Borad, Mitesh

Adoptive cellular immunotherapy (ACT) has revolutionized hematologic malignancies, yet translation to solid tumors has historically been limited. This landscape shifted significantly in 2024 with US Food and Drug Administration approvals of lifileucel, a tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy for advanced melanoma, and afamitresgene autoleucel, an engineered T-cell receptor (TCR) therapy for synovial sarcoma. These approvals mark the clinical arrival of ACT for solid tumors and highlight a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape. Beyond these indications, multiple ACT platforms including TIL, TCR, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell, CAR-natural killer, and CAR-macrophage therapies are under active clinical investigation across diverse solid tumor indications. Clinical experience to date has defined key barriers to efficacy, including impaired tumor trafficking, antigen heterogeneity, immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, and limited cellular persistence. In parallel, rapid advances in cellular engineering are reshaping the field, with the development of armored constructs, logic-gated and multiantigen targeting strategies, innate immune–based platforms, and novel manufacturing approaches including allogeneic and in vivo cell engineering. As ACT enters clinical practice for select solid tumors, distinct toxicity profiles and logistical requirements necessitate careful patient selection and multidisciplinary coordination. Early biomarker testing, timely referral to specialized centers, and familiarity with evolving toxicity management frameworks are increasingly critical. Here, we seek to provide a practice-oriented framework for understanding emerging ACT platforms, clinical data, toxicity considerations, and implementation strategies relevant to contemporary solid tumor oncology care.

PURPOSE Gastroesophageal carcinoma (GEC) is increasingly managed using biomarker-guided therapies. Although both tissue DNA (tDNA) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing are used clinically, the concordance of genomic alterations between primary tumors, metastatic sites, and liquid biopsy remains incompletely understood. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 345 patients with GEC who underwent ctDNA testing at Mayo Clinic. tDNA next-generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)/erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 ( ERBB2 ) and mismatch repair (MMR) were collected. Concordance was evaluated between ctDNA and tDNA, ctDNA and IHC, and across all three modalities, using 60-day and 30-day intervals. RESULTS Among 345 patients with ctDNA testing, 186 had tDNA testing, and 310 underwent IHC. ctDNA testing showed a shorter turnaround time than tDNA (median 6 v 13 days). The most frequent alteration in ctDNA, primary tDNA, and metastatic tDNA was TP53. Concordance between ctDNA and primary tDNA was ≥78.8% for key genes; between ctDNA and metastatic tDNA, it was ≥84.8%. IHC-ctDNA concordance was higher in metastatic tumors, with 91.1% for HER2/ ERBB2 and 97.7% for mismatch repair (MMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI) compared with 81.1% and 95.8%, respectively, in primary tumors. Triplet concordance for MSI/MMR was 97.6% in primary tumors and 100% in metastatic tumors, while ERBB2 /HER2 showed 84.4% and 93.9% concordance, respectively. ctDNA temporal heterogeneity analysis revealed 14 patients with fluctuating ERBB2 status and 3 with fluctuating MSI-H status. CONCLUSION ctDNA testing demonstrates high concordance with tDNA and IHC and offers faster turnaround. Given its minimally invasive nature and strong concordance with tissue-based testing, ctDNA is a reliable tool for genomic profiling and longitudinal monitoring in GEC.