Clinical value of next-generation sequencing in guiding decisions regarding endocrine therapy for advanced HR-positive/HER-2-negative breast cancer

Next-generation sequencing for guiding matched targeted therapies in people with relapsed or metastatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Matched targeted therapies (MTT) given alone or in combination with systemic anti-cancer therapies have delivered proven survival benefit for many people with newly diagnosed cancer. However, there is little evidence of their effectiveness in the recurrent or late-stage setting. With this uncertainty, alongside the perception that late-stage cancers are too genetically heterogenous or too mutationally diverse to benefit from matched targeted therapies, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumours in people with refractory cancer remains a low priority. As a result, next-generation sequencing testing of recurrent or late-stage disease is discouraged. We lack evidence to support the utility of next generation sequencing in guiding matched targeted therapies in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of matched targeted therapies in people with advanced cancers in randomised controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) search portal up to 30th October 2024. We also screened reference lists of included studies and also the publications that cited these studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that had enroled participants with advanced/refractory solid or haematological cancers who had progressed through at least one line of standard anti-cancer systemic therapy. To be eligible, all participants should have received matched targeted therapy based on next-generation sequencing carried out on their tumour (tumour tissue, blood or bone marrow).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We systematically searched medical databases (e.g. MEDLINE, Embase) and trial registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rates (ORR), serious (grade 3 or 4) adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QOL). We used a random-effects model to pool outcomes across studies and compared predefined subgroups using interaction tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment of certainty was used to evaluate the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of 37 studies, out of which 35 studies (including 9819 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. All included studies compared a matched targeted therapy intervention to standard-of-care treatment, non-matched targeted therapies or no treatment (best supportive care): Matched targeted therapy versus standard-of-care treatment Matched targeted therapy (MTT) compared with standard systematic therapy probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 34% (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.74; 14 studies, 3848 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, MTT might have little to no difference in risk of death (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 14 studies, 3848 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase overall response rates (low-certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in severe (grade 3/4) adverse events between matched targeted therapy and standard-of-care treatment (low-certainty evidence). There was limited evidence of a difference in quality of life between groups (very low-certainty of evidence). Matched targeted therapy in combination with standard-of-care treatment versus standard-of-care treatment alone Matched targeted therapy in combination with standard-of-care treatment compared with standard-of-care treatment alone probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 39% (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.70, 14 studies, 2,637 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and risk of death by 21% (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89; 11 studies, 2575 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The combination of MTT and standard-of-care treatment may also increase overall response rates (low-certainty evidence). There was limited evidence of a difference in the incidence of severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence) and quality of life between the groups (very low-certainty of evidence). Matched targeted therapy versus non-matched targeted therapy Matched targeted therapy compared with non-matched targeted therapy probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 24% (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.89; 3 studies, 1568 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of death by 25% (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86, 1307 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on overall response rates between MTT and non-MTT. There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall response rates (low-certainty evidence) and severe adverse events between MTT and non-MTT (low-certainty evidence). None of the studies comparing MTT and non-MTT reported quality of life. Matched targeted therapy versus best supportive care Matched targeted therapy compared with the best supportive care (BSC) i.e. no active treatment probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 63% (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.50; 4 studies, 858 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall survival between groups (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06, 3 studies, 783 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall response rates (very low-certainty of evidence) and incidence of severe adverse events (very low-certainty of evidence) between the groups. Quality of life was reported in a single study but did not provide composite scores. Risk of bias The overall risk of bias was judged low for eight studies, unclear for two studies, and the remaining 27 studies were high risk.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Matched targeted therapies guided by next-generation sequencing in people with advanced cancer prolongs the time before cancer progresses compared to standard therapies. However, there is limited evidence to suggest that it prolongs overall survival, improves the quality of life or increases adverse events. Importantly, this review supports equitable access to next-generation sequencing technology for all people with advanced cancer and offers them the opportunity to access genotype-matched targeted therapies.

Natural products and derivatives in renal, urothelial and testicular cancers: Targeting signaling pathways and therapeutic potential

BACKGROUND

Natural products have demonstrated significant potential in cancer drug discovery, particularly in renal cancer (RCa), urothelial carcinoma (UC), and testicular cancer (TC).

PURPOSE

This review aims to examine the effects of natural products on RCa, UC and TC.

STUDY DESIGN

systematic review METHODS: PubMed and Web of Science databases were retrieved to search studies about the effects of natural products and derivatives on these cancers. Relevant publications in the reference list of enrolled studies were also checked.

RESULTS

This review highlighted their diverse impacts on key aspects such as cell growth, apoptosis, metastasis, therapy response, and the immune microenvironment. Natural products not only hold promise for novel drug development but also enhance the efficacy of existing chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Importantly, we exert their effects through modulation of critical pathways and target genes, including the PI3K/AKT pathway, NF-κB pathway, STAT pathway and MAPK pathway, among others in RCa, UC, and TC.

CONCLUSION

These mechanistic insights provide valuable guidance for researchers, facilitating the selection of promising natural products for cancer management and offering potential avenues for further gene regulation studies in the context of cancer treatment.

Advances in regional nodal management of early-stage breast cancer

With the continuous improvement of systemic treatment, reasonable local regional control of early-stage breast cancer can be translated into survival benefits. The optimization of regional nodal management in patients with limited sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis needs to be weighed by surgical complications, regional recurrence risk, and lymph node status, as well as other escalating treatment (systemic/radiotherapy) that may result from de-escalating surgery. With the effective support and supplementation of systemic therapy and radiotherapy, the management of axillary surgery is developing in a de-escalating trend. The widespread application of neoadjuvant therapy has contributed to optimizing the management of patients with clinically node-negative/imaging node-positive disease. In clinical practice, it is necessary to consider the residual tumor burden of regional lymph nodes when formulating the optimal irradiation fields in patients with limited positive SLN without axillary lymph node dissection. The combined application of genomic tests and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011/AMAROS criteria could provide patients with a better strategy of dual de-escalation treatment, which includes the de-escalation of both axillary surgery and systemic treatment. In the era of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), the regional nodal management of breast cancer should adhere to the concept of "updating ideas, making bold assumptions, and carefully seeking proof", make full use of the benefits of systemic therapy and radiotherapy to reduce the scope of surgery and complications, and expand the "net benefit" of efficacy and quality of life. This review discusses the optimization of regional nodal management in the era of SLNB, in order to provide reference information for clinicians.

Circulating Tumor DNA Is a Variant of Liquid Biopsy with Predictive and Prognostic Clinical Value in Breast Cancer Patients

This paper introduces the reader to the field of liquid biopsies and cell-free nucleic acids, focusing on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in breast cancer (BC). BC is the most common type of cancer in women, and progress with regard to treatment has been made in recent years. Despite this, there remain a number of unresolved issues in the treatment of BC; in particular, early detection and diagnosis, reliable markers of response to treatment and for the prediction of recurrence and metastasis, especially for unfavorable subtypes, are needed. It is also important to identify biomarkers for the assessment of drug resistance and for disease monitoring. Our work is devoted to ctDNA, which may be such a marker. Here, we describe its main characteristics and potential applications in clinical oncology. This review considers the results of studies devoted to the analysis of the prognostic and predictive roles of various methods for the determination of ctDNA in BC patients. Currently known epigenetic changes in ctDNA with clinical significance are reviewed. The possibility of using ctDNA as a predictive and prognostic marker for monitoring BC and predicting the recurrence and metastasis of cancer is also discussed, which may become an important part of a precision approach to the treatment of BC.