Concurrent Tissue and Circulating Tumor DNA Molecular Profiling to Detect Guideline-Based Targeted Mutations in a Multicancer Cohort.

Importance: Tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) of solid tumors is the criterion standard for identifying somatic mutations that can be treated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-recommended targeted therapies. Sequencing of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can also identify tumor-derived mutations, and there is increasing clinical evidence supporting ctDNA testing as a diagnostic tool. The clinical value of concurrent tissue and ctDNA profiling has not been formally assessed in a large, multicancer cohort from heterogeneous clinical settings. Objective: To evaluate whether patients concurrently tested with both tissue and ctDNA NGS testing have a higher rate of detection of guideline-based targeted mutations compared with tissue testing alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised 3209 patients who underwent sequencing between May 2020, and December 2022, within the deidentified, Tempus multimodal database, consisting of linked molecular and clinical data. Included patients had stage IV disease (non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or colorectal cancer) with sufficient tissue and blood sample quantities for analysis. Exposures: Received results from tissue and plasma ctDNA genomic profiling, with biopsies and blood draws occurring within 30 days of one another. Main Outcomes and Measures: Detection rates of guideline-based variants found uniquely by ctDNA and tissue profiling. Results: The cohort of 3209 patients (median age at diagnosis of stage IV disease, 65.3 years [2.5%-97.5% range, 43.3-83.3 years]) who underwent concurrent tissue and ctDNA testing included 1693 women (52.8%). Overall, 1448 patients (45.1%) had a guideline-based variant detected. Of these patients, 9.3% (135 of 1448) had variants uniquely detected by ctDNA profiling, and 24.2% (351 of 1448) had variants uniquely detected by solid-tissue testing. Although largely concordant with one another, differences in the identification of actionable variants by either assay varied according to cancer type, gene, variant, and ctDNA burden. Of 352 patients with breast cancer, 20.2% (71 of 352) with actionable variants had unique findings in ctDNA profiling results. Most of these unique, actionable variants (55.0% [55 of 100]) were found in ESR1, resulting in a 24.7% increase (23 of 93) in the identification of patients harboring an ESR1 mutation relative to tissue testing alone. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that unique actionable biomarkers are detected by both concurrent tissue and ctDNA testing, with higher ctDNA identification among patients with breast cancer. Integration of concurrent NGS testing into the routine management of advanced solid cancers may expand the delivery of molecularly guided therapy and improve patient outcomes.

Validation of a Transcriptome-Based Assay for Classifying Cancers of Unknown Primary Origin.

INTRODUCTION: Cancers assume a variety of distinct histologies, and may originate from a myriad of sites including solid organs, hematopoietic cells, and connective tissue. Clinical decision-making based on consensus guidelines such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is often predicated on a specific histologic and anatomic diagnosis, supported by clinical features and pathologist interpretation of morphology and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining patterns. However, in patients with nonspecific morphologic and IHC findings-in addition to ambiguous clinical presentations such as recurrence versus new primary-a definitive diagnosis may not be possible, resulting in the patient being categorized as having a cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Therapeutic options and clinical outcomes are poor for patients with CUP, with a median survival of 8-11 months. METHODS: Here, we describe and validate the Tempus Tumor Origin (Tempus TO) assay, an RNA-sequencing-based machine learning classifier capable of discriminating between 68 clinically relevant cancer subtypes. Model accuracy was assessed using primary and/or metastatic samples with known subtype. RESULTS: We show that the Tempus TO model is 91% accurate when assessed on both a retrospectively held out cohort and a set of samples sequenced after model freeze that collectively contained 9210 total samples with known diagnoses. When evaluated on a cohort of CUPs, the model recapitulated established associations between genomic alterations and cancer subtype. DISCUSSION: Combining diagnostic prediction tests (e.g., Tempus TO) with sequencing-based variant reporting (e.g., Tempus xT) may expand therapeutic options for patients with cancers of unknown primary or uncertain histology.