Search

BackgroundImpaired DNA damage response (DDR) can affect immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) efficacy and lead to heightened immune activation. We assessed the impact of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline DDR mutations on ICI response and toxicity.Materials and methodsA retrospective analysis of 131 cancer patients with germline DNA testing and ICI treatment was performed.ResultsNinety-two patients were DDR-negative (DDR-), and 39 had ≥1 DDR mutation (DDR+). DDR+ patients showed higher objective response rates (ORRs) compared to DDR- in univariate and multivariable analyses, adjusting for age and metastatic disease (62% vs. 23%, unadjusted OR = 5.41; 95% CI, 2.41-12.14; adjusted OR 5.94; 95% CI, 2.35-15.06). Similar results were seen in mismatch repair (MMR), DDR pathways with intact MMR (DDR+MMRi), and homologous recombination (HR) subgroups versus DDR- (adjusted OR MMR = 24.52; 95% CI 2.72-221.38, DDR+MMRi = 4.26; 95% CI, 1.57-11.59, HR = 4.74; 95% CI, 1.49-15.11). DDR+ patients also had higher ORRs with concurrent chemotherapy (82% vs. 39% DDR-, p=0.03) or concurrent tyrosine kinase inhibitors (50% vs. 5% DDR-, p=0.03). No significant differences in immune-related adverse events were observed between DDR+ and DDR- cohorts.ConclusionP/LP germline DDR mutations may enhance ICI response without significant additional toxicity.

Background Genomic and molecular alterations are increasingly important in cancer diagnosis, and scientific advances are opening new treatment avenues. Precision oncology (PO) uses a patient's genomic profile to determine optimal treatment, promising fewer side effects and higher success rates. Within PO, tumor-agnostic (TA) therapies target genomic alterations irrespective of tumor location. However, traditional value frameworks and approval pathways pose challenges which may limit patient access to PO therapies. Objectives This study describes challenges in assessing PO and TA medicines, explores possible solutions, and provides actionable recommendations to facilitate an iterative life-cycle assessment of these medicines. Methods After reviewing the published literature, we obtained insights from key stakeholders and European experts across a range of disciplines, through individual interviews and an industry workshop. The research was guided and refined by an international expert committee through 2 sounding board meetings. Results The current challenges faced by PO and TA medicines are multiple and can be demonstrated through real-world examples of the current barriers and opportunities. A life-cycle approach to assessment should be taken, including key actions at the early stages of evidence generation, regulatory and reimbursement stage, as well as payment and adoption solutions that make use of the evolving evidence base. Working toward these solutions to maximize PO medicine value is a shared responsibility and stands to benefit all stakeholders. Conclusions Our call to action is to expand access to comprehensive genomic testing, foster a learning health care system, enable fast and equitable access to cost-effective treatments, and ultimately improve health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oncologic treatment has recently undergone substantial therapeutic paradigm shifts, from classical tumor-specific and biomarker-agnostic approaches to more molecular, biomarker-specific, and tumor-agnostic. Tumor-type (histology) agnostic drugs work across cancer types and present a novel shift in precision oncology. Compared with traditional cancer therapies, this novel approach implies molecularly informed treatment strategies and enables targeted treatment regardless of tumor histology (type). Such drugs are usually utilized in small clinical cohorts with diverse tumor types sharing a common genomic event (molecular biomarker). One of the key elements of this approach is the presence of a common biomarker across many tumor types. Biomarker predicts response to the targeted drugs, as well as deciphers potential resistance mechanisms. Read more in the PDF.

Cancer therapies targeting tumor-agnostic biomarkers are challenging traditional health technology assessment (HTA) frameworks. The high prevalence of nonrandomized single-arm trials, heterogeneity, and small benefiting populations are driving outcomes uncertainty, challenging healthcare decision making. We conducted a structured literature review to identify barriers and prioritize solutions to generating economic evidence for tumor-agnostic therapies. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for English-language studies conducting economic evaluations of tumor-agnostic treatments or exploring related challenges and solutions. We included studies published by December 2022 and supplemented our review with Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence technical reports for approved tumor-agnostic therapies. Three reviewers abstracted and summarized key methodological and empirical study characteristics. Challenges and solutions were identified through authors' statements and categorized using directed content analysis. Twenty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. Studies spanned economic evaluations (n = 5), reimbursement reviews (n = 4), qualitative research (n = 1), methods validations (n = 3), and commentaries or literature reviews (n = 13). Challenges encountered related to (1) the treatment setting and clinical trial designs, (2) a lack of data or low-quality data on clinical and cost parameters, and (3) an inability to produce evidence that meets HTA guidelines. Although attempted solutions centered on analytic approaches for managing missing data, proposed solutions highlighted the need for real-world evidence combined with life-cycle HTA to reduce future evidentiary uncertainty. Therapeutic innovation outpaces HTA evidence generation and the methods that support it. Existing HTA frameworks must be adapted for tumor-agnostic treatments to support future economic evaluations enabling timely patient access. • Evidentiary uncertainty for tumor-agnostic treatments challenges health technology regulation and reimbursement. Few tumor-agnostic therapies have gained market access and their implementation into routine care remains variable. Understanding barriers and solutions to generating economic evidence is critical to enabling timely patient access. • This review finds 3 core challenges creating barriers for decision-grade evidence generation and highlights attempted and proposed solutions equipped to respond to them. The need for real-world evidence combined with life-cycle health technology assessment frameworks emerged as prioritized avenues for managing evidentiary uncertainty. • Challenges and solutions identified in this review will support future validation and consensus-based efforts aligning on necessary data collection, analytic methods, and deliberative frameworks. Combined, these efforts will ensure health technology assessment can sustainably inform patient access to tumor-agnostic therapeutics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundImpaired DNA damage response (DDR) can affect immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) efficacy and lead to heightened immune activation. We assessed the impact of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline DDR mutations on ICI response and toxicity.Materials and methodsA retrospective analysis of 131 cancer patients with germline DNA testing and ICI treatment was performed.ResultsNinety-two patients were DDR-negative (DDR-), and 39 had ≥1 DDR mutation (DDR+). DDR+ patients showed higher objective response rates (ORRs) compared to DDR- in univariate and multivariable analyses, adjusting for age and metastatic disease (62% vs. 23%, unadjusted OR = 5.41; 95% CI, 2.41-12.14; adjusted OR 5.94; 95% CI, 2.35-15.06). Similar results were seen in mismatch repair (MMR), DDR pathways with intact MMR (DDR+MMRi), and homologous recombination (HR) subgroups versus DDR- (adjusted OR MMR = 24.52; 95% CI 2.72-221.38, DDR+MMRi = 4.26; 95% CI, 1.57-11.59, HR = 4.74; 95% CI, 1.49-15.11). DDR+ patients also had higher ORRs with concurrent chemotherapy (82% vs. 39% DDR-, p=0.03) or concurrent tyrosine kinase inhibitors (50% vs. 5% DDR-, p=0.03). No significant differences in immune-related adverse events were observed between DDR+ and DDR- cohorts.ConclusionP/LP germline DDR mutations may enhance ICI response without significant additional toxicity.

Emerging data suggest that circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can detect colorectal cancer (CRC)-specific signals across both non-metastatic and metastatic settings. With the development of multiple platforms, including tumor-informed and tumor-agnostic ctDNA assays and demonstration of their provocative analytic performance to detect minimal residual disease, there are now ongoing, phase III randomized clinical trials to evaluate their role in the management paradigm of CRC. In this review, we highlight landmark studies that have formed the basis for ongoing studies on the clinically applicability of plasma ctDNA assays in resected, stage I-III CRC and metastatic CRC. We discuss clinical settings by which ctDNA may have the most immediate impact in routine clinical practice. These include the potential for ctDNA to (1) guide surveillance and intensification or de-intensification strategies of adjuvant therapy in resected, stage I-III CRC, (2) predict treatment response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer inclusive of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), and (3) predict response to systemic and surgical therapies in metastatic disease. We end by considering clinical variables that can influence our ability to reliably interpret ctDNA dynamics in the clinic.

Aim: To examine whether tumor-specific and tumor-agnostic oncology trials produce comparable estimates of objective response rate (ORR) in BRAF-altered cancers. Materials & methods: Electronic database searches were performed to identify phase I–III clinical trials testing tyrosine kinase inhibitors from 2000 to 2021. A random-effects model was used to pool ORRs. A total of 22 cohorts from five tumor-agnostic trials and 41 cohorts from 27 tumor-specific trials had published ORRs. Results: There was no significant difference between pooled ORRs from either trial design for multitumor analyses (37 vs 50%; p = 0.05); thyroid cancer (57 vs 33%; p = 0.10); non-small-cell lung cancer (39 vs 53%; p = 0.18); or melanoma (55 vs 51%; p = 0.58). Conclusion: For BRAF-altered advanced cancers, tumor-agnostic trials do not yield substantially different results from tumor-specific trials. Two types of studies were sought, including studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive medicine based on the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-specific studies; and studies that measured health outcomes in patients who were selected to receive cancer medicine regardless of the location of their cancer (tumor), called tumor-agnostic studies. From the studies found, only the studies that tested a specific type of cancer medicine (called tyrosine kinase inhibitors) on cancers with a specific genetic alteration (called BRAF-altered cancers) were identified. These studies were included in the analysis. The goal of the analysis was to determine if the two types of studies gave similar estimates of response rate, which is a type of trial outcome that measures whether the cancer shrinks or disappears. To do this, the results from the tumor-specific studies were combined with the results of the tumor-agnostic studies. No meaningful differences in the results from the tumor-specific studies compared with the tumor-agnostic studies were found. This suggests that tumor-specific studies do not yield very different results from tumor-agnostic studies. For BRAF-altered advanced cancers, tumor-agnostic clinical trials do not yield substantially different results from tumor-specific studies and may offer a more efficient method for efficacy across multiple tumor types simultaneously, with less between-study heterogeneity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pembrolizumab demonstrated durable antitumor activity in 233 patients with previously treated advanced microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) advanced solid tumors in the phase II multicohort KEYNOTE-158 (NCT02628067) study. Herein, we report safety and efficacy outcomes with longer follow-up for more patients with previously treated advanced MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancers who were included in cohort K of the KEYNOTE-158 (NCT02628067) study. Eligible patients with previously treated advanced noncolorectal MSI-H/dMMR solid tumors, measurable disease as per RECIST v1.1, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST v1.1 by independent central radiologic review. Three hundred and fifty-one patients with various tumor types were enrolled in KEYNOTE-158 cohort K. The most common tumor types were endometrial (22.5%), gastric (14.5%), and small intestine (7.4%). Median time from first dose to database cut-off (5 October 2020) was 37.5 months (range, 0.2-55.6 months). ORR among 321 patients in the efficacy population (patients who received ≥1 dose of pembrolizumab enrolled ≥6 months before the data cut-off date) was 30.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 25.8% to 36.2%]. Median duration of response was 47.5 months (range, 2.1+ to 51.1+ months; '+' indicates no progressive disease by the time of last disease assessment). Median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (95% CI 2.3-4.2 months) and median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI 14.1-27.1 months). Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 227 patients (64.7%). Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 39 patients (11.1%); 3 (0.9%) had grade 5 treatment-related AEs (myocarditis, pneumonia, and Guillain–Barre syndrome, n = 1 each). Pembrolizumab demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable benefit, with a high ORR of 30.8%, long median duration of response of 47.5 months, and manageable safety across a range of heavily pretreated, advanced MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancers, providing support for use of pembrolizumab in this setting. • Pembrolizumab showed an ORR of 30.8% across a wide range of advanced MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancers. • Responses were durable with a median duration of response of 47.5 months. • Pembrolizumab had manageable toxicity, consistent with the established safety profile for pembrolizumab monotherapy. • Results support the efficacy of pembrolizumab in previously treated advanced MSI-H/dMMR noncolorectal cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The study objective was to investigate the economic value of tumor-agnostic therapies when only single-arm effectiveness data are available at launch by applying multiple methodologies to establish comparative effectiveness.Methods: In the absence of direct comparative data, 3 methods were used to estimate the counterfactual: (1) a historical control based on a systematic literature review for each tumor site from the larotrectinib trials, (2) an intracohort comparison using the previous line of therapy time to progression from larotrectinib trials, and (3) a nonresponder control that applied outcomes for larotrectinib nonresponders. Cost-effectiveness was modeled using the partitioned survival approach. Stochastic parameter uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). A triangulated estimate of the mean cost-effectiveness result was generated combining all 3 counterfactual estimates.Results: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were similar across the 3 methodologies in the deterministic analysis ranging from £83 868 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] £65 698-£107 668) to £104 922 per quality-adjusted life-year (95% UI £80 132-£139 658). PSA results for each method substantially overlapped when plotted on the cost-effectiveness plane. Weighting PSA results for each method equally in the triangulation method produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £95 587 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% UI £70 449-£137 431).Conclusions: In the absence of direct comparative data, different methods of estimating a counterfactual are possible, each with strengths and limitations. Triangulating results across the methods provides a composite view of the total uncertainty and a more consistent estimation of the cost-effectiveness of the tumor-agnostic intervention compared with choosing a single method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Entrectinib is an anti-cancer agent that inhibits TRKA/B/C, ROS1, and ALK. Secondary pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure parameters for entrectinib derived from a previously described population PK model were used to characterize exposure-response relationships in patients treated with entrectinib.Methods: Data were pooled from Phase 1 and 2 studies of entrectinib (600-800 mg/day in adults, 250-750 mg/m2/day in children) in 293 patients with NTRK-, ROS1-, or ALK-positive, locally advanced or metastatic tumors. Efficacy was evaluated by the changes in sum of target lesion diameters and best overall response defined by RECIST1.1. A longitudinal nonlinear mixed-effect model described the relationship between entrectinib exposure and tumor size data in patients with ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or NTRK fusion-positive solid tumors. The relationship between exposure and treatment-emergent (TEAEs) or serious (SAEs) adverse events was assessed by logistic regression in all patients for whom secondary PK parameter estimates were derived.Results: Among the 89 patients with evaluable efficacy data included in the exposure-efficacy analysis, 73% (65/89) achieved a complete or partial response. Entrectinib exposure distribution was similar in responders and non-responders. Model-described tumor shrinkage rates were 8-12 times greater than growth rates in both ROS-1-positive NSCLC patients and NTRK fusion-positive solid tumor patients, with no relationship between exposure and these rates. The probability of experiencing a Grade ≥ 3 TEAE or SAE increased with exposure, primarily at doses > 600 mg/day.Conclusion: These analyses supported that entrectinib at 600 mg/day provides an acceptable benefit-risk ratio in adults with NTRK-, ROS1-, or ALK-positive tumors, considered as rare disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Molecular residual disease (MRD) is a promising biomarker in colorectal cancer (CRC) for prognosis and guiding treatment, while the whole-exome sequencing (WES) based tumor-informed assay is standard for evaluating MRD based on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). In this study, we assessed the feasibility of a fixed-panel for evaluating MRD in CRC., Materials and Methods: 75 patients with resectable stage I-III CRC were enrolled. Tumor tissues obtained by surgery, and pre-operative and post-operative day 7 blood samples were collected. The ctDNA was evaluated using the tumor-agnostic and tumor-informed fixed assays, as well as the WES-based and panel-based personalized assays in randomly selected patients., Results: The tumor-informed fixed assay had a higher pre-operative positive rate than the tumor-agnostic assay (73.3% vs 57.3%). The pre-op ctDNA status failed to predict disease-free survival (DFS) in either of the fixed assays, while the tumor-informed fixed assay-determined post-op ctDNA positivity was significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 20.74, 95%CI 7.19-59.83; p<0.001), which was an independent predictor by multivariable analysis (HR, 28.57, 95%CI 7.10-114.9; p<0.001). Sub-cohort analysis indicated the WES-based personalized assay had the highest pre-operative positive rate (95.1%). The two personalized assays and the tumor-informed fixed assay demonstrated same results in post-op landmark (HR, 26.34, 95%CI, 6.01-115.57; p<0.001), outperforming the tumor-agnostic fixed panel (HR, 3.04, 95%CI, 0.94-9.89; p=0.052)., Conclusion: Our study confirmed the prognostic value of the ctDNA positivity at post-op day 7 by the tumor-informed fixed panel. The tumor-informed fixed panel may be a cost-effective method to evaluate MRD, which warrants further studies in future.

With multiple molecular targeted therapies available for patients with cancer that correspond to a specific genetic alteration, the selection of the best treatment is essential to ensure therapeutic efficacy. Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) play a key role in this process to deliver personalized medicine to patients with cancer in a multidisciplinary manner. Historically, personalized medicine has been offered to patients with advanced cancer, but the incorporation of molecular targeted therapies and immunotherapy into the perioperative setting requires clinicians to understand the role of the MTB. Evidence is accumulating to support feasibility and survival benefit in patients treated with matched therapy., Competing Interests: Disclosure Y. Fujiwara does not have conflicts of interest. S. Kato serves as a consultant for Foundation Medicine. He receives speaker's fees from Roche and the advisory board for Pfizer. He has research funding from ACT Genomics, Sysmex, Japan, Konica Minolta and OmniSeq. R. Kurzrock has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Germany, Debiopharm, Foundation Medicine, United States, Genentech, United States, Grifols, Spain, Guardant, Incyte, Konica Minolta, MedImmune, United States, Merck Serono, Omniseq, Pfizer, United States, Sequenom, Takeda, Japan, and TopAlliance and from the NCI, United States, as well as consultant and/or speaker fees and/or advisory board/consultant for Actuate Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bicara Therapeutics, Inc., Biological Dynamics, Caris, Datar Cancer Genetics, Daiichi, EISAI, EOM Pharmaceuticals, Iylon, LabCorp, Merck, NeoGenomics, Neomed, Pfizer, Precirix, Prosperdtx, Regeneron, Roche, TD2/Volastra, Turning Point Therapeutics, X-Biotech. R. Kurzrock has an equity interest in CureMatch Inc.; serves on the Board of CureMatch and CureMetrix, and is a co-founder of CureMatch. R. Kurzrock is funded in part by 5U01CA180888 to 08 and 5UG1CA233198 to 05., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Impaired DNA damage response (DDR) can affect immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) efficacy and lead to heightened immune activation. We assessed the impact of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline DDR mutations on ICI response and toxicity., Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 131 cancer patients with germline DNA testing and ICI treatment was performed., Results: Ninety-two patients were DDR-negative (DDR-), and 39 had ≥1 DDR mutation (DDR+). DDR+ patients showed higher objective response rates (ORRs) compared to DDR- in univariate and multivariable analyses, adjusting for age and metastatic disease (62% vs. 23%, unadjusted OR = 5.41; 95% CI, 2.41-12.14; adjusted OR 5.94; 95% CI, 2.35-15.06). Similar results were seen in mismatch repair (MMR), DDR pathways with intact MMR (DDR+MMRi), and homologous recombination (HR) subgroups versus DDR- (adjusted OR MMR = 24.52; 95% CI 2.72-221.38, DDR+MMRi = 4.26; 95% CI, 1.57-11.59, HR = 4.74; 95% CI, 1.49-15.11). DDR+ patients also had higher ORRs with concurrent chemotherapy (82% vs. 39% DDR-, p=0.03) or concurrent tyrosine kinase inhibitors (50% vs. 5% DDR-, p=0.03). No significant differences in immune-related adverse events were observed between DDR+ and DDR- cohorts., Conclusion: P/LP germline DDR mutations may enhance ICI response without significant additional toxicity., Competing Interests: MD received consulting fees from MJH Life Sciences. SP reported grants or contracts from Amgen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Fate Therapeutics, Gilead, Lovance, Merck, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, SQZ Biotechnologies; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Certis, Eli Lilly, Jazz, Genentech, Illumina, Merck, Pfizer, Rakuten, Tempus. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Dennis, Bylsma, Madlensky, Pagadala, Carter and Patel.)

Objective: To estimate the potential budget impact on US third party payers (commercial or Medicare) associated with addition of selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment for patients with Rearranged during Transfection ( RET )-altered solid tumors., Methods: An integrated budget impact model (iBIM) with 3-year (Y) time horizon was developed for 19 RET -altered tumors. It is referred to as an integrated model because it is a single model that integrated results across multiple tumor types (as opposed to tumor-specific models developed traditionally). The model estimated eligible patient populations and included tumor-specific comparator treatments for each tumor type. Estimated annual total costs (2022USD, $) included costs of drug, administration, supportive care, and toxicity. For a one-million-member plan, the number of patients with RET -altered tumors eligible for treatment, incremental total costs, and incremental per-member per-month (PMPM) costs associated with introduction of selpercatinib treatment were estimated. Uncertainty associated with model parameters was assessed using various sensitivity analyses., Results: Commercial perspective estimated 11.68 patients/million with RET -altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 7.59 (Y1), 8.17 (Y2), and 8.76 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated (based on forecasted market share). The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (commercial) were estimated to be: $873,099 and $0.073 (Y1), $2,160,525 and $0.180 (Y2), and $2,561,281 and $0.213 (Y3), respectively. The Medicare perspective estimated 55.82 patients/million with RET -altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 36.29 (Y1), 39.08 (Y2), and 41.87 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated. The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (Medicare) were estimated to be: $4,447,832 and $0.371 (Y1), $11,076,422 and $0.923 (Y2), and $12,637,458 and $1.053 (Y3), respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses across both perspectives identified drug costs, selpercatinib market share, incidence of RET , and treatment duration as significant drivers of incremental costs., Conclusions: Three-year incremental PMPM cost estimates suggest a modest impact on payer-budgets associated with introduction of tumor-agnostic selpercatinib treatment.

Advances within molecular diagnostics have enabled us to identify a number of oncogenic drivers across different cancers. Many cancers can now be divided into subgroups based on molecular characteristics, and an increasing number of targeted anticancer drugs have been developed together with a predictive biomarker assay using the drug-diagnostic codevelopment model. With the recent approval of entrectinib, larotrectinib, and pembrolizumab for site-agnostic indications, biomarker-guided drug development has entered into a new phase. The review focuses on the general principles of drug-diagnostic codevelopment, especially basket trials and site-agnostic drug development. Special attention is paid to entrectinib, larotrectinib, and pembrolizumab. The recent approval of entrectinib, larotrectinib, and pembrolizumab must be regarded as a paradigm shift in biomarker-guided oncology drug development. For a site-agnostic indication, it is important to have in mind the central role of the companion diagnostic (CDx), as the assay defines the 'disease' and the patient population to be treated. A number of site-agnostic drugs are currently in development and here, it is important that CDx assay development is given high priority, so an analytical and clinical validated assay is available at the time of drug approval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emerging data suggest that circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can detect colorectal cancer (CRC)-specific signals across both non-metastatic and metastatic settings. With the development of multiple platforms, including tumor-informed and tumor-agnostic ctDNA assays and demonstration of their provocative analytic performance to detect minimal residual disease, there are now ongoing, phase III randomized clinical trials to evaluate their role in the management paradigm of CRC. In this review, we highlight landmark studies that have formed the basis for ongoing studies on the clinically applicability of plasma ctDNA assays in resected, stage I–III CRC and metastatic CRC. We discuss clinical settings by which ctDNA may have the most immediate impact in routine clinical practice. These include the potential for ctDNA to (1) guide surveillance and intensification or de-intensification strategies of adjuvant therapy in resected, stage I–III CRC, (2) predict treatment response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer inclusive of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), and (3) predict response to systemic and surgical therapies in metastatic disease. We end by considering clinical variables that can influence our ability to reliably interpret ctDNA dynamics in the clinic.

Fusions of NTRK (neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase) genes with 5' partner genes can result in the expression of chimeric proteins that drive oncogenesis through ligand-independent kinase activation. Despite variable frequencies of NTRK fusions in different tumor types, the fact that they are common to a wide range of cancers raises the possibility of developing tumor-agnostic treatments specifically targeting NTRK fusion products, irrespective of tumor type. The first-generation Trk (tropomyosin receptor kinase) inhibitor, larotrectinib, was the first tumor-agnostic treatment of NTRK fusion-positive cancers in adults and children, to be approved in the European Union. This consensus, developed by a Belgian multidisciplinary expert panel, aims to highlight the unmet medical need associated to NTRK fusion-driven cancer treatment and, based on current knowledge of NTRK fusions and larotrectinib treatment outcome and safety, provide comprehensive guidance to oncologists regarding NTRK fusion-driven cancer diagnostics and the best use of larotrectinib in real-world clinical settings., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)