Areas of Uncertainty in Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance

JCO PO author Dr. Bryson Katona at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine shares insights into his article, “Areas of Uncertainty in Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance: A Survey Across the International Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) Consortium” Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Katona discuss how, given differing guidelines as well as lack of detail about how PC surveillance should be performed, approaches to PC surveillance across centers often differs. TRANSCRIPT 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. Rafeh Naqash, podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Associate Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma. Today, I am thrilled to be joined by Dr. Bryson Katona, Director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Genetics Program and Director of the Lynch Syndrome Program at the Penn Medicine's Abramson Cancer Center, and also lead author of the JCO PO article entitled "Areas of Uncertainty in Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance: A Survey Across the International Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection or PRECEDE Consortium." Bryson, thanks for joining us again. Dr. Bryson Katona: Well, thank you so much for having me. I appreciate the opportunity. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: It is exciting to see that this work will be presented concurrently with the upcoming CGA meeting. Dr. Bryson Katona: Yes, it has been a fantastic partnership between JCO PO and the CGA-IGC and their annual meeting. And for those who may not be familiar, the CGA-IGC is the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer. It is basically a professional organization dedicated to individuals who have hereditary GI cancer risk and focusing on providing education, promoting research, and really bringing together providers in this space from not just throughout the US but from across the globe as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That is exciting to hear the kind of work you guys are doing. These are definitely interesting, exciting things. Now, going to what you have published, it is an area that is very evolving in the space of cancer screening, cancer surveillance, especially for a very aggressive cancer such as pancreatic cancer. Could you tell us currently, what are the general consensus? I know there are a lot of differences between different guidelines or societies, but what are the some of the commonalities if we were to start there first for pancreas cancer screening? If you are not a GI oncologist, you may not be aware that there is something with regards to pancreas cancer screening. Could you give us an overview and a background on that? Dr. Bryson Katona: Yeah, I think that pancreatic cancer screening really is one of the most controversial areas of all cancer screening. Part of that controversy is just because all the guidelines, the many different guidelines that are out there, do not always match up with one another, which I think leads to a lot of confusion, not just for providers but for patients who are trying to go through this, and then also the insurance companies in trying to get these screening tests covered. You know, when we think about who is eligible for pancreatic cancer screening, you know, it is important that these are not average-risk individuals. So really, we are only offering screening to high-risk individuals. And those can include people that have a strong family history of pancreatic cancer without a germline genetic susceptibility that has been identified. And those individuals we refer to as having familial pancreatic cancer. And the other big cohort is those individuals that carry hereditary pancreatic cancer predisposition. These are due to cancer risk mutations in many different genes, including many of the breast cancer risk genes like BRCA1 and BRCA2, as well as ATM and PALB2, but then other genes such as the Lynch syndrome genes, and then some of the higher risk genes such as those leading to Peutz-Jeghers syndrome as well as FAM, which is due to CDKN2A mutations. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that. Again, another practical question, and this may or may not be exactly related to your specific topic here, but perhaps to some extent there might be an overlap. If I get a patient from a colleague, and I see people in the early-phase clinical trial setting, so many different tumors for novel drugs, and I find an individual with, let us say, lung cancer who has a pathogenic BRCA2, which is somatic, should I be worried about pancreas cancer screening in that individual? Or have we not met that threshold yet in that circumstance? Dr. Bryson Katona: A lot of times these variants or these genes that are associated with pancreatic cancer risk get picked up on the somatic tumor profiles. Now, you know, whether or not those are truly germline variants typically requires the next step of referring the patient for germline genetic testing. So you know, I would not screen or make any kind of screening choices based on a somatic variant alone, but nowadays germline testing is so easy, so efficient, and relatively cheap that it is easy enough to confirm whether or not these somatic hits are in fact just somatic or may confer some germline risk in addition. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So from what I understand from what you have said, there is debate about it, but it is something that should be done or is important enough that you need to figure out a path moving forward. Was that one of the reasons why you performed this project through this very interesting consortium called the PRECEDE Consortium? Dr. Bryson Katona: Yeah, that was one of our main reasons for doing this. And for those who do not know about the PRECEDE Consortium, this is a very large international, multi-institutional organization really focused on reducing death and improving survival from pancreatic cancer, primarily through increased and more effective use of screening and early detection strategies. This is an international consortium. There are over 50 sites now with nearly 10,000 patients who are enrolled in the consortium. So it really is at this point the largest prospective study of individuals who are at high risk for pancreatic cancer who are undergoing screening. And you know, I think amongst all of us in the consortium, just amongst discussions between colleagues and then, you know, often times when I see patients that are transferring their care to Penn who maybe had their screening done in another center before, what we were realizing is that, you know, although we all do a lot of screening, it seems that people are doing it slightly differently. And it does not seem that there is a real consensus approach across all centers about how pancreatic cancer screening should really be done. And it is one thing if you are thinking comparing, okay, well, maybe in the US we do it differently than, you know, in Europe or in other locations, but even among centers within the United States, we were still seeing very large differences in how pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals were done. And so that led us to really pursue this survey of pancreatic cancer screening practices across the PRECEDE Consortium. So for this survey, we actually have 57 centers who the survey was sent out to. As you know, surveys are oftentimes very difficult to get good response rates back on, but we were fortunate to have 54 of the 57, or 95% of the centers, actually get back to us about their screening practices for this particular project. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That is good to know. I hope you did not have to use any kind of gift cards for people to respond to the survey. But nevertheless, you got the information that you needed. Could you tell us what are some of the common denominators that you did identify and some of the differences that you identified? From your perspective, it sounds like there is no established consensus guidelines. There are different societies that have different perspectives on it. So I am sure some of what you found will probably have implications in maybe creating some guidelines. Is that a fair statement? Dr. Bryson Katona: Definitely a fair statement, and we found some very interesting results. I think one important result is really just the heterogeneity in the consortium. And so even before we got into pancreatic cancer screening practices, we also, we were asking consortium sites, “At your particular site, who is the individual that is leading these in-depth discussions about pancreatic cancer screening?” And while about 50% of the sites had a gastroenterologist leading it, about a quarter of the sites had a medical oncologist, a quarter had a surgeon leading these discussions as well. And we also found heterogeneity in who is the physician or the provider actually ordering these screening tests, again, with multiple different specialties across the different sites. But really one of the main areas that we wanted to hone in and focus on was how the different pancreatic cancer screening guidelines were actually utilized in each of the particular centers. The biggest controversial area in the field is for the gene mutation carriers, whether or not we should be requiring that a family history of pancreatic cancer be present in order for those individuals to qualify for pancreatic cancer screening. And the reason that is so controversial, let us take an example of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Currently, if you look through the guidelines, NCCN and the ASGE guidelines recommend that really all BRCA2 carriers undergo pancreatic cancer screening regardless of whether or not there is a family history, starting at age 50. However, other guidelines such as the AGA guidelines, or the AGA Clinical Practice Statement, as well as guidelines from the CAPS consortium, do recommend that a family history of pancreatic cancer be present in order to qualify for screening. But then we have different things for other genes. So for BRCA1 carriers, in fact, it is the ASGE guidelines that recommend all BRCA1 and 2 carriers undergo screening, whereas NCCN and the other guidelines that are out there do not recommend those individuals undergo screening. Again, this huge heterogeneity in guidelines is quite striking. And so when we assessed all the sites in the PRECEDE Consortium, we found some really interesting results with respect to these particular genes. For BRCA2 carriers specifically, we found that about half of the sites required a family history for recommending pancreatic cancer screening, but about half of the sites would offer it to all BRCA2 carriers regardless of if there was a family history of pancreatic cancer screening. Rates for BRCA1, PALB2, and ATM carriers were a little bit lower, where about a third of sites would offer screening really regardless of whether or not there is a family history of pancreatic cancer. And for Lynch syndrome, those rates were very, very low, with only about 13% of sites offering screening to Lynch patients in the absence of a family history. But I think, you know, we are all in the same consortium, but there is still just a lot of heterogeneity in how our own individual practices are run. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely different thoughts, different practices. But from what you saw, did it matter as far as outcomes are concerned whether it was a gastroenterologist doing the screening, or it was a medical oncologist, or a geneticist? Or is it a combination of all of these that actually makes the most difference? Dr. Bryson Katona: So I think we do need to get some more information about specialty-specific screening preferences. We just had one response per site in this particular survey, and so I think we are going to need a larger sample size in order to get that data. But I think that is certainly possible that, you know, certain subspecialties may prefer, you know, screening more aggressively or not including family history. That is definitely a question that we will be asking in future studies. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely more gift cards that will be needed as well. Moving on to another aspect of the implications for early detection, from a breast cancer, colon cancer standpoint, there is health economics research that shows it saves cost in the bigger picture. Has there been anything for pancreas cancer where early detection, early identification, early treatment actually ends up saving a lot more versus detecting metastatic pancreas cancer later? Dr. Bryson Katona: It is a great question. And of course, for any screening modality, you know, we would ultimately want it to be a cost-effective measure. In pancreas cancer screening, the jury is still a little bit out about whether or not pancreas cancer screening is truly cost-effective or not. There have been several different studies that have assessed this. And I think in general, the thought is that it is a cost-effective endeavor. But I think most of these cost-effectiveness estimates are actually related to what is the risk of pancreatic cancer in the population you are studying. And so when you have very, very high-risk individuals that have over a 10% lifetime risk of pancreatic cancer, it is almost a certainty that pancreatic cancer screening is going to be cost-effective. However, you know, if you have, say for example, BRCA1 carriers where lifetime risk of pancreatic cancer may be less than 5%, likely around like 3%, those individuals, I think it is going to be a tougher sell to say that it is cost-effective. But as we get more data on pancreatic cancer screening, that will be a very important question to ask. And you know, when you mentioned how does it save money, our goal at least in pancreatic cancer screening is to really downstage pancreatic cancer at the time of diagnosis and allow someone to undergo, you know, ideally a curative-intent surgery. There is data out there showing that we can downstage the cancers, that survival after the time of diagnosis is substantially increased after detection in a pancreatic cancer screening program. But again, these are studies that are based on fairly small numbers of converters. And so I think we need more data in that space as well, which is one of the main questions that the PRECEDE Consortium is trying to answer with all of our prospective data. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. Well, I hope we see more interesting, exciting work from the PRECEDE Consortium at meetings as well as as a publication in JCO PO. I would like to shift gears briefly for a minute or two, Bryson, to you as an individual, your career. How have you evolved over the last 5, 7 years? How did you end up doing cancer genetics? What were some of the lessons that you learned along the way and some of those that you would want to share with our listeners, especially trainees and early-career faculty? Dr. Bryson Katona: Just to give you and others listening a little bit of background, but I am a physician-scientist, gastroenterologist, but a physician-scientist. And so my clinical practice is exclusively focused on individuals with hereditary GI cancer risk. I run a basic science lab where we do a lot of studies in organoids and mouse models of these hereditary GI cancer risk syndromes. And then I also have a clinical research group where we do early-phase clinical trials and screening and early detection trials, again in these same individuals with hereditary GI cancer risk. I think probably the most important thing that kind of allowed me to get to this stage in my career where I am trying to, you know, essentially try to juggle all three of these balls at the same time is that I absolutely love what I do. And I am so incredibly interested in what I do. And I think for young individuals that are coming through the pipeline and going through training, you know, I mean, finding a specialty and a clinical niche where you truly just enjoy the work and you enjoy the patients and you enjoy your colleagues is by far the most important thing. I ended up getting into the hereditary GI cancer space because a lot of my work earlier on in my career during my PhD and then in my postdoc work in the lab really focused on colorectal cancer. And I thought that focusing on cancer genetics could allow me to really continue to think from the molecular side of things while simultaneously being a gastroenterologist and taking care of patients with hereditary cancer risk. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, thank you so much for giving us a sneak peek of your journey and insights on what perhaps works best, especially when you love what you do. I think that is one of the most important reasons a work tries to keep you going and keep you interested, keep you passionate. So thank you again. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Do not forget to give us a rating or a 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, 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. Asaf Maoz at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute shares insights into article, “Causes of Death Among Individuals with Lynch Syndrome in the Immunotherapy Era.” Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Maoz discuss the causes of death in individuals with LS and the evolving role of immunotherapy. 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, podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Associate Professor Medicine, at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center. Today, I'm super thrilled to be joined by Dr. Asaf Maoz, Medical Oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and faculty at the Harvard Medical School, and also lead author on the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled "Causes of Death Among Individuals with Lynch Syndrome in the Immunotherapy Era." This publication will be a concurrent publication with an oral presentation at the annual CGA meeting. At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Asaf, I'm excited to welcome you on this podcast. Thank you for joining us today. Dr. Asaf Maoz: Thank you so much for highlighting our paper. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Absolutely. And I was just talking to you that we met several years back when you were a trainee, and it looks like you've worked a lot in this field now, and it's very exciting to see that you consider JCOPO as a relevant home for some of your work. And the topic that you have published on is of significant interest to trainees from a precision medicine standpoint, to oncologists in general, covers a lot of aspects of immunotherapy. So, I'm really excited to talk to you about all of this. Dr. Asaf Maoz: Me too, me too. And yeah, I think JCOPO has great content in the area of cancer genetics and has done a lot to disseminate the knowledge in that area. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Wonderful. So, let's get started and start off, given that we have hosts of different kinds of individuals who listen to this podcast, especially when driving from home to work or back, for the sake of making everything simple, can we start by asking you what is Lynch syndrome? How is it diagnosed? What are some of the main things to consider when you're trying to talk an individual where you suspect Lynch syndrome? Dr. Asaf Maoz: Lynch syndrome is an inherited predisposition to cancer, and it is common. So, we used to think that, or there's a general notion in the medical community that it is a rare condition, but we actually know now from multiple studies, including studies that look at the general population and do genetic testing regardless of any clinical phenotype, that Lynch syndrome is found in about 1 in 300 people in the general population. If you think about it in the United States, that means that there are over a million people living with Lynch syndrome in the United States. Unfortunately, most individuals with Lynch syndrome don't know they have Lynch syndrome at the current time, and that's where a lot of the efforts in the community are being made to help detect more individuals who have Lynch syndrome. Lynch syndrome is caused by pathogenic germline variants in mismatch repair genes, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, or as a result of pathogenic variants in EPCAM that cause silencing of the MSH2 gene. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. Thank you for that explanation. Now, one of the other things I also realized, similar to BRCA germline mutations, where you require a second hit for individuals with Lynch syndrome to have mismatch repair deficient cancers, you also require a second hit to have that second hit result in an MSI-high cancer. Could you help us understand the difference of these two concepts where generally Lynch syndrome is thought of to be cancers that are mismatch repair deficient, but that's not necessarily true for all cases as we see in your paper. Can you tease this out for us a little bit more? Dr. Asaf Maoz: Of course, of course. So, the germline defect is in one of the mismatch repair genes, and these genes are responsible for DNA mismatch repair, as their name implies. Now, in a normal cell, we think that one working copy is generally enough to maintain the mismatch repair machinery intact. What happens in tumors, as you alluded to, is that there is a second hit in the same mismatch repair gene that has the pathogenic germline variant, and that causes the mismatch repair machinery not to work anymore. And so what happens is that there is formation of mutations in the cancer cell that are not present in other cells in the body. And we know that there are specific types of mutations that are associated with defects in mismatch repair mechanisms, and those are associated a lot of times with frameshift mutations. And we have termed them ‘microsatellites’. So there are areas in the genome that have repeats, for example, you know, if you have AAAA or GAGA, and those areas are particularly susceptible to mutations when the mismatch repair machinery is not working. And so we can measure that with DNA microsatellite instability testing. But we can also get a sense of whether the mismatch repair machinery is functioning by looking at protein expression on the surface of cancer cells and by doing immunohistochemistry. More recently, we're also able to infer whether the mismatch repair machinery is working by doing next-generation sequencing and looking at many, many microsatellites and whether they have this DNA instability in the microsatellites. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Excellent explanation. As a segue to what you just mentioned, and this reminds me of some work that one of my good friends, collaborators, Amin Nassar, whom you also know, I believe, had done a year and a half back, was published in Cancer Cell as a brief report, I believe, where the concept was that when you look at these mismatch repair deficient cancers, there is a difference between NGS testing, IHC testing, and maybe to some extent, PCR testing, where you can have discordances. Have you seen that in your clinical experience? What are some of your thoughts there? And if a trainee were to ask, what would be the gold standard to test individuals where you suspect mismatch repair deficient-related Lynch syndrome cancers? How would you test those individuals? Dr. Asaf Maoz: We do sometimes see discordance, you know, from large series, the concordance rate is very high, and in most series it's over 95%. And so from a practical perspective, if we're thinking about the recommendation to screen all colorectal cancer and all endometrial cancer for mismatch repair deficiency, I think either PCR-based testing or immunohistochemistry is acceptable because the concordance rate is very high. There are rare cases where it is not concordant, doing multiple of the tests makes sense at that time. If you think about the difference between the tests, the immunohistochemistry looks at protein expression, which is a surrogate for whether there is mismatch repair deficiency or not, right? Because ultimately, the mismatch repair deficiency is manifested in the mutations. So if the PCR does not show microsatellite instability and now NGS does not show microsatellite instability, the IHC may be a false positive. At the end of the day, the functional analysis of whether there are actually unstable microsatellites either by PCR or by NGS is what I would consider more informative. But IHC again is an excellent test and concordant with those results in over 95% of cases. Now there is also an issue of sampling. It's possible that there's heterogeneity within the tumor. We published a case in JCOPO about heterogeneity of the mismatch repair status, and that was both by immunohistochemistry, but also by PCR. So there are some caveats and interpreting these tests does require some expertise, and I'm always happy to chat with trainees or whoever has an interesting or challenging case. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thanks again for that very easy to understand explanation. Now going to management strategies, could you elaborate a little bit upon the neo-adjuvant data currently, or the metastatic data which I think more people are familiar with for immunotherapy in individuals with MSI-high cancers? Dr. Asaf Maoz: Yeah, that's an excellent question and obviously a very broad topic. Individuals with Lynch syndrome typically develop tumors that are mismatch repair deficient or microsatellite unstable. And we have seen over the last 15 years or so that these tumors, because they have a lot of mutations and because these mutations are very immunogenic, we have seen that they respond very well to immunotherapy. And this has been shown across disease sites and has been shown across disease settings. And for that reason, immunotherapy was approved for MSI-high or mismatch repair deficient cancer regardless of the anatomic site. It was the first tissue-agnostic approval by the FDA in 2017. And so there are exciting studies both in the metastatic setting where we see individuals who respond to immunotherapy for many years, and one could wonder whether their cancer is going to come back or not. And also in the earlier setting, for example, the Cercek et al. study in the New England Journal from Sloan Kettering, where they showed that neoadjuvant immunotherapy can cause durable responses for rectal cancer that is mismatch repair deficient. And in that series, the patients did not require surgery or radiation, which is standard of care for rectal cancer otherwise. And there's also exciting data in the adjuvant space, as was presented in ASCO by Dr. Sinicrope, the ATOMIC study, and many more efforts to bring immunotherapy into the treatment landscape for individuals with MSI-high cancer, including individuals with Lynch syndrome. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: A lot of activity, especially in the neo-adjuvant and adjuvant space over the last two years or so. Now going to the actual reason why we are here is your study. Could you tell us why you looked at this idea of patients who had Lynch syndrome and died, and the reasons for their death? What was the thought that triggered this project? Dr. Asaf Maoz: As we were talking about, we now know that immunotherapy really has changed the treatment landscape for individuals with Lynch syndrome, and that most cancers that individuals with Lynch syndrome do have this mismatch repair deficiency. But we also know that individuals with Lynch syndrome can develop tumors that do not have mismatch repair deficiency, and we call them mismatch repair proficient or microsatellite stable. And there was a series from Memorial Sloan Kettering showing that in colorectal cancer, about 10% of the tumors that individuals with Lynch syndrome developed did not have mismatch repair deficiency. In addition to that, we anecdotally saw that some of our patients with Lynch syndrome died of causes that were not mismatch repair deficient tumors. We wanted to see how that has changed since immunotherapy was approved in a tissue-agnostic manner, meaning that we could look at this regardless of where the cancer started, because we would anticipate that if the tumor was mismatch repair deficient, the patient would be able to access immunotherapy as standard of care. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you. And then you looked at different aspects of correlations with regards to individuals that had an MSI-high cancer with Lynch syndrome or an MSS cancer with Lynch syndrome. Could you elaborate on some of the important findings that you identified as well as some of the unusual findings that perhaps we did not know about, even though the sample size is limited, but what were some of the unique things that you did identify through this project? Dr. Asaf Maoz: The first question was what cause is leading to death in individuals with Lynch syndrome? And we had 54 patients that we identified that had died since the approval of immunotherapy in 2017, 44 of which died of cancer-related causes. And when we looked at cancer-related causes of death, we wanted to know how many of those were due to mismatch repair deficient tumors versus mismatch repair proficient tumors or MS-stable tumors. And we found, somewhat surprisingly, that 43% of patients in our cohort actually died of tumors that were microsatellite stable or mismatch repair proficient, meaning of tumors that are not typically associated with Lynch syndrome. This is not entirely surprising as a cause of death because we know that immunotherapy does not typically work for tumors that are microsatellite stable. And so in the metastatic setting, there are much less cases of durable remissions with treatment. But it was helpful to have that figure as an important benchmark. There are previous studies about causes of death in Lynch syndrome, and particularly from the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database in Europe. Those have provided really important information about cause of death by cancer site, but they typically don't have mismatch repair status and are more difficult to interpret in that regard. They also don't include a large number of individuals who have PMS2 Lynch syndrome, which is the most common, but least penetrant form of Lynch syndrome. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: As far as the subtype of pathogenic germline variants is concerned, did you notice anything unusual? And I've always had this question, and you may know more about this data, is: In the bigger context of immunotherapy, does the type of the pathogenic germline variant for Lynch syndrome associated MSI-high cancers, does that impact or have an association with the kind of outcomes, how soon a cancer progresses or how many exceptional responders perhaps with MSI-high cancers actually have a certain specific pathogenic germline variant? Dr. Asaf Maoz: That's an excellent question, and certainly we need more data in that space. We know that the type of germline mutation, or the gene in which there is a germline pathogenic variant, determines to a large degree the cancer risk, right? So we know that individuals who have germline pathogenic variants in MLH1 or MSH2 have a much higher colorectal cancer risk than, for example, PMS2. We know that for PMS2, the risks are more limited to colorectal and endometrial, and may be lower risk of other cancers. We also know that, you know, the spectrum of disease may change based on the pathogenic germline variants. For example, individuals who have MSH2 associated Lynch syndrome have more risk of additional cancers in other organs like the urinary tract and other less common Lynch-associated tumors. The question about response to therapy is one where we have much less information. There are studies that are trying to assess this, but I don't think the answer is there yet. Some of the non-clinical data looks at how many mutations there are based on the pathogenic variant and what the nature of those mutations are, whether they're more frameshift or others. But I think we still need more clinical data to understand whether the response to immunotherapy differs. It's also complicated by the fact that the immunotherapy landscape is changing, especially in the metastatic setting, now with the approval of combination ipilimumab and nivolumab for first-line treatment of colorectal cancer that is microsatellite unstable. But in our study, we did find that, as you would expect, there is an enrichment in MS-stable cancers among those with PMS2 Lynch syndrome. Again, our denominator is those who died, right? So this is not the best way to look at the question whether this is overall true, that is more addressed by the study that Sloan Kettering published. But we do see, as we would anticipate, that there are more microsatellite stable cancers among those with PMS2 Lynch syndrome that died. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: A lot to uncover there for sure. This study and perhaps some of the other work that you're doing is slowly advancing our understanding of some of these concepts. So I'd like to shift gears to a couple of provocative questions that I generally like to ask. The first is, in your opinion, and you may or may not have data to back this up, which is okay, and that's why we're having a conversation about it. In your opinion, do you think the type or the quality of the neoantigen is different based on the pathogenic germline variant and a Lynch syndrome associated MSI-high cancer? Dr. Asaf Maoz: I think there are some data out there that, you know, I can't cite off the top of my mind, but there are some data out there that suggest that that may be the case. I think the key question is the quality, right? I think that whether these differences that are found on a molecular level also translate to a clinical difference in response is something that is unknown at this moment. Some people hypothesize that if the tumor has less neoantigens, there's less of a response to immunotherapy. But I think we really need to be careful before making those assertions on a clinical level. I do think it's a really important question that needs to be answered, among others because, you know, in the colorectal space, for example, where we have both the option of doing ipilimumab with nivolumab and the option of doing pembrolizumab, we don't really know which patients need the CTLA-4 blockade versus which patients can receive PD-1 blockade alone and avoid the potential excess toxicity of the CTLA-4 blockade. There are a lot of interesting questions there that still need to be answered. And of course, individuals with Lynch syndrome are just a fraction of those individuals who have MSI-high cancer. So there's also the question about whether non-Lynch syndrome associated MSI-high cancer responds differently to immunotherapy than Lynch syndrome associated MSI-high cancer. A lot of very interesting questions in the field for sure. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Absolutely. My second question is more about trying to understand the role of ctDNA, MRD monitoring in individuals with Lynch syndrome. If somebody has a germline, you know, Lynch syndrome MSI-high cancer, when you do a tumor-informed ctDNA assessment, what do you capture generally there? Because, and this question stems from a discussion I've had with somebody regarding EGFR lung cancer, since I treat individuals with lung cancer, and the concept generally is that even if the tissue showed EGFR, but for MRD monitoring, when you do a barcoded sequence of different tumor specific mutations, it's not actually the EGFR that they track in the blood when they do ctDNA assessment. But from a Lynch syndrome standpoint, if you have a germline, right, which is the first hit, and then you have the somatic in the tumor, which is the second hit, are you aware or have you tried to look into this where what is exactly being followed if one had to follow MRD in a Lynch syndrome MSI-high colorectal cancer? Dr. Asaf Maoz: I think a lot of the MRD assays are proprietary, and so we don't receive information about what the mutations that are being tracked are. In general, the idea is to track mutations that we would not expect to disappear as part of resistant mechanisms. We want these to be truncal mutations. We want these to be mutations in which resistance is not expected to result in reversion mutations. But what specifically is being tracked is something that I don't know because these assays, the tumor-informed ones, are proprietary, and we don't get the results regarding specific mutations. When it's circulating tumor DNA that is not necessarily tumor-informed, we do get those results, but that is less so about the specific selection of mutations. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for clarifying that question to some extent, of course, as you said, we don't know a lot, and we don't know what we don't know. That's the most important thing that I've learned in the process of understanding precision medicine and genomics, and it's a very fast-paced evolving field. Last question related to your project, what is the next step? Are you planning any next steps as a bigger multicenter study or validation of some sort? Dr. Asaf Maoz: There are two big questions that this study raises. One, is this true across multiple other sites, right? Because this is a single center study, and we really need additional centers to look at their data and validate whether they are also seeing that a substantial portion of deaths in individuals with Lynch syndrome are attributable to mismatch repair proficient cancer. The other question is whether we can look at specifically MSI-high cancer versus MS-stable cancer and understand what the mortality rate for each of those are. From a clinical perspective, it's important to counsel individuals with Lynch syndrome about general cancer screening outside of mismatch repair deficient tumors and to understand that there is also a risk of mismatch repair proficient tumors and that treatment for those tumors would be different. There's a lot of work to be done in the future. Another major area of need is to see whether tumors that are microsatellite stable can be sensitized to immunotherapy, and that is beyond the Lynch syndrome field, but that is something that certainly would benefit these individuals with Lynch syndrome who develop mismatch repair proficient cancer. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That's very interesting to hear, and we'll look forward to seeing some of those developments shape in the next few years. Now, I'd like to spend a minute, minute and a half on you specifically as a researcher, clinician, scientist. Could you briefly highlight - because I remember meeting you several years back as a trainee, with your interest in genomics, computational research - could you briefly tell us what led you to hereditary cancer syndromes based on your research and work? What are some of the things that you learned along the way that other early career investigators can perhaps take lessons from? Dr. Asaf Maoz: Big questions there, thanks for asking. I got interested in the field of hereditary cancer syndromes when I came to the United States and started doing lab research in Stephen Gruber's lab at the time at USC. He's now at City of Hope. And my interest was originally looking at immunotherapy and immunology, but I went to the case conferences where we were learning about individuals with hereditary cancer, and those were kind of earlier days where we were still trying to figure out how to test and what the implications for these individuals would be. And through fellowship, I was also very interested in that, and I did my senior fellowship years with Dr. Yurgelun here at Dana-Farber, who is the director of the Lynch Syndrome Center. And I I think it's the combination between being able to treat individuals based on precision medicine and what the germline mutation is, but also the ability to prevent cancer and to develop strategies to intercept cancer early that is really appealing to me in this field. It's also a great field to be in because it's a small field. If you come to the CGA-IGC meeting, you'll be able to interact with everyone. Everyone is super collaborative, super nice, and I really recommend it to trainees. The CGA-IGC annual meeting is really a great opportunity to learn more and experience some of the advancement specifically in the GI hereditary space. Lessons for trainees. I think there are a lot of lessons that I could think about, but I think finding strong and supportive mentors is one of the things that has helped me most. I think that just having close relationship with your mentor, having frequent discussions and honest discussions about what is feasible, what is going to make a difference for your patients and your research and what you want to focus on is really important. And so I think if I had to choose one thing, I would say choose a mentor that you trust, that you feel you have a good relationship with, and that has the availability to support you. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much for those insightful comments, and thank you for sharing with us your journey, your project, and some of your interesting thoughts on this concept of hereditary cancers. Hopefully, we'll see more of this work being published in JCOPO through your lab or work from others. Dr. Asaf Maoz: Thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 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/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 Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Dr. Jiasen He summarizes JCO PO article "Synthetic Lethal Co-Mutations in DNA Damage Response Pathways Predict Response to Immunotherapy in Pan-Cancer" by Hua Zhong et al. TRANSCRIPT Jiasen He: Hello and welcome to the JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I am your host, Jiasen He, and today we will be discussing the JCO Precision Oncology article, "Synthetic Lethal Co-mutations in DNA Damage Response Pathway Predict Response to Immunotherapy in Pan-Cancer" by Dr. Zhang and colleagues. Immunotherapy has emerged as a groundbreaking treatment option for many types of cancer. However, the overall response rate to immunotherapy is low, around 10% to 30%. This highlights the critical need to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from immunotherapy. Two of the most extensively studied biomarkers are PD-L1 expression and tumor mutation burden (TMB). High levels of PD-L1 and TMB have been associated with better response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, which are now widely used in clinical practice. The predictive value of these markers is inconsistent across all settings. Some tumors with high PD-L1 or TMB still respond poorly to immunotherapy. One reason is that TMB reflects new antigen production, but recent studies suggest that new antigen levels do not always correlate with tumor immunogenicity. Many new antigens are not effectively recognized by T cells, limiting the immune response. Emerging evidence indicates that mutations in the DNA damage response (DDR) pathway play a critical role in moderating tumor immune interactions. Tumors harboring DDR pathways frequently exhibit increased genome instability, which may enhance their sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors. While all these pathways are under active investigation, the optimal DDR pathway biomarkers for patient selection remain unclear. Notably, tumor cells with a defect in one DDR pathway may acquire greater reliance on alternative DDR pathways. Recent studies suggest that synthetic lethal co-mutations within DDR pathways are associated with immune-inflamed or hot tumor microenvironments. Based on this rationale, Dr. Zhang is investigating if synthetic lethal co-mutations in DDR pathway response pathway can serve as a treatment biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitors. To address this question, Dr. Zhang and colleagues first utilized SynLethDB 2.0, a comprehensive database that integrated multiple data sets. Synthetic lethal (SL) gene pairs in this resource are identified through both experimental and computational approaches, with confidence scores assigned to each pair. These SL pairs were then mapped to gene sequencing results from several clinical cohorts. SL co-mutation status was defined as positive when both genes in a synthetic lethal pair were mutated. From this, SL co-mutation pairs specifically involving DDR pathway genes were selected. Patients were classified as DDR co-mutation positive if both genes in a synthetic lethal pair, each belonging to the defined DDR pathways, were mutated. In total, 431 DDR-related SL pairs were identified and matched to sequencing data from clinical cohorts. Clinical information was extracted from the cBioPortal, while further analysis of immune infiltration was performed using DNA mutation and RNA expression data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) pan-cancer data set. The author first examined the correlation between SL co-mutation status and response to ICI therapy. They discovered that patients with SL co-mutation showed significantly improved outcome to ICI therapy across various clinical cohorts. Notably, in patients who did not receive ICI treatment, patients with SL co-mutation showed markedly compromised overall survival. Further analysis focused on the predictive value of SL co-mutation within DDR pathway genes. The author found that patients with DDR SL co-mutation had a longer overall survival compared to those with mutations in a single DDR gene, implying that SL co-mutations may be more effective biomarkers within the DDR pathway. To explore this further, in the TMB-MSKCC cohort, the author found that patients with DDR co-mutation constituted approximately 20% of various cancer types, including non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, and bladder cancer. These patients demonstrated significantly better survival outcomes and disease control rates when treated with ICIs compared to DDR co-mutation negative patients. Notably, the TMB level was substantially higher in patients with DDR co-mutation, a finding consistent with data from the Miao-lung cohort. Furthermore, in cohorts not treated with ICIs, patients with DDR co-mutation had a shorter overall survival compared to their counterparts. Upon stratifying by PD-L1 expression, the author observed that patients with DDR co-mutation who were also PD-L1 positive derived the greatest clinical benefit from ICI therapy. Upon analyzing the frequency of co-mutation within the DDR pathway, the authors found that patients with SL co-mutation in the CPF-CPF pathway experienced remarkable survival benefit from ICIs. Within this group, one of the most common co-mutation combinations was TP53-ATM, observed in approximately 45% of cases, which was associated with a better response to ICI therapy. Further analysis of immune cell infiltration revealed that patients with TP53-ATM co-mutation exhibited a distinct tumor immune microenvironment. As the authors stated, the study's main limitation lies in the nature of retrospective analysis, which lacked the control over confounding variables and was subject to non-random sampling. For instance, patients with both SL co-mutations and DDR SL co-mutations exhibited high TMB, and TMB was known to be associated with improved response to ICI therapy itself. So, these findings require validation through prospective studies, and immune infiltration analysis needs confirmation via laboratory experiments. In conclusion, the authors found that patients with SL co-mutations in DDR pathways showed favorable clinical response and prolonged survival following ICI therapy. They also identified TP53-ATM co-mutations as a clinically relevant biomarker for predicting ICI treatment response. Thank you for tuning in to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. Don't forget to subscribe and join us next time as we explore more groundbreaking research shaping the future of oncology. 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 Dr. Abhishek Tripathi and Dr. Salvador Jaime-Casas at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center share insights into their article, “Comparative Genomic Characterization of Small Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder Compared With Urothelial Carcinoma and Small Cell Lung Carcinoma.”  Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Drs. Tripathi and Jaime-Casas discuss a novel understanding of the genomic alterations underlying SCBC, revealing actionable mutations that could serve as potential targets for improved clinical outcomes. 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 am your host, Dr. Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Podcast Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Associate Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma. Today, I am thrilled to be joined by Dr. Abhishek Tripathi, Associate Professor in the Department of Medical Oncology and Experimental Therapeutics Research at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, as well as his mentee, Dr. Salvador Jaime-Casas, postdoctoral research fellow and first author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled "Comparative Genomic Characterization of Small Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder Compared with Urothelial Carcinoma and Small Cell Lung Carcinoma". At the time of this recording, our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Abhishek and Salvador, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us today. This is a very interesting topic given that at least the landscape for neuroendocrine carcinomas, where small cell lung cancer is on one end of the spectrum, has been changing, at least on the lung cancer side, with recent approvals and some new ADCs. So, of course, understanding the genomic and transcriptomic similarities or differences between pulmonary small cell and extrapulmonary small cell is of huge interest. Could you tell us a little bit about small cell bladder cancer, current approaches to treatment of small cell bladder cancer, and then why you wanted to investigate that in this project as far as the genomic differences or similarities are concerned? Dr. Salvador Jaime-Casas: Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me. I am very excited to be here. And really what served as backbone for this research project was the notion that there is a currently evolving genomic landscape in the area of bladder cancer. We know this is a highly heterogeneous disease when it comes to molecular underpinnings and mutational profile. Specifically, we know that the most common histologic subtype is urothelial carcinoma. Small cell bladder cancer represents a histology that is found in less than 1% of all bladder cancer cases. However, it is one of the most aggressive histologies. It presents with a very poor prognosis to patients and very poor response to treatment, which is why we attempted to really elucidate what is the mutational profile behind this and provide a comparison contrast between small cell bladder cancer, small cell lung cancer, and conventional urothelial carcinoma. As your question mentioned, in terms of treatment, the conventional urothelial carcinoma and small cell bladder cancer are two distinct pathways when it comes to treatment algorithms. We know that in the current era there are newer and newer drugs being developed for conventional urothelial carcinoma. We have perioperative immunotherapy in the context of metastatic disease. We have antibody-drug conjugates such as enfortumab vedotin. But really, this amazing track record of drug development hasn't been mirrored in small cell bladder cancer. And here most of the therapy is usually extrapolated from studies from other small cell histologies like you mentioned earlier, small cell lung cancer has given some form of background in terms of what therapies are used here. Cytotoxic chemotherapy, for some patients with localized disease and small cell bladder cancer, concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy or perioperative cytotoxic chemotherapy have been the cornerstone of treatment for many years now. However, like I mentioned, the oncologic outcomes are very suboptimal when it comes to comparing it with other disease histologies, which is why we really wanted to describe the landscape here and provide this comparison across three different groups. For this particular study, we leveraged the Tempus dataset. So, include patients with urothelial carcinoma with small cell bladder cancer and small cell lung cancer. We included their demographic information, as well as the frequency of most common genomic alterations identified. And really, it was a very comparable Table 1. We see the demographic data across the three groups was very similar. One key thing that we identified was the female prevalence was a little bit lower in patients with small cell bladder cancer when compared to small cell lung cancer. But other than that, the age, race, ethnicity, was comparable across groups, and even the smoking history. Most of the patients in this cohort were former smokers, which we believe comes to explain that regardless of any mutational profile that we talked about in a few minutes, there are shared commonalities between these histologies and shared environmental exposures and risk factors that are going to be implicated in the disease biology for these three histologies. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much, Salvador, for that useful background. I would like to shift to Abhishek real quick. Abhishek, you are a practicing clinician, you have led several studies in the GU space, especially bladder. Based on what you see in the small cell lung cancer space, how drug development is shaping up, which aligns with what you are trying to evaluate in this paper as targets, how do you see some of that being implemented for small cell bladder cancer in the current era and age? Abhishek Tripathi: Thanks so much for the excellent question, Rafeh. As a GU investigator, small cell bladder cancer has always lagged behind in some regards regarding enrollment abilities for the novel clinical trials. And small cell lung cancer has paved the way and led the development of a lot of these drugs across the board. With the most recent sort of drugs targeting DLL3 already approved and several antibody-drug conjugates currently in development. That actually translates really well to how we should approach drug development in bladder cancer. What we saw in the study is that although there are overlaps and similarities between small cell lung cancer and small cell bladder cancer, there are also certain differences. So the long-term assumption that all therapies for small cell bladder cancer can be extrapolated to small cell bladder], may or may not be true, and I think it is high time that we specifically investigate these novel agents in tissue-specific small cell carcinomas. To that effect, we are excited to be participating in trials that are looking at some of the novel DLL3 targeted agents, specifically bispecific antibodies and T cell engagers so to speak, and antibody-drug conjugates that are now starting to open enrollment specifically in non-lung cancer cohorts to evaluate its efficacy. So overall, I think studies like this have the opportunity to identify more putative targets for organ-specific development of these novel agents. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Absolutely, I could not agree more. I think tumor-agnostic therapies definitely have a place, but not all therapies work the same in different tumors with a similar histological or genomic background because there are definitely differences. So now going to the comparison that Salvador, you guys did in this project, could you help us understand what are some of the things you looked at, what were some of the commonalities and the differences, and what were some of the conceptual thoughts that come out from those results? Dr. Salvador Jaime-Casas: Of course. So, the first thing that we identified was which were the most frequent molecular alterations across these histologies. We actually provided a table showcasing how the most common mutations that we identified were TP53, TERT, RB1. However, like Dr. Tripathi mentioned, the distinction between these histologies is notable in the sense that some are more predominant in small cell-pertaining cancers such as bladder cancer and lung cancer. While some others are more common in bladder-pertaining malignancies like urothelial carcinoma and small cell bladder cancer. For instance, we saw that TP53 and RB1 were significantly more evident in small cell histologies, both small cell bladder cancer and small cell lung cancer, as opposed to conventional urothelial carcinoma, which really this mirrors what is known about these mutations and what has been published. These are markers associated with more aggressive disease with a worse prognosis and even to resistance to treatment. We also identified how TERT mutations were characteristically more prevalent in small cell bladder cancer as opposed to small cell lung cancer, as well as in urothelial carcinoma. TERT mutations were more commonly identified than in small cell lung cancer. And we give a long list of these mutations that we identified, but really what we wanted to underscore here was, A, the most common mutations across histologies; B, the most common co-occurring mutations where we saw that these are not mutually exclusive. A lot of patients had co-occurring TP53 and RB1 or RB1 and TERT or RB1 and ARID1A, really elucidating how heterogeneous this molecular landscape is across histologies. And the third one that we believe really brings down the clinical impact of this research was evidencing the idea of clinically actionable mutations. We also provided a table here showcasing how mutations like FGFR, DLL notch pathway, HER2, were evident in these histologies, and what is the current status of some clinical trials evaluating different drug designs for these mutations. Like Dr. Tripathi mentioned in the context of FGFR, approximately 6% of our cohort with small cell bladder cancer showcased mutations in FGFR3. However, up to 14% of them had mutations in any FGFR gene, which really underscores the notion that drugs like erdafitinib, which have been introduced in the market in recent years, could potentially showcase some response in the space of small cell bladder cancer. We actually provide the description of two trials, phase two, phase three trials, that are evaluating erdafitinib in the context of high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and even metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Like Dr. Tripathi mentioned as well, antibody-drug conjugates, another very interesting area of drug development targeting HER2, we included evidence on how disitamab vedotin and trastuzumab deruxtecan are currently being explored across different phase two and phase three clinical trials, both as part of basket trial designs for solid malignancies expressing HER2, but also for patients with urothelial carcinoma where there is evidence of HER2 expression. So, we believe that the landscape is shifting in the right direction in the sense that therapies are becoming much more personalized and targeted against these known molecular profiles. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you, Salvador, for summarizing some of those very interesting results and providing a very unique conceptual context to that. I would like to go to Abhishek this last portion. Of course, I am sure you guys will expand on this work and there are a lot of other interesting things that will likely come out from this work and hopefully you will publish that in JCO PO. But one of the very important things that I wanted to highlight from this podcast specifically was the science is obviously very interesting, but I feel the more important interesting aspect is giving trainees and fellows, residents, mentorship opportunities, mentoring them and giving them lead roles in projects like this, which is what Dr. Tripathi has successfully done for you in this project, Salvador. So, Abhishek, as somebody I have known for a couple of years now, more than a couple of years, as a very successful clinical translational investigator in the GU space in the early phase setting, Abhishek, really briefly, within a minute, could you tell us about your journey and what are some of the things that have worked for you as an early career investigator that you have learned from, and then your journey of mentorship, how has that been for you and what are some of the things that you take home from your mentorship role? Abhishek Tripathi: Absolutely. And as you mentioned, mentorship has been pivotal for all early career investigators for them to really succeed. So, my journey, as you know, I started off as an early career investigator at another institution, and I think I owe it to my mentors even at that time and even now who are helping me develop some of these newer translational and clinical trial ideas, creating opportunities where we could really showcase some of the interesting work that we are doing. That actually goes a long way in terms of creating independence as an established investigator. And I think the sooner we start off with mentorship prospects, I think the better it is. And paying it forward, I think I have been lucky to have mentees like Salvador who are just extremely talented, really committed, and goal-oriented. He really led the project right from the beginning in terms of initial analyses and looking up all the sort of correlative studies that we could do and the contextual data between small cell lung cancer and bladder cancer that we have delved into for the past several years. And it really showcases the ability of young mentees like Salvador to really excel given the right guidance and the support. As a mentor, it has been a really rewarding experience. It is really helpful to actually learn from some of these mentees as well as to approach the same problem from a different angle and different thought process and guide them through the study. So, it has been incredibly helpful and rewarding both being a mentee and a mentor over the past several years as I have transitioned. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you, Abhishek, for those very insightful comments on how both being a mentee and being a mentor helps shape you as an individual as well. And then you take a lot of pride in the success of your mentees. Now real quick, Salvador, could you tell us a little bit about yourself, you know, how you ended up at City of Hope under Dr. Tripathi’s mentorship and what are some of the next important things that you are looking forward to doing? Dr. Salvador Jaime-Casas: So, a little bit about who I am. I did medical school in Mexico City. I was born and raised there, and towards the end of my medical training, I started to be engaged in research projects. And through one of my mentors in Mexico, I was actually introduced to the team here at City of Hope, including Dr. Tripathi. And through this, we got the opportunity to have some conversations about what I wanted to do, become a physician-researcher in the area of genitourinary oncology and hopefully my transition to residency in a few years. And that is how I came to be his mentee here at City of Hope. I think it has been a very rewarding experience, like Dr. Tripathi said, having such an incredible mentor and really being with him both in the academic setting and in the clinical setting, in patients with clinic, seeing this curiosity and all these clinical trials, all of this evidence that we have coming together to generate this insight. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much for both the scientific insights, as well as the journey of being a mentee for you, Salvador, and as a mentor for you, Abhishek. I really enjoyed talking to you guys about both aspects here today and hopefully we will see more of your work, Abhishek and Salvador, as far as understanding the transcriptomic heterogeneity in neuroendocrine tumors or neuroendocrine cancers of the bladder. Dr. Salvador Jaime-Casas: Thank you very much. Thank you for having us. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Do not 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, 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.   Dr. Abhishek Tripathi Disclosures Consulting or Advisory Role:  Company: Aadi biosciences, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Exelixis, Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Deka biosciences Speakers' Bureau: Company: Sanofi

In this JCO PO Article insights episode, Dr. Jiasen He summarized the JCO PO article "Mucin 16–Directed Therapy in Pediatric Sarcomas: Case Evidence of Ubamatamab Efficacy in Epithelioid Sarcoma and Its Implications for Other Sarcoma Subtypes" by Connolly et al. TRANSCRIPT Jiasen He: Hello, and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Jiasen He, and today we'll be discussing the JCO Precision Oncology article, "Mucin 16-Directed Therapy in Pediatric Sarcomas: Case Evidence of Ubamatamab Efficacy in Epithelioid Sarcoma and Its Implication for Other Sarcoma Subtypes" by Connolly et al. Epithelioid sarcoma and malignant rhabdoid tumor are rare pediatric soft tissue sarcomas, characterized by INI1 loss, high recurrence rates, and poor outcome despite multimodal treatments. Emerging evidence has shown that Mucin 16 is expressed in both tumor types. Mucin 16 is a transmembrane glycoprotein whose extracellular domain can be cleaved and released as CA-125. Both Mucin 16 and CA-125 are well-established biomarkers in several adult epithelioid malignancies, particularly ovarian cancer. Ubamatamab is a specific T-cell engager targeting CD3 and Mucin 16. It has demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, and clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate its efficacy as monotherapy or in combination regimens. In this manuscript, Connolly et al. present the first reported case of a heavily pretreated patient with epithelioid sarcoma who responded to ubamatamab, followed by an investigation into mechanisms of resistance after disease progression. Furthermore, the authors retrospectively assessed Mucin 16 expression in a cohort of pediatric and young adult sarcomas, finding high expression in both epithelioid sarcoma and malignant rhabdoid tumor. In this case report, the authors describe a 23-year-old woman with relapsed metastatic epithelioid sarcoma. Initially diagnosed at age 12, she had received multiple lines of treatments, including surgery, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Following disease progression after all these treatments, her tumor was tested for Mucin 16 expression and it demonstrated 100% positivity with markedly elevated CA-125 levels, providing a rationale for treatment with the Mucin 16-CD3 bispecific T-cell engager, ubamatamab. Ubamatamab was administered in an escalating dose schedule up to 250 mg once weekly during cycle one and continued for a total of 162 weeks. The best response was observed at week 11, with a 40% reduction and a marked decline in CA-125 levels. Disease progression was first detected in a single left lower lobe lung nodule, which on biopsy showed a reduction in Mucin 16 expression from 100% to less than 5%. Post-treatment analysis revealed changes in the tumor microenvironment, including increased expression of T-cell exhaustion markers such as PD-1 and LAG-3. Ubamatamab was generally well tolerated. Cytokine release syndrome occurred during the escalating phase of cycle one, presenting with fever and hypoxia. Other notable adverse events included pleural and pericardial effusion, both of which resolved spontaneously. Given its favorable safety profile and limited alternative treatment options, ubamatamab was continued beyond the initial progression. The patient ultimately received 28 cycles of treatment before she passed away due to disease progression. In the second part of the paper, the authors examined Mucin 16 expression in a cohort of pediatric and young adult sarcomas. Among 91 samples, Mucin 16 was expressed in six out of eight epithelioid sarcomas and two out of four malignant rhabdoid tumors. H-score analysis showed that all Mucin 16-positive tumors showed moderate to high expression levels. In conclusion, this manuscript presents the first reported use of a Mucin 16-CD3 bispecific T-cell engager for epithelioid sarcoma, along with an investigation into resistance mechanisms following progression. The treatment achieved a substantial partial response with a favorable safety profile. The findings suggest that resistance may be associated with loss of Mucin 16 expression and T-cell exhaustion. Follow-up studies are needed to confirm these mechanisms. Notably, the study also identifies INI1-deficient sarcoma as a group with high Mucin 16 expression, warranting additional validation and mechanism exploration. These findings offer valuable insight for future therapeutic strategies and support the use of Mucin 16/CA-125 as both a treatment target and a biomarker for patient selection and disease monitoring. Thank you for tuning in to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. Don't forget to subscribe and join us next time as we explore more groundbreaking research shaping the future of oncology. 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. Alison M. Schram at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center shares insights into her JCO PO article, “Retrospective Analysis of BRCA-Altered Uterine Sarcoma Treated With Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors.” Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Schram discuss relevant genomic and clinical features of patients with BRCA-altered uterine sarcoma and the efficacy of PARPis in this population. 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, podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and associate professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center. Today, we are excited to be joined by Dr. Alison Schram, Associate Attending Physician and Section Head of Oral Therapeutics with Early Drug Development and Gynecologic Medical Oncology Services at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and the senior author of the JCO Precision Oncology article titled, "Retrospective Analysis of BRCA-Altered Uterine Sarcoma Treated With Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors." At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Dr. Schram, thank you for joining us today. I am excited to be discussing this very interesting, unique topic based on what you published in JCO PO. Dr. Alison Schram: Thank you for having me. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: What we like to do for these podcasts is try to make them scientifically interesting but at the same time, keep them at a level where our trainees and other community oncology professionals understand the implications of what you've published. So I'd like to start by asking you, what is leiomyosarcoma for those of us who don't necessarily know a lot about leiomyosarcoma, and what are some of the treatment options for these uterine sarcomas? Dr. Alison Schram: Uterine leiomyosarcoma is a rare subtype of uterine cancer, and it represents about 1% of all female cancers in the reproductive tract. This is a rare malignancy that arises from the myometrial lining of the uterus, and it is generally pretty aggressive. In terms of the standard therapy, the standard therapy for uterine leiomyosarcoma includes chemotherapy, generally combination chemotherapy, but despite a few regimens that tend to be effective, the duration of effectiveness is relatively short-lived, and patients with advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma eventually progress and require additional therapy. I will say that localized uterine leiomyosarcoma can be treated with surgery as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that description. Now, there are two aspects to what you published. One is the sarcoma aspect, the leiomyosarcoma, and the second is the BRCA mutation. Since we are a precision medicine journal, although we've discussed BRCA a couple of times before, but again, for the sake of our listeners, could you highlight some of the aspects of BRCA and PARP sensitivity for us? Dr. Alison Schram: Yes. So BRCA is a gene that's important for DNA repair, and BRCA mutations can be either inherited as a germline mutation, so one of your parents likely had a BRCA mutation and you inherited one copy. In patients who have an inherited BRCA mutation, the normal cells tend to have one abnormal copy of BRCA, but if a second copy in the cell becomes altered, then that develops into cancer. And so these patients are at increased risk of developing cancers. Specifically, they are at an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and a few others. These cancers are considered BRCA-associated tumors. Alternatively, some patients, more rarely, can develop BRCA-altered cancers completely sporadically. So it's a mutation that happens in the tumor itself, and that can lead to impaired DNA repair and promote cancer progression. And those patients are not, they don't have any inherited risk, but just a random event caused a BRCA mutation in the tumor. The reason this is important is because, in addition to it being potentially important for family members, there are certain treatments that are more effective in BRCA-altered cancers. And the main example is PARP inhibitors, which are small molecule inhibitors that inhibit the PARP enzyme, and there is what we call synthetic lethality. So PARP is important for DNA repair, for single-stranded DNA repair, BRCA is important for double-stranded DNA repair, and in a patient that has a cancer that has a BRCA mutation, that cancer becomes more reliant on single-stranded DNA repair. And if you inhibit it with a PARP inhibitor, the cancer cells are unable to repair DNA, and the cells die. So we call that synthetic lethality. PARP inhibitors are FDA approved in several diseases, predominantly the BRCA-associated diseases I mentioned: breast cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That was very beautifully explained. Honestly, I've heard many people explain BRCA before, but you kind of put it in a very simple, easy to understand format. You mentioned this earlier describing germline or hereditary BRCA and somatic BRCA. And from what I gather, you had a predominant population of somatic BRCA, but a couple of germline BRCA as well in your patient population, which we'll go into details as we understand the study. You mentioned the second hit on the germline BRCA that is required for the other copy of the gene to be altered. In your clinical experience, have you seen outside of the study that you published, a difference in the sensitivity of PARP for germline BRCA versus a somatic BRCA that has loss of both alleles? Dr. Alison Schram: So we will get into what's unique about uterine sarcomas in just a minute. In uterine sarcomas, what we have found is that the BRCA mutations tend to be somatic and not germline, as you mentioned. That is in contrast to the other diseases we mentioned, where the vast majority of these tumors are in patients that have germline BRCA alterations. So one thing that's really unique about the uterine sarcoma population and our paper, I believe, is that it is demonstrating an indication for PARP inhibitors in a population that is not characterized by germline BRCA alterations, but truly these by somatic BRCA alterations. If you look at the diseases that PARP inhibitors are validated to be effective in, including the, you know, the ones I mentioned, the BRCA-associated tumors, there's some data in specific context that suggests that perhaps germline alterations are more sensitive to PARP inhibitors, but that's not universal, and it's really tricky to do because the genetic testing that we have doesn't always tell you if you have two hits or just one hit. So you need more complex genetic analysis to truly understand if there is what we call a biallelic loss. And sometimes it's not a second mutation in BRCA. Sometimes it's silencing of the gene by hypermethylation or epigenetics. Some of our clinical trials are now incorporating this data collection to really understand if biallelic loss that we can identify on more complex genetic testing predicts for better outcomes. And we think it's probably true that the patients that have biallelic loss, whether it be germline or somatic biallelic loss, are more likely to benefit from these treatments. That still needs to be tested in a larger cohort of patients prospectively. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: In your clinical experience, I know you predominantly use MSK-IMPACT, but maybe you've perhaps used some other NGS platforms, next-generation sequencing platforms. Have you noticed that these reports for BRCA alterations the report mentioning biallelic loss in certain cases? I personally don't- I do lung cancer, I do early-phase lung cancer as well, but I personally don't actually remember if I've seen a report that actually says biallelic loss. So after this podcast, I'm going to check some of those NGS reports and make sure I look at it. But have you seen it, or what would be a learning point for the listeners there? Dr. Alison Schram: Exactly. And they usually do not. They usually do not explicitly say, “This looks like biallelic loss,” on the reports. The exception would be if there's a deep deletion, then that implies both copies of the gene have been deleted, and so then you can assume that it's a biallelic loss. But oftentimes, when you see a frameshift alteration or a mutation, you don't know whether or not it's a biallelic loss. And you may be able to get some clues based on the variant allele frequencies, but due to things like whole genome duplication or more complex tumor genomics, it's not clear from these reports, and you really do need a more in-depth bioinformatic analysis to understand whether these are biallelic or not. So that is why I suggest that this really needs to be done in the context of a clinical trial, but there is definitely a theoretical rationale for reporting and treating patients with biallelic losses perhaps more so than someone who has a variant of unknown significance that seems to be monoallelic. The other tricky part, as I mentioned, is the fact that there could be epigenetic changes that silence the second copy, so that wouldn't be necessarily evident on a DNA report, and you would need more complex molecular testing to understand that as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Sure. Now, going to your study, could you tell us what prompted the study, what was the patient population that you collected, and how did you go about this research study design? Dr. Alison Schram: It's actually a great story. I was the principal investigator for a clinical trial enrolling patients regardless of their tumor type to a combination of a PARP inhibitor and immunotherapy. And this was a large clinical trial that was being done as a basket study, as I mentioned, for patients that have either germline or somatic alterations with advanced solid tumors that had progressed on standard therapy. And the hypothesis was that the combination of a PARP inhibitor and immunotherapy would be synergistic and that there would be increased efficacy compared to either agent alone and that patients who had BRCA alterations were a sensitive population to test because of their inherent sensitivity to PARP inhibitors and perhaps their increased neoantigen burden from having loss of DNA repair. So this large study, it's been published, really did show that there was efficacy across several tumor types, but it didn't seem to clearly demonstrate synergy between the immunotherapy and the PARP inhibitor as compared to what you might expect from a PARP inhibitor alone, and in addition to a couple of cases, perhaps attributable to the immunotherapy. So maybe additive rather than synergistic efficacy. However, what really struck me looking at the data was that there were three patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma with BRCA deletions who had the best responses of anyone on the study. So incredible, durable responses. One of my patients with a complete response that continues to not have any evidence of cancer eight years after the initiation of this regimen. And for those of us that treat uterine leiomyosarcoma, this is unheard of. These patients generally, as I mentioned, respond, if they do respond to chemotherapy, it's generally short-lived and the cancer progresses. And so a complete response nearly a decade later turns heads in this field. The other interesting thing was that these uterine leiomyosarcoma patients had somatic alterations rather than a germline alteration with a second hit, and the diseases that are best validated for being responsive to PARP inhibitors include the BRCA-associated diseases, the ones that you're at increased risk for if you have a germline BRCA mutation, including breast, pancreas, prostate, and ovarian. And so it was very interesting that this disease type that seemed to be uniquely sensitive to PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy was also different in that patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma don't tend to have a high frequency of BRCA alterations, and in patients that are born with a BRCA alteration, there doesn't seem to be a clearly increased risk of uterine sarcomas. So this population really jumped out as a uniquely sensitive population that differed from the prior indications for PARP inhibitors. Given this patient and these couple of patients that we observed on the combination, in addition to some other case reports and case series that had started to come out in small numbers, we wanted to look back at our large cohort of patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering to see if we could really get a better sense of the numbers. How many patients at Sloan Kettering with uterine sarcomas have BRCA alterations? Are they generally somatic or germline? Are there unique features about these patients in terms of their clinical characteristics? How many of them have received PARP inhibitors, and if so, is this just luck that these three patients did so well, or is this really a good treatment option for patients with BRCA-altered uterine sarcomas? And so we did this retrospective analysis identifying the patients at Sloan Kettering who met these criteria. So in total, we found 35 patients with uterine sarcomas harboring BRCA alterations, and the majority were leiomyosarcoma, about 86% of them had leiomyosarcoma, which is interesting because there are other uterine sarcomas, but it does seem like BRCA alterations tend to be more often in the leiomyosarcomas. And 13 of these patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma were treated with PARP inhibitors in the recurrent or metastatic setting with about half of those patients having an overall response, so that's a significant tumor shrinkage that sustained, and a clinical benefit rate of 62%. And if we look at the patients that had these BRCA2 deep deletions, which was the patient I had that had this amazing response, the overall response rate jumped to 60% and the clinical benefit rate to 80%. And we defined clinical benefit rate as having maintained on the PARP inhibitor without evidence of progression at six months. So this is really impressive for patients with a difficult to treat disease. And we couldn't do a randomized controlled trial comparing it to chemotherapy, but looking retrospectively at outcomes on chemotherapy studies, this was very favorable, particularly because many of these patients were heavily pretreated. So to get a sense of, you know, how this might compare to chemotherapy, we tried to use patients as their own internal controls, and we looked at how long patients were maintained on the PARP inhibitor as compared to how long they were on the treatment just prior. And we used a ratio of 1.3 to say if they were on the PARP inhibitor for 1.3 times what their previous treatment was or longer, that is pretty clearly better, more of a benefit from that regimen. And the majority of patients did meet that bar. So 58% had a PFS ratio greater than 1.3, and the average PFS ratio was 1.9, suggesting, you know, you would expect the the later lines of therapy to actually not work as well, but this suggests that it's actually working better than the immediately prior line of therapy, to me, suggesting that this is truly a good treatment option for these patients. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Very interesting. And you mentioned that individuals with tumors having deep deletions were probably more responsive. How did you figure out that there was biallelic loss or deep deletions? Was that part of an extended analysis that was done subsequently? Dr. Alison Schram: So the deletions reported on our report, if it's a biallelic deletion, that is the one biallelic molecular alteration that would be reported. So those are, by definition, biallelic, and I think that that may be one of the reasons that's a good biomarker. But also, what's interesting is that if you have both copies deleted of BRCA, you can't develop reversion mutations. So one of the the known mechanisms of resistance to PARP inhibitors in patients who have BRCA alterations are something called a reversion mutation where, if you have a frameshift alteration, for example, in BRCA that makes BRCA protein nonfunctional, you can develop a second mutation that actually puts the DNA back in frame, and a functional protein is now made. And so a mechanism of resistance to PARP inhibitors is actually reverting BRCA to a wild-type protein, and then BRCA's synthetic lethality no longer makes sense and is no longer effective. But if you've deleted both copies of BRCA, you don't have the ability to restore the function, and you can't develop reversion mutations. And that's perhaps why, you know, my patient and others have had these prolonged responses to PARP inhibitors because you don't have the same ability to develop that mechanism of resistance. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I remember thinking a year and a half back, I had an individual with prostate cancer and with BRCA2, and using liquid biopsy, I had a reversion mutation that we caught. In your practice, have you seen the utility of doing the serial liquid biopsies in these individuals to catch these reversion mutations? Dr. Alison Schram: Yes, absolutely. And in patients that have the ability to develop a reversion mutation, serial cell-free DNA can catch it, but the caveat is that it doesn't always. So if you see an acquired reversion mutation in cell-free DNA, that can be helpful, particularly if you're planning on putting the patient on another line of therapy that might require a dysfunctional BRCA. So if you're putting them on a clinical trial with a PARP combination and the rationale is that they're sensitive because they don't have a functional BRCA, you would want to know if they developed a reversion mutation, and serial cell-free DNA can definitely identify these reversion mutations. Some of the major clinical trials in ovarian cancer have done serial cell-free DNA and have demonstrated the utility of that approach. The caveat is that some of these reversion mutations are not readily caught on cell-free DNA because they're more complex reversion mutations, or they're not, the part of the gene that develops the reversion mutation is not tiled on the panel. And so it doesn't always catch the reversion mutations. Also, depends on the cell-free DNA shedding, depends on the tumor volume and other factors. And we published a related paper of a patient, it was a really interesting case of a patient with prostate cancer who was on a PARP inhibitor and developed what appeared to be a single reversion mutation on one sample, had negative cell-free DNA, single reversion mutation in a tissue biopsy, and then developed disease progression. And we did an autopsy, and the patient kindly consented to an autopsy, and at the time of autopsy, there were 10 unique reversion mutations identified across 11 metastases. So almost each metastasis had a unique reversion mutation, and only one of them had been seen premortem on a tissue biopsy and not on a cell-free DNA. But that autopsy really drove home to me how much we're missing by doing clinical testing in real time and we really don't know the entire genomic complexity of our patients by doing single samples. And theoretically, cell-free DNA can catch DNA from all the metastases, so you might think that that would be a solution, and it definitely can catch reversion mutations that are not seen in a single biopsy, but you really need to do it all. I mean, you need to do the tissue biopsy sampling, you need to do cell-free DNA, and probably one cell-free DNA test is not enough. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you, again, for that very nice explanation. Now, one quick provocative question. I remember when I was training, the lab that I used to work in, they used to do a lot of phosphorylation markers for DNA damage response, like phospho NBS, RAD51. Have you seen anything of that sort on these biallelic BRCA mutations where tumors are responding, but they also have a very high signature on the phosphorylation side, and it may or may not necessarily correspond to HRD signatures, but have you noticed or done any of that analysis? Dr. Alison Schram: I think that it would be great to do that analysis. And some of the work we're doing now is actually trying to dig a little bit deeper in our cohort of patients to understand are these HRD-positive tumors? Does HRD positivity correlate with response to BRCA alterations? In terms of the functional assays, I would love to be able to do a functional assay in these samples. One of the challenges is that this was a retrospective study and many of the patients were previously treated as standard of care or off-label with these agents, and so we didn't have prospective tissue collection, and so we're really limited by the tissue that was collected as part of standard of care and the consent forms that the patient signed that allow us to do genomic and molecular testing on their samples. So, I think that is hopefully future work that we will do and others will do. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Sure. Shifting gears to your career trajectory, I'd like to spend a couple of minutes there before we end the podcast. So Dr. Schram, you've obviously been a trailblazer in this space of drug development, early-phase trials. Can you give us a brief synopsis of your journey and how you've successfully done what you're doing and what are some of the things that drive you? Dr. Alison Schram: Well, thank you for saying that. I don't know if that's true, but I'll take the bait. I've been interested in oncology since college and was always very interested in not only the science of oncology but of course, treating patients. And in medical school, I did basic science research in a laboratory and it was very inspiring and made me want to do research in oncology in addition to clinical care. When I became an oncology fellow, I was presented with a very difficult question, which is, “Do you want to be a lab PI and be in the lab, or do you want to do clinical care and clinical research?” And I couldn't choose. I found a mentor who thankfully really had this amazing vision of combining the two and doing very early drug development, taking the data that was being generated by labs and translating it into patients at the earliest stage. So, you know, phase one drug development in molecularly targeted therapies. And so I became very interested as a fellow in early drug development and this ability to translate brand new molecular insights into novel drugs. And I joined the- at Sloan Kettering, there was the Early Drug Development, it was actually a clinic, it was called something different, and it was very fortuitous. My last year of fellowship, the clinic became its own service with the ability to hire staff at Sloan Kettering, and I was the first ever hire to our Early Drug Development Service. And that really inspired me to try and bring these drugs to patients and to really translate the amazing molecular insights that my colleagues here at Sloan Kettering are discovering, and you know, of course, at other institutions and in pharma. And you know, there 's been an amazing revolution in in drug development over the last several years, and I feel very grateful that I've been here for it. You know, I've been able to take the brilliant insights from my colleagues and put these drugs in patients, and I have the amazing privilege of watching patients in many cases that benefit from these treatments. And so I do mostly phase one drug development and molecularly targeted therapies, and truthfully, I am just very fortunate to be around such brilliant people and to have both patients and labs trust me to be able to deliver these new drugs to patients and hopefully develop better drugs that move forward through FDA approval and reach patients across the country. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much. That was very nicely put. And hopefully our trainees and junior faculty find that useful based on their own career trajectories. Thank you, Dr. Schram, for joining us today. Hopefully, we'll see more of your subsequent work in JCO PO. Thank you for giving us all these insights today. Dr. Alison Schram: Thank you for having me. 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/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. Dr. Alison Schram Disclosures Consulting or Advisory Role Company: Mersana, Merus NV, Relay Therapeutics, Schrodinger, PMV Pharma ,Blueprint Medicines, Flagship Pioneering, Redona Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, Endeavor BioMedicines Research Funding Company: Recipient: Your Institution  Merus, Kura, Surface Oncology, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer , Black Diamond Therapeutics, BeiGene, Relay Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines,  Repare Therapeutics, PMV Pharma, Elevation Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim Travel, Accommodations, Expenses Company: PMV Pharma 

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Natalie DelRocco summarizes "Prognostic Value of the G2 Expression Signature and MYC Overexpression in Childhood High-Grade Osteosarcoma" by Roelof van Ewijk et al. published on May 29, 2025. TRANSCRIPT Natalie Del Rocco: Hello, and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Natalie DelRocco, and today we will be discussing the original report, "Prognostic Value of the G2 Expression Signature and MYC Overexpression in Childhood High-Grade Osteosarcoma." This original report by van Ewijk et al. describes a study of the association between 2 biomarkers and survival outcomes among patients with high-grade osteosarcoma. Osteosarcoma is a disease where not much progress has been made in risk stratification factors that could potentially help patients target lower-risk therapies, less toxic therapies, or therapies that might be more toxic but could help their high-risk osteosarcoma. So, it's important to identify risk factors that can help target therapies. The G1/G2 gene expression signature is a prognostic risk score developed by a French osteosarcoma group in 2022. They showed in a cohort of 79 osteosarcoma patients that risk score was associated with poorer event-free survival and overall survival. This considers expression of 15 individual genes. MYC amplification was shown in 2023 by a North American osteosarcoma group to be associated with poor overall survival in a cohort of 92 osteosarcoma patients, and this group validated that finding in a localized cohort in the same publication.  The goal of this particular original report was to assess the prognostic significance of each of these biomarkers in a population independent to those prior publications and, hence, to serve as an external validation of prior findings and to assess these 2 biomarkers in the same study. The investigators considered MYC amplification, defined as having greater than 7 copies; MYC expression as a continuous rather than the previously categorized variable; and G2 expression defined as a continuous variable; and then G2 expression defined as a dichotomous variable with the cut point at the median, as done in the original paper.  What the investigators found in their primary multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model, which controlled for additional clinical risk factors such as age, tumor site, tumor size, is that G2 expression and MYC expression as continuous variables were associated with increased hazard of EFS and OS event. MYC amplification was not found to be prognostic. This is not surprising. When we have continuous variables, we have greater statistical power, we decrease the likelihood that an identified cut point in a previous study does not generalize well to either our genetic assay or our patient population. So, we don't have to worry about finding the optimal cut point in our particular patient sample. Thank you for listening to our JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to like and subscribe so that 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, 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 Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Natalie DelRocco summarizes "Real-Time Monitoring in Renal Cell Carcinoma With Circulating Tumor DNA: A Step Forward, but How Far?" by Zeynep B. Zengin et al. published on February 28, 2025. TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Natalie DelRocco: Hello, and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Natalie DelRocco, and today we will be discussing the editorial, "Real-Time Monitoring in Renal Cell Carcinoma With Circulating Tumor DNA: A Step Forward, but How Far?" This editorial by Zengin and Kotecha discusses the impact of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and its potential applications in renal cell carcinoma - we'll call this RCC for the remainder of the podcast. This article was published in February of 2025, and I think this is really timely because ctDNA is currently an emerging biomarker of interest in many different cancers. Having shown promise in certain cancers, other types of cancers are really targeting ctDNA to see if it can be used as a prognostic or a predictive biomarker in their specific field of oncology. Sometimes it is found that ctDNA is a prognostic marker that's associated with outcome, but it's not always clear whether it is a predictive biomarker that can help modify treatment and to what extent it could be helpful modifying treatment. This is what the authors of this editorial really focus on. They focus on the applications of ctDNA in RCC by interpreting the accompanying article, "Longitudinal Testing of Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma" by Basu et al. So, the editorial authors begin by giving examples of cancers where ctDNA has been shown to be useful in cancer monitoring - for example, locally advanced urothelial carcinoma - and they give examples of when it has not been shown to be useful in monitoring colorectal cancer. And this just highlights the variability of ctDNA as a biomarker. It's not always a useful biomarker, but sometimes it is. The authors note that RCC may fall into the latter category - that is, the "not useful" category - due to the low ctDNA shedding which characterizes RCC. However, metastatic RCC - we'll call this ‘mRCC’ for the remainder of the podcast - may be a target for use of ctDNA clinically due to advanced assay development, according to the authors. Basu et al, in the original work that the editorial accompanies, showed in a retrospective study of 92 patients with mRCC that ctDNA detectability was associated with poorer PFS, regardless of receipt of active treatment versus no receipt of active treatment. That's important because ctDNA can be directly affected by therapy. The authors of the editorial believe that this is a particularly promising result for a few reasons. Firstly, the estimated hazard ratios were quite large. A hazard ratio of 3.2 was seen in the active treatment group versus a hazard ratio of 18 was observed in the no-active-treatment group. I will note that a hazard ratio of 18 with an extremely wide confidence interval is an unusual observation. So, when interpreting this result, I would consider the direction and magnitude of the effect to be suggestive of promise but needing to be validated in the future to improve precision. And the authors of the editorial do agree with this; they note the same. The authors also note that a single-patient example was used to show how that ctDNA positivity can be used in mRCC to monitor and prompt imaging if disease progression is suspected. And then that way, disease progression can be caught earlier. That to say, there is a real target for clinical use, which isn't always the case. Sometimes we know that ctDNA is associated with outcome, but we don't quite know how we can modify when we know that ctDNA is positive. In this case, the editorial authors show that we can use ctDNA positivity to monitor patients for disease progression. Despite the promise of the study, the editorial does highlight that the study inherits typical retrospective study limitations. For example, there is a heterogeneous cohort. There is variability in data collection, particularly nailing down specific time points, which can always be a challenge when collecting biological samples as part of a study. And small sample size - although 92 patients is great for renal cell carcinoma, it is a challenging sample size with respect to precision of those hazard ratio estimates, which we've already talked about. The authors additionally note that ctDNA could be used to direct therapy, not just to monitor for disease progression. So, both monitoring and changing therapy would certainly require further study and validation, which is discussed by the authors of this editorial. We would want larger, prospective studies showing the same association before we would be comfortable modifying treatment for patients based on their ctDNA positivity level. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. Don't forget to give us a rating or a review, and be sure to subscribe so that 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, 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. Philip Philip at Henry Ford Cancer Institute and Wayne State University shares insights into his JCO PO article, “Incorporating Circulating Tumor DNA Testing Into Clinical Trials: A Position Paper by the National Cancer Institute GI Oncology Circulating Tumor DNA Working Group.” Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Philip discuss how prospective trials are required to clarify the role of ctDNA as a valid surrogate end point for progression-free or overall survival in GI cancers. 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, Podcast 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. Philip Philip, Chair of Hematology and Oncology, as well as leader of GI and Neuroendocrine Oncology. He's also the Professor of Oncology and Pharmacology, as well as Co-Leader of the Pancreatic Cancer Program and Medical Director of the Cancer Clinical Trial and Translational Research Office at the Henry Ford Cancer Institute at Wayne State University. Dr. Philip is also the Senior Corresponding Author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled, "Incorporating Circulating Tumor DNA Testing into Clinical Trials: A Position Paper by the National Cancer Institute GI Oncology Circulating Tumor DNA Working Group." At the time of this recording, our guest’s disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Dr. Philip, welcome to our podcast, and thank you so much for joining us today. Dr. Philip Philip: Thank you so much, Dr. Naqash, for providing me this opportunity to be discussing this with you. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: This is a very timely and interesting topic. We've done a couple of podcasts on ctDNA before, but none that is an opinion piece or a guidance piece based on what you guys have done. Could you tell us what led to this perspective piece or guidance manuscript being published? There is some background to this. Could you tell us, for the sake of our listeners, what was the initial thought process of why you all wanted to do this? Dr. Philip Philip: The major reason for this was the fact that investigators were considering using ctDNA as a primary endpoint in clinical trials. Obviously, you hear my focus will be on gastrointestinal cancers. So, the idea was, can we use ctDNA instead of using the traditional endpoints such as disease-free survival, progression-free survival, or overall survival? And the question was, do we have enough data to support that in patients with gastrointestinal cancers? Now, the article obviously goes over some review of the data available, but the core of the article was not to do a comprehensive review of ctDNA use and the evidence so far, although we used that in really putting our recommendations. So, we really had to evaluate available data. But the focus was, what are the gaps? What do we need to do? And are we ready to use ctDNA as a primary endpoint in clinical trials? Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for giving us that background. Obviously, a very broad, complicated topic with a bunch of emerging data that you've highlighted. But most importantly, for the sake of, again, trainees and listeners, could you help us understand the difference between tumor-informed and non-tumor-based ctDNA assessments? Dr. Philip Philip: Sure. So, the tumor-informed is simply meaning that you're taking the genomic makeup or the DNA fingerprint of the cancer in a given patient, and you create a profile, and then use that profile to see whether that DNA is present in the blood. So, it's very simple. It's like barcoding DNA and then going and looking for it in the blood, which means that you have to have the primary tumor. When I say primary tumor, you need to have the tumor to start off with. It doesn't really apply, maybe easily, if you just have a fine-needle aspirate and things like that. So, you really have to have a good amount of the tumor for you to be able to do that. So, that's a tumor-informed, and from the name, you can easily understand how it's done, compared to the other one, which is uninformed, whereby off-the-shelf probes are used to look for tumor DNA. And again, they're based on prior experience and prior identification of the key DNA changes that will be seen in tumors. So, that's the difference between the two in terms of the principle of the test. The uninformed will not require you to send the original tumor that you're trying to test. However, the informed, you do. The turnaround time is, again, a bit different because, as you would expect, it's shorter in the uninformed. And the reason for that, again, is the initial preparation of the profile that is going to be used in the future when you do serial testing. The sensitivity has been a bit of a discussion. Initially, people have thought that tumor-informed assays are more sensitive, more specific, more sensitive, et cetera. But in our review, we come to the conclusion saying that we don't think that's going to be a major difference. And there are obviously improvements happening in both types of assays. The sensitivities have been improving. So, at this point in time, we do feel that you have two types of assays, and we didn't feel strongly about recommending one over the other. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that description. You mentioned something about sensitivity, specificity. Obviously, many of us who have ordered both tumor-informed and tumor-uninformed, we understand the differences with respect to the timing. The tumor-informed one can take more time. The uninformed one, being a sort of a liquid biopsy, may not necessarily have as much of a turnaround time. Could you briefly speak to those limitations or advantages in the context of the two versions? Dr. Philip Philip: I just really want to also highlight that when we say turnaround time, so for the tumor-informed assays, the first assay that we do will be requiring a turnaround time. But once the pattern has been set and the profile has been documented, the subsequent testing doesn't require much in the way of waiting. However, when you're using this for the minimal residual disease, then you have a window of opportunity to work at. That's number one. So, it means that in patients who have resected cancer, you may end up having to wait longer than the tumor-uninformed assay, especially if you don't have easy access to your material for the baseline material to send. And also, what we'd like to do is not do the test immediately after the operation or soon after the operation. Give it some time. There's a window where you can work at, and starting minimally two weeks after the surgery. But in my experience, I'd like to wait at least four weeks just to make sure that we got an accurate reading. Sometimes when you do it very early after surgery, because of the effect of the surgery and the release of the normal DNA is also, it may dilute the tumor DNA, and then you may get a false negative. So, basically, it depends on the clinical situation. And your question is, is one better to be used than the other? I think ultimately, it ends up with the turnaround time not being as much of an issue. It might be in certain situations, depending on when you see the patients after the operation or any definitive treatment you've done and you want to look for minimal residual disease. But in general, I don't think that's going to be a real major issue. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I remember discussing this with one of the tumor-informed platforms with regards to this barcode you mentioned. They generate a fingerprint of sorts for the tumor on the tissue, then they map it out in the blood and try to assess it longitudinally. And one of the questions and discussions we had was around the fact that most of the time, these barcoded genes are not the driver genes. If you have a KRAS mutant tumor, it's not going to be the KRAS gene that they map out. It's something that is specific. So, is there a possibility that when you are mapping out, let's say, a metastatic tumor where there is truncal and subclonal mutations at different sites, that you capture something that is not necessarily truncal, and that does not necessarily reflect some other metastatic site having a recurrence? So basically, over time, you don't see a specific mutational pattern or the signature on the tumor-informed, and then you see something on the scan which makes you think, "Well, it was not the right test," but actually it could be a different subclone or a clone mutation at a different site. Is there a concept that could help us understand that better? Dr. Philip Philip: I think you raise a very important point. Although, I have to say from my practical experience, that is not a common thing to see. In fact, for some reason, we don't see it that often in any frequency that should, at this point in time, make us concerned about the serial testing. But what you were mentioning is a real challenge which can happen. Now, the question is, how often does the clonal evolution or the divergence happen to the point that it's going to be like a false negative, is what you're saying. At this point in time, we don't really have good information on that, or any good information, practical information. And when we went through the literature and we were looking for the evidence, that wasn't something which was there clearly telling us. Although, this is something that has to be studied further prospectively. And I don't know of a study, but I might be missing it, I don't know of a study which is systematically looking at this. Although it's a very valid hypothesis and theoretical basis for it, but in real life, we still have to see how much does it really interfere with the validity of this kind of testing. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Which brings us to the more important discussion around your manuscript. And I think that the overarching theme here is the consensus panel that you guys had recommended that ctDNA-based metrics be used as a co-primary endpoint. Could you tell us, for early-phase trials, maybe phase two studies for that matter, could you tell us what were some of the aspects that led to this consensus being formed from your working group? Dr. Philip Philip: Well, there were a number of reasons, in any order of priority, but one of them is we don't have a good sense of dynamics of the ctDNA. And again, remember this article was about gastrointestinal cancers. Maybe we know more about colon cancer, but, or colorectal cancer, but we don't know that well about the upper GI, like gastroesophageal, pancreatic, et cetera. So, we don't know what is the false negative percentages. And in fact, we know that there are certain sites of the disease, metastases, that do not lead to enough shedding of the DNA into the circulation. So, that was something else. I mean, false negativity, not knowing exactly what the dynamics are, especially in different disease types. So, that was another reason, which we felt that it may not be at this time primetime to really have those ctDNA tests as a primary endpoint. We wanted to make sure that, on the other hand, we wanted to make sure that people consider including ctDNA more like a secondary endpoint so that we can gain the information that we're lacking, at least the ones I mentioned to you. So, that was an important point of our discussions and deliberations when we were writing the article. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And I myself have been on both sides of the aisle where - I treat people with lung cancer, you mentioned appropriately that most of the data that we have for ctDNA is generated from GI cancers, especially colorectal - on the lung cancer side, I myself had a patient with an early-stage cancer, had treatment, surgery, immunotherapy, and then had ctDNA that was tumor-informed, was positive four to five months before the imaging actually showed up. And on the other side, I've also had an individual where early-stage lung cancer, surgery, immunotherapy, and then had PET scans that showed a positive finding, but the ctDNA, tumor-informed ctDNA, was negative multiple times. So, I've seen both aspects of it, and your paper tries to address some of these questions on how to approach a negative, radiologically negative imaging but positive ctDNA potentially, and vice versa. Could you elaborate upon that a little bit? Dr. Philip Philip: Well, obviously, we do see this in practice. Again, I do GI oncology. I have patients who, you do ctDNA. I mean, my advice to anyone, when you order a test, you have to make sure that you know what you're going to do with the test, because that's the most important thing. You get a positive test, you do something. You get a negative test, you do something. But most importantly, our patients who you're following up, they are very anxious for a diagnosis they have that is not- I mean, it's cancer. If you're doing these tests, if we get continuous, repeatedly negative testing, then you really have to also tell the patient that there's a false negativity. And I mentioned to you earlier, there are certain sites of disease, like peritoneal, they may not be producing enough, or there are some tumors, their biology is such that they don't release as much to be detected in the blood. Now, one day we will get maybe a more sensitive test, but I'm talking about the tests we have now. On the other hand, if you get a positive testing, you have to make a distinction for ctDNA in the minimal residual disease situation. If you get a positive test, there is enough evidence that the patient has a worse prognosis. There's evidence for that. No one can dispute that. Again, I'm talking about colorectal cancer where there are a lot of data for that. So, in that situation, there are studies that are looking, if you get a positive test in someone who you're not intending to give any adjuvant treatment, there are studies looking into that, both in terms of intensifying, like chemotherapy, in certain patients. And also, there's work being done, if you have a negative test in someone who has stage III disease, for example, or definitely stage II disease, they may not need to give them chemo. Those things are happening. But in metastatic disease, it's a different situation. Or even in someone who has received surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, in those patients where they, whether they're now under, in the surveillance mode, those patients, if you have a positive, it may be positive. I had a recent patient like those, eight months before we saw anything on the scans. So, the question is, if you have a positive test, is there any advantage in giving them treatment, systemic treatment? Of course, we're assuming that the PET scan is negative. So, is there really any advantage in giving someone treatment ahead of time, before you see the imaging changes? That kind of data, in my opinion, is not really available or strong. You can always think of it in different ways, explain it in different ways. It's minimal disease, maybe you get a better response. But I don't know if we really can justify at this time. Therefore, in my practice, my own practice, I do not treat just a positive ctDNA. Again, that's different than after surgery when you're thinking of whether to give adjuvant treatment, no adjuvant treatment. But someone who's finished treatments and then you're just serially monitoring the disease, those patients, I do not treat them with chemotherapy. And that was something which, based on the literature we reviewed, there was nothing out there to definitely- I mean, if you see something positive, you will do a scan earlier, you will talk to the patient, examine the patient, whatever. But if there's nothing there, starting a treatment, that's not justified at this point in time. Now, you need to do a study like that. Definitely, you need to do a study. But I can tell you that from my experience, having been involved with study design and all that, it's not an easy trial to do. It's going to be a trial- at a minimum, it will take many patients, it will take longer time to complete, and there are a number of variables there. If someone is willing to put a lot of money into it, it can be done. But I can tell you that that kind of intention to do a study like that has been very much a challenge at this time. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Of course, as you mentioned, the follow-up time that you need for a study like that is going to be very long to get to meaningful outcomes. Dr. Philip Philip: You need to be very patient to do such a study. But the problem with a very long study is that things change, standard of care changes with time, and the assays will change. So, that's why we don't have that kind of data. I'm not sure if there are people in the community or in the academic centers who do treat based on only positive ctDNA. The other thing is that you really have to always consider the psychological impact of these tests on patients and caregivers. Sometimes it can be really very stressful, burdensome to people to sit there just waiting for the disease to show up on a scan. And therefore, in my opinion, I'm not saying definitely don't use it in that situation, I'm just saying that you have to personalize it also, to see the patient who you would like to do it and then other patients who may not do it, or you think that it's not good for them to do it. And the patient also has to understand the outcome of the test and how you're going to be interpreting it. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That's a lot of great insights, Dr. Philip, and I know you've been involved in trial designs. I'm sure NCT and cooperative groups are actively thinking and incorporating ctDNA-based metrics as one of the endpoints in their trial. I know of a GU study that's, I think it's an Alliance study, trying to de-escalate treatment based on ctDNA. I have one of my colleagues who's also a GU investigator at OU, he's doing a ctDNA-based, tumor-informed-based de-escalation. So, obviously, more and more data, hopefully, that'll be generated in the next couple of years. Dr. Philip Philip: But remember, these studies are not using it as an endpoint. They're using it as a means of optimizing treatment, which is a bit different. So, as an endpoint, can you do a phase III trial of, let's say, a thousand patients, and your primary endpoint is not survival, but you're saying, "Can I reduce the ctDNA, clear it earlier, or whatever?" That's the sort of thing this article was about. We can't do that at this time. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I totally understand. Thank you for explaining the difference, and hopefully more to come in this space in the next couple of years. I briefly wanted to touch upon your personal career and journey based on all that you've done and accomplished. Could you tell us about how you started, what your journey has been like, and how that connects with what you're doing right now, including mentoring other trainees and junior faculty? Dr. Philip Philip: Well, when I was in high school, I wanted to be an engineer, but I grew up in Baghdad, and all my friends wanted to do medicine, so I went with the tide, so I did medicine. I don't regret that. I would do it again if I had the opportunity. The reason why I did oncology was, I left the country and did a PhD in clinical pharmacology at the University of London. And that really got me, it was a topic which included, which was on cancer. So, I really got interested in a disease that is really a lot of science, and things are new, or were new at the time. And if I want to look back what I was doing, the beginning of my training in the 80s, second half of the 80s, and now, it's unbelievable how things have changed. But one of the things which I really have to say is that almost all my life I've been in what we call academic institutions. But I firmly believe that for people, whether academic or not, you have to be a very good, astute clinician, because many of the things we do, really, we're trying to put the patients in the center. It's not only doing fancy science, it's to do things that help the patients. And you can bring in bits and pieces of fancy science or less fancy science, but that's something which is really extremely important for us to think about, being a very good clinician, very good doctor, because medicine is a science, whether you're practicing as a solo practitioner or you're part of a large academic center. It's the way you think, the way you interrogate things that you're not sure of, the way you collaborate, the way you learn every day. I mean, at my age, I still don't like to miss any tumor board, because in each tumor board, there's something you learn, even if you think that you know everything. So, that's really the whole thing of it, is that be a very good clinician, be open-minded. Always, you have to think of things that, they look interesting, they look somehow unexplained. Always try to help find the solutions and do that. One of the major things that I feel that people should do is being also very focused on things. I mean, you have to also know what you want to do in the next 5, 10, 15 years. Because although everyone is in it in the same way when we start, but there are different things that drive people, people who want to do more of the formal research, like being an academic-like institution. But there are also a lot of people who are very successful outside of a- what we call an academic setting. In the United States, most people are not working in an academic kind of setting. Although, for me, the distinction between academic and community is getting less and less, because if you think that you do phase I trials in academia only, that's not true, because there are, in fact, in the state of Michigan, the most active phase I doctor is not even in academia, he's in private practice. So, you can do all these things. It's a matter of what you like to do, and you really have to make sure you know what you want to do. Because sometimes people are, especially early on, they get a bit confused, “What I want to do.” There's an issue of doing general oncology versus subspecialist. If you're a subspecialist doing only GI, you have to make sure that you really also have some kind of recognition that you're only a GI oncologist, recognition regional, national, international, but some degree of recognition that you feel that people are coming to you for advice as a second opinion or whatever it is. But again, you have to decide what you think you want to be, how you want to be, because there's a lot of options here between community practice, academic practice, industry, and of course, there's always the administrative thing. Some people tend to be more like going into the line of being an administrator. So, there's a lot of options for you. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, thank you again, Dr. Philip, for those pearls of wisdom. I think that was very insightful. I'm sure all the trainees and early-career investigators will find all that advice very helpful. Thank you again for joining us today. 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. Dr. Philip Philip Disclosures Honoraria: Bayer, Ipsen, incyte, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Astellas Pharma, BioNTech SE, Novocure, TriSalus Life Sciences, SERVIER, Seagen Consulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Ipsen, Merck, TriSalus Life Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, SynCoreBio, Taiho Pharmaceutical Speakers' Bureau: Incyte Research Funding: Bayer (Inst), incyte (Inst), Merck (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), novartis (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Genentech (Inst), halozyme (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), merus (Inst), BioNTech SE (Inst) Uncompensated Relationships: Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Caris MPI  

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Jiasen He summarizes "Predictive Impact of Tumor Mutational Burden on Real-World Outcomes of First-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Metastatic Melanoma” by Dr. Miles C. Andrews, et al. published on June 07, 2024. Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Jiasen He: Hello and welcome to the JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Jiasen, and today we'll be discussing the JCO Precision Oncology article, "Predictive Impact of Tumor Mutational Burden on Real-World Outcomes of First-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Metastatic Melanoma," by Dr. Miles C. Andrews and colleagues. This study was supported by Foundation Medicine, a for-profit company that conducts FDA-regulated molecular diagnostics, including assays used to measure tumor mutational burdens, or TMB, as described in this article. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has become a cornerstone in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. They work by activating the patient's own immune system, representing a fundamentally different approach from traditional chemotherapy. Several biomarkers have emerged as promising tools to predict ICI therapy response, and TMB is one of the most extensively studied. TMB is defined as the number of somatic mutations per megabase of an interrogated genome sequence. In the KEYNOTE-158 study, patients with high TMB showed better response rates and longer progression-free survival compared to those with low TMB, which led to the FDA tumor-agnostic approval of TMB as a biomarker to guide ICI therapy. In this manuscript, Dr. Andrews and colleagues set out to answer an important question: does TMB predict outcomes of ICI therapy in real-world patients with advanced melanoma? To explore this, they analyzed de-identified data from the nationwide Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine Clinico-Genomic Database (CGDB). To be included, patients needed to have had at least two visits to a Flatiron Health clinic and a Foundation Medicine Comprehensive Genomic Profiling report. Eligible patients had received first-line treatment with either monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) or dual therapy with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab for metastatic melanoma. They also needed a tissue-based TMB score from either the FoundationOne or FoundationOne CDx genomic test. For this study, TMB less than 10 mutations per megabase was considered low TMB; TMB equal to or more than 10 mutations per megabase was considered high TMB; and TMB equal to or more than 20 mutations per megabase was considered very high TMB. Of the 497 patients in the final cohort, 29% had low TMB, while 71% had high TMB, and 50% had very high TMB. The authors observed that patients with very high TMB were more often male, had BRAF wild-type tumors, and were more likely to receive anti-PD-1 monotherapy. This group also had tumors more commonly sampled from brain and lung metastases. Patients with high TMB but not very high TMB were more likely to carry the BRAF V600K mutation and were least likely to have lung metastases. Meanwhile, those with low TMB tended to be younger and had disease limited to non-visceral sites. As expected, the presence of ultraviolet mutation signatures, a known driver of melanoma, was strongly associated with TMB. UV signatures were found in just 18% of the low TMB group, but in 89% of the high TMB and 93% of the very high TMB group. High TMB was found to be prognostic of improved real-world progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients receiving both monotherapy and dual immune checkpoint inhibitors, even after adjusting for other established prognostic factors. Interestingly, in the low TMB group, overall survival was likely confounded by the availability of effective second-line targeted therapy, particularly for BRAF-mutant patients. These patients had better outcomes compared to their BRAF wild-type counterparts, likely reflecting a greater reliance on salvage therapy in low TMB patients who derived less benefit from first-line immunotherapy. The authors then further examined the ICI outcomes using stepwise TMB thresholds, with TMB less than 10 as low, 10 to 19 as high, and equal to or more than 20 as very high. For those receiving ICI monotherapy, both PFS and OS were highest in the very high TMB group, followed by the high TMB group, and lowest in the low TMB group. However, in patients treated with dual ICI therapy, the results diverged. While low TMB patients still had the poorest outcomes, those with high TMB (mutations 10 to 19 per megabase) had better PFS and overall survival than those with very high TMB (mutations equal to or more than 20 per megabase). The authors then conducted exploratory multivariable modeling, showing that among very high TMB patients with BRAF mutations, dual ICI therapy was associated with a significantly higher hazard ratio compared to monotherapy. They concluded that dual ICI may not benefit, and could even harm, patients with very high TMB, whereas those with TMB between 10 and 20 mutations per megabase may get more from the intensified regimen. Importantly, as the authors stated in the manuscript, we need to note that in this cohort, very high TMB patients were more likely to have brain metastases at treatment initiation, be male, and lack BRAF V600E/K mutations—all factors associated with poorer prognosis. This might partially explain inferior outcomes to dual ICI in very high TMB patients, as patients were not randomly assigned to therapy in this retrospective, real-world study. As such, these findings should be interpreted with caution and validated in future studies. In summary, this study showed that in a real-world setting, high tumor mutational burden predicts better outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. Interestingly, the authors found that dual ICI therapy may offer no added benefit for patients with very high TMB compared to ICI monotherapy. However, this was a retrospective, non-randomized study, and the cohorts were imbalanced for some known risk factors, which could confound outcomes. As a result, these findings should be interpreted with caution and will need to be validated in future prospective studies. Thank you for tuning into JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. Don't forget to subscribe and join us next time as we explore more groundbreaking research shaping the future of oncology. Until then, stay informed and stay inspired. 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.