Mismatch Repair and Microsatellite Instability Testing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: ASCO Endorsement of College of American Pathologists Guideline.

PURPOSE: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has developed a guideline on testing for mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) for patients considered for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The CAP guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Endorsement Panel subsequently reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS: The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the CAP guideline, published on August 3, 2022, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorses Mismatch Repair and Microsatellite Instability Testing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists in Collaboration With the Association for Molecular Pathology and Fight Colorectal Cancer. RECOMMENDATIONS: Within the guideline, MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), MSI polymerase chain reaction, and MSI next-generation sequencing are all recommended testing options for colorectal cancer, MMR-IHC and MSI-polymerase chain reaction for gastroesophageal and small bowel cancer, and only MMR-IHC for endometrial cancer. No recommendation in favor of any testing method over another could be made for any other cancer. Tumor mutational burden was not recommended as a surrogate for DNA MMR deficiency. If MMR deficiency consistent with Lynch syndrome is detected, it should be communicated to the treating physician.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.

Preanalytics and Precision Pathology: Pathology Practices to Ensure Molecular Integrity of Cancer Patient Biospecimens for Precision Medicine.

Biospecimens acquired during routine medical practice are the primary sources of molecular information about patients and their diseases that underlies precision medicine and translational research. In cancer care, molecular analysis of biospecimens is especially common because it often determines treatment choices and may be used to monitor therapy in real time. However, patient specimens are collected, handled, and processed according to routine clinical procedures during which they are subjected to factors that may alter their molecular quality and composition. Such artefactual alteration may skew data from molecular analyses, render analysis data uninterpretable, or even preclude analysis altogether if the integrity of a specimen is severely compromised. As a result, patient care and safety may be affected, and medical research dependent on patient samples may be compromised. Despite these issues, there is currently no requirement to control or record preanalytical variables in clinical practice with the single exception of breast cancer tissue handled according to the guideline jointly developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists (CAP) and enforced through the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program. Recognizing the importance of molecular data derived from patient specimens, the CAP Personalized Healthcare Committee established the Preanalytics for Precision Medicine Project Team to develop a basic set of evidence-based recommendations for key preanalytics for tissue and blood specimens. If used for biospecimens from patients, these preanalytical recommendations would ensure the fitness of those specimens for molecular analysis and help to assure the quality and reliability of the analysis data.

Survival prediction tools for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical, pathological, and molecular information combined with cancer stage in prognostication algorithms can offer more personalized estimates of survival, which might guide treatment choices. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of prognostication tools in esophageal cancer. METHODS: We systematically searched MedLine and Embase from 2005 to 2017 for studies reporting development or validation of models predicting long-term survival in esophageal cancer. We evaluated tools using the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies guidelines and the American Joint Committee on Cancer acceptance criteria for risk models. RESULTS: We identified 16 prognostication tools for patients treated with curative intent and 1 for patients with metastatic disease. These tools frequently excluded adenocarcinoma, contained outdated data, and were developed with a limited sample size. Nine tools were developed in China for squamous cell cancer, and 11 used data on patients diagnosed before 2010. Most tools excluded key prognostic factors such as age and sex. Tumor stage and grade were the most commonly, but not universally, included factors. Twelve tools were designed to predict overall survival; 5 predicted cancer-specific survival. Bootstrap internal validation was performed for most tools; c-statistics ranged from 0.63 to 0.77 and graphically evaluated calibration was "good." Five tools were externally validated; c-statistics ranged from 0.70 to 0.77. CONCLUSIONS: Existing tools cannot be confidently used for esophageal cancer prognostication in current clinical practice. Better-quality tools might help to more individually and accurately estimate disease course, select further treatments, and risk-stratify for future clinical trials.

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis in Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists Joint Review.

PURPOSE.­: Clinical use of analytical tests to assess genomic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is increasing. This joint review from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists summarizes current information about clinical ctDNA assays and provides a framework for future research. METHODS.­: An Expert Panel conducted a literature review on the use of ctDNA assays for solid tumors, including preanalytical variables, analytical validity, interpretation and reporting, and clinical validity and utility. RESULTS.­: The literature search identified 1338 references. Of those, 390, plus 31 references supplied by the Expert Panel, were selected for full-text review. There were 77 articles selected for inclusion. CONCLUSIONS.­: The evidence indicates that testing for ctDNA is optimally performed on plasma collected in cell stabilization or EDTA tubes, with EDTA tubes processed within 6 hours of collection. Some ctDNA assays have demonstrated clinical validity and utility with certain types of advanced cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of clinical validity and utility for the majority of ctDNA assays in advanced cancer. Evidence shows discordance between the results of ctDNA assays and genotyping tumor specimens, and supports tumor tissue genotyping to confirm undetected results from ctDNA tests. There is no evidence of clinical utility and little evidence of clinical validity of ctDNA assays in early-stage cancer, treatment monitoring, or residual disease detection. There is no evidence of clinical validity or clinical utility to suggest that ctDNA assays are useful for cancer screening, outside of a clinical trial. Given the rapid pace of research, reevaluation of the literature will shortly be required, along with the development of tools and guidance for clinical practice.

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis in Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists Joint Review.

Purpose Clinical use of analytical tests to assess genomic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is increasing. This joint review from ASCO and the College of American Pathologists summarizes current information about clinical ctDNA assays and provides a framework for future research. Methods An Expert Panel conducted a literature review on the use of ctDNA assays for solid tumors, including pre-analytical variables, analytical validity, interpretation and reporting, and clinical validity and utility. Results The literature search identified 1,338 references. Of those, 390, plus 31 references supplied by the Expert Panel, were selected for full-text review. There were 77 articles selected for inclusion. Conclusion The evidence indicates that testing for ctDNA is optimally performed on plasma collected in cell stabilization or EDTA tubes, with EDTA tubes processed within 6 hours of collection. Some ctDNA assays have demonstrated clinical validity and utility with certain types of advanced cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of clinical validity and utility for the majority of ctDNA assays in advanced cancer. Evidence shows discordance between the results of ctDNA assays and genotyping tumor specimens and supports tumor tissue genotyping to confirm undetected results from ctDNA tests. There is no evidence of clinical utility and little evidence of clinical validity of ctDNA assays in early-stage cancer, treatment monitoring, or residual disease detection. There is no evidence of clinical validity and clinical utility to suggest that ctDNA assays are useful for cancer screening, outside of a clinical trial. Given the rapid pace of research, re-evaluation of the literature will shortly be required, along with the development of tools and guidance for clinical practice.

Summary of the ISEV workshop on extracellular vesicles as disease biomarkers, held in Birmingham, UK, during December 2017.

This report summarises the presentations and activities of the ISEV Workshop on extracellular vesicle biomarkers held in Birmingham, UK during December 2017. Among the key messages was broad agreement about the importance of biospecimen science. Much greater attention needs to be paid towards the provenance of collected samples. The workshop also highlighted clear gaps in our knowledge about pre-analytical factors that alter extracellular vesicles (EVs). The future utility of certified standards for credentialing of instruments and software, to analyse EV and for tracking the influence of isolation steps on the structure and content of EVs were also discussed. Several example studies were presented, demonstrating the potential utility for EVs in disease diagnosis, prognosis, longitudinal serial testing and stratification of patients. The conclusion of the workshop was that more effort focused on pre-analytical issues and benchmarking of isolation methods is needed to strengthen collaborations and advance more effective biomarkers.

Core Clinical Data Elements for Cancer Genomic Repositories: A Multi-stakeholder Consensus.

The Center for Medical Technology Policy and the Molecular Evidence Development Consortium gathered a diverse group of more than 50 stakeholders to develop consensus on a core set of data elements and values essential to understanding the clinical utility of molecularly targeted therapies in oncology.

Personalizing prognosis in colorectal cancer: A systematic review of the quality and nature of clinical prognostic tools for survival outcomes.

Integrating diverse types of prognostic information into accurate, individualized estimates of outcome in colorectal cancer is challenging. Significant heterogeneity in colorectal cancer prognostication tool quality exists. Methodology is incompletely or inadequately reported. Evaluations of the internal or external validity of the prognostic model are rarely performed. Prognostication tools are important devices for patient management, but tool reliability is compromised by poor quality. Guidance for future development of prognostication tools in colorectal cancer is needed.

The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual has become the benchmark for classifying patients with cancer, defining prognosis, and determining the best treatment approaches. Many view the primary role of the tumor, lymph node, metastasis (TNM) system as that of a standardized classification system for evaluating cancer at a population level in terms of the extent of disease, both at initial presentation and after surgical treatment, and the overall impact of improvements in cancer treatment. The rapid evolution of knowledge in cancer biology and the discovery and validation of biologic factors that predict cancer outcome and response to treatment with better accuracy have led some cancer experts to question the utility of a TNM-based approach in clinical care at an individualized patient level. In the Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, the goal of including relevant, nonanatomic (including molecular) factors has been foremost, although changes are made only when there is strong evidence for inclusion. The editorial board viewed this iteration as a proactive effort to continue to build the important bridge from a "population-based" to a more "personalized" approach to patient classification, one that forms the conceptual framework and foundation of cancer staging in the era of precision molecular oncology. The AJCC promulgates best staging practices through each new edition in an effort to provide cancer care providers with a powerful, knowledge-based resource for the battle against cancer. In this commentary, the authors highlight the overall organizational and structural changes as well as "what's new" in the Eighth Edition. It is hoped that this information will provide the reader with a better understanding of the rationale behind the aggregate proposed changes and the exciting developments in the upcoming edition. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93-99. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

A Study of Thymidylate Synthase Expression as a Biomarker for Resectable Colon Cancer: Alliance (Cancer and Leukemia Group B) 9581 and 89803.

PURPOSE: Tumor levels of thymidylate synthase (TS), a target of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy for colorectal cancer, have been studied as a predictive or prognostic biomarker with mixed results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumor TS levels were prospectively evaluated in two adjuvant therapy trials for patients with resected stage II or III colon cancer. TS expression was determined by standard immunohistochemistry and by automated quantitative analysis. Tumor mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-D) and BRAF c.1799T > A (p.V600E) mutation status were also examined. Relationships between tumor TS, MMR-D, and BRAF mutation status, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were investigated in the subset of stage III patients. RESULTS: Patients whose tumors demonstrated high TS expression experienced better treatment outcomes, with DFS hazard ratio (HR) = 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.53, 0.84; and OS HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.53, 0.88, for high versus low TS expression, respectively. No significant interaction between TS expression and stage was observed (DFS: interaction HR = 0.94; OS: interaction HR = 0.94). Tumors with high TS expression were more likely to demonstrate MMR-D (22.2% vs. 12.8%; p = .0003). Patients whose tumors demonstrated both high TS and MMR-D had a 7-year DFS of 77%, compared with 58% for those whose tumors had low TS and were non-MMR-D (log-rank p = .0006). Tumor TS expression did not predict benefit of a particular therapeutic regimen. CONCLUSION: This large prospective analysis showed that high tumor TS levels were associated with improved DFS and OS following adjuvant therapy for colon cancer, although tumor TS expression did not predict benefit of 5-FU-based chemotherapy. The Oncologist 2017;22:107-114Implications for Practice: This study finds that measurement of tumor levels of thymidylate synthase is not helpful in assigning specific adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer. It also highlights the importance of using prospective analyses within treatment clinical trials as the optimal method of determining biomarker utility.

Critical Assessment of Clinical Prognostic Tools in Melanoma.

The 7th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) melanoma staging system classifies patients according to prognosis. Significant within-stage heterogeneity remains and the inclusion of additional clinicopathologic and other host- and tumor-based prognostic factors have been proposed. Clinical prognostic tools have been developed for use in clinical practice to refine survival estimates. Little is known about the comparative features of tools in melanoma. We performed a systematic search of the scientific published literature for clinical prognostic tools in melanoma and web-based resources. A priori criteria were used to evaluate their quality and clinical relevance, and included intended clinical use, model development approaches, validation strategies, and performance metrics. We identified 17 clinical prognostic tools for primary cutaneous melanoma. Patients with stages I-III and T1 or thin melanoma were the most frequently considered populations. Seventy-five percent of tools were developed using data collected from patients diagnosed in 2006 or earlier, and the well-established factors of tumor thickness, ulceration, and age were included in 70 % of tools. Internal validity using cross-validation or bootstrapping techniques was performed for two tools only. Fewer than half were evaluated for external validity; however, when done, the appropriate statistical methodology was applied and results indicated good generalizability. Several clinical prognostic tools have the potential to refine survival estimates for individual melanoma patients; however, there is a great opportunity to improve these tools and to foster the development of new, validated tools by the inclusion of contemporary clinicopathological covariates and by using improved statistical and methodological approaches.

American Joint Committee on Cancer acceptance criteria for inclusion of risk models for individualized prognosis in the practice of precision medicine.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has increasingly recognized the need for more personalized probabilistic predictions than those delivered by ordinal staging systems, particularly through the use of accurate risk models or calculators. However, judging the quality and acceptability of a risk model is complex. The AJCC Precision Medicine Core conducted a 2-day meeting to discuss characteristics necessary for a quality risk model in cancer patients. More specifically, the committee established inclusion and exclusion criteria necessary for a risk model to potentially be endorsed by the AJCC. This committee reviewed and discussed relevant literature before creating a checklist unique to this need of AJCC risk model endorsement. The committee identified 13 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria for AJCC risk model endorsement in cancer. The emphasis centered on performance metrics, implementation clarity, and clinical relevance. The facilitation of personalized probabilistic predictions for cancer patients holds tremendous promise, and these criteria will hopefully greatly accelerate this process. Moreover, these criteria might be useful for a general audience when trying to judge the potential applicability of a published risk model in any clinical domain. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:370-374. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Nanoproteomic analysis of ischemia-dependent changes in signaling protein phosphorylation in colorectal normal and cancer tissue.

BACKGROUND: Clinical diagnostic research relies upon the collection of tissue samples, and for those samples to be representative of the in vivo situation. Tissue collection procedures, including post-operative ischemia, can impact the molecular profile of the tissue at the genetic and proteomic level. Understanding the influence of factors such as ischemia on tissue samples is imperative in order to develop both markers of tissue quality and ultimately accurate diagnostic tests. METHODS: Using NanoPro1000 technology, a rapid and highly sensitive immunoassay platform, the phosphorylation status of clinically relevant cancer-related biomarkers in response to ischemia was quantified in tissue samples from 20 patients with primary colorectal cancer. Tumor tissue and adjacent normal tissue samples were collected and subjected to cold ischemia prior to nanoproteomic analysis of AKT, ERK1/2, MEK1/2, and c-MET. Ischemia-induced relative changes in overall phosphorylation and phosphorylation of individual isoforms were calculated and statistical significance determined. Any differences in baseline levels of phosphorylation between tumor tissue and normal tissue were also analyzed. RESULTS: Changes in overall phosphorylation of the selected proteins in response to ischemia revealed minor variations in both normal and tumor tissue; however, significant changes were identified in the phosphorylation of individual isoforms. In normal tissue post-operative ischemia, phosphorylation was increased in two AKT isoforms, two ERK1/2 isoforms, and one MEK1/2 isoform and decreased in one MEK1/2 isoform and one c-MET isoform. Following ischemia in tumor tissue, one AKT isoform showed decreased phosphorylation and there was an overall increase in unphosphorylated ERK1/2, whereas an increase in the phosphorylation of two MEK1/2 isoforms was observed. There were no changes in c-MET phosphorylation in tumor tissue. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into the influence of post-operative ischemia on tissue sample biology, which may inform the future development of markers of tissue quality and assist in the development of diagnostic tests.

The impact of stage, grade, and mucinous histology on the efficacy of systemic chemotherapy in adenocarcinomas of the appendix: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base.

BACKGROUND: Adenocarcinomas of the appendix represent a heterogeneous disease depending on the presence of mucinous histology, histologic grade, and stage. In the current study, the authors sought to explore the interplay of these factors with systemic chemotherapy in a large population data set. METHODS: Patients in the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) who were diagnosed with mucinous, nonmucinous, and signet ring cell-type appendiceal neoplasms from 1985 through 2006 were selected. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were developed. RESULTS: A total of 11,871 patients met the inclusion criteria for the current study: 50.3% had mucinous neoplasms, 40.5% had nonmucinous neoplasms, and 9.2% had signet ring cell-type neoplasms. The 5-year overall survival (OS) stratified by grade was similar among patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I to stage III disease but not for those with stage IV disease. The median OS for patients with stage IV mucinous and nonmucinous tumors was 6.4 years and 2.3 years, respectively, for those with well differentiated histology (P<.0001) and was 1.5 years and 0.8 years, respectively, for those with poorly differentiated histology (P<.0001). In multivariable modeling for stage I to III disease, adjuvant chemotherapy improved OS for both mucinous and nonmucinous histologies, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.68-0.89 [P = .0002]) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.94 [P = .002]), respectively. For patients with stage IV disease, systemic chemotherapy significantly improved OS for those with nonmucinous (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82 [P<.0001]) but not mucinous (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86-1.04 [P = .2) histologies, although this was grade-dependent. The median OS for chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy was 6.4 years versus 6.5 years (P value not significant) for patients with mucinous, well-differentiated tumors and 1.6 years versus 1.0 years (P = .0007) for patients with mucinous, poorly differentiated tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant chemotherapy demonstrated a significant OS benefit regardless of histology. However, for patients with stage IV disease, the benefit of systemic chemotherapy varied by tumor histology and grade, with patients with well-differentiated, mucinous, appendiceal adenocarcinomas deriving no survival benefit from systemic chemotherapy. Cancer 2016;122:213-221. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

A Novel Approach to High-Quality Postmortem Tissue Procurement: The GTEx Project.

The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project, sponsored by the NIH Common Fund, was established to study the correlation between human genetic variation and tissue-specific gene expression in non-diseased individuals. A significant challenge was the collection of high-quality biospecimens for extensive genomic analyses. Here we describe how a successful infrastructure for biospecimen procurement was developed and implemented by multiple research partners to support the prospective collection, annotation, and distribution of blood, tissues, and cell lines for the GTEx project. Other research projects can follow this model and form beneficial partnerships with rapid autopsy and organ procurement organizations to collect high quality biospecimens and associated clinical data for genomic studies. Biospecimens, clinical and genomic data, and Standard Operating Procedures guiding biospecimen collection for the GTEx project are available to the research community.

Refining Prognosis in Lung Cancer: A Report on the Quality and Relevance of Clinical Prognostic Tools.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate, individualized prognostication for lung cancer patients requires the integration of standard patient and pathologic factors, biological, genetic, and other molecular characteristics of the tumor. Clinical prognostic tools aim to aggregate information on an individual patient to predict disease outcomes such as overall survival, but little is known about their clinical utility and accuracy in lung cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of the scientific literature for clinical prognostic tools in lung cancer published from January 1, 1996 to January 27, 2015 was performed. In addition, web-based resources were searched. A priori criteria determined by the Molecular Modellers Working Group of the American Joint Committee on Cancer were used to investigate the quality and usefulness of tools. Criteria included clinical presentation, model development approaches, validation strategies, and performance metrics. RESULTS: Thirty-two prognostic tools were identified. Patients with metastases were the most frequently considered population in non-small-cell lung cancer. All tools for small-cell lung cancer covered that entire patient population. Included prognostic factors varied considerably across tools. Internal validity was not formally evaluated for most tools and only 11 were evaluated for external validity. Two key considerations were highlighted for tool development: identification of an explicit purpose related to a relevant clinical population and clear decision points and prioritized inclusion of established prognostic factors over emerging factors. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic tools will contribute more meaningfully to the practice of personalized medicine if better study design and analysis approaches are used in their development and validation.

The national biomarker development alliance: confronting the poor productivity of biomarker research and development.

Making precision (personalized) medicine a routine clinical reality will require a comprehensive inventory of validated biomarkers and molecular diagnostic tests to stratify disease subtypes and improve accuracy in diagnosis and treatment selection. Realization of this promise has been hindered by the poor productivity of biomarker identification and validation. This situation reflects deficiencies that are pervasive across the entire spectrum of biomarker R&D, from discovery to clinical validation and in the failure of regulatory and reimbursement policies to accommodate new classes of biomarkers. The launch of the National Biomarker Development Alliance is the culmination of a 2-year review and consultation process involving diverse stakeholders to advance standards, best practices and guidelines to enhance biomarker discovery and validation by adoption of systems-based approaches and trans-sector collaboration between academia, clinical medicine and relevant private and public sector stakeholders.