Integration of Genetic Testing and Counseling in Patients With Breast Cancer in a Large, Multisite Community-Based Practice.

PURPOSE: Despite data-driven consensus recommendations, there remains significant nonadherence to genetic screening and testing. More than 300,000 patients are diagnosed with breast cancer annually, with one third of these estimated to be eligible for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)/BRCA testing following National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Only 35% of eligible patients are referred for genetic counseling. METHODS: The goal of this project was to apply NCCN guidelines for germline genetic testing to all new patients with breast cancer within a large community oncology practice to improve HRD/BRCA testing. Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology was used, and cycles were built on a proven teaching infrastructure. In cycle 1, providers were educated and directed to use electronic health record (EHR) templates in the setting of an initial diagnosis visit and treatment planning. Discreet data fields were created in the EHR during cycle 2 to streamline and automate the process. Appropriate patients were referred to the genetics team for further evaluation, counseling, and testing. Adherence to the plan was maintained and measured using data analytic reports and chart audits. RESULTS: Of the 1,203 patients with breast cancer eligible for inclusion, 1,200 (99%) were screened according to NCCN guidelines. Of the screened patients, 631 (52.5%) met the referral/testing criteria. In total, 585 (92.7%) of the 631 were referred to a genetic specialist. Seven percent had previous referrals. A total of 449 (71%) patients were acceptable to genetics referral while 136 (21.5%) patients refused. CONCLUSION: The implemented methods of education, NCCN guidelines imbedded within provider notes, and discreet data fields in the EHR have proven to be highly effective in screening appropriate patients and ordering subsequent genetic referrals.

Closing the Testing Gap: Standardization of Comprehensive Biomarker Testing for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in a Large Community Oncology Practice.

PURPOSE: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the leading cause of cancer death in the United States, accounts for 85% of all lung cancer cases. Biomarker testing is an integral part of the care of patients with NSCLC. Despite broad consensus recommendations that all patients with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) undergo comprehensive biomarker testing (comprehensive genomic profiling and PD-L1), testing rates remain suboptimal. METHODS: The primary goal of this project was to apply National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for comprehensive biomarker testing to all new patients with mNSCLC within a large community practice. Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology was used, with cycle 1 focused on provider education and the creation of a mNSCLC initial consult Note (electronic health record template/McKesson iKnowMed G2) and accompanying order set. Staging, template/order set utilization, and comprehensive biomarker testing rates were recorded while workflow processes were monitored. Cycle 2 centered on improved cancer staging, data analytic reporting, auditing, and reeducation. RESULTS: The comprehensive biomarker testing rates increased from a historic rate of 68% to 92.7% during the 1-year intervention period. The template utilization rate was 71% with complete staging (TNM stage and relevant biomarkers) documented in 40%. CONCLUSION: Implementation and standardization of comprehensive biomarker testing of patients with mNSCLC in a large multisite community-based oncology practice is feasible and results in significant improvement in comprehensive biomarker testing and reporting. Establishing reliable and measurable tracking metrics to ensure that these new processes are used and maintained can assist in scaling these processes. Efforts to scale this best practice are planned across the US Oncology Network.

Real-World Outcomes Among Crizotinib-Treated Patients with ROS1-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Community Oncology-Based Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Crizotinib was the first oral targeted therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on 11 March 2016, for c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1)-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data to support long-term clinical benefit in a real-world setting are limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess real-world clinical outcomes among patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC treated with crizotinib in the US community oncology setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using iKnowMed electronic health record data to identify adult patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC who initiated crizotinib between 17 January 2013 (time of the addition of crizotinib for ROS1-positive NSCLC to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines) and 1 June 2019 with a potential follow-up period through 1 December 2019. Patient characteristics were assessed descriptively. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to evaluate time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS). A Cox proportional hazards model was conducted to determine factors associated with OS. RESULTS: The study cohort included 38 ROS1-positive patients treated with crizotinib. The median age was 68 years (interquartile range 60.0-73.0) and 65.8% were female. Over 50% were current/former smokers, and 18.4% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2. Overall, 21 (55.3%) patients remained on crizotinib, 10 (26.3%) had evidence of subsequent treatment, and 16 (42.1%) died. The median TTD, TTNT, and OS were 25.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.2-not reached (NR)], 25.0 months (95% CI 5.2-61.0), and 36.2 months (95% CI 15.9-NR), respectively. In a multivariate Cox regression model, ECOG performance status of 2 was associated with a 4.9-fold higher risk of death (hazard ratio = 4.9; 95% CI 1.1-21.4) compared to ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. CONCLUSIONS: This ROS1-positive NSCLC real-world population was older and had a higher proportion of smokers and of patients with poorer ECOG performance status than those investigated in clinical trials. Nevertheless, our findings support the clinical benefit of crizotinib in this patient population with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC.

Sorafenib and everolimus in advanced clear cell renal carcinoma: a phase I/II trial of the SCRI Oncology Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of sorafenib and everolimus in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Patients with advanced RCC and ≤ 1 previous targeted therapy were treated. RESULTS: Maximum tolerated doses were sorafenib 200 mg PO BID, everolimus 35 mg PO once weekly. Dose-limiting toxicity was hand-foot syndrome. The response rate was 13%; median PFS was 5.45 months (95% CI: 3.8-7.6). Skin toxicity, fatigue, hypertension, proteinuria, and mucositis (usually Grade 2) were common. CONCLUSIONS: Fifty percent doses of sorafenib and everolimus were required when these drugs were combined. No increase in efficacy was suggested; toxicity was modestly increased.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial of sorafenib and erlotinib or erlotinib alone in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, has shown preliminary activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with advanced NSCLC were treated with erlotinib with or without sorafenib in this multicenter phase II trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Key eligibility criteria included the following: stage IIIB or IV NSCLC; one to two prior regimens; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2; and measurable disease. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to sorafenib (400 mg orally twice a day) plus erlotinib (150 mg orally daily) or placebo plus erlotinib and stratified by squamous/nonsquamous histology and prior bevacizumab. Treatment efficacy, measured by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR), was compared. Treatment of 168 patients allowed detection of 40% improvement in the historical PFS of 2.2 months with single-agent erlotinib. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight patients enrolled from February 2008 to February 2009. Clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar. ORRs for sorafenib/erlotinib and placebo/erlotinib were 8% and 11%, respectively (P = .56); disease control rates were 54% and 38%, respectively (P = .056). Median PFS was 3.38 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 1.94 months for placebo/erlotinib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.22; P = .196). Seventy-two patients consented to analyses of tumor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In 67 patients with EGFR wild-type (WT) tumors, median PFS was 3.38 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 1.77 months for placebo/erlotinib (P = .018); median overall survival (OS) was 8 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 4.5 months for placebo/erlotinib (P = .019). An OS advantage for sorafenib/erlotinib was suggested among 43 patients with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) EGFR-negative tumors (P = .064). Both regimens were tolerable, with modest toxicity increase with sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Although there was little difference in ORR or PFS, subset analyses in EGFR WT and EGFR FISH-negative patients suggest a benefit for the combination of erlotinib/sorafenib compared with single-agent erlotinib with respect to PFS and OS.

Randomized, open-label phase III trial of docetaxel plus high-dose calcitriol versus docetaxel plus prednisone for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus high-dose calcitriol (DN-101) to docetaxel plus prednisone in an open-label phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine hundred fifty-three men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) were randomly assigned to Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer Study of Calcitriol Enhancing Taxotere (ASCENT; 45 µg DN-101, 36 mg/m(2) docetaxel, and 24 mg dexamethasone weekly for 3 of every 4 weeks) or control (5 mg prednisone twice daily with 75 mg/m(2) docetaxel and 24 mg dexamethasone every 3 weeks) arms. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: At an interim analysis, more deaths were noted in the ASCENT arm, and the trial was halted. The median-follow-up for patients alive at last assessment was 11.7 months. Median OS was 17.8 months (95% CI, 16.0 to 19.5) in the ASCENT arm and 20.2 months (95% CI, 18.8 to 23.0) in the control arm (log-rank P = .002). Survival remained inferior after adjusting for baseline variables (hazard ratio, 1.33; P = .019). The two arms were similar in rates of total and serious adverse events. The most frequent adverse events were GI (reported in 75% of patients), and blood and lymphatic disorders (48%). Docetaxel toxicity leading to dose modification was more frequent in the ASCENT (31%) than in the control arm (15%). CONCLUSION: ASCENT treatment was associated with shorter survival than the control. This difference might be due to either weekly docetaxel dosing, which, in a prior study, showed a trend toward inferior survival compared with an every-3-weeks regimen, or DN-101 therapy.

Double-blinded randomized study of high-dose calcitriol plus docetaxel compared with placebo plus docetaxel in androgen-independent prostate cancer: a report from the ASCENT Investigators.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and activity of DN-101, a new high-dose oral formulation of calcitriol designed for cancer therapy, and docetaxel with placebo and docetaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with progressive metastatic androgen-independent prostate cancer and adequate organ function received weekly docetaxel 36 mg/m2 intravenously for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle combined with either 45 microg DN-101 or placebo taken orally 1 day before docetaxel. The primary end point was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response within 6 months of enrollment, defined as a 50% reduction confirmed at least 4 weeks later. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty patients were randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Within 6 months, PSA responses were seen in 58% in DN-101 patients and 49% in placebo patients (P = .16). Overall, PSA response rates were 63% (DN-101) and 52% (placebo), P = .07. Patients in the DN-101 group had a hazard ratio for death of 0.67 (P = .04) in a multivariate analysis that included baseline hemoglobin and performance status. Median survival has not been reached for the DN-101 arm and is estimated to be 24.5 months using the hazard ratio, compared with 16.4 months for placebo. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 58% of DN-101 patients and in 70% of placebo-treated patients (P = .07). Most common grade 3/4 toxicities for DN-101 versus placebo were neutropenia (10% v 8%), fatigue (8% v 16%), infection (8% v 13%), and hyperglycemia (6% v 12%). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that DN-101 treatment was associated with improved survival, but this will require confirmation because survival was not a primary end point. The addition of weekly DN-101 did not increase the toxicity of weekly docetaxel.