Citations

PURPOSE Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a syndrome comprising metastatic cancers without a clinically identified primary site. Although patients with CUP have an unfavorable prognosis, treatment with site-specific therapies guided by clinical features, standard pathology, and molecular assays can improve overall survival. The 92-gene assay (CancerTYPE ID) is a gene expression–based classifier that helps identify the tissue of origin for metastatic cancers with unknown or uncertain diagnoses. This study reports the frequency of selected molecular aberrations of oncogenes, including KRAS, IDH1/2, BRCA1/2, and BRAF, in patients with CUP in the MOSAIC database to highlight potential treatment options. METHODS MOSAIC is a database of patients with CUP submitted for CancerTYPE ID testing and NeoTYPE biomarker testing. Tumor biopsy samples were analyzed by CancerTYPE ID for tumor type identification and further tested for molecular aberrations of oncogenes, including KRAS, IDH1/2, BRCA1/2, and BRAF. RESULTS CancerTYPE ID identified a specific tumor type in 92.5% (2,929 of 3,168) of CUP cases in the MOSAIC database. The most commonly identified histological type was adenocarcinoma (75.4%), with pancreaticobiliary being the most common molecularly diagnosed cancer (24.9%). Aberrations in KRAS, IDH1/2, BRCA, and BRAF genes were identified in 18.8% (n = 597) of biopsies. A cancer-specific US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved or investigational targeted therapy was potentially available for 24.6% (n = 147) of these patients. CONCLUSION This retrospective analysis supports incorporating CancerTYPE ID into the evaluation for patients with CUP to help determine the tissue of origin and identify actionable genetic alterations. This approach may allow more patients with CUP to benefit from site-specific FDA-approved targeted therapies or enrollment into clinical trials.

The classification and management of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) arising in the tubular gastrointestinal (GI) tract and pancreas have significantly evolved over the last decades. In the latest WHO classification published in 2022, NEN are separated regardless of their primary origin into two main groups: well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs). The substantial changes in grading system changed the definition of grade 3 to include high grade well differentiated NETs (G3-NETs), and poorly differentiated NECs (-NECs). Although, these two subgroups are considered high grades with Ki-67 >20%, they have different genomic profiles, prognosis and clinical behavior which critically influence their treatment strategies. The available clinical trial data to guide therapy of these high-grade subgroups are extremely limited which impact their management. In this review, we will summarize the current advances in the multidisciplinary approach for management of high grade GEP-NENs including G3-NETs and NECs.

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.

PURPOSE Thrombocytopenia is a relatively common dose-limiting toxicity during peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in patients with NET. Although uncommon, some patients develop persistent cytopenia and eventually therapy-related myeloid neoplasm (t-MN), which has a dismal prognosis. As the indications for PRRT are expanding, it is important to investigate factors that may predict cytopenias during/after PRRT. We prospectively evaluated the prevalence of clonal hematopoiesis (CH) and cytopenia in patients with NET undergoing PRRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic NET with plan to receive four cycles of lutetium-177 were enrolled. CH was evaluated before PRRT using a panel of 220 genes with a targeted depth of ≥1,000×. Patients were followed during PRRT and every 3 months thereafter. RESULTS Of 37 patients enrolled, the median age was 68 years and 51.4% were male. Previous treatment exposures included alkylating agents in 30%, platinum agents in 8%, and external radiation in 13%. CH was detected in 35.1% using a variant allele frequency (VAF) cutoff of ≥2% and 45.9% with a VAF of ≥1%. The most common mutations were in age-related genes ( DNMT3A, TET2). CH was not associated with anemia or neutropenia; however, it was associated with lower platelet count at baseline and more time spent in a thrombocytopenic state during/after PRRT. Five patients had bone marrow biopsies (BMBs) because of sustained hematologic dysfunction post-PRRT, and of those, diagnoses included clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) in three and idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance (ICUS) in two. CONCLUSION CH is present in 35.1% of patients with NET and is associated with thrombocytopenia risk during PRRT. Future studies with long-term follow-up will delineate whether CH might be a predictor for higher risk of t-MN after PRRT.

Purpose: To investigate the molecular characteristics of and potential for precision medicine in KRAS wildtype pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Patients and Methods: We investigated 27 patients with KRASWT PDAC at our institution. Clinical data were obtained via chart review. Tumor specimens for each subject were interrogated for somatic single nucleotide variants, insertion and deletions, and copy number variants by DNA sequencing. Gene fusions were detected from RNA-seq. A patient-derived organoid (PDO) was developed from a patient with a MET translocation and expanded ex vivo to predict therapeutic sensitivity prior to enrollment in a phase 2 clinical trial. Results: Transcriptomic analysis showed our cohort may be stratified by the relative gene expression of the KRAS signaling cascade. The PDO derived from our patient harboring a TFG-MET rearrangement was found to have in vitro sensitivity to the multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor crizotinib. The patient was enrolled in the phase 2 SPARTA clinical trial and received monotherapy with vebrelitinib, a c-MET inhibitor, and achieved a partial and durable response. Conclusions: KRASWT PDAC is molecularly distinct from KRASMUT and enriched with potentially actionable genetic variants. In our study, transcriptomic profiling revealed that the KRAS signaling cascade may play a key role in KRASWT PDAC. Our report of a KRASWT PDAC patient with TFG-MET rearrangement who responded to a cMET inhibitor further supports the pursuit of precision oncology in this sub-population. Identification of targetable mutations, perhaps through approaches like RNA-seq, can help enable precision-driven approaches to select optimal treatment based on tumor characteristics.

AbstractIntroductionStructured data capture requires defined languages such as minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE). This pilot assessed the feasibility of capturing 5 mCODE categories (stage, disease status, performance status (PS), intent of therapy and intent to change therapy).MethodsA tool (SmartPhrase) using existing and custom structured data elements was Built to capture 4 data categories (disease status, PS, intent of therapy and intent to change therapy) typically documented as free‐text within notes. Existing functionality for stage was supported by the Build. Participant survey data, presence of data (per encounter), and time in chart were collected prior to go‐live and repeat timepoints. The anticipated outcome was capture of >50% sustained over time without undue burden.ResultsPre‐intervention (5‐weeks before go‐live), participants had 1390 encounters (1207 patients). The median percent capture across all participants was 32% for stage; no structured data was available for other categories pre‐intervention. During a 6‐month pilot with 14 participants across three sites, 4995 encounters (3071 patients) occurred. The median percent capture across all participants and all post‐intervention months increased to 64% for stage and 81%–82% for the other data categories post‐intervention. No increase in participant time in chart was noted. Participants reported that data were meaningful to capture.ConclusionsStructured data can be captured (1) in real‐time, (2) sustained over time without (3) undue provider burden using note‐based tools. Our system is expanding the pilot, with integration of these data into clinical decision support, practice dashboards and potential for clinical trial matching.

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.

Radioligand therapy (RLT) with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE is a standard of care for adult patients with somatostatin-receptor (SSTR)-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). Taking advantage of this precision nuclear medicine approach requires diligent monitoring and surveillance, from the use of diagnostic SSTR-targeted radioligand imaging for the selection of patients through treatment and assessments of response. Published evidence-based guidelines assist the multidisciplinary healthcare team by providing acceptable approaches to care; however, the sheer heterogeneity of GEP-NETs can make these frameworks difficult to apply in individual clinical circumstances. There are also contradictions in the literature regarding the utility of novel approaches in monitoring and surveilling patients with GEP-NETs receiving RLT. This article discusses the emerging evidence on imaging, clinical biochemistry, and tumor assessment criteria in the management of patients receiving RLT for GEP-NETs; additionally, it documents our own best practices. This allows us to offer practical guidance on how to effectively implement monitoring and surveillance measures to aid patient-tailored clinical decision-making.

PURPOSE To develop recommendations for systemic therapy for well-differentiated grade 1 (G1) to grade 3 (G3) metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS Eight randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. RECOMMENDATIONS Somatostatin analogs (SSAs) are recommended as first-line systemic therapy for most patients with G1-grade 2 (G2) metastatic well-differentiated GI-NETs. Observation is an option for patients with low-volume or slow-growing disease without symptoms. After progression on SSAs, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is recommended as systematic therapy for patients with somatostatin receptor (SSTR)–positive tumors. Everolimus is an alternative second-line therapy, particularly in nonfunctioning NETs and patients with SSTR-negative tumors. SSAs are standard first-line therapy for SSTR-positive pancreatic (pan)NETs. Rarely, observation may be appropriate for asymptomatic patients until progression. Second-line systemic options for panNETs include PRRT (for SSTR-positive tumors), cytotoxic chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. For SSTR-negative tumors, first-line therapy options are chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. There are insufficient data to recommend particular sequencing of therapies. Patients with G1-G2 high-volume disease, relatively high Ki-67 index, and/or symptoms related to tumor growth may benefit from early cytotoxic chemotherapy. For G3 GEP-NETs, systemic options for G1-G2 may be considered, although cytotoxic chemotherapy is likely the most effective option for patients with tumor-related symptoms, and SSAs are relatively ineffective. Qualifying statements are provided to assist with treatment choice. Multidisciplinary team management is recommended, along with shared decision making with patients, incorporating their values and preferences, potential benefits and harms, and other characteristics and circumstances, such as comorbidities, performance status, geographic location, and access to care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

There is an evolving landscape of systemic combination regimens for patients with advanced well-differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). In this review, we provide a comprehensive outline of the existing clinical trials/prospective studies investigating these combinations. PubMed was searched using key relevant terms to identify articles referring to GEP-NETs and combination treatments. No systematic search of the literature or metanalysis of the data was performed, and we focused on the most recent literature results. Primarily, phase 1 and 2 clinical trials were available, with a smaller number of phase 3 trials, reporting results from combination treatments across a wide range of antiproliferative agents. We identified significant variability in the anti-tumor activity of the reported combinations, with occasional promising results, but only a very small number of practice-changing phase 3 clinical trials. Overall, the peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT)-based combinations (with chemotherapy, dual PPRT, and targeted agents) and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent combinations with standard chemotherapy were found to have favorable results and may be worth investigating in future, larger-scale trials. In contrast, the immune-checkpoint inhibitor-based combinations were found to have limited applicability in advanced, well-differentiated GEP-NETs.