Enrichment of kinase fusions in ESR1 wild-type, metastatic breast cancer revealed by a systematic analysis of 4854 patients.

BACKGROUND: Kinase fusions are rare and poorly characterized in breast cancer (BC). We aimed to characterize kinase fusions within a large cohort of advanced BC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 4854 patients with BC were analyzed by Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets (MSK-IMPACT) targeted DNAseq and MSK-Fusion targeted RNAseq during the study time period. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 4854 (0.6%) patients harbored fusions: 11 FGFR (five FGFR2, three FGFR3, three FGFR1), five BRAF, four NTRK1, two RET, two ROS1, one ALK, one ERBB2, and one MET. A history of endocrine therapy was present in 15 (56%) of fusion-positive BC; eight of the 15 cases had available pre-treatment samples, of which six were fusion-negative. None of the fusion-positive BC samples harbored ESR1 hotspot mutations. Two patients with acquired LMNA-NTRK1 fusions and metastatic disease received larotrectinib and demonstrated clinical benefit. CONCLUSION: Kinase fusions in BC are extremely rare, and appear to be enriched in hormone-resistant, metastatic carcinomas and mutually exclusive with ESR1 mutations. The present study expands the spectrum of genetic alterations activating mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling that can substitute for ESR1 mutations in this setting. Molecular testing at progression after endocrine therapy should include fusion testing, particularly in the absence of ESR1 hotspot alterations, in an effort to identify additional therapeutic options which may provide substantial clinical benefit.

Identifying patients with NTRK fusion cancer.

Due to the efficacy of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor therapy and the recent Food and Drug Administration approval of larotrectinib, it is now clinically important to accurately and efficiently identify patients with neurotrophic TRK (NTRK) fusion-driven cancer. These oncogenic fusions occur when the kinase domain of NTRK1, NTRK2 or NTRK3 fuse with any of a number of N-terminal partners. NTRK fusions are characteristic of a few rare types of cancer, such as secretory carcinoma of the breast or salivary gland and infantile fibrosarcoma, but they are also infrequently seen in some common cancers, such as melanoma, glioma and carcinomas of the thyroid, lung and colon. There are multiple methods for identifying NTRK fusions, including pan-TRK immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridisation and sequencing methods, and the advantages and drawbacks of each are reviewed here. While testing algorithms will obviously depend on availability of various testing modalities and economic considerations for each individual laboratory, we propose triaging specimens based on histology and other molecular findings to most efficiently identify tumours harbouring these treatable oncogenic fusions.

Tumour response to TRK inhibition in a patient with pancreatic adenocarcinoma harbouring an NTRK gene fusion.

BACKGROUND: Although rare, NTRK gene fusions are known to be oncogenic drivers in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We report the response of a metastatic CTRC-NTRK1 gene fusion-positive PDAC to targeted treatment with the oral tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor larotrectinib and the eventual development of resistance to treatment. PATIENT, METHODS AND RESULTS: A 61-year-old woman presented with a 2.5-cm mass in the body of the pancreas and a 1.2-cm liver lesion on routine follow-up for endometrial cancer that was in complete remission. Liver biopsy confirmed a primary PDAC unrelated to the endometrial cancer. The patient was treated with gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel and ADI-PEG 20 for 12 months until disease progression and toxicity emerged [best overall response (BOR): partial response (PR)]. The patient switched to a modified regimen of folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin for 4 months until neuropathy occurred. Oxaliplatin was withheld until disease progression 6 months later (BOR: stable disease). Despite recommencing oxaliplatin, the disease continued to progress. At this time, somatic profiling of the liver lesion revealed a CTRC-NTRK1 gene fusion. Treatment with larotrectinib 100 mg twice daily was commenced with BOR of PR at 2 months. The patient progressed after 6 months and was re-biopsied. Treatment was switched to the investigational next-generation TRK inhibitor selitrectinib (BAY 2731954, LOXO-195) 100 mg twice daily. After 2 months, the disease progressed and dabrafenibtrametinib combination therapy was initiated due to existence of a BRAF-V600E mutation. However, the cancer continued to progress and the patient died 2 months later. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted TRK inhibition with larotrectinib in PDAC harbouring a CTRC-NTRK1 gene fusion is well tolerated and can improve quality of life for the patient. However, acquired resistance to therapy can emerge in some patients. Next-generation TRK inhibitors such as selitrectinib are currently in development to overcome this resistance (NCT02576431; NCT03215511).

ESMO recommendations on the standard methods to detect NTRK fusions in daily practice and clinical research.

BACKGROUND: NTRK1, NTRK2 and NTRK3 fusions are present in a plethora of malignancies across different histologies. These fusions represent the most frequent mechanism of oncogenic activation of these receptor tyrosine kinases, and biomarkers for the use of TRK small molecule inhibitors. Given the varying frequency of NTRK1/2/3 fusions, crucial to the administration of NTRK inhibitors is the development of optimal approaches for the detection of human cancers harbouring activating NTRK1/2/3 fusion genes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experts from several Institutions were recruited by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group (TR and PM WG) to review the available methods for the detection of NTRK gene fusions, their potential applications, and strategies for the implementation of a rational approach for the detection of NTRK1/2/3 fusion genes in human malignancies. A consensus on the most reasonable strategy to adopt when screening for NTRK fusions in oncologic patients was sought, and further reviewed and approved by the ESMO TR and PM WG and the ESMO leadership. RESULTS: The main techniques employed for NTRK fusion gene detection include immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), RT-PCR, and both RNA-based and DNA-based next generation sequencing (NGS). Each technique has advantages and limitations, and the choice of assays for screening and final diagnosis should also take into account the resources and clinical context. CONCLUSION: In tumours where NTRK fusions are highly recurrent, FISH, RT-PCR or RNA-based sequencing panels can be used as confirmatory techniques, whereas in the scenario of testing an unselected population where NTRK1/2/3 fusions are uncommon, either front-line sequencing (preferentially RNA-sequencing) or screening by immunohistochemistry followed by sequencing of positive cases should be pursued.

Identifying patients with NTRK fusion cancer.

Due to the efficacy of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor therapy and the recent Food and Drug Administration approval of larotrectinib, it is now clinically important to accurately and efficiently identify patients with neurotrophic TRK (NTRK) fusion-driven cancer. These oncogenic fusions occur when the kinase domain of NTRK1, NTRK2 or NTRK3 fuse with any of a number of N-terminal partners. NTRK fusions are characteristic of a few rare types of cancer, such as secretory carcinoma of the breast or salivary gland and infantile fibrosarcoma, but they are also infrequently seen in some common cancers, such as melanoma, glioma and carcinomas of the thyroid, lung and colon. There are multiple methods for identifying NTRK fusions, including pan-TRK immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridisation and sequencing methods, and the advantages and drawbacks of each are reviewed here. While testing algorithms will obviously depend on availability of various testing modalities and economic considerations for each individual laboratory, we propose triaging specimens based on histology and other molecular findings to most efficiently identify tumours harbouring these treatable oncogenic fusions.

RET fusions in a small subset of advanced colorectal cancers at risk of being neglected.

Background: Recognition of rare molecular subgroups is a challenge for precision oncology and may lead to tissue-agnostic approval of targeted agents. Here we aimed to comprehensively characterize the clinical, pathological and molecular landscape of RET rearranged metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and methods: In this case series, we compared clinical, pathological and molecular characteristics of 24 RET rearranged mCRC patients with those of a control group of 291 patients with RET negative tumors. RET rearranged and RET negative mCRCs were retrieved by systematic literature review and by taking advantage of three screening sources: (i) Ignyta's phase 1/1b study on RXDX-105 (NCT01877811), (ii) cohorts screened at two Italian and one South Korean Institutions and (iii) Foundation Medicine Inc. database. Next-generation sequencing data were analyzed for RET rearranged cases. Results: RET fusions were more frequent in older patients (median age of 66 versus 60 years, P = 0.052), with ECOG PS 1-2 (90% versus 50%, P = 0.02), right-sided (55% versus 32%, P = 0.013), previously unresected primary tumors (58% versus 21%, P < 0.001), RAS and BRAF wild-type (100% versus 40%, P < 0.001) and MSI-high (48% versus 7%, P < 0.001). Notably, 11 (26%) out of 43 patients with right-sided, RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors harbored a RET rearrangement. At a median follow-up of 45.8 months, patients with RET fusion-positive tumors showed a significantly worse OS when compared with RET-negative ones (median OS 14.0 versus 38.0 months, HR: 4.59; 95% CI, 3.64-32.66; P < 0.001). In the multivariable model, RET rearrangements were still associated with shorter OS (HR: 2.97; 95% CI, 1.25-7.07; P = 0.014), while primary tumor location, RAS and BRAF mutations and MSI status were not. Conclusions: Though very rare, RET rearrangements define a new subtype of mCRC that shows poor prognosis with conventional treatments and is therefore worth of a specific management.

Increased spinal c-Fos expression with noxious and non-noxious peripheral stimulation after severe spinal contusion.

The effects of severe contusive spinal cord injury (SCI), at thoracic level 8 (T8), on lumbar c-Fos expression in the spinal cord was investigated. As hypothesized, chronic SCI has a significant effect on expression of c-Fos in the dorsal spinal sensory areas with noxious and innocuous peripheral stimulation of the sciatic nerve. This alteration to stimulation effects was measured using counts of c-Fos immunoreactive cells in the dorsal horn of the L5 lumbar spinal cord in injured animals at 90 days post-injury and in uninjured controls. The number of c-Fos immunoreactive cells increased in SCI rats only after noxious peripheral stimulation (electrical and chemical) suggesting a general increase in excitability in spinal pathways (central sensitization) associated with chronic SCI. These altered responses may represent a functional anatomical reorganization of spinal cord circuitry leading to increased dorsal horn c-Fos expression as a response to severe chronic contusive damage to the spinal cord sensory pathways.