Liquid Biopsy of Lung Cancer Before Pathological Diagnosis Is Associated With Shorter Time to Treatment.

PURPOSE: Studies have investigated the early use of liquid biopsy (LBx) during the diagnostic workup of patients presenting with clinical evidence of advanced lung cancer, but real-world adoption and impact has not been characterized. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of LBx before diagnosis (Dx; LBx-Dx) enables timely comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and shortens time until treatment initiation for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used the Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine electronic health record-derived deidentified clinicogenomic database of patients with aNSCLC from approximately 280 US cancer clinics. RESULTS: Of 1,076 patients with LBx CGP ordered within 30 days prediagnosis/postdiagnosis, we focused on 56 (5.2%) patients who ordered LBx before diagnosis date (median 8 days between order and diagnosis, range, 1-28). Compared with 1,020 patients who ordered LBx after diagnosis (Dx-LBx), LBx-Dx patients had similar stage and ctDNA tumor fraction (TF). LBx-Dx patients received CGP results a median of 1 day after Dx versus 25 days for Dx-LBx patients. Forty-three percent of LBx-Dx were positive for an National Comprehensive Cancer Network driver, and 32% had ctDNA TF >1% but were driver negative (presumed true negatives). In 748 patients with previously untreated aNSCLC, median time from Dx to therapy was shorter in the LBx-Dx versus Dx-LBx group (21 v 35 days; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Early LBx in anticipation of pathologic diagnosis of aNSCLC was uncommon in this real-world cohort, yet this emerging paradigm was associated with an abbreviated time to CGP results and faster therapy initiation. Forthcoming prospective studies will clarify the utility of LBx in parallel with biopsy for diagnostic confirmation for patients presenting with suspected advanced lung cancer.

Comprehensive genomic profiling and treatment patterns across ancestries in advanced prostate cancer: a large-scale retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Men of African ancestry experience the greatest burden of prostate cancer globally, but they are under-represented in genomic and precision medicine studies. Therefore, we sought to characterise the genomic landscape, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) utilisation patterns, and treatment patterns across ancestries in a large, diverse, advanced prostate cancer cohort, to determine the impact of genomics on ancestral disparities. METHODS: In this large-scale retrospective analysis, the CGP-based genomic landscape was evaluated in biopsy sections from 11 741 patients with prostate cancer, with ancestry inferred using a single nucleotide polymorphism-based approach. Admixture-derived ancestry fractions for each patient were also interrogated. Independently, clinical and treatment information was retrospectively reviewed for 1234 patients in a de-identified US-based clinicogenomic database. Prevalence of gene alterations, including actionable gene alterations, was assessed across ancestries (n=11 741). Furthermore, real-world treatment patterns and overall survival was assessed in the subset of patients with linked clincogenomic information (n=1234). FINDINGS: The CGP cohort included 1422 (12%) men of African ancestry and 9244 (79%) men of European ancestry; the clinicogenomic database cohort included 130 (11%) men of African ancestry and 1017 (82%) men of European ancestry. Men of African ancestry received more lines of therapy before CGP than men of European ancestry (median of two lines [IQR 0-8] vs one line [0-10], p=0·029). In genomic analyses, ancestry-specific mutational landscapes were observed, but the prevalence of alterations in AR, the DNA damage response pathway, and other actionable genes were similar across ancestries. Similar genomic landscapes were observed in analyses that accounted for admixture-derived ancestry fractions. After undergoing CGP, men of African ancestry were less likely to receive a clinical study drug compared with men of European ancestry (12 [10%] of 118 vs 246 [26%] of 938, p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Similar rates of gene alterations with therapy implications suggest that differences in actionable genes (including AR and DNA damage response pathway genes) might not be a main driver of disparities across ancestries in advanced prostate cancer. Later CGP utilisation and a lower rate of clinical trial enrolment observed in men of African ancestry could affect genomics, outcomes, and disparities. FUNDING: American Society for Radiation Oncology, Department of Defense, Flatiron Health, Foundation Medicine, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center.