Utility of ctDNA in predicting relapse in solid tumors after curative therapy: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Presence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is prognostic in solid tumors treated with curative intent. Studies have evaluated ctDNA at specific "landmark" or multiple "surveillance" time points. However, variable results have led to uncertainty about its clinical validity. METHODS: A PubMed search identified relevant studies evaluating ctDNA monitoring in solid tumors after curative intent therapy. Odds ratios for recurrence at both landmark and surveillance time points for each study were calculated and pooled in a meta-analysis using the Peto method. Pooled sensitivity and specificity weighted by individual study inverse variance were estimated and meta-regression using linear regression weighted by inverse variance was performed to explore associations between patient and tumor characteristics and the odds ratio for disease recurrence. RESULTS: Of 39 studies identified, 30 (1924 patients) and 24 studies (1516 patients) reported on landmark and surveillance time points, respectively. The pooled odds ratio for recurrence at landmark was 15.47 (95% confidence interval = 11.84 to 20.22) and at surveillance was 31.0 (95% confidence interval = 23.9 to 40.2). The pooled sensitivity for ctDNA at landmark and surveillance analyses was 58.3% and 82.2%, respectively. The corresponding specificities were 92% and 94.1%, respectively. Prognostic accuracy was lower with tumor agnostic panels and higher with longer time to landmark analysis, number of surveillance draws, and smoking history. Adjuvant chemotherapy negatively affected landmark specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Although prognostic accuracy of ctDNA is high, it has low sensitivity, borderline high specificity, and therefore modest discriminatory accuracy, especially for landmark analyses. Adequately designed clinical trials with appropriate testing strategies and assay parameters are required to demonstrate clinical utility.

Filling the Gap after CDK4/6 Inhibitors: Novel Endocrine and Biologic Treatment Options for Metastatic Hormone Receptor Positive Breast Cancer.

The rise of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitors has rapidly reshaped treatment algorithms for hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer, with endocrine treatment (ET) plus a CDK4/6-inhibitor currently representing the standard of care in the first line setting. However, treatment selection for those patients experiencing progression while on ET + CDK4/6-inhibitors remains challenging due to the suboptimal activity or significant toxicities of the currently available options. There is also a paucity of data regarding the efficacy of older regimens, such as everolimus + exemestane, post-CDK4/6 inhibition. In this setting of high unmet need, several clinical trials of novel drugs have recently reported encouraging results: the addition of the AKT-inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS); the oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) elacestrant prolonged PFS compared to traditional ET in a phase 3 trial, particularly among patients with detectable ESR1 mutations; finally, PARP inhibitors are available treatment options for patients with pathogenic BRCA1/2 germline mutations. Overall, a plethora of novel endocrine and biologic treatment options are finally filling the gap between first-line ET and later line chemotherapy. In this review article, we recapitulate the activity of these novel treatment options and their potential role in future treatment algorithms.

Clinical benefit of cancer drugs approved in Switzerland 2010-2019.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown to what extent cancer drugs approved in Switzerland by the Swissmedic fulfil criteria of clinical benefit according to the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF) and the Swiss OLUtool v2 (OLUtool). PATIENTS AND METHODS: An electronic search identified studies that led to marketing authorisations in Switzerland 2010-2019. Studies were evaluated according to ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool. Substantial benefit for ESMO-MCBS, was defined as a grade A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. For ASCO-VF and OLUtool clinical benefit was defined as score ≥45 and A or B, respectively. Concordance between the frameworks was calculated with Cohen's Kappa (κ). Factors associated with clinical benefit were evaluated by logistic regression. RESULTS: In the study period, 48 drugs were approved for 92 evaluable indications, based on 100 studies. Ratings for ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool could be performed for 100, 86, and 97 studies, respectively. Overall, 39 (39%), 44 (51%), 45 (46%) of the studies showed substantial clinical benefit according to ESMO-MCBS v1.1, ASCO-VF, OLUtool criteria, respectively. There was fair concordance between ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF in the palliative setting (κ = 0.31, P = 0.004) and moderate concordance between ESMO-MCBS and OLUtool (κ = 0.41, P<0.001). There was no significant concordance between ASCO-VF and OLUtool (κ = 0.18, P = 0.12). Factors associated with substantial clinical benefit in multivariable analysis were HRQoL benefit reported as secondary outcome for ESMO-MCBS and the ASCO-VF and blinded studies for OLUtool. CONCLUSIONS: At the time of approval, only around half of the trials supporting marketing authorisation of recently approved cancer drugs in Switzerland meet the criteria for substantial clinical benefit when evaluated with ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF or OLUtool. There was at best only moderate concordance between the grading systems.