Potential ovarian toxicity and infertility risk following targeted anti-cancer therapies.

Unlike traditional chemotherapy agents which are generally cytotoxic to all cells, targeted anti-cancer therapies are designed to specifically target proliferation mechanisms in cancer cells but spare normal cells, resulting in high potency and reduced toxicity. There has therefore been a rapid increase in their development and use in clinical settings, including in curative-intent treatment regimens. However, the targets of some of these drugs including kinases, epigenetic regulatory proteins, DNA damage repair enzymes and proteasomes, have fundamental roles in governing normal ovarian physiology. Inhibiting their action could have significant consequences for ovarian function, with potentially long-lasting adverse effects which persist after cessation of treatment, but there is limited evidence of their effects on reproductive function. In this review, we will use literature that examines these pathways to infer the potential toxicity of targeted anti-cancer drugs on the ovary. Lay summary: Compared to traditional chemotherapy agents, anti-cancer therapies are thought to be highly effective at targeting cancer cells but sparing normal cells, resulting in reduced drug side effects. However, many of processes within the cells that these drugs affect are also important for the ovary to work normally, so suppressing them in this way could have long-lasting implications for female fertility. This review examines the potential toxicity of anti-cancer therapies on the ovary.

Crizotinib-Resistant ROS1 G2101A Mutation Associated With Sensitivity to Lorlatinib in ROS1-Rearranged NSCLC: Case Report.

gene rearrangements occur in 1% to 2% of NSCLC. Acquired "on-target" mutations within the ROS1 kinase domain are a known resistance mechanism to the first-line ROS1 inhibitor crizotinib. Here, we report the first case of a patient with an acquired ROS1 G2101A resistance mutation after first-line crizotinib, who responded to lorlatinib. The response was dramatic but short in duration.

Up-front cell-free DNA next generation sequencing improves target identification in UK first line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

BACKGROUND: Genomic sequencing is necessary for first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatment decision-making. Tissue next generation sequencing (NGS) is standard but tissue quantity, quality, and time-to-results remains problematic. Here, we compare upfront cell-free-DNA (cfDNA) NGS clinical utility against routine tissue testing in patients with aNSCLC. METHODS: cfDNA-NGS was performed in consecutive, newly identified aNSCLC patients between December 2019-October 2021 alongside routine tissue genotyping. Variants were interpreted using AMP/ASCO/CAP guidelines. The primary endpoint was tier-1 variants detected on cfDNA-NGS. cfDNA-NGS results were compared to tissue results. RESULTS: Of 311 patients, 282 (91%) had an informative cfDNA-NGS test; 118 (38%) patients had a tier-1 variant identified by cfDNA-NGS. Of 243 patients with paired tissue-cfDNA tests, 122 (50%) tissue tests were informative; 85 (35%) tissue tests identified a tier-1 variant. cfDNA-NGS detected 39 additional tier-1 variants compared to tissue alone, increasing the tier-1 detection rate by 46% (from 85 to 124). The sensitivity of cfDNA-NGS relative to tissue was 75% (25% tissue tier-1 variants were not detected on cfDNA-NGS); 33% of cfDNA tier-1 variants were not identified on tissue tests. Median time from request-to-report was shorter for cfDNA-NGS versus tissue (8 versus 22 days; p < 0.0001). A total of 245 (79%) patients received first-line systemic-therapy: 49 (20%) with cfDNA-NGS results alone. Median time from sampling-to-commencement of first-line treatment was shorter for cfDNA-NGS blood draw versus first tissue biopsy (16 versus 35 days; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: cfDNA-NGS increased the tier-1 variant detection rate with high concordance with tissue, and halves time-to-treatment. 'Plasma-first' upfront cfDNA-NGS use should be considered routinely for aNSCLC.

Understanding the barriers to, and facilitators of, ovarian toxicity assessment in breast cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Detailed toxicity data are routinely collected in breast cancer (BC) clinical trials. However, ovarian toxicity is infrequently assessed, despite the adverse impacts on fertility and long-term health from treatment-induced ovarian insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: To determine the barriers to and facilitators of ovarian toxicity assessment in BC trials of anti-cancer drugs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively selected stakeholders from multiple countries involved in BC clinical trials (clinicians, consumers, pharmaceutical company representatives, members of drug-regulatory agencies). Participants were asked to describe the perceived benefits and barriers to evaluating ovarian toxicity. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded in NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Saturation of the main themes was reached and the final sample size included 25 participants from 14 countries (9 clinicians, 7 consumers, 5 members of regulatory agencies, 4 pharmaceutical company representatives); half were female. The main reported barrier to ovarian toxicity assessment was that the issue was rarely considered. Reasons included that these data are less important than survival data and are not required for regulatory approval. Overall, most participants believed evaluating the impact of BC treatments on ovarian function is valuable. Suggested strategies to increase ovarian toxicity assessment were to include it in clinical trial design guidelines and stakeholder advocacy. CONCLUSION: Lack of consideration about measuring ovarian toxicity in BC clinical trials that include premenopausal women suggest that guidelines and stronger advocacy from stakeholders, including regulators, would facilitate its more frequent inclusion in future trials, allowing women to make better informed treatment decisions.

A pilot of Blood-First diagnostic cell free DNA (cfDNA) next generation sequencing (NGS) in patients with suspected advanced lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnostic pathway for lung cancer can be long. Availability of front-line targeted therapies for NSCLC demands access to good quality tissue for genomic sequencing and rapid reporting of results. Diagnosis of lung cancer and availability of tissue was delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A pilot study assessing Guardant360™ cfDNA-NGS in patients with radiological-suspected advanced-stage lung cancer was performed at an academic cancer centre during COVID-19. Variants were tiered using AMP/ASCO/CAP guidelines and discussed at a tumour molecular board. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who commenced targeted treatment based on cfDNA-NGS results without tissue molecular results, predicted to be ≥ 10%. RESULTS: Between April 2020-May 2021, 51 patients were enrolled; 49 were evaluable. The median age was 71 years, 43% were never-smokers, 86% had stage IV disease. 80% of evaluable cfDNA-NGS were informative (tumour-derived cfDNA detected). cfDNA-NGS detected 30 (61%) AMP/ASCO/CAP tier 1 variants, including 20 additional tier 1 variants compared to tissue testing. Three patients with non-informative cfDNA-NGS had tier 1 variants identified on tissue testing. Eleven (22%; 95%CI 12%-27%) patients commenced targeted therapy based on cfDNA-NGS results without tissue molecular results, meeting the primary endpoint. Median time to results was shorter for cfDNA-NGS compared to standard-of-care tissue tests (9 versus 25 days, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Blood-first cfDNA-NGS in NSCLC patients increased the breadth and rapidity of detection of actionable variants with high tissue concordance and led to timely treatment decisions. A blood-first approach should be considered to improve the speed and accuracy of therapeutic decision-making.

Selection of endpoints in breast cancer clinical trials: a qualitative study of key trial stakeholders.

Clinical trial endpoints are fundamental for evaluating the safety and efficacy of cancer therapies, yet it is not well understood how they are selected or the role of stakeholder groups in deciding endpoints. This study aimed to explore how clinical trial endpoints are selected in breast cancer trials of anti-cancer drugs through semi structured interviews with purposively selected stakeholders involved in breast cancer clinical trials (clinicians, consumers, pharmaceutical company representatives, and members of drug regulatory agencies). Participants were asked to describe the process of selecting trial endpoints. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis supported by NVivo software. Saturation of the main themes was reached and the final sample included 25 participants from 14 countries (9 clinicians, 7 consumers, 5 members of regulatory agencies, 4 pharmaceutical company representatives). Pharmaceutical companies were almost always identified as the main decision maker. While most consumers and pharmaceutical company representatives felt clinicians and consumers influenced trial design, some clinicians and regulators reported consumers and clinicians had little influence. Factors identified as important considerations in determining trial endpoints included the main goal of the trial, established standardised endpoints, resources, and the investigational agent studied. All pharmaceutical advisors reported that meeting the requirements for regulatory approval was the major factor considered. Clinical trial endpoint selection is largely decided by the pharmaceutical industry, driven by requirements for regulatory approval. Given the limited influence from clinicians and consumers, guidance by regulatory agencies will be important for future inclusion of novel endpoints in clinical trials.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor and Radiotherapy-Related Pneumonitis: An Informatics Approach to Determine Real-World Incidence, Severity, Management, and Resource Implications.

Pneumonitis is a well-described, potentially life-threatening adverse effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and thoracic radiotherapy. It can require additional investigations, treatment, and interruption of cancer therapy. It is important for clinicians to have an awareness of its incidence and severity, however real-world data are lacking and do not always correlate with findings from clinical trials. Similarly, there is a dearth of information on cost impact of symptomatic pneumonitis. Informatics approaches are increasingly being applied to healthcare data for their ability to identify specific patient cohorts efficiently, at scale. We developed a Structured Query Language (SQL)-based informatics algorithm which we applied to CT report text to identify cases of ICI and radiotherapy pneumonitis between 1/1/2015 and 31/12/2020. Further data on severity, investigations, medical management were also acquired from the electronic health record. We identified 248 cases of pneumonitis attributable to ICI and/or radiotherapy, of which 139 were symptomatic with CTCAE severity grade 2 or more. The grade ≥2 ICI pneumonitis incidence in our cohort is 5.43%, greater than the all-grade 1.3-2.7% incidence reported in the literature. Time to onset of ICI pneumonitis was also longer in our cohort (mean 4.5 months, range 4 days-21 months), compared to the median 2.7 months (range 9 days-19.2 months) described in the literature. The estimated average healthcare cost of symptomatic pneumonitis is £3932.33 per patient. In this study we use an informatics approach to present new real-world data on the incidence, severity, management, and resource burden of ICI and radiotherapy pneumonitis. To our knowledge, this is the first study to look at real-world incidence and healthcare resource utilisation at the per-patient level in a UK cancer hospital. Improved management of pneumonitis may facilitate prompt continuation of cancer therapy, and improved outcomes for this not insubstantial cohort of patients.

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) - The status of systemic therapy.

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) remains a malignancy with poor prognosis. Despite initial disappointing response rates to single-agent chemotherapy, upfront platinum and anti-folate-based combination chemotherapy has remained the backbone of treatment for PM for the last three decades. The role of maintenance chemotherapy remains unclear; switch-maintenance gemcitabine has shown improvements in progression-free but not overall survival. The addition of antiangiogenic agents to chemotherapy yielded modest improvements in survival, both upfront in combination with platinum-pemetrexed, and in the relapsed setting. Immunotherapy, particularly PD-(L)1 inhibitors, has shown important but variable effectiveness in relapsed PM when used as monotherapy, and is an important salvage treatment after first-line chemotherapy. Furthermore, the randomized phase 3 trial of ipilimumab-nivolumab versus platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy demonstrated improved overall survival favouring ipilimumab-nivolumab (HR 0.74, 96.6% CI 0.60-0.91; p = 0.0020), establishing this regimen as the new standard first-line treatment for PM, particularly in those with non-epithelioid histology. Increased interest in PM genomics has led to development of novel personalized therapeutics, such as those targeting DNA repair and EZH2 pathways, however with variable outcomes in trials. Targeting the membrane glycoprotein mesothelin and arginine deprivation are other important strategies under ongoing investigation. The field of PM is changing and new treatments bring hope to a largely lethal and poor prognostic malignancy. Despite these developments, current challenges include understanding the role of combination and multimodality treatments, drivers of resistance to treatment, and establishing predictive biomarkers to improve patient selection and treatment sequencing.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibition for Unresectable Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have shown important but variable efficacy in mesothelioma despite a lack of strong biological rationale. Initial trials assessed ICI monotherapy in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, with objective response rates (ORR) between 4.5 and 29%, median progression-free survival (PFS) between 2.5-6.2 months, and median overall survival (OS) between 7.7 and 18.0 months. In randomised trials of chemotherapy pre-treated patients, nivolumab was recently shown to improve PFS compared to placebo, but tremelimumab was not superior to placebo, and there was no difference in OS between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy. However, response to combination ICI appear more promising in both pre-treated and treatment-naïve mesothelioma. The randomised Phase 3 trial of upfront ipilimumab-nivolumab versus platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy demonstrated improved OS favouring ipilimumab-nivolumab (HR 0.74, 96.6% CI 0.60-0.91; p = 0.0020), establishing this regimen as a new standard of care, especially in non-epithelioid histological subtypes. However, initially PFS was poorer in the ipilimumab-nivolumab than chemotherapy treatment arms. A single-arm Phase 2 trial of upfront platinum chemotherapy and durvalumab met its primary endpoint, with a 6-month PFS of 57% (95% CI 44-70) with chemo-immunotherapy under evaluation as an alternative upfront regimen. Several questions remain unanswered. Comparative studies of chemo-immunotherapy versus chemotherapy are underway, but these do not compare chemo-immunotherapy to combination ICI. There is a critical need to establish predictive biomarkers to improve patient selection. As ICI use moves into the front-line setting, patient selection, role for operable patients, and understanding ICI resistance mechanisms alongside role of ICI rechallenge in previous responders need further evaluation.

Assessment of Ovarian Function in Phase III (Neo)Adjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Loss of ovarian function is a recognized adverse effect of chemotherapy for breast cancer and of great importance to patients. Little is known about the ovarian toxicity of newer cancer treatments. This study examined whether breast cancer clinical trials include assessment of the impact of trial interventions on ovarian function. METHODS: Eligible trials were phase III (neo)adjuvant trials of pharmacologic treatments for breast cancer, recruiting between June 2008 and October 2019, which included premenopausal women. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and EudraCT were searched. Data were extracted from trial publications, protocols, databases, and a survey sent to all trial chairs. Tests of statistical significance were 2-sided. RESULTS: Of 2354 records identified, 141 trials were eligible. Investigational treatments included chemotherapy (36.9%), HER2 targeted (24.8%), endocrine (12.8%), immunotherapy (7.8%), cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (5.0%), and poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (2.8%). Ovarian function was a prespecified endpoint in 13 (9.2%) trials. Forty-five (31.9%) trials collected ovarian function data, but only 33 (23.4%) collected posttrial-intervention data. Common postintervention data collected included menstruation (15.6%), pregnancy (13.5%), estradiol (9.9%), and follicle-stimulating hormone levels (8.5%). Only 4 (2.8%) trials collected postintervention anti-müllerian hormone levels, and 3 (2.1%) trials collected antral follicle count. Of 22 trials investigating immunotherapy, cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors, or poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors, none specified ovarian function as an endpoint, but 4 (18.2%) collected postintervention ovarian function data. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of pharmacologic interventions on ovarian function is infrequently assessed in phase III breast cancer (neo)adjuvant trials that include premenopausal women. Trialists should consider inclusion of ovarian function endpoints when designing clinical trials, given its importance for informed decision making.

Real-world outcomes in thoracic cancer patients with severe Acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (COVID-19): Single UK institution experience.

BACKGROUND: UK COVID-19 mortality rates are amongst the highest globally. Controversy exists on the vulnerability of thoracic cancer patients. We describe the characteristics and sequelae of patients with thoracic cancer treated at a UK cancer centre infected with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients undergoing care for thoracic cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 (RT-PCR/radiology/clinically) between March-June 2020 were included. Data were extracted from patient records. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were included: 14 (43%) diagnosed by RT-PCR, 18 (57%) by radiology and/or convincing symptoms. 88% had advanced thoracic malignancies. Eleven of 14 (79%) patients diagnosed by RT-PCR and 12 of 18 (56%) patients diagnosed by radiology/clinically were hospitalised, of which four (29%) and 2 (11%) patients required high-dependency/intensive care respectively. Three (21%) patients diagnosed by RT-PCR and 2 (11%) patients diagnosed by radiology/clinically required non-invasive ventilation; none were intubated. Complications included pneumonia and sepsis (43% and 14% respectively in patients diagnosed by RT-PCR; 17% and 11% respectively in patients diagnosed by radiology/clinically). In patients receiving active cancer treatment, therapy was delayed/ceased in 10/12 (83%) and 7/11 (64%) patients diagnosed by RT-PCR and radiology/clinically respectively. Nine (28%) patients died; all were smokers. Median time from symptom onset to death was 7 days (range 3-37). CONCLUSIONS: The immediate morbidity from COVID-19 is high in thoracic cancer patients. Hospitalisation and treatment interruption rates were high. Improved risk-stratification models for UK cancer patients are urgently needed to guide safe cancer-care delivery without compromising efficacy.

Case of nivolumab-induced sclerosing cholangitis: lessons from long-term follow-up.

Nivolumab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor used to treat multiple solid-organ malignancies. While many of its immune-related adverse events are well established, nivolumab-induced sclerosing cholangitis remains poorly characterised, with no defined diagnostic criteria. Moreover, data regarding long-term outcomes are particularly lacking. We present a biopsy-proven case of nivolumab-induced sclerosing cholangitis, which uniquely captures 18 months of follow-up post-treatment. Our case highlights key features of intrahepatic subtype sclerosing cholangitis and suggests durable response to corticosteroid therapy.

Real world outcomes in KRAS G12C mutation positive non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutations are found in 20-30 % of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) and were traditionally considered undruggable. KRASG12C mutation confers sensitivity to KRASG12C covalent inhibitors, however its prognostic impact remains unclear. This study assesses the frequency, clinical features, prevalence of brain metastases and outcomes in KRASG12C NSCLC in a real-world setting. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the prospective Thoracic Malignancies Cohort (TMC) between July 2012 to October 2019 with recurrent/metastatic non-squamous NSCLC, available KRAS results, and without EGFR/ALK/ROS1 gene aberrations, were selected. Data was extracted from TMC and patient records. Clinicopathologic features, treatment and overall survival (OS) was compared for KRAS wildtype (KRASWT) and KRAS mutated (KRASmut); and KRASG12C and other (KRASother) mutations. RESULTS: Of 1386 NSCLC patients, 1040 were excluded: non-metastatic/recurrent (526); unknown KRAS status (356); ALK/EGFR/ROS1 positive (154); duplicate (4). Of 346 patients analysed, 144 (42 %) were KRASmut, of whom 65 (45 %) were KRASG12C. All patients with KRASG12C were active or ex-smokers, compared to 92 % of KRASother and 83 % of KRASWT. The prevalence of brain metastases during follow-up was similar between KRASmut and KRASWT (33 % vs 40 %, p = 0.17), and KRASG12C and KRASother (40 % vs 41 %, p = 0.74). The proportion of patients receiving one or multiple lines of systemic therapy was comparable. OS was similar between KRASmut and KRASWT (p = 0.54), and KRASG12C and KRASother (p = 0.39). CONCLUSION: Patients with KRASmut and KRASWT, and KRASG12C and KRASother NSCLC have comparable clinical features, treatment and survival. While not prognostic, KRASG12C may be an important predictive biomarker as promising KRASG12C covalent inhibitors continue to be developed.

Exploring the facilitators and barriers to using an online infertility risk prediction tool (FoRECAsT) for young women with breast cancer: a qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: As cancer treatments may impact on fertility, a high priority for young patients with breast cancer is access to evidence-based, personalised information for them and their healthcare providers to guide treatment and fertility-related decisions prior to cancer treatment. Current tools to predict fertility outcomes after breast cancer treatments are imprecise and do not offer individualised prediction. To address the gap, we are developing a novel personalised infertility risk prediction tool (FoRECAsT) for premenopausal patients with breast cancer that considers current reproductive status, planned chemotherapy and adjuvant endocrine therapy to determine likely post-treatment infertility. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of implementing this FoRECAsT tool into clinical practice by exploring the barriers and facilitators of its use among patients and healthcare providers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional exploratory study is being conducted using semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with 15-20 participants each from the following groups: (1) premenopausal patients with breast cancer younger than 40, diagnosed within last 5 years, (2) breast surgeons, (3) breast medical oncologists, (4) breast care nurses (5) fertility specialists and (6) fertility preservation nurses. Patients with breast cancer are being recruited from the joint Breast Service of three affiliated institutions of Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia-Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital and Royal Women's Hospital, and clinicians are being recruited from across Australia. Interviews are being audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and imported into qualitative data analysis software to facilitate data management and analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee, Australia (HREC number: 2017.163). Confidentiality and privacy are maintained at every stage of the study. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journals, national and international conference presentations, social media, broadcast media, print media, internet and various community/stakeholder engagement activities.