Citations

AbstractBackgroundHead and neck cancers (HNC) present diagnostic challenges due to multifocal disease manifestations, posing difficulties in distinguishing between metastatic disease and second primary malignancies (SPM). This complexity underscores the need for advanced diagnostic approaches. Emerging technologies, such as next‐generation sequencing (NGS) and molecular classifier assays, show promise in providing precise insights into the diverse etiologies of HNC.MethodIn this article, we employed NGS and molecular classifier assays to delve into three distinct clinical cases. The objective was to showcase the instrumental role of these technologies in facilitating accurate diagnoses and differentiating between metastatic disease and SPM in HNC cases.ResultsThe results of this series highlight the effectiveness of NGS and molecular classifier assays in enhancing diagnostic accuracy for HNC and contributing to the precise differentiation of disease etiologies. The utilization of these advanced technologies proved instrumental in avoiding unnecessary interventions and paved the way for more targeted and effective treatment strategies.ConclusionOur findings underscore the necessity of incorporating advanced molecular testing technologies into the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for HNC, thereby championing a more nuanced and effective approach to managing these complex cases.

The treatment for recurrent/metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD1) with or without chemotherapy has led to an improvement in survival. Yet, despite this therapeutic advancement, only 15%-19% of patients remain alive at four years, highlighting the poor survival and unmet need for improved therapies for this patient population. Some of the key evolving novel therapeutics beyond anti-PD1 in R/M HNSCC have included therapeutic vaccine therapies, bispecific antibodies/fusion proteins and multitargeted kinase inhibitors, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). Multiple concurrent investigations of novel therapeutics for patients with R/M HNSCC beyond anti-PD(L)1 inhibition are currently underway with some promising early results. Beyond immune checkpoint inhibition, novel immunotherapeutic strategies including therapeutic vaccines ranging from targeting human papillomavirus–specific epitopes to personalized neoantigen vaccines are ongoing with some early efficacy signals and large, randomized trials. Other novel weapons including bispecific antibodies, fusion proteins, and multitargeted kinase inhibitors leverage multiple concurrent targets and modulation of the tumor microenvironment to harness antitumor immunity and inhibition of protumorigenic signaling pathways with emerging promising results. Finally, as with other solid tumors, ADCs remain a promising therapeutic intervention either alone or in combination with immunotherapy for patients with R/M HNSCC. With early enthusiasm across novel therapies in R/M HNSCC, results of larger randomized trials in R/M HNSCC are eagerly awaited.

TPS602 Background: Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is an aggressive malignancy comprising both pulmonary and extrapulmonary primary sites. NEC includes both small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC), as well as other neuroendocrine carcinomas arising from any primary organ. A substantial portion (~40%) of NEC arises from gastrointestinal primary sites. The optimal systemic therapy beyond first line platinum and etoposide is not established. There is a critical need to improve upon the median survival in the second line, as most patients do not survive more than 6 months. The efficacy of dual immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICIs) therapy in NEC shows some promise, but most tumors do not respond. One possible explanation for this is that the tumor microenvironment in NEC is non-inflamed. VSV-IFNβ-NIS is a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)-based oncolytic virus being tested in multiple early phase clinical trials. Preliminary studies of immune responses in patients receiving VSV-IFNβ-NIS therapy suggest some patients develop T cell responses to viral antigens and known tumor antigens. We hypothesize that VSV-IFNβ-NIS therapy may convert a non-inflamed or immune-excluded phenotype in NEC to a highly inflamed phenotype that sensitizes the tumor to ICIs. Methods: This is a phase 1-2 safety run-in study designed to determine the safety and efficacy of VSV-IFNβ-NIS in combination with dual ICI therapy, ipilimumab and nivolumab, followed by dose expansion in patients with refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or NEC. After a safety run-in, we will be testing the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of VSV-IFNβ-NIS in an expansion cohort of patients with SCLC or NEC of any primary site. Patients must have previously progressed on at least one line of systemic therapy. Prior treatment with checkpoint inhibitors is permitted. Patients are treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab on day 1, followed by one RP2D of 1.0x10^11 TCID50 VSV-IFNβ-NIS on day 4, followed by nivolumab every 3 weeks and ipilimumab every 6 weeks until progression, up to 2 years. The primary objective is to estimate the response rate by RECIST 1.1. Secondary objectives include estimation of disease-control rate, duration or response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety signals. The NEC expansion cohort will seek to enroll 10 patients. If at least one objective response is observed, and safety is confirmed, the regimen will be considered for future study. Clinical trial information: NCT03647163 .

Metastatic CUP is complex, especially NCUP. Precision oncology is crucial for rare, aggressive cancers. A 54-year-old had HER2+ neuroendocrine carcinoma of unknown origin. T-DXd treatment, response, re-challenge show importance of genomics and caution.

Introduction: Fanconi anemia (FA) is an inherited condition associated with genetic mutations that affect DNA repair proteins. More than 20 genes involved in the FA/BRCA pathway have been implicated in FA, including BRIP1. Tumefactive brain lesions are rare in FA. Case Report: We describe a patient with FA and recurrent tumefactive brain lesions preceded by calcifications on head computed tomography. A biopsy revealed white-matter gliosis with severe vasculopathy. Whole-genome sequencing demonstrated a BRIP1 homozygous variant with a final diagnosis of recurrent tumefactive brain lesions due to BRIP1-associated CNS vasculopathy. Immunosuppressive treatment was ineffective in the present case. Conclusions: Mechanistically, the specific role of BRIP1 mutation in CNS inflammation and vasculopathy is unclear. However, immunodeficiency disorders can lead to autoimmunity and/or immune dysregulation due to the possible loss or gain of function of components of the immune system.

Background Previous studies have established that higher baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We examined the relationship between overall survival (OS) and baseline QOL. Patients and Methods A total of 1 247 patients with mCRC participating in N9741 (comparing bolus 5-FU/LV, irinotecan [IFL] vs infusional 5-FU/leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] vs. irinotecan/oxaliplatin [IROX]) provided data at baseline on overall QOL using a single-item linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) 0–100 point scale. The association of OS according to clinically deficient (defined as CD-QOL, score 0–50) vs not clinically deficient (nCD-QOL, score 51–100) baseline QOL scores was tested. A multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to adjust for the effects of multiple baseline factors. An exploratory analysis was performed evaluating OS according to baseline QOL status among patients who did or did not receive second-line therapy. Results Baseline QOL was a strong predictor of OS for the whole cohort (CD-QOL vs nCD-QOL: 11.2 months vs 18.4 months, P < .0001), and in each arm IFL 12.4 vs 15.1 months, FOLFOX 11.1 months vs 20.6 months, and IROX 8.9 months vs 18.1 months. Baseline QOL was associated with baseline performance status (PS) ( P < .0001). After adjusting for PS and treatment arm, baseline QOL was still associated with OS ( P = .017). Conclusions Baseline QOL is an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with mCRC. The demonstration that patient-assessed QOL and PS are independent prognostic indicators suggests that these assessments provide important complementary prognostic information.

Abstract Poorly differentiated extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas (EP NECs) are aggressive cancers characterized by a high Ki‐67 index, rapid tumor growth and poor survival, and are subdivided into small and large cell carcinoma. For small cell carcinoma of the lung, a pulmonary NEC, the combination of cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) and a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) is considered standard therapy and superior to CTX alone. EP NECs are typically treated with platinum‐based regimens, some clinicians have adopted the addition of a CPI to CTX based on data from trials in patients with small cell carcinoma of the lung. In this retrospective study of EP NECs, we report 38 patients treated with standard first‐line CTX and 19 patients treated with CTX plus CPI. We did not observe any additional benefit of adding CPI to CTX in this cohort.

TPS657 Background: Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) is an aggressive malignancy comprising both pulmonary and extrapulmonary primary sites. NEC includes both small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC), as well as other neuroendocrine carcinomas arising from any primary organ. A substantial portion (~40%) of NEC arises from gastrointestinal primary sites. The optimal systemic therapy beyond first line platinum and etoposide is not established. There is a critical need to improve upon the median survival in the second line, as most patients do not survive more than 6 months. The efficacy of single agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in NEC has been disappointing. One possible explanation for this is that the tumor microenvironment in NEC is non-inflamed. VSV-IFNβ-NIS is a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)-based oncolytic virus being tested in multiple early phase clinical trials. Preliminary studies of immune responses in patients receiving VSV-IFNβ-NIS therapy suggest some patients develop T cell responses to viral antigens and known tumor antigens. We hypothesize that VSV-IFNβ-NIS therapy may convert a non-inflamed or immune-excluded phenotype in NEC to a highly inflamed phenotype that sensitizes the tumor to ICIs. Methods: This is a phase 1-2 safety run-in study designed to determine the safety of VSV-IFNβ-NIS in combination with a single agent ICI, pembrolizumab, followed by dose expansion in patients with refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or NEC. The safety run-in portion of this study has been completed, and we are presently testing the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of VSV-IFNβ-NIS in an expansion cohort of patients with SCLC or NEC of any primary site. Patients must have previously progressed on at least one line of systemic therapy. Prior treatment with checkpoint inhibitors is permitted. Patients are treated one time with the RP2D of 1.0x10^11 TCID50 VSV-IFNβ-NIS on day 1, followed by pembrolizumab on day 8 and then pembrolizumab every 21 days until progression, up to 2 years. The primary objective is to estimate the response rate by RECIST 1.1. Secondary objectives include estimation of disease-control rate, duration or response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety signals. The NEC expansion cohort will seek to enroll 10 patients. If at least one objective response is observed, and safety is confirmed, the regimen will be considered for future study. Clinical trial information: NCT03647163 .

150 Background: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) comprise less than 5% of all pancreatic tumors and 7% of all neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). There has been considerable progress in understanding the biology of pNETs and numerous therapeutic options emerged, especially with the collaboration of various specialties in the multidisciplinary setting. In this this study, we sought to analyze the association of facility volume, treatment modalities offered, and different risk adjusted outcomes in pNETs. Methods: We extracted data from National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) that covers 70% of all newly diagnosed cancer cases in the U.S and Puerto Rico. Patients with pNETs diagnosed between 2004 & 2017 were included and classified into tertiles based on hospital volume. Volume–outcome relationship was determined by using Cox regression adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, insurance type and therapy received. Kaplan Meier estimates of OS were compared with log-rank test. The primary predictor of interest was the facility volume defined as number of pNETs treated/year. A total of 7202 patients with pathologically confirmed pNETS were treated at 840 facilities. The median annual facility volume was 5patients/year. Facilities were classified into (T:mean cases/year) T1: < 3; T2:4-8; T3:≥9 cases/year. Results: A total of 7202 pNET patients were treated at 840 facilities. The median annual facility volume was 5 patients/year. Facilities were classified into (T: mean cases/year) T1:<3; T2:4-8; T3:≥9 cases/year. The unadjusted median OS by facility volume was: T1: 71 months (m), T2: 136 m, and T3: not-reached (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, compared with patients treated at T3 facilities, patients treated at lower-tertile facilities had higher risk of death [T2 hazard ratio (HR), 1.17 (95% CI, 1.03-1.33); T1 HR, 1.45 (CI, 1.30-1.67), p < 0.0001] and such a difference in OS was more pronounced in stage IV disease (Table). Patients at T3 facilities (vs T1) were more likely to receive surgical resection of the primary tumor (75 vs 49%), lymph node dissection performed at the time of surgery (70 vs 42%), and a better R0 resection (72 vs 46%) (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Patients who were treated for pNETs at high-volume centers (> 9cases/year) had significantly higher OS and were more likely to receive surgical resection along with lymph node dissection and R0 resection. There was a 45% increased risk of death in patients treated at low volume centers (< 3/year) as compared to high-volume centers (> 9/year). While OS difference was noticed in all stages, the difference was more pronounced in stage IV disease demonstrating the importance of multi-disciplinary approach in pNETs management and incorporating such quality measures in low-volume facilities.[Table: see text]