Search

MAF file for copy number variations identified in the cohort

Treatment history for patients enrolled on the PancSeq protocol.

Supplemental Tables and Figures

Supplementary Figure S1: Overview of workflow and data generation. Supplementary Figure S2: Analysis of neoplastic cellularity. Supplementary Figure S3: Recurrent copy number alterations. Supplementary Figure S4: Mutational signature analysis. Supplementary Figure S5: Analysis of PDAC gene expression signatures. Supplementary Figure S6: Clinically relevant alterations in the cohort.

Supplementary Experimental Methods

MAF file for mutations identified in the cohort

We conducted next-generation DNA sequencing on 335 biliary tract cancers and characterized the genomic landscape by anatomic site within the biliary tree. In addition to frequent FGFR2 fusions among patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), we identified FGFR2 extracellular domain in-frame deletions (EID) in 5 of 178 (2.8%) patients with IHCC, including two patients with FGFR2 p.H167_N173del. Expression of this FGFR2 EID in NIH3T3 cells resulted in constitutive FGFR2 activation, oncogenic transformation, and sensitivity to FGFR inhibitors. Three patients with FGFR2 EIDs were treated with Debio 1347, an oral FGFR1/2/3 inhibitor, and all showed partial responses. One patient developed an acquired L618F FGFR2 kinase domain mutation at disease progression and experienced a further partial response for 17 months to an irreversible FGFR2 inhibitor, futibatinib. Together, these findings reveal FGFR2 EIDs as an alternative mechanism of FGFR2 activation in IHCC that predicts sensitivity to FGFR inhibitors in the clinic.Significance:FGFR2 EIDs are transforming genomic alterations that occur predominantly in patients with IHCC. These FGFR2 EIDs are sensitive to FGFR inhibition in vitro, and patients with these alterations benefited from treatment with FGFR inhibitors in the clinic.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 2355

PURPOSE With the growing number of available targeted therapeutics and molecular biomarkers, the optimal care of patients with cancer now depends on a comprehensive understanding of the rapidly evolving landscape of precision oncology, which can be challenging for oncologists to navigate alone. METHODS We developed and implemented a precision oncology decision support system, GI TARGET, (Gastrointestinal Treatment Assistance Regarding Genomic Evaluation of Tumors) within the Gastrointestinal Cancer Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. With a multidisciplinary team, we systematically reviewed tumor molecular profiling for GI tumors and provided molecularly informed clinical recommendations, which included identifying appropriate clinical trials aided by the computational matching platform MatchMiner, suggesting targeted therapy options on or off the US Food and Drug Administration–approved label, and consideration of additional or orthogonal molecular testing. RESULTS We reviewed genomic data and provided clinical recommendations for 506 patients with GI cancer who underwent tumor molecular profiling between January and June 2019 and determined follow-up using the electronic health record. Summary reports were provided to 19 medical oncologists for patients with colorectal (n = 198, 39%), pancreatic (n = 124, 24%), esophagogastric (n = 67, 13%), biliary (n = 40, 8%), and other GI cancers. We recommended ≥ 1 precision medicine clinical trial for 80% (406 of 506) of patients, leading to 24 enrollments. We recommended on-label and off-label targeted therapies for 6% (28 of 506) and 25% (125 of 506) of patients, respectively. Recommendations for additional or orthogonal testing were made for 42% (211 of 506) of patients. CONCLUSION The integration of precision medicine in routine cancer care through a dedicated multidisciplinary molecular tumor board is scalable and sustainable, and implementation of precision oncology recommendations has clinical utility for patients with cancer.

Background Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) and regorafenib prolong survival for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); limited comparative effectiveness data exist. Materials and Methods A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients with mCRC who initiated FTD/TPI or regorafenib (index therapy) between 2012 and 2017 at a U.S. tertiary oncology center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, was conducted. Using best tumor response assessments, real-world overall response rates (rwORR) and disease control rates (rwDCR) were described and analyzed using logistic regression. Survival rate was examined for each month after index therapy using Kaplan-Meier. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Subgroup analyses among patients with index therapy as second- or third-line were performed. Results One hundred twenty-six and 95 patients were treated with FTD/TPI or regorafenib as index therapy, respectively. Patients treated with FTD/TPI versus regorafenib had a better response (rwORR 52.5% vs. 34.2%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.6; all p value Conclusion Patients treated with FTD/TPI had better tumor response and disease control than patients treated with regorafenib. Subgroup analysis in second- or third-line suggests that early use of FTD/TPI may have clinical benefits. Implications for Practice In this retrospective cohort study, patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) were significantly less likely than those treated with regorafenib to have dose modifications and more likely to have higher real-world objective response rate (rwORR) and real-world disease control rate (rwDCR) while treated. Patients treated with FTD/TPI versus regorafenib had significantly higher odds of having rwORR or rwDCR in adjusted analyses. Monthly survival rates were higher overall in patients treated with FTD/TPI versus regorafenib in the first 6 months of follow-up, particularly at months 3 and 4. This study offers insight into patients' treatment experience in real-world clinical settings.

Use of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is limited. We estimated impacts of expanded 1 L CGP, using the Tempus xT test, on detection of actionable alterations and testing budgets in a modeled US health plan over two-years. A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the impact of replacing 20% of usual testing (a mix of CGP and non-CGP) with Tempus xT CGP. Actionable alterations for matched treatments or clinical trial included KRAS, NRAS, RAF, BRAF, deficient mismatch repair (dMMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI), NTRK, RET, EGFR, HER2, MET, PIK3CA and POLE1. Costs included initial and repeat testing, physician-associated and administrative costs. In a hypothetical five-million-member plan, 50% Medicare and 50% commercial, 1,112 new cases of mCRC were expected per year. Of these, 566 (51%) would undergo 1 L molecular testing, with 55 re-tested upon progression. Based on current testing rates, there were an expected 521 missed opportunities for genomically informed treatment (47% of new cases), with 442 missed due to lack of testing and 79 due to testing without CGP. Replacing 20% of usual testing with Tempus xT CGP was associated with up to a $0.003 per member per month testing cost increase (net total cost of $202,102 for the five-million-member plan) and 15.5 additional patients with an opportunity for genomically informed care (12.7 patients for treatment and 2.8 for clinical trial). The testing total cost (initial test, repeat test, biopsy and physician services, and administrative cost) to put one additional patient with mCRC on matched therapy or matched clinical trial was estimated to be $13,005. Number needed to test to identify one actionable alteration with Tempus xT CGP versus usual testing was 7.8 patients. Conservative assumptions were made for inputs with limited evidence. Based on high concordance rates with dMMR/MSI status, tumor mutational burden (TMB) status was not calculated separately. Replacing 20% of usual testing with Tempus xT CGP was associated with a small incremental testing cost and can identify meaningfully more actionable alterations.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized cancer treatment, but the benefits in refractory patients with esophageal cancer have been modest. Predictors of response as well as new targets for novel therapeutic combinations are needed. In this phase 2 clinical trial, we tested single-agent pembrolizumab in patients with advanced esophageal cancer, who received at least one prior line of therapy.MethodsPembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks was tested in 49 patients with refractory esophageal cancer: 39 with adenocarcinoma and 10 with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Major endpoints were radiological response by Immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors and survival. Tumor samples were evaluated for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and immune contexture by both NanoString mRNA expression analysis and flow cytometry. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells and a panel of circulating chemokines were also analyzed.ResultsThe overall response rate (ORR) was 8% (4 of 49 patients; 95% CI 2.3% to 19.6%). Median overall survival (OS) was 5.8 months (95% CI 4.0 to 9.5). ORR and OS were not associated with histology. For PD-L1-positive patients, ORR was 13.3% (95% CI 1.7% to 40.5%) and median OS was 7.9 months (95% CI 4.7 to 15.5). A trend toward improved OS was observed in seven patients with a TMB ≥10 mut/Mb (p=0.086). Tumors with a PD-L1 Combined Positive Score ≥1 showed enrichment of LAG3 (p=0.005) and IDO1 (p=0.04) gene expression. Baseline levels of circulating CXCL10, interleukin 2 (IL2) receptor α (IL2RA) and IL6 were associated with survival: CXCL10 favorably, (HR 0.37, p=0.002 (progression-free survival); HR 0.55, p=0.018 (OS)); IL2RA and IL6 unfavorably (HR 1.57, p=0.020 for IL6 (OS); HR 2.36, p=0.025 for IL2RA (OS)).ConclusionsPembrolizumab monotherapy was modestly effective in refractory esophageal cancer. Circulating CXCL10 at baseline appeared to be a robust predictor of response. Other T cell exhaustion markers are upregulated in PD-L1-positive patients, suggesting that immunotherapy combinations such as anti-LAG3/programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or anti-IDO1/PD-1 may be of promise in refractory esophageal cancer.