Search

Purpose: Metastatic cancers of unknown primary or with unclear diagnoses pose diagnostic and management challenges, often leading to poor outcomes. Studies of the 92-gene assay have demonstrated improved diagnostic accuracy compared with standard pathology techniques and improved survival in patients treated on the basis of assay results. The current study assessed the clinical impact of the 92-gene assay on diagnostic and treatment decisions for patients with unknown or uncertain diagnoses., Methods: Patients in this prospective, multi-institutional, decision-impact study included those for whom the 92-gene assay was ordered as part of routine care. Participating physicians completed electronic case report forms that contained standardized, specialty-specific questionnaires. Data collection included patient and tumor characteristics and clinical history. The key study objective of clinical impact was calculated on the basis of changes in final diagnosis and treatment after testing., Results: Data collection included 444 patients, 107 physicians (73 oncologists and 34 pathologists), and 28 sites. Molecular diagnoses from 22 different tumor types and subtypes across all cases were provided in 95.5% of patients with a reportable result (n = 397). Physicians reported that the 92-gene assay was used broadly for diagnostic dilemmas that ranged from single suspected tumor type (29%) to a differential diagnosis of two or more suspected tumor types (30%) or cancers of unknown primary (41%). Integration of 92-gene assay results led to a change in the recommended treatment in 47% of patients., Conclusion: Findings from this clinical utility study demonstrate that the 92-gene assay led to a change in treatment decisions in every other patient case. These data additionally define the role of this assay in clinical practice and strongly support the consideration of molecular tumor typing in the diagnosis and treatment planning of patients with metastatic cancer with unknown or uncertain diagnosis.

Purpose Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is characterized by excessive hyaluronan (HA) accumulation in the tumor microenvironment, elevating interstitial pressure and impairing perfusion. Preclinical studies demonstrated pegvorhyaluronidase alfa (PEGPH20) degrades HA, thereby increasing drug delivery. Patients and Methods Patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to treatment with PEGPH20 plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (PAG) or nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (AG). Tumor HA levels were measured retrospectively using a novel affinity histochemistry assay. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS; overall) and thromboembolic (TE) event rate. Secondary end points included overall survival, PFS by HA level, and objective response rate. An early imbalance in TE events in the PAG arm led to a clinical hold; thereafter, patients with TE events were excluded and enoxaparin prophylaxis was initiated. Results A total of 279 patients were randomly assigned; 246 had HA data; 231 were evaluable for efficacy; 84 (34%) had HA-high tumors (ie, extracellular matrix HA staining ≥ 50% of tumor surface at any intensity). PFS was significantly improved with PAG treatment overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.00; P = .049) and for patients with HA-high tumors (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.00; P = .048). In patients with HA-high tumors (PAG v AG), the objective response rate was 45% versus 31%, and median overall survival was 11.5 versus 8.5 months (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.61). The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events with significant differences between arms (PAG v AG) included muscle spasms (13% v 1%), neutropenia (29% v 18%), and myalgia (5% v 0%). TE events were comparable after enoxaparin initiation (14% PAG v 10% AG). Conclusion This study met its primary end points of PFS and TE event rate. The largest improvement in PFS was observed in patients with HA-high tumors who received PAG. A similar TE event rate was observed between the treatment groups in stage 2 of the trial.