The evolving landscape of tissue-agnostic therapies in precision oncology.

Tumor-agnostic therapies represent a paradigm shift in oncology by altering the traditional means of characterizing tumors based on their origin or location. Instead, they zero in on specific genetic anomalies responsible for fueling malignant growth. The watershed moment for tumor-agnostic therapies arrived in 2017, with the US Food and Drug Administration's historic approval of pembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor. This milestone marked the marriage of genomics and immunology fields, as an immunotherapeutic agent gained approval based on genomic biomarkers, specifically, microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR). Subsequently, the approval of NTRK inhibitors, designed to combat NTRK gene fusions prevalent in various tumor types, including pediatric cancers and adult solid tumors, further underscored the potential of tumor-agnostic therapies. The US Food and Drug Administration approvals of targeted therapies (BRAF V600E, RET fusion), immunotherapies (tumor mutational burden ≥10 mutations per megabase, dMMR) and an antibody-drug conjugate (Her2-positive-immunohistochemistry 3+ expression) with pan-cancer efficacy have continued, offering newfound hope to patients grappling with advanced solid tumors that harbor particular biomarkers. In this comprehensive review, the authors delve into the expansive landscape of tissue-agnostic targets and drugs, shedding light on the rationale underpinning this approach, the hurdles it faces, presently approved therapies, voices from the patient advocacy perspective, and the tantalizing prospects on the horizon. This is a welcome advance in oncology that transcends the boundaries of histology and location to provide personalized options.

Evolving assessment pathways for precision oncology medicines to improve patient access: a tumor-agnostic lens.

BACKGROUND: Genomic and molecular alterations are increasingly important in cancer diagnosis, and scientific advances are opening new treatment avenues. Precision oncology (PO) uses a patient's genomic profile to determine optimal treatment, promising fewer side effects and higher success rates. Within PO, tumor-agnostic (TA) therapies target genomic alterations irrespective of tumor location. However, traditional value frameworks and approval pathways pose challenges which may limit patient access to PO therapies. OBJECTIVES: This study describes challenges in assessing PO and TA medicines, explores possible solutions, and provides actionable recommendations to facilitate an iterative life-cycle assessment of these medicines. METHODS: After reviewing the published literature, we obtained insights from key stakeholders and European experts across a range of disciplines, through individual interviews and an industry workshop. The research was guided and refined by an international expert committee through 2 sounding board meetings. RESULTS: The current challenges faced by PO and TA medicines are multiple and can be demonstrated through real-world examples of the current barriers and opportunities. A life-cycle approach to assessment should be taken, including key actions at the early stages of evidence generation, regulatory and reimbursement stage, as well as payment and adoption solutions that make use of the evolving evidence base. Working toward these solutions to maximize PO medicine value is a shared responsibility and stands to benefit all stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Our call to action is to expand access to comprehensive genomic testing, foster a learning health care system, enable fast and equitable access to cost-effective treatments, and ultimately improve health outcomes.

Tackling Challenges in Assessing the Economic Value of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab as a Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing the value of tumor-agnostic drugs (TAD) is challenging given the potential variability in treatment effects, trials with small sample sizes, different standards of care (SoC), and lack of comparative data from single-arm basket trials. Our study developed and applied novel methods to assess the value of pembrolizumab compared with SoC to inform coverage decisions. METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the cost-utility of pembrolizumab for previously treated patients with 8 advanced or metastatic microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient cancers from a US commercial payer perspective. Efficacy of pembrolizumab was based on data from trials directly or with adjustment using Bayesian hierarchical models. Eight chemotherapy-based external control arms were constructed from the TriNetX electronic health record databases. Tumor-specific health-state utility values were applied. All costs were adjusted to 2022 US dollars. RESULTS: At a lifetime horizon, pembrolizumab was associated with increased effectiveness compared with chemotherapies in colorectal (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]: +0.64, life years [LYs]: +0.64), endometrial (QALYs: +3.79, LYs: +5.47), and small intestine cancers (QALYs: +1.73, LYs: +2.48), but not for patients with metastatic gastric, cholangiocarcinoma, pancreatic, ovarian, and brain cancers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied substantially across tumor types. Pembrolizumab was found to be cost-effective in treating colorectal and endometrial cancers (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: $121 967 and $139 257, respectively), and not cost-effective for other assessed cancers at a $150 000 willingness-to-pay/QALY threshold, compared with SoC chemotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of TADs can vary by cancers. Using analytic tools such as external controls and Bayesian hierarchical models can tackle several challenges in assessing the value of TADs and uncertainties from basket trials.

Use of pembrolizumab among older adults with cancer in the United States, before and after FDA approval of its tumor-agnostic indication.

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab, an anticancer immunotherapy agent, has received multiple approvals since its first approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014. Limited data exist on its real-world use and shifts post tumor-agnostic approval in 2017 for the treatment of patients with any microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) solid tumors. This study analyzes pembrolizumab's pre and post-tumor-agnostic approval use among older U.S. adults, revealing its evolving role in oncology practice. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data (2014-2019), we examined the cancer sites of pembrolizumab recipients before and after tumor-agnostic approval. Cancer sites were classified based on the timing of site-specific approvals (before/after tumor-agnostic approval) or no site-specific approval, and inclusion in MSI-H/dMMR clinical trials. RESULTS: The total number of pembrolizumab recipients increased from 4221 in the pre-agnostic period to 20 479 in the post-agnostic period. Pembrolizumab was used for a broad range of cancer types, including cancers that had no FDA-approved site-specific indications at the time of use (25.8% in pre- and 24.6% in post-agnostic periods). The proportion of pembrolizumab recipients receiving pembrolizumab for cancers with site-specific approvals before tumor-agnostic approval decreased from 77.3% to 70.8%. The proportion of pembrolizumab recipients receiving pembrolizumab for cancers that gained site-specific approvals following tumor-agnostic approval almost doubled (6.8% to 13.0%). The proportion of pembrolizumab recipients with cancers included in MSI-H/dMMR trials also doubled (12.3% to 25.5%) following tumor-agnostic approval. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab use has expanded over time among older adults with cancer, extending beyond those with FDA-approved site-specific indications.

Molecular Targeting of the BRAF Proto-Oncogene/Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) Pathway across Cancers.

The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway is essential for cellular proliferation, growth, and survival. Constitutive activation of this pathway by BRAF mutations can cause downstream activation of kinases, leading to uncontrolled cellular growth and carcinogenesis. Therefore, inhibition of BRAF and the downstream substrate MEK has been shown to be effective in controlling tumor growth and proliferation. Over the last decade, several BRAF and MEK inhibitors have been investigated, ranging from primarily melanoma to various cancer types with BRAF alterations. This subsequently led to several Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for BRAF/MEK inhibitors for melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, anaplastic thyroid cancer, colorectal cancer, histiocytosis neoplasms, and finally, tumor-agnostic indications. Here, this comprehensive review will cover the developments of BRAF and MEK inhibitors from melanomas to tumor-agnostic indications, novel drugs, challenges, future directions, and the importance of those drugs in personalized medicine.

[Expectations and challenges for clinical application of cancer genome panels in acute myeloid leukemia].

The blood cancer field has played a pioneering role in advancing precision medicine, with milestones such as development of ABL1 inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukemia. The significance of gene mutation information in AML treatment has increased, evident in classifications and guidelines from organizations such as WHO and ELN. This article examines the anticipated roles of cancer genome panels (CGPs) in AML treatment from three perspectives: diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment selection. Use of CGPs enables more accurate diagnosis and risk stratification. In treatment selection, CGPs not only complements but also substitutes existing companion diagnostics, and is expected to be a crucial information source for future drug adoption and investigation of tumor-agnostic therapies. However, various challenges remain to be addressed, including the purpose and timing of CGPs, the time required for the tests, and how to utilize expert panels.

ProTarget: a Danish Nationwide Clinical Trial on Targeted Cancer Treatment based on genomic profiling - a national, phase 2, prospective, multi-drug, non-randomized, open-label basket trial.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of trials indicate that treatment outcomes in cancer patients with metastatic disease are improved when targeted treatments are matched with druggable genomic alterations in individual patients (pts). An estimated 30-80% of advanced solid tumors harbor actionable genomic alterations. However, the efficacy of personalized cancer treatment is still scarcely investigated in larger, controlled trials due to the low frequency and heterogenous distribution of druggable alterations among different histologic tumor types. Therefore, the overall effect of targeted cancer treatment on clinical outcomes still needs investigation. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: ProTarget is a national, non-randomized, multi-drug, open-label, pan-cancer phase 2 trial aiming to investigate the anti-tumor activity and toxicity of currently 13 commercially available, EMA-approved targeted therapies outside the labeled indication for treatment of advanced malignant diseases, harboring specific actionable genomic alterations. The trial involves the Danish National Molecular Tumor Board for confirmation of drug-variant matches. Key inclusion criteria include a) measurable disease (RECIST v.1.1), b) ECOG performance status 0-2, and c) an actionable genomic alteration matching one of the study drugs. Key exclusion criteria include a) cancer type within the EMA-approved label of the selected drug, and b) genomic alterations known to confer drug resistance. Initial drug dose, schedule and dose modifications are according to the EMA-approved label. The primary endpoint is objective response or stable disease at 16 weeks. Pts are assigned to cohorts defined by the selected drug, genomic alteration, and tumor histology type. Cohorts are monitored according to a Simon's two-stage-based design. Response is assessed every 8 weeks for the first 24 weeks, then every 12 weeks. The trial is designed similar to the Dutch DRUP and the ASCO TAPUR trials and is a partner in the Nordic Precision Cancer Medicine Trial Network. In ProTarget, serial fresh tumor and liquid biopsies are mandatory and collected for extensive translational research including whole genome sequencing, array analysis, and RNA sequencing. DISCUSSION: The ProTarget trial will identify new predictive biomarkers for targeted treatments and provide new data and essential insights in molecular pathways involved in e.g., resistance mechanisms and thereby potentially evolve and expand the personalized cancer treatment strategy. PROTOCOL VERSION: 16, 09-MAY-2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04341181. Secondary Identifying No: ML41742. EudraCT No: 2019-004771-40.

Challenges and Solutions for the Benefit Assessment of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: Precision medicine is increasingly important in cancer treatment. Tumor-agnostic therapies are used regardless of tumor entity because they target specific biomarkers in tumors. In Germany, the benefit assessment of oncological pharmaceuticals has traditionally been entity specific. Thus, the assessment of tumor-agnostic therapies leaves stakeholders with various challenges. Our aim was to systematically identify challenges and possible solutions for the benefit assessment of therapies in tumor-agnostic indications using a 2-step sequential qualitative approach. METHODS: To identify relevant challenges, we conducted qualitative interviews with different stakeholders who were involved in previous benefit assessments of tumor-agnostic therapies in Germany. To identify possible solutions for these challenges, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the websites of European health technology assessment bodies for relevant literature. RESULTS: We identified 9 categories of challenges of which the following were deemed particularly relevant: the absence of direct comparative studies, challenges regarding the use of basket studies and indirect comparisons, challenges in determining the appropriate comparative therapy in a tumor-agnostic indication, and challenges on the system side. Seven categories of solutions were identified, including an increased use of real-world evidence, making conditional decisions in the context of systematic reassessments, splitting the field of application, and finding (new) ways to design and analyze basket studies. CONCLUSION: A range of possible solutions, which can help to meet the identified challenges in Germany, have been found. Future research should investigate the acceptance and feasibility of these solutions.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treating Patients With NTRK-Positive Cancer With the Histology-Independent Therapy Entrectinib.

OBJECTIVES: This study tackles several challenges of evaluating histology-independent treatments using entrectinib as an example. Histology-independent treatments are provided based on genetic marker(s) of tumors, regardless of the tumor type. We evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of testing all patients for NTRK fusions and treating the positive cases with entrectinib compared with no testing and standard of care (SoC) for all patients. METHODS: The health economic model consisted of a decision tree reflecting the NTRK testing phase followed by a microsimulation model reflecting treatment with either entrectinib or SoC. Efficacy of entrectinib was based on data from basket trials, whereas historical data from NTRK-negative patients were corrected for the prognostic value of NTRK fusions to model SoC. RESULTS: "Testing" (testing for NTRK fusions, with subsequent entrectinib treatment in NTRK-positive patients and SoC in NTRK-negative patients) had higher per-patient quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs than "No testing" (SoC for all patients), with a difference of 0.0043 and €732, respectively. This corresponded to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €169 957/QALY and, using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €80 000/QALY, an incremental net monetary benefit of -€388. When excluding the costs of genetic testing for NTRK fusions, the ICER was reduced to €36 290/QALY and the incremental net monetary benefit increased to €188. CONCLUSIONS: When treatment requires the identification of a genetic marker, the associated costs and effects need to be accounted for. Because of the low prevalence of NTRK fusions, the number needed-to-test to identify patients eligible for entrectinib is large. Excluding the testing phase reduces the ICER substantially.

Toward Best Practices for Economic Evaluations of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Review of Current Barriers and Solutions.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer therapies targeting tumor-agnostic biomarkers are challenging traditional health technology assessment (HTA) frameworks. The high prevalence of nonrandomized single-arm trials, heterogeneity, and small benefiting populations are driving outcomes uncertainty, challenging healthcare decision making. We conducted a structured literature review to identify barriers and prioritize solutions to generating economic evidence for tumor-agnostic therapies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase for English-language studies conducting economic evaluations of tumor-agnostic treatments or exploring related challenges and solutions. We included studies published by December 2022 and supplemented our review with Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence technical reports for approved tumor-agnostic therapies. Three reviewers abstracted and summarized key methodological and empirical study characteristics. Challenges and solutions were identified through authors' statements and categorized using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. Studies spanned economic evaluations (n = 5), reimbursement reviews (n = 4), qualitative research (n = 1), methods validations (n = 3), and commentaries or literature reviews (n = 13). Challenges encountered related to (1) the treatment setting and clinical trial designs, (2) a lack of data or low-quality data on clinical and cost parameters, and (3) an inability to produce evidence that meets HTA guidelines. Although attempted solutions centered on analytic approaches for managing missing data, proposed solutions highlighted the need for real-world evidence combined with life-cycle HTA to reduce future evidentiary uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic innovation outpaces HTA evidence generation and the methods that support it. Existing HTA frameworks must be adapted for tumor-agnostic treatments to support future economic evaluations enabling timely patient access.

Comparison of tumor-agnostic and tumor-specific clinical oncology trial designs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim: To examine whether tumor-specific and tumor-agnostic oncology trials produce comparable estimates of objective response rate (ORR) in BRAF-altered cancers. Materials & methods: Electronic database searches were performed to identify phase I-III clinical trials testing tyrosine kinase inhibitors from 2000 to 2021. A random-effects model was used to pool ORRs. A total of 22 cohorts from five tumor-agnostic trials and 41 cohorts from 27 tumor-specific trials had published ORRs. Results: There was no significant difference between pooled ORRs from either trial design for multitumor analyses (37 vs 50%; p = 0.05); thyroid cancer (57 vs 33%; p = 0.10); non-small-cell lung cancer (39 vs 53%; p = 0.18); or melanoma (55 vs 51%; p = 0.58). Conclusion: For BRAF-altered advanced cancers, tumor-agnostic trials do not yield substantially different results from tumor-specific trials.

Two types of studies were sought, including studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive medicine based on the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-specific studies; and studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive cancer medicine regardless of the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-agnostic studies. From the studies found, only the studies that tested a specific type of cancer medicine (called tyrosine kinase inhibitors) on cancers with a specific genetic alteration (called BRAF-altered cancers) were identified. These studies were included in the analysis. The goal of the analysis was to determine if the two types of studies gave similar estimates of response rate, which is a type of trial outcome that measures whether the cancer shrinks or disappears. To do this, the results from the tumor-specific studies were combined with the results of the tumor-agnostic studies. No meaningful differences in the results from the tumor-specific studies compared with the tumor-agnostic studies were found. This suggests that tumor-specific studies do not yield very different results from tumor-agnostic studies.

Japanese Society of Medical Oncology/Japan Society of Clinical Oncology/Japanese Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology-led clinical recommendations on the diagnosis and use of tropomyosin receptor kinase inhibitors in adult and pediatric patients with neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase fusion-positive advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have reported the efficacy of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors against neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase (NTRK) fusion gene-positive advanced solid tumors. The accumulated evidence of tumor-agnostic agent has made since TRK inhibitors were approved and used in clinical practice. Therefore, we have revised the 'Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO)/Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO)-led clinical recommendations on the diagnosis and use of tropomyosin receptor kinase inhibitors in adult and pediatric patients with neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase fusion-positive advanced solid tumors, cooperated by the Japanese Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (JSPHO)'. METHODS: Clinical questions regarding medical care were formulated for patients with NTRK fusion-positive advanced solid tumors. Relevant publications were searched by PubMed and Cochrane Database. Critical publications and conference reports were added manually. Systematic reviews were performed for each clinical question for the purpose of developing clinical recommendations. The committee members identified by JSCO, JSMO, and JSPHO voted to determine the level of each recommendation considering the strength of evidence, expected risks and benefits to patients, and other related factors. Thereafter, a peer review by experts nominated from JSCO, JSMO, and JSPHO, and the public comments among all societies' members was done. RESULTS: The current guideline describes 3 clinical questions and 14 recommendations for whom, when, and how NTRK fusion should be tested, and what is recommended for patients with NTRK fusion-positive advanced solid tumors. CONCLUSION: The committee proposed 14 recommendations for performing NTRK testing properly to select patients who are likely to benefit from TRK inhibitors.

Pembrolizumab in microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient cancers: updated analysis from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab demonstrated durable antitumor activity in 233 patients with previously treated advanced microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) advanced solid tumors in the phase II multicohort KEYNOTE-158 (NCT02628067) study. Herein, we report safety and efficacy outcomes with longer follow-up for more patients with previously treated advanced MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancers who were included in cohort K of the KEYNOTE-158 (NCT02628067) study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with previously treated advanced noncolorectal MSI-H/dMMR solid tumors, measurable disease as per RECIST v1.1, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST v1.1 by independent central radiologic review. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-one patients with various tumor types were enrolled in KEYNOTE-158 cohort K. The most common tumor types were endometrial (22.5%), gastric (14.5%), and small intestine (7.4%). Median time from first dose to database cut-off (5 October 2020) was 37.5 months (range, 0.2-55.6 months). ORR among 321 patients in the efficacy population (patients who received ≥1 dose of pembrolizumab enrolled ≥6 months before the data cut-off date) was 30.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 25.8% to 36.2%]. Median duration of response was 47.5 months (range, 2.1+ to 51.1+ months; '+' indicates no progressive disease by the time of last disease assessment). Median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (95% CI 2.3-4.2 months) and median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI 14.1-27.1 months). Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 227 patients (64.7%). Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 39 patients (11.1%); 3 (0.9%) had grade 5 treatment-related AEs (myocarditis, pneumonia, and Guillain-Barre syndrome, n = 1 each). CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable benefit, with a high ORR of 30.8%, long median duration of response of 47.5 months, and manageable safety across a range of heavily pretreated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancers, providing support for use of pembrolizumab in this setting.

Estimating Long-Term Survival Outcomes for Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: Larotrectinib Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Larotrectinib is a precision oncology treatment for solid tumors with neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions. Larotrectinib efficacy has been evaluated in single-arm basket trials with limited follow-up and sample sizes at the initial regulatory approval due to the rarity of solid tumors with NTRK gene fusion. OBJECTIVES: We aim to demonstrate that trends in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in survival data with longer follow-up may be predicted from long-term survival estimates from survival data with shorter follow-up, including predictions for median survival when it is not observed in the trial. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from 3 clinical trials (NCT02122913, NCT02576431, and NCT02637687) using the 2018 and 2020 data cuts for the same subset of pediatric and adult patients. The Weibull distribution was selected for survival models. Survival predictions using 2018 data were compared to 2020 Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients representing 15 tumor types were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 37 years. When comparing PFS from the 2018 survival prediction to observed 2020 KM data, the 12-month PFS rate was identical (66.6%). The 36-month PFS rate was lower for the 2018 prediction (35.3%) compared to 2020 KM data (44.4%). The median OS had not yet been reached in either data cut but was predicted to be 90 months using the 2018 data. When comparing OS from the 2018 survival prediction to the observed 2020 KM data, the 12-month OS rate was 89.0% and 86.6% and the 48-month OS rate was 67.2% and 63.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Long-term PFS predictions deviated from observed PFS rates due to response differences across tumor types and heavy censoring towards the end of the survival curve. However, for OS, the 48-month survival prediction was consistent with the observed 2020 KM estimate.

IMAGENE trial: multicenter, proof-of-concept, phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of niraparib with PD-1 inhibitor in solid cancer patients with homologous recombination repair genes mutation.

BACKGROUND: Previous clinical trials have demonstrated the potential efficacy of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPis) in patients with cancer involving homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutation. Moreover, HRR gene-mutated cancers are effectively treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with the increase in tumor mutation burden. We have proposed to conduct a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial (IMAGENE trial) for evaluating the efficacy and safety of niraparib (PARPi) plus programmed cell death-1 inhibitor combination therapy in patients with HRR gene-mutated cancers who are refractory to ICIs therapy using a next generation sequencing-based circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and tumor tissue analysis. METHODS: Key eligibility criteria for this trial includes HRR gene-mutated tumor determined by any cancer gene tests; progression after previous ICI treatment; and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≤ 1. The primary endpoint is the confirmed objective response rate (ORR) in all patients. The secondary endpoints include the confirmed ORR in patients with HRR gene-mutation of ctDNA using the Caris Assure (CARIS, USA). The target sample size of the IMAGENE trial is 57 patients. Biomarker analyses will be performed in parallel using the Caris Assure, proteome analysis, and T cell repertoire analysis to reveal tumor immunosurveillance in peripheral blood. EXPECTED OUTCOME: Our trial aims to confirm the clinical benefit of PARPi plus ICI combination therapy in ICI-resistant patients. Furthermore, through translational research, our trial will shed light on which patients would benefit from the targeted combination therapy for patients with HRR gene-mutated tumor even after the failure of ICIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The IMAGENE trial: jRCT, Clinical trial no.: jRCT2051210120, Registered date: November 9, 2021.

Comparison of Alternative Methods to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Triangulation Approach Using Larotrectinib as a Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to investigate the economic value of tumor-agnostic therapies when only single-arm effectiveness data are available at launch by applying multiple methodologies to establish comparative effectiveness. METHODS: In the absence of direct comparative data, 3 methods were used to estimate the counterfactual: (1) a historical control based on a systematic literature review for each tumor site from the larotrectinib trials, (2) an intracohort comparison using the previous line of therapy time to progression from larotrectinib trials, and (3) a nonresponder control that applied outcomes for larotrectinib nonresponders. Cost-effectiveness was modeled using the partitioned survival approach. Stochastic parameter uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). A triangulated estimate of the mean cost-effectiveness result was generated combining all 3 counterfactual estimates. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were similar across the 3 methodologies in the deterministic analysis ranging from £83 868 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] £65 698-£107 668) to £104 922 per quality-adjusted life-year (95% UI £80 132-£139 658). PSA results for each method substantially overlapped when plotted on the cost-effectiveness plane. Weighting PSA results for each method equally in the triangulation method produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £95 587 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% UI £70 449-£137 431). CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of direct comparative data, different methods of estimating a counterfactual are possible, each with strengths and limitations. Triangulating results across the methods provides a composite view of the total uncertainty and a more consistent estimation of the cost-effectiveness of the tumor-agnostic intervention compared with choosing a single method.

Bayesian basket trial design with false-discovery rate control.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in developing "tumor agnostic" oncology therapies have identified molecular targets that define patient subpopulations in a manner that supersedes conventional criteria for cancer classification. These successes have produced effective targeted therapies that are administered to patients regardless of their tumor histology. Trials have evolved as well with master protocol designs. By blending translational and clinical science, basket trials in particular are well-suited to investigate and develop targeted therapies among multiple cancer histologies. However, basket trials intrinsically involve more complex design decisions, including issues of multiple testing across baskets, and guidance for investigators is needed. METHODS: The sensitivity of the multisource exchangeability model to prior specification under differing degrees of response heterogeneity is explored through simulation. Then, a multisource exchangeability model design that incorporates control of the false-discovery rate is presented and a simulation study compares the operating characteristics to a design where the family-wise error rate is controlled and to the frequentist approach of treating the baskets as independent. Simulations are based on the original design of a real-world clinical trial, the SUMMIT trial, which investigated Neratinib treatment for a variety of solid tumors. The methods studied here are specific to single-arm phase II trials with binary outcomes. RESULTS: Values of prior probability of exchangeability in the multisource exchangeability model between 0.1 and 0.3 provide the best trade-offs between gain in precision and bias, especially when per-basket sample size is below 30. Application of these calibration results to a re-analysis of the SUMMIT trial showed that the breast basket exceeded the null response rate with posterior probability of 0.999 while having low posterior probability of exchangeability with all other baskets. Simulations based on the design of the SUMMIT trial revealed that there is meaningful improvement in power even in baskets with small sample size when the false-discovery rate is controlled as opposed to the family-wise error rate. For example, when only the breast basket was active, with a sample size of 25, the power was 0.76 when the false-discovery rate was controlled at 0.05 but only 0.56 when the family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05, indicating that impractical sample sizes for the phase II setting would be needed to achieve acceptable power while controlling the family-wise error rate in this setting of a trial with 10 baskets. CONCLUSION: Selection of the prior exchangeability probability based on calibration and incorporation of false-discovery rate control result in multisource exchangeability model designs with high power to detect promising treatments in the context of phase II basket trials.

Larotrectinib Response in NTRK3 Fusion-Driven Diffuse High-Grade Glioma.

High-grade glioma (HGG) and glioblastoma are the most common adult malignant brain tumors. The standard treatment consists of surgical resection followed by radiochemotherapy with temozolomide. The prognosis and the therapeutic options of these malignant brain tumors however are limited. Here, we describe a case of a patient with HGG with a previously unknown NTRK3 fusion that showed an extraordinary response to treatment with larotrectinib. This case supports regular testing for NTRK fusion proteins.

NTRK gene fusions in solid tumors: agnostic relevance, prevalence and diagnostic strategies.

A number of innovative drugs, developed for precision medicine, have shown impressive activity in neoplastic patients with rare molecular targets, independently from the site and type of tumor. This gave rise to the concept of agnostic treatments in oncology. The detection of such rare targets is a prerequisite for these treatments and is nowadays one of the main challenges in diagnostic molecular pathology. Various algorithms, new diagnostic strategies and pathological workflows have been suggested to help pathologists in the detection of these rare molecular alterations. An emblematic example of biological targets for agnostic treatments is represented by genetic rearrangements affecting members of the Neurotrophic Tyrosine Receptor Kinase (NTRK) gene family. These gene rearrangements have an unusual dual mode of distribution: the first, at high frequency in some very rare neoplasms, and the second with extremely lower frequencies in more common tumors. Even in the context of an agnostic approach, knowledge of site, histotype and prevalence of the tumors carrying these genetic lesions may be helpful to guide the pathologist in the daily effort in search of these molecular alterations. This review examines the prevalence of NTRK gene fusions in different forms of solid tumors, based on the largest studies to date, reports a comprehensive diagnostic algorithm and an innovative pathological workflow for rapid screening.

Precision oncology: a clinical and patient perspective.

Molecular characterization of tumors has shifted cancer treatment strategies away from nonspecific cytotoxic treatment of histology-specific tumors toward targeting of actionable mutations that can be found across multiple cancer types. The development of high-throughput technologies such as next-generation sequencing, combined with decision support applications and availability of patient databases, has provided tools that optimize disease management. Precision oncology has proven success in improving outcomes and quality of life, as well as identifying and overcoming mechanisms of drug resistance and relapse. Addressing challenges that impede its use will improve matching of therapies to patients. Here we review the current status of precision oncology medicine, emphasizing its impact on patients - what they understand about precision oncology medicine and their hopes for the future.

Lay abstract Precision oncology offers individualized treatment of cancer on a per-patient basis, based on the unique DNA fingerprint of a patient's cancer. New, advanced technologies for DNA sequencing have led to rapid advancement in developing novel therapies. Decision-making tools have followed pace, leading to improved matching of therapy to patient, ultimately improving outcomes (including quality of life), building trust between patient and physician, and increasing hope for the future.