiling is critical for the identification of treatment options for patients with metastatic cancer, but it remains unclear how frequently this procedure should be repeated during the course of the disease. To address this, we analyzed whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data of 250 biopsy pairs, longitudinally collected over the treatment course of 231 adult patients with a representative variety of metastatic solid malignancies. Within the biopsy interval (median, 6.4 months), patients received one or multiple lines of (mostly) standard-of-care (SOC) treatments, with all major treatment modalities being broadly represented. SOC biomarkers and biomarkers for clinical trial enrollment could be identified in 23% and 72% of biopsies, respectively. For SOC genomic biomarkers, we observed full concordance between the first and the second biopsy in 99% of pairs. Of the 219 biomarkers for clinical trial enrollment that were identified in the first biopsies, we recovered 94% in the follow-up biopsies. Furthermore, a second WGS analysis did not identify additional biomarkers for clinical trial enrollment in 91% of patients. More-frequent genomic evolution was observed when considering specific genes targeted by small-molecule inhibitors or hormonal therapies (21% and 22% of cases, respectively). Together, our data demonstrate that there is limited evolution of the actionable genome of treated metastases. A single WGS analysis of a metastatic biopsy is generally sufficient to identify SOC genomic biomarkers and to identify investigational treatment opportunities.

Study protocol: Whole genome sequencing Implementation in standard Diagnostics for Every cancer patient (WIDE).

BACKGROUND: 'Precision oncology' can ensure the best suitable treatment at the right time by tailoring treatment towards individual patient and comprehensive tumour characteristics. In current molecular pathology, diagnostic tests which are part of the standard of care (SOC) only cover a limited part of the spectrum of genomic changes, and often are performed in an iterative way. This occurs at the expense of valuable patient time, available tissue sample, and interferes with 'first time right' treatment decisions. Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) captures a near complete view of genomic characteristics of a tumour in a single test. Moreover, WGS facilitates faster implementation of new treatment relevant biomarkers. At present, WGS mainly has been applied in study settings, but its performance in a routine diagnostic setting remains to be evaluated. The WIDE study aims to investigate the feasibility and validity of WGS-based diagnostics in clinical practice. METHODS: 1200 consecutive patients in a single comprehensive cancer centre with (suspicion of) a metastasized solid tumour will be enrolled with the intention to analyse tumour tissue with WGS, in parallel to SOC diagnostics. Primary endpoints are (1) feasibility of implementation of WGS-based diagnostics into routine clinical care and (2) clinical validation of WGS by comparing identification of treatment-relevant variants between WGS and SOC molecular diagnostics. Secondary endpoints entail (1) added clinical value in terms of additional treatment options and (2) cost-effectiveness of WGS compared to SOC diagnostics through a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) analysis. Furthermore, the (3) perceived impact of WGS-based diagnostics on clinical decision making will be evaluated through questionnaires. The number of patients included in (experimental) therapies initiated based on SOC or WGS diagnostics will be reported with at least 3 months follow-up. The clinical efficacy is beyond the scope of WIDE. Key performance indicators will be evaluated after every 200 patients enrolled, and procedures optimized accordingly, to continuously improve the diagnostic performance of WGS in a routine clinical setting. DISCUSSION: WIDE will yield the optimal conditions under which WGS can be implemented in a routine molecular diagnostics setting and establish the position of WGS compared to SOC diagnostics in routine clinical care.

Author Correction: Caring for patients with cancer in the COVID-19 era.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Caring for patients with cancer in the COVID-19 era.

The current COVID-19 pandemic challenges oncologists to profoundly re-organize oncological care in order to dramatically reduce hospital visits and admissions and therapy-induced immune-related complications without compromising cancer outcomes. Since COVID-19 is a novel disease, guidance by scientific evidence is often unavailable, and impactful decisions are inevitably made on the basis of expert opinions. Here we report how the seven comprehensive cancer centers of Cancer Core Europe have organized their healthcare systems at an unprecedented scale and pace to make their operations 'pandemic proof'. We identify and discuss many commonalities, but also important local differences, and pinpoint critical research priorities to enable evidence-based remodeling of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, we discuss how the current situation offers a unique window of opportunity for assessing the effects of de-escalating anticancer regimens, which may fast-forward the development of more-refined and less-toxic treatments. By sharing our joint experiences, we offer a roadmap for proceeding and aim to mobilize the global research community to generate the data that are critically needed to offer the best possible care to patients.