Actionable molecular alterations in advanced gynaecologic malignancies: updated results from the ProfiLER programme

The French multicentric molecular analysis platforms and personalized medicine trials MOST, MOST Plus and MEGAMOST

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In this manuscript we describe the academic French multicentric molecular analysis platforms including PROFILER, promoted by Centre Léon Berard, and the multicentric personalized medicine trials MOST, MOST Plus and MEGAMOST.

PATIENTS/MATERIAL AND METHODS

MOST, MOST Plus and MEGAMOST comprise 14 cohorts with different targeted agents and immunotherapies.

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

PROFILER has recruited 5,991 patients in 10 years, MOST and MOST Plus 875 patients since 2014 and MEGAMOST 172 patients since 2020, and are still ongoing. We provide a description of the local, national and international implications of these initiatives, and we review the results of the sorafenib and olaparib cohorts.

Molecular tumour boards - current and future considerations for precision oncology

Over the past 15 years, rapid progress has been made in developmental therapeutics, especially regarding the use of matched targeted therapies against specific oncogenic molecular alterations across cancer types. Molecular tumour boards (MTBs) are panels of expert physicians, scientists, health-care providers and patient advocates who review and interpret molecular-profiling results for individual patients with cancer and match each patient to available therapies, which can include investigational drugs. Interpretation of the molecular alterations found in each patient is a complicated task that requires an understanding of their contextual functional effects and their correlations with sensitivity or resistance to specific treatments. The criteria for determining the actionability of molecular alterations and selecting matched treatments are constantly evolving. Therefore, MTBs have an increasingly necessary role in optimizing the allocation of biomarker-directed therapies and the implementation of precision oncology. Ultimately, increased MTB availability, accessibility and performance are likely to improve patient care. The challenges faced by MTBs are increasing, owing to the plethora of identifiable molecular alterations and immune markers in tumours of individual patients and their evolving clinical significance as more and more data on patient outcomes and results from clinical trials become available. Beyond next-generation sequencing, broader biomarker analyses can provide useful information. However, greater funding, resources and expertise are needed to ensure the sustainability of MTBs and expand their outreach to underserved populations. Harmonization between practice and policy will be required to optimally implement precision oncology. Herein, we discuss the evolving role of MTBs and current and future considerations for their use in precision oncology.

The potential of RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK (MAPK) signaling pathway inhibitors in ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK (MAPK) pathway plays a role in ovarian carcinogenesis. Low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC) frequently harbors activating MAPK mutations. MAPK inhibitors have been used in small subsets of ovarian carcinoma (OC) patients to control tumor growth. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of MAPK inhibitors in OC patients. We aimed to determine the clinical benefit rate (CBR), the subgroup of MAPK inhibitors with the best CBR and overall response rate (ORR), and the most common adverse events.

METHODS

We conducted a search in PubMed, Embase via Ovid, the Cochrane library and clinicaltrials.gov on studies evaluating the efficacy of single MAPK pathway inhibition with MAPK pathway inhibitors in OC patients. Our primary outcome included the CBR, defined by the proportion of patients with stable disease (SD), complete (CR) and partial response (PR). Secondary outcomes included the ORR (including PR and CR) and grade 3 and 4 adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We included nine studies with a total of 319 OC patients, for which we determined a pooled CBR of 63% (95%-CI 39-84%, I² = 92%). Combined treatment with Raf- and MEK inhibitors in in BRAF^v600 mutated LGSOC (n = 6) had the greatest efficacy with a CBR of 100% and ORR of 83%. MEK inhibitors had the best efficacy as a single agent. Subgroup analysis by tumor histology demonstrated a significantly higher CBR and ORR in patients with LGSOC, with a pooled CBR and ORR of 87% (95%-CI 81-92%, I² = 0%) and 27% (95%-CI 10-48%, I² = 77%) respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported frequently: 123 in 167 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

MEK inhibitors are the most promising single agents in (LGS)OC. However, dual MAPK pathway inhibition should be considered in patients with a BRAF^v600 mutation, or non-mutated OC with depleted treatment options due indications of higher efficacy and tolerable toxicity profiles.

Combined Focused Next-Generation Sequencing Assays to Guide Precision Oncology in Solid Tumors: A Retrospective Analysis from an Institutional Molecular Tumor Board

BACKGROUND

Increasing knowledge of cancer biology and an expanding spectrum of molecularly targeted therapies provide the basis for precision oncology. Despite extensive gene diagnostics, previous reports indicate that less than 10% of patients benefit from this concept.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all patients referred to our center's Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) from 2018 to 2021. Molecular testing by next-generation sequencing (NGS) included a 67-gene panel for the detection of short-sequence variants and copy-number alterations, a 53- or 137-gene fusion panel and an ultra-low-coverage whole-genome sequencing for the detection of additional copy-number alterations outside the panel's target regions. Immunohistochemistry for microsatellite instability and PD-L1 expression complemented NGS.

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients were referred to the MTB. In all, 78 patients received therapeutic proposals (70 based on NGS) and 33 were treated accordingly. Evaluable patients treated with MTB-recommended therapy (n = 30) had significantly longer progression-free survival than patients treated with other therapies (n = 17) (4.3 vs. 1.9 months, p = 0.0094). Seven patients treated with off-label regimens experienced major clinical benefits.

CONCLUSION

The combined focused sequencing assays detected targetable alterations in the majority of patients. Patient benefits appeared to lie in the same range as with large-scale sequencing approaches.

Challenges and Obstacles in Applying Therapeutical Indications Formulated in Molecular Tumor Boards

Considering the rapid improvement of cancer drugs' efficacy and the discovery of new molecular targets, the formulation of therapeutical indications based on the multidisciplinary approach of MTB is becoming increasingly important for attributing the correct salience to the targets identified in a single patient. Nevertheless, one of the biggest stumbling blocks faced by MTBs is not the bare indication, but its implementation in the clinical practice. Indeed, administering the drug suggested by MTB deals with some relevant difficulties: the economical affordability and geographical accessibility represent some of the major limits in the patient's view, while bureaucracy and regulatory procedures are often a disincentive for the physicians. In this review, we explore the current literature reporting MTB experiences and precision medicine clinical trials, focusing on the challenges that authors face in applying their therapeutical indications. Furthermore, we analyze and discuss some of the solutions devised to overcome these difficulties to support the MTBs in finding the most suitable solution for their specific situation. In conclusion, we strongly encourage regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies to develop effective strategies with medical centers implementing MTBs to facilitate access to innovative drugs and thereby allow broader therapeutical opportunities to patients.

Precision medicine for patients with gastro-oesophageal cancer: A subset analysis of the ProfiLER program

•

Cancers originating in the stomach and oesophagus have poor prognosis and limited treatment options.

•

Gastroesophageal cancer frequently harbour actionable genomic alterations.

•

Our data suggest that patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancers and actionable alterations have prolonged survival compared to those who do not.

•

Comprehensive genotyping, beyond determination of the HER2/ERBB2 status should be implemented early in the management of patients with gastroesophageal cancers.

Background

Chemotherapy, anti-HER2 and PD-1 antibodies are standard treatments but only a minority of patients derive long-term benefit from these agents.

Methods

In this report we describe the mutational landscape and outcome of patients with gastroesophageal cancers enroled in the ProfiLER program.

Results

Adenocarcinoma (n = 86, 59%), signet-cell (n = 37, 25%) and squamous-cell (n = 21, 14%) were the dominant histology amongst 147 patients. Genomic analyses could be performed for 114 (78%) patients. The most common genomic alterations involved ERBB2 (15%), KRAS (12%), CCND1 (7%), FGFR1–3 (8%), EGFR (5%) and MET (3%), TP53 (51%) and CDKN2A/B (10%). ERBB2, MET and FGFR alterations were found exclusively in the adenocarcinoma and signet-cell subtypes, while CCND1 amplification, TP53 mutations and CDKN2A/B loss were found in both adenocarcinoma and squamous-cell subtypes. Nine patients (8%) received therapy matched to their genomic alteration, with 5 of them achieving disease control. In an exploratory analysis, patients with stage IV disease at diagnosis who had an actionable alteration had longer overall survival compared to those without.

Conclusion

Genomic profiling for patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancers allows the identification of actionable alterations in large proportion of patients. Increased accessibility to molecularly matched therapy may improve survival in this disease.

Definition and Independent Validation of a Proteomic-Classifier in Ovarian Cancer

Simple Summary

The heterogeneity of epithelial ovarian cancer and its associated molecular biological characteristics are continuously integrated in the development of therapy guidelines. In a next step, future therapy recommendations might also be able to focus on the patient’s systemic status, not only the tumor’s molecular pattern. Therefore, new methods to identify and validate host-related biomarkers need to be established. Using mass spectrometry, we developed and independently validated a blood-based proteomic classifier, stratifying epithelial ovarian cancer patients into good and poor survival groups. We also determined an age dependence of the prognostic performance of this classifier and its association with important biological processes. This work highlights that, just like molecular markers of the tumor itself, the systemic condition of a patient (partly reflected in proteomic patterns) also influences survival and therapy response and could therefore be integrated into future processes of therapy planning.

Abstract

Mass-spectrometry-based analyses have identified a variety of candidate protein biomarkers that might be crucial for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) development and therapy response. Comprehensive validation studies of the biological and clinical implications of proteomics are needed to advance them toward clinical use. Using the Deep MALDI method of mass spectrometry, we developed and independently validated (development cohort: n = 199, validation cohort: n = 135) a blood-based proteomic classifier, stratifying EOC patients into good and poor survival groups. We also determined an age dependency of the prognostic performance of this classifier, and our protein set enrichment analysis showed that the good and poor proteomic phenotypes were associated with, respectively, lower and higher levels of complement activation, inflammatory response, and acute phase reactants. This work highlights that, just like molecular markers of the tumor itself, the systemic condition of a patient (partly reflected in proteomic patterns) also influences survival and therapy response in a subset of ovarian cancer patients and could therefore be integrated into future processes of therapy planning.

Precision Medicine Tumor Boards: Clinical Applicability of Personalized Treatment Concepts in Ovarian Cancer

Background: Treating cancer according to its molecular alterations (i.e., targeted treatment, TT) is the goal of precision medicine tumor boards (PTBs). Their clinical applicability has been evaluated for ovarian cancer patients in this analysis. Methods: All consecutive ovarian cancer patients discussed in a PTB at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, from April 2015 to April 2019 were included (n = 44). Results: In 38/44 (86%) cases, at least one mutation, deletion or amplification was detected. The most frequently altered genes were p53 (64%), PI3K pathway (18%), KRAS (14%), BRCA1 (11%) and BRCA2 (2%). In 31 patients (70%) a TT was recommended. A total of 12/31 patients (39%) received the recommended therapy. Median time from indication for PTB to TT start was 65 days (15–216). Median time to treatment failure was 2.7 months (0.2–13.2). Clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 42%. Reasons for treatment discontinuation were disease progression (42%), poor performance status (PS > 2; 25%), death (17%) or treatment related side effects (8%). In 61% the TT was not administered—mainly due to PS > 2. Conclusion: Even though a TT recommendation can be derived frequently, clinical applicability remains limited due to poor patients’ general condition after exploitation of standard treatment. However, we observed antitumor activity in a substantial number of heavily pretreated patients.