ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy testing offers a significant potential in selecting signal-matched therapies for advanced solid malignancies. The feasibility of liquid biopsy testing in a community-based oncology practice, and its actual impact on selecting signal-matched therapies, and subsequent survival effects have not previously been reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on adult patients with advanced solid cancer tested with a liquid-biopsy assay between December 2018 and 2019, in a community oncology practice. The impact of testing on treatment assignment and survival was assessed at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 178 patients underwent testing. A positive test was reported in 140/178 patients (78.7%), of whom 75% had an actionable mutation. The actual overall signal-based matching rate was 17.8%. While 85.7% of patients with no actionable mutation had a signal-based clinical trial opportunity, only 10% were referred to a trial. Survival analysis of lung, breast, and colorectal cancer patients with actionable mutations who received any therapy (n = 66) revealed a survival advantage for target-matched (n = 22) compared to unmatched therapy (n = 44): patients who received matched therapy had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (mPFS: 12 months; 95%CI, 10.6-13.4 vs. 5.0 months; 95%CI, 3.4-6.6; P = .029), with a tendency towards longer overall survival (OS) (mOS: 15 months; 95%CI, 13.5-16.5 vs. 13 months; 95%CI: 11.3-14.7; P = .087). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of liquid biopsy testing is feasible in a US community practice and impacts therapeutic choices in patients with advanced malignancies. Receipt of liquid biopsy-generated signal-matched therapies conferred added survival benefits.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Adult , Biopsy , Humans , Liquid Biopsy , Medical Oncology , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Neoplasms/therapy , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
AIM: report primary results from the first multicentre randomised trial evaluating induction chemotherapy prior to trimodality therapy in patients with oesophageal or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Notably, recent data from a single-institution randomised trial reported that induction chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours. METHODS: In this phase 2 trial (28 centres in the U.S. NCI-sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group [Alliance]), trimodality-eligible patients (T3-4N0, TanyN+) were randomised to receive induction (docetaxel, oxaliplatin, capecitabine; Arm A) or no induction chemotherapy (Arm B) followed by oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil/radiation and subsequent surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of pathologic complete response (pathCR). Secondary/exploratory endpoints were OS and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Of 55 patients evaluable for the primary endpoint, the pathCR rate was 28.6% (8/28) in A versus 40.7% (11/27) in B (P = .34). Given interim results indicating futility, accrual was terminated, but patients were followed. After a median follow-up of 60.4 months, a longer median OS in Arm A versus B was unexpectedly observed (3-year rates 57.1% versus 41.7%, respectively) driven by longer DFS after margin-free surgery. In posthoc analysis, induction (versus no induction) chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer OS and DFS among patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours, but not among patients with poorly/undifferentiated tumours (Pinteraction = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Adding induction chemotherapy prior to trimodality therapy did not improve the primary endpoint, pathCR. However, induction chemotherapy was associated with longer median OS, particularly among patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours. These findings may inform further development of curative-intent trials in this disease.