Primary and secondary breast angiosarcoma: single center report and a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Primary and secondary breast angiosarcoma is a rare and aggressive malignancy with limited published literature. Optimal management is mostly based on expert opinion. Our study aims to describe a single institution experience with breast angiosarcoma and evaluate other publications on this topic to further clarify prognostic outcomes and treatment modalities in this disease. METHODS: Twenty two cases of breast angiosarcoma from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center were retrospectively analyzed. Additionally, a systemic review and meta-analysis was conducted to study the association between survival outcomes, overall survival (OS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in both primary (PAS) and secondary breast angiosarcoma (SAS). RESULTS: 9 PAS patients (41%) and 13 SAS patients (59%) were retrospectively analyzed. No significant differences were noted in tumor characteristics and survival outcomes between PAS and SAS. Treatment modality had no significant effects on survival outcomes although adjuvant chemotherapy demonstrated a trend towards improved RFS in high grade tumors. 380 PAS and 595 SAS patients were included in the outcome meta-analysis. Survival outcomes were significantly worse with high grade tumors and tumor size of > 5 cm. Adjuvant radiation therapy demonstrated significantly better RFS, while adjuvant chemotherapy had no effect on survival outcomes. CONCLUSION: Tumor size and grade seem to be reliable predictors of survival in both PAS and SAS. Mastectomy does not seem to be adding any additional benefit to BCS. Adjuvant radiation therapy showed statistically significant RFS benefit, while adjuvant chemotherapy can be beneficial in high grade tumors.

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.