Evidence blocks for effective presentation of genomic findings at molecular tumor boards: Single institution experience.

Genomic profiling, or molecular profiling of the tumor, is becoming a key component of therapeutic decision making in clinical oncology, and is typically carried out via next generation sequencing. However, the interpretation of the results and evaluation of rationale for targeting the uncovered alterations is challenging and requires a deep understanding of cancer biology, genetics, genomics and oncology. Multidisciplinary molecular tumor boards represent a promising strategy in the facilitation of molecularly-informed therapeutic decisions, and usually consist of specialists with various fields of expertise. To effectively communicate the biological and clinical significance of genomic findings, as well as to make molecular tumor board discussions more productive, we developed and implemented evidence blocks into case discussions in our center. We found that this approach facilitated clinicians' understanding of the results of genomic profiling, and resulted in shorter yet more efficient case discussions within the molecular tumor board. Here, we discuss our experience with evidence blocks and how their implementation influenced the molecular tumor board practice.

Case Report: Progressive disease of BRCA2-mutant colon adenocarcinoma following talazoparib therapy.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is currently one of the most common tumor types diagnosed worldwide. In the early stages, the disease responds well to surgical and chemotherapeutic treatment, but in the later stages when therapeutic options are exhausted, comprehensive genomic profiling can guide further treatment decisions. We present the case of a 46-year-old man of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry who was diagnosed with KRAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. After surgery and progression on standard FOLFOX/FOLFIRI + bevacizumab therapy, as well as on Trifluridine/Tipiracil, comprehensive genomic profiling was performed with the hope of expanding therapeutic options. Following comprehensive tumor molecular profiling via NGS, a discussion of the case was discussed at the local molecular tumor board in order to determine further treatment strategy. An activating variant of KRAS and PIK3CA, FLT3 and SRC amplification and damaging TP53 and APC variants were discarded by MTB as potential targetable biomarkers. The BRCA2 p.S1415fs*4 founder frameshift variant was of interest and the patient was included in the clinical trial investigating the efficacy of a PARP inhibitor talazoparib. Unfortunately, the disease progression was detected within one month of talazoparib treatment and the patient died during the 8th cycle of FOLFIRI + bevacizumab therapy rechallenge.

Precision oncology strategy in cetuximab-resistant ERRFI1-mutant colon cancer: case report of disease progression on afatinib.

Despite the existence of effective first and second line therapy options for patients with colorectal cancer, heavily treated patients have limited additional therapies. Genomic profiling is a promising tool for guiding subsequent treatment selection. Here, we describe the results of treating a colorectal cancer patient with molecularly-matched therapy based on the results of genomic profiling. The patient received a combination of afatinib and bevacizumab due to the presence of ERRFI1 variant. To our knowledge, this is the first report on the effect of EGFR inhibitors in patients with ERRFI1-altered RAS/BRAF wild-type colorectal adenocarcinoma.

Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 43-month Follow-up of the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 Study.

Previous analyses of KEYNOTE-426, an open-label, phase 3 randomized study, showed superior efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib to sunitinib in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We report results of the final protocol-prespecified analysis of KEYNOTE-426. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 wk per 6-wk cycle). The dual primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as per RECIST v1.1 by a blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). The median study follow-up was 43 (range, 36-51) mo. Benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was maintained for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.60-0.88]), PFS (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]), and ORR (60% vs 40%). The median DOR was 24 (range, 1.4+ to 43+) versus 15 (range, 2.3-43+) mo in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals emerged. These results support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for patients with previously untreated advanced ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Extended results of KEYNOTE-426 support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Management of Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer with Bladder Preservation in Russia: a Survey-Based Analysis of Current Practice and the Impact of an Educational Workshop on Clinical Expertise.

Trimodality bladder preservation (BP) is an accepted alternative to radical cystectomy for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). The global utilization of BP is variable, and practice patterns have not been previously studied in Russia. We sought to elucidate the contemporary BP practice patterns in Russia and determine the impact of the BP workshop on attitudes of Russian radiation oncologists (ROs) towards BP. The workshop was focused on patient workup, selection for BP, chemotherapy choices, radiation therapy (RT) contouring and planning, patient counseling. A total of 77 pre- and 32 matched post-workshop IRB-approved surveys, based on the workshop content, were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine baseline clinical experience and patterns of care. The impact was judged by changes in participants' responses. A total of 56% of respondents had experience with delivering bladder-directed RT, and 60% of those treated both operable and inoperable MIBC patients. Only 10% felt uncomfortable offering an operable patient BP modality. Prior to the workshop, almost half of respondents estimated universal poor bladder (44%) and erectile functions (47%) after BP. The workshop resulted in dramatic change in participants' attitudes towards long-term urinary (Stuart-Maxwell test, p < 0.01) and sexual (exact McNemar test, p < 0.01) side effects. Prior to the workshop, only 47% of respondents routinely discussed smoking cessation (SC) with their patients, whereas after workshop, 88% agreed that SC discussion is mandatory (exact McNemar test, p = 0.04). BP for MIBC is commonly used in Russia. Our workshop resulted in dramatically improved understanding of long-term BP toxicities and inspired Russian ROs to incorporate SC counseling into routine clinical management.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis. INTERPRETATION: With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib showed antitumor activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Whether pembrolizumab plus axitinib would result in better outcomes than sunitinib in such patients was unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 861 patients with previously untreated advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily (432 patients) or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for the first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle (429 patients). The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The key secondary end point was the objective response rate. All reported results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, the estimated percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 89.9% in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 78.3% in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 11.1 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.84; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 59.3% (95% CI, 54.5 to 63.9) in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 35.7% (95% CI, 31.1 to 40.4) in the sunitinib group (P<0.001). The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was observed across the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups (i.e., favorable, intermediate, and poor risk) and regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression. Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 75.8% of patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and in 70.6% in the sunitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival, as well as a higher objective response rate, than treatment with sunitinib. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-426 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02853331.).

Efficacy of tivozanib treatment after sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: crossover of a phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3 tyrosine kinases. This open-label, crossover clinical study (AV-951-09-902) provided access to tivozanib for patients who progressed on sorafenib in TIVO-1, comparing tivozanib with sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Patients enrolled in this single-arm, phase 2 crossover study were previously randomised to sorafenib on TIVO-1, progressed and then crossed over to tivozanib. Patients received tivozanib (1.5 mg/day orally; 3 weeks on/1 week off) within 4 weeks after their last sorafenib dose. FINDINGS: Crossover patients were exposed to tivozanib for a median of eight cycles. From the start of tivozanib treatment, median progression-free survival was 11.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3-12.7) and median overall survival was 21.6 months (95% CI: 17.0-27.6). Best overall response was partial response in 29 (18%) patients and stable disease in 83 (52%) patients, with a median duration of response of 15.2 and 12.7 months, respectively. About 77% of patients experienced adverse events, most frequently hypertension (26%), followed by diarrhoea (14%) and fatigue (13%); 53% of patients had treatment-related adverse events, including 24% grade ≥3. About 9% and 16% of patients had dose reductions and dose interruptions due to adverse events, respectively. A total of 30% of patients had serious adverse events, and 4% had treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: This crossover study of patients with advanced RCC demonstrated potent tivozanib anti-tumour activity. Safety and tolerability profiles were acceptable and consistent with the established adverse event profile of tivozanib.

Nuclear Protein of the Testis Midline Carcinoma Masquerading as a Primary Mediastinal Seminoma.

Nuclear protein of the testis (NUT) midline carcinomas are rare aggressive carcinomas characterized by chromosomal rearrangements that involve the gene encoding the NUT. This article reviews the clinicopathologic features and the differential diagnosis of these malignancies.

Nilotinib versus imatinib as first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours (ENESTg1): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nilotinib inhibits the tyrosine kinase activity of ABL1/BCR-ABL1 and KIT, platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFRs), and the discoidin domain receptor. Gain-of-function mutations in KIT or PDGFRα are key drivers in most gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). This trial was designed to test the efficacy and safety of nilotinib versus imatinib as first-line therapy for patients with advanced GISTs. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial (ENESTg1), participants from academic centres were aged 18 years or older and had previously untreated, histologically confirmed, metastatic or unresectable GISTs. Patients were stratified by previous adjuvant therapy and randomly assigned (1:1) via a randomisation list to receive oral imatinib 400 mg once daily or oral nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was centrally reviewed progression-free survival. Efficacy endpoints were assessed by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00785785. FINDINGS: Because the futility boundary was crossed at a preplanned interim analysis, trial accrual terminated in April, 2011. Between March 16, 2009, and April 21, 2011, 647 patients were enrolled; of whom 324 were allocated nilotinib and 320 were allocated imatinib. At final analysis of the core study (data cutoff, October, 2012), 2-year progression-free survival was higher in the imatinib group (59·2% [95% CI 50·9-66·5]) than in the nilotinib group (51·6% [43·0-59·5]; hazard ratio 1·47 [95% CI 1·10-1·95]). In the imatinib group, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypophosphataemia (19 [6%]), anaemia (17 [5%]), abdominal pain (13; 4%), and elevated lipase level (15; 5%), and in the nilotinib group were anaemia (18; 6%), elevated lipase level (15; 5%), elevated alanine aminotransferase concentration (12; 4%), and abdominal pain (11; 3%). The most common serious adverse event in both groups was abdominal pain (11 [4%] in the imatinib group, 14 [4%] in the nilotinib group). INTERPRETATION: Nilotinib cannot be recommended for broad use to treat first-line GIST. However, future studies might identify patient subsets for whom first-line nilotinib could be of clinical benefit. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Tivozanib versus sorafenib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Tivozanib is a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1), -2, and -3. This phase III trial compared tivozanib with sorafenib as initial targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic RCC, with a clear cell component, prior nephrectomy, measurable disease, and 0 or 1 prior therapies for metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to tivozanib or sorafenib. Prior VEGF-targeted therapy and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor were not permitted. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review. RESULTS: A total of 517 patients were randomly assigned to tivozanib (n = 260) or sorafenib (n = 257). PFS was longer with tivozanib than with sorafenib in the overall population (median, 11.9 v 9.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.797; 95% CI, 0.639 to 0.993; P = .042). One hundred fifty-six patients (61%) who progressed on sorafenib crossed over to receive tivozanib. The final overall survival (OS) analysis showed a trend toward longer survival on the sorafenib arm than on the tivozanib arm (median, 29.3 v 28.8 months; HR, 1.245; 95% CI, 0.954 to 1.624; P = .105). Adverse events (AEs) more common with tivozanib than with sorafenib were hypertension (44% v 34%) and dysphonia (21% v 5%). AEs more common with sorafenib than with tivozanib were hand-foot skin reaction (54% v 14%) and diarrhea (33% v 23%). CONCLUSION: Tivozanib demonstrated improved PFS, but not OS, and a differentiated safety profile, compared with sorafenib, as initial targeted therapy for metastatic RCC.

Antitumor activity and safety of tivozanib (AV-951) in a phase II randomized discontinuation trial in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The antitumor activity and safety of tivozanib, which is a potent and selective vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1, -2, and -3 inhibitor, was assessed in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase II, randomized discontinuation trial, 272 patients received open-label tivozanib 1.5 mg/d (one cycle equaled three treatment weeks followed by a 1-week break) orally for 16 weeks. Thereafter, 78 patients who demonstrated ≥ 25% tumor shrinkage continued to take tivozanib, and 118 patients with less than 25% tumor change were randomly assigned to receive tivozanib or a placebo in a double-blind manner; patients with ≥ 25% tumor growth were discontinued. Primary end points included safety, the objective response rate (ORR) at 16 weeks, and the percentage of randomly assigned patients who remained progression free after 12 weeks of double-blind treatment; secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Of 272 patients enrolled onto the study, 83% of patients had clear-cell histology, 73% of patients had undergone nephrectomy, and 54% of patients were treatment naive. The ORR after 16 weeks of tivozanib treatment was 18% (95% CI, 14% to 23%). Of the 118 randomized patients, significantly more patients who were randomly assigned to receive double-blind tivozanib remained progression free after 12 weeks versus patients who received the placebo (49% v 21%; P = .001). Throughout the study, the ORR was 24% (95% CI, 19% to 30%), and the median PFS was 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 14.3 months) in the overall study population. The most common grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (12%). CONCLUSION: Tivozanib was active and well tolerated in patients with advanced RCC. These data support additional development of tivozanib in advanced RCC.