Search

PURPOSE National Cancer Institute–Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice is a multicohort trial that assigns patients with advanced cancers to targeted therapies on the basis of central tumor genomic testing. Arm B evaluated afatinib, an ErbB family tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with ERBB2-activating mutations. METHODS Eligible patients had selected ERBB2 single-nucleotide variants or insertions/deletions detected by the National Cancer Institute–Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice next-generation sequencing assay. Patients had performance status ≤ 1, left ventricular ejection fraction > 50%, grade ≤ 1 diarrhea, and no prior human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapy. Patients received afatinib 40 mg once daily in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points were 6-month progression-free survival, overall survival, toxicity, and molecular correlates. RESULTS A total of 59 patients were assigned and 40 were enrolled. The median age was 62 years, 78% were female, 68% had performance status = 1, and 58% had received > 3 prior therapies. The confirmed ORR was 2.7% (n = 1 of 37; 90% CI, 0.14 to 12.2), and 6-month progression-free survival was 12.0% (90% CI, 5.6 to 25.8). A confirmed partial response occurred in a patient with adenocarcinoma of extra-mammary Paget disease of skin who progressed after cycle 6. Two unconfirmed partial responses were observed (low-grade serous gynecological tract and estrogen receptor–positive/HER2-negative immunohistochemistry breast ductal carcinoma). Of 12 patients with breast cancer, 1 additional patient with lobular carcinoma (estrogen receptor–positive/HER2 fluorescent in situ hybridization) had a 51% reduction in target lesions but progressed because of a new lesion at cycle 6. The most common (> 20%) treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (68%), mucositis (43%), fatigue (40%), acneiform rash (30%), dehydration (27%), vomiting (27%), nausea (27%), anemia (27%), and anorexia (22%). Four patients (11%) discontinued because of adverse events. CONCLUSION Although afatinib did not meet the prespecified threshold for antitumor activity in this heavily pretreated cohort, the response in a rare tumor type is notable. The safety profile of afatinib was consistent with prior studies.

PURPOSE NCI-MATCH is a precision medicine trial using genomic testing to allocate patients with advanced malignancies to targeted treatment subprotocols. This report combines two subprotocols evaluating trametinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with Neurofibromatosis 1 ( NF1[S1] or GNA11/Q [S2]) altered tumors. METHODS Eligible patients had tumors with deleterious inactivating NF1 or GNA11/Q mutations by the customized Oncomine AmpliSeq panel. Prior MEK inhibitor treatment was excluded. Glioblastomas (GBMs) were permitted, including malignancies associated with germline NF1 mutations (S1 only). Trametinib was administered at 2 mg once daily over 28-day cycles until toxicity or disease progression. Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months, PFS, and overall survival. Exploratory analyses included co-occurring genomic alterations and PTEN loss. RESULTS Fifty patients were eligible and started therapy: 46 with NF1 mutations (S1) and four with GNA11 mutations (S2). In the NF1 cohort, nonsense single-nucleotide variants were identified in 29 and frameshift deletions in 17 tumors. All in S2 had nonuveal melanoma and GNA11 Q209L variant. Two partial responses (PR) were noted in S1, one patient each with advanced lung cancer and GBM for an ORR of 4.3% (90% CI, 0.8 to 13.1). One patient with melanoma in S2 had a PR (ORR, 25%; 90% CI, 1.3 to 75.1). Prolonged stable disease (SD) was also noted in five patients (four in S1 and one in S2) with additional rare histologies. Adverse events were as previously described with trametinib. Comutations in TP53 and PIK3CA were common. CONCLUSION Although these subprotocols did not meet the primary end point for ORR, significant responses or prolonged SD noted in some disease subtypes warrants further investigation.

PURPOSEWe report the results from a Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium project to address the absence of well-validated quality control materials (QCMs) for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing. This absence is considered a cause of variance and inconsistencies in translating ctDNA results into clinical actions.METHODSIn this phase I study, QCMs with 14 clinically relevant mutations representing single nucleotide variants, insertions or deletions (indels), translocations, and copy number variants were sourced from three commercial manufacturers with variant allele frequencies (VAFs) of 5%, 2.5%, 1%, 0.1%, and 0%. Four laboratories tested samples in quadruplicate using two allele-specific droplet digital polymerase chain reaction and three (amplicon and hybrid capture) next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels.RESULTSThe two droplet digital polymerase chain reaction assays reported VAF values very close to the manufacturers’ claimed concentrations for all QCMs. NGS assays reported most single nucleotide variants and indels, but not translocations, close to the expected VAF values. Notably, two NGS assays reported lower VAF than expected for all translocations in all QCM mixtures, possibly related to technical challenges detecting these variants. The ability to call ERBB2 copy number amplifications varied across assays. All three QCMs provided valuable insight into assay precision. Each assay across all variant types demonstrated dropouts at 0.1%, suggesting that the QCM can serve for testing of an assay’s limit of detection with confidence claims for specific variants.CONCLUSIONThese results support the utility of the QCM in testing ctDNA assay analytical performance. However, unique designs and manufacturing methods for the QCM, and variations in a laboratory’s testing configuration, may require testing of multiple QCMs to find the best reagents for accurate result interpretation.

PURPOSEThis trial assessed the utility of applying tumor DNA sequencing to treatment selection for patients with advanced, refractory cancer and somatic mutations in one of four signaling pathways by comparing the efficacy of four study regimens that were either matched to the patient's aberrant pathway (experimental arm) or not matched to that pathway (control arm).MATERIALS AND METHODSAdult patients with an actionable mutation of interest were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either (1) a study regimen identified to target the aberrant pathway found in their tumor (veliparib with temozolomide or adavosertib with carboplatin [DNA repair pathway], everolimus [PI3K pathway], or trametinib [RAS/RAF/MEK pathway]), or (2) one of the same four regimens, but chosen from among those not targeting that pathway.RESULTSAmong 49 patients treated in the experimental arm, the objective response rate was 2% (95% CI, 0% to 10.9%). One of 20 patients (5%) in the experimental trametinib cohort had a partial response. There were no responses in the other cohorts. Although patients and physicians were blinded to the sequencing and random assignment results, a higher pretreatment dropout rate was observed in the control arm (22%) compared with the experimental arm (6%; P = .038), suggesting that some patients may have had prior tumor mutation profiling performed that led to a lack of participation in the control arm.CONCLUSIONFurther investigation, better annotation of predictive biomarkers, and the development of more effective agents are necessary to inform treatment decisions in an era of precision cancer medicine. Increasing prevalence of tumor mutation profiling and preference for targeted therapy make it difficult to use a randomized phase II design to evaluate targeted therapy efficacy in an advanced disease setting.