Clinical and immune responses to neoadjuvant fulvestrant with or without enzalutamide in ER+/Her2- breast cancer.

Most ER+ breast cancers (BC) express androgen receptors (AR). This randomized phase II trial of 4 months of neoadjuvant fulvestrant (Fulv) alone or with enzalutamide (Combo) assessed whether adding AR blockade to Fulv would limit residual tumor at the time of surgery, as measured by modified preoperative endocrine predictive index (PEPI) score. Eligible patients were women with ER+/HER2- primary BC cT2 or greater. Stratification factors were clinical node and T-stage. Fresh tumor biopsies were required at study entry, after 4 weeks on therapy (W5), and at surgery. Laboratory analyses on tumors included immunochemistry (IHC) for ER/PR/AR/GR and Ki67 protein, evaluation of gene expression, multiplex for myeloid lineage immune cells, reverse-phase protein array, and plasma metabolomic analyses. Of 69 consented patients, 59 were evaluable. Toxicity was as expected with endocrine therapy. Combo achieved PEPI = 0 more frequently (24%: 8/33) than Fulv (8%: 2/26). Ki67 was ≤10% across arms by W5 in 76% of tumors. Activation of mTOR pathway proteins was elevated in tumors with poor Ki67 response. Tumors in both arms showed decreased estrogen-regulated and cell division gene sets, while Combo arm tumors uniquely exhibited enrichment of immune activation gene sets, including interferon gamma, complement, inflammation, antigen processing, and B and T cell activation. Multiplex IHC showed significantly reduced tumor-associated macrophages and CD14+/HLADR-/CD68- MDSCs in Combo tumors at W5. In summary, Combo tumors showed a higher PEPI = 0 response, Ki67 response, and more activated tumor immune microenvironment than Fulv. The odds of response were 4.6-fold higher for patients with ILC versus IDC. (Trial registration: This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02955394?id=16-1042&rank=1 ). The trial registration number is NCT02955394. The full trial protocol is available under Study Details at the Clinicaltrials.gov link provided).

Risk of transfusion-related iron overload varies based on oncologic diagnosis and associated treatment: Retrospective analysis from a single pediatric cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion-related iron overload (TRIO) is a widely acknowledged late effect of antineoplastic therapy in pediatric cancer survivors, but firm guidelines as to screening protocols or at-risk populations are lacking in the literature. PROCEDURE: We performed retrospective analysis of all oncology patients diagnosed at our center from 2014 to 2019, who underwent TRIO screening as part of an internal quality improvement project. Correlations of MRI-confirmed TRIO with patient-, disease-, and treatment-specific features were evaluated. RESULTS: We show that a tiered screening algorithm for TRIO, when followed as intended, led to the identification of the highest proportion of patients with TRIO. We confirm that cardiac TRIO is quite rare in the oncology patient population. However, accepted surrogate markers including red blood cell transfused volume and ferritin only modestly correlated with TRIO in our patient cohort. Instead, we found that older age, leukemia diagnosis, anthracycline exposure, and receipt of stem cell transplant were most strongly associated with risk for TRIO. CONCLUSIONS: We describe associations between TRIO and patient, disease, and treatment characteristics in a multivariate risk model that could lead to an improved risk stratification of off-therapy patients, and which should be validated in a prospective manner.

Integrated variant allele frequency analysis pipeline and R package: easyVAF.

Somatic sequence variants are associated with cancer diagnosis, prognostic stratification, and treatment response. Variant allele frequency (VAF), the percentage of sequence reads with a specific DNA variant over the read depth at that locus, has been used as a metric to quantify mutation rates in these applications. VAF has the potential for feature detection by reflecting changes in tumor clonal composition across treatments or time points. Although there are several packages, including Genome Analysis Toolkit and VarScan, designed for variant calling and rare mutation identification, there is no readily available package for comparing VAFs among and between groups to identify loci of interest. To this end, we have developed the R package easyVAF, which includes parametric and nonparametric tests to compare VAFs among multiple groups. It is accompanied by an interactive R Shiny app. With easyVAF, the investigator has the option between three statistical tests to maximize power while maintaining an acceptable type I error rate. This paper presents our proposed pipeline for VAF analysis, from quality checking to group comparison. We evaluate our method in a wide range of simulated scenarios and show that choosing the appropriate test to limit the type I error rate is critical. For situations where data is sparse, we recommend comparing VAFs with the beta-binomial likelihood ratio test over Fisher's exact test and Pearson's χ2 test.

Comparison of first-line radiosurgery for small-cell and non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases (CROSS-FIRE).

INTRODUCTION: Historical reservations regarding stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) brain metastases include concerns for short-interval and diffuse central nervous system (CNS) progression, poor prognoses, and increased neurological mortality specific to SCLC histology. We compared SRS outcomes for SCLC and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) where SRS is well established. METHODS: Multicenter first-line SRS outcomes for SCLC and NSCLC from 2000 to 2022 were retrospectively collected (n = 892 SCLC, n = 4785 NSCLC). Data from the prospective Japanese Leksell Gamma Knife Society (JLGK0901) clinical trial of first-line SRS were analyzed as a comparison cohort (n = 98 SCLC, n = 814 NSCLC). Overall survival (OS) and CNS progression were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard and Fine-Gray models, respectively, with multivariable adjustment for cofactors including age, sex, performance status, year, extracranial disease status, and brain metastasis number and volume. Mutation-stratified analyses were performed in propensity score-matched retrospective cohorts of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positive NSCLC, mutation-negative NSCLC, and SCLC. RESULTS: OS was superior for patients with NSCLC compared to SCLC in the retrospective dataset (median OS = 10.5 vs 8.6 months; P < .001) and in the JLGK0901 dataset. Hazard estimates for first CNS progression favoring NSCLC were similar in both datasets but reached statistical significance in the retrospective dataset only (multivariable hazard ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.73 to 0.92, P = .001). In the propensity score-matched cohorts, there were continued OS advantages for NSCLC patients (median OS = 23.7 [EGFR and ALK positive NSCLC] vs 13.6 [mutation-negative NSCLC] vs 10.4 months [SCLC], pairwise P values < 0.001), but no statistically significant differences in CNS progression were observed in the matched cohorts. Neurological mortality and number of lesions at CNS progression were similar for NSCLC and SCLC patients. Leptomeningeal progression was increased in patients with NSCLC compared to SCLC in the retrospective dataset only (multivariable hazard ratio = 1.61, 95% confidence interval = 1.14 to 2.26, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: After SRS, SCLC histology was associated with shorter OS compared to NSCLC. CNS progression occurred earlier in SCLC patients overall but was similar in patients matched on baseline factors. SCLC was not associated with increased neurological mortality, number of lesions at CNS progression, or leptomeningeal progression compared to NSCLC. These findings may better inform clinical expectations and individualized decision making regarding SRS for SCLC patients.