Concordance in Molecular Tumor Board Case Reviews in the ASCO TAPUR Study.

PURPOSE: With the advent of precision medicine, molecular tumor boards (MTBs) were established to interpret genomic results and guide decision making for targeted therapy in oncology patients. There are currently no universal guidelines for how MTBs should operate and thus variance can be seen depending on which MTB is reviewing the case. This study assesses the concordance of MTB recommendations when a participant case is reviewed by two different MTBs, establishes potential reasons for discordance, and advocates for the establishment of standard MTB operating guidelines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants with advanced cancer, who had exhausted all standard treatment options were screened for the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study. Cases were submitted for MTB review if the treatment proposal was outside the protocol genomic matching rules, or if multiple treatment options were identified. Of the 306 cases submitted for review by the TAPUR MTB from 2016 to 2018, 107 were randomly selected for secondary review by a different MTB group. Recommendations from the original review were not disclosed. Concordance between MTB group recommendations was assessed. Concordance was defined as agreement between MTB reviews on the genomic alteration and study drug match proposed by the clinical site. Thematic qualitative analysis was conducted for the discordant cases to assess reasons for discordance. RESULTS: Complete or partial concordance was observed in 79% of cases (95% CI, 70 to 86; one-sided P = .25). Most discordant analyses were due to disagreements on the strength of evidence regarding efficacy of the proposed treatment (32%). CONCLUSION: When presented with identical participant cases, different MTB review groups make the same or similar treatment recommendations approximately 80% of the time.

Cancer biomarkers: Emerging trends and clinical implications for personalized treatment.

The integration of cancer biomarkers into oncology has revolutionized cancer treatment, yielding remarkable advancements in cancer therapeutics and the prognosis of cancer patients. The development of personalized medicine represents a turning point and a new paradigm in cancer management, as biomarkers enable oncologists to tailor treatments based on the unique molecular profile of each patient's tumor. In this review, we discuss the scientific milestones of cancer biomarkers and explore future possibilities to improve the management of patients with solid tumors. This progress is primarily attributed to the biological characterization of cancers, advancements in testing methodologies, elucidation of the immune microenvironment, and the ability to profile circulating tumor fractions. Integrating these insights promises to continually advance the precision oncology field, fostering better patient outcomes.

Tumor-agnostic baskets to N-of-1 platform trials and real-world data: Transforming precision oncology clinical trial design.

Choosing the right drug(s) for the right patient via advanced genomic sequencing and multi-omic interrogation is the sine qua non of precision cancer medicine. Traditional cancer clinical trial designs follow well-defined protocols to evaluate the efficacy of new therapies in patient groups, usually identified by their histology/tissue of origin of their malignancy. In contrast, precision medicine seeks to optimize benefit in individual patients, i.e., to define who benefits rather than determine whether the overall group benefits. Since cancer is a disease driven by molecular alterations, innovative trial designs, including biomarker-defined tumor-agnostic basket trials, are driving ground-breaking regulatory approvals and deployment of gene- and immune-targeted drugs. Molecular interrogation further reveals the disruptive reality that advanced cancers are extraordinarily complex and individually distinct. Therefore, optimized treatment often requires drug combinations and N-of-1 customization, addressed by a new generation of N-of-1 trials. Real-world data and structured master registry trials are also providing massive datasets that are further fueling a transformation in oncology. Finally, machine learning is facilitating rapid discovery, and it is plausible that high-throughput computing, in silico modeling, and 3-dimensional printing may be exploitable in the near future to discover and design customized drugs in real time.

Pathogenomics for accurate diagnosis, treatment, prognosis of oncology: a cutting edge overview.

The capability to gather heterogeneous data, alongside the increasing power of artificial intelligence to examine it, leading a revolution in harnessing multimodal data in the life sciences. However, most approaches are limited to unimodal data, leaving integrated approaches across modalities relatively underdeveloped in computational pathology. Pathogenomics, as an invasive method to integrate advanced molecular diagnostics from genomic data, morphological information from histopathological imaging, and codified clinical data enable the discovery of new multimodal cancer biomarkers to propel the field of precision oncology in the coming decade. In this perspective, we offer our opinions on synthesizing complementary modalities of data with emerging multimodal artificial intelligence methods in pathogenomics. It includes correlation between the pathological and genomic profile of cancer, fusion of histology, and genomics profile of cancer. We also present challenges, opportunities, and avenues for future work.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.3.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with driver alterations. METHODS: This ASCO living guideline offers continually updated recommendations based on an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with the latest time frame spanning February to October 2023. An Expert Panel of medical oncology, pulmonary, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts were convened. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: This guideline consolidates all previous updates and reflects the body of evidence informing this guideline topic. Eight new RCTs were identified in the latest search of the literature to date. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were updated to address first, second, and subsequent treatment options for patients based on targetable driver alterations.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/living-guidelines.

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.3.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver alterations. METHODS: This ASCO living guideline offers continually updated recommendations based on an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with the latest time frame spanning February to October 2023. An Expert Panel of medical oncology, pulmonary, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts were convened. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: This guideline consolidates all previous updates and reflects the body of evidence informing this guideline topic. Ten new RCTs were identified in the latest search of the literature to date. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were updated to address first, second, and subsequent treatment options for patients without driver alterations.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/living-guidelines.

Veterinary Interventional Oncology.

Interventional oncology (IO) is a rapidly growing field in veterinary medicine and has been accepted as a fourth pillar of treatment of neoplastic disease with other modalities including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. The major categories of IO therapies in companion animals are focused on the use of locoregional therapies and stenting of malignant obstructions. Although significant assessment of veterinary IO techniques is still necessary, early evaluation of these varying techniques is demonstrating promising results.

The role of molecular tumor boards in neuro-oncology: a nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: In neuro-oncology, the inclusion of tumor patients in the molecular tumor board has only become increasingly widespread in recent years, but so far there are no standards for indication, procedure, evaluation, therapy recommendations and therapy implementation of neuro-oncological patients. The present work examines the current handling of neuro-oncological patients included in molecular tumor boards in Germany. METHODS: We created an online based survey with questions covering the handling of neuro-oncologic patient inclusion, annotation of genetic analyses, management of target therapies and the general role of molecular tumor boards in neuro-oncology in Germany. We contacted all members of the Neuro-Oncology working group (NOA) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) by e-mail. RESULTS: 38 responses were collected. The majority of those who responded were specialists in neurosurgery or neurology with more than 10 years of professional experience working at a university hospital. Molecular tumor boards (MTB) regularly take place once a week and all treatment disciplines of neuro-oncology patients take part. The inclusions to the MTB are according to distinct tumors and predominantly in case of tumor recurrence. An independently MTB member mostly create the recommendations, which are regularly implemented in the tumor treatment. Recommendations are given for alteration classes 4 and 5. Problems exist mostly within the cost takeover of experimental therapies. The experimental therapies are mostly given in the department of medical oncology. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular tumor boards for neuro-oncological patients, by now, are not standardized in Germany. Similarities exists for patient inclusion and interpretation of molecular alterations; the time point of inclusion and implementation during the patient treatment differ between the various hospitals. Further studies for standardization and harmonisation are needed. In summary, most of the interviewees envision great opportunities and possibilities for molecular-based neuro-oncological therapy in the future.

Quantifying the Expanding Landscape of Clinical Actionability for Patients with Cancer.

There is a continuing debate about the proportion of cancer patients that benefit from precision oncology, attributable in part to conflicting views as to which molecular alterations are clinically actionable. To quantify the expansion of clinical actionability since 2017, we annotated 47,271 solid tumors sequenced with the MSK-IMPACT clinical assay using two temporally distinct versions of the OncoKB knowledge base deployed 5 years apart. Between 2017 and 2022, we observed an increase from 8.9% to 31.6% in the fraction of tumors harboring a standard care (level 1 or 2) predictive biomarker of therapy response and an almost halving of tumors carrying nonactionable drivers (44.2% to 22.8%). In tumors with limited or no clinical actionability, TP53 (43.2%), KRAS (19.2%), and CDKN2A (12.2%) were the most frequently altered genes. SIGNIFICANCE: Although clear progress has been made in expanding the availability of precision oncology-based treatment paradigms, our results suggest a continued unmet need for innovative therapeutic strategies, particularly for cancers with currently undruggable oncogenic drivers. See related commentary by Horak and Fröhling, p. 18. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 5.

Impact of ACCELERATE Paediatric Strategy Forums: a review of the value of multi-stakeholder meetings in oncology drug development.

In a landscape of an increasing number of products and histology and age agnostic trials for rare patient cancer, prioritization of products is required. Paediatric Strategy Forums, organized by ACCELERATE and the European Medicines Agency with participation of the US Food and Drug Administration, are multi-stakeholder meetings that share information to best inform pediatric drug development strategies and subsequent clinical trial decisions. Academia, industry, regulators, and patient advocates are equal members, with patient advocates highlighting unmet needs of children and adolescents with cancer. The 11 Paediatric Strategy Forums since 2017 have made specific and general conclusions to accelerate drug development. Conclusions on product prioritization meetings, as well as global master protocols, have been outputs of these meetings. Forums have provided information for regulatory discussions and decisions by industry to facilitate development of high-priority products; for example, 62% of high-priority assets (agreed at a Forum) in contrast to 5% of those assets not considered high priority have been the subject of a Paediatric Investigational Plan or Written Request. Where there are multiple products of the same class, Forums have recommended a focused and sequential approach. Class prioritization resulted in an increase in waivers for non-prioritized B-cell products (44% to 75%) and a decrease in monotherapy trials, proposed in Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIP) submissions of checkpoint inhibitors from 53% to 19%. Strategy Forums could play a role in defining unmet medical needs. Multi-stakeholder forums, such as the Paediatric Strategy Forum, serve as a model to improve collaboration in the oncology drug development paradigm.

Overview of modern genomic tools for diagnosis and precision therapy of childhood solid cancers.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The application of technology and computational analyses to generate new data types from pediatric solid cancers is transforming diagnostic accuracy. This review provides an overview of such new capabilities in the pursuit of improved treatment for essentially rare and underserved diseases that are the highest cause of mortality in children over one year of age. Sophisticated ways of identifying therapeutic vulnerabilities for highly personalized treatment are presented alongside cutting-edge disease response monitoring by liquid biopsy. RECENT FINDINGS: Precision molecular profiling data are now being combined with conventional pathology-based evaluation of pediatric cancer tissues. The resulting diagnostic information can be used to guide therapeutic decision-making, including the use of small molecule inhibitors and of immunotherapies. Integrating somatic and germline variant profiles constitutes a critical component of this emerging paradigm, as does tissue-of-origin derivation from methylation profiling, and rapid screening of potential therapies. These new approaches are poised for use in disease response and therapy resistance monitoring. SUMMARY: The integration of clinical molecular profiling data with pathology can provide a highly precise diagnosis, identify therapeutic vulnerabilities, and monitor patient responses, providing next steps toward precision oncology for improved outcomes, including reducing lifelong treatment-related sequelae.

Recent advances in head and neck surgical oncology.

In recent years, the field of head and neck oncology has witnessed a remarkable transformation with unprecedented advances that have revolutionized the management of complex tumors in this region. As an intricate subspecialty within oncology, head and neck surgical procedures demand detailed knowledge of the complex anatomy meticulous precision in surgical technique, and expertise to preserve vital functions while ensuring optimal oncological outcomes. With the relentless pursuit of improved patient outcomes, the integration of innovative technologies has significantly enhanced the surgical armamentarium. Robotics, endoscopic platforms, and image-guided navigation have revolutionized the surgical approach, enabling precise tumor resection and sparing healthy tissues. Furthermore, the application of advanced imaging modalities and molecular biomarker profiling has opened new avenues for personalized treatment strategies. From targeted therapies and immunotherapies to adaptive radiation techniques, clinicians are now equipped with an array of tailored options, ushering in a new era of personalized care for patients with head and neck malignancies. This article delves into the unfolding narratives of clinical triumphs, exploring the transformative potential of emerging therapies and the collaborative efforts propelling head and neck surgical oncology toward a future of hope and healing.

How will the identification and therapeutic intervention of genetic targets in oncology evolve for future therapy?

INTRODUCTION: Mapping of the human genome, together with the broad understanding of new biomolecular pathways involved in cancer development, represents a huge dividing line for advances in cancer treatment. This special article aims to express the next evolution of cancer therapy, while also considering the challenges and uncertainties facing future directions. AREA COVERED: The recent achievements of medical science in the oncology field concern both new diagnostic techniques, such as liquid biopsy, and therapeutic strategies with innovative anticancer drugs. Although several molecular characteristics of tumors are linked to the tissue of origin, some mutations are shared by multiple tumor histologies, thus paving the way for what is called 'precision oncology.' The article highlights the importance of identifying new mutations and biomolecular pathways that can be pursued with new anticancer drugs. EXPERT OPINION: Oncology and medical science have made great progress in understanding new molecular targets; being able to early identify tumor markers that are not confined to a single organ through minimally invasive diagnostic techniques allows us to design new effective therapeutic strategies. Multidisciplinary teams now aim to evaluate the most appropriate and personalized diagnostic/therapeutic approach for the individual patient.

Rituximab reference vs biosimilar utilization for oncology vs nononcology indications.

OBJECTIVES: Limited data exist on the adoption of rituximab biosimilars vs the reference product by indication. Available data from real-world studies comparing rituximab biosimilar and reference use have focused predominantly on oncology indications. This is the first study to assess the utilization of the 3 US rituximab biosimilars vs the reference product. STUDY DESIGN: Comparative analysis. METHODS: Deidentified real-world data of rituximab, rituximab-abbs, rituximab-pvvr, and rituximab-arrx dispensations between December 31, 2018, and February 1, 2022, were extracted using Trisus Medication Compare (The Craneware Group). The primary outcome was rituximab reference vs biosimilar utilization for oncology vs nononcology indications. Results were stratified by on-label and off-label use and treatment settings. RESULTS: A total of 28,025 encounters were captured for rituximab and its biosimilars across 193 facilities (rituximab: n = 23,395; biosimilars, n = 4631 [rituximab-abbs: n = 2550; rituximab-pvvr, n = 2081; rituximab-arrx: n = 0]). Rituximab reference had higher dispensations for oncology (78.4%) and nononcology (88.3%) indications than its biosimilars (21.6% and 11.7%, respectively; P < .01). The 3-year annual trends from 2019 to 2021 revealed decreased rituximab reference utilization (99.99% to 40.1%) and increased biosimilar use (0.01% to 59.9%). Most oncology dispensations were on label (94.5%), whereas most nononcology dispensations were off label (73.6%; P < .01). A higher proportion of biosimilar use was attributed to on-label indications (67.7%; off-label, 32.2%) compared with rituximab reference (58.0% vs42.0%, respectively; P < .01). Nonacademic settings showed higher biosimilar adoption than academic settings (22.2% vs 10.3%, respectively; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world evidence shows an increase in rituximab biosimilar adoption over time, with higher adoption for oncology vs nononcology indications and in nonacademic settings.

Trends in medical care utilization in patients with cancer: An analysis of real-world data in a tertiary hospital in Korea, 2014-2019.

BACKGROUND: Rising costs of cancer treatments challenge even areas with universal health coverage. There's a need to assess current medical care utilization trends among patients with cancer to guide public health policy, resource allocation, and set informed healthcare goals. METHODS: We analyzed the latest trends in medical care utilization by cancer patients in four areas-drugs, radiation therapy (RT), surgery, and diagnostic procedures-using clinical databases extracted from electronic medical records of a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2014 and 2019. Compound adjusted growth rates (CAGR) were computed to capture the annual growth over the study period. RESULTS: A total of 74,285 cancer patients were identified, with 40.3% (29,962), 14.2% (10,577), 31.1% (23,066), and 92.6% (68,849) of patients having received at least one anticancer agent, RT, surgery, and diagnostic procedure, respectively, over the period. We observed a 1.7-fold increase in the use of targeted · immune-oncology agents (from 6.8% to 11.6%) and a 21-fold increase (from 3.0% in 2014 to 65.7%) in intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) use over the period. In contrast, we observed a continuous decrease in the proportion of patients who underwent surgical treatment from 12.2% in 2014 to 10.9% in 2019. This decrease was particularly noticeable in patients with colon cancer (from 28.5% to 24.2%) and liver cancer (from 4.1% to 2.9%). CONCLUSION: From 2014 to 2019, there was a significant rise in the use of targeted · immune-oncology agents and IMRT, alongside a decline in surgeries. While targeted · immune-oncology agents and IMRT may offer promising outcomes, their financial impact and potential for overuse necessitate careful oversight and long-term cost-effectiveness studies.

Modified study designs to expand treatment options in personalised oncology: a multistakeholder view.

Personalised oncology, whereby patients are given therapies based on their molecular tumour profile, is rapidly becoming an essential part of optimal clinical care, at least partly facilitated by recent advances in next-generation sequencing-based technology using liquid- and tissue-based biopsies. Consequently, clinical trials have shifted in approach, from traditional studies evaluating cytotoxic chemotherapy in largely histology-based populations to modified, biomarker-driven studies (e.g. basket, umbrella, platform) of molecularly guided therapies and cancer immunotherapies in selected patient subsets. Such modified study designs may assess, within the same trial structure, multiple cancer types and treatments, and should incorporate a multistakeholder perspective. This is key to generating complementary, fit-for-purpose and timely evidence for molecularly guided therapies that can be used as proof-of-concept to inform further study designs, lead to approval by regulatory authorities and be used as confirmation of clinical benefit for health technology assessment bodies. In general, the future of cancer clinical trials requires a framework for the application of innovative technologies and dynamic design methodologies, in order to efficiently transform scientific discoveries into clinical utility. Next-generation, modified studies that involve the joint efforts of all key stakeholders will offer individualised strategies that ultimately contribute to globalised knowledge and collective learning. In this review, we outline the background and purpose of such modified study designs and detail key aspects from a multistakeholder perspective. We also provide methodological considerations for designing the studies and highlight how insights from already-ongoing studies may address current challenges and opportunities in the era of personalised oncology.

Systemic Therapy for Small-Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO-Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing clinicians on the management of patients with small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: An Expert Panel of medical oncology, thoracic surgery, radiation oncology, pulmonary, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts were convened to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2022. Outcomes of interest included response rates, overall survival, disease-free survival or recurrence-free survival, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 95 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were developed to address systemic therapy options, timing of therapy, treatment in patients who are older or with poor performance status, role of biomarkers, and use of myeloid-supporting agents in patients with small-cell lung cancer.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Realizing the Dream of Precision Oncology: A Solution for All Patients.

MICRO-ABSTRACT: As molecularly informed oncology care has increasingly become standard practice for patients with cancer, society must prioritize equitable access to genetic testing that guides subsequent care. Despite the availability of genomic testing laboratories, published guidelines, US Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies, financial assistance programs, and clinical decision tools, precision medicine remains out of reach for many patients. While there has been modest improvement in testing rates in recent years, molecular testing and targeted therapy for cancer patients continue to vary by practice setting and patient insurance status, and racial and socioeconomic disparities persist. National standards and centralized solutions are needed to promote the equitable distribution of patient benefit from precision medicine technology. Although various online resources are currently available, no single all-encompassing precision oncology tool currently exists. A one-stop shop to address all aspects of precision oncology-tissue selection and test ordering, interpretation of results, prescribing targeted therapies, and enrolling patients in clinical trials-would disrupt cancer care. Recent advances in artificial intelligence, digital pathology, and data science provide an opportunity for stakeholders to partner together to leverage these technologies to develop this unified, freely accessible, national solution. Whether locoregionally, nationally, or internationally, only collaborative efforts can fully realize the potential of technological advancements in molecular pathology and oncology therapeutics for all cancer patients.