ESMO Recommendations on clinical reporting of genomic test results for solid cancers.

BACKGROUND: Genomic tumour profiling has a crucial role in the management of patients with solid cancers, as it helps selecting and prioritising therapeutic interventions based on prognostic and predictive biomarkers, as well as identifying markers of hereditary cancers. Harmonised approaches to interpret the results of genomic testing are needed to support physicians in their decision making, prevent inequalities in precision medicine and maximise patient benefit from available cancer management options. METHODS: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group assembled a group of international experts to propose recommendations for preparing clinical genomic reports for solid cancers. These recommendations aim to foster best practices in integrating genomic testing within clinical settings. After review of available evidence, several rounds of surveys and focused discussions were conducted to reach consensus on the recommendation statements. Only consensus recommendations were reported. Recommendation statements were graded in two tiers based on their clinical importance: level A (required to maintain common standards in reporting) and level B (optional but necessary to achieve ideal practice). RESULTS: Genomics reports should present key information in a front page(s) followed by supplementary information in one or more appendices. Reports should be structured into sections: (i) patient and sample details; (ii) assay and data analysis characteristics; (iii) sample-specific assay performance and quality control; (iv) genomic alterations and their functional annotation; (v) clinical actionability assessment and matching to potential therapy indications; and (vi) summary of the main findings. Specific recommendations to prepare each of these sections are made. CONCLUSIONS: We present a set of recommendations aimed at structuring genomics reports to enhance physician comprehension of genomic profiling results for solid cancers. Communication between ordering physicians and professionals reporting genomic data is key to minimise uncertainties and to optimise the impact of genomic tests in patient care.

The ESMO Tumour-Agnostic Classifier and Screener (ETAC-S): a tool for assessing tumour-agnostic potential of molecularly guided therapies and for steering drug development.

BACKGROUND: Advances in precision oncology led to approval of tumour-agnostic molecularly guided treatment options (MGTOs). The minimum requirements for claiming tumour-agnostic potential remain elusive. METHODS: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group (PMWG) coordinated a project to optimise tumour-agnostic drug development. International experts examined and summarised the publicly available data used for regulatory assessment of the tumour-agnostic indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and/or the European Medicines Agency as of December 2023. Different scenarios of minimum objective response rate (ORR), number of tumour types investigated, and number of evaluable patients per tumour type were assessed for developing a screening tool for tumour-agnostic potential. This tool was tested using the tumour-agnostic indications approved during the first half of 2024. A taxonomy for MGTOs and a framework for tumour-agnostic drug development were conceptualised. RESULTS: Each tumour-agnostic indication had data establishing objective response in at least one out of five patients (ORR ≥ 20%) in two-thirds (≥4) of the investigated tumour types, with at least five evaluable patients in each tumour type. These minimum requirements were met by tested indications and may serve as a screening tool for tumour-agnostic potential, requiring further validation. We propose a conceptual taxonomy classifying MGTOs based on the therapeutic effect obtained by targeting a driver molecular aberration across tumours and its modulation by tumour-specific biology: tumour-agnostic, tumour-modulated, or tumour-restricted. The presence of biology-informed mechanistic rationale, early regulatory advice, and adequate trial design demonstrating signs of biology-driven tumour-agnostic activity, followed by confirmatory evidence, should be the principles for tumour-agnostic drug development. CONCLUSION: The ESMO Tumour-Agnostic Classifier (ETAC) focuses on the interplay of targeted driver molecular aberration and tumour-specific biology modulating the therapeutic effect of MGTOs. We propose minimum requirements to screen for tumour-agnostic potential (ETAC-S) as part of tumour-agnostic drug development. Definition of ETAC cut-offs is warranted.

ESO-ESMO fifth international consensus guidelines for breast cancer in young women (BCY5).

We dedicate this manuscript in memory of a dear friend and colleague Bella Kaufman. The fifth International Consensus Symposium for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY5) took place virtually in October 2020, organized by the European School of Oncology (ESO) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). Consensus recommendations for the management of breast cancer in young women were updated from BCY4 with incorporation of new evidence to inform the guidelines. Areas of research priorities as well as specificities in different geographic and minority populations were identified. This manuscript summarizes the ESO-ESMO international consensus recommendations, which are also endorsed by the European Society of Breast Specialists (EUSOMA).

Risk-adapted modulation through de-intensification of cancer treatments: an ESMO classification.

BACKGROUND: The landscape of clinical trials testing risk-adapted modulations of cancer treatments is complex. Multiple trial designs, endpoints, and thresholds for non-inferiority have been used; however, no consensus or convention has ever been agreed to categorise biomarkers useful to inform the treatment intensity modulation of cancer treatments. METHODS: An expert subgroup under the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group shaped an international collaborative project to develop a classification system for biomarkers used in the cancer treatment de-intensification, based on a tiered approach. A group of disease-oriented clinical, translational, methodology and public health experts, and patients' representatives provided an analysis of the status quo, and scanned the horizon of ongoing clinical trials. The classification was developed through multiple rounds of expert revisions and inputs. RESULTS: The working group agreed on a univocal definition of treatment de-intensification. Evidence of reduction in the dose-density, intensity, or cumulative dose, including intermittent schedules or shorter treatment duration or deletion of segment(s) of the standard regimens, compound(s), or treatment modality must be demonstrated, to define a treatment de-intensification. De-intensified regimens must also portend a positive impact on toxicity, quality of life, health system burden, or financial toxicity. ESMO classification categorises the biomarkers for treatment modulation in three tiers, based on the level of evidence. Tier A includes biomarkers validated in prospective, randomised, non-inferiority clinical trials. The working group agreed that in non-inferiority clinical trials, boundaries are highly dependent upon the disease scenario and endpoint being studied and that the absolute differences in the outcomes are the most relevant measures, rather than relative differences. Biomarkers tested in single-arm studies with a threshold of non-inferiority are classified as Tier B. Tier C is when the validation occurs in prospective-retrospective quality cohort investigations. CONCLUSIONS: ESMO classification for the risk-guided intensity modulation of cancer treatments provides a set of evidence-based criteria to categorise biomarkers deemed to inform de-intensification of cancer treatments, in risk-defined patients. The classification aims at harmonising definitions on this matter, therefore offering a common language for all the relevant stakeholders, including clinicians, patients, decision-makers, and for clinical trials.

Overall survival in the OlympiA phase III trial of adjuvant olaparib in patients with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and high-risk, early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, double-blind OlympiA trial compared 1 year of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, to matching placebo as adjuvant therapy for patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2pv) and high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, early breast cancer (EBC). The first pre-specified interim analysis (IA) previously demonstrated statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS). The olaparib group had fewer deaths than the placebo group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance for overall survival (OS). We now report the pre-specified second IA of OS with updates of IDFS, DDFS, and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand eight hundred and thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo following (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy if indicated. Endocrine therapy was given concurrently with study medication for hormone receptor-positive cancers. Statistical significance for OS at this IA required P < 0.015. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the second IA of OS demonstrated significant improvement in the olaparib group relative to the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.68; 98.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.97; P = 0.009]. Four-year OS was 89.8% in the olaparib group and 86.4% in the placebo group (Δ 3.4%, 95% CI -0.1% to 6.8%). Four-year IDFS for the olaparib group versus placebo group was 82.7% versus 75.4% (Δ 7.3%, 95% CI 3.0% to 11.5%) and 4-year DDFS was 86.5% versus 79.1% (Δ 7.4%, 95% CI 3.6% to 11.3%), respectively. Subset analyses for OS, IDFS, and DDFS demonstrated benefit across major subgroups. No new safety signals were identified including no new cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. CONCLUSION: With 3.5 years of median follow-up, OlympiA demonstrates statistically significant improvement in OS with adjuvant olaparib compared with placebo for gBRCA1/2pv-associated EBC and maintained improvements in the previously reported, statistically significant endpoints of IDFS and DDFS with no new safety signals.

ESO-ESMO 4th International Consensus Guidelines for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY4).

The 4th International Consensus Conference for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY4) took place in October 2018, in Lugano, Switzerland, organized by the European School of Oncology (ESO) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). Consensus recommendations for the management of breast cancer in young women were updated from BCY3 with incorporation of new evidence to inform the guidelines. Areas of research priorities were also identified. This article summarizes the ESO-ESMO international consensus recommendations, which are also endorsed by the European Society of Breast Specialists (EUSOMA).