Citations

5624 Background: Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic cancer and abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is the predominant presenting symptom. While <10% of AUB represents underlying EC, endometrial sampling is currently required to rule out EC. To develop an alternative, non-invasive rule-out strategy, we aimed to refine a previously reported EC-associated methylated DNA marker (MDM) panel in vaginal swabs. Methods: Patients ≥18 years old with AUB who met ACOG recommendations for endometrial sampling and those undergoing a hysterectomy for biopsy-proven EC or atypical hyperplasia (AH) were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter cohort study. A vaginal fluid specimen was collected via swab by a provider during a speculum exam. DNA was extracted from samples and bisulfite treated, followed by a target and signal amplification method to detect 8 previously identified MDMs. The cross-validated EC classification model used the mean of standardized MDMs. Clinical classification of benign endometrium (BE), EC, and AH was based on central pathology review. EC diagnoses were based on hysterectomy specimens. Endometrioid and mucinous constituted type 1 EC; serous, carcinosarcoma, clear cell, and mixed histology ECs were collectively analyzed as type 2. Results: Of 693 participants enrolled, 670 were evaluable with valid results: 524 in the AUB cohort and 146 in the suspected EC cohort. Within the AUB cohort, 16 had EC or AH. The final analysis cohort included 508 BE, 156 EC, and 6 AH. Of the evaluable participants 20% identified as Black, 3% Asian or Pacific Islander, 75% White, and 3% Other; 7% reported Hispanic ethnicity. Median age was 66 and 50 years for EC and BE AUB, respectively; 80% of those with EC and 43% with benign AUB reported being postmenopausal. Among participants with EC, 102 (65%), 17 (11%), 30 (19%), 6 (4%) were stage I, II, III, and IV, respectively; one EC was unstaged. Type 2 EC accounted for 42 (27%) of all EC cases. A 4-MDM panel yielded an AUC of 0.97 (0.96-0.99, 95% CI) for EC; models with 5-8 MDMs gave identical performance. All-stage EC sensitivity was 97, 97, 96, 95, and 92% at specificities ranging from 75, 80, 85, 90, and 95%, respectively. At the 85% (82-88%) specificity threshold, sensitivities across EC stage, type, and age were consistently high (Table). Sensitivity for AH was 33% (10-70%). Conclusions: An MDM panel demonstrated high sensitivity for EC across stage and EC type, supporting the potential for a non-invasive vaginal swab-based test to rule out EC. Future studies are necessary to finalize the panel and algorithm, prior to validating the test. Clinical trial information: NCT06294886 . EC Sensitivity (%, 95% CI) at 85% Specificity All Stages (n=156)* 96 (92-98) Stage I (n=102) 94 (88 - 97) II (n=17) 100 (82 - 100) III (n=30) 100 (89 - 100) IV (n=6) 100 (61 - 100) Type 1 (n=114) 95 (89 - 98) 2 (n=42) 100 (92 -100) Age ≤ 66 yrs (n=86) 95 (89 - 98) > 66 (n=70) 97 (90 - 99) *n=1 EC was un-staged.

Guideline-recommended screening programs exist for only a few single-cancer types, and these cancers represent less than one-half of all new cancer cases diagnosed each year in the U.S. In addition, these “single-cancer” standard of care (SoC) screening tests vary in accuracy, adherence, and effectiveness, though all are generally understood to lead to reductions in cancer-related mortality. Recent advances in high-throughput technologies and machine learning have facilitated the development of blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests. The opportunity for early detection of multiple cancers with a single blood test holds promise in addressing the current unmet need in cancer screening. By complementing existing SoC screening, MCED tests have the potential to detect a wide range of cancers at earlier stages when patients are asymptomatic, enabling more effective treatment options and improved cancer outcomes. MCED tests are positioned to be utilized as a complementary screening tool to improve screening adherence at the population level, to broaden screening availability for individuals who are not adherent with SoC screening programs, as well as for those who may harbor cancers that do not have SoC testing available. Published work to date has primarily focused on test performance relating to sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). MCED tests will require approval through the pre-market approval pathway from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Additional studies will be needed to demonstrate clinical utility (i.e., improvements in health outcomes) and establish optimal implementation strategies, (i.e., testing intervals), follow-up and logistics of shared decision making. Here, we propose core attributes of MCED testing for which clinical data are needed to ideally position MCED testing for widespread use in clinical practice.

Indications for and implications of germline genetic testing (GGT) in patients with prostate cancer have expanded over the past decade, particularly related to precision therapies and management. GGT has become the standard of care for many cancers such as breast, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and metastatic prostate cancer, and it is imperative that patients be offered timely and equitable access to testing as it can inform patient-physician shared decision making for management of the current cancer as well as anticipatory guidance for disease progression. Additionally, GGT guides screening for and prevention of secondary malignancies for the patient and cascade testing for at-risk family members. Here, we present data supporting the notion that clinicians should offer all patients with prostate cancer the opportunity to undergo comprehensive GGT for pathogenic germline variants known to be associated with familial cancer and/or known to have implications for treatment and management.

Guideline-recommended screening programs exist for only a few cancer types. Although all these programs are understood to lead to reductions in cancer-related mortality, standard-of-care screening tests vary in accuracy, adherence and effectiveness. Recent advances in high-throughput technologies and machine learning have facilitated the development of blood-based multi-cancer cancer early detection (MCED) tests. MCED tests are positioned to be complementary to standard-of-care screening and they may broaden screening availability, especially for individuals who are not adherent with current screening programs and for individuals who may harbor cancers with no available screening options. In this article, we outline some key features that should be considered for study design and MCED test development, provide an example of the developmental pathway undertaken for an emerging multi-biomarker class MCED test and propose a clinical algorithm for an imaging-based diagnostic resolution strategy following MCED testing.

11135 Background: Cancer screening programs can improve outcomes and may reduce treatment cost and utilization by shifting cancers to earlier, more curable stages at diagnosis (Dx). Few studies have evaluated the impact of screening on outcomes prior to diagnosis. Such information is needed to better understand the potential impact of newer blood-based multicancer early detection technologies. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using SEER cancer registry data linked with Medicare claims. Patients with a breast cancer (BC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) Dx between 2010-2019 were included if they were 65-74 years old at Dx, continuously enrolled in Medicare Parts A&B, had a Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≤2, and no cancer for ≥12 months prior to Dx. Those enrolled in an HMO or with high genetic risk for BC (in BC cohort) were excluded. Patients were assigned to screening groups prior to Dx; screening was defined as ≥1 screening procedure in the 6 months prior to Dx using CPT/HCPCS codes. Screening included FIT/FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, CT colonography, mt-sDNA (CRC), and mammography (BC). Screened and not screened groups were compared for statistical significance using chi-squared for categorical variables, Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables. Results: Screening procedures were more prevalent in the BC cohort (68%) than the CRC cohort (44%) (table). Both screened subgroups (vs non-screened subgroups) had significantly lower proportions of patients diagnosed at stage 4 (2% vs 10% BC, 16% vs 27% CRC) and shorter times from first screening or imaging procedure to confirmed diagnosis (BC: 33 vs 227 days, CRC: 14 vs 29 days). Screened patients in both cancer cohorts had a similar number of average procedures prior to treatment initiation as non-screened (BC: 4.8 vs 4.2, CRC: 3.3 vs 3.3 respectively, including screening procedures). Conclusions: Individuals diagnosed with BC and CRC through screening exhibit earlier stage diagnoses and shorter intervals to diagnosis. Novel screening technologies such as MCED tests can potentially improve peri-diagnostic outcomes in cancers lacking existing or widely adopted screening methods. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPC) after radical prostatectomy and a short PSA doubling time are at risk for distant metastases. Apalutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist, and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) prolong survival in the metastatic setting. We evaluated whether intensification of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes in BRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS PRESTO is a randomized phase III, open-label trial in patients with BRPC and PSA doubling time ≤9 months (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03009981 ). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT control, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + apalutamide + AAP. The primary end point was PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), defined as serum PSA >0.2 ng/mL after treatment completion. RESULTS Five hundred three patients were enrolled. The median PSA was 1.8 ng/mL (IQR, 1.0-3.6). At the first planned interim analysis, both experimental arms significantly prolonged PSA-PFS compared with the control arm (median, 24.9 months for ADT + apalutamide v 20.3 months for ADT; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.77]; P = .00047; median, 26.0 months for ADT + apalutamide + AAP v 20.0 months for ADT; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.71]; P = .00008). Median time to testosterone recovery did not differ across treatment arms. The most common grade ≥3 adverse event was hypertension (7.5%, 7.4%, and 18% in ADT, ADT + apalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide + AAP arms, respectively). CONCLUSION Intensified AR blockade for a finite duration prolongs PSA-PFS with a manageable safety profile, without adversely affecting time to testosterone recovery. The addition of apalutamide to ADT should be considered in patients with high-risk BRPC.

Abstract Cancer is a significant burden worldwide that adversely impacts life expectancy, quality of life, health care costs, and workforce productivity. Although currently recommended screening tests for individual cancers reduce mortality, they detect only a minority of all cancers and sacrifice specificity for high sensitivity, resulting in a high cumulative rate of false positives. Blood-based multicancer early detection tests (MCED) based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) and other technologies hold promise for broadening the number of cancer types detected in screened populations and hope for reducing cancer mortality. The promise of this new technology to improve cancer detection rates and make screening more efficient at the population level demands the development of novel trial designs that accelerate clinical adoption. Carefully designed clinical trials are needed to address these issues.

5001 Background: In the phase 3 VISION trial, targeted radioligand therapy with lutetium (177Lu) vipivotide tetraxetan ([177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617; 177Lu-PSMA-617) significantly prolonged radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) when added to standard of care (SoC) in patients with advanced prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Benefits were consistent across most pre-specified subgroups. In this post hoc exploratory analysis, we examined rPFS and OS in the context of prior and concomitant cancer-directed treatments. Methods: In VISION, adult patients previously treated with at least 1 androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) and 1–2 taxane regimens were randomized 2:1 to 177Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq Q6W, up to 6 cycles) + SoC or SoC alone. Protocol-permitted SoC excluded cytotoxic chemotherapy, systemic radioisotopes, immunotherapy, or other investigational drugs. Exploratory subgroup analyses of rPFS and OS were performed by: number of prior ARPIs; taxane regimens; non-taxane regimens and immunotherapies; prior treatment with bone-sparing agents; 223Ra and PARP inhibitors; and concomitant treatment with ARPIs, radiation therapy, and bone-sparing agents. Results: Prior and concomitant treatments were generally well balanced between study groups (Table). rPFS and OS benefits with 177Lu-PSMA-617 were consistent across all prior treatment subgroups. Notably, there were benefits in patients who had not received a second prior taxane. There were also consistent benefits regardless of concomitant systemic and radiation therapy as part of SoC. Conclusions: The clinical efficacy of 177Lu-PSMA-617 was observed regardless of prior treatment or SoC chosen, suggesting that disease biology rather than prior and concomitant treatment context drives outcomes. Small differences in outcomes between subgroups may warrant further study to understand better the predictors of improved clinical benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT03511664. [Table: see text]

To examine the extent of the evaluation required to achieve diagnostic resolution and the test performance characteristics of a targeted methylation cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test, ~6200 participants ≥50 years with (cohort A) or without (cohort B) ≥1 of 3 additional specific cancer risk factors will be enrolled in PATHFINDER (NCT04241796), a prospective, longitudinal, interventional, multi-center study. Plasma cfDNA from blood samples will be analyzed to detect abnormally methylated DNA associated with cancer (i.e., cancer “signal”) and a cancer signal origin (i.e., tissue of origin). Participants with a “signal detected” will undergo further diagnostic evaluation per guiding physician discretion; those with a “signal not detected” will be advised to continue guideline-recommended screening. The primary objective will be to assess the number and types of subsequent diagnostic tests needed for diagnostic resolution. Based on microsimulations (using estimates of cancer incidence and dwell times) of the typical risk profiles of anticipated participants, the median (95% CI) number of participants with a “signal detected” result is expected to be 106 (87–128). Subsequent diagnostic evaluation is expected to detect 52 (39–67) cancers. The positive predictive value of the MCED test is expected to be 49% (39–58%). PATHFINDER will evaluate the integration of a cfDNA-based MCED test into existing clinical cancer diagnostic pathways. The study design of PATHFINDER is described here.

3070 Background: A multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that uses targeted methylation-based cfDNA technology to detect cancer and predict cancer signal origin (CSO) has potential to efficiently identify malignancies for which effective screening modalities do not exist. A previous version of a blood-based MCED test demonstrated favorable classification and test characteristics. Samples from the ongoing PATHFINDER study were reanalyzed in a prespecified interim analysis to evaluate performance of a more recent version of the test with an updated classifier (eg, updated CSO localization, hematological signal threshold) that is planned for clinical implementation as a general multi-cancer screening tool. Methods: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) is an interventional, prospective study in which results (cancer signal detected/not detected and predicted CSO) using a previous version of the MCED test are returned to investigators, and those with a signal detected undergo further diagnostic testing. In this prespecified interim analysis, samples from those enrolled as of October 6, 2020 were reanalyzed with the more recent version of the MCED test (these results were not returned to investigators). The positive predictive value (PPV) for cancer detection, overall CSO accuracy, and concordance between the two test versions were assessed. Results: A total of 4011/4047 (99%) participants (pts) were analyzable (mean [SD] age 63.9 [8.7] years, 62% female, 92% white, 24% with prior cancer history, 39% ever smoker [4% current], 6% with genetic cancer predisposition). Cancer signal was detected in 0.95% (38/4011). A total of 27/38 also had signal detected by the previous version of the MCED test, including 19 who reached diagnostic resolution (13 with cancer diagnosis and 6 without); 11/38 were discordant positives. Nine different cancer types were detected in the 13 pts (2 stage I, 3 stage II, 2 stage III, and 3 stage IV); 1 had no AJCC stage expected, 1 metastatic recurrence and 1 stage evaluation underway. A conservative minimal PPV assuming all discordant positives are false positives, was 43.3% (13/30, 95% CI 27.4-60.8%) based on 19 pts with diagnostic resolution and 11 discordant positives. High negative percent agreement (PA) 99.7% (99.5-99.8%) between the two test versions was observed. Positive PA of 43.5% (95% CI, 31.9-55.9%) was consistent with the more stringent threshold for hematologic signal in the recent MCED version, as most discrepant cases had hematologic CSO with the previous MCED test. Among 13 detected cancers, accuracy of the top CSO prediction was 92.3% (12/13, 95% CI 66.7-99.6%). Conclusions: In this prespecified interim analysis, the more recent version of the MCED test detected cancers with high PPV and high accuracy of CSO prediction, supporting readiness for use in clinical practice. Full enrollment cohort data will be available at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT04241796.