Citations

Abstract Background: BRAF and MEK inhibitors are currently FDA approved for melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and anaplastic thyroid cancer. The lack of clinical benefit with BRAF inhibition in BRAF V600+ colorectal cancer (CRC) has prevented its tissue-agnostic drug development. However, updated results from Vemurafenib-Basket study (Cancer Discov. 2020 May;10(5):657-663 ) and the NCI-match trial ( J Clin Oncol. 2020 Nov 20;38(33):3895-3904) reveal that BRAF pathway inhibition is active in > 20 unique cancer types. Objective: We aimed to describe the characteristics of BRAF V600 and study real-world outcomes using a clinico-genomic analysis using the AACR Genie database and the current medical literature. Methods: We reviewed the AACR GENIE database for the prevalence of BRAF V600 mutations across tumor types. We conducted a literature search (using PubMed from 2012-2019) for case reports of clinical response and outcomes in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive non-melanoma cancers who received BRAF inhibitor therapy. Results: Among 96,324 samples, BRAF V600 mutations were seen in 43 different tumor types across 2,963 samples (3.07 %) in the AACR GENIE database. BRAF V600 was most commonly present in thyroid cancer (40.9%), parathyroid cancer (31.8%), melanoma (26.1%), histiocytosis (25.7%), and head and neck NOS (14.3%). Literature review revealed total of 178 cases across 69 tumor types. The most common cases included Erdheim-Chester disease (n = 30, 16.9%), papillary thyroid carcinoma (n=16, 8.9%), anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (n = 13, 7.3%), and hairy cell leukemia (n = 13, 7.3%). Furthermore, dabrafenib (BRAF), dabrafenib/trametinib (BRAF+MEK), trametinib(MEK), vemurafenib (BRAF), vemurafenib/trametinib (BRAF+MEK), vemurafenib/cobimetinib (BRAF+MEK) were used in 34% (n =56), 16% (n = 27), 4% (n = 6), 44% (n = 72), 1% (n = 1), 2% (n =3), respectively. Overall, median PFS was 6.5 months, and median OS was 28.5 months with a median duration of response (DOR) of 8 months. Conclusion: BRAF V600 mutations are prevalent across multiple non-melanoma cancers, lead to oncogene addiction and are clinically actionable in a broad range of non-melanoma cancers. Continued drug development is warranted beyond the current BRAF+/- MEK approved cancers. Citation Format: Jacob J. Adashek, Aakash P. Desai, Arjun K. Menta, Jason Roszik, Vivek Subbiah. Pan-cancer efficacy of BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors in BRAF V600-mutant multiple non-melanoma cancers: A clinico-genomic study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 1479.

Abstract Background: Activating receptor-tyrosine kinase rearranged during transfection (RET) mutations and fusions have been recognized as potent drivers of oncogenesis in multiple malignancies. Recently, highly potent and selective RET inhibitors, selpercatinib and pralsetinib have been FDA approved for RET fusion+ NSCLC and selpercatinib for RET+ thyroid cancers. Here we present a comprehensive analysis of RET alterations in pan-cancer adult malignancies. Patients and methods: 96,324 samples from 89,754 patients available from AACR Project Genie database version 8 were analyzed for the prevalence of RET fusions, mutations, and copy number alterations in diverse cancer types accessed July 21, 2020. The races of the samples within the cohort were 69,962 (72.6%) white, 5,388 (5.6%) Black, 4,909 (5.1%) Asian, 163 (0.17%) Native American, 48 (0.05%) Pacific Islander, and 15,854 (16.5%) were unknown. Results: There were 56,382 (58.5%) samples from primary tumors, 24,204 (25.1%) samples from unspecified metastasis sites, 4,798 (5.0%) from distant organ metastasis, 1,379 (1.4%) from lymph node metastasis, 1,279 (1.3%) from local recurrence, and 8,282 (8.6%) unknown. In 96,324 tumor samples there were 2,706 (2.81%) RET alterations. This included 223 (0.23%) fusions, 1,689 RET mutations found (1.75%) in 21 tumor histologies, and 794 (0.82%) RET amplifications identified; where the most abundant tissues harboring RET fusions were NSCLC (n = 121), papillary thyroid cancer (n = 53), breast cancer (n = 8) and colorectal cancer (n = 7) and the most abundant tissues harboring RET missense mutations were NSCLC (n = 355), colorectal cancer (n = 292), melanoma (n = 236), and thyroid cancer (n = 127). NSCLC samples with RET fusions had significantly co-altered KRAS, SETD2, PVRL4, EZH1, and RRAGC. Conclusions: RET fusions represent extremely rate events in multiple cancers. RET missense mutations occur in 2% of malignancies. Most RET missense variants are described as variants of unknown significance, limiting the impact of precision oncology for the majority of patients with RET alterations. Further functional characterization of RET variants is warranted because RET is highly targetable with therapeutics. Citation Format: Jacob J. Adashek, Alexander Andreev-Drakhlin, Jason Roszik, Aakash P. Desai, Vivek Subbiah. The landscape of 2,706 RET alterations from 89,754 adult patients with cancer: Clinical implications [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 1221.

Background: High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (HD-ASCT) is a promising alternative to whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in the treatment of primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL). The objective of this study was to critically assess current evidence supporting the use of HD-ASCT as first-line consolidative therapy in PCNSL. Methods: The objective was addressed through the development of a critically appraised topic that included a clinical scenario, structured question, literature search strategy, critical appraisal, assessment of results, evidence summary, commentary, and bottom-line conclusions. Participants included consultant and resident neurologists, a medical librarian, clinical epidemiologists, and a content expert in the field of neuro-oncology. Results: A recent, open-label, noncomparative randomized phase II trial was selected for critical appraisal. This trial evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of consolidative therapy with HD-ASCT and WBRT in PCNSL in 2 separate treatment arms. A total of 140 patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL between the ages of 18 and 60 years were included. The primary endpoint of 2-year progression-free survival was met in 63% of patients in the WBRT arm and 87% in the HD-ASCT arm. Notably, an overall improvement in neurocognitive scores was observed following HD-ASCT, while WBRT was associated with worsened cognitive outcomes. Conclusions: In young patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL, consolidative therapy with HD-ASCT appears to be associated with less neurocognitive toxicity and may be more effective than WBRT at preventing relapses, however, at the cost of a higher treatment-related mortality.

Background: Closed-loop control (CLC) has been shown to improve glucose time in range and other glucose metrics; however, randomized trials >3 months comparing CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy are limited. We recently reported glucose control outcomes from the 6-month international Diabetes Closed-Loop (iDCL) trial; we now report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this iDCL trial. Methods: Participants were randomized 2:1 to CLC ( N = 112) versus SAP ( N = 56) and completed questionnaires, including Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), Hypoglycemia Awareness, Hypoglycemia Confidence, Hyperglycemia Avoidance, and Positive Expectancies of CLC (INSPIRE) at baseline, 3, and 6 months. CLC participants also completed Diabetes Technology Expectations and Acceptance and System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey Behavior subscale improved significantly after 6 months of CLC compared with SAP. DDS did not differ except for powerless subscale scores, which worsened at 3 months in SAP. Whereas Hypoglycemia Awareness and Hyperglycemia Avoidance did not differ between groups, CLC participants showed a tendency toward improved confidence in managing hypoglycemia. The INSPIRE questionnaire showed favorable scores in the CLC group for teens and parents, with a similar trend for adults. At baseline and 6 months, CLC participants had high positive expectations for the device with Diabetes Technology Acceptance and SUS showing high benefit and low burden scores. Conclusion: CLC improved some PROs compared with SAP. Participants reported high benefit and low burden with CLC. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT03563313.

AbstractBronchoscopy in thrombocytopenic patients remains a controversial topic as traditionally varying platelet thresholds have been stablished as “safe,” ranging from 20,000 to 50,000. A lower threshold may be safe for a routine airway inspection with bronchoalveolar lavage but will be far from safe for more invasive interventions such as needle biopsy, transbronchial biopsy, or cryo‐biopsy. Currently, a minimal platelet threshold during robotic‐assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) has not been established. In addition, the absolute platelet number does not guarantee appropriate platelet function. The literature regarding the safety of bronchoscopy and its bleeding risk, considering broader and more functional tests such as thromboelastography (TEG), is also lacking. We present our RAB approach to safely sample lung nodules in a patient with thrombocytopenia. Our precautionary strategy for high‐risk bleeding cases during RAB utilizing TEG and parallel flexible bronchoscopy with segmental balloon occlusion may be an appropriate technique to minimize bleeding risk.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight. RESULTS: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.

e18635 Background: With almost 85% of patients treated outside NCI-designated cancer centers, providing comprehensive, state-of-the-art cancer care to millions of patients in the U.S. remains a significant challenge. We aimed to combine cutting edge AI based technology of DLVTB with high value-added services to provide evidence-based care management recommendations and implementation support to the patients and physicians in the community. To further demonstrate the feasibility, reproducibility, scalability, and benefits of DLVTB, we evaluated key outcomes from incorporating DLVTB in a cohort of 35 patients with advanced colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC). Methods: Our core-enabling technology is a deep learning based Natural Language Understanding Engine that employs (1) natural language processing for medical text digestion and structuring, (2) decision trees and multilayer perception models to produce evidence-based treatment protocols, and (3) natural language based report generation. The technology platform is combined with human support from oncology sub-specialists to deliver a comprehensive Interpretive Report with a prioritized list of recommendations for each patient. These recommendations are operationalized by a case management team to ensure care implementation and monitoring of outcomes. Results: Thirty-five patients with CRC were referred for incorporation of DLVTB into clinical practice. Median age of patients was 57 years with 68.6% males. About 88.6% of the patients were Stage IV and 82.9% were treated by community practice oncologists. Median time since diagnosis was 17 months (1-73 months). Overall, DLVTB-cohort demonstrated an increase in median Overall Survival of 12 months per patient in comparison with historical cohorts. More specifically, DLVTB recommended initial and/or additional biomarker testing for 71% of the patients with further precision oncology-guided treatment recommendation (e.g. an EGFR inhibitor) for 80% of the patients. 63% of the patients were eligible for at least one clinical trial. 58% of the trials identified were within proximity (≤50 miles) of the patient’s primary residence. Thus, DLVTB was able to identify a trial that did not require extensive travel, provided eligibility and actionability closer to the point-of-care. 14% of the DLVTB evaluated patients subsequently enrolled in the recommended clinical trial, far surpassing the national average (3%). Moreover, DLVTB recommended treatments achieved on average savings of $39,194 per patient which is 35% of the average drug cost per patient. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of incorporating DLVTB into clinical practice. The utilization of DLVTB as a clinical trial enrollment tool and an engine for development of pathways resulting in improved clinical outcomes, in a cost-effective, and innovative care delivery model.