Molecularly guided therapy versus chemotherapy after disease control in unfavourable cancer of unknown primary (CUPISCO): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with unfavourable subset cancer of unknown primary (CUP) have a poor prognosis when treated with standard platinum-based chemotherapy. Whether first-line treatment guided by comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) can improve outcomes is unknown. The CUPISCO trial was designed to inform a molecularly guided treatment strategy to improve outcomes over standard platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed, unfavourable, non-squamous CUP. The aim of the trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of molecularly guided therapy (MGT) versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients. This was to determine whether the inclusion of CGP in the initial diagnostic work-up leads to improved outcomes over the current standard of care. We herein report the primary analysis. METHODS: CUPISCO was a phase 2, prospective, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, multicentre trial done at 159 sites in 34 countries outside the USA. Patients with central eligibility review-confirmed disease (acceptable histologies included adenocarcinoma and poorly differentiated carcinoma) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, evaluated by CGP, who reached disease control after three cycles of standard first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 3:1 via a block-stratified randomisation procedure to MGT versus chemotherapy continuation for at least three further cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03498521, and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: From July 10, 2018, to Dec 9, 2022, 636 (42%) of 1505 screened patients were enrolled. Median follow-up in the treatment period was 24·1 months (IQR 11·6-35·6). Of 438 patients who reached disease control after induction chemotherapy, 436 were randomly assigned: 326 (75%) to the MGT group and 110 (25%) to the chemotherapy group. Median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 6·1 months (95% CI 4·7-6·5) in the MGT group versus 4·4 months (4·1-5·6) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·56-0·92]; p=0·0079). Related adverse event rates per 100-patient-years at risk were generally similar or lower with MGT versus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: In patients with previously untreated, unfavourable, non-squamous CUP who reached disease control after induction chemotherapy, CGP with subsequent MGTs resulted in longer progression-free survival than standard platinum-based chemotherapy. On the basis of these results, we recommend that CGP is performed at initial diagnosis in patients with unfavourable CUP. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

A Challenging Task: Identifying Patients with Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) According to ESMO Guidelines: The CUPISCO Trial Experience.

BACKGROUND: CUPISCO is an ongoing randomized phase II trial (NCT03498521) comparing molecularly guided therapy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients newly diagnosed with "unfavorable" cancer of unknown primary (CUP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with an unfavorable CUP diagnosis, as defined by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and available cancer tissue for molecular sequencing are generally eligible. Potential patients with CUP entering screening undergo a review involving reference histopathology and clinical work-up by a central eligibility review team (ERT). Patients with "favorable" CUP, a strongly suspected primary site of origin, lack of tissue, or unmet inclusion criteria are excluded. RESULTS: As of April 30, 2020, 628 patients had entered screening and 346 (55.1%) were screen failed. Screen fails were due to technical reasons (n = 89), failure to meet inclusion and exclusion criteria not directly related to CUP diagnosis (n = 89), and other reasons (n = 33). A total of 124 (35.8%) patients were excluded because unfavorable adeno- or poorly differentiated CUP could not be confirmed by the ERT. These cases were classified into three groups ineligible because of (a) histologic subtype, such as squamous and neuroendocrine, or favorable CUP; (b) evidence of a possible primary tumor; or (c) noncarcinoma histology. CONCLUSION: Experience with CUPISCO has highlighted challenges with standardized screening in an international clinical trial and the difficulties in diagnosing unfavorable CUP. Reconfirmation of unfavorable CUP by an ERT in a clinical trial can result in many reasons for screen failures. By sharing this experience, we aim to foster understanding of diagnostic challenges and improve diagnostic pathology and clinical CUP algorithms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A high unmet need exists for improved treatment of cancer of unknown primary (CUP); however, study in a trial setting is faced with the significant challenge of definitively distinguishing CUP from other cancer types. This article reports the authors' experience of this challenge so far in the ongoing CUPISCO trial, which compares treatments guided by patients' unique genetic signatures versus standard chemotherapy. The data presented will aid future decision-making regarding diagnosing true CUP cases; this will have far-reaching implications in the design, execution, and interpretation of not only CUPISCO but also future clinical studies aiming to find much-needed treatment strategies.