Dawood, Shaheenah

PURPOSE Accurate understanding of the genomic and transcriptomic data provided by next-generation sequencing (NGS) is essential for the effective utilization of precision oncology. Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) aim to translate the complex data in NGS reports into effective clinical interventions. Often, MTB treatment recommendations differ from those in the NGS reports. In this study, we analyze the discordance between these recommendations and the rationales behind the discordances, in a non–high-income setting, with international input to evaluate the necessity of MTB in clinical practice. METHODS We collated data from MTB that were virtually hosted in Chennai, India. We included patients with malignancies who had NGS reports on solid tissue or liquid biopsies, and excluded those with incomplete data. MTB forms and NGS reports of each clinical case were analyzed and evaluated for recommendation concordance. Concordance was defined as an agreement between the first recommendation in the MTB forms and the therapeutic recommendations suggested in the NGS report. Discordance was the absence of the said agreement. The rationales for discordance were identified and documented. RESULTS Seventy MTB reports were analyzed with 49 cases meeting the inclusion criteria. The recommendation discordance was 49% (24 of 49). Discordant recommendations were mainly due to low level of evidence for the drug (75% of cases). CONCLUSION The discordance between MTB and NGS vendor recommendations highlights the clinical utility of MTB. The educational experiences provided by this initiative are an example of how virtual academic collaborations can enhance patient care and provider education across geographic borders.

e15050 Background: Molecular tumour boards (MTB) facilitate discussions among medical professionals, scientists, bioinformaticians and geneticists for clinical application of precision oncology, via interpretation of various genomic sequencing studies, most commonly Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). NGS test vendor recommendation may differ from the MTB recommendations. We aim to study the discordance rate between these recommendations. Methods: MTB discussions between April 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021, were retrospectively evaluated. MTBs which assessed NGS reports with or without significant genetic mutations but with drug recommendations were included. NGS testing was done with multiple vendors. Patients from all over India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Dubai and Abu Dhabi were discussed. We excluded MTBs which assessed NGS data without any drug recommendations. We compared therapeutic recommendations provided in the NGS report with the first-choice recommendation in the MTB discussion. Recommendation discordance was defined as disagreement between the NGS recommendation and the first MTB recommendation that either instructed its implementation either immediately or on disease progression. Results: 70 MTB data was studied. 49 MTBs assessing NGS reports of 49 unique patients (median age 54 years; range, 32-82) were included in the study. 13 patients had lung cancer, 10 colorectal, 6 breast, 7 hepatopancreatobiliary, 4 carcinoma of unknown primary and 9 others. 17 did not provide any treatment recommendations and hence were excluded. 4 were discussions based on NGS reports previously discussed in an MTB that was already included in the study, hence were excluded. Recommendation discordance rate was 49% (24 of 49). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study that assessed discordance rate in recommendations between NGS report and MTB from a low- and middle-income country setting. Accurate clinical translation of complex genomic data is at the forefront of personalized cancer care.

Abstract: Worldwide, ovarian cancer (OC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death among women. Despite the recent progress in the treatment of advanced OC, oncologists in many parts of the world still face several difficulties and constraints in their daily management of their patients. In addition to the shortage of resources and expertise, non-adherence to the up to date international guidelines has been identified as a major obstacle towards the improvement of treatment outcomes in the majority of developing countries, including the Middle East and North African (MENA) countries. A multidisciplinary gynecological oncology panel from the MENA region met virtually in December 2020 to discuss the challenges and hurdles faced by the community oncologists in the management of advanced OC. This manuscript reviews the key molecular and clinical studies that shaped the current international guidelines and suggests several modifications to make them more adaptable to the health status of developing countries of this region

Background: Benchmarking international cancer survival differences is necessary to evaluate and improve healthcare systems. Our aim was to assess the potential regional differences in outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) participating in international randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design: Countries were grouped into 11 regions according to the World Health Organization and the EUROCARE model. Meta-analyses based on individual patient data were used to synthesize data across studies and regions and to conduct comparisons for outcomes in a two-stage random-effects model after adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and time period. We used mCRC patients enrolled in the first-line RCTs from the ARCAD database, which provided enrolling country information. There were 21,509 patients in 27 RCTs included across the 11 regions. Results: Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with other regions, patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were proportionaly over-represented, older, with higher performance status, more frequently male, and more commonly not treated with biological therapies. Cohorts from central Europe and the United States (USA) had significantly longer OS compared with those from UK and Ireland ( p = 0.0034 and p < 0.001, respectively), with median difference of 3–4 months. The survival deficits in the UK and Ireland cohorts were, at most, 15% at 1 year. No evidence of a regional disparity was observed for PFS. Among those treated without biological therapies, patients from the UK and Ireland had shorter OS than central Europe patients ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Significant international disparities in the OS of cohorts of mCRC patients enrolled in RCTs were found. Survival of mCRC patients included in RCTs was consistently lower in the UK and Ireland regions than in central Europe, southern Europe, and the USA, potentially attributed to greater overall population representation, delayed diagnosis, and reduced availability of therapies.

3554 Background: There is considerable variability in the outcomes between second line (SL) trials in mCRC. The aim of this analysis is to compare the outcomes of patients (pts) with mCRC treated either on SAFL, with protocol defined SL treatment, or DSLT. Methods: Individual pt data was available on pts with mCRC enrolled in 1 of 10 trials (7 DSLT, 3 SAFL) in the ARCAD database. Regimens included FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and irinotecan (IRI), since pts did not receive biologic agents in SL on SAFL. For pts on a SAFL, PFS and OS were defined as time from initiation of SL treatment to second progression (SP)/death and death, respectively. Descriptive statistics and multivariable Cox models were used to assess differences in PFS and OS. Results: 5,076 pts were included; 63% were male; median age was 62. See Table for treatment details. Pts treated on SAFL had shorter OS (0.7-1.5 months (mos>) shorter) and PFS (0.6-2.6 mos shorter), compared to those treated on DSLT. These findings were statistically significant and differences in OS did not attenuate after adjustment for age, gender, and prior treatment. PFS differences in FOLFOX became insignificant after multivariable adjustment. Conclusions: There are modest differences in both PFS and OS between pts with mCRC treated on SAFL and those on DSLT, suggesting differences in these pt populations. Caution is needed when applying these data to pts, as we were unable to control for potential confounders (ECOG PS, number and sites of metastases) at initiation of SL in SAFL, which may impact outcomes. [Table: see text]