Search

Background and purpose: While the prevalence of older breast cancer patients is rapidly increasing, these patients are greatly underrepresented in clinical trials. We discuss barriers to recruitment of older patients to clinical trials and propose solutions on how to mitigate these challenges and design optimal clinical trials through the paradigm of IMPORTANT trial. Patients and methods: This is a narrative review of the current literature evaluating barriers to including older breast cancer patients in clinical trials and how mitigating strategies can be implemented in a pragmatic clinical trial. Results: The recognized barriers can be roughly divided into trial design-related (e.g. the adoption of strict inclusion criteria, the lack of pre-specified age-specific analysis), patient-related (e.g. lack of knowledge, valuation of the quality-of-life instead of survival, transportation issues), or physician-related (e.g. concern for toxicity). Several strategies to mitigate barriers have been identified and should be considered when designing a clinical trial dedicated to older patients with cancer. The pragmatic, de-centralized IMPORTANT trial focusing on dose optimization of CDK4/6 -inhibitors in older breast cancer patients is a paradigm of a study design where different mitigating strategies have been adopted. Interpretation: Because of the existing barriers, older adults in clinical trials are considerably healthier than the average older patients treated in clinical practice. Thus, the study results cannot be generalized to the older population seen in daily clinical practice. Broader inclusion/exclusion criteria, offering telehealth visits, and inclusion of patient-reported, instead of physician-reported outcomes may increase older patient participation in clinical trials.

Breast cancer (BC) is the most prominent tumor type among women, accounting for 32% of newly diagnosed cancer cases. BC risk factors include inherited germline pathogenic gene variants and family history of disease. However, the etiology of the disease remains occult in most cases. Therefore, in the absence of high-risk factors, a polygenic basis has been suggested to contribute to susceptibility. This information is utilized to calculate the Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) which is indicative of BC risk. This study aimed to evaluate retrospectively the clinical usefulness of PRS integration in BC risk calculation, utilizing a group of patients who have already been diagnosed with BC. The study comprised 105 breast cancer patients with hereditary genetic analysis results obtained by NGS. The selection included all testing results: high-risk gene-positive, intermediate/low-risk gene-positive, and negative. PRS results were obtained from an external laboratory (Allelica). PRS-based BC risk was computed both with and without considering additional risk factors, including gene status and family history. A significantly different PRS percentile distribution consistent with higher BC risk was observed in our cohort compared to the general population. Higher PRS-based BC risks were detected in younger patients and in those with FH of cancers. Among patients with a pathogenic germline variant detected, reduced PRS values were observed, while the BC risk was mainly determined by a monogenic etiology. Upon comprehensive analysis encompassing FH, gene status, and PRS, it was determined that 41.90% (44/105) of the patients demonstrated an elevated susceptibility for BC. Moreover, 63.63% of the patients with FH of BC and without an inherited pathogenic genetic variant detected showed increased BC risk by incorporating the PRS result. Our results indicate a major utility of PRS calculation in women with FH in the absence of a monogenic etiology detected by NGS. By combining high-risk strategies, such as inherited disease analysis, with low-risk screening strategies, such as FH and PRS, breast cancer risk stratification can be improved. This would facilitate the development of more effective preventive measures and optimize the allocation of healthcare resources.

Early-onset breast cancer constitutes a major criterion for genetic testing referral. Nevertheless, studies focusing on breast cancer patients (≤30 years) are limited. We investigated the contribution and spectrum of known breast-cancer-associated genes in 267 Greek women with breast cancer ≤30 years while monitoring their clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes. In this cohort, a significant proportion (39.7%) carried germline pathogenic variants (PVs) distributed in 8 genes. The majority, namely 36.7%, involved BRCA1, TP53, and BRCA2. PVs in BRCA1 were the most prevalent (28.1%), followed by TP53 (4.5%) and BRCA2 (4.1%) PVs. The contribution of PVs in CHEK2, ATM, PALB2, PTEN, and RAD51C was limited to 3%. In the patient group ≤26 years, TP53 PVs were significantly higher compared to the group 26–30 years (p = 0.0023). A total of 74.8% of TP53 carriers did not report a family history of cancer. Carriers of PVs receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed an improved event-free survival (p < 0.0001) compared to non-carriers. Overall, many women with early-onset breast cancer carry clinically actionable variants, mainly in the BRCA1/2 and TP53 genes. The inclusion of timely testing of TP53 in these patients provides essential information for appropriate clinical management. This is important for countries where reimbursement involves the cost of genetic analysis of BRCA1/2 only.

Determination of microsatellite instability (MSI)/mismatch repair (MMR) status in cancer has several clinical implications. Our aim was to integrate MSI/MMR status from patients tested in Greece to assess the prevalence of MSI-high (MSI-H)/deficient MMR (dMMR) per tumor type, testing patterns over time and concordance between MSI and MMR status. We retrospectively recorded MSI/MMR testing data of patients with diverse tumor types performed in pathology and molecular diagnostics laboratories across Greece. Overall, 18 of 22 pathology and/or molecular diagnostics laboratories accepted our invitation to participate. In the 18 laboratories located across the country, 7916 tumor samples were evaluated for MSI/MMR status. MSI/MMR testing significantly increased in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and other tumor types overtime (p < 0.05). The highest prevalence was reported in endometrial cancer (47 of 225 patients, 20.9%). MSI-H/dMMR was observed in most tumor types, even in low proportions. Among 904 tumors assessed both for MSI and MMR status, 21 had discordant results (overall discordance rate, 2.3%). We reported MSI-H/dMMR prevalence rates in patients with diverse cancers, while demonstrating increasing referral patterns from medical oncologists in the country overtime. The anticipated high rate of concordance between MSI and MMR status in paired analysis was confirmed.

We performed a literature search in PubMed to identify phase I/II clinical trials with immunotherapy drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (labeled, off-label, and/or combined with investigational immune checkpoint inhibitors or other treatment modalities) from 2018 to 2020. We used the following key words: clinical trials, phase 1, Phase 2; and the following filters: cancer, humans; and selected the checkpoint inhibitors that had been approved by the FDA by March 2021, i.e., “pembrolizumab”, “nivolumab”, “atezolizumab”, “durvalumab”, “cemiplimab”, “avelumab”, and “ipilimumab. Clinical trials with their checkpoint inhibitors as in their labeled indications, off-label use or their combinations with investigational immune checkpoint inhibitors or other treatment modalities were included. Studies describing supportive care or locoregional treatments; cellular, viral, or vaccine therapy; studies in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting; and pediatric studies were excluded. Overall, 173 articles reporting on relevant studies were identified. Using these articles, we compiled a data file of study-specific covariates for each study. We recorded the immunotherapeutic agent, tumor type and biomarker, and clinical outcomes (objective response rate and median values [point estimate] and confidence intervals for progression-free survival and overall survival. Using these data, we carried out meta-analyses for the three outcomes and meta-regression on study-specific covariates. The same data could be used for any alternative implementation of meta-analysis and meta-regression, using more structured inference models reflecting different levels of dependence based on the available study-specific covariates.

Abstract Recent rapid biotechnological breakthroughs have led to the identification of complex and unique molecular features that drive malignancies. Precision medicine has exploited next-generation sequencing and matched targeted therapy/immunotherapy deployment to successfully transform the outlook for several fatal cancers. Tumor and liquid biopsy genomic profiling and transcriptomic, immunomic, and proteomic interrogation can now all be leveraged to optimize therapy. Multiple new trial designs, including basket and umbrella trials, master platform trials, and N-of-1 patient-centric studies, are beginning to supplant standard phase I, II, and III protocols, allowing for accelerated drug evaluation and approval and molecular-based individualized treatment. Furthermore, real-world data, as well as exploitation of digital apps and structured observational registries, and the utilization of machine learning and/or artificial intelligence, may further accelerate knowledge acquisition. Overall, clinical trials have evolved, shifting from tumor type-centered to gene-directed and histology-agnostic trials, with innovative adaptive designs and personalized combination treatment strategies tailored to individual biomarker profiles. Some, but not all, novel trials now demonstrate that matched therapy correlates with superior outcomes compared to non-matched therapy across tumor types and in specific cancers. To further improve the precision medicine paradigm, the strategy of matching drugs to patients based on molecular features should be implemented earlier in the disease course, and cancers should have comprehensive multi-omic (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, immunomic) tumor profiling. To overcome cancer complexity, moving from drug-centric to patient-centric individualized combination therapy is critical. This review focuses on the design, advantages, limitations, and challenges of a spectrum of clinical trial designs in the era of precision oncology.

Our aim was to evaluate the concordance between the Myriad MyChoice and two alternative homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) assays (AmoyDx HRD Focus NGS Panel and OncoScan™) in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Tissue samples from 50 patients with newly diagnosed EOC and known Myriad MyChoice HRD status were included. DNA aliquots from tumor samples, previously evaluated with Myriad MyChoice and centrally reassessed, were distributed to laboratories to assess their HRD status using the two platforms, after being blinded for the Myriad MyChoice CDx HRD status. The primary endpoint was the concordance between Myriad MyChoice and each alternative assay. Tumor samples were evaluated with an AmoyDx® HRD Focus Panel (n = 50) and with OncoScan™ (n = 43). Both platforms provided results for all tumors. Analysis showed that correlation was high for the Myriad MyChoice GI score and AmoyDx® HRD Focus Panel (r = 0.79) or OncoScan™ (r = 0.87) (continuous variable). The overall percent agreement (OPA) between Myriad MyChoice GI status (categorical variable) and each alternative assay was 83.3% (68.6–93.3%) with AmoyDx and 77.5% (61.5–89.2%) with OncoScan™. The OPA in HRD status between Myriad MyChoice and AmoyDx was 88.6% (75.4–96.2). False-positive rates were 31.6% (6/19) for AmoyDx GI status and 31.9% (7/22) for OncoScan™, while false-negative rates were 0% (0/28, AmoyDx) and 11.1% (2/18, OncoScan™) compared with the Myriad MyChoice GI status. While substantial concordance between Myriad MyChoice and alternative assays was demonstrated, prospective validation of the analytical performance and clinical relevance of these assays is warranted.

Abstract Peutz–Jeghers syndrome (PJS) is characterized by mucocutaneous pigmentation and gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis, which can lead to intussusception. PJS patients face high lifetime risks for various cancer types, with the majority of patients being diagnosed with tumors along the gastrointestinal tract. Herein, we present the case of a 34‐year‐old man who carried a germline STK11 pathogenic variant, while lacking the cardinal features of PJS syndrome. Interestingly, he was diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma despite being a never‐smoker. Tumor testing revealed clinically relevant molecular alterations, including the known germline pathogenic variant STK11, a KRAS somatic pathogenic variant, and FGFR3 gene amplification. Treatment with standard chemotherapy and immunotherapy did not have a clinical benefit. Due to clinical deterioration, the patient deceased 18 months after his initial diagnosis prior to having the chance for targeted therapy. Identification of rare hereditary cancer syndromes and the respective presence of tumor biomarkers can provide important alternatives to targeted treatments, including immunotherapy in patients with tumors unresponsive to conventional treatment protocols. This case highlights that although only a small proportion of lung cancer diagnoses will be due to hereditary predisposition, STK11 germline carriers should be under close surveillance for early detection of lung cancer.

Several tumor types have been efficiently treated with PARP inhibitors (PARPis), which are now approved for the treatment of ovarian, breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. The BRCA1/2 genes and mutations in many additional genes involved in the HR pathway may be responsible for the HRD phenomenon. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between genomic loss of heterozygosity (gLOH) and alterations in 513 genes with targeted and immuno-oncology therapies in 406 samples using an NGS assay. In addition, the %gLOHs of 24 samples were calculated using the Affymetrix technology in order to compare the results obtained via the two methodologies. HR variations occurred in 20.93% of the malignancies, while BRCA1/2 gene alterations occurred in 5.17% of the malignancies. The %LOH was highly correlated with alterations in the BRCA1/2 genes, since 76.19% (16/21) of the BRCA1/2 positive tumors had a high %LOH value (p = 0.007). Moreover, the LOH status was highly correlated with the TP53 and KRAS statuses, but there was no association with the TMB value. Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient for the 24 samples simultaneously examined via both assays was 0.87, indicating a nearly perfect agreement. In conclusion, the addition of gLOH analysis could assist in the detection of additional patients eligible for treatment with PARPis.

The data on tumor molecular profiling of European patients with prostate cancer is limited. Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence and prognostic and predictive values of gene alterations in unselected patients with prostate cancer. The presence of gene alterations was assessed in patients with histologically confirmed prostate cancer using the ForeSENTIA® Prostate panel (Medicover Genetics), targeting 36 clinically relevant genes and microsatellite instability testing. The primary endpoint was the prevalence of gene alterations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes. Overall, 196 patients with prostate cancer were evaluated (median age 72.2 years, metastatic disease in 141 (71.9%) patients). Gene alterations were identified in 120 (61%) patients, while alteration in HRR genes were identified in 34 (17.3%) patients. The most commonly mutated HRR genes were ATM (17, 8.7%), BRCA2 (9, 4.6%) and BRCA1 (4, 2%). The presence of HRR gene alterations was not associated with advanced stage (p = 0.21), age at diagnosis (p = 0.28), Gleason score (p = 0.17) or overall survival (HR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.41–1.26; p = 0.251). We identified clinically relevant somatic gene alterations in European patients with prostate cancer. These molecular alterations have prognostic significance and therapeutic implications and/or may trigger genetic testing in selected patients. In the era of precision medicine, prospective research on the predictive role of these alterations for innovative treatments or their combinations is warranted.

Ovarian cancer remains the leading cause of death from gynecological cancer. Survival is significantly related to the stage of the disease at diagnosis. Of quite importance is primary cytoreductive surgery, having as a goal to remove all visible tumor tissue, and is the standard primary treatment in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma.Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been implemented mostly in treating advanced disease, with studies performed having numerous limitations. Data extrapolated from these studies have not shown inferiority survival of NACT, compared to primary debulking surgery. The role of NACT is of particular interest because of the intrinsic mechanisms that are involved in the process, which can be proven as therapeutic approaches with enormous potential. NACT increases immune infiltration and programmed death ligand-1 (PDL-1) expression, induces local immune activation, and can potentiate the immunogenicity of immune-exclude high grade serous ovarian tumors, while the combination of NACT with bevacizumab, PARP inhibitors or immunotherapy remains to be evaluated. This article summarizes all available data on studies implementing NACT in the treatment of ovarian cancer, focusing on clinical outcomes and study limitations. High mortality rates observed among ovarian cancer patients necessitates the identification of more effective treatments, along with biomarkers that will aid treatment individualization.

Data on the effectiveness and safety of approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in cancer patients are limited. This observational, prospective cohort study investigated the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in 232 cancer patients from 12 HeCOG-affiliated oncology departments compared to 100 healthcare volunteers without known active cancer. The seropositivity rate was measured 2–4 weeks after two vaccine doses, by evaluating neutralising antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein using a commercially available immunoassay. Seropositivity was defined as ≥33.8 Binding-Antibody-Units (BAU)/mL. A total of 189 patients and 99 controls were eligible for this analysis. Among patients, 171 (90.5%) were seropositive after two vaccine doses, compared to 98% of controls (p = 0.015). Most seronegative patients were males (66.7%), >70-years-old (55.5%), with comorbidities (61.1%), and on active treatment (88.9%). The median antibody titers among patients were significantly lower than those of the controls (523 vs. 2050 BAU/mL; p < 0.001). The rate of protective titers was 54.5% in patients vs. 97% in controls (p < 0.001). Seropositivity rates and IgG titers in controls did not differ for any studied factor. In cancer patients, higher antibody titers were observed in never-smokers (p = 0.006), women (p = 0.022), p = 0.004), PS 0 (p = 0.029), and in breast or ovarian vs. other cancers. Adverse events were comparable to registration trials. In this cohort study, although the seropositivity rate after two vaccine doses in cancer patients seemed satisfactory, their antibody titers were significantly lower than in controls. Monitoring of responses and further elucidation of the clinical factors that affect immunity could guide adaptations of vaccine strategies for vulnerable subgroups.