Telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter alterations across cancer types as detected by next-generation sequencing: A clinical and molecular analysis of 423 patients.

BACKGROUND: Telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter mutations that may affect telomerase activity have recently been described in human malignancies. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical correlates of TERT promoter abnormalities in a large cohort of patients with diverse cancers. METHODS: This study analyzed TERT promoter alterations and clinical characteristics of 423 consecutive patients for whom molecular testing by next-generation sequencing was performed between August 2014 and July 2015. RESULTS: Of the 423 patients, 61 (14.4%) had TERT promoter mutations, and this placed TERT promoter alterations among the most prevalent aberrations after tumor protein 53 (TP53; 39%) and KRAS and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A/B (CDKN2A/B) alterations (15% each) in this population. TERT promoter alterations were more frequent in men (P = .031) and were associated with brain cancers (P = .001), skin cancers/melanoma (P = .001), and a higher number of aberrations (P = .0001). A co-alteration analysis found that TERT promoter alterations were significantly correlated with CDKN2A/B (P = .001) and BRAF abnormalities (P = .0003). Patients harboring TERT promoter alterations or TP53 or CDKN2A/B alterations and those with 4 or more alterations demonstrated shorter survival (hazard ratio for normal TERT promoters vs aberrant ones, 0.44; P = .017). However, only a higher number of alterations remained significant in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, TERT promoter alterations were among the most prevalent aberrations in this population, with very high rates in brain cancers (48% of patients) and melanomas (56% of patients). These aberrations frequently coexist with a high number of other aberrations, with the latter feature also significantly associated with poorer overall survival. Therapeutic options for targeting tumors with TERT promoter mutations are currently limited, although a variety of novel approaches are under development. Cancer 2018;124:1288-96. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Fibroblast growth factor receptor signaling in hereditary and neoplastic disease: biologic and clinical implications.

Fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) and their receptors (FGFRs) are transmembrane growth factor receptors with wide tissue distribution. FGF/FGFR signaling is involved in neoplastic behavior and also development, differentiation, growth, and survival. FGFR germline mutations (activating) can cause skeletal disorders, primarily dwarfism (generally mutations in FGFR3), and craniofacial malformation syndromes (usually mutations in FGFR1 and FGFR2); intriguingly, some of these activating FGFR mutations are also seen in human cancers. FGF/FGFR aberrations reported in cancers are mainly thought to be gain-of-function changes, and several cancers have high frequencies of FGFR alterations, including breast, bladder, or squamous cell carcinomas (lung and head and neck). FGF ligand aberrations (predominantly gene amplifications) are also frequently seen in cancers, in contrast to hereditary syndromes. There are several pharmacologic agents that have been or are being developed for inhibition of FGFR/FGF signaling. These include both highly selective inhibitors as well as multi-kinase inhibitors. Of note, only four agents (ponatinib, pazopanib, regorafenib, and recently lenvatinib) are FDA-approved for use in cancer, although the approval was not based on their activity against FGFR. Perturbations in the FGFR/FGF signaling are present in both inherited and malignant diseases. The development of potent inhibitors targeting FGF/FGFR may provide new tools against disorders caused by FGF/FGFR alterations.

HER2 expression status in diverse cancers: review of results from 37,992 patients.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) amplification/overexpression is an effective therapeutic target in breast and gastric cancer. Although HER2 positivity has been reported in other malignancies, previous studies generally focused on one cancer type, making it challenging to compare HER2 positivity across studies/malignancies. Herein, we examined 37,992 patient samples for HER2 expression (+/- amplification) in a single laboratory. All 37,992 patients were tested by immunohistochemistry (IHC); 21,642 of them were also examined for HER2 amplification with either fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) (11,670 patients) or chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) (9,972 patients); 18,262 patients had tumors other than breast or gastric cancer. All tissues were analyzed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) laboratory (Caris Life Sciences) at the request of referring physicians. HER2 protein overexpression was found in 2.7 % of samples. Over-expressed HER2 was detected predominantly in malignancies of epithelial origin; for cancers derived from mesenchyme, neuroendocrine tissue, central nervous system, and kidney, HER2 expression and amplification were remarkably rare or non-existent. Bladder carcinomas, gallbladder, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, cervical, uterine, and testicular cancers showed HER2 positivity rates of 12.4, 9.8, 6.3, 3.9, 3.0, and 2.4 %, respectively. HER2 overexpression and/or amplification is frequently found across tumor types. These observations may have significant therapeutic implications in cancers not traditionally thought to benefit from anti-HER2 therapies.

Lenalidomide inhibits the proliferation of CLL cells via a cereblon/p21(WAF1/Cip1)-dependent mechanism independent of functional p53.

Lenalidomide has demonstrated clinical activity in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), even though it is not cytotoxic for primary CLL cells in vitro. We examined the direct effect of lenalidomide on CLL-cell proliferation induced by CD154-expressing accessory cells in media containing interleukin-4 and -10. Treatment with lenalidomide significantly inhibited CLL-cell proliferation, an effect that was associated with the p53-independent upregulation of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, p21(WAF1/Cip1) (p21). Silencing p21 with small interfering RNA impaired the capacity of lenalidomide to inhibit CLL-cell proliferation. Silencing cereblon, a known molecular target of lenalidomide, impaired the capacity of lenalidomide to induce expression of p21, inhibit CD154-induced CLL-cell proliferation, or enhance the degradation of Ikaros family zinc finger proteins 1 and 3. We isolated CLL cells from the blood of patients before and after short-term treatment with low-dose lenalidomide (5 mg per day) and found the leukemia cells were also induced to express p21 in vivo. These results indicate that lenalidomide can directly inhibit proliferation of CLL cells in a cereblon/p21-dependent but p53-independent manner, at concentrations achievable in vivo, potentially contributing to the capacity of this drug to inhibit disease-progression in patients with CLL.

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.

Genomic Assessment of Blood-Derived Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients With Colorectal Cancers: Correlation With Tissue Sequencing, Therapeutic Response, and Survival.

PURPOSE: Genomic alterations in blood-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients with colorectal cancers were correlated with clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Next-generation sequencing of ctDNA (54- to 73-gene panel) was performed in 94 patients with colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Most patients (96%) had metastatic or recurrent disease at the time of blood draw. The median number of nonsynonymous alterations per patient was three (range, zero to 30). The most frequently aberrant genes were TP53 (52.1% of patients), KRAS (34%), and APC (28.7%). Concordance between tissue and blood next-generation sequencing ranged from 63.2% (APC) to 85.5% (BRAF). Altogether, 74 patients (79%) had one or more nonsynonymous alterations, 69 (73%) had one or more potentially actionable alterations, and 61 (65%) had an alteration actionable by a drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (on or off label). Lung metastases correlated with improved survival from diagnosis in univariable analysis. ctDNA of 5% or more from blood tests as well as EGFR and ERBB2 (HER2) nonsynonymous alterations correlated with worse survival (but only ERBB2 remained significant in multivariable analysis). No two patients had identical molecular portfolios. Overall, 65% versus 31% of patients treated with matched (n = 17) versus unmatched therapy (n = 18) after ctDNA testing achieved stable disease for 6 months or more, partial response, or complete response (P = .045); progression-free survival, 6.1 versus 2.3 months (P = .08); and survival not reached versus 9.4 months (P = .146; all by multivariable analysis). CONCLUSION: Patients with colorectal cancer have heterogeneous ctDNA profiles, and most harbor potentially actionable ctDNA alterations. Matched therapy yielded higher rates of stable disease for 6 months or more, partial response, or complete response. ctDNA assessment may have clinical utility and merits further investigation.

Molecular profiling of cancer patients enables personalized combination therapy: the I-PREDICT study.

Cancer treatments have evolved from indiscriminate cytotoxic agents to selective genome- and immune-targeted drugs that have transformed the outcomes of some malignancies1. Tumor complexity and heterogeneity suggest that the 'precision medicine' paradigm of cancer therapy requires treatment to be personalized to the individual patient2-6. To date, precision oncology trials have been based on molecular matching with predetermined monotherapies7-14. Several of these trials have been hindered by very low matching rates, often in the 5-10% range15, and low response rates. Low matching rates may be due to the use of limited gene panels, restrictive molecular matching algorithms, lack of drug availability, or the deterioration and death of end-stage patients before therapy can be implemented. We hypothesized that personalized treatment with combination therapies would improve outcomes in patients with refractory malignancies. As a first test of this concept, we implemented a cross-institutional prospective study (I-PREDICT, NCT02534675 ) that used tumor DNA sequencing and timely recommendations for individualized treatment with combination therapies. We found that administration of customized multidrug regimens was feasible, with 49% of consented patients receiving personalized treatment. Targeting of a larger fraction of identified molecular alterations, yielding a higher 'matching score', was correlated with significantly improved disease control rates, as well as longer progression-free and overall survival rates, compared to targeting of fewer somatic alterations. Our findings suggest that the current clinical trial paradigm for precision oncology, which pairs one driver mutation with one drug, may be optimized by treating molecularly complex and heterogeneous cancers with combinations of customized agents.

MET alterations detected in blood-derived circulating tumor DNA correlate with bone metastases and poor prognosis.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed clinical associations of MET alterations in the plasma of patients with diverse malignancies. METHODS: Digital sequencing of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) (54-70 genes) was performed in 438 patients; 263 patients also had tissue sequencing (182-315 genes). The most represented tumor types were gastrointestinal (28.1%), brain (24.9%), and lung (23.2%). Most patients (71.2%) had recurrent/metastatic disease. RESULTS: MET alterations were observed in 31 patients (7.1%) and correlated with bone metastasis (P = 0.007), with TP53 (P = 0.001) and PTEN (P = 0.003) abnormalities, and with an increased number of alterations (median, 4 vs 1, P = 0.001) (all multivariable analyses). Patients with MET alterations demonstrated a significantly shorter median time to metastasis/recurrence (1.0 vs 10.4 months, P = 0.044, multivariable) and a poorer survival (30.6 vs 58.4 months, P = 0.013, univariate only). Of the 31 patients with MET alterations, 18 also had tissue testing; only two also had tissue MET alterations (11.1%); MET alterations were detected at a lower frequency in tissue (1.14%) compared to ctDNA (7.1%), with P = 0.0002. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the detection of MET alterations by liquid biopsy is feasible. MET ctDNA alterations were associated with a poorer prognosis, higher numbers of genomic abnormalities, and bone metastases. The correlation with bone metastases may explain the higher frequency of MET alterations in blood ctDNA than in tissue (since bones are rarely biopsied) and the previous observations of bone-predominant responses to MET inhibitors. The high number of co-altered genes suggests that MET inhibitors may need to be combined with other agents to induce/optimize responses.

TP53 mutations and number of alterations correlate with maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) determined by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG PET).

BACKGROUND: Our study explored the relationship between the molecular changes in cancer and the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) determined by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG). RESULTS: A higher SUVmax correlated with TP53 alterations, but not with histologic diagnosis or other gene/pathway mutations or copy number alterations. In data from breast, lung and colon cancer, patients with the highest SUVmax show more genomic anomalies compared to those with the lowest SUVmax (P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: A higher SUVmax on 18F-FDG PET/CT is associated with TP53 tumor suppressor gene anomalies and the presence of more genomic anomalies. Since TP53 alterations and high SUVmax both correlate with a poor prognosis, the underlying mechanism/implications of this association merit further study. METHODS: Overall, 176 patients with diverse cancers had a tumor biopsy within 6 months after a PET/CT image for SUVmax measurement. The biopsy was interrogated by next generation sequencing (182 to 315 genes). TP53, EGFR, ALK, MYC, MET and FGF/FGFR genes and DNA repair, PI3K/Akt/mTOR (PAM), MEK, CYCLIN, and WNT pathway genes were analyzed.

Topoisomerase expression and amplification in solid tumours: Analysis of 24,262 patients.

BACKGROUND: Topoisomerase I (TOPO1) and topoisomerase IIα (TOP2A) are specific targets of multiple chemotherapy drugs. Increased expression of TOPO1 protein and amplification of the TOP2A gene have been associated with treatment response in colorectal and breast cancers, respectively. TOPO1 and TOP2A may be potential therapeutic targets in other malignancies as well. SUMMARY OF METHODS: We analysed TOPO1 protein expression and TOP2A gene amplification in patients (n = 24,262 specimens) with diverse cancers. Since HER2 and TOP2A co-amplification have been investigated for predictive value regarding anthracycline benefit, we analysed specimens for HER2 amplification as well. RESULTS: Overexpressed TOPO1 protein was present in 51% of the tumours. Four percent of the tumours had TOP2A amplification, with gallbladder tumours and gastroesophageal/oesophageal tumours having rates over 10%. Overall, 4903 specimens were assessed for both TOP2A and HER2 amplification; 129 (2.6%) had co-amplification. High rates (>40%) of HER2 amplification were seen in patients with TOP2A amplification in breast, ovarian, gastroesophageal/oesophageal and pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that increased TOPO1 expression and TOP2A amplification, as well as HER2 co-alterations, are present in multiple malignancies. The implications of these observations regarding sensitivity to chemotherapy not traditionally administered to these tumour types merits investigation.

Utility of Genomic Assessment of Blood-Derived Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) in Patients with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma.

Purpose: Genomic alterations in blood-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients with non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma (NSCLC) were ascertained and correlated with clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes.Experimental Design: Comprehensive plasma ctDNA testing was performed in 88 consecutive patients; 34 also had tissue next-generation sequencing; 29, other forms of genotyping; and 25 (28.4%) had no tissue molecular tests because of inadequate tissue or biopsy contraindications.Results: Seventy-two patients (82%) had ≥1 ctDNA alteration(s); among these, 75% carried alteration(s) potentially actionable by FDA-approved (61.1%) or experimental drug(s) in clinical trials (additional 13.9%). The most frequent alterations were in the TP53 (44.3% of patients), EGFR (27.3%), MET (14.8%), KRAS (13.6%), and ALK (6.8%) genes. The concordance rate for EGFR alterations was 80.8% (100% vs. 61.5%; ≤1 vs. >1 month between ctDNA and tissue tests; P = 0.04) for patients with any detectable ctDNA alterations. Twenty-five patients (28.4%) received therapy matching ≥1 ctDNA alteration(s); 72.3% (N = 16/22) of the evaluable matched patients achieved stable disease ≥6 months (SD) or partial response (PR). Five patients with ctDNA-detected EGFR T790M were subsequently treated with a third generation EGFR inhibitor; all five achieved SD ≥ 6 months/PR. Patients with ≥1 alteration with ≥5% variant allele fraction (vs. < 5%) had a significantly shorter median survival (P = 0.012).Conclusions: ctDNA analysis detected alterations in the majority of patients, with potentially targetable aberrations found at expected frequencies. Therapy matched to ctDNA alterations demonstrated appreciable therapeutic efficacy, suggesting clinical utility that warrants future prospective studies. Clin Cancer Res; 23(17); 5101-11. ©2017 AACR.

Genomic Alterations in Circulating Tumor DNA from Diverse Cancer Patients Identified by Next-Generation Sequencing.

Noninvasive genomic profiling of tumors may be possible with next-generation sequencing (NGS) of blood-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), but proof of concept in a large cohort of patients with diverse cancers has yet to be reported. Here we report the results of an analysis of plasma-derived ctDNA from 670 patients with diverse cancers. The tumors represented in the patient cohort were mainly gastrointestinal (31.8%), brain (22.7%), or lung (20.7%). ctDNA obtained from most patients [N = 423 (63%)] displayed at least one alteration. The most frequent alterations seen, as characterized mutations or variants of unknown significance, occurred in TP53 (32.5% of patients), EGFR (13%), KRAS (12.5%), and PIK3CA (9.1%); for characterized alterations, 30.7% (TP53), 7.6% (EGFR), 12.2% (KRAS), and 7.7% (PIK3CA). We found that 32% of brain tumors had at least one ctDNA alteration. Head and neck tumors were independently associated with a higher number of alterations in a multivariable analysis (P = 0.019). Notably, 320/670 (48%) of patients displayed potentially actionable alterations, with 241 patients possible candidates for on-label or off-label treatment with an FDA-approved drug. Several illustrations of the clinical utility of the information obtained for improving treatment of specific patients is provided. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility and impact of genomic profiling of tumors by ctDNA NGS, greatly encouraging broader investigations of the application of this technology for precision medicine in cancer management. Cancer Res; 77(19); 5419-27. ©2017 AACR.

An appraisal of drug development timelines in the Era of precision oncology.

The effects of incorporating a biomarker-based (personalized or precision) selection strategy on drug development timelines for new oncology drugs merit investigation. Here we accessed documents from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database for anticancer agents approved between 09/1998 and 07/2014 to compare drugs developed with and without a personalized strategy. Sixty-three drugs were included (28 [44%] personalized and 35 [56%] non-personalized). No differences in access to FDA-expedited programs were observed between personalized and non-personalized drugs. A personalized approach for drug development was associated with faster clinical development (Investigational New Drug [IND] to New Drug Application [NDA] submission; median = 58.8 months [95% CI 53.8-81.8] vs. 93.5 months [95% CI 73.9-112.9], P =.001), but a similar approval time (NDA submission to approval; median=6.0 months [95% CI 5.5-8.4] vs. 6.1 months [95% CI 5.9-8.3], P = .756) compared to a non-personalized strategy. In the multivariate model, class of drug stratified by personalized status (targeted personalized vs. targeted non-personalized vs. cytotoxic) was the only independent factor associated with faster total time of clinical drug development (clinical plus approval phase, median = 64.6 vs 87.1 vs. 112.7 months [cytotoxic], P = .038). Response rates (RR) in early trials were positively correlated with RR in registration trials (r = 0.63, P = <.001), and inversely associated with total time of drug development (r = -0.29, P = .049). In conclusion, targeted agents were developed faster than cytotoxic agents. Shorter times to approval were associated, in multivariate analysis, with a biomarker-based clinical development strategy.

Association of Biomarker-Based Treatment Strategies With Response Rates and Progression-Free Survival in Refractory Malignant Neoplasms: A Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The impact of a biomarker-based (personalized) cancer treatment strategy in the setting of phase 1 clinical trials was analyzed. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient outcomes in phase 1 studies that used a biomarker selection strategy with those that did not. DATA SOURCES: PubMed search of phase 1 cancer drug trials (January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013). STUDY SELECTION: Studies included trials that evaluated single agents, and reported efficacy end points (at least response rate [RR]). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted independently by 2 investigators. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared for arms that used a personalized strategy (biomarker selection) vs those that did not. Overall survival was not analyzed owing to insufficient data. RESULTS: A total of 346 studies published in the designated 3-year time period were included in the analysis. Multivariable analysis (meta-regression and weighted multiple regression models) demonstrated that the personalized approach independently correlated with a significantly higher median RR (30.6% [95% CI, 25.0%-36.9%] vs 4.9% [95% CI, 4.2%-5.7%]; P < .001) and a longer median PFS (5.7 [95% CI, 2.6-13.8] vs 2.95 [95% CI, 2.3-3.7] months; P < .001). Targeted therapy arms that used a biomarker-based selection strategy (n = 57 trials) were associated with statistically improved RR compared with targeted therapy arms (n = 177 arms) that did not (31.1% [95% CI, 25.4%-37.4%] vs 5.1% [95% CI, 4.3%-6.0%]; P < .001). Nonpersonalized targeted arms had outcomes comparable with those that tested a cytotoxic agent (median RR, 5.1% [95% CI, 4.3%-6.0%] vs 4.7% [95% CI, 3.6%-6.2%]; P = .63; respectively; median PFS, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.6-4.0] months vs 2.5 [95% CI, 2.0-3.7] months; P = .22). Personalized arms using a "genomic (DNA) biomarker" had higher median RR than those using a "protein biomarker" (42.0% [95% CI, 33.7%-50.9%] vs 22.4% [95% CI, 15.6%-30.9%]; P = .001). The median treatment-related mortality was not statistically different for arms that used a personalized strategy vs not (1.89% [95% CI, 1.36%-2.61%] vs 2.27% [95% CI, 1.97%-2.62%]; P = .31). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this meta-analysis, most phase 1 trials of targeted agents did not use a biomarker-based selection strategy. However, use of a biomarker-based approach was associated with significantly improved outcomes (RR and PFS). Response rates were significantly higher with genomic vs protein biomarkers. Studies that used targeted agents without a biomarker had negligible response rates.

Use of Liquid Biopsies in Clinical Oncology: Pilot Experience in 168 Patients.

PURPOSE: There is a growing interest in using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing in patients with cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A total of 168 patients with diverse cancers were analyzed. Patients had digital next-generation sequencing (54 cancer-related gene panel including amplifications in ERBB2, EGFR, and MET) performed on their plasma. Type of genomic alterations, potential actionability, concordance with tissue testing, and patient outcome were examined. RESULTS: Fifty-eight percent of patients (98/168) had ≥1 ctDNA alteration(s). Of the 98 patients with alterations, 71.4% had ≥ 1 alteration potentially actionable by an FDA-approved drug. The median time interval between the tissue biopsy and the blood draw was 2.7 months for patients with ≥ 1 alteration in common compared with 14.4 months (P = 0.006) for the patients in whom no common alterations were identified in the tissue and plasma. Overall concordance rates for tissue and ctDNA were 70.3% for TP53 and EGFR, 88.1% for PIK3CA, and 93.1% for ERBB2 alterations. There was a significant correlation between the cases with ≥ 1 alteration with ctDNA ≥ 5% and shorter survival (median = 4.03 months vs. not reached at median follow-up of 6.1 months; P < 0.001). Finally, 5 of the 12 evaluable patients (42%) matched to a treatment targeting an alteration(s) detected in their ctDNA test achieved stable disease ≥ 6 months/partial remission compared with 2 of 28 patients (7.1%) for the unmatched patients, P = 0.02. CONCLUSIONS: Our initial study demonstrates that ctDNA tests provide information complementary to that in tissue biopsies and may be useful in determining prognosis and treatment. Clin Cancer Res; 22(22); 5497-505. ©2016 AACR.

Cell-Cycle Gene Alterations in 4,864 Tumors Analyzed by Next-Generation Sequencing: Implications for Targeted Therapeutics.

Alterations in the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)-retinoblastoma (RB) machinery disrupt cell-cycle regulation and are being targeted in drug development. To understand the cancer types impacted by this pathway, we analyzed frequency of abnormalities in key cell-cycle genes across 4,864 tumors using next-generation sequencing (182 or 236 genes; Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments laboratory). Aberrations in the cell-cycle pathway were identified in 39% of cancers, making this pathway one of the most commonly altered in cancer. The frequency of aberrations was as follows: CDKN2A/B (20.1% of all patients), RB1 (7.6%), CCND1 (6.1%), CCNE1 (3.6%), CDK4 (3.2%), CCND3 (1.8%), CCND2 (1.7%), and CDK6 (1.7%). Rates and types of aberrant cell-cycle pathway genes differed between cancer types and within histologies. Analysis of coexisting and mutually exclusive genetic aberrations showed that CCND1, CCND2, and CCND3 aberrations were all positively associated with CDK6 aberrations [OR and P values, multivariate analysis: CCND1 and CDK6 (OR = 3.5; P < 0.0001), CCND2 and CDK6 (OR = 4.3; P = 0.003), CCND3 and CDK6 (OR = 3.6; P = 0.007)]. In contrast, RB1 alterations were negatively associated with multiple gene anomalies in the cell-cycle pathway, including CCND1 (OR = 0.25; P = 0.003), CKD4 (OR = 0.10; P = 0.001), and CDKN2A/B (OR = 0.21; P < 0.0001). In conclusion, aberrations in the cell-cycle pathway were very common in diverse cancers (39% of 4,864 neoplasms). The frequencies and types of alterations differed between and within tumor types and will be informative for drug development strategies. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(7); 1682-90. ©2016 AACR.

Detection rate of actionable mutations in diverse cancers using a biopsy-free (blood) circulating tumor cell DNA assay.

Analysis of cell-free DNA using next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a powerful tool for the detection/monitoring of alterations present in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Plasma extracted from 171 patients with a variety of cancers was analyzed for ctDNA (54 genes and copy number variants (CNVs) in three genes (EGFR, ERBB2 and MET)). The most represented cancers were lung (23%), breast (23%), and glioblastoma (19%). Ninety-nine patients (58%) had at least one detectable alteration. The most frequent alterations were TP53 (29.8%), followed by EGFR (17.5%), MET (10.5%), PIK3CA (7%), and NOTCH1 (5.8%). In contrast, of 222 healthy volunteers, only one had an aberration (TP53). Ninety patients with non-brain tumors had a discernible aberration (65% of 138 patients; in 70% of non-brain tumor patients with an alteration, the anomaly was potentially actionable). Interestingly, nine of 33 patients (27%) with glioblastoma had an alteration (6/33 (18%) potentially actionable). Overall, sixty-nine patients had potentially actionable alterations (40% of total; 69.7% of patients (69/99) with alterations); 68 patients (40% of total; 69% of patients with alterations), by a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drug. In summary, 65% of diverse cancers (as well as 27% of glioblastomas) had detectable ctDNA aberration(s), with the majority theoretically actionable by an approved agent.

Precision Oncology: The UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center PREDICT Experience.

By profiling their patients' tumors, oncologists now have the option to use molecular results to match patients with drug(s) based on specific biomarkers. In this observational study, 347 patients with solid advanced cancers and next-generation sequencing (NGS) results were evaluated. Outcomes for patients who received a "matched" versus "unmatched" therapy following their NGS results were compared. Eighty-seven patients (25%) were treated with a "matched" therapy, 93 (26.8%) with an "unmatched" therapy. More patients in the matched group achieved stable disease (SD) ≥ 6 months/partial response (PR)/complete response (CR), 34.5% vs. 16.1%, (P ≤ 0.020 multivariable or propensity score methods). Matched patients had a longer median progression-free survival (PFS; 4.0 vs. 3.0 months, P = 0.039 in the Cox regression model). In analysis using PFS1 (PFS on the prior line of therapy) as a comparator to PFS after NGS, as expected, the unmatched group demonstrated a PFS2 significantly shorter than PFS1 (P = 0.009); however, this shortening was not observed in the matched patients (P = 0.595). Furthermore, 45.3% of the matched patients (24/53) had a PFS2/PFS1 ratio ≥1.3 compared with 19.3% of patients (11/57) in the unmatched group (P = 0.004 univariable and P ≥ 0.057 in multivariable/propensity score analysis). Patients with a "matching-score" (the number of matched drugs divided by the number of aberrations; unmatched patients had a score of zero) > 0.2 had a median overall survival (OS) of 15.7 months compared with 10.6 months when their matching-score was ≤ 0.2, (P = 0.040 in the Cox regression model). Matched versus unmatched patients had higher rates of SD ≥ 6 months/PR/CR and longer PFS, and improvement in OS correlated with a higher matching score in multivariable analysis. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(4); 743-52. ©2016 AACR.

Squamousness: Next-generation sequencing reveals shared molecular features across squamous tumor types.

In order to gain a better understanding of the underlying biology of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), we tested the hypothesis that SCC originating from different organs may possess common molecular alterations. SCC samples (N = 361) were examined using clinical-grade targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS). The most frequent SCC tumor types were head and neck, lung, cutaneous, gastrointestinal and gynecologic cancers. The most common gene alterations were TP53 (64.5% of patients), PIK3CA (28.5%), CDKN2A (24.4%), SOX2 (17.7%), and CCND1 (15.8%). By comparing NGS results of our SCC cohort to a non-SCC cohort (N = 277), we found that CDKN2A, SOX2, NOTCH1, TP53, PIK3CA, CCND1, and FBXW7 were significantly more frequently altered, unlike KRAS, which was less frequently altered in SCC specimens (all P < 0.05; multivariable analysis). Therefore, we identified "squamousness" gene signatures (TP53, PIK3CA, CCND1, CDKN2A, SOX2, NOTCH 1, and FBXW7 aberrations, and absence of KRAS alterations) that were significantly more frequent in SCC versus non-SCC histologies. A multivariable co-alteration analysis established 2 SCC subgroups: (i) patients in whom TP53 and cyclin pathway (CDKN2A and CCND1) alterations strongly correlated but in whom PIK3CA aberrations were less frequent; and (ii) patients with PIK3CA alterations in whom TP53 mutations were less frequent (all P ≤ 0 .001, multivariable analysis). In conclusion, we identified a set of 8 genes altered with significantly different frequencies when SCC and non-SCC were compared, suggesting the existence of patterns for "squamousness." Targeting the PI3K-AKT-mTOR and/or cyclin pathway components in SCC may be warranted.

Impact of Precision Medicine in Diverse Cancers: A Meta-Analysis of Phase II Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: The impact of a personalized cancer treatment strategy (ie, matching patients with drugs based on specific biomarkers) is still a matter of debate. METHODS: We reviewed phase II single-agent studies (570 studies; 32,149 patients) published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012 (PubMed search). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared for arms that used a personalized strategy versus those that did not. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis (both weighted multiple linear regression and random effects meta-regression) demonstrated that the personalized approach, compared with a nonpersonalized approach, consistently and independently correlated with higher median RR (31% v 10.5%, respectively; P < .001) and prolonged median PFS (5.9 v 2.7 months, respectively; P < .001) and OS (13.7 v 8.9 months, respectively; P < .001). Nonpersonalized targeted arms had poorer outcomes compared with either personalized targeted therapy or cytotoxics, with median RR of 4%, 30%, and 11.9%, respectively; median PFS of 2.6, 6.9, and 3.3 months, respectively (all P < .001); and median OS of 8.7, 15.9, and 9.4 months, respectively (all P < .05). Personalized arms using a genomic biomarker had higher median RR and prolonged median PFS and OS (all P ≤ .05) compared with personalized arms using a protein biomarker. A personalized strategy was associated with a lower treatment-related death rate than a nonpersonalized strategy (median, 1.5% v 2.3%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Comprehensive analysis of phase II, single-agent arms revealed that, across malignancies, a personalized strategy was an independent predictor of better outcomes and fewer toxic deaths. In addition, nonpersonalized targeted therapies were associated with significantly poorer outcomes than cytotoxic agents, which in turn were worse than personalized targeted therapy.