JCO Precision Oncology Conversations

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Fergus Keane provides a summary on "Multi-Institutional Study Evaluating the Role of Circulating Tumor DNA in the Management of Appendiceal Cancers" by Belmont, et al published on May 9th, 2024. TRANSCRIPT  Fergus Keane: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Fergus Keane, an ASCO editorial fellow. Today I will be providing a summary of the article entitled, "Multi-Institutional Study Evaluating the Role of Circulating Tumor DNA in the Management of Appendiceal Cancers" by Dr. Erika Belmont and colleagues.  While appendiceal cancers represent an uncommon diagnosis, the incidence has been rising, with now over 3000 new cases per year diagnosed in the United States. The management of appendiceal cancers includes surgical resection for localized tumors and cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, also known as HIPEC, for select patients with peritoneal metastasis. For patients with higher grade appendiceal cancers, systemic therapy is often included in the treatment paradigm. However, little data pertaining to the optimal treatment regimens exists.  Despite best practice, disease recurrence within three years of surgery will be observed in about 70% of cases of appendiceal cancers. The current conventional methods for surveillance for both detection of recurrence as well as for assessment of response to systemic therapy are using cross sectional imaging and serum tumor markers. These methods are limited and there is a recognition that more accurate biomarkers are required. Circulating tumor DNA, also known as liquid biopsies, refer to shed tumor DNA identified in the plasma. Several ctDNA assays exist, including tumor agnostic assays and tumor informed assays, the latter of which assess presence of personalized tumor derived mutations. The utility of circulating tumor DNA has been studied across several different cancer types and in several different disease settings, for instance in lung cancer and colorectal cancer. However, it has not been well demonstrated to date in appendiceal cancers.  This study aimed to investigate the role of the Signatera ctDNA assay in patients with appendiceal cancer. Specifically, the authors aimed to evaluate factors associated with circulating tumor DNA detection and the association between ctDNA and recurrence free survival after surgery. Their hypothesis was twofold, firstly, that circulating tumor DNA detection would be reduced in patients who received recent systemic therapy, and secondly, that circulating tumor DNA detection after cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC would be associated with a shorter recurrence free survival across all appendiceal cancer grades. The study design was a retrospective review of patients with appendiceal cancers treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas and the University of Chicago who underwent circulating tumor DNA testing between January 2019 and December 2022. Clinical, pathologic and treatment related information was collected for all patients. Regarding patient treatment, all patients received treatment as per the consensus recommendations at both cancer centers. Diagnostic evaluation was with CT or MRI imaging and serum tumor markers. Diagnostic laparoscopy was performed to evaluate for the presence of peritoneal metastases. The patient treatment plans were determined via MDT tumor board discussions and cytoreductive surgery, and HIPEC was offered with curative intent to eligible patients.  Systemic therapy with 5-FU based doublet or triplet therapy with or without VEGF inhibitors was offered to patients with grade two or three tumors and with a good performance status. HIPEC protocols involved the use of mitomycin C. Postoperative surveillance involved cross sectional imaging and tumor marker evaluation every three months for two years and thereafter every six months if the patients remain disease-free. Circulating tumor DNA testing was offered at the discretion of the treating physician, typically every three months after surgery. The Signatera assay is a personalized, multiplexed, PCR based next generation sequencing platform. Three major analyses were performed. Number one, the frequency of any time ctDNA detection was evaluated in patients with ctDNA assays drawn at the time of radiographic or laparoscopically identifiable disease. Number two, the correlation between preoperative ctDNA levels and intraoperative peritoneal cancer index was evaluated in patients with peritoneal metastases. The third analysis involves the association between circulating tumor DNA presence drawn within one year of optimal resection.  A total of 402 plasma samples were obtained from 94 patients from the two centers. Most patients had grade 2 or 3 appendiceal cancers and 85% underwent surgery. Most patients had peritoneal metastases. 50 patients had circulating tumor DNA assessment in the presence of stage 4 disease, included in this, 13 patients were tested preoperatively, 26 patients who developed recurrence after surgery were included, and 11 patients who did not undergo surgery. In total, circulating tumor DNA was detected in 66% of these patients. The detection frequency was 57.1% in patients with grade 1, 62.5% in patients with grade 2, and 70.4% in patients with grade 3 disease, but this variability did not meet statistical significance. Lower circulating tumor DNA detection was observed in patients who received systemic therapy within six weeks before ctDNA assessment at 43.8% versus 76.5%, and multivariate analysis confirmed this association, demonstrating that recent systemic therapy was associated with an odds ratio of 0.22 versus less recent systemic therapy.  17 patients underwent circulating tumor DNA testing before cytoreductive surgery, and HIPEC and circulating tumor DNA was detected in 23.5% of these cases. No correlation was observed between ctDNA detection and intraoperative PCI index in these patients. Among the 50 patients with ctDNA testing within one year of optimal resection, survival estimates were generated for 36 patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for grade 2 and 3 appendiceal cancers. The median follow up was 19.6 months. Circulating tumor DNA detection after cytoreductive surgery was associated with a shorter median recurrence free survival of 11.3 months versus not detected in those without ctDNA detection. On multivariate analysis, this was confirmed. The median time interval between surgery and ctDNA detection was 31 weeks. In this cohort of 36 patients, 44.4% or 16 patients developed disease recurrence. During the surveillance period, ctDNA was elevated in 93.8% of these patients, demonstrating a higher sensitivity than CEA, CA 19-9 or CA 125 tumor markers. Only one patient with disease recurrence had negative ctDNA at that time. Among these 16 patients with disease recurrence, one patient with a positive ctDNA test had their first sample drawn after diagnosis of disease recurrence, and one patient who had extensive adjuvant systemic therapy developed ctDNA negative recurrence. In the remaining 14 patients, circulating tumor DNA detection preceded the diagnosis of recurrence on imaging by a median of 11 weeks.   In summary, this study is a large, retrospective report of tumor-informed circulating tumor DNA testing in patients with appendiceal cancers. This study is one of the first to elucidate the factors associated with circulating tumor DNA detection in this disease and a potential role for circulating tumor DNA as an adjunct tool in the surveillance of patients with this malignancy.  Again, I'm Fergus Keane, a JCO Precision Oncology Editorial Fellow. Thank you for listening to the JCO Precision Oncology Article Insight. Please tune in for the next topic. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so that you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at www.asco.org/podcasts.    The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

JCO PO author Dr. Samuel J. Klempner shares insights into his JCO PO article, “PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry in Gastric Cancer: Comparison of Combined Positive Score and Tumor Area Positivity across 28-8, 22C3, and SP263 assays”. Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Klempner discuss assessing the analytical comparability of three commercially available PD-L1 assays and two scoring algorithms used to assess PD-L1 status in gastric cancer samples. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I am your host, Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash, Social Media Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center. Today we are excited to be joined by Dr. Samuel J. Klempner, Director of Gastro Esophageal Medical Oncology and Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School Mass Gen Cancer Center and author of the JCO Precision Oncology article, “PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry in Gastric Cancer: Comparison of Combined Positive Score and Tumor Area Positivity Across 28-8, 22C3, and SP263 Assays.” At the time of this recording, our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Dr. Klempner, welcome to our podcast and thanks for joining us today.  Dr. Samuel J. Klempner: Happy to be here. Thanks for having me. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: For the sake of this podcast, we'll be using our first names. So, Sam, it was great to see you at ASCO recently, where I believe you presented these data as an abstract as well. Dr. Samuel J. Klempner: Yes, we had a poster presentation for this paper, which was published in parallel with the meeting. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Congratulations, and I'm very happy that you chose JCO PO as the destination for these data. So we're going to be talking about a lot of different things today in the context of gastric cancer, which I know you treat very often in your clinic. So could you tell us what the treatment landscape for advanced gastric cancer currently is? Because that goes into the context of why I believe you and your colleagues went ahead with this project.  Dr. Samuel J. Klempner: Yeah, happy to. As you know, unfortunately, half or more of our patients, by the time they come to medical attention for a gastric or GE junction or esophageal adenocarcinomas, unfortunately have advanced disease, often metastatic at presentation. So we have this large population of patients with advanced disease, and over the last couple years, we've actually made some substantial advances in the management and survival of this population. This has been mainly driven by biomarker selection, whether it be adding immunotherapy on top of HER2 therapy, whether it be testing for claudin and seeing the results with claudin directed therapies. And perhaps the vast majority of patients are potentially eligible for immune checkpoint inhibitors. We've seen several phase three trials, perhaps highlighted by CheckMate 649, KEYNOTE 859, rationale studies confirming that there are populations of patients who derive significant survival advantages from the addition of anti PD-1 on top of chemotherapy. So the landscape has really evolved into a biomarker directed world, which is exactly what we hope, because ultimately, the goal is, of course, to match patients with the best drugs at the right time. And that's really the background of where this analytical effort came from.  Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for giving us that overview. Going to the second part, which, as you mentioned in your initial overview about the role of immunotherapy, and as we all know, immunotherapy has changed the treatment landscape for a lot of different tumor types. And as clinicians, we often see or ask, what is the PD-L1 positivity for, let's say, lung cancer, which is what I treat, and gastric cancer, which is what you treat. Some of the nuances that we don't necessarily go into when we're looking at those reports is the combined positivity score, the tumor proportion score, or the tumor area positivity. Could you give us an understanding, for the sake of our audience or for the sake of our trainees who might be listening to this podcast, what the CPS, or what the TAP  mean and where they are used in the treatment landscape for biomarker selection in the context of gastric cancer? And how do you approach the different cutoffs for CPS when you're treating an individual in the standard of care setting for gastric cancer? Dr. Samuel J. Klempner: For sure, happy to. So I think eventually it all comes back to patients. When we're sitting in a clinic room with the patient, we want to be able to have features about the tumor that's going to tell us if a therapy is more or less likely to work, maybe if there's a prognostic implication so we have predictive and prognostic biomarkers. And PD-L1 expression does not appear to be particularly prognostic, but it does appear to be predictive of benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. Therefore, all of the phase 3 trials that we've seen in some way have linked the biomarker expression to outcomes, whether it's the primary endpoint, whether it's post hoc retrospective analyses, etc. What we've seen is that all of these phase 3 trials have largely used different antibodies to define PD-L1 strata within the trial. So whether that's 22C3,  whether it's 28-8, whether it's 263, those are the predominant antibody clones used to examine PD-L1 expression in tumor samples. And it's been pretty clear across these large phase 3 trials that there is a trend with increasing PD-L1 expression and increasing magnitude of benefit. We see this in the improved hazard ratios in the CPS greater than five or greater than ten versus less than one, etcetera.  However, the scoring systems have varied. There is TPS tumor positivity, which only accounts for tumor cells. There is combined positive score, which accounts for tumor cells and mononuclear infiltrates and involves counting cells. And then perhaps the most recent one is the tumor area positivity, which is essentially a non counting method to look broadly at the area of the sample that is expressing PD-L1. It was on this background that we said, is there analytical concordance among the main antibodies? Our work does not address whether there is difference in clinical outcomes between testing 28-8 and 22C3 and SP263. It is simply a pure analytical comparison of the three antibodies. Is a CPS 5, when you call it by 28-8, somewhat agreeable to a TPS or a TAP greater than five with the same antibody and with a different antibody. So we felt that this was kind of a question that hadn't really been fully addressed in the field and may help contextualize results for clinicians and ultimately cross trial comparisons.  Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that explanation. And you bring forth a very important question. And I remember this example of a patient with lung cancer who had tissue NGS done, and they had a limited gene panel with PD-L1 testing sent that showed a PD-L1 of close to 15 or 20%, and then another NGS panel with a different antibody, suggesting that they had a PD-L1 of close to 60-70%, which significantly changes the overall approach for treatment in the context of blood cancer. Is that something that you experience in gastric cancer also, in terms of variability for CPS, determining what treatment combinations you might be able to put an individual patient on? Dr. Samuel J. Klempner: It's rare that we have samples at any institution tested in multiple methods, but these types of papers and others had looked at some stuff similar and prior to our publication, but we know that there is both spatial heterogeneity. So if you test a tumor versus metastasis, you may have different PD-L1 scoring even in regions of large samples, like surgical resections, there will be some intra tumor heterogeneity in regions of expression. And then we also know that sometimes after therapy, for example, post radiation, there's some data that at the time of surgery, the PD-L1 expression may be higher than what the presurgical sample was. So there's a lot of variables that are factored in. But one thing that wasn't really well known is, across the standard antibodies, how well is the inter assay comparison? There had been some work from a group in Singapore, a very nice paper suggesting that at the higher cut points, the agreement was pretty good across the assays, CPS greater than 5 and greater than 10, and maybe slightly less so at the lower. They had used a different method, which was not really what is standard, and they had used multiplex immunofluorescence or IHC. This is not a validated method for PD-L1 scoring. So that was an open question, sort of. Although they laid a very important piece of data down, we wanted to use the most standard assays and essentially do a very similar analysis, but using the standard scoring criteria. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Very interesting. So, could you walk us through the approach of how you looked at this question, what kind of samples you used and what kind of testing algorithms you implemented to look at the cross validation of these three different antibodies? Dr. Samuel J. Klempner: The antibodies were chosen primarily because those are the standard ones that either have companion diagnostics or have been used most commonly in phase 3 trials. So 22C3 has most commonly been linked to pembrolizumab, 28-8 to nivolumab, and 263 used with Roche and Genentech trials primarily. And so we selected the antibodies based on the common use. We selected the scoring systems of CPS and TAP, again based on the most commonly used and validated scoring algorithms in gastric cancer. And then, although most patients in clinic and metastatic disease present with biopsy samples from the primary tumor, there may be some limitations in biopsy samples in terms of small amount of material and ability to reliably count 100 cells, etc., for CPS. So we actually use surgically resected samples from a commercial biobank, 100 samples, and essentially 28-8 was really the reference. And we picked samples that, using 28-8 CPS PD-L1 expression represented the entire spectrum, meaning we had CPS less than 1, we had greater than 1 and less than 5, greater than 5 and less than 10, and greater than 10, so that we could compare across these different strata, because those are the most common strata that have been used in clinical trials and linked to magnitude of benefit. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: And something that, interestingly, I see here when we go to some of the results, and I'm pretty sure you'll talk about the concordance, is the correlation coefficient seems to increase as the percentage positivity increases for a certain antibody. Could you try to help us understand why that might be the case? Is it because it's easier for the pathologist to look at the slide when there is a certain level of positivity that crosses a certain threshold? Or could there be some other factors that are not well understood. Dr. Samuel J. Klempner: Yeah, it's a totally good question, and I think it's something that's seen in other IHC biomarkers as well. If you look at HER2, you'll see some similar trends. The agreement at IHC 3+ is pretty good and greater than it is at lower cut points. And having talked to multiple pathologists, and I'm not a pathologist, we had three pathologists scoring all of these samples, and essentially, it's what you might expect. It is just easier when there's a lot of the marker. It is easier to judge the high extremes of the strata. So the agreement at greater than 10 is quite good, and this has already been shown by others. It's just an easier thing to score for anyone. The agreement is better across all of the assays at higher cut points, whether it's TAP greater than 10% or CPS greater than 10%. And you can see that pretty clearly in our data, and it's also been shown in other data sets looking at roughly similar questions in other tumor types.  Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Going to the interesting results that you have in this paper, could you highlight for us some of the important findings that you had and put them into context of what their clinical implications may be? Dr. Samuel J. Klempner: Yeah, I think I'll start with the clinical implications so that what clinicians, and we're both clinicians, what we want to know is, if I have a report that says the CPS is greater than 1 and it's done with a 22C3 test, is that also likely to be greater than one if it had been done with a 28-8 test or scored with a different algorithm - CPS versus TAP? So, essentially, some degree of confidence on the interchangeability between the assays themselves, that is really the clinical implication. And so, to accomplish this, we set out to basically do the comparisons you'd have to do to convince yourself that that is true. So you take samples against a reference range, in this case, across the PD-L1 strata, you pick a reference test, in this case, 28-8, you have one pathologist be the start, and then you compare other pathologists against each other and that person, and you look. And in the pathology literature, they have strata of agreement which tend to go from poor, moderate, good to excellent. And these are sort of accepted standards in the pathology world about inter reader agreement. So between one pathologist and another, and things that are moderate or good are considered essentially acceptable at interchangeable levels.  And so, as you suggested, at the higher cut points, the agreement is very good. The clinical interpretation of that is that if you get a TAP greater than 10% scored on a 22C3 antibody on a Dako staining system, you can feel relatively confident that that would also be called a TAP or a CPS greater than 10 by a 28-8 antibody, suggesting there is good agreement between the two antibodies at that cut point. As you move down, there is a little bit less agreement, and that is consistent with what's been shown before. But in our data set, the agreement was still pretty good across all three of the antibody clones, even at the lower cut point, so greater than 1% for TAP or CPS greater than 1. And that provides, I think, some reassurance to clinicians that whatever test their own pathology lab is using, if it's one of these three assays, they can provide some degree of confidence that what they're seeing would be similar to what they were seeing if it had been done with another test. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: I think that that is very important, because even though we do want broad testing in general for metastatic tumors, as you probably will agree with, but there's a lot of practices still that institutions tend to do their own testing with limited gene panels or even IHCs. So I think to put that in the context of your study, as you said, if you have a certain antibody that is positive, as you've shown, then that also likely means that with another antibody that your institution may not test for, it's likely the tumor sample is likely going to be positive at a similar level.  So I think you also used digital pathology as part of this project, even though that may not be the most important aspect. As we move slowly and steadily towards artificial intelligence and machine learning, could you tell us how you incorporated the digital assessments and how you utilize them to correlate with the pathologist assessment and the futuristic perspective of how we could eventually try to incorporate digital pathology assessments for this kind of staining approach, which might limit interobserver operability differences as well as time constraints? Dr. Samuel J. Klempner: I hope I can do this part justice, because, again, I'm not a pathologist. But the digital imaging analysis was really essentially used as a quality check and verification tool in our own paper. Our intent was not to establish DIA directly as a superior methodology to TAP or CPS, but simply to provide ourselves some degree of confidence in the staining pattern and distribution across the three assays, and whether or not this would generate significant differences in what the PD-L1 score would have been called. And so, the bottom line is, the digital imaging analysis suggested there were very minor differences across the three assays in terms of, like, percent cell positivity, which is one of the main readouts, and the mean difference was actually quite small. So we felt that the digital imaging analysis, which was really considered somewhat exploratory in our own work, supported what we saw with the pathology comparators read in traditional methods. I think it sets somewhat of an initial pilot data benchmark to say that maybe we can think about moving tools like digital imaging analyses forward in terms of PD-L1 scoring approaches in the future. But it does not provide adequate data to say that we can do this now or we have enough samples and enough comparisons to say that, “Hey, for sure, digital imaging is equivalent to pathology reading.” I think that we're getting there and our data supports that that may ultimately be the conclusion, but for us it was really essentially an orthogonal support and sanity check for our traditional approach, which is, of course, a pathologist based scoring. So supportive and suggestive, but not definitively conclusive. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Definitely early days for visual pathology assessments, but I think that it's a very rapidly evolving field, and hopefully we'll see more of this in the next few years, as well as incorporating some assessments into clinical trials.  Now, shifting away from your honorary pathologist role as part of this project to your actual role as a clinician investigator/clinician scientist, could you tell us your career trajectory, how you started, how you've self paced yourself, and how you've tried to mentor certain different individuals in your current role? Dr. Samuel J. Klempner: Yeah, I remember my grandfather and other people telling me, just try to leave it a little bit better than you found it. And so that's, I think, a guiding principle. I hope that at the end of my own career, I can leave oncology a little bit better than when I started. I think the best way to do that is to mentor and train the next generation who are going to drive these practices. I started, like many others, personally touched by cancer in my family, which started me on a journey towards oncology, was somewhat frustrated by the lack of options available to my mom, and then became deeply interested in the science and how come we knew so little about cancer, so spent a fair amount of time in labs, and had a really formative experience with Lew Cantley looking at PI3 kinase resistance and signal transduction, and wanted to learn to speak the language and interact with people driving the lab based work. And that's been something I've tried to keep as central to my career as someone who has a very strong translational interest.  And so I try to think of ways that I think we can learn from every single patient and every subgroup. I mean, for example, in our own work here, it's very unclear if there's a biology linked to the different PD-L1 strata. So for example, does a PD-L1 CPS greater than 10 tumor have a very high interferon gene signature? Or are there features of the T cells that are different between a CPS 10 or higher versus a less than 1? So PD-L1 is a biomarker, but is it really telling us about biology? And so these are the types of questions that I try to stimulate in all the residents and fellows and hopefully it will drive translational projects. But I think just having the conversations and asking the questions and talking to people. I mean, I love the ASCO Career Lounge and always try to do that when possible. I know you do the same. I think staying curious is really the thing that I try to remain in life and also in my career and have fun and enjoy with your colleagues. And I think that will make us all better researchers and ultimately translate to better outcomes for our patients, which is, of course, why we all do this. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Wonderfully said Sam, thank you so much. Thanks again for choosing JCO PO as the final destination for your work. Hopefully we see more of the similar work that you do in your field in JCO PO. And thank you for talking to us about your journey as well.  Dr. Samuel J. Klempner: Yes, thanks for having me. I'll talk to you sometime soon.  Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.     Disclosures Dr. Klempner Stock and Ownership Interests TP Therapeutics Nuvalent, Inc Honoraria Merck Serono Consulting or Advisory Role Atellas Pharma Bristol-Myers Squibb Merck Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan Sanofi/Aventis Mersana Exact Sciences Novartis SERVIER AstraZeneca Amgen I-Mab iho Oncology    

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Mitchell Elliot provides a summary on "Serial Postoperative Circulating Tumor DNA Assessment Has Strong Prognostic Value During Long-Term Follow-Up in Patients With Breast Cancer" by Shaw, et al published on May 1st, 2024. TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare.  Mitchell Elliott: Hello and welcome to the JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Mitchell Elliott, an ASCO Journal editorial fellow. Today I will be providing a summary of the article titled, “Serial Postoperative Circulating Tumor DNA Assessment Has Strong Prognostic Value During Long Term Follow up in Patients with Breast Cancer,” by Dr. Jacqueline Shaw and colleagues.  Circulating tumor DNA is shed readily into the peripheral blood by tumors. ctDNA makes up a small fraction of the total cell free DNA in the peripheral blood and can be detected using highly sensitive assays. ctDNA assays can be tumor-informed where blood samples are tested for the presence of tumor specific mutations, which are selected by sequencing the primary tumor, so the panels are patient specific. Tumor agnostic assays also exist which are typically looking for the presence of cancer driver mutations or cancer derived methylation signals, which are not patient specific but rather cancer specific. Several retrospective analyses of clinical trials and cohorts have demonstrated that the identification of ctDNA in patients in follow-up can predict relapse in breast cancer, lung cancer, and colon cancer. Personalized tumor informed assays have demonstrated high technical specificity, but to date there is no gold standard assay identified and no direct comparison between all of the available assays. While the literature to date has demonstrated that identification of ctDNA prior to clinical relapse is possible, no study has demonstrated that it improves patient outcomes.  In this specific study, the authors evaluated the Signatera assay, a tumor informed assay based on whole exome sequencing, enabling the design of personalized panels for up to 16 tumor specific variants detected via multiplex PCR next generation sequencing. This was evaluated in the exploratory breast lead interval study or EBLIS, which is a study based out of the United Kingdom. EBLIS is a multicenter prospective cohort study funded by Cancer Research UK and the National Institute of Health Research that opened for recruitment in 2012. This was a retrospective analysis so no results were directly shared with patients or physicians. Patients were eligible if they were 18 years or older, had histologically confirmed breast cancer and must have completed all surgery and chemotherapy within three years of entry into the study. They had to have an adjuvant online risk relapse at greater than 65% or mortality of greater than 50% at 10 years, which defines a very high risk subgroup for study enrollment.  The results of this study and the baseline patient characteristics reflected the predefined clinical risk. The majority received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Most patients were diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma and were staged 2b to 3c. There were 156 patients identified from this cohort after 28 had insufficient DNA and 3 had unsuccessful whole exome sequencing, which are required for the assay generation. Of the 156 patients, there were 1136 plasma time points evaluated. Of the 1136 plasma time points, ctDNA was identified in 46, which represents approximately 4% of the total time points in this high risk cohort. 34 patients have experienced disease relapse, including 22 with hormone receptor positive HER2 negative disease, three with hormone receptor positive HER2 positive disease, seven with triple negative breast cancer, and two with hormone receptor negative HER2 positive disease. ctDNA was detected in 30 of the 34 patients who had a subsequent relapse with a patient specific sensitivity of 88.2%. Relapse was predicted with a lead time interval of up to 38 months with a median of around 10.5 months ranging from 0 to 38 months. 100% of relapses were detected through ctDNA in patients with hormone receptor positive HER2 positive disease, triple negative breast cancer and hormone receptor negative HER2 positive disease.  Patients with a positive ctDNA test had a poor recurrence free survival with a hazard ratio of 52.98 with a 95% confidence interval of 18.32 to 153.2 with a statistically significant p value. Patients also had a significantly reduced overall survival if ctDNA was detected in the adjuvant setting. Multivariate models incorporating clinical pathologic variables and ctDNA status were analyzed. In this, ctDNA status remained the most significant factor associated with recurrence free survival and overall survival. Interestingly, concurrent ctDNA analyses and CA 15-3 measurements were available for 100 patients. CA 15-3 status was defined as positive and negative at the cutoff value of 30 units per milliliter. A Fisher's exact test showed a borderline statistically significant correlation between ctDNA status and CA 15-3, with a p value of 0.053. Again, multivariate analyses indicated that ctDNA was independent of CA 15-3 in predicting recurrence free survival and overall survival. Interestingly, ctDNA was not detected in 4 patients who experienced subsequent disease relapse, even with consistent and frequent sampling. Furthermore, ctDNA was detected in 5 out of 122 patients who did not have a subsequent recurrence, all being hormone receptor positive HER2 negative. These patients also had mature follow up. It is unknown if there was a change in the adjuvant treatment associated with subsequent negative tests, and follow up continues.   In summary, the study reaffirms that personalized ctDNA assays have high technical sensitivity and specificity for the identification of patients at risk for disease relapse. The test is highly predictive of recurrence in patients with breast cancer, especially with triple negative subtype where all patients had ctDNA detected prior to clinical relapse. However, for patients with hormone receptor positive breast cancer, these results suggest that this test needs to be used with caution, as a small proportion of patients experience disease relapse with negative tests and others whose tests are positive have not yet relapsed. It is unknown if these patients with ctDNA detected have radiographically overt metastatic disease in the absence of clinical symptoms, as concurrent radiographic surveillance was not performed in the standard of care follow up. Prospective clinical trials are required to define a role for ctDNA surveillance in clinical care.  Again, I'm Mitchell Elliot, a JCO Precision Oncology editorial fellow. Thank you for listening to the JCO Precision Oncology Article Insight, and please tune in for the next topic. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at www.asco.org/podcasts.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

JCO PO author Dr. Jun Gong shares insights into his JCO PO articles, “Phase II Study of Erdafitinib in Patients with Tumors with FGFR Amplifications: Results from the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial (EAY131) Sub-protocol K1" and “Phase II Study of Erdafitinib in Patients with Tumors with FGFR Mutations or Fusions: Results from the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial (EAY131) Sub-protocol K2”. Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Gong discuss the limited activity of FGFR inhibition in solid tumors with FGFR amplifications and mutations or fusions in this NCI-MATCH phase II trial. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Social Media Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the Stevenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma.  Today, we are excited to be joined by Dr. Jun Gong, Associate Professor in the Division of Medical Oncology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and lead author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled "Phase II Study of Erdafitinib in Patients with Tumors Harboring FGFR Amplifications: Results from the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial EAY131 Subprotocol K1" and "Phase II Study of Erdafitinib in Patients with Tumors with FGFR Mutations or Fusions: Results from the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial EAY131 Subprotocol K2."   Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript.   Dr. Gong, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us.  Dr. Jun Gong: Thank you, Dr. Naqash and JCO Precision Oncology for having me. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: We are excited to be discussing some interesting aspects that you have led and published on from the NCI-MATCH trial. We were trying to understand from a background perspective, since this master protocol has been going on for quite some time, could you give us a little bit of background for the sake of our listeners on what the NCI-MATCH is and what were the specific objectives for these two subprotocols?  Dr. Jun Gong: Yes, of course, Dr. Naqash. So, as you may all know, the importance of targeted therapies in the current era of precision oncology. And on that backdrop, the NCI-MATCH was a national multicenter study designed essentially to look for signals of efficacy across various solid tumor and hematologic malignancy types, with a focus on specific mutations. The master protocol is unique in that there are several arms to the trial, each targeting a specific potential targetable alteration using available agents in cancer today. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. Thank you for that background. I know this master protocol has been going on for quite some time with different subprotocols. I believe some of them are immunotherapy-based. Also, you've led two important subprotocols, which are the FGFR amplification and the FGFR mutation or fusion. There are some differences, from what I gather, in responses for the fusions versus the amplifications or mutations versus the amplifications. Could you first delve into the first paper of the fusions, and describe what were the tumor types? As you mentioned in the paper, some tumors were excluded. What was the reason for the exclusion of some of those tumor types? Why did you want to study the fusions and mutations versus the amplifications separately? What was the background for that? Could you highlight some of those points for us? Dr. Jun Gong: Firstly, as a kind of a more background, FGFR has been a recognizable target for a couple of tumor types. And if you look at the broad landscape of FGFR alterations, they occur in about 5%-10% of cancers, with the majority being FGFR amplifications actually, and mutations and rearrangements following second and third respectively in most commonly identified alterations. With that being said, FGFR mutations and rearrangements have already been established in a couple of tumor types. Actually, the first FDA approval for an oral FGFR inhibitor was erdafitinib, which was the agent used in both of these back-to-back trials. However, erdafitinib was first approved in urothelial carcinoma, and since then, there has been an explosion in oral FGFR inhibitors targeting fusions and mutations in other cancer types, such as cholangiocarcinoma.   More recently, there was even an FDA approval in a myeloid malignancy as well. So, we used erdafitinib, being that it was the first FDA-approved, orally available agent to target this alteration. We conducted the two back-to-back studies in recognition that although rearrangements and mutations have already been established in certain tumor types, we were more interested in looking at the more common FGFR alteration, that being amplifications. However, the efficacy in that was a little unknown, and so these two separate subprotocols were developed: K2, which was to look at FGFR mutations and fusions in tumor types, excluding urothelial carcinoma, to look if there was a signal of efficacy beyond currently FDA-approved indications, and amplification as a separate cohort. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That's a very good explanation of why you concentrated on the tumor types in these protocols.  Now, going back to subprotocol K1, could you tell us what were some of the tumor types that you did include, and what was the sample size, and what was the hypothesis for the sample size as a meaningful level of activity that you wanted to see and would have potentially led to a bigger, broader trial? Dr. Jun Gong: So, subprotocol K1 was the arm investigating erdafitinib in those with FGFR amplifications, and these were predefined on the NCI-MATCH protocol, looking at FGFR 1, 2, 3, and 4 amplifications essentially. These were allowed to have local testing through a local CLIA-certified assay, but then they needed to be confirmed on a central assay, which is the NCI-MATCH Oncomine assay. These statistics are uniform for the NCI-MATCH trials, and the goal was at least 31 patients, with the hypothesis that if the response rate was 16% or more, this was considered a signal of activity. However, there was an additional protocol specific requirement in that if the sample size was fewer than 31 patients, then the primary efficacy population would be assessed against a null hypothesis overall response rate of 5%. Meaning that if there were less than 31 subjects, an overall response rate of greater than 5% would be defined as positive. Again, the NCI-MATCH was uniform. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety and toxicity. With that being said, K1 originally began accrual. The NCI-MATCH actually launched in 2015, but in the subprotocol K1, 35 patients were initially enrolled in the study. If you go down the eligibility criteria, however, a lot of these patients dropped out due to a lack of central tumor confirmation and various reasons. Ultimately, 18 patients were included in the pre-specified primary efficacy cohort. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you. I did see for subprotocol K1, you mostly had stable disease in a couple of patients, no responses, and I think one individual with breast cancer had a prolonged stable disease.   Now, from an FGFR amplification standpoint, did you or were you able to correlate - again, this is not objective responses, it's not a partial response or a complete response - was there any correlation from the level of amplification to the duration of stable disease?  Dr. Jun Gong: That's actually the core of our discussion about why K1, despite a variety basket of solid tumor types, somewhere, preclinical data had suggested FGFR amplifications could be targeted, that K1 was ultimately a negative trial with a 0% response rate. We dive in that although we included as an eligibility criteria a copy number variation of seven as the threshold for amplification, we realized that if you look at some of the literature out there, that even in the FGFR 1 and 2 amplification cohorts, where these are the more common cohorts of amplified tumor types that have been targeted, you really needed a high level of amplification, more than 99% of tumor cells being amplified in the previous studies, to actually generate a response.  The thought was that we assumed that FGFR amplification would lead to protein expression and dependence on FGFR signaling, providing sensitivity to FGFR inhibition. However, we realized that there is a certain degree where a high level of amplification needs to happen, and it may not be for all FGFR amplifications. We looked into the literature that FGFR 1 and 2 were the more commonly studied FGFR amplifications. FGFR 1, if you actually look at the amplicon structure, it tends to amplify a lot of other genes because it's such a huge amplicon structure. But FGFR 2 is shorter and centered on just FGFR 2 with a few other genes co-amplified. So, actually in the literature, they've already been seeing that maybe FGFR 2 amplification tumors are more readily targetable based on the robustness of evidence, rather than FGFR 1. But across all of these, the higher the level of amplification, seems the more targetable. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Those are interesting discussions around protein expression on the tumor that could imply therapeutic vulnerability. So I've always thought about it, whether trials like NCI-MATCH trials or ASCO TAPUR, for example, would be perhaps more informative if, on a secondary analysis standpoint, proteomics is something that could be done on the tumor tissue, because similar to NCI-MATCH, ASCO TAPUR has other sub protocols where some of these mutations or amplifications don't necessarily result in antitumor responses. But I think from a biology standpoint, as you mentioned, a certain amplification might correspond to RNA expression and that might correspond to protein expression, which is downstream. So looking at that would be something interesting. Have you planned for something like that on these tumor specimens? If you have biobanked any of those specimens. Dr. Jun Gong: I think that's a great future direction. And I know you, Dr. Naqash, being involved in so many cooperative trials, I think it is possible, but it really depends on good trial planning from the onset. When designing such massive trials like this, I think the more important thing is if your trials are negative, but they are informative for the field to go back and have these postdoc available biobanks that you said. And I think having it integrated firstly, is way more efficient than to have kind of an amendment kind of going through halfway or when the trial is started. That could be a little bit more logistically difficult.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I completely agree. And you mentioned corporate groups, I think we've been discussing, and I'm pretty sure you have also, there's a lot to be learned from clinical trials that are negative. We often, in the academic or non-academic setting, end up not publishing some of those negative results, pharma or corporate group based studies. And I think the resources, the specimens, and the negative results could correlate to some other novel findings if some of those exploratory analyses are done in the appropriate manner.   Now, going to the drug itself or the erdafitinib here, it's a pan-FGFR inhibitor. Is that something that you think is a limitation in the drug development space? I do early phase trials, and I'm pretty sure you do a lot of these basket early phase trials. Is that something that you feel is a limitation when you have a drug that targets different mutations or different protein changes of the same gene or different amplifications? Could that be a reason why something like this doesn't necessarily work because it doesn't have as much specificity against the isoform as one might need to inhibit the downstream kinase activation?  Dr. Jun Gong: That is also a great point. The NCI-MATCH sub protocol K1 and K2 used erdafitinib, which was the first FDA-approved FGFR inhibitor. But as many of the listeners and yourself may know, there have been newer iterations in next-generation development of the FGFR inhibitors. And it's very fascinating, the tyrosine kinase inhibitors, with each iteration, you seem to have a little more potency and the ability to bypass some of the resistance mutations, almost paralleling the lung cancer space, where we kind of follow that, and they've been kind of the pioneers in that space. And to your point, yes, we consider– the NCI-MATCH was developed nearly a decade ago, and the available agents at that time, would it have changed the findings if we used a kind of a newer generation or more potent FGFR inhibitor? It's possible, I think, especially in the K1 cohort with the amplifications. We even suggested in the discussion of the paper future directions, is that one way to kind of bypass the amplification issue is to use more potent and specific FGFR inhibitors. And so I think it's very possible that you highlight this point.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And for the sake of our listeners, Jun, especially trainees, could you highlight what are currently some of the FDA-approved FGFR inhibitors, and what tumor types are they currently approved in?  Dr. Jun Gong: The first one, as we have hinted, was in treatment of refractory, essentially urothelial carcinoma with FGFR mutations and rearrangements, mainly 2 and 3. And this is where oral erdafitinib was approved. And it's interesting, I kind of teach my fellows and our health staff that erdafitinib is interesting in that its FDA label insert requires a starting dose of about 8 milligrams daily, and it's a 28-day cycle. But during the first 14 days, we're really looking at the serum phosphate levels. If they are within a certain level, if they are within 5.5 to 7, for example, you continue the current dose. But if they are less than 5.5, the FDA label actually mandates that you increase it to 9 milligrams oral daily, continuously. This is biologically logical to me. FGFR is located to the renal tubules, and so this is a major phosphate kind of metabolism pathway here. And so you're using that as a surrogate, essentially, if the right dosing is achieved. And so that's unique.  And then the subsequent kind of FGFR inhibitors that came about, you had a couple in cholangiocarcinoma, where, unlike urothelial carcinoma, where it's about 30% of the time, you'll find the FGFR alterations of target. It's about half of that 15% in cholangiocarcinoma, and it's mainly intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in that sense. And here you have pemigatinib, which is one of the FGFR inhibitors approved for cholangiocarcinoma. And then you also had infragatinib, which is approved. But however, infigratinib eventually had their FDA label culled. It was withdrawn by the company, I think it was in 2022. And then more recently, you had even a more potent FGFR inhibitor in cholangio approved and futibatinib. It's interesting that with these more later generations of FGFR inhibitors, they do show a correlation with phosphate levels, but they don't have that specific kind of dosing early on in the first cycle, like erdafitinib. And so it's interesting to see that with the later generations, you're seeing more potency as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that overview, which I'm sure most of the trainees appreciate since this is an up and coming field in the space of precision medicine, especially FGFR. From a side-effect profile standpoint, you mentioned phosphate issues. Do you think that is a drug class effect here, or is that an FGFR receptor subtype effect, depending on which FGFR receptor, 1 or 2 or 3, that is being targeted?  Dr. Jun Gong: I do think this is a class effect that you'll see across a lot of the trials where phosphorus elevations or decreases are going to be probably your most common treatment-related adverse event. And I actually emphasize this is probably one of the most trickier side effects of this class, where we’re almost having to have to monitor the phosphorus levels pretty routinely, pretty closely. And you also have other class effects on the nails. There's some rare retinal ocular toxicities that's unique to the FGFR class as well. And so it's a very exciting class of compounds, but it does require some close monitoring of some unique class effects as you’ve hinted. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Based on the results from your K1 sub protocol, are FGFR inhibitors still the approach within, let's say, within cholangio or urothelial with FGFR amplifications? Is that still something that has been established and seen from a clinical response standpoint? Dr. Jun Gong: The FDA approvals are really for mutations and fusions. So this K1 sub protocol, essentially, I think provides one answer that we've been all wondering about for the longest time, “Hey, could amplifications be targeted as well?” Unfortunately, we didn't include urothelial carcinomas in this study because of the FDA approval. But from a kind of a basket solid tumor perspective, I think this really dampens the enthusiasm. As of right now, it really is fusions and mutations that are targetable. Amplifications need further investigation before becoming established in solid tumors. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Going to the discussion with the second K2 protocol, which is mutations and fusions, can you highlight again which tumor types there where you saw some clinical outcomes that you saw and any unique insights on certain mutations or protein changes that were a little more relevant than some others?  Dr. Jun Gong: Sure. So this is the parallel study to K1, in that now we are looking at fusions and mutations of FGFR1, 2, 3, and 4. And essentially, we, again, excluded those with urothelial carcinoma, given the FDA approval for erdafitinib in this trial. The trial actually opened then the FDA approvals for the FGFR inhibitors for cholangiocarcinoma happened. So this trial didn’t really exclude those with FGFR mutated or rearranged cholangiocarcinoma as well. If you look at the breakdown of the cohort in K2, you saw a good mix of breast cancers or a couple of gynecologic malignancies. There were a couple of head and neck cancers. There were several brain tumors as well. There was one lung cancer. There were four noted intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. Again, we could not exclude those due to the fact that the trial had opened and was accruing when the FGFR inhibitors approved for cholangiocarcinoma happened. Similar design, with a phase II, single-arm, open-label of erdafitinib, and again, the same statistical design was implemented in that if it’s higher than 31 patients, 16% overall response rate was a primary endpoint goal. If it was less than that, it was against the 5% overall response rate.   And here in K2, 35 patients were enrolled and 25 patients were ultimately included in the primary efficacy analysis. So because it was fewer than 31 in the primary efficacy cohort, it followed the NCI-MATCH to be specified with a primary endpoint goal of 5% or higher. And here, in a heavily pre-treated cohort of more than 50% of subjects who have received prior than 3 or higher lines of therapy, overall response rate essentially confirmed was 16% with the p value of 0.034, which met the positivity cutoff of 5%. However, an additional seven patients experienced stable disease as best confirmed response. And it’s important to note that four of these were grade IV glioblastomas with prolonged progression-free survival. So ultimately, this trial was positive in reading the endpoint that outside of urothelial carcinoma, could FGFR inhibition be pursued in other tumor types that had FGFR rearrangements or fusions? Dr. Rafeh Naqash: You mentioned glioblastoma, which is an area of huge unmet need. Do you think a trial like this as an upfront approach in glioblastoma, perhaps maybe after Temodar, could be a more meaningful way using the strongest, more precise therapy earlier on when there are certain mechanisms that inhibition of which would result in anti-tumor responses? Do you think doing this earlier on rather than second, third, fourth line would be more intriguing in some ways?  Dr. Jun Gong: I think you’ve hit upon several key points there. Firstly, just a high unmet need in glioblastomas, in general. And then to us, although it was a stable disease it was quite noticeable that four of these occurred in IDH1 and 2 wild-type brain tumors. We kind of discussed that in the discussion as well. And of these, we actually realized that in the pre-clinical and other published literatures space that for some reason, IDH1 and wild-type tended to have more FGFR alterations, while 0% were found in IDH1 and 2 mutant high grade gliomas. So I think there is something hypothesis generating coming out of this study as well even though there were stable disease. And that you may be selecting for– We may be able to have future studies to select for a specific niche of glioblastomas. And as to your point, Dr. Naqash, I think  if we can have a design trial looking for these specific molecular subsets, I think it’s wide open for trials of this nature in the first line, second line, or refractory space. Even piggybacking into cholangiocarcinoma, you see, they’re now looking at these in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant space as well. So I think we can identify the subset - it’s wide open out there. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I completely agree. I remember my program director a few years back when immunotherapy was in the metastatic setting, it was very exciting. He gave a talk in which he said "Early, earlier, earliest," and the more early, the better it seems. So I'm guessing that it's probably something similar for precision medicine-based approaches like targeting FGFR perhaps earlier.   So what is next for some of these two studies, or these ideas that have come out of these two studies? Are you trying to develop something subsequently, or is NCI-MATCH looking at it from a certain perspective? Or what would you want to do as a next step, ideally if you had the funding and the pharma support? Dr. Jun Gong: That’s the million dollar question. So just from the broad strokes, I think what these two back to back papers and studies comment is that amplifications may not be the more targetable of FGFR subset, but there is avenue for improvement there and further investigation. FGFR fusions and mutations however seem to go along with what we know in some of the FDA approved types now. Now the next step is in the area of precision oncology is could we expand the label indications now to other subtypes with FGFR fusions and mutations. And this is I think following precedent. You and the audience may know that there are a lot of different tumor agnostic approvals now for both immunotherapy and other targeted therapy types. So I think the goal of this study was to provide momentum for, perhaps, advancements into a tumor agnostic indication for FGFR inhibitors.  And we do cite in the K2 manuscript the results of a phase II study that was also published around the time we were writing the study up. It was the phase II RAGNAR study. And that enrolled patients, again, with FGFR fusions and mutations. And that trial was positive, too. That one was a larger study of 217 subjects. We highlight some differences in study populations as to why maybe the difference in responders were detected. Both were positive studies. It was reassuring that the overall survival impulse studies were about the same. And again, I think they don’t compete. I rather think they complement each other in providing this body of evidence that  may meet- at one point, the FDA should be approached with this evidence for a tumor agnostic mutation so that more patients with this subset could be benefitting.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. Thank you so much, Jun.  Now, could you tell us briefly what your background is, where you’ve trained, and your interests, and how you balance clinical research with some of your personal interests?  Dr. Jun Gong: Sure. Thank you for that interest. I did my training in medical school in New York. I went to New York Medical College. And then I did my residency at Cedars-Sinai for medicine. And I went to City of Hope for fellowship where I was trained in GU by Dr. Monty Powell who maybe you folks are familiar with. And my GI training was with Dr. Fakih at City of Hope. And since then I returned back to Cedars-Sinai where I serve as a dual GI/GU focused medical oncologist. I do clinical trials in both and translational science, really focused on targeting tumor metabolism in both as well. My advice to the listeners and trainees and I tell my own fellows this, I think it’s very rare now unless you’re in phase I to do a dual focus. So I actually emphasized to my trainees that the more focused you can be, the better. Unless you are going into phase I, for example. With that, you can hone in, develop your craft. But then again, I have known several mentors who do multiple tumor types. But I think the more traditional mechanism is to focus as much as you can is my advice for the listeners.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you again, Jun, for all those interesting scientific and personal insights. We appreciate you and working with JCO Precision Oncology for both of your manuscripts. This is the first time we have ever invited a lead author for two manuscripts at the same time. It's always good to be the first in something, and I learned a lot and hopefully, our audience would have learned a lot. Dr. Jun Gong: Thank you, Dr. Naqash, for having me. It was a pleasure speaking with you and the crew. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you.   Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experiences, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

In this JCO PO Article Insights episode, Miki Horiguchi provides a summary on the article, “TARGET: A Randomized, Noninferiority Trial of a Pretest, Patient-Driven Genetic Education Webtool Versus Genetic Counseling for Prostate Cancer Germline Testing and explains what a non-inferiority trial is.  TRANSCRIPT Miki Horiguchi: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host Miki Horiguchi, an ASCO Journal’s Editorial Fellow. Today, I'll be providing a summary of the article titled "TARGET: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial of a Pre-Test, Patient-Driven Genetic Education Webtool Versus Genetic Counseling for Prostate Cancer Germline Testing" by Dr. Stacy Loeb and colleagues. To help you understand the TARGET study design, I'll first explain what a non-inferiority trial is. One of the most common clinical trial designs we see in clinical papers is the superiority trial. A superiority trial is designed to demonstrate that a new treatment is superior to a control, such as a placebo or a standard treatment, in terms of a primary outcome that is relevant to the study's purpose. In a superiority trial, a statistical test is performed for the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference between the two arms. If a significant p-value, which is conventionally less than 0.05 is observed, we consider that the probability that the null hypothesis being true is very low, and thus conclude that there is a treatment difference between the two arms. On the other hand, if the p-value is larger than 0.05, we cannot conclude that there is a treatment difference because the probability that the null hypothesis being true is not low enough. Here, it's very important for us to keep in mind that a non-significant p-value does not mean no difference between the two arms. Therefore, if the study objective is to show that a new treatment has a similar treatment effect to a control treatment, the standard statistical testing approach used in a superiority trial is not appropriate. To meet this specific study objective, utilizing a non-inferiority test is more appropriate. The formulation of a hypothesis in a non-inferiority test is distinct from that in a superiority test. In essence, the null hypothesis is that the new treatment is inferior by more than the predefined margin, whereas the alternative hypothesis argues against this, suggesting that the new treatment is not inferior within this margin. A significant p-value from the non-inferiority test indicates support for the alternative hypothesis, implying that the new treatment is at least as effective as the control treatment considering the predefined margin of non-inferiority.  There are a couple of points to consider prior to designing a non-inferiority trial. The first is about the justification for using a non-inferiority study. The new treatment must offer a clear advantage other than the treatment effect, such as fewer side effects and lower cost, so that it can be a viable alternative to the control treatment as long as it maintains a certain level of treatment effect that is not inferior to the controls.   The second point is about the non-inferiority margin. The non-inferiority margin defines the threshold below which the new treatment is deemed non-inferior to the control. The selection of an appropriate margin is pivotal as it profoundly influences the power and sample size of the study, as well as the interpretation of the statistical test results. To ensure the study's objectives are met, the non-inferiority margin must be established during the study design phase. This decision should be informed by clinical expert opinions, findings from previous studies, or regulatory guidelines.  Now let me move on to the introduction of the TARGET study. The TARGET study was a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized trial to compare the effects of two types of interventions for pre-test genetic education in patients with prostate cancer. The authors developed a patient-driven, web-based education tool that consisted of nine modules with text and videos to deliver genetic testing education. They then assessed its non-inferiority to traditional genetic counseling and the decisional conflict about taking genetic testing. The primary endpoint was the change in the decisional conflict score between pre- and post-intervention. The authors estimated the difference in pre-post change of the score between the two arms and the corresponding one-sided 95% confidence interval. The non-inferiority of the web tool arm on the pre- post change of the score to the genetic counseling arm was assessed based on a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 4. In this case, if the estimated upper confidence bound for the difference between the two arms is less than the non-inferiority margin, the study confirms the non-inferiority of the web tool to the genetic counseling in terms of the primary outcome. The non-inferiority margin for this study was determined based on a previously conducted similar study. For the TARGET study, several factors underscore the appropriateness of using a non-inferiority trial. First, the web-based education model is likely to significantly increase convenience compared to traditional genetic counseling, which is delivered in person or through telehealth appointments with the genetic counselor. The introduction of the proposed web tool is expected to reduce logistical burdens for patients, such as those related to transportation and scheduling. Second, from the perspective of healthcare providers, the adoption of the proposed web tool could reduce the workload of genetic counselors, offering a potential solution for a shortage of counselors. A total of 346 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 allocation to either of the two interventions. The primary analysis population was the modified intention-to-treat population, which included 153 on the web tool arm and 162 on the genetic counseling arm. The estimated difference in pre- post-change of the decisional conflict score between the two arms was -0.04 and the upper boundary of the corresponding confidence interval was 2.54, which was less than the predefined non-inferiority margin. The p-value for the non-inferiority test was 0.01. The authors reported results for the secondary endpoints, which included cancer genetics knowledge, attitude toward genetic testing, and satisfaction with genetic counseling. It was also reported that a total of 265 patients took genetic testing, and among the total, pathogenic variants were identified in 42 patients. The authors concluded that the study results support the use of a patient-driven web tool for expanding access to pre-test education for germline genetic testing among patients with prostate cancer. The authors also mentioned some limitations of this study, one of which is the limited racial and ethnic diversity among the study population. Some requirements to access the web-based tool, such as a computer and Wi-Fi access, may raise concerns about widening disparities in access to genetic services for cancer patients. Further studies to examine ways to address these limitations are needed. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights, and please tune in for the next topic. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all the ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

JCO PO author Dr. Christian Rolfo shares insights into his JCO PO article, “Liquid Biopsy of Lung Cancer Before Pathological Diagnosis Is Associated With Shorter Time to Treatment.” Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Rolfo discuss how early liquid biopsy in aNSCLC in parallel with path dx is associated with shorter time to treatment. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCOPO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Social Media Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma.   Today we are thrilled to be joined by Dr. Christian Rolfo, Associate Director of Clinical Research at the Center of Thoracic Oncology at the Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai Health System. He is also the lead author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled "Liquid Biopsy of Lung Cancer Before Pathological Diagnosis is Associated with Shorter Time to Treatment."  Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript.  Christian, it's great to have you here. Welcome to our podcast and we are excited to learn about some of the interesting results from your study.  Dr. Christian Rolfo: Thank you very much, Rafeh. It's a pleasure to be here and discuss about liquid biopsy. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: You have a very important role in different liquid biopsy consortiums. This is an initiative that you have been leading and spearheading for quite a while, and it's nice to see that it is becoming something of a phenomenon now on a global scale where liquid biopsies are being implemented more and more in earlier stages, especially. For the sake of our audience, which revolves around academic oncologists, community oncologists, trainees, and patient advocates or patients themselves, could you tell us a little bit about the background of what liquid biopsies are? And currently, how do we utilize them in the management of lung cancer or cancers in general? Dr. Christian Rolfo: Liquid biopsy has been gaining importance over the years. We started to talk about liquid biopsy in 2009 when we started to see some correlations with EGFR mutations. In practicality, what we are doing is the most common or most applicable indication is to go for liquid biopsies from the blood, peripheral blood. So we are doing a blood draw and from there, what we are capturing is the DNA or fragments of DNA that are still in circulation. But the liquid biopsy definition is a little bit more broad and we can apply the concept of a minimally invasive approach to different fluids of the body, including pleural effusion, urine, and including CSF that is another indication, there, we are going to be a little bit more invasive than peripheral blood, but it is also an emerging tool that we will have to find specific indicators. In cancer, we started the history of liquid biopsy in advanced disease with the identification of biomarkers, and then from there, we are moving to other scenarios, including, nowadays, monitoring minimal residual disease and early detection. And that is applicable also for other tumors. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you, Christian, for that summary. Now, as you've rightly pointed out, we have come to implement liquid biopsies more and more, both in the academic setting and the community setting. And this has definitely led to faster turnaround time in some ways compared to tissue. In this study that you have authored with the help of many other collaborators and Foundation Medicine Flatiron Health data, the goal here, from what I understand, was to look at liquid biopsies that were done before, resulted before the pathological diagnosis. Could you tell us a little bit more about the premise of this study, why you thought about this question and how did you try to implement that idea to get to some of the interesting results that you see here? Dr. Christian Rolfo: Yeah, so what we are seeing generally in lung cancer and also in people with other tumors is that patients are having a journey and that they start seeing different doctors until they get a diagnosis. Generally, after the pathological diagnosis, if you don’t have an in-house technology that is doing reflex testing, generally, oncologists need to request for testing and that is taking time. So if we are looking for comprehensive days until a patients are able to get a molecular profiling before we start the treatment is sometimes very long. We are talking, in some cases, about months. So, how we can speed the process, that was the main question. We tried to include liquid biopsy in the staging procedures that we generally were doing when we have a clinical diagnosis of lung cancer. It’s either images that we are used to do, PET scans, MRIs, and other assessments, we want to include liquid biopsy there before the biopsy. And that's what we did. We were searching for this specific aim using the Flatiron Health Foundation Medicine electronic health records from 280 centers across the United States. We included a big number of patients in this analysis, more than 1000 patients for the first analysis. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That's phenomenal that you had real-world data from 200+ centers across the US. Of course, when you have patients on a clinical trial versus patients in the real-world, we all know that there are differences in terms of approaching, overseeing, and managing these individuals. So this data set is an extension of what we could see in the real-world setting.  Could you tell us a little bit about the number of patients that you eventually identified that had liquid biopsies done before pathological diagnosis? I think you have different cohorts here, a group that was before and a group that was after, and you compared several important metrics treatment-wise from what I see. Could you highlight those for our listeners? Dr. Christian Rolfo: Yeah. So we were looking for patients who had a liquid biopsy CGP, comprehensive genomic profiling, ordered within 30 days pre diagnosis and post diagnosis. We focused on 5.2% of patients, which corresponded to 56 patients who ordered a liquid biopsy before diagnosis. The median time was eight days between the order and diagnosis and the range was between 1 to 28 days. And that was compared with 1020 patients who ordered a liquid biopsy after diagnosis. It is important to be clear that both cohorts had a similar stage and ctDNA tumor fraction. We can explain later what tumor fraction is, because it was done in addition with a paper that we just published last week. Liquid biopsy patients were consulted to have this CGP median one day after diagnosis, versus 25 days after for patients who had their diagnosis and their liquid biopsy later on. So, from these patients, the majority of the patients, 43% of LBx-Dx were positive for an National Comprehensive Cancer Network driver, and 32% had ctDNA TF >1% but were driver negative, so that is what we call presumed true negative. From here, maybe I can explain what is tumor fraction and, in general, how we use it.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I think that would be great for our listeners. We see this often in more and more liquid biopsy results nowadays, and I've tried to explain it to some of my fellows also. So, it would be nice if you explain for the sake of our listeners what tumor fraction is, what does it mean clinically, can you use it in a certain way, what biological relevance does it have. Dr. Christian Rolfo: So we are analyzing another paper that came out this week in cancer research on the concept of tumor fraction and it’s a new definition. So what we are doing with tumor fraction is an algorithmic calculation or mathematical calculation on the amount of DNA of the cells also taking into consideration the math, the quantity of DNA present in the sample. So we are going very low in the sensitivity of this analysis and capturing there the real informative results of the ctDNA of the liquid biopsy. So in practicality, when you see a report that says the threshold that was established in this study was more than 1% or less than 1%, so patients who have a tumor fraction of more than 1%, we can really consider this liquid biopsy informative. And also in this next publication, we compared with tissue. In patients with a tumor fraction of more than 1%, were completely 100% correspondent with what we found in the reflected tumor tissue, the NGS. But what happened in patients with a tumor fraction of less than 1%, we can say that these patients are not informative. So we need to wait for the tissue biopsy result to come in because we were able to recuperate several patients that the liquid biopsy was negative with the tissue biopsy positive. This is an important concept because we are distinguishing not only the informativeness of liquid biopsy, but also we can distinguish between patients who are considered not shedder based on what is considered a shedder. And that was a problem until this kind of introduction was a problem before with the technology because the technology wasn't very fast to distinguish the sensitivity or high sensitivity. Now, the sensitivity is no longer a problem. Maybe, there is really value of information in what we have in liquid biopsy, and using this mathematical help, we can get these patients distinguished and help more people. So that would be really interesting. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: You touched on a few important concepts here, and one question I have, and I think there's no better person to answer this question. You're the right person to answer this question for our audience. Do you think when you have a liquid biopsy tumor fraction of less than 1%, and you have a tissue that is pending with an NGS, where tissue NGS has not resulted yet, but liquid biopsy results come in and tumor fraction is less than 1%. But let's say you have a non-smoker with a typical driver mutation and clinical characteristic positive individual in the clinic, and the tumor fraction is less than 1%. How much can you trust that liquid biopsy when the tumor fraction is less than 1%. Because do you think some of these driver mutations, like you mentioned, could be low shedders and you could miss a potentially actionable mutation on a liquid biopsy if the tumor fraction is less than 1%? Is that something that you've looked at or correlated or understood what would be the clinical meaning of that? Dr. Christian Rolfo: Absolutely. So there are two concepts here. A liquid biopsy could be non-informative, and that is what we saw in this paper. So you have patients that have a liquid biopsy negative, and that we see in the clinic, a liquid biopsy negative tissue biopsy positive. That could be because the liquid biopsy is not informative, but it could be also that the patient, for some biological reason, and we don't have an answer about that, they are not shedding the ctDNA in the bloodstream, ctDNA that we can capture. What we saw in different studies, including one of the papers that we presented also in ASCO last year with a MET amplification and  METex14, for example. In the study that was the VISION study using tepotinib, you see that patients who have a liquid biopsy negative are doing a better outcome compared to a patient who have a liquid biopsy positive. So I believe that we still have patients who are not shedders for some biological reason, that could be put in together with patients who have more bone metastasis than organ metastasis, or patients who have more in location, for example in the brain. These patients are difficult to capture in ctDNA due to some biological reasons. But also you have patients who are non-shedders. For the technicality of the parts of this tumor fraction analysis, it is really important to distinguish that and we will hear more and more. So, as you say, we have already some reports in some companies like Foundation are doing, but some others like to incorporate this tumor fraction. And several in-house technologies allow also to have this kind of mathematical calculation. So that is what we are facing now, to really understand better the power of liquid biopsy. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Now, some of the other things that your project or paper that you published with JCO PO does not necessarily cover is the payer aspect of this. Now, we've had more and more discussions, obviously, and more and more information has been highlighted with the payers that this is an important test and needs to be reimbursed, even though if you do tissue NGS, liquid biopsies are complementary to tissue. So taking both together is probably a better view of the overall tumor or the mutational status of the tumor. But one of the biggest holes in this whole process, and this is my personal experience, I want to know what you think, is that we can't order these tests when the patient is admitted to the hospital, and 50% or more patients end up getting diagnosed in the hospital during an inpatient stay. The average hospitalization for someone with lung cancer is five to seven days on average, and then another one to two weeks to get into the clinic to see an oncologist. So what would your thoughts be there? How can we improve things there in terms of, can we try to do something different so that the payers agree that, yes, you can send a liquid biopsy when the patient is admitted, because there's that 14-day Medicare rule? Has your team, or have you in particular, tried to navigate some of those issues, and what are your thoughts on how we can try to improve some of those conversations?  Dr. Christian Rolfo: Yeah, that's a really good question, because here we are talking about inequities in access to the technology and the results and it's crucial. Several of our patients, specifically in lung cancer, they are coming to our consultations or to the emergency with a very bad situation so they need to be admitted immediately. And as you say, they can be there for one month waiting for results or for recovery or for stabilization of their general condition before we can start. Several of these patients will have some biomarkers that we can target with treatment. So in other words, I will say that this is a stupid rule because we cannot have in 2024 these kinds of limitations to access to treatment when we have on one side, the FDA is doing a terrific job to get drugs approved in a very short time, and on the other side we have payers who are not understanding the concept of molecular or precision oncology.  So what we are trying to do in these cases, to be honest, is to navigate with the vendors and try to get this done. I generally send the samples because I consider that personally that it is a very crucial information. And in several cases, we have started targeted therapies while the patient is still admitted. So I think it's something that we need to put in a better effort, because already we are not doing enough for our patients, if you look at the data of the MYLUNG Consortium that was presented in ASCO some years ago on the testing performance in the community practice, 50% of the patients with lung cancer were tested there were only some in minority groups, African Americans, 39%. So I think we need to do better in education, but also from the payer side, it's really crucial that they understand this concept.  Advocacy groups have a lot of say here. They are also doing an important job on that. We are now launching with ISLC, ISLB, Lung Cancer Europe, and Longevity in a survey that is to make also the patients aware what is the importance of molecular profiling, tissue or liquid biopsy, it’s very important that you get something to treat the patient and select the right treatment. And even to say, there’ll be a whole other work in your case so that is really important.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Absolutely, I completely agree. We have made a lot of strides, but there is still a lot of room for improvement in terms of equity, access, and reimbursement.   Now, one of the things that I noticed in your paper, and you could tell me a little bit more about this, when you looked at the pre-diagnosed liquid biopsies, meaning before tissue diagnosis, 56 individuals there suspected to have lung cancer, community-based testing was identified in 53 individuals versus academic being three. This is very encouraging when you see something like this happening in the community. Did you look at that? Did you try to understand why or how that was the case? Because in a general community setting, I would think that community practices have a more complicated system of reimbursement because they are dependent on direct reimbursement, whereas in bigger academic centers, there’s some leeway here and there. So did you try to understand how they were able to order this before tissue, could you give us some insights there? Dr. Christian Rolfo: Yes, I think it was not big in this specific question, but it's a very interesting topic. Because we, generally, in academia, will believe that we are doing the things in advance and we are more, compared with the practical and the general practitioners or the general colleagues in the community practice, we have more resources. But sometimes, and it's true, obviously, we have more resources in terms of research and more opportunities in terms of clinical trials in some cases. But I think we understood with this minimal example that there is an important interest among general oncologists in the community practice to get this done. And this is something we need to emphasize, because sometimes we are putting the blame on our colleagues that are outside the academic centers on this lack of testing, and it’s not really true sometimes. So this is a good point to start to work together and try to get more things done for our patients and try to get also the reality.   I think one of the problems we will have in the future that we can face right now is the lack of new figures in this molecular profiling. I am referring, for example, molecular nurses or personnel that is working and helping to get this done. We need to have more people that are working in this education for the patients in the access to treatment and access to the technology, but also to navigate better these problems with payers that sometimes in some patients that seem to be overwhelming. Because when you talk about the $100 that could be extra, it’s hard for some patients. So we need to be very conscious about that. So having a new figure in the hospitals and the community practices could help to test more patients.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And I think at the end of the day, the payers or the reimbursement mechanisms need to understand that genomics is part of the diagnosis these days. It's not ancillary, it’s not an addition, but it is part of the diagnosis. I'm pretty sure you have had similar instances where you get a confusing pathology result but then a genomic result points in a certain direction. You treat the patient in that direction, and then you see the patient benefiting in the tumor shrinking, which suggests that genomics is complementary to the path diagnosis. It’s not necessarily a surrogate.You can’t replace pathological diagnosis, but you can use genomics as a complementary diagnosis as part of the whole paradigm of treating the entire patient. So I think we definitely need more and more conversations like the ones that you’re having or your liquid biopsy consortium is having and then more education from the FDA. Of course, more legislation, more advocacy.   Going back to the paper, I did notice another interesting thing, which is, again, very encouraging is patients with lung cancer with a performance status of 2 or about had a decent proportion of testing done. Which, again, points out to the important concept of avoiding these preconceived biases that, “Hey. If somebody is not a great performance status, testing and finding something in that individual could potentially change a lot for the individual.” Do you have any personal examples from patients you have treated or seen in the clinic for our listeners where you identified something and maybe they were not doing as great initially, and then you identified something in liquid biopsy, treated them and it changed the entire course of their illness and whole trajectory for them? Dr. Christian Rolfo: Being working in lung cancer for years, everyone has this kind of patient that we see that their performance state was very bad. Obviously, as a clinician, we need to identify why the performance is bad and is deteriorating. So we see some patients in lung cancer, some of them, they can have a very important comorbidity packet that is associated with lung cancer. So in patients who have a deterioration for lung cancer, and we find a driver help in some patients that were doing a kind of a weakness, and that is something that we see in several patients, specifically in patients living with leptomeningeal disease. In some cases, when we start to do drivers that have a big impact in the crossing the blood-brain barrier, I have a good response.  I have patients that had an important recovery. So this is something we need to distinguish and sometimes when the patients seem very bad they say, “Okay, we go directly to targeted care or supportive care.” We try to test these patients as well because these patients have an important impact on the quality of life that we are treating. We will not be able to cure patients in this setting with targeted therapies, but we can certainly make an impact in the quality of life and also in our form of survival.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: One of the other questions that comes up often when you’re in a multi display team, since most cancers these days are on the multi display decision making opportunities to treat the patient the best possible way is: Who orders the liquid biopsy? I remember from my fellowship several years back, our program director Paul Walker, who is, again, an amazing lung cancer thoracic oncologist, he had advocated that our endoscopic suite folks, the bronchoscopist, whether it was pulmonary, interventional pulmonology or CT surgeons, whoever did the bronchoscopy for the first time in the patient that they would send it whenever they see the patient from the bronchs. This was around six, seven years back. And I think Paul was a little ahead of his time and I didn’t necessarily understand the implications that this would have.  And now, as I progress in my own little career, I can see the vision that he had, which I think a lot of other sectors have tried to do, and I’m pretty sure you have a certain process, too. Is that something we should try to talk more and more about? Because, of course, when you do the bronch, then you get a diagnosis and the patient sees the oncologist. This whole process takes anywhere from two to three weeks, maybe even more for smaller centers. So, is that something that you’re doing or you see that you’re having more conversations that, “Hey. Whoever sees the patient first should be able to order the liquid biopsy.” It's not necessarily the medical oncologists, it doesn’t mean I love to order sequencing results or  sequential tests, but it could cause a delay in the patient care. So, could you tell us a little bit more of that?  Dr. Christian Rolfo: So it's really important, this part, because we need to create in our institution flows that will have this very well organized. And ideally, in the ideal world will be that we have reflex tests coming from the pathologist, but it's not happened in several places, because we don't have our NGS at home, or we are sending to vendors, and sometimes we are not sending to them. So that is one of the aspects.  The second aspect, and that I think is still a problem in some treatment, is that we still have 24:30 cytologists coming out in place of covariances. And in our institution, we were working very hard with our interventional pulmonologists and interventional radiologists to get this quality of tissue appropriate, and we have a very good rate of success and issues in a very minimal quantity of patients. Obviously, some patients are very difficult to get samples, and we need to refer still with cytology. But in some cases, where our surgeons or our pulmonologists have sent in samples for NGS, and I think this is we are coordinating. “I will see this patient next week. Can you please start to order?” And here, our nurse practitioner, our nurses in the team are also playing an important role for the reason I insist in the idea to have new figures that could be these molecular navigators we can call, or molecular nurses that helping coordinate this, not only the coordination, but also in the discussion of molecular tumor boards. We did an experience like that some years ago at Maryland University, and actually it was a very important opportunity to decrease the number of quantities of issues and get the results done very quickly. So I think it's important to come to have conversations with our colleagues, pulmonologists, radiation radiologists, interventional radiologists, pulmonologists and pathologists to get this done very quickly.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I love the idea of molecular navigators. And of course, everybody in the current day and age, we’re having staffing issues, so getting a molecular navigator would be awesome, but I’m not necessarily sure how everybody would be able to implement it. But I think in the bigger picture, whether it’s molecular navigators or multi disciplinary nurse navigators in general, liaisons in general, I think we all can do a better job in trying to coordinate some of these testings. And we have tried to do that through our thoracic oncology group and of course, there’s a lot of progress that needs to be made, one step at a time. Dr. Christian Rolfo: If somebody is interested in this topic on the International Society of Liquid Biopsy, we started with a project that is called a Certificate for Advanced Studies in Precision Oncology. So we are educating the healthcare team for all this process and trying to get practical insights to have this career later. Because I think it will be something that’s interesting for nurses or pharmacists to get this kind of career later or get another approach in their career.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much, Christian.  Now, going to not the scientific part, which I think is the most interesting part of this conversation is to talk about you and your personal journey. Could you tell us a little bit about where you started, what your career has been like, how did you progress? Because you have a lot of junior faculty that listen to this and it's always good to take inspiration from people like yourself.  Dr. Christian Rolfo: Thank you. As you can hear my accent, it’s not from here. So I was born in Argentina, I did my medical degree there. And then I had the opportunity to get a scholarship in Italy. I went to Italy and I stayed there for seven years. I did my fellowship there again, and I started to know there precision oncologists. My journey started in sarcoma. And actually I was working in the group of Dr. Casali's group, a very well known sarcoma expert. And at that time we were running phase I trials for imatinib, I remember, known as GIST. I saw this kind of response and awakening of patients that were really in very bad condition, with only through this imatinib. Very little to treat that disease at that moment, a median overall survival of two months. So I started to be interested in that. Then I moved from there to Spain and met Dr. Rafael Rossell, who was my mentor. In Italy, I have also a mentor in breast cancer, Dr. Luca Gianni, one of the pioneers in breast cancer treatment. So knowing all these people and having the support of them, was really crucial.  So I think this is the first advice for junior faculty: try to choose your mentor, even if your mentor is not in your center. Like the case, for example, Rafael Rossell was not in my hospital, but he was my mentor. So having this kind of discussion, I did my PhD in EGFR mutation, at that time was the fashion, not immunotherapy, of the moment. And then from there, after eight years in Spain, I moved to Belgium. I have a short period of completing my training at MD Anderson and I went to Belgium to Antwerp University and that was the opportunity to become the Director of the phase I program in the Early Clinical Trials Unit. It was really exciting to see growing a unit, and now they continue  at the center in Belgium. My colleagues that stayed there, they are doing a terrific job of continuing this idea. And from there I went to Baltimore, three years working at Maryland University being the Director of Thoracic Oncology and early clinical trials as well. Three years after, I moved to New York, and here doing this journey in clinical research, also being the Director of Clinical Research at the Center for Thoracic Oncology.  Life has put me in different places, different cultures, different opportunities. For me it was a really good journey to be in different countries, knowing different ways to see oncology as well, and immediately to work, because it was a shock coming from Belgium to the area of Baltimore where I had the reality to discuss peer to peer conversations and things that are not usually discussed in Europe. So it was really a very nice journey to learn, to have the capacity to adapt.  That is the other thing, my second advice, if I can give advice, but if you have the opportunity to go to some place, adaptation is the most important. So try to enjoy what you’re doing and try to enjoy and learn from the patients, hopefully, and contribute your knowledge as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much, Christian. Two last questions. For all the places that you visited, what is your favorite place? And what is your favorite food? Dr. Christian Rolfo: My favorite place to live, I have Italy in my heart. Obviously, Argentina is my place, family. But Italy is in my heart. And then Spain, Spain gave me my wife and my son. So I have very good memories there and it’s a very nice place. Obviously, I’m Argentinian, so for me it means meat in some places, Asado, that is a typical Argentinean one. But also, I am very eager to enjoy the pasta and paella, so we have several things. Anyway, here in New York, the pizza of New York is great. It is not Italian. This new way to make pizza from New York is fantastic.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I can try to see you’re trying to keep everybody happy in a politically correct way. Dr. Christian Rolfo: I didn't mention Belgium, but we have chocolates there.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That is true. Every place is special and unique in different ways.  Christian, thank you so much. This was very entertaining and very informative for me and hopefully for the audience. Thank you so much for being a part of this conversation. And thank you so much for submitting your work to JCO PO. We hope you consider JCO PO for future research in this exciting area as well.  Dr. Christian Rolfo: Thank you. Thank you very much, Rafeh, for the opportunity. And JCO Precision Oncology is a really great forum to discuss precision medicine. Congratulations for all your work. The last, if you allow me to give an advertisement here. We have our Liquid Biopsy Congress, the ISLB, the annual conference will be in Denver from 20 to 25 November, so just before Thanksgiving day. So if you are able to go there, we will have a lot of discussion on liquid biopsy like we did today. Thank you very much.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much for highlighting that, and hopefully, our listeners will try to register and be part of that meeting.  Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review. And be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all our shows at asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

In this JCO PO Article Insights episode, Fergus Keane provides a summary on "Microsatellite Instability Is Insufficiently Used as a Biomarker for Lynch Syndrome Testing in Clinical Practice", by Papadopoulou, et al published January 25, 2024 TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Fergus Keane: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Fergus Keane, an ASCO Editorial Fellow. Today, I will be providing a summary of the article entitled "Microsatellite Instability Is Insufficiently Used as a Biomarker for Lynch Syndrome Testing in Clinical Practice" by Dr. Eirini Papadopoulou. The mismatch repair pathway has gained interest in recent years due to advances in precision oncology, the widespread use of immune checkpoint blockade, and next-generation sequencing-based assays to identify microsatellite instability. The mismatch repair pathway has a key role in DNA repair and maintaining genomic stability. Tumor cells, which are MMR deficient are prone to mismatch errors in the microsatellite regions during DNA replication. Microsatellite instable, referred to as MSI-High tumors are observed across a variety of tumor types, most commonly colorectal and endometrial cancers.  Germline Lynch syndrome is caused by inactivating variants in one of five primary MMR genes, namely MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM, and is associated with an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance. Mismatch repair deficiency is observed in most tumors in individuals with Lynch syndrome and can also occur sporadically. In mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer, sporadic cases are identified by BRAF V600E mutations or MLH1 gene promoter hypermethylation. The absence of both of these findings should raise suspicion for germline Lynch syndrome. The aim of this study was to report the prevalence of microsatellite instability in a large cohort of patients in Europe, specifically Greek patients. In addition, the authors aimed to evaluate the proportion of patients with microsatellite instability referred for germline testing and what factors appeared to influence clinician decision to refer for germline testing. 4553 patients with metastatic cancer were included between January 2020 and April 2023. All patients were referred for MSI analysis, and at physician discretion, BRAF V600E and MLH1 gene methylation analyses were available. Approximately half of patients included had colorectal cancer. 5.27% of patients exhibited MSI-High in total, of whom 58% were female and 42% were male.  The rates of MSI-High cancers varied according to tumor type, but the highest rates observed in patients with endometrial cancer at 15.69%, gastric cancer at 8.54%, colorectal cancer at 7.4%, and urinary tract cancers at 4.55%. Of the MSI-High patients, with colorectal cancer identified, 24.85% had a BRAF V600E. Excluding these patients, 198 were eligible for genetic testing with a hereditary cancer panel. Of these, only 22.7% were actually referred for a hereditary panel. The median age at diagnosis in this group was 59 years, compared with 66 years for those who were not referred for germline analyses. The age at diagnosis and referral for genetic analyses were significantly correlated.  Beyond colorectal cancer, patients with other cancer types who were also referred for germline testing included nine patients with endometrial cancer, four with gastric cancer, two with ovarian cancer, one with breast cancer, and one with gallbladder cancer, and referral patterns differed by tumor type. Of patients with colorectal and endometrial cancer, 24.4% had a positive germline mismatch repair variant identified. Of note, while the median age of patients with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline result was 48.5 years, over 40% of patients with a pathogenic germline result were aged over 50 years, highlighting that age alone should not be the only criterion for consideration of a referral for germline analysis in such patients.  This study highlights some important points. First, MSI analysis is an important biomarker for a variety of tumor types, including colorectal, gastric, and endometrial cancer, but also less commonly associated cancer types. Second, only 22.73% of patients eligible for germline analyses were referred in this patient cohort, despite recommendations from international guidelines indicating that a proportion of patients with a possible familial predisposition syndrome may not be tested for same. Third, key features such as age at diagnosis and tumor type influence the clinical decision for referral for genetic analysis.  The authors conclude that the value of MSI testing as a potential screening tool for identification of patients with a higher risk for germline pathogenic variants may be underappreciated and highlights this important biomarker. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights, and please tune in for the next topic. Don't forget to give us a rating and review, and be sure to subscribe so that you don't miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

JCO PO authors Lauren C. Leiman and Dr. Emma Alme share insights into their JCO PO article, “Recommendations for the Equitable and Widespread Implementation of Liquid Biopsy for Cancer Care”. Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and guests discusses increasing access to liquid biopsy for cancer, reviewing the barriers and examining the proposed solutions. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Social Media Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor of Medicine at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma. Today, we are excited to be joined by Lauren Leiman, Executive Director of BloodPAC, and Dr. Emma Alme, Public Policy Director at Guardant Health. They are both authors of the JCO Precision Oncology article titled "Recommendations for the Equitable and Widespread Implementation of Liquid Biopsy for Cancer Care."  Our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript.  For the sake of this conversation, we will refer to each other using our first names. So, Lauren and Emma, welcome to the podcast and thank you for joining us today. Lauren Leiman: Thank you for having us. Dr. Emma Alme: Thank you so much.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So, this article is an opinion piece that addresses something that is emerging and current and tries to connect it to something that is futuristic also and hopefully, will address a lot of different needs relevant to patients with cancer. For starters, since our audience is pretty diverse, could you tell us what the BloodPAC is? Since the article is somewhat a combined piece from different stakeholders, could you explain what this BloodPAC Consortium is as an entity and what is its role for this BloodPAC? Lauren Leiman: Sure, this is Lauren Leiman. The BloodPAC was formed almost seven years ago as an initial commitment to the White House Cancer Moonshot back in 2016. I was the head of external partnerships and had this idea with a colleague of mine, Dr. Jerry Lee: Could you accelerate the development and approval of liquid biopsy assays for cancer patient benefit if you were able to create some standards and frameworks for the field broadly, and also if you could aggregate data to support those standards and frameworks? So, we brought together about 20 different organizations across pharmaceutical companies, diagnostic partners, foundations funding in the space, government agencies, all to think through can we create these frameworks, are we willing to submit data. We were extremely successful in that first round, and by the end of 2016, we were able to have our first data deposit into- we built a BloodPAC Data Commons, which is housed in Chicago and was created by Dr. Bob Grossman up there. In 2017, when it became clear that the last administration was not going to continue the White House Cancer Moonshot, we became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3). And we have grown substantially since that time from those original 20 different organizations to about 66 different organizations today, across all those areas again, including today, payers, which is very exciting. And we have added on to our mission statement one word that we will discuss today, which is very exciting, which is “accessibility”. After our five-year anniversary and even slightly before then, we decided that we really feel that we have been able to contribute, as a community, to accelerating the development and approval of these tests. But, in actuality if we don't get them into patients' hands, what is the point of all of our hard work? So, we added the word "accessibility." Today, we have these 66 different organizations that collaborate, essentially, to compete. They’re pulling together projects and deliverables in about ten different working group areas to contribute products to the liquid biopsy community to help accelerate those three things. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for explaining that. That seems like a very important initiative.  Now, when you say that you’re contributing data, does it mean that different companies and entities are contributing patient-level data so that you can pool that and assess what is the utilization, what is the utility, what is the payer-related aspects, coverage aspects. Is that all part of the initiative?  Lauren Leiman: It is. We started with the idea, which is kind of scary, I think, for a lot of different companies: Are you willing to submit your protocols essentially, pre-analytical data? I think, much to the FDA's surprise, I was kind of, “Of course, everyone should be willing to do this, they should absolutely do this, it’ll be really exciting. Why wouldn’t they?” And I think others were a little skeptical that these companies who are highly competitive including Emma's company, Guardant, would be willing to contribute data. And in fact, Guardant is probably one of the first ones, first two at the table to actually submit their data which was just extremely exciting. And the data was around mostly protocols and pre-analytical variables, what tube types are you using? As we moved on, our pharmaceutical partners did submit full clinical trials with deidentified patient data, which was extremely exciting.   Today, our Data Commons sits in two different areas or visibilities for our members. One is membership-only data that only our members can see, so have been been contributed by them potentially sometimes for certain projects we’re working on. And then we also have an open segment of our Data Commons that’s open to the public, that includes published data and studies that anyone can take a look at and see. Our goal is to continue to open up all of our data over time, so that anyone can take a look at it. We are, I think, the leading liquid biopsy repository.  As we move into the future though, I think because we are mostly an organization that has pharmaceutical companies and diagnostic partners, we are company driven, aggregating large sums of research data is not necessarily their goal. And so to try to identify an area of mutually beneficial interests for everyone, I do think that over the next year or two, you’ll see a potential shift or pivot in the use of Data Commons to where the industry is today which is probably, hopefully a little bit more coverage focused. How do we pivot from being a source of aggregated research to a source of identifying and approving the value of liquid biopsy to the full community? And again, that’s for the full spectrum all the way through payers and the coverage of these tests, which I do think would add a tremendous amount of value to everyone on the life cycle of this industry but would also add a tremendous amount of value for access in getting these tests into patients’ hands.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Of course, you importantly covered a bunch of different concepts. One is data democratization, which is extremely important in the current day and age for different people in the public domain if they have access to data, they can do a lot of interesting and important things and add to the overall understanding of what we know or don't know in this space of liquid biopsy utilization. And then, of course, the aspect of disparities and coverage assessments.  Now, going to Emma, for the sake of our listeners, some of them are trainees, and many of them are oncologists, perhaps many are patients. What is the current landscape for liquid biopsies? Where do we use them, and what are the general approaches and principles of where things stand?  Dr. Emma Alme: That's a great question, and it really spans the cancer care continuum. And I think the space where it's most established is in the advanced cancer stage for therapy selection. So that's where we actually have some even FDA approved assays for liquid biopsy, with Guardant 360 test being one of them. It's comprehensive genomic profiling to identify actionable biomarkers to get patients on targeted therapy. So that's where it's really been integral to precision medicine. And we're seeing an increase in utilization of liquid biopsy as the technology becomes more established. It's not just in cases where tissue is insufficient now. Most recently, we've seen NCCN guidelines and non-small cell lung cancer change for concurrent testing for liquid biopsies. So that's been an exciting trend in adoption.   And then as you move across the cancer care continuum, there's residual disease monitoring and response, where we can actually use ctDNA to look at a patient's response to therapy, even after surgery - is there still ctDNA there? Instead of just having imaging as an option, we can actually look sooner to see how the patient is responding and if there is still cancer present. So that's a really exciting place where we're seeing growth in liquid biopsy. And then moving even earlier, before a patient even has cancer, there's a tremendous opportunity for liquid biopsy in early cancer detection. I think that's something that has been previously discussed on this podcast and we see it a lot in popular media. But it's not just for multi-cancer, we have the opportunity for single cancer as well liquid biopsy tests in cancer screening.  That's a really exciting space, really thinking about the accessibility of these tests. Because a lot of cancer screening modalities today are hard for a lot of patients to access. And it requires going to a medical facility. So if the first step is a blood test, that really opens that up to communities that traditionally have been left out of screening. So I think there's a huge opportunity there, not just when we’re thinking about screening for cancers that don't have screening modalities currently, but also screening for those that do, where maybe a first non-invasive step can really open the door to patients who don’t have access.  So it's a long answer to say that, really, it's across the entire cancer care continuum. We see a lot of opportunity here for liquid biopsy to be a way to advance the field but also increase access for patients who have been left out of precision medicine. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I think access is definitely the focus here. And I can give you my example. So I do early phase drug development and I do a lot of research in liquid biopsies and ctDNA monitoring. In the center of care, I treat people with lung cancer also and there have been instances, probably about a year or a year and a half back, where a patient could not come to the clinic. The clinic wasn’t done and on my to-do list for that individual patient, I put in ctDNA testing just to remind me when I see the patient, to get it done. But the patient didn't make it to the clinic. Surprisingly enough, mobile phlebotomy was available. And later I came to know that this is something that can be done and provided to the patient at their home and you can still get the same results, which was very surprising in a good way. And it did help in making some treatment decisions for some patients who, sometimes in a state like Oklahoma, which is where I am based, we have a significant rural population and people drive six hours for some of our trials, especially the early phase trials. And then if you tell them, “Well, if you don't make this appointment, XYZ cannot get done,” it doesn't necessarily change things for them. So something of this sort definitely helps. Now, going to Lauren, I noticed this interesting sentence in the article, "fork in the road," where you describe, based on the current practices and policies, in the direction that we're going in, we can either increase or deepen the divide and disparities or decrease it. Could you tell us a little bit more about what currently exists on the disparity side and how do you see us narrowing that gap in the near future and implementing something that is equitable? Lauren Leiman: What's exciting about this paper is I think as we are talking about trying to condense this discussion down to something that’s really digestible for everyone in the community, there are six barriers that we’ve identified. And I also should start by saying the working group that we have within BloodPAC that wrote this paper is intended to look at two different areas. One is that broadly, liquid biopsy still isn't available for the majority of the population domestically here in the US so that’s a problem. In addition, it's clearly not available in underserved areas, and that's an even deeper divide. So we're kind of at this fork in the road because it's not broadly accessible to the majority of patients today. And so we have this moment in time where we're able to make a decision to bring everyone along with us, which is very exciting but also will take a lot of work. And these six barriers that the paper identifies, I think are very clearly articulated. They are: lack of uncertainty around test performance, the lack of familiarity with this technology, inconsistent payer coverage is an issue, mistrust of the medical establishment - especially in underserved areas, fear of discrimination in seeking this kind of technology, and the difficulty with terminology.  I think that the whole liquid biopsy community has a role to play in addressing these six areas. I think that BloodPAC, in particular, as a consortium and a collaborative process for 66 different organizations that work in the field, we have a role to play, most certainly in helping to address specifically some of these areas. We have working groups that specifically address reimbursement and policy, so that would obviously fall into payer coverage of these tests. We have working groups creating lexicons both in the molecular residual disease area, as well as our multi-cancer early detection areas. So creating terminology and lexicons that are consistent across the entire community and also digestible for patients, which is really important. And so mitigating these barriers is going to be a collaborative process across all stakeholders in the liquid biopsy field. And I think BloodPAC is uniquely positioned to address many of these  because of our diverse stakeholders and membership, which is exciting. But I do think that this is the perfect moment in time now to start addressing these challenges, and we shouldn't wait much longer, as we think through how we can bring everyone along with us and make sure we're not leaving anyone behind. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: As this entity or consortium, as you call it BloodPAC, has moved forward, this is a question for both of you, Emma and Lauren. Emma, I guess you can start. How were things five years back? What are some of the things that you have been able to achieve, and where do you potentially see the next five years? Dr. Emma Alme: I think we have made a lot of strides on the coverage side when it comes to advanced cancer testing for liquid biopsy. By no means are we there by any stretch of imagination, but we're starting to see some coverage adoption, which does make a huge difference because at the end of the day, that’s so important to ensure equitable access. Especially when we're talking about a technology that has the potential to close some of the barriers in precision medicine because of the fact that you don’t need access to some of the medical facilities, as you pointed out earlier, rural patients don’t have access to. Because transportation is not necessarily a barrier here the way it is for some for some of these other treatment aspects. But if you don’t have consistent pay or coverage, that’s a place where you’re really going to see drop off in terms of patients not getting equitable care and not getting standard of care as liquid biopsy enters into that realm.  The increase we've seen in private payers adopting coverage, the way we see Medicare coverage for advanced cancer liquid biopsy, is encouraging. We've seen states adopt legislation to require coverage of biomarker testing, that’s passed in 15 states now, thanks to the work of the American Cancer Society and a broad coalition of stakeholders. I think that’s beginning to make a difference, but we have a long road to go. We still, on the MRD side, that’s just emerging. And so one space where we have some recommendations on this is continued evidence generation - continue to gather that clinical utility data that will support payer adoption increasing on the advanced cancer side, but then moving across that cancer care continuum to those other types of liquid biopsy tests. I think that’s hugely important and there’s a role for BloodPAC to play in that as well, especially in making sure that we bring everyone to the table to have these conversations on what is the evidence that, we need to generate, what should that look like, what are the standards to ensure that everyone feels confident in these tests. That’s one area that we’re really excited to see.  And I also think another space is on the diversity in clinical trials. It's so important to make sure that when we are bringing these tests to market, the data that we gather to support that is representative of all patients who can benefit. It is so important to make sure that the tests work, but also to build confidence in all of the people who are going to get these tests and feel like, “Okay. I know that this test works for patients that look like me, too.” And so that is something that at Guardant we are working really hard on. We read out our clinical trial, ECLIPSE, for our blood based test screening for colorectal cancer a little over a year ago, and we were really happy to be able to say that our trial was representative of the US population, particularly for Black Americans, where colorectal cancer incidence is increasing, 30% to 40% higher rates of mortality, in Black patients than White patients for CRC. So it’s especially important to make sure that the population is representative in the clinical trial of the patients who will benefit.   And I think we are seeing companies increasingly realize their responsibility in that space and it’s something that we can all really prioritize moving forward with things like making sure transportation is accessible to patients, making sure that clinical trial materials are accessible, culturally sensitive in a broad set of languages. There are a lot of different activities. You have mentioned mobile phlebotomy earlier, that can be incorporated into trials working with community centers and not just academic medical centers to ensure that the trials are taking place close to where patients live and work. This is a tractable problem and I think we’ve made a lot of headway in the five years. But looking to the future, there's still a lot more we can do together to ensure that work continues. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: All excellent points. And I completely agree with you. Bringing the trial to the patient is more important and likely to lead to better outcomes than the patient driving six hours to a facility to come on for trial.  So, the question for Lauren that I have from a physician or scientist standpoint, is what gets covered or does not get covered is not necessarily that I know about in my daily clinic of 15-20 patients. What is the difference between different states having different coverage policies for something like this? If it's the same payer in state A and the same payer in state B, why is the coverage policy in state B different from that in state A? And what are some of the things we can do locally and at a national level to help bridge some of these disparities and gaps? Lauren Leiman: I'm going to hand that question over to Emma. This is her bread and butter.  Dr. Emma Alme: That is such a great question, and I wish I had a more satisfactory answer for you. The reality is that when it comes to diagnostics, coverage is really a patchwork, compared to when we think about drugs whether it’s FDA approved, we expect to be covered. With diagnostics, it's really up to the insurer. And I keep going back to the advanced cancer space because that’s where we see the broadest coverage because it has been around the longest. But we see broad coverage from Medicare for these types of tests. But, for private payers, it's really a patchwork. We see a lot of payers only just starting to cover these tests, maybe where there's a CDX indication with an FDA-approved drug we see it, but not more broadly for tumor profiling. Especially not for the larger, more expensive comprehensive genomic profiling panels that are more expensive. I think you can extrapolate the obvious reasons why that might be. But, as this is being moving into NCCN guidelines, we see very slow adoption by some private payers.  And you touched on the legislation in different states. This coalition on American Cancer Society has been spearheading is trying to pass state-level legislation that will align coverage with a strong, robust set of evidence, and that’s an FDA-approved companion diagnostic indication, medicare coverage, whether it's an NCD National Coverage Determination, a Local Coverage Determination, or National Clinical Practice Guidelines like NCCN, so really a robust set of evidence. And so this is resonating with state legislators across the country where we are seeing that take off in 15 states. But the political climate is different in different states so there are differences in terms of which state will adopt this, some of the differences are in language that they put into this. But even now that these are passing, we're seeing differential implementation, some plans are not necessarily reading this legislation and saying, “Okay, I have to cover all the tests that Medicare covers.” They are thinking that maybe they have some agency to put on other medical necessity criteria. So I think there’s a lot that will play out on the individual state level to see how this nets out. But it’s really kind of how different insurance companies and plans are interpreting these mandates, are interpreting guidelines, etc.  But you touched on the differences between the states and one of the things that has actually been shown in data from the precision medicine coalition is that even when you change insurance coverage for one individual plan, it doesn’t necessarily translate into adoption in the direct correlation that you would expect. And part of that is because it’s such a patchwork and it’s so chaotic. Providers don’t necessarily know for their patients which plan will cover, which one won’t. They’re very hesitant to subject their patients to out of pocket costs and so you get providers being reticent to order liquid biopsy just because of this coverage landscape. And so there really is that need not just to go step by step but get broader coverage for these patients across the board.  And so I think the long term vision is can we get to a change at the federal level. That’s hard compared to the state level. It’s a long road ahead. That’s why I started this with I don’t have a satisfactory answer. There is still a lot of chaos ahead even though we made some progress along the way. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I completely agree. Lots of things to do together. But, in my daily role as a physician or a scientist, I come across situations where a patient's situation was denied for liquid biopsy, then the company went and appealed or insurance doesn’t want to pay for it, and then they ask for peer-to-peer review, which is a lot of time and energy on the provider’s side, the physician's side, even for as simple as a CAT scan for cancer, let alone a liquid biopsy. I started thinking at that time, is there a scenario where if I were ordering a Guardant or a foundation or any liquid biopsy for that matter, can they not provide additional support where I don’t have to do a peer to peer and I can spend time and energy concentrating on the more important patient issues that are right in front of me, rather than having to wait for an insurance company to call me at a certain time of the day where I may or may not be available and then having to reschedule the call and spend another 30 minutes to them explaining. So I don’t know if you guys on the other side of the aisle also think about some of these issues, but could that be a scenario that could potentially be implemented in the near future?  Dr. Emma Alme: Yes, absolutely. This is something that we at Guardant think about a lot. One of the challenges is that, as a laboratory offering liquid biopsy, you are an ancillary provider, and so I think you touched on it, a lot of this role falls to you as the physician to secure prior authorization and to be the patient’s advocate. And not all plans – this is often true for Medicare Advantage – allow the laboratory to be the one to, for example, initiate prior authorization and provide the medical necessity information to make sure that that test is approved by the insurance company, and then to be the advocate for that patient in appeal process as you mentioned. And I think there is a lot of education that needs to happen among policymakers to make some tweaks to this process to ensure that the patient can have access, that the laboratory can be involved in the process where it makes sense, to smooth out this process.   And exactly right, I think you touched on a place where it is a huge burden for providers. There are places where the laboratory is best equipped to move the patient through that process and there's a lot of red tape that we can help overcome. And that's not specific to liquid biopsy. I think that's true across the diagnostics industry. But you're exactly right that it is another hurdle to access is if this is a process that has a lot of red tape. So I'm pleased to hear you think about this the same way.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I'm glad you guys are having those conversations, having conversations is the first important step to make a change in the near future.  If there's a patient listening out there and that patient has gotten a recent bill of $5,000 for liquid biopsy, what are some of the steps that you would like to highlight for them from a patient standpoint so that they can advocate for themselves? And should they talk to the physician in the company? Should they directly approach the company to not have that additional financial toxicity in situations where it may not be covered?   Lauren Leiman: I would 100% encourage those patients to please reach out to the company. I can only speak for Guardant but we have a patient access program. Our team calls any patient that's going to have more than $100 out of pocket because our goal at Guardant is to make sure that patients have access to the testing they need to inform their treatment and get the best possible care. I think we're all aligned across these companies across both- like we want to make sure that we are lowering the burden for cancer patients. There's already so much stress on these patients initiating treatment. They don't need to have the added stress of battling insurance. So we're here to help and no patient should be on their own in that space. So please tell your patients to reach out to the company in those instances, but I would hope that they would already have gotten outreach from the company in the first place. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I often discuss with some of my colleagues about the financial burden of cancer care, unfortunately, that people tend to have. And I remember this scenario a couple of months back where a patient of mine, when I sat down in the clinic room, they had this big, thick folder with them. And after I finished the discussion about what was going on with the cancer, they said, "Could you help figure this out?" And they opened this folder. It had so many bills, and one of the bills was obviously a liquid biopsy bill. And that was my understanding, too, that there is a lot of resources available to these people. And eventually things worked out. The company took the cost of whatever was not being covered by the insurance. But again, you touched upon an aspect in the article about educating the physicians, the providers. I think definitely a lot of work needs to be done there so that the patients can advocate for themselves and the healthcare providers can advocate for the patients, too, like having those checks and balances and those resources present and in the institutions where these people get cared for or knowing what's the right way to channelize these issues and to whom within the companies, so that all of this gets taken care within a timely period, so that the patient doesn't come back with the same issue six months later, “I still have this bill,” that even if it's being sent to the patient or their family by mistake, it does add a lot of psychological pressure.   So I think a lot of things potentially need to be done in that space, and hopefully you guys are still doing that and continue to do that, make progress in that space to help mitigate and alleviate some of that patient level burden, which is extremely crucial in their care. Lauren Leiman: I think what's interesting about what we're looking at now is BloodPAC is thinking through these financial challenges, the coverage challenges for someone who's probably made it to an academic center to access these tests to begin with. And so to go back a little bit in the conversation, I think there still are challenges, which I'd love to hear more about from the experience of a clinician. But we have talked about, does mobile phlebotomy access everyone? Is it capable of providing access for everyone? I don't know. There's new technologies that we are looking at, like home blood collection. Most of the companies that we work with right now, they're not getting enough quantity. The quantity isn't there. But is that something that we should be pursuing? Because as you've already said, people drive six hours, and sometimes you can't make that drive. And sometimes a mobile phlebotomy lab is not able to get those six hours away. There’s a limit on how far they can go. That's a huge challenge.  I'm also fascinated by the idea that if you were to eliminate coverage as an issue, so if we were to say we're offering tests for free, is there still the educational barrier, the understanding barrier that we are not putting enough emphasis on? I don't know the answer to that question. I think there is a large element to that, though. And I think that when you say education, I have asked colleagues, "Okay, guys, who are we educating? Are we educating the clinician on specific tests? Are we educating the community health worker somewhere else outside of an academic center? Are we educating the patients themselves? Do they need to really understand exactly what this kind of futuristic technology is and what it can do for them?" Those are a lot of permutations of what if, what if, what if, what is the barrier? And so to take a step back, the reality is for that big bucket of individuals that I talked about at first, yes, coverage is going to be the primary barrier for them. But if you were to remove that barrier for some individuals, I think you still have a lot of challenges left ahead of you, which is essentially what the paper is saying. But I think that that is the really big question that I still have in my mind. If we can eliminate coverage, what's left and how do we address it? Dr. Rafeh Naqash: To that point, I would like to add also- you pointed out educational barriers and there's definitely educational barriers on the provider side also, physicians, whether it's academic or community, that's a different discussion altogether. And this is not just one example, but this is an example that I'm giving because there's several other examples similar I've seen where somebody gets a liquid biopsy done in the community setting, or maybe even in an academic setting somewhere else. And somebody like me who deals with some of these results, I do a lot of precision medicine, I do a lot of genomics, but that's not everybody's interest or forte. That's not something that everybody's necessarily interested in or I try to read each and every detail in a report and understand implications, and not everybody necessarily thinks that that's the best utilization of their time. And I have identified a lot of patients that have been in the system within our state or outside our state where liquid biopsy two years back showed a certain potential germline mutation with a very high variant allele frequency and never got any germline testing. And then I see the patient and I start connecting the dots and the patient gets germline testing done - patients is positive, children are positive, children get XYZ procedures done as part of surveillance or mitigation strategies to prevent future cancers, which again, prevention is cure. At the end of the day, you catch something earlier, as we all know, higher chances for cure.  So I think that part of education, we still need to do a lot more on educating the providers, the physicians, or making it somewhat easy, like is there a way that, well, if you have a potential finding of a germline mutation, let's say on a report, instead of just mentioning the potential of germline mutations, maybe we can go to the next level and offer free germline testing and free genetic counseling and make sure that you communicate with that provider versus the responsibility being on the provider or the physician that, “Hey, did you read this carefully? Did you miss something? Did you not miss something?” This is something I have come across and we’re actually doing a project right now looking at some of that and analyzing the data and the percentage is pretty significant, and hopefully, if and when the results of that project are published, you will understand how much of a difference it actually can make in the lives of patients and their families to catch something early.  Dr. Emma Alme: I think you raise a really good point and your example of germline testing along with tumor profiling is a good example of the kinds of questions that we'll encounter as liquid biopsy moves across that cancer care continuum. So I think we do have to be thinking about what kind of education will we be giving to providers for how they integrate, for example, MRD liquid biopsy testing with standard of care imaging, what does that patient management process look like? On the early cancer screening side, what happens when you get a positive test for a patient? What does that diagnostic workup look like? Especially when there isn't necessarily a standard of care screening pathway- isn't a diagnostic pathway. Whose responsibility is that? There are so many outstanding questions through how we think about provider education across this board that really will take all stakeholders together to really formulate what this looks like.  I think you raise a really good point. Right now, I think we all have more questions than answers, but I think it's an important place for us all to be working really hard on right now, to ensure that this doesn't roll out in a way where there is confusion, especially where the providers offering liquid biopsy, maybe primary care physicians who aren't necessarily, as you said, going to be well versed in the literature on liquid biopsy, thinking about these tests report the way that you are right now. There's a lot of work to be done there. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Absolutely. It was a pleasure talking to both of you about the science, logistics, and payer aspects. A couple of quick minutes on both of you as individuals. I like to start with you, Lauren, can you tell me briefly, what's your background? How did that background connect to what you're doing today? And what else have you learned in this process? Lauren Leiman: Sure. I am Lauren Leiman. I’m the Executive Director of BlooPAC. My backgrounds are primarily in communications and business and developing collaborations that are mutually beneficial for all participants. I have worked in finance. I've worked in Africa for many years for an economist and really decided during that time that health care and health initiatives were really what interests me and ended up working in a melanoma foundation for many, many years, developing interesting collaborations between academic institutions and funding formats, and took that to the White House for the first White House Cancer Moonshot as the Head of External Partnerships, and work towards identifying collaborations between different government agencies and different companies, as well as straight corporate commitments to the Cancer Moonshot, which was “a decade of progress in half the time”, the mission statement.  And having worked in melanoma for a while and working at the Moonshot, I'd heard about this liquid biopsy technology. It's out there and I thought it was pretty cool. I have melanoma in my family, and was like, wouldn't it be really interesting if you could get your blood drawn and just tell me if I have melanoma as opposed to kind of scanning my body every six months? And my colleague Jerry Lee, at the time kind of dropped a ream of paper on my desk and said, “Read this.” So I'm neither MD nor PhD, I’m a lowly MBA, who went home and read through everything and came back and said, “You don’t have a science problem. You have the collaboration problem, you need to work together, you need to share your data and share your information, which was kind of the birthplace I guess for BloodPAC - could we again, aggregate our data, bringing together these experts in the field to help accelerate the development and approval and accessibility of these technologies. That is my background. Again, an interest in things, going back to Africa and the time I spent there, I'm heavily interested in underserved populations, not just domestically but globally. My hope is that eventually BloodPAC starts really engaging in how do we increase access for all to these really exciting new tests? I do receive, BloodPAC and I as the executive director, receive calls probably once a month from different startups around the world saying, “Good luck with all your $500 test. I want a $5 test, how are we going to get there?” Which you know, I think is the absolute goal for everyone. But slowly but surely, I think we are going to work towards increasing access for all not just domestically here and not just underserved populations here in the US, but hopefully locally as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you, Lauren. Same question to you, Emma. Could you tell us about your background and how it led to your current work and some of the things you learned? Dr. Emma Alme: Absolutely, my background began on the science side. I did a PhD in biochemistry at UCSF University of California, San Francisco. About halfway through my PhD, which I think is a realization many have, I discovered that I loved talking about science and thinking about science and reading about science, but it would be okay if I didn't have to pick up a pipette again. At the time, I was so invigorated by all of the research going on around me but realized that, similar to what Lauren said, it wasn't the science that was the barrier in a lot of cases of this research really reaching patients and changing their care. There were so many policy barriers that were standing in the way of that that I felt like I really wanted to help tackle and so I was fortunate in the fact that there are a lot of fellowships out there for PhDs in science to move into policy roles and serve as science advisors, so I did a smattering of those all around DC. I worked at the National Academy of Science. I worked at NIH and then I went to Congress, where I was a Health Policy Fellow for Anna Eshoo and got to interact with so many different companies in the biotech space and learn about all of their amazing technology, including liquid biopsy that folks were working on where there again, were so many barriers to adoption, where there were policy solutions, and I got really excited to work on that. It was the perfect nexus of my background and biochemistry and genetics and health policy.  And so the opportunity came up to work on policy for Guardant who was really thinking about those issues. And so I jumped at the chance to spend all of my time thinking about how do we increase access for patients? How do we make sure that this innovation actually gets into their hands through changes in coverage and reimbursement? And also thinking about most of the things that we've been talking about today - diversity in clinical trials, how we brought in education for patients and providers. So it's been a really exciting space to work in. It's been super fun to get to help the Guardant work with BloodPAC and I think it's an amazing group of collaborators that brings me a little bit back to my academic roots in terms of enjoying the kind of conversations that all these folks have together as we think about standards. That's been a really exciting place for me to sit in the health policy world combining all of that experience together. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much. It looks like all of you within the BloodPAC and perhaps outside the BloodPAC are people driven by a common vision and mission and hopefully will succeed in all of those things that you're trying to achieve. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk to you guys and thank you for publishing in JCO Precision Oncology. Hopefully we'll see more of your work with regards to implementation and some of the next steps that you're taking and perhaps even the data for some of these studies that you're combining together, within JCO Precision Oncology in the near future. Dr. Emma Alme: Thank you so much for having us.  Lauren Leiman: Thank you.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don’t forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode.  You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guests’ statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Leiman COIs: Stock and Other Ownership Interests:Company: Illumina Company: Eli lillyAlme COIs:Employment: Company: Guardant Health  Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Company: Guardant Health  

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Mitchell Elliot provides a summary on "Prediction of Benefit From Adjuvant Pertuzumab by 80-Gene Signature in the APHINITY (BIG 4-11) Trial," by Krop, et al published on January 18th, 2024. TRANSCRIPT Mitchell Elliott: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Mitchell Elliott, an ASCO Journal Editorial Fellow. Today, I will be providing a summary of the article titled "Prediction of Benefit from Adjuvant Pertuzumab by 80-Gene Signature in the APHINITY (BIG 4-11) Trial" by Dr. Ian Krop on behalf of the APHINITY Steering Committee and Investigators. HER2 epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive, or HER2 positive breast cancer is characterized by overexpression of the HER2 protein. HER2 is an extracellular receptor that binds with itself and other proteins on the cell surface to facilitate rapid growth and division of cancer cells. Historically, HER2 positive breast cancer carried a worse prognosis than other subtypes. Anti-HER2 therapy with the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy has been shown to significantly improve clinical outcomes. Pertuzumab, another anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, binds to a different site on the HER2 protein and has been shown to further disrupt HER2 signaling and improve clinical outcomes. Primary results from the APHINITY trial, this trial, served as the basis for dual HER2 blockade, combining trastuzumab and pertuzumab with chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting. This data helped establish dual HER2 blockade as the standard of care in many jurisdictions around the world. Understanding patients who do not derive benefit from the additional anti-HER2 therapy is paramount for delivering personalized and effective care while minimizing treatment-related side effects. Understanding the underlying biology of patients who do not drive a response may provide insight into areas of future drug development and integration of novel therapies into future clinical trials. The clinical definition of HER2 positivity encompasses those that are most likely to have HER2-driven tumors, but previous work has demonstrated that this clinical-pathologic definition does not accurately reflect the molecular heterogeneity of this subtype. These authors completed a translational secondary analysis of the phase III APHINITY trial using nested case-control methods with RNA-seq data derived from primary tumors of patients enrolled in this trial. Both the MammaPrint and Blueprint classifiers are commercially available assays run on microarray data using previously published and validated gene sets. MammaPrint classifies tumors as high or low risk, while Blueprint classifies tumors into luminal, basal-like, or HER2 subtypes. Luminal A tumors are MammaPrint low risk luminal classification, while luminal B tumors are classified as MammaPrint high risk with conventional luminal classification. In order to facilitate these analyses, RNA-seq data was converted into pseudo microarray-based sequencing using a bridge study from an independent cohort of 75 patients. Conventional Blueprint scores for luminal type, HER2 type, or basal type were calculated for each sample. The subtype with the highest score of the three was the conventional subtype reported for the tumor. The Blueprint subtype was further sub-stratified as a single-activated or dual-activated subtype. Single-activated samples represented the dominant enriched pathway in each tumor, while dual-activated subtypes were assigned if there was no statistical difference between the two dominant pathways. The primary endpoint was invasive disease-free survival, IDFS, and was stratified by genomic subtype and treatment arm. IDFS was defined as the time from treatment random assignment until the date of first recurrence of ipsilateral invasive breast tumor, recurrence of ipsilateral local-regional invasive disease, distant disease recurrence, contralateral invasive breast cancer, or death from any cause. Patients without an event at the last follow-up date were censored. The median follow-up time was 45.4 months. 964 patients were evaluated for MammaPrint and Blueprint subtypes. One patient was excluded as they were low risk by MammaPrint. The final cohort included 963 patients in this nested case-control study with IHC/FISH-defined HER2 positive tumors. Two-thirds of the patients were hormone receptor positive. Most patients were over the age of 35, 83% had lymph node involvement, and 83% of patients received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. Blueprint classified 50% of patients as luminal B type, 28% as HER2 positive, and 22% as basal type. Most of the luminal B tumors were single-pathway activated, while only around 50% of HER2 type and basal type tumors had single-activated pathways. Similar clinical and treatment characteristics were observed between the conventional Blueprint subtypes as well as the single and dual-activated subtypes. Nested case-control inverse probability-weighted corrected multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed no significant difference in IDFS among the different conventional Blueprint subtypes. Conventional Blueprint subtypes were also not prognostic of benefit from the addition of pertuzumab. The authors then investigated whether there was a significant difference in IDFS in patients with only single gene pathway activation. Interestingly, patients classified as Blueprint basal single-activated subtypes were more likely to have an IDFS event, with a hazard ratio of 1.69 and a 95% confidence interval of 1.12 to 2.54. This captures the worst prognosis of molecularly defined basal-like tumors, remembering that all of the patients included in this cohort were, by ASCO-CAP guidelines, HER2 positive. In comparing the benefit from the addition of pertuzumab amongst the patients with single-activated subtype, there was no significant improvement in IDFS events with the addition of pertuzumab. There was a non-significant numerical benefit with the addition of pertuzumab in HER2 single subtype, suggesting that patients with dominant HER2-related signaling may derive more benefit from this combination therapy. To help account for confounding variables, multivariate analyses were pursued to correct for routine clinical factors such as age, nodal status, hormone receptor status, as well as the use of anthracycline in addition to the conventional and single-activated pathway subtypes. Of all the clinical factors included in these analyses, only nodal status was significantly associated with IDFS in all of the conventional and single-activated subtypes. This reflects the important consideration of both clinical and genomic risk in patient assessment, as both have strong implications on treatment outcomes. In summary, Blueprint HER2 tumors, which consist of both single and dual pathway-activated tumors, did not clearly distinguish those who derived pertuzumab benefit. There was a further non-significant benefit noted in HER2 single pathway-activated tumors. This suggests that tumors with multiple mitogenic pathways may have an inferior response to HER2 targeted therapy compared to single-activated tumors. Overall, this article presents further insight into the molecular heterogeneity within the clinical-pathologic defined HER2 positive breast cancer subtype. The use of a commercially available gene signature assay was able to distinguish a subset of patients with a worse overall clinical outcome regardless of treatment received. Further analyses are required to validate and assess the utility in deploying this strategy in the treatment of patients with early HER2 positive breast cancer, but there is a suggestion that the 80-gene signature may refine patient selection, optimize treatment planning, and improve long-term outcomes for this patient population. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights, and please tune in for the next topic. Don't forget to give us a rating and review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

JCO PO author Dr. Eric Klein shares insights into his JCO PO article, “Performance of a Cell-Free DNA-Based Multi-Cancer Detection Test in Individuals Presenting with Symptoms Suspicious for Cancers” Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Klein discuss how a multi-cancer detection test may facilitate workup and stratification of cancer risk in symptomatic individuals. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Social Media Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma.   Today, we are excited to be joined by Dr. Eric Klein, Emirates Professor and Chair at the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. Dr. Klein is also a distinguished scientist at Grail and author of the JCO Precision Oncology article titled "Performance of a Cell-free DNA-based Multi-cancer Detection Test in Individuals Presenting with Symptoms Suspicious for Cancer."   Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript.  For the sake of our conversation today, we'll refer to each other using our first names. It's great to have you here today, Eric, and welcome to our podcast.  Dr. Eric Klein: Thanks, Rafeh. I'm happy to be here. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So today, we're going to try to delve into this very interesting paper. We've had a couple of very interesting podcasts on liquid biopsies, or plan to have a few more. And this is a different aspect of liquid biopsy assessment, and the context here is early cancer detection. Now, the story as it starts, is based on the methylation profile of cancer. Can you tell us, for the sake of our listeners, as we have a very broad audience ranging from trainees to community academic oncologists, what do you understand by methylation profile on a cancer? Dr. Eric Klein: Sure. Happy to start with that. There are lots of cancer signals in the blood. Cancer cells secrete or otherwise supply the bloodstream with DNA that has methylation signals that are specific to cancer. That's a hallmark of cancer-specific mutations. You can look at chromosome fragments, you can look at proteins and mRNA and exosomes and that sort of thing. In Grail's development study, we focused on using methylation because that, as I mentioned, is a fundamental process. A fundamental property of cancer cells is altered methylation. And in our original development studies, that was the strongest signal, the one that allowed us to have the lowest limit of detection when cancer was present, and the one that allowed us to have the best predictive accuracy for the cancer signal origin. Some people think about that as predicting the tumor origin or the tumor type. And that's the basis of Grail's assay, a pan-cancer methylation profile. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. And now to understand some of the methodology that you used here, before we go into the details because there's a lot of sensitivity and specificity obviously associated with any cancer detection test, and you want a high sensitivity and specificity. And the idea here is that this would help in triaging patients appropriately using this non-invasive tool. Could you tell us the patient population that you were trying to enroll in this study? And I think there is, again, background to other studies that you have done using the Grail test. Could you put that into context of this specific study?  Dr. Eric Klein: Sure. The population in this particular publication was from substudy 3 of a much bigger study called the Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas, or CCGA. That was a discovery, refinement, and validation study of this methylation-based signal. And in total, all three substudies together was about 15,000 people, and it was a case-control study. About 10,000 of the individuals enrolled had cancer and about 5000 were not known to have cancer and served as controls. In the first part of the study, substudy 1 of CCGA, we simply asked the question: In individuals with known cancer, could we detect a methylation-based signal? And the answer was ‘yes’. The second question was: In patients not known to have cancer, did we not see a signal? And by and large, the answer was ‘yes’. The second substudy was a refinement and validation of the original methylation-based test. And then this study, what we refer to colloquially as CCGA3, or substudy 3 of CCGA, was the final validation that underlies the methylation assay that is currently on the market.   So, in CCGA3, we determined what the performance characteristics of this test were in a case-control fashion, and what we found, importantly, was that the specificity was very high, at 99.5%, which means the false-positive rate is only half a percent. We found that the overall sensitivity for detecting cancer varied by stage, but when you included all stages 1 to 4, the overall sensitivity for detecting known cancers was about 51%. We found that the ability of this methylation-based test to predict the correct cancer signal origin was right around 90%. And finally, the final performance characteristic was really important, which is the positive predictive value. So in individuals who had a positive signal detected, the positive predictive value was 43%, which compares very favorably to existing screening tests, all of which are below 10%.  That was the background, and the development there was focused on eventually developing a test that will screen the general population, the asymptomatic population, at risk for developing cancer. This is a subset of CCGA3, or the substudy 3 of CCGA, where we looked at the performance characteristics of this test in individuals who had symptoms that could possibly be due to cancer and individuals who had underlying medical conditions that could result in a false positive, and individuals in particular over age 65, because the risk of cancer goes up over age 65. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for explaining that. So, again, going to some of the finer details in this study, you mentioned some very important numbers here, 99%, 63%, or something in that range for sensitivity and specificity. Could you explain a little more on that based on the cancer types? As you mentioned, stage 4, when I read the paper, has more true positives likely based on or related to how much cell-free DNA is released in the tumor. The tumor burden may be playing a role there. Could you explain that a little more for our listeners? Dr. Eric Klein: A cancer that sheds cell-free DNA into the bloodstream is more likely to be aggressive, and that's been shown in multiple different studies using multiple different platforms. And the reason for that is that the ability to shed cell-free DNA into the bloodstream goes along with biologic processes that we know are related to tumor aggressiveness. So that's a higher mitotic rate, it's neovascularization or the angiogenic switch, it's the ability to be an invasive cancer. And so the fact that you can detect cell-free DNA in the bloodstream implies some degree of biologic aggressiveness, which is not to say that tumors that shed cell-free DNA into the bloodstream are not curable. They are, in fact, curable at the same rate as cancers in people who are not tested for cell-free DNA. We know that for sure. It's just a signal that is there for us to exploit for the detection of cancers in asymptomatic individuals. And the hope is when we screen the general population, the general asymptomatic population for cancer, as we do with mammography and colonoscopy and PSA and so forth, that we can detect cancers at earlier stages, when they are far easier to cure. So I mentioned in CCGA3 that the overall sensitivity across all stages for detecting the presence of known cancers was 51%. That varied from about 16% for stage 1 cancers to 40% for stage 2 cancers to over 80 and 90% for stage 3 and 4 cancers. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Right. And again, to provide more background to this, what we've come to understand gradually, as you mentioned, is that shedding is an important event in cancer trajectory. Do you think detection of cancers that are likely positive, driver mutation positive, have a lesser tendency to shed and maybe resulting in lesser tendency to earlier detection also, or is that not something that's true?  Dr. Eric Klein: No, I don't think it has anything to do with the presence of driver mutations. The methylation signal that we see is a reflection of the perturbation of methylation in normal cells. So normal cells turn genes on and off using methylation. That's well known. Cancer cells exploit that biologic process of methylation by - in a gross oversimplification, but in a way that makes it understandable - they use methylation to turn off all the genes that prevent cell growth and turn on all the genes that allow cells to proliferate and get all these other biologic properties that make them invasive and so forth. So it's really important to understand that the test that was used in this study and that was developed in CCGA3 measures a shared cancer signal across multiple different cancer types. In CCGA3, we were able to detect more than 50 different individual kinds of cancers. It's a shared cancer signal that is fundamental to the biology of cancers, not just a specific cancer, but cancers.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I see. I think what I was trying to say, basically was, when we do liquid biopsies in the regular standard of care clinic, and you're trying to assess VAFs or variant allele frequencies for a certain mutation, you tend to see some of these BRAFs or EGFRs that are very low VAF, and the data that I've seen is that you treat irrespective of the low VAF, if it's a driving mutation process. If your VAF is 0.1%, you still treat it with a targeted inhibitor. The context that I was trying to put into this is it all depends on shedding. So this liquid biopsy that we currently use, whether other platforms that are out there, if you're not shedding as much cell-free DNA or circulating tumor DNA, you're probably not going to catch that subclone or clone that is a driver. So, does that play a role in your test also? If you have, let's say, a lung cancer that is an EGFR stage 4, if the shedding is low, following a general conceptual context that these driver mutation-positive tumors do have less shedding in general than the non-driver mutation-positive, would you think that would somehow impact the detection using your test or your approach? Dr. Eric Klein: So, generically speaking, any test that looks for a cancer signal in blood is going to have a lower limit of detection. So there are analytic variables that make it such that, if you have extremely low levels of cell-free DNA or your other target shed into the blood, it's not going to be detected by the test. That’s an analytical issue. Having said that, it's important to distinguish the fact that this test that we're developing isn't really a liquid biopsy. A liquid biopsy, really, if you think about it, is on patients who have known cancer, and you’re doing a biopsy of the blood to determine if you can see a signal in the blood. This test has been developed to screen asymptomatic individuals who are at elevated risk of cancer, who actually may not have cancer. So we don't really view it as a liquid biopsy. But conceptually, you are correct that every test is going to have an analytical lower limit of detection so that not every tumor that sheds minuscule amounts of cell-free DNA will be detected. But that's not really relevant to this particular paper, I would say. It’s not really relevant to the performance characteristics that we saw in this population. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Understood. Thank you for differentiating the usual liquid biopsy approach that we use currently in the clinic, and this approach, which is meant more for detection in asymptomatic individuals.  Going to some of the results, could you highlight some of the interesting findings that you had in this paper as far as performance is concerned? Dr. Eric Klein: Sure. Let me put it in a clinical context because we were just discussing asymptomatic individuals. That's what the test is ultimately meant for - screening asymptomatic individuals. But a common problem in oncology is this: patients present to primary care physicians with vague or nonspecific symptoms. Someone with COPD, for example, who presents with a cough, the cough could be due to the COPD, but if they have an underlying lung cancer, the cough could also be due to the lung cancer. Or someone presents with GI symptoms, could be related to cancer, or it could be related to a whole host of other things. And so there is a challenge for primary care physicians to sort out who might have cancer and who does not, particularly if they present with vague symptoms. In fact, most cancer diagnoses in the United States and Great Britain are actually found by primary care providers.   In this paper, we looked retrospectively, after the fact, in CCGA3, the case-control study that we did, to see how this methylation-based test performed in individuals who had symptoms that could be associated with cancer, or could be due to cancer, or might not be, might be due to other things. What we found was that the performance characteristics were as good or better in this symptomatic population, where the physician is facing a diagnostic dilemma, as they were in the asymptomatic population. This is really important, specificity false negative rate across all the patients in the study was the same as it was in CCGA3. It was 99.5%. Again, the false positive rate was only 0.5%. We found, however, that overall sensitivity was better in the symptomatic population, and it was 64% instead of, or as compared to 43% in the asymptomatic population. That is not surprising because some patients who present with symptoms are more likely to have cancer.   We also looked at a subset of patients who had GI cancers because that’s a very, very common presenting symptom in primary care practice, and this test performs exceptionally well for detecting GI cancers. We found that the overall sensitivity was 84%. Finally, and importantly, in terms of the clinical utility of a blood-based test to detect cancer and direct a diagnostic workup, what we call the clinical signal origin accuracy - the likelihood or prediction that a positive signal was related to a particular tumor type - overall accuracy in this population was 90%. So if you had a cancer signal detected and you had a clinical signal of origin assigned to it, let’s say, the test came back with cancer signal detected, the CSO prediction was GI cancer, the overall accuracy in actually finding a GI cancer was 90%. Actually, it was a little higher for GI cancers, but overall, for all cancers, it was 90%. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: You mentioned that GI cancers had a very high sensitivity, around 84% or so. Is that, again, related to the tumor shedding compared to some other tumor types?  Dr. Eric Klein: Yes, there is a broad range of shedding across tumor types. So if you look at our data from CCGA, cancers like thyroid, prostate, and kidney do not shed a lot of cell-free DNA into the bloodstream, whereas GI cancers, hematologic malignancies, ovarian and pancreatic cancers shed much more cell-free DNA, and therefore their sensitivity for detection of those cancers is better.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: What would be the alternate approach? Your sensitivity here is 64%, which is pretty good, but it's not perfect. So the patients who potentially would be missed using this test, what would be the alternate approach capturing those patients also and hopefully avoiding a missed cancer diagnosis?  Dr. Eric Klein: Well, it would be whatever the standard workup is that a primary care physician orders for someone who has vague symptoms. So, he idea here was to develop this, what we call a diagnostic aid for cancer detection in the symptomatic population. The idea here is to make the workups more efficient and to lend a greater degree of certainty as to what the diagnostic pathway ought to be. So, if you have a patient with vague symptoms and you're not sure if they are due to cancer or not, you might order a pretty broad diagnostic evaluation that might not end up finding cancer. In fact, if you take all the patients in a primary care setting, only about 7% of those individuals have cancer. Whereas, if you have a blood test that has a sensitivity of 64% and a positive predictive value of 75%, and you did that blood test early in the diagnostic workup and it was positive, you can do a much more tailored and perhaps a more efficient evaluation in speeding the diagnostic resolution.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: As you mentioned, perhaps avoid unnecessary testing, which adds to the overall cost burden in the healthcare field.   Dr. Eric Klein: Correct. This was tested in another study called SYMPLIFY, which was done in a similar population of patients as this study - symptomatic patients presenting with vague symptoms or GI symptoms or weight loss, fatigue, those sorts of things, to primary care practice in the UK. And that was a prospective study. And the performance characteristics were very similar to what we saw in this study, although the overall positive predictive value in that study was 75% if you look at all cancers. And that would be very useful to a primary care physician and a patient to know what the likelihood of their having cancer is at the time they present or within a few days of presenting. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Absolutely. And perhaps, to complement this approach with some of the other diagnostic approaches, maybe the possibility of detecting cancer earlier increases. So this is likely complementary and not necessarily the one-stop-shop. Dr. Eric Klein: It's important to understand that even in the symptomatic population, this is a screening test. And so, like all screening tests, if you have a positive mammogram that shows a nodule, you need to have a diagnostic workup to prove whether or not you have cancer. This blood test does not make the diagnosis of cancer; it simply helps direct a diagnostic evaluation that’s necessary to confirm whether or not cancer is present or absent. That’s true for both the asymptomatic and symptomatic populations. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Could you tell us a little bit more about the CSO prediction in the general context of oncology and NGS, or the whole transcriptome sequencing that we do these days? We often see on a report that says,“What is the likely tumor of origin?” if you have an unclear primary. Can you explain that in the context of the approach that you guys use for CSO prediction? How does it differ from methylation versus mRNA prediction of tumor of origin or cell of origin?  Dr. Eric Klein: Methylation has a rich signal in it, and it can distinguish cancer cells from a non-cancer signal, and using a second algorithm, specific methylation patterns that are specific to given lineages can identify lung cancer versus colon cancer versus liver cancer.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Understood. Do you see this as becoming an approach that could be used, using, for example, urine or other sources that we can easily acquire versus blood? Dr. Eric Klein: Possibly. There is a lot of work in the field looking at urine-based markers for cancers, particularly, obviously, urologic cancers. And so there are already some products on the market made by other companies using methylation and other specific mutation patterns, for example, in urine to detect bladder cancer and to determine bladder cancer aggressiveness. It is an area of active investigation.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: This is definitely an exciting field, and the way the entire field of liquid biopsies in general is moving as it’s detecting cancers or identifying mutations, and then implementing appropriate approaches, whether it is more screening or more treatment and all the drugs, etc.  Are there any other interesting future approaches that you guys are planning as part of this paradigm shift that I envision will hopefully happen in the next few years?  Dr. Eric Klein: Yes, as a company, Grail is focused on using this methylation-based technology across the entire cancer spectrum. So that’s screening asymptomatic individuals, it’s helping to direct diagnostic workups in individuals who present with symptoms to primary care practice, and also in the post-diagnostic space and all the possible uses there. So the detection of minimal residual disease and the decision on whether or not additional treatment is necessary, predicting response to particular therapeutic agents, or even choosing the correct therapeutic agents. All of that is under development. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely exciting. Now, the last portion of this podcast is specifically meant to highlight your career and know a little bit more about you. Could you tell us about your career trajectory and how you shifted focus towards a biomarker-driven approach?  Dr. Eric Klein: Sure. Biomarkers have been a part of my career for a long time. I am trained as a urologic oncologist and did my residency in urology at the Cleveland Clinic and a fellowship at Sloan Kettering. At the dawn of the molecular biology era, the lab I worked in bought one of the very first PerkinElmer RT PCR machines for $5,000. It took up a whole desktop. I got very interested in genomic science at that time. So I spent well over 30 years practicing urologic oncology at the Cleveland Clinic, primarily focusing on prostate cancer. In the course of my career, I had the opportunity to work on a number of blood-based, urine, and tissue-based biomarkers. I have always been interested in understanding how our ability to measure molecules in blood and urine can help improve patient outcomes either through a streamlined diagnostic process or understanding of the biology of the disease better, picking the appropriate therapy, and so forth.  In the course of that, I worked with someone at a company called Genomic Health in developing  a biopsy-based RT PCR gene expression assay that helped select men for active surveillance. That individual subsequently joined Grail and he came knocking on my door in 2016 when Grail was just getting started to tell me about this exciting new technology. He said, “This isn't about urologic cancers in particular, but would you be interested in helping us accrue patients for this big clinical trial we're doing, CCGA, and determine if this technology would be useful in some way in helping patients.” And being the curious individual that I am, I said, “Sure.” And so I helped accrue lots of patients to CCGA. The results were shared, and I was quite excited by them and continued to work with the company on other studies, including PATHFINDER and some others, and eventually became a consultant for them.  When I reached what I thought was the end of my clinical career by choice, I decided to step away from clinical practice, I had the opportunity to join Grail as a scientist, and that's where it’s been. And what I would say, in the big picture, is this: as a surgeon, I was able to help a lot of patients on an individual basis. So I did about 10,000 major cancer operations in my career. So I helped those 10,000 people. As an academician, I was able to make certain observations and publish them in a way that taught people about different kinds of surgical techniques and how they may work better, and so I was able to expand my impact beyond the patients that I actually touched.  When I heard about and understood what Grail was trying to do, I thought, “Wow, if we could develop a screening test that detects lots of cancers that we don’t screen for - about 70% of all cancer deaths in the US are from cancers that we have no screening tests for - and if the screening population in the United States, individuals between ages 50 and 79, that’s how CMS defined screening populations, well over 100 million a year, if this works, think about the impact that that could have.” That is really why I got excited about it. It fit my scientific interest, and I could see the big picture.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for giving us some insights about your personal career. It is definitely a very interesting topic. I learned a lot, and hopefully, our listeners will find it equally interesting. Thank you again for being here today.  Dr. Eric Klein: My pleasure. Thank you for having me. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to rate and review this podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. It is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   The guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experiences, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not reflect the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.