Outcomes based on plasma biomarkers in METEOR, a randomized phase 3 trial of cabozantinib vs everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 METEOR trial, cabozantinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus everolimus in patients with advanced RCC after prior antiangiogenic therapy. METHODS: In this exploratory analysis, plasma biomarkers from baseline and week 4 from 621 of 658 randomized patients were analyzed for CA9, HGF, MET, GAS6, AXL, VEGF, VEGFR2, and IL-8. PFS and OS were analyzed by baseline biomarker levels as both dichotomized and continuous variables using univariate and multivariable methods. For on-treatment changes, PFS and OS were analyzed using fold change in biomarker levels at week 4. Biomarkers were considered prognostic if p < 0.05 and predictive if pinteraction < 0.05 for the interaction between treatment and biomarker. RESULTS: Hazard ratios for PFS and OS favored cabozantinib versus everolimus for both low and high baseline levels of all biomarkers (hazard ratios ≤0.78). In univariate analyses, low baseline HGF, AXL, and VEGF were prognostic for improvements in both PFS and OS with cabozantinib, and low HGF was prognostic for improvements in both PFS and OS with everolimus. Low AXL was predictive of relative improvement in PFS for cabozantinib versus everolimus. Results were generally consistent when baseline biomarkers were expressed as continuous variables, although none were predictive of benefit with treatment. In multivariable analysis, low baseline HGF was independently prognostic for improved PFS for both cabozantinib and everolimus; low HGF, GAS6, and VEGF were independently prognostic for improved OS with cabozantinib. No biomarkers were independently prognostic for OS with everolimus. On-treatment increases in some biomarkers appeared prognostic for PFS or OS with cabozantinib in univariate analyses; however, none were independently prognostic in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: PFS and OS were improved with cabozantinib versus everolimus at high and low baseline levels of all biomarkers. Low baseline HGF was consistently identified as a prognostic biomarker for improved PFS or OS with cabozantinib or everolimus, supporting further prospective evaluation of the prognostic significance of HGF in advanced RCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01865747 (registered on 05/31/2013).

Serum Alpha-fetoprotein Levels and Clinical Outcomes in the Phase III CELESTIAL Study of Cabozantinib versus Placebo in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The phase III CELESTIAL study demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with previously treated, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We analyzed outcomes by baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and on-treatment AFP changes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Serum AFP was measured every 8 weeks by blinded, centralized testing. Outcomes were analyzed by baseline AFP bifurcated at 400 ng/mL and by on-treatment AFP response (≥20% decrease from baseline at Week 8). The optimal cutoff for change in AFP at Week 8 was evaluated using maximally selected rank statistics. RESULTS: Median OS for cabozantinib versus placebo was 13.9 versus 10.3 months [HR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-1.04] for patients with baseline AFP <400 ng/mL, and 8.5 versus 5.2 months (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.94) for patients with baseline AFP ≥400 ng/mL. Week 8 AFP response rate was 50% for cabozantinib versus 13% for placebo. In the cabozantinib arm, median OS for patients with and without AFP response was 16.1 versus 9.1 months (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.84). AFP response was independently associated with longer OS. The optimal cutoff for association with OS in the cabozantinib arm was ≤0% change in AFP at Week 8 [AFP control; HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35-0.71)]. HRs for PFS were consistent with those for OS. CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib improved outcomes versus placebo across a range of baseline AFP levels. On-treatment AFP response and control rates were higher with cabozantinib than placebo, and were associated with longer OS and PFS with cabozantinib.

Assessment of Proteomic Measures Across Serious Psychiatric Illness.

The diagnoses of serious psychiatric illnesses, such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder, rely on the subjective recall and interpretation of often overlapping symptoms, and are not based on the objective pathophysiology of the illnesses. The subjectivity of symptom reporting and interpretation contributes to the delay of accurate diagnoses and limits effective treatment of these illnesses. Proteomics, the study of the types and quantities of proteins an organism produces, may offer an objective biological approach to psychiatric diagnosis. For this pilot study, we used the Myriad RBM Discovery Map 250+ platform to quantify 205 serum proteins in subjects with schizophrenia (n=26), schizoaffective disorder (n=20), bipolar disorder (n=16), and healthy controls with no psychiatric illness (n=23). Fifty-seven analytes that differed significantly between groups were used for multivariate modeling with linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Diagnoses generated from these models were compared to SCID-generated clinical diagnoses to determine whether the proteomic markers: 1) distinguished the three disorders from controls, and 2) distinguished between the three disorders. We found that a series of binary classification models including 8-12 analytes produced separation between all subjects and controls, and between each diagnostic group and controls. There was a high degree of accuracy in the separations, with training areas-under-the-curve (AUC) of 0.94-1.0, and cross-validation AUC of 0.94-0.95. Models with 7-14 analytes produced separation between the diagnostic groups, though less robustly, with training AUC of 0.72-1.0 and validation AUC of 0.69-0.89. While based on a small sample size, not adjusted for medication state, these preliminary results support the potential of proteomics as a diagnostic aid in psychiatry. The separation of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder suggests that further work in this area is warranted.

Impact of the Cell Cycle Progression Test on Physician and Patient Treatment Selection for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The cell cycle progression test is a validated molecular assay that assesses prostate cancer specific disease progression and mortality risk when combined with clinicopathological parameters. We present the results from PROCEDE-1000, a large, prospective registry designed to evaluate the impact of the cell cycle progression test on shared treatment decision making for patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Untreated patients with newly diagnosed prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled in the study and the cell cycle progression test was performed on the initial prostate biopsy tissue. A set of 4 sequential surveys tracked changes relative to initial therapy recommendations (before cell cycle progression) based on clinicopathological parameters following physician review of the cell cycle progression test result, physician/patient review of the cell cycle progression test results and a minimum of 3 months of clinical followup (actual treatment). RESULTS: Of the 1,596 patients enrolled in this registry 1,206 were eligible for analysis. There was a significant reduction in the treatment burden recorded at each successive evaluation (p <0.0001), with the mean number of treatments per patient decreasing from 1.72 before the cell cycle progression test to 1.16 in actual followup. The cell cycle progression test caused a change in actual treatment in 47.8% of patients. Of these changes 72.1% were reductions and 26.9% were increases in treatment. For each clinical risk category there was a significant change in treatment modality (intervention vs nonintervention) before vs after cell cycle progression testing (p=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: The cell cycle progression test has a significant impact in assisting physicians and patients reach personalized treatment decisions.

Cost-Utility of a Prognostic Test Guiding Adjuvant Chemotherapy Decisions in Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: A prognostic test was developed to guide adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) decisions in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) adenocarcinomas. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-utility of the prognostic test to the current standard of care (SoC) in patients with early-stage NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lifetime costs (2014 U.S. dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of ACT treatment decisions were examined using a Markov microsimulation model from a U.S. third-party payer perspective. Cancer stage distribution and probability of receiving ACT with the SoC were based on data from an academic cancer center. The probability of receiving ACT with the prognostic test was estimated from a physician survey. Risk classification was based on the 5-year predicted NSCLC-related mortality. Treatment benefit with ACT was based on the prognostic score. Discounting at a 3% annual rate was applied to costs and QALYs. Deterministic one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Lifetime costs and effectiveness were $137,403 and 5.45 QALYs with the prognostic test and $127,359 and 5.17 QALYs with the SoC. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the prognostic test versus the SoC was $35,867/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated the model was most sensitive to the utility of patients without recurrence after ACT and the ACT treatment benefit. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated the prognostic test was cost-effective in 65.5% of simulations at a willingness to pay of $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: The study suggests using a prognostic test to guide ACT decisions in early-stage NSCLC is potentially cost-effective compared with using the SoC based on globally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Providing prognostic information to decision makers may help some patients with high-risk early stage non-small cell lung cancer receive appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy while avoiding the associated toxicities and costs in patients with low-risk disease. This study used an economic model to assess the effectiveness and costs associated with using a prognostic test to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions compared with the current standard of care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. When compared with current standard care, the prognostic test was potentially cost effective at commonly accepted thresholds in the U.S. This study can be used to help inform decision makers who are considering using prognostic tests.

Identification of a Variety of Mutations in Cancer Predisposition Genes in Patients With Suspected Lynch Syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Multigene panels are commercially available tools for hereditary cancer risk assessment that allow for next-generation sequencing of numerous genes in parallel. However, it is not clear if these panels offer advantages over traditional genetic testing. We investigated the number of cancer predisposition gene mutations identified by parallel sequencing in individuals with suspected Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We performed germline analysis with a 25-gene, next-generation sequencing panel using DNA from 1260 individuals who underwent clinical genetic testing for Lynch syndrome from 2012 through 2013. All patients had a history of Lynch syndrome-associated cancer and/or polyps. We classified all identified germline alterations for pathogenicity and calculated the frequencies of pathogenic mutations and variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS). We also analyzed data on patients' personal and family history of cancer, including fulfillment of clinical guidelines for genetic testing. RESULTS: Of the 1260 patients, 1112 met National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for Lynch syndrome testing (88%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86%-90%). Multigene panel testing identified 114 probands with Lynch syndrome mutations (9.0%; 95% CI, 7.6%-10.8%) and 71 with mutations in other cancer predisposition genes (5.6%; 95% CI, 4.4%-7.1%). Fifteen individuals had mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2; 93% of these met the NCCN criteria for Lynch syndrome testing and 33% met NCCN criteria for BRCA1 and BRCA2 analysis (P = .0017). An additional 9 individuals carried mutations in other genes linked to high lifetime risks of cancer (5 had mutations in APC, 3 had bi-allelic mutations in MUTYH, and 1 had a mutation in STK11); all of these patients met NCCN criteria for Lynch syndrome testing. A total of 479 individuals had 1 or more VUS (38%; 95% CI, 35%-41%). CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with suspected Lynch syndrome, multigene panel testing identified high-penetrance mutations in cancer predisposition genes, many of which were unexpected based on patients' histories. Parallel sequencing also detected a high number of potentially uninformative germline findings, including VUS.

Frequency of mutations in individuals with breast cancer referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing using next-generation sequencing with a 25-gene panel.

BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows for simultaneous sequencing of multiple cancer susceptibility genes and, for an individual, may be more efficient and less expensive than sequential testing. The authors assessed the frequency of deleterious germline mutations among individuals with breast cancer who were referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) gene testing using a panel of 25 genes associated with inherited cancer predisposition. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using NGS in 2158 individuals, including 1781 who were referred for commercial BRCA1/2 gene testing (cohort 1) and 377 who had detailed personal and family history and had previously tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations (cohort 2). RESULTS: Mutations were identified in 16 genes, most frequently in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2. Among the participants in cohort 1, 9.3% carried a BRCA1/2 mutation, 3.9% carried a mutation in another breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility gene, and 0.3% carried an incidental mutation in another cancer susceptibility gene unrelated to breast or ovarian cancer. In cohort 2, the frequency of mutations in breast/ovarian-associated genes other than BRCA1/2 was 2.9%, and an additional 0.8% had an incidental mutation. In cohort 1, Lynch syndrome-related mutations were identified in 7 individuals. In contrast to BRCA1/2 mutations, neither age at breast cancer diagnosis nor family history of ovarian or young breast cancer predicted for other mutations. The frequency of mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 was lower in Ashkenazi Jews compared with non-Ashkenazi individuals (P=.026). CONCLUSIONS: Using an NGS 25-gene panel, the frequency of mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 was 4.3%, and most mutations (3.9%) were identified in genes associated with breast/ovarian cancer.

Hereditary cancer-associated mutations in women diagnosed with two primary cancers: an opportunity to identify hereditary cancer syndromes after the first cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with hereditary cancer syndromes are at high risk for a second primary cancer. Early identification of these patients after an initial cancer diagnosis is the key to implementing cancer risk-reducing strategies. METHODS: A commercial laboratory database was searched for women with a history of both breast and ovarian or colorectal and endometrial cancer who underwent genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) or Lynch syndrome (LS). RESULTS: Among women with both breast and ovarian cancer, 22.4% (2,237/9,982) had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Among women with both colorectal and ovarian cancer, 28.1% (264/941) had a mutation associated with LS. In 66.6% of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers and in 58.3% of LS mutation carriers, >5 years passed between the cancer diagnoses. Of patients with HBOC and LS, 56 and 65.2%, respectively, met the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for hereditary cancer testing after their initial diagnosis based on their personal cancer history alone. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of women tested for LS or HBOC after being diagnosed with two successive primary cancers were diagnosed with a hereditary cancer syndrome. In many cases, the time interval between the diagnoses was long enough to allow for the implementation of surveillance and/or prophylactic measures.

Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry.

OBJECTIVE: The cell cycle progression (CCP) test (Prolaris) is a novel prognostic assay that provides accurate risk of prostate cancer-specific disease progression and disease specific mortality when combined with standard clinicopathologic parameters. This prospective study evaluated the impact of the CCP report on physician treatment recommendations for prostate cancer. METHODS: Physicians ordering the CCP test in clinical practice completed surveys regarding treatment recommendations before and after they received and discussed the test results with patients. Clinicians also rated the influence of the test result on treatment decisions. Treatment selections were confirmed via third-party audit of patient charts following final survey responses. RESULTS: Overall, 65% of cases showed a change between intended treatment pre- and post-CCP test reporting. Pre-CCP testing, 164 of 305 cases received a recommendation for interventional treatment. Post-CCP test, interventional therapy was recommended for 103 of these cases, a reduction of 37.2%. Conversely, 141 of 305 cases were recommended pre-CCP testing for non-interventional treatment; 108 of these remained with non-interventional treatment while 33 shifted to interventional options, a 23.4% increase. There was a 49.5% reduction in surgical interventions and a 29.6% reduction in radiation treatment. A third-party audit identified 80.2% concordance between the post-CCP testing treatment recommendation and actual treatment. Re-assignment to intervention or non-intervention generally correlated with the result of the CCP report. Study limitations included physician selection of patients for testing, no evaluation of patient input in therapeutic choice, and other potential treatment decision factors not queried by the survey. CONCLUSION: Based on responses of ordering physicians, the CCP report adds meaningful new information to risk assessment for localized prostate cancer patients. Test results led to changes in treatment with reductions and increases in interventional treatment that were directionally aligned with prostate cancer risk specified by the test.

Comprehensive sequencing of PALB2 in patients with breast cancer suggests PALB2 mutations explain a subset of hereditary breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine the prevalence of PALB2 mutations in a cohort referred for diagnostic testing for hereditary breast cancer. METHODS: Sanger sequencing was used to analyze the entire coding region and flanking introns of PALB2 in anonymized DNA samples from 1479 patients. Samples were stratified into a "high-risk" group, 955 samples from individuals predicted to have a high probability of carrying a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 based on their personal and family history, and a "lower-risk" group consisting of 524 samples from patients with breast cancer, but fewer risk factors for being a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carrier. All patients were known to be negative for deleterious sequence mutations and large rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2. RESULTS: We identified 12 disease-associated PALB2 mutations among the 1479 patients (0.8%). The PALB2 mutations included 8 nonsense, 3 frameshift mutations and a splice-site mutation. The mutation prevalence for the high-risk population was 1.05% (95% CI = 0.5-1.92), whereas that for the lower-risk population was 0.38% (95% CI = 0.05-1.37). We identified 59 PALB2 variants of uncertain significance (VUS) among 57 of the 1479 patients (3.9%). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that PALB2 mutations occur at a frequency of ~1% in patients with hereditary breast cancer.

Prevalence of BRCA mutations in an unselected population of triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation prevalence in an unselected cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (BC). METHODS: One hundred ninety-nine patients were enrolled. Triple negativity was defined as <1% estrogen and progesterone staining by immunohistochemistry and HER-2/neu not overexpressed by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Having given consent, patients had BRCA1 and BRCA2 full sequencing and large rearrangement analysis. Mutation prevalence was assessed among the triple-negative BC patients and the subset of patients without a family history of breast/ovarian cancer. Independent pathological review was completed on 50 patients. RESULTS: Twenty-one deleterious BRCA mutations were identified--13 in BRCA1 and 8 in BRCA2 (prevalence, 10.6%). In 153 patients (76.9%) without significant family history (first-degree or second-degree relatives with BC aged <50 years or ovarian cancer at any age), 8 (5.2%) mutations were found. By using prior National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommending testing for triple-negative BC patients aged <45 years, 4 of 21 mutations (19%) would have been missed. Two of 21 mutations (10%) would have been missed using updated NCCN guidelines recommending testing for triple-negative BC patients aged <60 years. CONCLUSIONS: The observed mutation rate was significantly higher (P = .0005) than expected based on previously established prevalence tables among patients unselected for pathology. BRCA1 mutation prevalence was lower, and BRCA2 mutation prevalence was higher, than previously described. Additional mutation carriers would have met new NCCN testing guidelines, underscoring the value of the updated criteria. Study data suggest that by increasing the age limit to 65 years, all carriers would have been identified.

Modeling the 5-fluorouracil area under the curve versus dose relationship to develop a pharmacokinetic dosing algorithm for colorectal cancer patients receiving FOLFOX6.

BACKGROUND: 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is administered based on standard body surface area (BSA) dosing. BSA administration results in highly variable exposure, measured as the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). An immunoassay (OnDose®; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) that measures plasma 5-FU concentration and reports an AUC in mg · h/L has been developed to optimize therapy using pharmacokinetic (PK) dosing. The results of an analysis to model the 5-FU AUC-dose relationship are presented. METHODS: A set of 589 sequential patients from a clinical database receiving 5-FU, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (the FOLFOX6 regimen) for colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment was analyzed. A subset including only patients who had at least two consecutive cycles tested, received 1,600-3,600 mg/m2 of continuous infusion 5-FU during the initial test cycle, and had a blood sample collected after ≥18 hours, was used to conduct regression modeling of the change in AUC versus change in dose. RESULTS: A simple regression model with R(2) = 0.51 developed over n = 307 cycle-pair observations characterizes the AUC-Dose relationship as: change in AUC = 0.02063 * dose change. The model suggests that dose changes in the range of 145-727 mg/m2 would be sufficient to adjust the AUC to a potential therapeutic threshold of >20 mg · h/L for most patients. CONCLUSIONS: 5-FU is an ideal candidate for PK dose optimization. Because individual factors other than dose change may also affect the change in AUC, longitudinal PK monitoring in all cycles and dose adjustment to ensure AUC in the desired range of 20-30 mg · h/L are recommended.