Search

BACKGROUND: Patients with unfavorable carcinoma of unknown primary origin (CUP) have an extremely poor prognosis of ∼1 year or less, stressing the need for more tailored treatments, which are currently being tested in clinical trials. CUPISCO (NCT03498521) was a phase II randomized study of targeted therapy/cancer immunotherapy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated, unfavorable CUP, defined as per the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines. We present a preliminary, descriptive molecular analysis of 464 patients with stringently diagnosed, unfavorable CUP enrolled in the CUPISCO study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Genomic profiling was carried out on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue to detect genomic alterations and assess tumor mutational burden and microsatellite instability. RESULTS: Overall, ∼32% of patients carried a potentially targetable genomic alteration, including PIK3CA, FGFR2, ERBB2, BRAF$^{V600E}$, EGFR, MET, NTRK1, ROS1, and ALK. Using hierarchical clustering of co-mutational profiles, 10 clusters were identified with specific genomic alteration co-occurrences, with some mirroring defined tumor entities. CONCLUSIONS: Results reveal the molecular heterogeneity of patients with unfavorable CUP and suggest that genomic profiling may be used as part of informed decision-making to identify the potential primary tumor and targeted treatment options. Whether stringently diagnosed patients with unfavorable CUP benefit from targeted therapies in a similar manner to those with matched known primaries will be a key learning from CUPISCO.

Knowledge of contemporary patterns of cancer-of-unknown-primary-origin (CUP) diagnostic work-up, treatment, and outcomes in routine healthcare is limited. Thus, we examined data from elderly patients diagnosed with CUP in real-world US clinical practice. From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked database, we included patients ≥ 66 years old with CUP diagnosed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015. We analyzed baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, methods of diagnostic work-up (biopsy, immunohistochemistry, imaging), treatment-related factors, and survival. CUP diagnosis was histologically confirmed in 2813/4562 patients (61.7%). Overall, 621/4562 (13.6%) patients received anticancer pharmacotherapy; among these, 97.3% had a histologically confirmed tumor and 83.1% received all three procedures. Among those with a histologically confirmed tumor, increasing age, increasing comorbidity score, not receiving all three diagnostic measures, and having a not-further specified histologic finding of only 'malignant neoplasm' were all negatively associated with receipt of anticancer pharmacotherapy. Median overall survival was 1.2 months for all patients. Median time between CUP diagnosis and treatment initiation was 41 days. Limited diagnostic work-up was common and most patients did not receive anticancer pharmacotherapy. The poor outcomes highlight a substantial unmet need for further research into improving diagnostic work-up and treatment effectiveness in CUP.

BACKGROUND: CUPISCO is an ongoing randomized phase II trial (NCT03498521) comparing molecularly guided therapy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients newly diagnosed with "unfavorable" cancer of unknown primary (CUP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with an unfavorable CUP diagnosis, as defined by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and available cancer tissue for molecular sequencing are generally eligible. Potential patients with CUP entering screening undergo a review involving reference histopathology and clinical work-up by a central eligibility review team (ERT). Patients with "favorable" CUP, a strongly suspected primary site of origin, lack of tissue, or unmet inclusion criteria are excluded. RESULTS: As of April 30, 2020, 628 patients had entered screening and 346 (55.1%) were screen failed. Screen fails were due to technical reasons (n = 89), failure to meet inclusion and exclusion criteria not directly related to CUP diagnosis (n = 89), and other reasons (n = 33). A total of 124 (35.8%) patients were excluded because unfavorable adeno- or poorly differentiated CUP could not be confirmed by the ERT. These cases were classified into three groups ineligible because of (a) histologic subtype, such as squamous and neuroendocrine, or favorable CUP; (b) evidence of a possible primary tumor; or (c) noncarcinoma histology. CONCLUSION: Experience with CUPISCO has highlighted challenges with standardized screening in an international clinical trial and the difficulties in diagnosing unfavorable CUP. Reconfirmation of unfavorable CUP by an ERT in a clinical trial can result in many reasons for screen failures. By sharing this experience, we aim to foster understanding of diagnostic challenges and improve diagnostic pathology and clinical CUP algorithms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A high unmet need exists for improved treatment of cancer of unknown primary (CUP); however, study in a trial setting is faced with the significant challenge of definiti