Hicks, J. Kevin

Abstract Pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare, aggressive lung tumor marked by significant molecular heterogeneity. In a study of 590 patients across two independent cohorts, we observed comparable overall survival across treatment regimens (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, immunotherapy) without unexpected adverse events. Genomic analysis identified distinct NSCLC-like (KEAP1, KRAS, STK11 mutations) and SCLC-like (RB1, TP53 mutations) LCNEC subtypes, with 80% aligning with SCLC transcriptional profiles. Serial sampling revealed stable mutational but shifting transcriptomic landscapes over time. NSCLC-like LCNECs showed elevated FGL-1 (a LAG-3 ligand) and SPINK1 expression, while SCLC-like subtypes expressed higher levels of DLL3. Immunofluorescence confirmed FGL-1 in NSCLC-like LCNECs, and H&E slide analyses indicated fewer tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in LCNECs versus other lung cancers. These findings highlight LCNEC’s distinct immunogenomic profile, supporting future investigations into LAG-3, SPINK1, and DLL3-targeted therapies.

Abstract Introduction The CYP2D6 enzyme metabolizes opioids commonly prescribed for cancer‐related pain, and CYP2D6 polymorphisms may contribute to variability in opioid response. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing CYP2D6 ‐guided opioid prescribing for patients with cancer and reported pilot outcome data. Methods Adult patients from two cancer centers were prospectively enrolled into a hybrid implementation‐effectiveness clinical trial and randomized to CYP2D6 ‐genotype‐guided opioid selection, with clinical recommendations, or usual care. Implementation metrics, including provider response, medication changes consistent with recommendations, and patient‐reported pain and symptom scores at baseline and up to 8 weeks, were assessed. Results Most (87/114, 76%) patients approached for the study agreed to participate. Of 85 patients randomized, 71% were prescribed oxycodone at baseline. The median (range) time to receive CYP2D6 test results was 10 (3–37) days; 24% of patients had physicians acknowledge genotype results in a clinic note. Among patients with CYP2D6 ‐genotype‐guided recommendations to change therapy ( n = 11), 18% had a change congruent with recommendations. Among patients who completed baseline and follow‐up questionnaires ( n = 48), there was no difference in change in mean composite pain score (−1.01 ± 2.1 vs. −0.41 ± 2.5; p = 0.19) or symptom severity at last follow‐up (3.96 ± 2.18 vs. 3.47 ± 1.78; p = 0.63) between the usual care arm ( n = 26) and genotype‐guided arm ( n = 22), respectively. Conclusion Our study revealed high acceptance of pharmacogenetic testing as part of a clinical trial among patients with cancer pain. However, provider response to genotype‐guided recommendations was low, impacting assessment of pain‐related outcomes. Addressing barriers to utility of pharmacogenetics results and clinical recommendations will be critical for implementation success.

The development of targeted therapies over the past two decades has led to a dramatic change in the management of EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While there are currently five approved EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for treating EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the first-line setting, therapy selection after progression on EGFR TKIs remains complex. Multiple groups are investigating novel therapies and drug combinations to determine the optimal therapy and treatment sequence for these patients. In this review, we summarize the landmark trials and history of the approval of EGFR TKIs, their efficacy and tolerability, and the role of these therapies in patients with central nervous system metastasis. We also briefly discuss the mechanisms of resistance to EGFR TKIs, ongoing attempts to overcome resistance and improve outcomes, and finalize by offering treatment sequencing recommendations.

e21016 Background: BRAF mutations are grouped (class I, II or III) according to kinase activity, dependence on RAS, and dimerization. BRAF class I mutations are targeted with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. The management of class II/III mutations has not been fully elucidated. We aimed to further characterize BRAF-mutant NSCLC. Methods: Moffitt patients with BRAF-mutant NSCLC were identified through retrospective review of a clinical molecular database and electronic health record from 1/1/2012 - 03/31/2020. Demographics, PD-L1 expression, responses to chemotherapy/immunotherapy, and overall survival were collected. The correlation between BRAF mutation classes and these variables was determined using a pairwise comparison of p-values and corrected for testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. For survival analysis, we used the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Results: 153 patients were included. Table summarizes the demographic data. 14 evaluable patients with class I mutations received anti-BRAF therapy. The DCR was 79% (11/14) and 83% when PD-L1 ≥1% (5/6). 36 response-evaluable patients received immunotherapy. The DCR was 79% (11/14) for patients with class I, 69% (9/13) for class II, and 78% (7/9) for class III mutations (p=0.89). The DCR was 73% in those with PD-L1 ≥1% (22/30) and 44% in those with PD-L1 <1% (7/16; p= 0.02). 43 response-evaluable patients received chemotherapy. The DCR was 86% (18/21) for patients with class I, 69% (9/13) for class II, and 78% (7/9) for class III mutations (p=0.49). The mOS was 26.2 months for all patients. The mOS was 31.2 months for class I, 15.6 months for class II, 28.8 months for class III, 34.8 months for AMP, and 24 months for VUS (p=0.6). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest retrospective study of patients with BRAF-mutant NSCLC. BRAFmutations were more common in patients with adenocarcinoma and those with a smoking history. PD-L1 levels ≥1% were seen more frequently in all BRAF-mutant patients. Class I mutations were significantly more common than other mutations and responded well to BRAF-targeted therapy, particularly when PD-L1 ≥1%. All BRAF-mutant classes responded similarly to immunotherapy and better responses were seen among those with PD-L1 ≥1%. Responses to chemotherapy were similar across all classes. Improved OS in class I-mutant disease was seen. These findings were not statistically significant. Additional research is needed to better characterize these patients to individualize management and improve outcomes.[Table: see text]

e16266 Background: Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest malignancies, with a 5 year OS of around 3%. Up to 3% of unselected patients (pts) with (PDAC) have the BRCA 1/2 mutation, while up to 15% possess HRD (ARID1A, ATM, BAP1, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK1/2, FANCA, PALB2, RAD50, RAD51). PARP inhibitors, like olaparib, demonstrate clinical benefit in metastatic PDAC with BRCA mutations (mBRCA) and may have a role in those with HRD. The objective of this study is to determine the role of PARP inhibition in PDAC with HRD. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of metastatic PDAC pts with germline (g) or somatic (s) mBRCA or HRD who received olaparib. An analysis of PFS and OS was performed for PDAC pts with mBRCA vs. HRD. Results: Forty-six pts with metastatic pancreatic cancer were identified to have mBRCA (n = 13) or HRD (n = 23) and received olaparib in our database. Median age was 73 years for mBRCA and 66 years for HRD. Five pts received olaparib as maintenance therapy after disease control with platinum: 2 mBRCA and 3 HRD pts. Six pts with mBRCA and 7 pts with HRD were platinum naïve prior to olaparib. Zero pts with mBRCA and 3 pts with HRD received olaparib after disease progression on platinum. The median (med)PFS for mBRCA vs. HRD was 6.1 months vs. 2.8 months (HR 0.5, 95% CI: 0.2-1.1, p = 0.07). The medOS for mBRCA vs. HRD was 7.7 vs. 5.3 months (HR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.2-1.9, p = 0.4). Of those with mBRCA who received olaparib, prior cisplatin exposure (n = 8) vs. cisplatin naïve (n = 5) led to medPFS of 6.1 vs. 7.8 months (HR 1.8, 95% CI 0.5-6.7, p = 0.3) and medOS of 6.8 months vs. 9.5 months (HR 1.5, 95% 0.3-6.4, p = 0.6). Six pts with HRD including gCHEK2 c.407T > C, gCHEK2 c.1461+1 G > A, gPALB2 gain (exon 11), sFANCI p.N1252S, sATM p.V2716A, sARID1A Q944fs*14 were noted to have disease control of at least 3 months on olaparib. Only one of these pts received olaparib as maintenance therapy after platinum. The medPFS was 6.1 months and medOS was not reached. One pt with HRD (sFANCI N1252S) had progressive disease on platinum prior to olaparib, but had stable disease > 5 months with olaparib. Conclusions: Our study suggests olaparib may have anticancer activity in PDAC with certain HRD. In addition, olaparib may have a role outside maintenance therapy in PDAC with mBRCA. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Abstract To move beyond a select few genes/drugs, the successful adoption of pharmacogenomics into routine clinical care requires a curated and machine-readable database of pharmacogenomic knowledge suitable for use in an electronic health record (EHR) with clinical decision support (CDS). Recognizing that EHR vendors do not yet provide a standard set of CDS functions for pharmacogenetics, the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Informatics Working Group is developing and systematically incorporating a set of EHR-agnostic implementation resources into all CPIC guidelines. These resources illustrate how to integrate pharmacogenomic test results in clinical information systems with CDS to facilitate the use of patient genomic data at the point of care. Based on our collective experience creating existing CPIC resources and implementing pharmacogenomics at our practice sites, we outline principles to define the key features of future knowledge bases and discuss the importance of these knowledge resources for pharmacogenomics and ultimately precision medicine.