Genomic Assessment of Blood-Derived Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients With Colorectal Cancers: Correlation With Tissue Sequencing, Therapeutic Response, and Survival.

PURPOSE: Genomic alterations in blood-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients with colorectal cancers were correlated with clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Next-generation sequencing of ctDNA (54- to 73-gene panel) was performed in 94 patients with colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Most patients (96%) had metastatic or recurrent disease at the time of blood draw. The median number of nonsynonymous alterations per patient was three (range, zero to 30). The most frequently aberrant genes were TP53 (52.1% of patients), KRAS (34%), and APC (28.7%). Concordance between tissue and blood next-generation sequencing ranged from 63.2% (APC) to 85.5% (BRAF). Altogether, 74 patients (79%) had one or more nonsynonymous alterations, 69 (73%) had one or more potentially actionable alterations, and 61 (65%) had an alteration actionable by a drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (on or off label). Lung metastases correlated with improved survival from diagnosis in univariable analysis. ctDNA of 5% or more from blood tests as well as EGFR and ERBB2 (HER2) nonsynonymous alterations correlated with worse survival (but only ERBB2 remained significant in multivariable analysis). No two patients had identical molecular portfolios. Overall, 65% versus 31% of patients treated with matched (n = 17) versus unmatched therapy (n = 18) after ctDNA testing achieved stable disease for 6 months or more, partial response, or complete response (P = .045); progression-free survival, 6.1 versus 2.3 months (P = .08); and survival not reached versus 9.4 months (P = .146; all by multivariable analysis). CONCLUSION: Patients with colorectal cancer have heterogeneous ctDNA profiles, and most harbor potentially actionable ctDNA alterations. Matched therapy yielded higher rates of stable disease for 6 months or more, partial response, or complete response. ctDNA assessment may have clinical utility and merits further investigation.

Molecular profiling of cancer patients enables personalized combination therapy: the I-PREDICT study.

Cancer treatments have evolved from indiscriminate cytotoxic agents to selective genome- and immune-targeted drugs that have transformed the outcomes of some malignancies1. Tumor complexity and heterogeneity suggest that the 'precision medicine' paradigm of cancer therapy requires treatment to be personalized to the individual patient2-6. To date, precision oncology trials have been based on molecular matching with predetermined monotherapies7-14. Several of these trials have been hindered by very low matching rates, often in the 5-10% range15, and low response rates. Low matching rates may be due to the use of limited gene panels, restrictive molecular matching algorithms, lack of drug availability, or the deterioration and death of end-stage patients before therapy can be implemented. We hypothesized that personalized treatment with combination therapies would improve outcomes in patients with refractory malignancies. As a first test of this concept, we implemented a cross-institutional prospective study (I-PREDICT, NCT02534675 ) that used tumor DNA sequencing and timely recommendations for individualized treatment with combination therapies. We found that administration of customized multidrug regimens was feasible, with 49% of consented patients receiving personalized treatment. Targeting of a larger fraction of identified molecular alterations, yielding a higher 'matching score', was correlated with significantly improved disease control rates, as well as longer progression-free and overall survival rates, compared to targeting of fewer somatic alterations. Our findings suggest that the current clinical trial paradigm for precision oncology, which pairs one driver mutation with one drug, may be optimized by treating molecularly complex and heterogeneous cancers with combinations of customized agents.

MET alterations detected in blood-derived circulating tumor DNA correlate with bone metastases and poor prognosis.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed clinical associations of MET alterations in the plasma of patients with diverse malignancies. METHODS: Digital sequencing of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) (54-70 genes) was performed in 438 patients; 263 patients also had tissue sequencing (182-315 genes). The most represented tumor types were gastrointestinal (28.1%), brain (24.9%), and lung (23.2%). Most patients (71.2%) had recurrent/metastatic disease. RESULTS: MET alterations were observed in 31 patients (7.1%) and correlated with bone metastasis (P = 0.007), with TP53 (P = 0.001) and PTEN (P = 0.003) abnormalities, and with an increased number of alterations (median, 4 vs 1, P = 0.001) (all multivariable analyses). Patients with MET alterations demonstrated a significantly shorter median time to metastasis/recurrence (1.0 vs 10.4 months, P = 0.044, multivariable) and a poorer survival (30.6 vs 58.4 months, P = 0.013, univariate only). Of the 31 patients with MET alterations, 18 also had tissue testing; only two also had tissue MET alterations (11.1%); MET alterations were detected at a lower frequency in tissue (1.14%) compared to ctDNA (7.1%), with P = 0.0002. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the detection of MET alterations by liquid biopsy is feasible. MET ctDNA alterations were associated with a poorer prognosis, higher numbers of genomic abnormalities, and bone metastases. The correlation with bone metastases may explain the higher frequency of MET alterations in blood ctDNA than in tissue (since bones are rarely biopsied) and the previous observations of bone-predominant responses to MET inhibitors. The high number of co-altered genes suggests that MET inhibitors may need to be combined with other agents to induce/optimize responses.

TP53 mutations and number of alterations correlate with maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) determined by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG PET).

BACKGROUND: Our study explored the relationship between the molecular changes in cancer and the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) determined by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG). RESULTS: A higher SUVmax correlated with TP53 alterations, but not with histologic diagnosis or other gene/pathway mutations or copy number alterations. In data from breast, lung and colon cancer, patients with the highest SUVmax show more genomic anomalies compared to those with the lowest SUVmax (P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: A higher SUVmax on 18F-FDG PET/CT is associated with TP53 tumor suppressor gene anomalies and the presence of more genomic anomalies. Since TP53 alterations and high SUVmax both correlate with a poor prognosis, the underlying mechanism/implications of this association merit further study. METHODS: Overall, 176 patients with diverse cancers had a tumor biopsy within 6 months after a PET/CT image for SUVmax measurement. The biopsy was interrogated by next generation sequencing (182 to 315 genes). TP53, EGFR, ALK, MYC, MET and FGF/FGFR genes and DNA repair, PI3K/Akt/mTOR (PAM), MEK, CYCLIN, and WNT pathway genes were analyzed.

Telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter alterations across cancer types as detected by next-generation sequencing: A clinical and molecular analysis of 423 patients.

BACKGROUND: Telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter mutations that may affect telomerase activity have recently been described in human malignancies. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical correlates of TERT promoter abnormalities in a large cohort of patients with diverse cancers. METHODS: This study analyzed TERT promoter alterations and clinical characteristics of 423 consecutive patients for whom molecular testing by next-generation sequencing was performed between August 2014 and July 2015. RESULTS: Of the 423 patients, 61 (14.4%) had TERT promoter mutations, and this placed TERT promoter alterations among the most prevalent aberrations after tumor protein 53 (TP53; 39%) and KRAS and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A/B (CDKN2A/B) alterations (15% each) in this population. TERT promoter alterations were more frequent in men (P = .031) and were associated with brain cancers (P = .001), skin cancers/melanoma (P = .001), and a higher number of aberrations (P = .0001). A co-alteration analysis found that TERT promoter alterations were significantly correlated with CDKN2A/B (P = .001) and BRAF abnormalities (P = .0003). Patients harboring TERT promoter alterations or TP53 or CDKN2A/B alterations and those with 4 or more alterations demonstrated shorter survival (hazard ratio for normal TERT promoters vs aberrant ones, 0.44; P = .017). However, only a higher number of alterations remained significant in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, TERT promoter alterations were among the most prevalent aberrations in this population, with very high rates in brain cancers (48% of patients) and melanomas (56% of patients). These aberrations frequently coexist with a high number of other aberrations, with the latter feature also significantly associated with poorer overall survival. Therapeutic options for targeting tumors with TERT promoter mutations are currently limited, although a variety of novel approaches are under development. Cancer 2018;124:1288-96. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Genomic Alterations in Circulating Tumor DNA from Diverse Cancer Patients Identified by Next-Generation Sequencing.

Noninvasive genomic profiling of tumors may be possible with next-generation sequencing (NGS) of blood-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), but proof of concept in a large cohort of patients with diverse cancers has yet to be reported. Here we report the results of an analysis of plasma-derived ctDNA from 670 patients with diverse cancers. The tumors represented in the patient cohort were mainly gastrointestinal (31.8%), brain (22.7%), or lung (20.7%). ctDNA obtained from most patients [N = 423 (63%)] displayed at least one alteration. The most frequent alterations seen, as characterized mutations or variants of unknown significance, occurred in TP53 (32.5% of patients), EGFR (13%), KRAS (12.5%), and PIK3CA (9.1%); for characterized alterations, 30.7% (TP53), 7.6% (EGFR), 12.2% (KRAS), and 7.7% (PIK3CA). We found that 32% of brain tumors had at least one ctDNA alteration. Head and neck tumors were independently associated with a higher number of alterations in a multivariable analysis (P = 0.019). Notably, 320/670 (48%) of patients displayed potentially actionable alterations, with 241 patients possible candidates for on-label or off-label treatment with an FDA-approved drug. Several illustrations of the clinical utility of the information obtained for improving treatment of specific patients is provided. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility and impact of genomic profiling of tumors by ctDNA NGS, greatly encouraging broader investigations of the application of this technology for precision medicine in cancer management. Cancer Res; 77(19); 5419-27. ©2017 AACR.

Topoisomerase expression and amplification in solid tumours: Analysis of 24,262 patients.

BACKGROUND: Topoisomerase I (TOPO1) and topoisomerase IIα (TOP2A) are specific targets of multiple chemotherapy drugs. Increased expression of TOPO1 protein and amplification of the TOP2A gene have been associated with treatment response in colorectal and breast cancers, respectively. TOPO1 and TOP2A may be potential therapeutic targets in other malignancies as well. SUMMARY OF METHODS: We analysed TOPO1 protein expression and TOP2A gene amplification in patients (n = 24,262 specimens) with diverse cancers. Since HER2 and TOP2A co-amplification have been investigated for predictive value regarding anthracycline benefit, we analysed specimens for HER2 amplification as well. RESULTS: Overexpressed TOPO1 protein was present in 51% of the tumours. Four percent of the tumours had TOP2A amplification, with gallbladder tumours and gastroesophageal/oesophageal tumours having rates over 10%. Overall, 4903 specimens were assessed for both TOP2A and HER2 amplification; 129 (2.6%) had co-amplification. High rates (>40%) of HER2 amplification were seen in patients with TOP2A amplification in breast, ovarian, gastroesophageal/oesophageal and pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that increased TOPO1 expression and TOP2A amplification, as well as HER2 co-alterations, are present in multiple malignancies. The implications of these observations regarding sensitivity to chemotherapy not traditionally administered to these tumour types merits investigation.

Utility of Genomic Assessment of Blood-Derived Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) in Patients with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Purpose: Genomic alterations in blood-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients with non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma (NSCLC) were ascertained and correlated with clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes.Experimental Design: Comprehensive plasma ctDNA testing was performed in 88 consecutive patients; 34 also had tissue next-generation sequencing; 29, other forms of genotyping; and 25 (28.4%) had no tissue molecular tests because of inadequate tissue or biopsy contraindications.Results: Seventy-two patients (82%) had ≥1 ctDNA alteration(s); among these, 75% carried alteration(s) potentially actionable by FDA-approved (61.1%) or experimental drug(s) in clinical trials (additional 13.9%). The most frequent alterations were in the TP53 (44.3% of patients), EGFR (27.3%), MET (14.8%), KRAS (13.6%), and ALK (6.8%) genes. The concordance rate for EGFR alterations was 80.8% (100% vs. 61.5%; ≤1 vs. >1 month between ctDNA and tissue tests; P = 0.04) for patients with any detectable ctDNA alterations. Twenty-five patients (28.4%) received therapy matching ≥1 ctDNA alteration(s); 72.3% (N = 16/22) of the evaluable matched patients achieved stable disease ≥6 months (SD) or partial response (PR). Five patients with ctDNA-detected EGFR T790M were subsequently treated with a third generation EGFR inhibitor; all five achieved SD ≥ 6 months/PR. Patients with ≥1 alteration with ≥5% variant allele fraction (vs. < 5%) had a significantly shorter median survival (P = 0.012).Conclusions: ctDNA analysis detected alterations in the majority of patients, with potentially targetable aberrations found at expected frequencies. Therapy matched to ctDNA alterations demonstrated appreciable therapeutic efficacy, suggesting clinical utility that warrants future prospective studies. Clin Cancer Res; 23(17); 5101-11. ©2017 AACR.

An appraisal of drug development timelines in the Era of precision oncology.

The effects of incorporating a biomarker-based (personalized or precision) selection strategy on drug development timelines for new oncology drugs merit investigation. Here we accessed documents from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database for anticancer agents approved between 09/1998 and 07/2014 to compare drugs developed with and without a personalized strategy. Sixty-three drugs were included (28 [44%] personalized and 35 [56%] non-personalized). No differences in access to FDA-expedited programs were observed between personalized and non-personalized drugs. A personalized approach for drug development was associated with faster clinical development (Investigational New Drug [IND] to New Drug Application [NDA] submission; median = 58.8 months [95% CI 53.8-81.8] vs. 93.5 months [95% CI 73.9-112.9], P =.001), but a similar approval time (NDA submission to approval; median=6.0 months [95% CI 5.5-8.4] vs. 6.1 months [95% CI 5.9-8.3], P = .756) compared to a non-personalized strategy. In the multivariate model, class of drug stratified by personalized status (targeted personalized vs. targeted non-personalized vs. cytotoxic) was the only independent factor associated with faster total time of clinical drug development (clinical plus approval phase, median = 64.6 vs 87.1 vs. 112.7 months [cytotoxic], P = .038). Response rates (RR) in early trials were positively correlated with RR in registration trials (r = 0.63, P = <.001), and inversely associated with total time of drug development (r = -0.29, P = .049). In conclusion, targeted agents were developed faster than cytotoxic agents. Shorter times to approval were associated, in multivariate analysis, with a biomarker-based clinical development strategy.

Association of Biomarker-Based Treatment Strategies With Response Rates and Progression-Free Survival in Refractory Malignant Neoplasms: A Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The impact of a biomarker-based (personalized) cancer treatment strategy in the setting of phase 1 clinical trials was analyzed. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient outcomes in phase 1 studies that used a biomarker selection strategy with those that did not. DATA SOURCES: PubMed search of phase 1 cancer drug trials (January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013). STUDY SELECTION: Studies included trials that evaluated single agents, and reported efficacy end points (at least response rate [RR]). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted independently by 2 investigators. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared for arms that used a personalized strategy (biomarker selection) vs those that did not. Overall survival was not analyzed owing to insufficient data. RESULTS: A total of 346 studies published in the designated 3-year time period were included in the analysis. Multivariable analysis (meta-regression and weighted multiple regression models) demonstrated that the personalized approach independently correlated with a significantly higher median RR (30.6% [95% CI, 25.0%-36.9%] vs 4.9% [95% CI, 4.2%-5.7%]; P < .001) and a longer median PFS (5.7 [95% CI, 2.6-13.8] vs 2.95 [95% CI, 2.3-3.7] months; P < .001). Targeted therapy arms that used a biomarker-based selection strategy (n = 57 trials) were associated with statistically improved RR compared with targeted therapy arms (n = 177 arms) that did not (31.1% [95% CI, 25.4%-37.4%] vs 5.1% [95% CI, 4.3%-6.0%]; P < .001). Nonpersonalized targeted arms had outcomes comparable with those that tested a cytotoxic agent (median RR, 5.1% [95% CI, 4.3%-6.0%] vs 4.7% [95% CI, 3.6%-6.2%]; P = .63; respectively; median PFS, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.6-4.0] months vs 2.5 [95% CI, 2.0-3.7] months; P = .22). Personalized arms using a "genomic (DNA) biomarker" had higher median RR than those using a "protein biomarker" (42.0% [95% CI, 33.7%-50.9%] vs 22.4% [95% CI, 15.6%-30.9%]; P = .001). The median treatment-related mortality was not statistically different for arms that used a personalized strategy vs not (1.89% [95% CI, 1.36%-2.61%] vs 2.27% [95% CI, 1.97%-2.62%]; P = .31). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this meta-analysis, most phase 1 trials of targeted agents did not use a biomarker-based selection strategy. However, use of a biomarker-based approach was associated with significantly improved outcomes (RR and PFS). Response rates were significantly higher with genomic vs protein biomarkers. Studies that used targeted agents without a biomarker had negligible response rates.

Use of Liquid Biopsies in Clinical Oncology: Pilot Experience in 168 Patients.

PURPOSE: There is a growing interest in using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing in patients with cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A total of 168 patients with diverse cancers were analyzed. Patients had digital next-generation sequencing (54 cancer-related gene panel including amplifications in ERBB2, EGFR, and MET) performed on their plasma. Type of genomic alterations, potential actionability, concordance with tissue testing, and patient outcome were examined. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of patients (98/168) had ≥1 ctDNA alteration(s). Of the 98 patients with alterations, 71.4% had ≥ 1 alteration potentially actionable by an FDA-approved drug. The median time interval between the tissue biopsy and the blood draw was 2.7 months for patients with ≥ 1 alteration in common compared with 14.4 months (P = 0.006) for the patients in whom no common alterations were identified in the tissue and plasma. Overall concordance rates for tissue and ctDNA were 70.3% for TP53 and EGFR, 88.1% for PIK3CA, and 93.1% for ERBB2 alterations. There was a significant correlation between the cases with ≥ 1 alteration with ctDNA ≥ 5% and shorter survival (median = 4.03 months vs. not reached at median follow-up of 6.1 months; P < 0.001). Finally, 5 of the 12 evaluable patients (42%) matched to a treatment targeting an alteration(s) detected in their ctDNA test achieved stable disease ≥ 6 months/partial remission compared with 2 of 28 patients (7.1%) for the unmatched patients, P = 0.02. CONCLUSIONS: Our initial study demonstrates that ctDNA tests provide information complementary to that in tissue biopsies and may be useful in determining prognosis and treatment. Clin Cancer Res; 22(22); 5497-505. ©2016 AACR.

Cell-Cycle Gene Alterations in 4,864 Tumors Analyzed by Next-Generation Sequencing: Implications for Targeted Therapeutics.

Alterations in the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)-retinoblastoma (RB) machinery disrupt cell-cycle regulation and are being targeted in drug development. To understand the cancer types impacted by this pathway, we analyzed frequency of abnormalities in key cell-cycle genes across 4,864 tumors using next-generation sequencing (182 or 236 genes; Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments laboratory). Aberrations in the cell-cycle pathway were identified in 39% of cancers, making this pathway one of the most commonly altered in cancer. The frequency of aberrations was as follows: CDKN2A/B (20.1% of all patients), RB1 (7.6%), CCND1 (6.1%), CCNE1 (3.6%), CDK4 (3.2%), CCND3 (1.8%), CCND2 (1.7%), and CDK6 (1.7%). Rates and types of aberrant cell-cycle pathway genes differed between cancer types and within histologies. Analysis of coexisting and mutually exclusive genetic aberrations showed that CCND1, CCND2, and CCND3 aberrations were all positively associated with CDK6 aberrations [OR and P values, multivariate analysis: CCND1 and CDK6 (OR = 3.5; P < 0.0001), CCND2 and CDK6 (OR = 4.3; P = 0.003), CCND3 and CDK6 (OR = 3.6; P = 0.007)]. In contrast, RB1 alterations were negatively associated with multiple gene anomalies in the cell-cycle pathway, including CCND1 (OR = 0.25; P = 0.003), CKD4 (OR = 0.10; P = 0.001), and CDKN2A/B (OR = 0.21; P < 0.0001). In conclusion, aberrations in the cell-cycle pathway were very common in diverse cancers (39% of 4,864 neoplasms). The frequencies and types of alterations differed between and within tumor types and will be informative for drug development strategies. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(7); 1682-90. ©2016 AACR.

Detection rate of actionable mutations in diverse cancers using a biopsy-free (blood) circulating tumor cell DNA assay.

Analysis of cell-free DNA using next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a powerful tool for the detection/monitoring of alterations present in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Plasma extracted from 171 patients with a variety of cancers was analyzed for ctDNA (54 genes and copy number variants (CNVs) in three genes (EGFR, ERBB2 and MET)). The most represented cancers were lung (23%), breast (23%), and glioblastoma (19%). Ninety-nine patients (58%) had at least one detectable alteration. The most frequent alterations were TP53 (29.8%), followed by EGFR (17.5%), MET (10.5%), PIK3CA (7%), and NOTCH1 (5.8%). In contrast, of 222 healthy volunteers, only one had an aberration (TP53). Ninety patients with non-brain tumors had a discernible aberration (65% of 138 patients; in 70% of non-brain tumor patients with an alteration, the anomaly was potentially actionable). Interestingly, nine of 33 patients (27%) with glioblastoma had an alteration (6/33 (18%) potentially actionable). Overall, sixty-nine patients had potentially actionable alterations (40% of total; 69.7% of patients (69/99) with alterations); 68 patients (40% of total; 69% of patients with alterations), by a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drug. In summary, 65% of diverse cancers (as well as 27% of glioblastomas) had detectable ctDNA aberration(s), with the majority theoretically actionable by an approved agent.

Precision Oncology: The UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center PREDICT Experience.

By profiling their patients' tumors, oncologists now have the option to use molecular results to match patients with drug(s) based on specific biomarkers. In this observational study, 347 patients with solid advanced cancers and next-generation sequencing (NGS) results were evaluated. Outcomes for patients who received a "matched" versus "unmatched" therapy following their NGS results were compared. Eighty-seven patients (25%) were treated with a "matched" therapy, 93 (26.8%) with an "unmatched" therapy. More patients in the matched group achieved stable disease (SD) ≥ 6 months/partial response (PR)/complete response (CR), 34.5% vs. 16.1%, (P ≤ 0.020 multivariable or propensity score methods). Matched patients had a longer median progression-free survival (PFS; 4.0 vs. 3.0 months, P = 0.039 in the Cox regression model). In analysis using PFS1 (PFS on the prior line of therapy) as a comparator to PFS after NGS, as expected, the unmatched group demonstrated a PFS2 significantly shorter than PFS1 (P = 0.009); however, this shortening was not observed in the matched patients (P = 0.595). Furthermore, 45.3% of the matched patients (24/53) had a PFS2/PFS1 ratio ≥1.3 compared with 19.3% of patients (11/57) in the unmatched group (P = 0.004 univariable and P ≥ 0.057 in multivariable/propensity score analysis). Patients with a "matching-score" (the number of matched drugs divided by the number of aberrations; unmatched patients had a score of zero) > 0.2 had a median overall survival (OS) of 15.7 months compared with 10.6 months when their matching-score was ≤ 0.2, (P = 0.040 in the Cox regression model). Matched versus unmatched patients had higher rates of SD ≥ 6 months/PR/CR and longer PFS, and improvement in OS correlated with a higher matching score in multivariable analysis. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(4); 743-52. ©2016 AACR.

Impact of a Biomarker-Based Strategy on Oncology Drug Development: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials Leading to FDA Approval.

BACKGROUND: In order to ascertain the impact of a biomarker-based (personalized) strategy, we compared outcomes between US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cancer treatments that were studied with and without such a selection rationale. METHODS: Anticancer agents newly approved (September 1998 to June 2013) were identified at the Drugs@FDA website. Efficacy, treatment-related mortality, and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event endpoints were analyzed and compared in registration trials for these agents. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Fifty-eight drugs were included (leading to 57 randomized [32% personalized] and 55 nonrandomized trials [47% personalized], n = 38 104 patients). Trials adopting a personalized strategy more often included targeted (100% vs 65%, P < .001), oral (68% vs 35%, P = .001), and single agents (89% vs 71%, P = .04) and more frequently permitted crossover to experimental treatment (67% vs 28%, P = .009). In randomized registration trials (using a random-effects meta-analysis), personalized therapy arms were associated with higher relative response rate ratios (RRRs, compared with their corresponding control arms) (RRRs = 3.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.51 to 5.82, vs RRRs = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.76 to 2.47, adjusted P = .03), longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.51, vs HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.65, adjusted P < .001) and a non-statistically significantly longer OS (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.83, vs HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.85, adjusted P = .07) compared with nonpersonalized trials. Analysis of experimental arms in all 112 registration trials (randomized and nonrandomized) demonstrated that personalized therapy was associated with higher response rate (48%, 95% CI = 42% to 55%, vs 23%, 95% CI = 20% to 27%, P < .001) and longer PFS (median = 8.3, interquartile range [IQR] = 5 vs 5.5 months, IQR = 5, adjusted P = .002) and OS (median = 19.3, IQR = 17 vs 13.5 months, IQR = 8, Adjusted P = .04). A personalized strategy was an independent predictor of better RR, PFS, and OS, as demonstrated by multilinear regression analysis. Treatment-related mortality rate was similar for personalized and nonpersonalized trials. CONCLUSIONS: A biomarker-based approach was safe and associated with improved efficacy outcomes in FDA-approved anticancer agents.

Molecular inimitability amongst tumors: implications for precision cancer medicine in the age of personalized oncology.

Tumor sequencing has revolutionized oncology, allowing for detailed interrogation of the molecular underpinnings of cancer at an individual level. With this additional insight, it is increasingly apparent that not only do tumors vary within a sample (tumor heterogeneity), but also that each patient's individual tumor is a constellation of unique molecular aberrations that will require an equally unique personalized therapeutic regimen. We report here the results of 439 patients who underwent Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA)-certified next generation sequencing (NGS) across histologies. Among these patients, 98.4% had a unique molecular profile, and aside from three primary brain tumor patients with a single genetic lesion (IDH1 R132H), no two patients within a given histology were molecularly identical. Additionally, two sets of patients had identical profiles consisting of two mutations in common and no other anomalies. However, these profiles did not segregate by histology (lung adenocarcinoma-appendiceal cancer (KRAS G12D and GNAS R201C), and lung adenocarcinoma-liposarcoma (CDK4 and MDM2 amplification pairs)). These findings suggest that most advanced tumors are molecular singletons within and between histologies, and that tumors that differ in histology may still nonetheless exhibit identical molecular portraits, albeit rarely.

Impact of Precision Medicine in Diverse Cancers: A Meta-Analysis of Phase II Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: The impact of a personalized cancer treatment strategy (ie, matching patients with drugs based on specific biomarkers) is still a matter of debate. METHODS: We reviewed phase II single-agent studies (570 studies; 32,149 patients) published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012 (PubMed search). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared for arms that used a personalized strategy versus those that did not. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis (both weighted multiple linear regression and random effects meta-regression) demonstrated that the personalized approach, compared with a nonpersonalized approach, consistently and independently correlated with higher median RR (31% v 10.5%, respectively; P < .001) and prolonged median PFS (5.9 v 2.7 months, respectively; P < .001) and OS (13.7 v 8.9 months, respectively; P < .001). Nonpersonalized targeted arms had poorer outcomes compared with either personalized targeted therapy or cytotoxics, with median RR of 4%, 30%, and 11.9%, respectively; median PFS of 2.6, 6.9, and 3.3 months, respectively (all P < .001); and median OS of 8.7, 15.9, and 9.4 months, respectively (all P < .05). Personalized arms using a genomic biomarker had higher median RR and prolonged median PFS and OS (all P ≤ .05) compared with personalized arms using a protein biomarker. A personalized strategy was associated with a lower treatment-related death rate than a nonpersonalized strategy (median, 1.5% v 2.3%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Comprehensive analysis of phase II, single-agent arms revealed that, across malignancies, a personalized strategy was an independent predictor of better outcomes and fewer toxic deaths. In addition, nonpersonalized targeted therapies were associated with significantly poorer outcomes than cytotoxic agents, which in turn were worse than personalized targeted therapy.

Breast Cancer Experience of the Molecular Tumor Board at the University of California, San Diego Moores Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: Multiplex genomic tests are enabling oncologists to interrogate the DNA of their patients. However, few oncologists are proficient with respect to the implications of complex molecular diagnostics. We initiated a Molecular Tumor Board that focused on individual patients with advanced cancer whose tumors underwent genomic profiling, and here report our experience with breast cancer. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team that included physicians, scientists, geneticists, and bioinformatics/pathway specialists attended. All molecular tests were performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments environment (next-generation sequencing, 182 or 236 genes). RESULTS: Forty of 43 patients (93%; mean age, 59 years) had at least one theoretically actionable aberration (mean, 4.79 anomalies/patient). Median time from ordering to report was 27 days (median of approximately 11 days for specimen acquisition and approximately 14 days for diagnostic processing). Even if we considered distinct abnormalities in a gene as the same, there were only two patients with an identical molecular profile. Seventy-three genes (206 abnormalities; 119 distinct) were aberrant. Seventeen of the 43 patients (40%; median, seven previous therapies in the metastatic setting) were treated in a manner consistent with Molecular Tumor Board discussions; seven (16% of 43, or 41% of 17) achieved stable disease for 6 or more months (n = 2) or partial remission (n = 5). Lack of access to targeted medication was the most common reason that patients could not be treated. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary molecular tumor boards may help to optimize the management of patients with advanced, heavily pretreated breast cancer who have undergone genomic testing. Facilitating availability of appropriately targeted drugs and clinical trials is needed.