Oncologist uptake of comprehensive genomic profile guided targeted therapy.

We describe the extent to which comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) results were used by oncologists to guide targeted therapy selection in a cohort of solid tumor patients tested as part of standard care at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center June 2016-June 2017, with adequate follow up through September 2018 (n = 620). Overall, 28.4% of CGP tests advised physicians about targeted therapy use supported by companion diagnostic or practice guideline evidence. Post-test targeted therapy uptake was highest for patients in active treatment at the time of order (86% versus 76% of treatment naïve patients), but also took longer to initiate (median 50 days versus 7 days for treatment naïve patients), with few patients (2.6%) receiving targeted agents prior to testing. 100% of patients with resistance variants did not receive targeted agents. Treatment naïve patients received immunotherapy as the most common alternative. When targeted therapy given off-label or in a trial was the best CGP option, (7%) of patients received it. Our data illustrate the appropriate and heterogeneous use of CGP by oncologists as a longitudinal treatment decision tool based on patient history and treatment needs, and that some patients may benefit from testing prior to initiation of other standard treatments.

Treatment recommendations to cancer patients in the context of FDA guidance for next generation sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory approval of next generation sequencing (NGS) by the FDA is advancing the use of genomic-based precision medicine for the therapeutic management of cancer as standard care. Recent FDA guidance for the classification of genomic variants based on clinical evidence to aid clinicians in understanding the actionability of identified variants provided by comprehensive NGS panels has also been set forth. In this retrospective analysis, we interpreted and applied the FDA variant classification guidance to comprehensive NGS testing performed for advanced cancer patients and assessed oncologist agreement with NGS test treatment recommendations. METHODS: NGS comprehensive genomic profiling was performed in a CLIA certified lab (657 completed tests for 646 patients treated at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center) between June 2016 and June 2017. Physician treatment recommendations made within 120 days post-test were gathered from tested patients' medical records and classified as targeted therapy, precision medicine clinical trial, immunotherapy, hormonal therapy, chemotherapy/radiation, surgery, transplant, or non-therapeutic (hospice, surveillance, or palliative care). Agreement between NGS test report targeted therapy recommendations based on the FDA variant classification and physician targeted therapy treatment recommendations were evaluated. RESULTS: Excluding variants contraindicating targeted therapy (i.e., KRAS or NRAS mutations), at least one variant with FDA level 1 companion diagnostic supporting evidence as the most actionable was identified in 14% of tests, with physicians most frequently recommending targeted therapy (48%) for patients with these results. This stands in contrast to physicians recommending targeted therapy based on test results with FDA level 2 (practice guideline) or FDA level 3 (clinical trial or off label) evidence as the most actionable result (11 and 4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found an appropriate "dose-response" relationship between the strength of clinical evidence supporting biomarker-directed targeted therapy based on application of FDA guidance for NGS test variant classification, and subsequent treatment recommendations made by treating physicians. In view of recent changes at FDA, it is paramount to define regulatory grounds and medical policy coverage for NGS testing based on this guidance.

Pretreatment serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and breast cancer prognostic characteristics: a case-control and a case-series study.

BACKGROUND: Results from epidemiologic studies on the relationship between vitamin D and breast cancer risk are inconclusive. It is possible that vitamin D may be effective in reducing risk only of specific subtypes due to disease heterogeneity. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In case-control and case-series analyses, we examined serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) in relation to breast cancer prognostic characteristics, including histologic grade, estrogen receptor (ER), and molecular subtypes defined by ER, progesterone receptor (PR) and HER2, among 579 women with incident breast cancer and 574 controls matched on age and time of blood draw enrolled in the Roswell Park Cancer Institute from 2003 to 2008. We found that breast cancer cases had significantly lower 25OHD concentrations than controls (adjusted mean, 22.8 versus 26.2 ng/mL, p<0.001). Among premenopausal women, 25OHD concentrations were lower in those with high- versus low-grade tumors, and ER negative versus ER positive tumors (p≤0.03). Levels were lowest among women with triple-negative cancer (17.5 ng/mL), significantly different from those with luminal A cancer (24.5 ng/mL, p = 0.002). In case-control analyses, premenopausal women with 25OHD concentrations above the median had significantly lower odds of having triple-negative cancer (OR = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.08-0.53) than those with levels below the median; and every 10 ng/mL increase in serum 25OHD concentrations was associated with a 64% lower odds of having triple-negative cancer (OR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.22-0.56). The differential associations by tumor subtypes among premenopausal women were confirmed in case-series analyses. CONCLUSION: In our analyses, higher serum levels of 25OHD were associated with reduced risk of breast cancer, with associations strongest for high grade, ER negative or triple negative cancers in premenopausal women. With further confirmation in large prospective studies, these findings could warrant vitamin D supplementation for reducing breast cancer risk, particularly those with poor prognostic characteristics among premenopausal women.

Association between global DNA hypomethylation in leukocytes and risk of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Global DNA hypomethylation may result in chromosomal instability and oncogene activation, and as a surrogate of systemic methylation activity, may be associated with breast cancer risk. METHODS: Samples and data were obtained from women with incident early-stage breast cancer (I-IIIa) and women who were cancer free, frequency matched on age and race. In preliminary analyses, genomic methylation of leukocyte DNA was determined by measuring 5-methyldeoxycytosine (5-mdC), as well as methylation analysis of the LINE-1-repetitive DNA element. Further analyses used only 5-mdC levels. Logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for risk of breast cancer in relation to amounts of methylation. RESULTS: In a subset of samples tested (n = 37), 5-mdC level was not correlated with LINE-1 methylation. 5-mdC level in leukocyte DNA was significantly lower in breast cancer cases than healthy controls (P = 0.001), but no significant case-control differences were observed with LINE-1 methylation (P = 0.176). In the entire data set, we noted significant differences in 5-mdC levels in leukocytes between cases (n = 176) and controls (n = 173); P value < 0.001. Compared with women in the highest 5-mdC tertile (T3), women in the second (T2; OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 0.84-2.65) and lowest tertile (T1; OR = 2.86, 95% CI = 1.65-4.94) had higher risk of breast cancer (P for trend < or = 0.001). Among controls only and cases and controls combined, only alcohol intake was found to be inversely associated with methylation levels. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that leukocyte DNA hypomethylation is independently associated with development of breast cancer.