International consensus on the initial diagnostic workup of cancer of unknown primary.

BACKGROUND: Although the incidence of Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) is estimated to be 1-2 % of all cancers worldwide, no international standards for diagnostic workup are yet established. Such an international guideline would facilitate international comparison, provide adequate incidence and survival rates, and ultimately improve care of patients with CUP. METHODS: Participants for a four round modified Delphi study were selected via a CUP literature search in PubMed and an international network of cancer researchers. A total of 90 CUP experts were invited, and 34 experts from 15 countries over four continents completed all Delphi survey rounds. FINDINGS: The Delphi procedure resulted in a multi-layer CUP classification for the diagnostic workup. Initial diagnostic workup should at least consist of history and physical examination, full blood count, analysis of serum markers, a biopsy of the most accessible lesion, a CT scan of chest/abdomen/pelvis, and immunohistochemical testing. Additionally, the expert panel agreed on the need of an ideal diagnostic lead time for CUP patients. There was no full consensus on the place in diagnostic workup of symptom-guided MRI or ultrasound, a PET/CT scan, targeted gene panels, immunohistochemical markers, and whole genome sequencing. INTERPRETATION: Consensus was reached on the contents of the first diagnostic layer of a multi-layer CUP classification. This is a first step towards full consensus on CUP diagnostics, that should also include supplementary and advanced diagnostics.

Systematic review of the CUP trials characteristics and perspectives for next-generation studies.

BACKGROUND: Research on therapeutic strategies for patients with unknown primary cancer (CUP) has been underwhelming. This paper summarized and evaluated the CUP therapeutic research over the previous five years. Based on this evaluation, recommendations for clinical trial designs are made to improve the impact of CUP research on patients. METHODS: Published and ongoing research were evaluated. PubMed was searched from January 1, 2015, to November 1, 2021. The start date of 2015 was chosen to identify research published after ESMO issued new diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. The US National Library of Medicine indexed ongoing clinical trials. FINDINGS: Of the 244 CUP studies indexed in PubMed, 11.9% were prospective studies, and 4.9% were clinical trials. The review protocol deemed 65 publications eligible for full-text review. Eleven studies evaluating therapeutic regimens were retained. The two prospective studies and non-randomized trials showed promising outcomes for site-specific treatments. Randomized clinical trials were less promising; however, the trials had recruitment challenges resulting in biased accrual and the inability to keep pace with advancing diagnostics and therapeutics. Most of the 35 ongoing studies were phase II single-arm trials assessing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or site-specific therapies among CUP patients with suspected favorable prognoses. CONCLUSION: Our evaluation suggests two prospective clinical trial designs that addressed recent study design and recruitment challenges. A visionary approach uses a multi-arm, multistage randomized trial to address rapid advancements in diagnosis and therapy. A pragmatic approach utilizes a single-arm trial with historical controls to overcome comparison group and recruitment challenges.

Development and Validation of a Novel Nomogram for Individualized Prediction of Survival in Cancer of Unknown Primary.

PURPOSE: Prognostic uncertainty is a major challenge for cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Current models limit a meaningful patient-provider dialogue. We aimed to establish a nomogram for predicting overall survival (OS) in CUP based on robust clinicopathologic prognostic factors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We evaluated 521 patients with CUP at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC; Houston, TX; 2012-2016). Baseline variables were analyzed using Cox regression and nomogram developed using significant predictors. Predictive accuracy and discriminatory performance were assessed by calibration curves, concordance probability estimate (CPE ± SE), and concordance statistic (C-index). The model was subjected to bootstrapping and multi-institutional external validations using two independent CUP cohorts: V1 [MDACC (2017), N = 103] and V2 (BC Cancer, Vancouver, Canada and Sarah Cannon Cancer Center/Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, TN; N = 302). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of entire cohort (N = 926) included: median age (63 years), women (51%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-1 (64%), adenocarcinomas (52%), ≥3 sites of metastases (30%), and median follow-up duration and OS of 40.1 and 14.7 months, respectively. Five independent prognostic factors were identified: gender, ECOG PS, histology, number of metastatic sites, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio. The resulting model predicted OS with CPE of 0.69 [SE: ± 0.01; C-index: 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.68-0.74)] outperforming Culine/Seve prognostic models (CPE: 0.59 ± 0.01). CPE for external validation cohorts V1 and V2 were 0.67 (± 0.02) and 0.70 (± 0.01), respectively. Calibration curves for 1-year OS showed strong agreement between nomogram prediction and actual observations in all cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Our user-friendly CUP nomogram integrating commonly available baseline factors provides robust personalized prognostication which can aid clinical decision making and selection/stratification for clinical trials.

The role of site-specific therapy for cancers of unknown of primary: A meta-analysis.

Cancers of unknown primary (CUP) are among the most common causes of death due to cancer, are associated with a poor prognosis and have few therapeutic options available. Molecularly-guided site-specific treatments were explored based on the assumption that CUP are similar in their response to treatment of predicted primary tumours. Given the discordant results between these studies, a meta-analysis using a random-effects model and the inverse variance method was performed. MEDLINE and conference abstracts of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meetings were searched from inception until November 2019. A trend towards improved OS was noted with site-specific versus empiric treatment for CUP (HR = 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.02). There was significant heterogeneity across the four studies (I [2] = 79%; p = 0.002) but no significant difference was noted between the treatment effect in the two subgroups (randomised vs. non-randomised; p = 0.07). The test for overall effect for progression free survival, which had only been reported for the two randomised studies, was not statistically significant (HR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.74-1.17), with little heterogeneity between studies (I [2] = 0%; p = 0.77). The results of this meta-analysis highlight the significant heterogeneity between the prospective studies comparing molecularly tailored to empiric therapy for CUP and the need for other randomised studies including only primary tumors with available effective therapies.

Erlotinib plus either pazopanib or placebo in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial with correlated serum proteomic signatures.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy and safety of treatment with erlotinib plus pazopanib versus erlotinib plus placebo in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with progressive-stage IV NSCLC after either 1 or 2 previous chemotherapy regimens were randomized to receive erlotinib (150 mg by mouth daily) with either pazopanib (600 mg by mouth daily) or placebo. During treatment, patients were evaluated every 8 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After a study amendment, pretreatment serum specimens for the VeriStrat assay were collected. The predictive value of the VeriStrat score (good vs poor) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed in the overall population and in each treatment group. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two eligible patients were randomized between February 2010 and February 2011. PFS was prolonged with erlotinib plus pazopanib versus erlotinib plus placebo (median, 2.6 vs 1.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .001). There was no difference in the OS of the 2 groups. A good VeriStrat score predicted longer PFS and OS in the entire group and predicted longer PFS in the subgroup receiving erlotinib plus pazopanib. The addition of pazopanib increased toxicity, and this was consistent with the known toxicity profile. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of pazopanib to erlotinib in an unselected group of patients with previously treated NSCLC improved PFS and increased treatment-related toxicity, but it had no influence on OS. The efficacy of both regimens was modest. Patients receiving erlotinib plus pazopanib had longer PFS if they had a good VeriStrat score versus a poor one. Cancer 2018;124:2355-64. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Renal Cell Carcinoma Presenting as Carcinoma of Unknown Primary Site: Recognition of a Treatable Patient Subset.

BACKGROUND: Improved diagnostic methods, including gene expression profiling, allow identification of the tissue of origin in most patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site (CUP). Patients with an occult renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are of particular interest, because effective treatment for advanced RCC has no overlap with the empiric chemotherapy used traditionally for CUP. We report the clinical characteristics, pathologic features, and response to RCC-specific treatment in CUP patients identified as RCC using a molecular cancer classifier assay (MCCA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: All CUP patients who had an MCCA performed between 2008 and 2013 at a single institution were reviewed. Patients with an RCC diagnosis using MCCA are reported in this article. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 539 CUP patients (4.4%) were diagnosed with RCC using MCCA. None had suspected renal lesions on computed tomography scan; otherwise, clinical characteristics were typical of advanced RCC. Histology was adenocarcinoma or poorly differentiated carcinoma; only 5 of 24 patients had focal features suggestive of RCC (clear-cell 1, papillary 4). Specific MCCA diagnoses included papillary (11) and clear cell (6). Relatively specific renal immunohistochemistry (IHC) stains, when performed, were compatible with RCC in 9 of 11 tumors. Twenty of 24 patients received RCC-specific treatment, and had a median survival of 16 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with occult RCC can be identified in the CUP population using MCCA and/or IHC. Papillary carcinoma is more common in this group than in the larger RCC population. Although confirmation from prospective studies is needed, RCC-specific treatment should be considered for this group of patients.

Amrubicin and carboplatin with pegfilgrastim in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer: A phase II trial of the Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: First-line treatment for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) includes treatment with platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Amrubicin is a synthetic anthracycline with single-agent activity in relapsed/refractory SCLC. In an attempt to improve treatment efficacy, we evaluated amrubicin/carboplatin as first-line therapy for extensive-stage SCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter phase II trial, patients received amrubicin (30 mg/m2 daily on Days 1, 2, and 3) and carboplatin (AUC = 5 on Day 1); cycles were repeated every 21 days for 4 cycles. Pegfilgrastim (6 mg subcutaneously) was administered on Day 4 of all cycles. Overall survival (OS) proportion at 1 year was the primary endpoint. The target 1-year OS rate was 47%, an improvement of 35% from historical results with carboplatin/etoposide. RESULTS: Eighty patients received study treatment, and 62% completed the planned 4 courses. The overall response rate was 74% (13% complete responses). The 1-year survival rate was 38% (95% CI: 25, 50). The median survival was 10 months. Myelosuppression was severe but manageable. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of amrubicin/carboplatin was an active first-line treatment for extensive stage SCLC, but showed no indication of increased efficacy compared to standard treatments. Severe myelosuppression was common with this regimen, in spite of prophylactic pegfilgrastim. These results are consistent with those of other trials in showing no role for amrubicin in the first-line treatment of SCLC.

Phase II trial of preoperative pemetrexed plus carboplatin in patients with stage IB-III nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

OBJECTIVES: The combination of pemetrexed and carboplatin is a standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. In this pilot phase II trial, we evaluated the feasibility of using pemetrexed and carboplatin as neoadjuvant therapy, prior to definitive surgical resection, for patients with localized NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with potentially resectable, previously untreated, clinical stage IB-III, nonsquamous NSCLC were eligible for this trial. All patients received 4 cycles of pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC 6.0) administered at 21 day intervals. Three to 6 weeks after completion of chemotherapy, definitive surgical resection was attempted. The primary endpoint of this trial was the 3-year survival rate. RESULTS: Forty-six patients began protocol treatment, and 40 completed 4 courses of pemetrexed/carboplatin. Surgical resection was performed in 27 patients (59%); all had pathologic partial responses. The estimated 3-year survival rate for the entire group was 46%. Toxicity of neoadjuvant therapy was consistent with toxicity previously reported with pemetrexed/carboplatin. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of 4 courses of pemetrexed/carboplatin was feasible. The efficacy was similar to neoadjuvant regimens previously investigated. A significant number of patients 19 of 46 (41%) in this trial did not have surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy. Further investigation of the role of neoadjuvant pemetrexed/carboplatin requires a larger, randomized clinical trial.

Randomized phase 2 trial of pemetrexed, pemetrexed/bevacizumab, and pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2.

BACKGROUND: The best treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a poor performance status is not well defined. In this phase 2 trial, patients were randomized to receive treatment with either single-agent pemetrexed or 1 of 2 combination regimens. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed nonsquamous NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 were stratified by age and serum albumin level and were randomized (1:1:1) to 1 of 3 regimens: pemetrexed (arm 1), pemetrexed and bevacizumab (arm 2), or pemetrexed, carboplatin, and bevacizumab (arm 3). The response to treatment was assessed every 2 cycles; responding and stable patients continued treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-two patients were randomized, 162 patients began the study treatment, and 146 patients completed 2 cycles and were evaluated for their response. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months in arm 1, 4.0 months in arm 2, and 4.8 months in arm 3. The overall response rates were 15% in arm 1, 31% in arm 2, and 44% in arm 3. The overall survival was similar in the 3 treatment arms. All 3 regimens were relatively well tolerated. Patients receiving bevacizumab had an increased incidence of hypertension, proteinuria, and bleeding episodes, but most events were mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 regimens were feasible for patients with advanced NSCLC and an ECOG performance status of 2. The addition of bevacizumab to pemetrexed increased the overall response rate. The efficacy of pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab (median PFS, 4.8 months) approached the prespecified study PFS goal of 5 months. Larger studies will be necessary to define the role of bevacizumab in addition to standard pemetrexed and carboplatin in this population. Cancer 2018;124:1982-91. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Sorafenib and continued erlotinib or sorafenib alone in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer progressing on erlotinib: A randomized phase II study of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute (SCRI).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of erlotinib, continued after tumor progression, plus sorafenib versus sorafenib alone in patients with refractory metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who previously benefitted from single-agent erlotinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with progressive refractory NSCLC who had previously benefitted from erlotinib (objective response or stable disease >8weeks) were randomized to receive treatment with either erlotinib and sorafenib (400mg orally twice daily) or sorafenib alone. Patients were evaluated for response every 8 weeks, and continued treatment until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were randomized (erlotinib/sorafenib, 25; sorafenib, 28) and 52 patients received study treatment. Patients in both groups received a median of 8weeks of treatment. The median PFS was 3.1months for erlotinib/sorafenib versus 1.7months for sorafenib alone; response rates were 8% and 4%, respectively. Both regimens were tolerable, but toxicity was more frequent with erlotinib/sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not suggest any benefit in continuing erlotinib after tumor progression in patients with refractory metastatic NSCLC. Both regimens tested had limited efficacy, consistent with results from other studies. ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT00609804.

First-Line Carboplatin, Pemetrexed, and Panitumumab in Patients with Advanced Non-Squamous KRAS Wild Type (WT) Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: We added panitumumab to standard combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced KRAS WT non-squamous NSCLC. METHODS: Patients received panitumumab 9 mg/kg IV, pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 IV, and carboplatin AUC = 6 IV every 21 days. After 6 cycles, maintenance therapy with panitumumab and pemetrexed was administered every 21 days until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: 29 of 66 patients (44%) had objective responses. The median TTP was 6 months; median overall survival (OS) was 17 months. Panitumumab increased treatment-related toxicity, notably skin rash. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of panitumumab increased toxicity, and had no discernible impact on efficacy.

Poorly differentiated neoplasms of unknown primary site: diagnostic usefulness of a molecular cancer classifier assay.

PURPOSE: Definition of the lineage of poorly differentiated neoplasms (PDNs) presenting as cancer of unknown primary site (CUP) is important since many of these tumors are treatment-sensitive. Gene expression profiling and a molecular cancer classifier assay (MCCA) may provide a new method of diagnosis when standard pathologic evaluation and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining is unsuccessful. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty of 751 CUP patients (4%) seen from 2000-2012 had PDNs without a definitive lineage diagnosed by histology or IHC (median 18 stains, range 9-46). Biopsies from these 30 patients had MCCA (92-gene reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction mRNA) performed. Additional IHC, gene sequencing, fluorescent in situ hybridization for specific genetic alterations, and repeat biopsies were performed to support MCCA diagnoses, and clinical features correlated. Seven patients had MCCA performed initially and received site-specific therapy. RESULTS: Lineage diagnoses were made by MCCA in 25 of 30 (83 %) patients, including ten carcinomas (three germ cell, two neuroendocrine, five others), eight sarcomas [three peritoneal mesotheliomas, one primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET), four others], five melanomas, and two lymphomas. Additional IHC and genetic testing [BRAF, i(12)p] supported the MCCA diagnoses in 11 of 16 tumors. All seven patients (two germ cell, two neuroendocrine, two mesothelioma, one lymphoma) responded to site-specific therapy based on the MCCA diagnosis, and remain alive (five progression-free) from 25+ to 72+ months. CONCLUSION: The MCCA provided a specific lineage diagnosis and tissue of origin in most patients with PDNs unclassifiable by standard pathologic evaluation. Earlier use of MCCA will expedite diagnosis and direct appropriate first-line therapy, which is potentially curative for several of these tumor types.

A phase 1 study of the sachet formulation of the oral dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor BEZ235 given twice daily (BID) in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Introduction The PI3 kinase (PI3K) pathway is a commonly dysregulated pathway in cancers and is an attractive target for antitumor therapy. BEZ235 is a potent, highly specific and selective dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitor. Methods Patients were enrolled in a 3 + 3 dose escalation design to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of BEZ235 when administered twice-daily as an oral sachet. For intrapatient PK comparison, patients were to receive a lead in of the total daily dose in a QD schedule for the first 8 days of the initial 28 day cycle. Patients continued treatment until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression occurred. Results Thirty-three patients received BEZ235. Initial dose levels of 200 and 400 mg BID had no DLTs. At the 600 mg BID dose level with 1200 mg QD lead in dose two DLTs of grade 3 mucositis occurred early in the first treatment cycle, the lead-in QD dosing was eliminated. Fatigue and mucositis limited dosing at 600 mg BID in subsequent patients. The 400 mg BID dose level was re-explored, with DLTs of grade 3 hyperglycemia, dehydration, fatigue, and grade 3 thrombocytopenia. Twelve patients were enrolled at an intermediate dose of 300 mg BID; a grade 3 mucositis DLT was reported in 1 patient, and this dose was declared the MTD. Preliminary PK data demonstrate a consistent increase in PK parameters (Cmax and AUC) with dose level compared to QD dosing. Fifteen patients experienced stable disease as their best response, including 10 (colorectal [4 patients], endometrial [3 patients], carcinoid NOS, pancreas, and melanoma) who had disease control for ≥16 weeks. Conclusions The recommended dose of BEZ235 administered BID as an oral sachet formulation is 300 mg BID. Toxicities seen have been reported for other dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitors.

Paclitaxel/carboplatin with or without belinostat as empiric first-line treatment for patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site: A randomized, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of belinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, when added to paclitaxel/carboplatin in the empiric first-line treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site (CUP). METHODS: In this randomized phase 2 trial, previously untreated patients with CUP were randomized to receive belinostat plus paclitaxel/carboplatin (group A) or paclitaxel/carboplatin alone (group B) repeated every 21 days. Patients were re-evaluated every 2 cycles, and those without disease progression continued treatment for 6 cycles. Patients in group A then continued receiving single-agent belinostat, whereas patients in group B stopped treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS): The authors postulated that the addition of belinostat would improve PFS from 5 months (expected with paclitaxel/carboplatin) to 8 months. RESULTS: In total, 89 patients were randomized (group A, n = 44; group B, n = 45), and the demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. The addition of belinostat to paclitaxel/carboplatin did not improve PFS (group A, 5.4 months [95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.0 months]; group B, 5.3 months [95% confidence interval, 2.8-6.6 months]; P = .85). Overall survival was 12.4 months for group A versus 9.1 months for group B (P = .20). The response rate favored the belinostat group (45% vs 21%; P = .02). Belinostat resulted in a modest increase in treatment toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of belinostat to paclitaxel/carboplatin did not improve the PFS of patients with CUP who were receiving first-line therapy, although the patients who received belinostat had a higher investigator-assessed response rate. Future trials in CUP should focus on specific subsets, defined either by the predicted tissue of origin or by the identification of targetable molecular abnormalities.