Identification of Incidental Germline Mutations in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors Who Underwent Cell-Free Circulating Tumor DNA Sequencing.

PURPOSE: To determine the potential for detection of incidental germline cancer predisposition mutations through cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analyses in patients who underwent solid tumor somatic mutation evaluation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were evaluated from 10,888 unselected patients with advanced (stage III/IV) cancer who underwent Guardant360 testing between November 2015 and December 2016. The main outcome was prevalence of putative germline mutations identified among 16 actionable hereditary cancer predisposition genes. RESULTS: More than 50 cancer types were studied, including lung (41%), breast (19%), colorectal (8%), prostate (6%), pancreatic (3%), and ovarian (2%). Average patient age was 63.5 years (range, 18 to 95 years); 43% were male. One hundred and fifty-six individuals (1.4%) had suspected hereditary cancer mutations in 11 genes. Putative germline mutations were more frequent in individuals younger than 50 years versus those 50 years and older (3.0% v 1.2%, respectively; P < .001). Highest yields of putative germline findings were in patients with ovarian (8.13%), prostate (3.46%), pancreatic (3.34%), and breast (2.2%) cancer. Putative germline mutation identification was consistent among 12 individuals with multiple samples. Patients with circulating tumor DNA copy number variation and/or reversion mutations suggestive of functional loss of the wild-type allele in the tumor DNA also are described. CONCLUSION: Detection of putative germline mutations from cfDNA is feasible across multiple genes and cancer types without prior mutation knowledge. Many mutations were found in cancers without clear guidelines for hereditary cancer genetic counseling/testing. Given the clinical significance of identifying hereditary cancer predisposition for patients and their families as well as targetable germline alterations such as in BRCA1 or BRCA2, research on the best way to validate and return potential germline results from cfDNA analysis to clinicians and patients is needed.

Phase I trial of intraperitoneal pemetrexed, cisplatin, and paclitaxel in optimally debulked ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase I trial evaluated intraperitoneal (i.p.) pemetrexed, cisplatin, and paclitaxel in optimally debulked ovarian cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Dose escalation of day 1 i.p. pemetrexed accrued three patients to each of five dose levels (60-1,000 mg/m(2)), along with day 2 i.p. cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) and day 8 i.p. paclitaxel (60 mg/m(2)). The goals were to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), 18-month progression-free survival (PFS), and pharmacokinetics of i.p. pemetrexed. RESULTS: Cycles, given every 21 days, had an 80% 6-cycle completion rate. There was minimal grade III toxicity in the first 4 dose levels and remarkably an almost complete absence of peripheral neuropathy and alopecia. At the highest dose level, two of three patients experienced ≥ grade III and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT; hematologic, infection, gastrointestinal). There was a pharmacokinetic advantage for i.p. pemetrexed with an intraperitoneal:plasma area under the concentration-time curve ratio of 13-fold. Neither analysis of pharmacokinetic nor homocysteine levels explains the unexpected severity of toxicity in those two patients. On the basis of plasma C(24h) levels, the 42 cycles at ≥ 500 mg/m(2) i.p. pemetrexed without DLT, the MTD appears to be 500 mg/m(2). Median PFS is 30.1 months; 18-month PFS is 78.6% (median follow-up 22.4 months). CONCLUSIONS: This i.p.-only regimen in front-line ovarian cancer is feasible with PFS in line with recent literature. We suggest phase II trials of this regimen in this population with i.p. pemetrexed at 500 mg/m(2). The favorable toxicity profile at doses <1,000 mg/m(2), which needs to be confirmed, appears to compare well with standard combination i.v./i.p. platinum/taxane chemotherapy in this disease.

Phase III trial of induction gemcitabine or paclitaxel plus carboplatin followed by paclitaxel consolidation in ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) or paclitaxel plus carboplatin (TC) induction regimens with or without paclitaxel consolidation therapy were assessed in ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: Patients with stage IC-IV OC were randomized to either GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8, plus carboplatin area under the curve [AUC] 5, day 1) or TC (paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) plus carboplatin AUC 6, day 1) every 21 days for up to six cycles. Patients with complete response (CR) were allowed optional consolidation with paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) every 28 days for ≤ 12 months. Patients without CR received single-agent crossover therapy at induction doses/schedules until CR, disease progression (PD), or unacceptable toxicity. PD or death in 636 patients was required to compare induction arms with 80% statistical power for progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Randomized induction therapy was received by 820 of 919 patients enrolled; 352 patients with CR received paclitaxel consolidation whereas 155 patients without CR received single-agent crossover therapy. PFS was similar for GC and TC (median, 20.0 and 22.2 months, respectively; P=.199). Despite high censoring rates (>52%), overall survival was longer for TC (median, 57.3 versus 43.8 months for GC; P=.013). Controlling for patient characteristics including performance status, residual tumor size, and tumor stage, there was no statistical difference in a multivariate analysis (HR=1.22; 95% CI=0.99-1.52; P=.067). CONCLUSIONS: GC does not improve PFS over TC as first-line induction chemotherapy in OC. Although favoring TC, overall survival analyses were limited by the study design and high censoring rates.

Overexpression of tumor vascular endothelial growth factor A may portend an increased likelihood of progression in a phase II trial of bevacizumab and erlotinib in resistant ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase II trial evaluated bevacizumab plus erlotinib in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer; exploratory biomarker analyses, including that of tumor vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A), were also done. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Forty heavily pretreated patients received erlotinib (150 mg/d orally) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg i.v.) every 2 weeks until disease progression. Primary end points were objective response rate and response duration; secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and correlations between angiogenic protein levels, toxicity, and efficacy. RESULTS: Grade 3 toxicities included skin rash (n = 6), diarrhea (n = 5), fatigue (n = 4), and hypertension (n = 3). Grade 4 toxicities were myocardial infarction (n = 1) and nasal septal perforation (n = 1). Only one grade 3 fistula and one grade 2 bowel perforation were observed. Nine (23.1%) of 39 evaluable patients had a response (median duration, 36.1+ weeks; one complete response), and 10 (25.6%) patients achieved stable disease, for a disease control rate of 49%. Median PFS was 4 months, and 6-month PFS was 30.8%. Biomarker analyses identified an association between tumor cell VEGF-A expression and progression (P = 0.03); for every 100-unit increase in the VEGF-A score, there was a 3.7-fold increase in the odds of progression (95% confidence interval, 1.1-16.6). CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab plus erlotinib in heavily pretreated ovarian cancer patients was clinically active and well tolerated. Erlotinib did not seem to contribute to efficacy. Our study raises the intriguing possibility that high levels of tumor cell VEGF-A, capable of both autocrine and paracrine interactions, are associated with resistance to bevacizumab, emphasizing the complexity of the tumor microenvironment.

Pilot study of the prospective identification of changes in cognitive function during chemotherapy treatment for advanced ovarian cancer.

Change in cognitive function is increasingly being recognized as an adverse outcome related to chemotherapy treatment. These changes need not be severe to impact patient functional ability and quality of life. The primary goal of this study was to determine if there is evidence of changes in the cognitive function domains of attention, processing speed, and response time among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who receive chemotherapy. Eligible patients were women diagnosed with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer who had not yet received chemotherapy but who were prescribed a minimum of six cycles (courses) of chemotherapy treatment. Cognitive function was assessed by a computerized, Web-based assessment (attention, processing speed, and reaction time) and by patient self-report. Cognitive function was assessed at three time points: prior to the first course (baseline), course three, and course six. Medical records were reviewed to abstract information on chemotherapy treatment, concomitant medications, and blood test results (e.g., hemoglobin, CA-125). Of the 27 eligible participants, 92% and 86% demonstrated cognitive impairments from baseline to course three and from baseline to course six of chemotherapy, respectively. Impairment was detected in two or more cognitive domains among 48% (12 of 25) and 41% (9 of 22) of participants at course three and course six of chemotherapy, respectively. This study shows evidence of decline in cognitive function among women being treated for ovarian cancer. There is a need for additional, prospective research to better understand the impact of chemotherapy on cognitive function among ovarian cancer patients so that effective preventive and treatment strategies can be developed.