Comparison of three commercial decision support platforms for matching of next-generation sequencing results with therapies in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Precision oncology depends on translating molecular data into therapy recommendations. However, with the growing complexity of next-generation sequencing-based tests, clinical interpretation of somatic genomic mutations has evolved into a formidable task. Here, we compared the performance of three commercial clinical decision support tools, that is, NAVIFY Mutation Profiler (NAVIFY; Roche), QIAGEN Clinical Insight (QCI) Interpret (QIAGEN) and CureMatch Bionov (CureMatch). METHODS: In order to obtain the current status of the respective tumour genome, we analysed cell-free DNA from patients with metastatic breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer. We evaluated somatic copy number alterations and in parallel applied a 77-gene panel (AVENIO ctDNA Expanded Panel). We then assessed the concordance of tier classification approaches between NAVIFY and QCI and compared the strategies to determine actionability among all three platforms. Finally, we quantified the alignment of treatment suggestions across all decision tools. RESULTS: Each platform varied in its mode of variant classification and strategy for identifying druggable targets and clinical trials, which resulted in major discrepancies. Even the frequency of concordant actionable events for tier I-A or tier I-B classifications was only 4.3%, 9.5% and 28.4% when comparing NAVIFY with QCI, NAVIFY with CureMatch and CureMatch with QCI, respectively, and the obtained treatment recommendations differed drastically. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment decisions based on molecular markers appear at present to be arbitrary and dependent on the chosen strategy. As a consequence, tumours with identical molecular profiles would be differently treated, which challenges the promising concepts of genome-informed medicine.

Azacitidine for Front-Line Therapy of Patients with AML: Reproducible Efficacy Established by Direct Comparison of International Phase 3 Trial Data with Registry Data from the Austrian Azacitidine Registry of the AGMT Study Group.

We recently published a clinically-meaningful improvement in median overall survival (OS) for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), >30% bone marrow (BM) blasts and white blood cell (WBC) count ≤15 G/L, treated with front-line azacitidine versus conventional care regimens within a phase 3 clinical trial (AZA-AML-001; NCT01074047; registered: February 2010). As results obtained in clinical trials are facing increased pressure to be confirmed by real-world data, we aimed to test whether data obtained in the AZA-AML-001 trial accurately represent observations made in routine clinical practice by analysing additional AML patients treated with azacitidine front-line within the Austrian Azacitidine Registry (AAR; NCT01595295; registered: May 2012) and directly comparing patient-level data of both cohorts. We assessed the efficacy of front-line azacitidine in a total of 407 patients with newly-diagnosed AML. Firstly, we compared data from AML patients with WBC ≤ 15 G/L and >30% BM blasts included within the AZA-AML-001 trial treated with azacitidine ("AML-001" cohort; n = 214) with AAR patients meeting the same inclusion criteria ("AAR (001-like)" cohort; n = 95). The current analysis thus represents a new sub-analysis of the AML-001 trial, which is directly compared with a new sub-analysis of the AAR. Baseline characteristics, azacitidine application, response rates and OS were comparable between all patient cohorts within the trial or registry setting. Median OS was 9.9 versus 10.8 months (p = 0.616) for "AML-001" versus "AAR (001-like)" cohorts, respectively. Secondly, we pooled data from both cohorts (n = 309) and assessed the outcome. Median OS of the pooled cohorts was 10.3 (95% confidence interval: 8.7, 12.6) months, and the one-year survival rate was 45.8%. Thirdly, we compared data from AAR patients meeting AZA-AML-001 trial inclusion criteria (n = 95) versus all AAR patients with World Health Organization (WHO)-defined AML ("AAR (WHO-AML)" cohort; n = 193). Within the registry population, median OS for AAR patients meeting trial inclusion criteria versus all WHO-AML patients was 10.8 versus 11.8 months (p = 0.599), respectively. We thus tested and confirmed the efficacy of azacitidine as a front-line agent in patients with AML, >30% BM blasts and WBC ≤ 15 G/L in a routine clinical practice setting. We further show that the efficacy of azacitidine does not appear to be limited to AML patients who meet stringent clinical trial inclusion criteria, but instead appears efficacious as front-line treatment in all patients with WHO-AML.

Azacitidine front-line in 339 patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukaemia: comparison of French-American-British and World Health Organization classifications.

BACKGROUND: The MDS-IWG and NCCN currently endorse both FAB and WHO classifications of MDS and AML, thus allowing patients with 20-30 % bone marrow blasts (AML20-30, formerly MDS-RAEB-t) to be categorised and treated as either MDS or AML. In addition, an artificial distinction between AML20-30 and AML30+ was made by regulatory agencies by initially restricting approval of azacitidine to AML20-30. Thus, uncertainty prevails regarding the diagnosis, prognosis and optimal treatment timing and strategy for patients with AML20-30. Here, we aim to provide clarification for patients treated with azacitidine front-line. METHODS: The Austrian Azacitidine Registry is a multicentre database (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01595295). For this analysis, we selected 339 patients treated with azacitidine front-line. According to the WHO classification 53, 96 and 190 patients had MDS-RAEB-I, MDS-RAEB-II and AML (AML20-30: n = 79; AML30+: n = 111), respectively. According to the FAB classification, 131, 101 and 111 patients had MDS-RAEB, MDS-RAEB-t and AML, respectively. RESULTS: The median ages of patients with MDS and AML were 72 (range 37-87) and 77 (range 23-93) years, respectively. Overall, 80 % of classifiable patients (≤30 % bone marrow blasts) had intermediate-2 or high-risk IPSS scores. Most other baseline, treatment and response characteristics were similar between patients diagnosed with MDS or AML. WHO-classified patients with AML20-30 had significantly worse OS than patients with MDS-RAEB-II (13.1 vs 18.9 months; p = 0.010), but similar OS to patients with AML30+ (10.9 vs 13.1 months; p = 0.238). AML patients that showed MDS-related features did not have worse outcomes compared with patients who did not (13.2 vs 8.9 months; p = 0.104). FAB-classified patients with MDS-RAEB-t had similar survival to patients with AML30+ (12.8 vs 10.9 months; p = 0.376), but significantly worse OS than patients with MDS-RAEB (10.9 vs 24.4 months; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate the validity of the WHO classification of MDS and AML, and its superiority over the former FAB classification, for patients treated with azacitidine front-line. Neither bone marrow blast count nor presence of MDS-related features had an adverse prognostic impact on survival. Patients with AML20-30 should therefore be regarded as having 'true AML' and in our opinion treatment should be initiated without delay.

Megakaryocytic morphology and clinical parameters in essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, and primary myelofibrosis with and without JAK2 V617F.

CONTEXT: Megakaryocytes are the "hallmark" of Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms, such as essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, and primary myelofibrosis; their morphology in correlation with Janus kinase 2 (JAK2 V617F) mutation as well as clinical and laboratory parameters remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the morphology of megakaryocytes in bone marrow biopsies of patients with and without JAK2 V617F mutation. DESIGN: Assessment of morphologic features of megakaryocytes in 112 bone marrow biopsies (52 essential thrombocythemia, 38 polycythemia vera, and 22 primary myelofibrosis) and correlation with clinical and laboratory data. RESULTS: JAK2 V617F mutation was detected in 24 of 52 essential thrombocythemia cases (46.2%), 36 of 38 polycythemia vera cases (97.5%), and 14 of 22 primary myelofibrosis cases (63.6%). By investigating morphometric and clinical parameters using multivariate analysis, we found that higher hemoglobin concentration, higher white blood cell counts, and lower platelet counts were significantly associated with JAK2 V617F. Striking morphologic similarities were found between polycythemia vera JAK2 V617F and primary myelofibrosis JAK2 V617F concerning the localization and cytoplasmic size of megakaryocytes. Although polycythemia vera JAK2 V617F and essential thrombocythemia JAK2 V617F shared similarities in localization, distribution, and amount of megakaryocytes, morphology was different. Megakaryocytic morphology also differed between primary myelofibrosis JAK2 V617F and essential thrombocythemia JAK2 V617F. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that primary myelofibrosis JAK2 V617F and polycythemia vera JAK2 V617F share pathogenetic pathways, resulting in morphologically similar megakaryocytes.

Experience with lenalidomide in an Austrian non-study population with advanced myelofibrosis.

Current literature provides conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of lenalidomide in patients with myelofibrosis (MF). The aim of this work was to evaluate the efficacy of lenalidomide in patients with MF treated within a named patient program in Austria. A total of 22 patients with MF were treated with lenalidomide in 7 different centres throughout Austria. Median age of patients was 68 years. Primary MF was present in 13 patients. Eight patients had post-polycythemia vera (post-PV) and 1 post-essential thrombocythemia (post-ET) MF. According to the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS), all patients were scored within the intermediate-2 or high-risk group. Approximately one-third of patients were treated with 2 or more prior therapies. The overall response rate according to International Working Group (IWG) criteria was 12.5 %. Efficacy of lenalidomide was moderate in this non-study patient population. Limiting factors seemed to be stage of disease and risk profile of patients included in this analysis.