Modern developments in germline pharmacogenomics for oncology prescribing.

The integration of genomic data into personalized treatment planning has revolutionized oncology care. Despite this, patients with cancer remain vulnerable to high rates of adverse drug events and medication inefficacy, affecting prognosis and quality of life. Pharmacogenomics is a field seeking to identify germline genetic variants that contribute to an individual's unique drug response. Although there is widespread integration of genomic information in oncology, somatic platforms, rather than germline biomarkers, have dominated the attention of cancer providers. Patients with cancer potentially stand to benefit from improved integration of both somatic and germline genomic information, especially because the latter may complement treatment planning by informing toxicity risk for drugs with treatment-limiting tolerabilities and narrow therapeutic indices. Although certain germline pharmacogenes, such as TPMT, UGT1A1, and DPYD, have been recognized for decades, recent attention has illuminated modern potential dosing implications for a whole new set of anticancer agents, including targeted therapies and antibody-drug conjugates, as well as the discovery of additional genetic variants and newly relevant pharmacogenes. Some of this information has risen to the level of directing clinical action, with US Food and Drug Administration label guidance and recommendations by international societies and governing bodies. This review is focused on key new pharmacogenomic evidence and oncology-specific dosing recommendations. Personalized oncology care through integrated pharmacogenomics represents a unique multidisciplinary collaboration between oncologists, laboratory science, bioinformatics, pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists, and genetic counselors, among others. The authors posit that expanded consideration of germline genetic information can further transform the safe and effective practice of oncology in 2022 and beyond.

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor130): final overall survival analysis results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: IMvigor130 demonstrated statistically significant investigator-assessed progression-free survival benefit with first-line atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A) versus placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Overall survival was not improved in interim analyses. Here we report the final overall analysis for group A versus group C. METHODS: In this global, partially blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at 221 hospitals and oncology centres in 35 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1), with a permuted block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk factor score, and investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group A), atezolizumab monotherapy (group B), or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (group C). Sponsors, investigators, and patients were masked to assignment to atezolizumab or placebo (ie, group A and group C) and atezolizumab monotherapy (group B) was open label. For groups A and C, all patients received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously; day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle), plus investigator's choice of carboplatin (area under curve 4·5 mg/mL per min or 5 mg/mL per min; intravenously) or cisplatin (70 mg/m2 intravenously), plus either atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle. Co-primary endpoints of the study were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival for group A versus group C in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomised patients), and overall survival for group B versus group C, tested hierarchically. Final overall survival and updated safety outcomes (safety population; all patients who received any amount of any study treatment component) for group A versus group C are reported here. The final prespecified boundary for significance of the overall survival analysis was one-sided p=0·021. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807636, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between July 15, 2016, and July 20, 2018, 1213 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 851 were assigned to group A (n=451) and group C (n=400). 338 (75%) patients in group A and 298 (75%) in group C were male, 113 (25%) in group A and 102 (25%) in group C were female, and 346 (77%) in group A and 304 (76%) in group C were White. At data cutoff (Aug 31, 2022), after a median follow up of 13·4 months (IQR 6·2-30·8), median overall survival was 16·1 months (95% CI 14·2-18·8; 336 deaths) in group A versus 13·4 months (12·0-15·3; 310 deaths) in group C (stratified hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-1·00]; one-sided p=0·023). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (168 [37%] of 454 patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy vs 133 [34%] of 389 who received placebo plus chemotherapy), neutropenia (167 [37%] vs 115 [30%]), decreased neutrophil count (98 [22%] vs 95 [24%]), thrombocytopenia (95 [21%] vs 70 [18%]), and decreased platelet count (92 [20%] vs 92 [24%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 243 (54%) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 196 (50%) patients who received placebo plus chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in nine (2%; acute kidney injury, dyspnoea, hepatic failure, hepatitis, neutropenia, pneumonitis, respiratory failure, sepsis, and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]) patients who received atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and four (1%; unexplained death, diarrhoea, febrile neutropenia, and toxic hepatitis [n=1 each]) who received placebo plus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival benefit with first-line combination of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy did not translate into a significant improvement in overall survival in the ITT population of IMvigor130. Further research is needed to understand which patients might benefit from first-line combination treatment. No new safety signals were observed. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Implementation of pharmacogenomics testing for precision medicine.

Great strides have been made in the past decade to lower barriers to clinical pharmacogenomics implementation. Nevertheless, PGx consultation prior to prescribing therapeutics is not yet mainstream. This review addresses the current climate surrounding PGx implementation, focusing primarily on strategies for implementation at academic institutions, particularly at The University of Chicago, and provides an up-to-date guide of resources supporting the development of PGx programs. Remaining challenges and recent strategies for overcoming these challenges to implementation are discussed.

Implementation of pharmacogenomics into inpatient general medicine.

Pharmacogenomics is a crucial piece of personalized medicine. Preemptive pharmacogenomic testing is only used sparsely in the inpatient setting and there are few models to date for fostering the adoption of pharmacogenomic treatment in the inpatient setting. We created a multi-institutional project in Chicago to enable the translation of pharmacogenomics into inpatient practice. We are reporting our implementation process and barriers we encountered with solutions. This study, 'Implementation of Point-of-Care Pharmacogenomic Decision Support Accounting for Minority Disparities', sought to implement pharmacogenomics into inpatient practice at three sites: The University of Chicago, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, and the University of Illinois at Chicago. This study involved enrolling African American adult patients for preemptive genotyping across a panel of actionable germline variants predicting drug response or toxicity risk. We report our approach to implementation and the barriers we encountered engaging hospitalists and general medical providers in the inpatient pharmacogenomic intervention. Our strategies included: a streamlined delivery system for pharmacogenomic information, attendance at hospital medicine section meetings, use of physician and pharmacist champions, focus on hospitalists' care and optimizing system function to fit their workflow, hand-offs, and dealing with hospitalists turnover. Our work provides insights into strategies for the initial engagement of inpatient general medicine providers that we hope will benefit other institutions seeking to implement pharmacogenomics in the inpatient setting.

Clinically actionable genotypes for anticancer prescribing among >1500 patients with pharmacogenomic testing.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been increasing evidence supporting the role of germline pharmacogenomic factors predicting toxicity for anticancer therapies. Although somatic genomic data are used frequently in oncology care planning, germline pharmacogenomic testing is not. This study hypothesizes that comprehensive germline pharmacogenomic profiling could have high relevance for cancer care. METHODS: Between January 2011 and August 2020, patients at the University of Chicago Medical Center were genotyped across custom germline pharmacogenomic panels for reasons unrelated to cancer care. Actionable anticancer pharmacogenomic gene/drug interactions identified by the FDA were defined including: CYP2C9 (erdafitinib), CYP2D6 (gefitinib), DPYD (5-fluorouracil and capecitabine), TPMT (thioguanine and mercaptopurine), and UGT1A1 (belinostat, irinotecan, nilotinib, pazopanib, and sacituzumab-govitecan hziy). The primary objective was to determine the frequency of individuals with actionable or high-risk genotypes across these 5 key pharmacogenes, thus potentially impacting prescribing for at least 1 of these 11 commonly prescribed anticancer therapies. RESULTS: Data from a total of 1586 genotyped individuals were analyzed. The oncology pharmacogene with the highest prevalence of high-risk, actionable genotypes was UGT1A1, impacting 17% of genotyped individuals. Actionable TPMT and DPYD genotypes were found in 9% and 4% of patients, respectively. Overall, nearly one-third of patients genotyped across all 5 genes (161/525, 31%) had at least one actionable genotype. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that germline pharmacogenomic testing for 5 key pharmacogenes could identify a substantial proportion of patients at risk with standard dosing, an estimated impact similar to that of somatic genomic profiling. LAY SUMMARY: Differences in our genes may explain why some drugs work safely in certain individuals but can cause side effects in others. Pharmacogenomics is the study of how genetic variations affect an individual's response to medications. In this study, an evaluation was done for important genetic variations that can affect the tolerability of anticancer therapy. By analyzing the genetic results of >1500 patients, it was found that nearly one-third have genetic variations that could alter recommendations of what drug, or how much of, an anticancer therapy they should be given. Performing pharmacogenomic testing before prescribing could help to guide personalized oncology care.

Anesthesia providers as stakeholders to adoption of pharmacogenomic information in perioperative care.

OBJECTIVES: Integration of pharmacogenomics into clinical care is being studied in multiple disciplines. We hypothesized that understanding attitudes and perceptions of anesthesiologists, critical care and pain medicine providers would uncover unique considerations for future implementation within perioperative care. METHODS: A survey (multiple choice and Likert-scale) was administered to providers within our Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care prior to initiation of a department-wide prospective pharmacogenomics implementation program. The survey addressed knowledge, perceptions, experiences, resources and barriers. RESULTS: Of 153 providers contacted, 149 (97%) completed the survey. Almost all providers (92%) said that genetic results influence drug therapy, and few (22%) were skeptical about the usefulness of pharmacogenomics. Despite this enthusiasm, 87% said their awareness about pharmacogenomic information is lacking. Feeling well-informed about pharmacogenomics was directly related to years in practice/experience: only 38% of trainees reported being well-informed, compared to 46% of those with 1-10 years of experience, and nearly two-thirds with 11+ years (P < 0.05). Regarding barriers, providers reported uncertainty about availability of testing, turnaround time and whether testing is worth financial costs. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiology, critical care and pain medicine providers are optimistic about the potential clinical utility of pharmacogenomics, but are uncertain about practical aspects of testing and desire clear guidelines on the use of results. These findings may inform future institutional efforts toward greater integration of genomic results to improve medication-related outcomes.

Management of Dermatologic Events Associated With the Nectin-4-directed Antibody-Drug Conjugate Enfortumab Vedotin.

Enfortumab vedotin is a first-in-class Nectin-4-directed antibody-drug conjugate approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) previously treated with a platinum-based chemotherapy and a programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/L1) inhibitor, or patients with la/mUC who are ineligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy and have previously received one or more prior lines of therapy. Enfortumab vedotin is the only drug to have demonstrated survival benefit versus chemotherapy in a randomized controlled trial in patients with la/mUC previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and a PD-1/L1 inhibitor. The development of dermatologic events following the administration of enfortumab vedotin is anticipated given the expression of Nectin-4 in epidermal keratinocytes and skin appendages (eg, sweat glands and hair follicles). There is the potential for rare but severe and possibly fatal cutaneous adverse reactions, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrosis, as described in the boxed warning of the US prescribing information for enfortumab vedotin. This manuscript describes the presumed pathophysiology and manifestations of dermatologic reactions related to enfortumab vedotin, and presents recommendations for prevention and treatment, to provide oncologists and other healthcare providers with an awareness of these potential adverse events to best anticipate and manage them.

Pilot Findings of Pharmacogenomics in Perioperative Care: Initial Results From the First Phase of the ImPreSS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomics, which offers a potential means by which to inform prescribing and avoid adverse drug reactions, has gained increasing consideration in other medical settings but has not been broadly evaluated during perioperative care. METHODS: The Implementation of Pharmacogenomic Decision Support in Surgery (ImPreSS) Trial is a prospective, single-center study consisting of a prerandomization pilot and a subsequent randomized phase. We describe findings from the pilot period. Patients planning elective surgeries were genotyped with pharmacogenomic results, and decision support was made available to anesthesia providers in advance of surgery. Pharmacogenomic result access and prescribing records were analyzed. Surveys (Likert-scale) were administered to providers to understand utilization barriers. RESULTS: Of eligible anesthesiology providers, 166 of 211 (79%) enrolled. A total of 71 patients underwent genotyping and surgery (median, 62 years; 55% female; average American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, 2.6; 58 inpatients and 13 ambulatories). No patients required postoperative intensive care or pain consultations. At least 1 provider accessed pharmacogenomic results before or during 41 of 71 surgeries (58%). Faculty were more likely to access results (78%) compared to house staff (41%; P = .003) and midlevel practitioners (15%) ( P < .0001). Notably, all administered intraoperative medications had favorable genomic results with the exception of succinylcholine administration to 1 patient with genomically increased risk for prolonged apnea (without adverse outcome). Considering composite prescribing in preoperative, recovery, throughout hospitalization, and at discharge, each patient was prescribed a median of 35 (range 15-83) total medications, 7 (range 1-22) of which had annotated pharmacogenomic results. Of 2371 prescribing events, 5 genomically high-risk medications were administered (all tramadol or omeprazole; with 2 of 5 pharmacogenomic results accessed), and 100 genomically cautionary mediations were administered (hydralazine, oxycodone, and pantoprazole; 61% rate of accessing results). Providers reported that although results were generally easy to access and understand, the most common reason for not considering results was because remembering to access pharmacogenomic information was not yet a part of their normal clinical workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot data for result access rates suggest interest in pharmacogenomics by anesthesia providers, even if opportunities to alter prescribing in response to high-risk genotypes were infrequent. This pilot phase has also uncovered unique considerations for implementing pharmacogenomic information in the perioperative care setting, and new strategies including adding the involvement of surgery teams, targeting patients likely to need intensive care and dedicated pain care, and embedding pharmacists within rounding models will be incorporated in the follow-on randomized phase to increase engagement and likelihood of affecting prescribing decisions and clinical outcomes.

Enfortumab vedotin after PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (EV­201): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma is generally incurable and has scarce treatment options, especially for cisplatin-ineligible patients previously treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy. Enfortumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate directed at Nectin-4, a protein highly expressed in urothelial carcinoma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin in the post-immunotherapy setting in cisplatin-ineligible patients. METHODS: EV-201 is a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study of enfortumab vedotin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma previously treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. Cohort 2 included adults (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or less who were considered ineligible for cisplatin at enrolment and who had not received platinum-containing chemotherapy in the locally advanced or metastatic setting. Enfortumab vedotin was given intravenously at a dose of 1·25 mg/kg on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 assessed by blinded independent central review. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of enfortumab vedotin. EV-201 is an ongoing study and the primary analysis is complete. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03219333. FINDINGS: Between Oct 8, 2017, and Feb 11, 2020, 91 patients were enrolled at 40 sites globally, of whom 89 received treatment. Median follow-up was 13·4 months (IQR 11·3-18·9). At data cutoff (Sept 8, 2020), the confirmed objective response rate was 52% (46 of 89 patients; 95% CI 41-62), with 18 (20%) of 89 patients achieving a complete response and 28 (31%) achieving a partial response. 49 (55%) of 89 patients had grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (eight [9%] patients), maculopapular rash (seven [8%] patients), and fatigue (six [7%] patients). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 15 (17%) patients. Three (3%) patients died due to acute kidney injury, metabolic acidosis, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (one [1%] each) within 30 days of first dose and these deaths were considered by the investigator to be related to treatment; a fourth death from pneumonitis occurred more than 30 days after the last dose and was also considered to be related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with enfortumab vedotin was tolerable and confirmed responses were seen in 52% of cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who were previously treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. These patients have few treatment options, and enfortumab vedotin could be a promising new therapy for a patient population with a high unmet need. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma Global Development and Seagen.

Adjuvant atezolizumab versus observation in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor010): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite standard curative-intent treatment with neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by radical surgery in eligible patients, muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma has a high recurrence rate and no level 1 evidence for adjuvant therapy. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. METHOD: In the IMvigor010 study, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 192 hospitals, academic centres, and community oncology practices across 24 countries or regions, patients aged 18 years and older with histologically confirmed muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2 were enrolled within 14 weeks after radical cystectomy or nephroureterectomy with lymph node dissection. Patients had ypT2-4a or ypN+ tumours following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or pT3-4a or pN+ tumours if no neoadjuvant chemotherapy was received. Patients not treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy must have been ineligible for or declined cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. No post-surgical radiotherapy or previous adjuvant chemotherapy was allowed. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a permuted block (block size of four) method and interactive voice-web response system to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab given intravenously every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or up to 1 year, whichever occurred first, or to observation. Randomisation was stratified by previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, number of lymph nodes resected, pathological nodal status, tumour stage, and PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who either received at least one dose of atezolizumab or had at least one post-baseline safety assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02450331, and is ongoing but not recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Oct 5, 2015, and July 30, 2018, we enrolled 809 patients, of whom 406 were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 403 were assigned to the observation group. Median follow-up was 21·9 months (IQR 13·2-29·8). Median disease-free survival was 19·4 months (95% CI 15·9-24·8) with atezolizumab and 16·6 months (11·2-24·8) with observation (stratified hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·08]; p=0·24). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were urinary tract infection (31 [8%] of 390 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 20 [5%] of 397 patients in the observation group), pyelonephritis (12 [3%]) vs 14 [4%]), and anaemia (eight [2%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 122 (31%) patients who received atezolizumab and 71 (18%) who underwent observation. 63 (16%) patients who received atezolizumab had a treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse event. One treatment-related death, due to acute respiratory distress syndrome, occurred in the atezolizumab group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, IMvigor010 is the largest, first-completed phase 3 adjuvant study to evaluate the role of a checkpoint inhibitor in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improved disease-free survival in the atezolizumab group over observation. Atezolizumab was generally tolerable, with no new safety signals; however, higher frequencies of adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported than in metastatic urothelial carcinoma studies. These data do not support the use of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the setting evaluated in IMvigor010 at this time. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Impact of CYP2D6 Pharmacogenomic Status on Pain Control Among Opioid-Treated Oncology Patients.

BACKGROUND: Several opioids have pharmacogenomic associations impacting analgesic efficacy. However, germline pharmacogenomic testing is not routinely incorporated into supportive oncology. We hypothesized that CYP2D6 profiling would correlate with opioid prescribing and hospitalizations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 61,572 adult oncology patients from 2012 to 2018 for opioid exposures. CYP2D6 metabolizer phenotype (ultra-rapid [UM], normal metabolizer [NM], intermediate [IM], or poor [PM]), the latter two of which may cause inefficacy of codeine, tramadol, and standard-dose hydrocodone, was determined for patients genotyped for reasons unrelated to pain. The primary endpoint was number of opioid medications received during longitudinal care (IM/PMs vs. NMs). Secondary endpoint was likelihood of pain-related hospital encounters. RESULTS: Most patients with cancer (n = 34,675, 56%) received multiple opioids (average 2.8 ± 1.6/patient). Hydrocodone was most commonly prescribed (62%), followed by tramadol, oxycodone, and codeine. In the CYP2D6 genotyped cohort (n = 105), IM/PMs received a similar number of opioids (3.4 ± 1.4) as NMs (3.3 ± 1.9). However, IM/PMs were significantly more likely to experience pain-related hospital encounters compared with NMs, independent of other variables (odds ratio [OR] = 5.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-23.6; p = .03). IM/PMs were also more likely to be treated with later-line opioids that do not require CYP2D6 metabolism, such as morphine and hydromorphone (OR = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.1-9.8; p = .03). CONCLUSION: CYP2D6 genotype may identify patients with cancer at increased risk for inadequate analgesia when treated with typical first-line opioids like codeine, tramadol, or standard-dose hydrocodone. Palliative care considerations are an integral part of optimal oncology care, and these findings justify prospective evaluation of preemptive genotyping as a strategy to improve oncology pain management. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Genomic variation in metabolic enzymes can predispose individuals to inefficacy when receiving opioid pain medications. Patients with intermediate and/or poor CYP2D6 metabolizer status do not adequately convert codeine, tramadol, and hydrocodone into active compounds, with resulting increased risk of inadequate analgesia. This study showed that patients with cancer frequently receive CYP2D6-dependent opioids. However, patients with CYP2D6 intermediate and poor metabolizer status had increased numbers of pain-related hospitalizations and more frequently required the potent non-CYP2D6 opioids morphine and hydromorphone. This may reflect inadequate initial analgesia with the common "first-line" CYP2D6-metabolized opioids. Preemptive genotyping to guide opioid prescribing during cancer care may improve pain-related patient outcomes.

Appraisal and development of evidence-based clinical decision support to enable perioperative pharmacogenomic application.

Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform anesthesia and pain prescribing to identify clinically actionable drug/gene pairs. Clinical decision-support (CDS) summaries were developed and were evaluated using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We found that 93/180 (51%) of commonly-used perioperative medications had some published pharmacogenomic information, with 18 having actionable evidence: celecoxib/diclofenac/flurbiprofen/ibuprofen/piroxicam/CYP2C9, codeine/oxycodone/tramadol CYP2D6, desflurane/enflurane/halothane/isoflurane/sevoflurane/succinylcholine/RYR1/CACNA1S, diazepam/CYP2C19, phenytoin/CYP2C9, succinylcholine/mivacurium/BCHE, and morphine/OPRM1. Novel CDS summaries were developed for these 18 medications. AGREE II mean ± standard deviation scores were high for Scope and Purpose (95.0 ± 2.8), Rigor of Development (93.2 ± 2.8), Clarity of Presentation (87.3 ± 3.0), and Applicability (86.5 ± 3.7) (maximum score = 100). Overall mean guideline quality score was 6.7 ± 0.2 (maximum score = 7). All summaries were recommended for clinical implementation. A critical mass of pharmacogenomic evidence exists for select medications commonly used in the perioperative setting, warranting prospective examination for clinical utility.

Impact and applicability of pharmacogenomics in rheumatology: an integrated analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Rheumatology medications are often associated with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) or inadequate response (IR). Pharmacogenomics may be a solution, but there is limited knowledge of its potential utility within rheumatology. METHODS: We analysed medication changes and pharmacogenomically actionable prescriptions for all adult rheumatology outpatient encounters at our medical centre between 10/2012-12/2018. Three sources defined pharmacogenomic actionability: FDA labels, Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines, and our institutionally-deliverable pharmacogenomic clinical decision support (CDS) summaries. A subset of patients (validation cohort) had previously undergone broad, preemptive pharmacogenomic testing within other clinics but results were unavailable within rheumatology. We assessed the occurrence of specific pharmacogenomic ADRs/IRs in this group. RESULTS: From 174,834 prescribing events, 6300/7761 patients (81%) had clinically actionable pharmacogenomic drug prescriptions (i.e. institutional CDS summaries would have been deployable if testing had been done). Using more conservative standards (pharmacogenomically actionable by ≥2 guidance bodies), 4158/7761 (54%) patient prescriptions could have been impacted. The greatest proportions of potentially impacted rheumatologic prescriptions were for tramadol (47%), allopurinol (21%), azathioprine (17%) and celecoxib (8%). Among our validation cohort (94 previously-genotyped patients), 29 (31%) patients had a pharmacogenomic genotype that would have cautioned possible ADRs/IRs for ≥1 medication. Four patients actually suffered ADRs/IRs that would have been predicted by preemptive genotyping. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacogenomic genotyping could inform prescribing for the majority of rheumatology patients and may prevent a subset of ADRs/IRs. These findings justify prospective evaluation of pharmacogenomic testing including assessment of cost-effectiveness in selected rheumatology populations to further understand impact on therapy-related toxicities and treatment outcomes.

Patient-reported outcomes and inflammatory biomarkers in patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with durvalumab in phase 1/2 dose-escalation study 1108.

BACKGROUND: Durvalumab has shown meaningful clinical activity in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) in Study 1108 (NCT01693562). An important focus in treatment is health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Here, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from Study 1108 and their relationship with inflammatory biomarkers are explored. METHODS: Disease-related symptoms, functioning, and HRQOL were assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bladder (FACT-Bl) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30). Relationships between PRO improvements and the best changes in the tumor size, albumin level, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were assessed with Spearman correlation analysis. RESULTS: The mean FACT-Bl total score improved from 107.5 (standard deviation [SD], 23.0) at the baseline to 115.4 (SD, 22.6) on day 113, with similar increases found for the Trial Outcome Index (TOI) and Bladder Cancer Subscale (BLCS) scores. The mean FACT-Bl total scores improved over time, and the FACT-Bl TOI scores significantly improved by day 113 (P < .05). The mean EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life score improved from 57.1 (SD, 24.8) at the baseline to 69.0 (SD, 21.4) on day 113; the functional scale and symptom scores (day 113) were higher than the baseline scores (P < .05) for EORTC Social Functioning. The FACT-Bl total, BLCS, and TOI scores improved in 32.6%, 34.9%, and 32.6% of the patients by day 113; 26.3% to 37.8% of the patients exhibited improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 functional scores. The best tumor shrinkage and posttreatment improvements in serum albumin and NLR correlated with increases in FACT-Bl total, TOI, and BLCS scores and in EORTC Physical Functioning and Role Functioning scores (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab was associated with improvements in disease-related symptoms, functioning, and HRQOL in patients with mUC. Improvements in systemic inflammation may contribute to PRO improvements in these patients.

A randomized phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab and acalabrutinib in patients with platinum-resistant metastatic urothelial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) pathway has demonstrated clinical benefit in metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC); however, response rates of 15% to 26% highlight the need for more effective therapies. Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibition may suppress myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and improve T-cell activation. METHODS: The Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Acalabrutinib and Pembrolizumab Immunotherapy Dual Checkpoint Inhibition in Platinum-Resistant Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (RAPID CHECK; also known as ACE-ST-005) was a randomized phase 2 trial evaluating the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab with or without the BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib for patients with platinum-refractory mUC. The primary objectives were safety and objective response rates (ORRs) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Immune profiling was performed to analyze circulating monocytic MDSCs and T cells. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were treated with pembrolizumab (n = 35) or pembrolizumab plus acalabrutinib (n = 40). The ORR was 26% with pembrolizumab (9% with a complete response [CR]) and 20% with pembrolizumab plus acalabrutinib (10% with a CR). The grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) that occurred in ≥15% of the patients were anemia (20%) with pembrolizumab and fatigue (23%), increased alanine aminotransferase (23%), urinary tract infections (18%), and anemia (18%) with pembrolizumab plus acalabrutinib. One patient treated with pembrolizumab plus acalabrutinib had high MDSCs at the baseline, which significantly decreased at week 7. Overall, MDSCs were not correlated with a clinical response, but some subsets of CD8+ T cells did increase during the combination treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments were generally well tolerated, although serious AE rates were higher with the combination. Acalabrutinib plus pembrolizumab did not improve the ORR, PFS, or OS in comparison with pembrolizumab alone in mUC. Baseline and on-treatment peripheral monocytic MDSCs were not different in the treatment cohorts. Proliferating CD8+ T-cell subsets increased during treatment, particularly in the combination cohort. Ongoing studies are correlating these peripheral immunome findings with tissue-based immune cell infiltration.

Patient insights on features of an effective pharmacogenomics patient portal.

OBJECTIVES: We built a novel mock pharmacogenomics web portal to deliver pharmacogenomic information and results to patients. Utilizing a patient focus group, we then sought to understand patient insights on desired features of an effective pharmacogenomics patient portal. METHODS: The mock YourPGx Portal delivered four sample pharmacogenomic results (omeprazole, simvastatin, clopidogrel, and codeine). Patients from our existing institutional, prospective pharmacogenomics implementation study were recruited to pilot the mock portal and then asked to participate in a focus group discussion led by two facilitators. All patients had been previously genotyped, but none had been directly provided access to their own genotyping results and none had previously used the YourPGx portal. The focus group discussion explored nine domains: (1) factors influencing drug response, (2) concerns about drug effects, (3) understanding of genomics and pharmacogenomics, (4) reasons to undergo pharmacogenomic testing, (5) sources of pharmacogenomic information for patient education, (6) attributes of pharmacogenomic sources of information, (7) considerations about privacy and personal pharmacogenomic information, (8) sharing of pharmacogenomic information, and (9) features of an effective patient portal. RESULTS: The median age of patients (n = 10) was 65.5 years old (range 38-72), 70% female, 50% Caucasian/30% Black, and 60% held a bachelor/advanced degree. When asked about resources for seeking pharmacogenomic information, patients preferred consulting their providers first, followed by self-education, then using information provided by university research organizations. A theme emerged regarding attributes of these sources, namely a desire for understandability and trust. Patients said that the effectiveness of a pharmacogenomics patient portal is improved with use of symbolisms/graphics and clear and concise content. Effective use of colors, quantifying information, consistency, and use of layperson's language were additional important facets. Patients communicated the appeal of secured phone/app-enabled access and said that they would desire linking to their electronic medical records to allow sharing of information with different members of their healthcare team. CONCLUSIONS: Patients named providers as their primary source of pharmacogenomic information, but a pharmacogenomics patient portal that is carefully constructed to incorporate desired features may be a favorable tool to effectively deliver pharmacogenomic information and results to patients.

Clinical evaluation of germline polymorphisms associated with capecitabine toxicity in breast cancer: TBCRC-015.

PURPOSE: Capecitabine is important in breast cancer treatment but causes diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome (HFS), affecting adherence and quality of life. We sought to identify pharmacogenomic predictors of capecitabine toxicity using a novel monitoring tool. METHODS: Patients with metastatic breast cancer were prospectively treated with capecitabine (2000 mg/m2/day, 14 days on/7 off). Patients completed in-person toxicity questionnaires (day 1/cycle) and automated phone-in assessments (days 8, 15). Correlation of genotypes with early and overall toxicity was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-nine patients were enrolled (14 institutions). Diarrhea and HFS occurred in 52% (17% grade 3) and 69% (9% grade 3), respectively. Only 29% of patients completed four cycles without dose reduction/interruption. In 39%, the highest toxicity grade was captured via phone. Three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with diarrhea-DPYD*5 (odds ratio [OR] 4.9; P = 0.0005), a MTHFR missense SNP (OR 3.3; P = 0.02), and a SNP upstream of MTRR (OR 3.0; P = 0.03). GWAS elucidated a novel HFS SNP (OR 3.0; P = 0.0007) near TNFSF4 (OX40L), a gene implicated in autoimmunity including autoimmune skin diseases never before implicated in HFS. Genotype-gene expression analyses of skin tissues identified rs11158568 (associated with HFS via GWAS) with expression of CHURC1, a transcriptional activator controlling fibroblast growth factor (beta = - 0.74; P = 1.46 × 10-23), representing a previously unidentified mechanism for HFS. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first cancer pharmacogenomic study to use phone-in self-reporting, permitting augmented toxicity characterization. Three germline toxicity SNPs were replicated, and several novel SNPs/genes having strong functional relevance were discovered. If further validated, these markers could permit personalized capecitabine dosing.

Pharmacogenomic genotypes define genetic ancestry in patients and enable population-specific genomic implementation.

The importance of genetic ancestry characterization is increasing in genomic implementation efforts, and clinical pharmacogenomic guidelines are being published that include population-specific recommendations. Our aim was to test the ability of focused clinical pharmacogenomic SNP panels to estimate individual genetic ancestry (IGA) and implement population-specific pharmacogenomic clinical decision-support (CDS) tools. Principle components and STRUCTURE were utilized to assess differences in genetic composition and estimate IGA among 1572 individuals from 1000 Genomes, two independent cohorts of Caucasians and African Americans (AAs), plus a real-world validation population of patients undergoing pharmacogenomic genotyping. We found that clinical pharmacogenomic SNP panels accurately estimate IGA compared to genome-wide genotyping and identify AAs with ≥70 African ancestry (sensitivity >82%, specificity >80%, PPV >95%, NPV >47%). We also validated a new AA-specific warfarin dosing algorithm for patients with ≥70% African ancestry and implemented it at our institution as a novel CDS tool. Consideration of IGA to develop an institutional CDS tool was accomplished to enable population-specific pharmacogenomic guidance at the point-of-care. These capabilities were immediately applied for guidance of warfarin dosing in AAs versus Caucasians, but also provide a real-world model that can be extended to other populations and drugs as actionable genomic evidence accumulates.

Mocetinostat for patients with previously treated, locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma and inactivating alterations of acetyltransferase genes.

BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated mocetinostat (a class I/IV histone deacetylase inhibitor) in patients with urothelial carcinoma harboring inactivating mutations or deletions in CREB binding protein [CREBBP] and/or E1A binding protein p300 [EP300] histone acetyltransferase genes in a single-arm, open-label phase 2 study. METHODS: Eligible patients with platinum-treated, advanced/metastatic disease received oral mocetinostat (at a dose of 70 mg 3 times per week [TIW] escalating to 90 mg TIW) in 28-day cycles in a 3-stage study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02236195). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate. RESULTS: Genomic testing was feasible in 155 of 175 patients (89%). Qualifying tumor mutations were CREBBP (15%), EP300 (8%), and both CREBBP and EP300 (1%). A total of 17 patients were enrolled into stage 1 (the intent-to-treat population); no patients were enrolled in subsequent stages. One partial response was observed (11% [1 of 9 patients; the population that was evaluable for efficacy comprised 9 of the 15 planned patients]); activity was deemed insufficient to progress to stage 2 (null hypothesis: objective response rate of ≤15%). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event, most commonly nausea (13 of 17 patients; 77%) and fatigue (12 of 17 patients; 71%). The median duration of treatment was 46 days; treatment interruptions (14 of 17 patients; 82%) and dose reductions (5 of 17 patients; 29%) were common. Mocetinostat exposure was lower than anticipated (dose-normalized maximum serum concentration [Cmax ] after TIW dosing of 0.2 ng/mL/mg). CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, the current study represents the first clinical trial using genomic-based selection to identify patients with urothelial cancer who are likely to benefit from selective histone deacetylase inhibition. Mocetinostat was associated with significant toxicities that impacted drug exposure and may have contributed to modest clinical activity in these pretreated patients. The efficacy observed was considered insufficient to warrant further investigation of mocetinostat as a single agent in this setting.

Analysis of comprehensive pharmacogenomic profiling to impact in-hospital prescribing.

INTRODUCTION: In-hospital adverse medication events result in increased morbidity and mortality. Many implicated drugs carry pharmacogenomic information. We hypothesized that comprehensive pre-emptive pharmacogenomic profiling could have high relevance for in-hospital prescribing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the in-hospital medications of a genotyped outpatient cohort admitted at our institution from 2012 to 2015. The endpoints were medication changes (new medications initiated, dose adjustments, or medications discontinued) involving drugs with pharmacogenomic annotations from three sources: Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidance, Food and Drug Administration label information, and drugs with clinical decision supports in our institutional pharmacogenomic Genomic Prescribing System. RESULTS: Of 867 genotyped outpatients, 20 were hospitalized (mean: 78.2 years, 65% male). This hospitalized cohort was significantly older (78.2 vs. 61.3 years, P<0.0001) and took more medications (8.9 vs. 5.0 medications, P<0.0001). Out of 159 medication changes made, most (67.9%) were new medications (average: 2.5/hospitalization) with one-third of these having clinically annotated pharmacogenomic information. Half of all hospitalizations involved at least one pharmacogenomic medication. Over half (55%) of the hospitalized cohort was newly prescribed at least one of eight key pharmacogenomic medications, including high-risk drugs such as clopidogrel, codeine, and warfarin. CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that older patients and those with polypharmacy were at increased risk for hospitalizations, where many new prescriptions included frequently used pharmacogenomic drugs. Targeting this group for pre-emptive genotyping would facilitate the delivery of highly relevant information to inform inpatient prescribing.