Developing a post-treatment survivorship care plan to help breast cancer survivors understand their fertility.

PURPOSE: Reproductive-aged breast cancer survivors (BCS) who have completed initial cancer treatment frequently want to know about their future fertility potential. The purpose of this qualitative study was to assess if the fertility-related content presented in the survivorship care plan prototype met the informational needs of post-treatment BCS and to provide an opportunity for the target audience to review and react to the proposed content and design. METHODS: We conducted and analyzed transcripts from seven focus groups with BCS to evaluate their reactions to the survivorship care plan prototype. We independently coded transcripts for consistent themes and sub-themes and used a consensus-building approach to agree on interpretation of results. RESULTS: We identified five themes that describe the post-treatment BCS' responses to the prototype survivorship care plan in the context of their informational needs and experiences: (1) the prototype's fertility-related information is relevant; (2) desire for clinical parameters to help survivors understand their infertility risk; (3) fertility-related information is important throughout survivorship; (4) evidence-based content from a neutral source is trustworthy; and (5) the recommendation to see a fertility specialist is helpful, but cost is a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: BCS have concerns and needs related to their fertility potential after initial breast cancer treatment. The evidence-based information offered in our prototype survivorship care plan was acceptable to BCS and has significant potential to address these needs. Additional primary data that identify post-cancer treatment indicators of fertility would advance this effort.

Molecular tumor board: the University of California-San Diego Moores Cancer Center experience.

OBJECTIVE: DNA sequencing tests are enabling physicians to interrogate the molecular profiles of patients' tumors, but most oncologists have not been trained in advanced genomics. We initiated a molecular tumor board to provide expert multidisciplinary input for these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A team that included clinicians, basic scientists, geneticists, and bioinformatics/pathway scientists with expertise in various cancer types attended. Molecular tests were performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments environment. RESULTS: Patients (n = 34, since December 2012) had received a median of three prior therapies. The median time from physician order to receipt of molecular diagnostic test results was 27 days (range: 14-77 days). Patients had a median of 4 molecular abnormalities (range: 1-14 abnormalities) found by next-generation sequencing (182- or 236-gene panels). Seventy-four genes were involved, with 123 distinct abnormalities. Importantly, no two patients had the same aberrations, and 107 distinct abnormalities were seen only once. Among the 11 evaluable patients whose treatment had been informed by molecular diagnostics, 3 achieved partial responses (progression-free survival of 3.4 months, ≥6.5 months, and 7.6 months). The most common reasons for being unable to act on the molecular diagnostic results were that patients were ineligible for or could not travel to an appropriately targeted clinical trial and/or that insurance would not cover the cognate agents. CONCLUSION: Genomic sequencing is revealing complex molecular profiles that differ by patient. Multidisciplinary molecular tumor boards may help optimize management. Barriers to personalized therapy include access to appropriately targeted drugs.

Molecular profiling of advanced malignancies guides first-line N-of-1 treatments in the I-PREDICT treatment-naïve study.

BACKGROUND: Malignancies are molecularly complex and become more resistant with each line of therapy. We hypothesized that offering matched, individualized combination therapies to patients with treatment-naïve, advanced cancers would be feasible and efficacious. Patients with newly diagnosed unresectable/metastatic, poor-prognosis cancers were enrolled in a cross-institutional prospective study. METHODS: A total of 145 patients were included in the study. Genomic profiling (tissue and/or circulating tumor DNA) was performed in all patients, and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry, tumor mutational burden, and microsatellite status assessment were performed in a subset of patients. We evaluated safety and outcomes: disease-control rate (stable disease for ≥ 6 months or partial or complete response), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Seventy-six of 145 patients (52%) were treated, most commonly for non-colorectal gastrointestinal cancers, carcinomas of unknown primary, and hepatobiliary malignancies (53% women; median age, 63 years). The median number of deleterious genomic alterations per patient was 5 (range, 0-15). Fifty-four treated patients (71%) received ≥ 1 molecularly matched therapy, demonstrating the feasibility of administering molecularly matched therapy. The Matching Score, which reflects the percentage of targeted alterations, correlated linearly with progression-free survival (R2 = 0.92; P = 0.01), and high (≥ 60%) Matching Score was an independent predictor of improved disease control rate [OR 3.31 (95% CI 1.01-10.83), P = 0.048], PFS [HR 0.55 (0.28-1.07), P = 0.08], and OS [HR 0.42 (0.21-0.85), P = 0.02]. Serious adverse event rates were similar in the unmatched and matched groups. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized combination therapies targeting a majority of a patient's molecular alterations have antitumor activity as first-line treatment. These findings underscore the feasibility and importance of using tailored N-of-1 combination therapies early in the course of lethal malignancies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: I-PREDICT ( NCT02534675 ) was registered on August 25, 2015.

Next-Generation Sequencing of Tissue and Circulating Tumor DNA: The UC San Diego Moores Center for Personalized Cancer Therapy Experience with Breast Malignancies.

Clinical-grade next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tissue- and blood-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) allows assessment of multiple genomic alterations in patients with cancer. We analyzed ctDNA (54-70 genes) in 62 patients with advanced breast cancer (median = five prior therapies); 38 also had tissue NGS (236-315 genes). Overall, 42 of 62 patients (68%) had detectable (characterized) ctDNA alterations (variants of unknown significance excluded), and 37 of 38 (97%) had tissue alterations. The median (range) number of characterized alterations in ctDNA was 1 (0-7), and in tissue, 4 (0-17). The most common alterations in ctDNA were in TP53 (37% of patients) and PIK3CA (23%), and for tissue, TP53 (37%) and PIK3CA (24%); EGFR amplification was seen in ctDNA (11%), but not in tissue. Concordance between ctDNA and tissue appeared higher if <6 months separated the sample acquisition, although small sample size precluded statistical validation. Overall, 32 of 67 tissue alterations (48%) were also detected in ctDNA; 35 of 72 ctDNA alterations (48%) were also in tissue. Excluding estrogen receptor and ERBB2, 41 of 62 patients (66%) had potentially actionable alterations in ctDNA, and 36 of 38 (95%), in tissue (with potential actionability based on either preclinical or clinical evidence). If ≥1 genomic alteration had ctDNA ≥5%, survival was shorter than if ctDNA was <5% (median, 6.7 vs. 17.9 months; P = 0.01). In conclusion, tissue and ctDNA NGS reveal potentially actionable alterations in most patients. The genomic results of ctDNA and tissue NGS overlap, but there are differences, perhaps reflecting temporal spacing and tumor heterogeneity. ctDNA quantification also provides prognostic information.

Breast Cancer Experience of the Molecular Tumor Board at the University of California, San Diego Moores Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: Multiplex genomic tests are enabling oncologists to interrogate the DNA of their patients. However, few oncologists are proficient with respect to the implications of complex molecular diagnostics. We initiated a Molecular Tumor Board that focused on individual patients with advanced cancer whose tumors underwent genomic profiling, and here report our experience with breast cancer. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team that included physicians, scientists, geneticists, and bioinformatics/pathway specialists attended. All molecular tests were performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments environment (next-generation sequencing, 182 or 236 genes). RESULTS: Forty of 43 patients (93%; mean age, 59 years) had at least one theoretically actionable aberration (mean, 4.79 anomalies/patient). Median time from ordering to report was 27 days (median of approximately 11 days for specimen acquisition and approximately 14 days for diagnostic processing). Even if we considered distinct abnormalities in a gene as the same, there were only two patients with an identical molecular profile. Seventy-three genes (206 abnormalities; 119 distinct) were aberrant. Seventeen of the 43 patients (40%; median, seven previous therapies in the metastatic setting) were treated in a manner consistent with Molecular Tumor Board discussions; seven (16% of 43, or 41% of 17) achieved stable disease for 6 or more months (n = 2) or partial remission (n = 5). Lack of access to targeted medication was the most common reason that patients could not be treated. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary molecular tumor boards may help to optimize the management of patients with advanced, heavily pretreated breast cancer who have undergone genomic testing. Facilitating availability of appropriately targeted drugs and clinical trials is needed.