Molecular response assessment using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in advanced solid tumors.

The therapeutic landscape for patients with advanced malignancies has changed dramatically over the last twenty years. The growing number of targeted therapies and immunotherapeutic options available have improved response rates and survival for a subset of patients, however determining which patients will experience clinical benefit from these therapies in order to avoid potential toxicities and reduce healthcare costs remains a clinical challenge. Cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is shed by tumor cells into systemic circulation and is already an integral part of routine clinical practice for the non-invasive tumor genotyping in advanced non-small cell lung cancer as well as other malignancies. The short half-life of ctDNA offers a unique opportunity to utilize early on-treatment changes in ctDNA for real-time assessment of therapeutic response and outcome, termed molecular response. Here, we provide a summary and review of the use of molecular response for the prediction of outcomes in patients with advanced cancer, including the current state of science, its application in clinic, and next steps for the development of this predictive tool.

Association Between Availability of Molecular Genotyping Results and Overall Survival in Patients With Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Current guidelines recommend molecular genotyping for patients newly diagnosed with metastatic nonsquamous (mNSq) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The association between availability of molecular genotyping before first line (1L) therapy and overall survival (OS) is not known. METHODS: We conducted a real-world cohort study using electronic health records in patients newly diagnosed with mNSq NSCLC. Cox proportional-hazards multivariable regression models were constructed to examine the association between OS and test result availability before 1L therapy, adjusting for covariates. Additional analyses were conducted to assess the consistency and strength of the relationship. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between concurrent tissue and plasma testing (v tissue alone) and result availability. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-six patients were included, 80% (261/326) with results available before 1L (available testing group), and 20% (65/326) without results available (unavailable testing group). With 14.2-month median follow-up, patients in the available testing group had significantly longer OS relative to the unavailable testing group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.62; P < .0001). The adjusted odds of availability of results before 1L therapy was higher with concurrent tissue and plasma testing (v tissue testing alone; adjusted odds ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.90; P = .026). CONCLUSION: Among patients with mNSq NSCLC in a real-world cohort, availability of molecular genotyping results before 1L therapy was associated with significantly better OS. Concurrent tissue and plasma testing was associated with a higher odds of availability of results before 1L therapy. These findings warrant renewed attention to the completion of molecular genotyping before 1L therapy.

Efficacy of Osimertinib in Patients with Lung Cancer Positive for Uncommon EGFR Exon 19 Deletion Mutations.

PURPOSE: The uncommon EGFR exon 19 deletion (ex19del), L747_A750>P, demonstrates reduced sensitivity to osimertinib compared with the common ex19del, E746_A750del in preclinical models. The clinical efficacy of osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring L747_A750>P and other uncommon ex19dels is not known. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The AACR GENIE database was interrogated to characterize the frequency of individual ex19dels relative to other variants, and a multicenter retrospective cohort was used to compare clinical outcomes for patients with tumors harboring E746_A750del, L747_A750>P, and other uncommon ex19dels who received osimertinib in the first line (1L) or in second or later lines of therapy and were T790M+ (≥2L). RESULTS: ex19dels comprised 45% of EGFR mutations, with 72 distinct variants ranging in frequency from 28.1% (E746_A750del) to 0.03%, with L747_A750>P representing 1.8% of the EGFR mutant cohort. In our multi-institutional cohort (N = 200), E746_A750del was associated with significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with 1L osimertinib versus L747_A750>P [median 21.3 months (95% confidence interval, 17.0-31.7) vs. 11.7 months (10.8-29.4); adjusted HR 0.52 (0.28-0.98); P = 0.043]. Osimertinib efficacy in patients with other uncommon ex19dels varied on the basis of the specific mutation present. CONCLUSIONS: The ex19del L747_A750>P is associated with inferior PFS compared with the common E746_A750del mutation in patients treated with 1L osimertinib. Understanding differences in osimertinib efficacy among EGFR ex19del subtypes could alter management of these patients in the future.