Impact of molecular testing in clinical practice in gynecologic cancers

The Clinical Utility and Impact of Next Generation Sequencing in Gynecologic Cancers

Simple Summary

Cancer cells harbor many genetic abnormalities, but the key oncogenic pathways that lead to clinically evident cancer require driver mutations termed actionable mutations. These actionable mutations can be detected using genomic profiling or next-generation sequencing tests. This discovery has led to a tremendous change in treatment regimens from standard chemotherapy to targeted therapy where drugs are specifically targeted against these actionable mutations. Due to the cost-effectiveness and various testing platforms, utilization of these tests by oncologists has increased enormously, but the impact of targeted therapy based on these test results is still understudied. We aimed to identify the clinical utility rate of the tests and analyze the survival benefit for those receiving targeted therapy based on the test results of gynecologic cancer patients. Our findings showed high clinical utility of the tests used by gynecologic oncologists along with a significant survival benefit.

Abstract

Next generation sequencing (NGS) has facilitated the identification of molecularly targeted therapies. However, clinical utility is an emerging challenge. Our objective was to identify the clinical utility of NGS testing in gynecologic cancers. A retrospective review of clinico-pathologic data was performed on 299 gynecological cancers where NGS testing had been performed to identify (1) recognition of actionable targets for therapy, (2) whether the therapy changed based on the findings, and (3) the impact on survival. High grade serous carcinoma was the most common tumor (52.5%). The number of genetic alterations ranged from 0 to 25 with a mean of 2.8/case. The most altered genes were TP53, PIK3CA, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Among 299 patients, 100 had actionable alterations (79 received a targeted treatment (Group1), 29 did not receive treatment (Group 2), and there were no actionable alterations in 199 (Group3). The death rate in groups 1, 2 and 3 was 54.4%, 42.8% and 50.2%, with an average survival of 18.6, 6.6 and 10.8 months, respectively (p = 0.002). In summary, NGS testing for gynecologic cancers detected 33.4% of actionable alterations with a high clinical action rate. Along with the high clinical utility of NGS, testing also seemed to improve survival for patients who received targeted treatment.

Cancer of the corpus uteri: 2021 update

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy in high‐ and middle‐income countries. Although the overall prognosis is relatively good, high‐grade endometrial cancers have a tendency to recur. Recurrence needs to be prevented since the prognosis for recurrent endometrial cancer is dismal. Treatment tailored to tumor biology is the optimal strategy to balance treatment efficacy against toxicity. Since The Cancer Genome Atlas defined four molecular subgroups of endometrial cancers, the molecular factors are increasingly used to define prognosis and treatment. Standard treatment consists of hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy. Lymphadenectomy (and increasingly sentinel node biopsy) enables identification of lymph node‐positive patients who need adjuvant treatment, including radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Adjuvant therapy is used for Stage I–II patients with high‐risk factors and Stage III patients; chemotherapy is especially used in non‐endometrioid cancers and those in the copy‐number high molecular group characterized by TP53 mutation. In advanced disease, a combination of surgery to no residual disease and chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy results in the best outcome. Surgery for recurrent disease is only advocated in patients with a good performance status with a relatively long disease‐free interval.

The latest state‐of‐the‐art treatment for endometrial cancer is described, incorporating the most recent new data that influence its clinical management.

Outcomes after targeted treatment based on somatic tumor genetic testing for women with gynecologic cancers

OBJECTIVE

Molecular tumor profiling and next-generation sequencing are being increasingly utilized, but there are limited data on the therapeutic implications and potential benefits of targeted treatments. We aim to characterize gynecologic oncology patients referred for somatic tumor genetic mutation testing and assess survival outcomes, efficacy, and toxicities of those receiving targeted therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of gynecologic oncology patients referred for somatic tumor testing by next generation sequencing between 1/1/2012-8/23/2019. The primary objective was to compare overall and progression free survival between those treated with targeted therapy (group 1) versus traditional treatment (group 2).

RESULTS

Most patients (70%) had additional treatment options available based on actionable mutations. The median number of somatic mutations identified was 5 (range 0-53). Patients in group 1 had more actionable somatic mutations (median 2 versus 0, p < 0.001). There was no difference in OS (median 64 versus 76 months, p = 0.97) or PFS (median 2 versus 8 months, p = 0.05) between the groups. While fewer patients in group 1 experienced neuropathy (0 versus 5, p = 0.02), grade I/II thrombocytopenia (7 versus 13, p = 0.03), grade III/IV thrombocytopenia (0 versus 4, p = 0.02), and grade III/IV neutropenia (1 versus 9, p = 0.002), all other non-hematologic toxicities were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Most gynecologic cancer patients have actionable mutations and may benefit from a personalized targeted therapy treatment plan. Next generation sequencing can be used to identify clinically actionable mutations in gynecologic cancers and guide the selection of treatments, thereby expanding treatment options without worsening survival or toxicity.

GYNOCARE Update: Modern Strategies to Improve Diagnosis and Treatment of Rare Gynecologic Tumors—Current Challenges and Future Directions

Simple Summary

More than 50% of all the tumors affecting the female genital tract can be classified as rare and usually have a poor prognosis owing to delayed diagnosis and treatment. Currently, gynecologic cancer research, due to distinct scientific and technological challenges, is lagging behind. Moreover, the overall efforts for addressing these challenges are fragmented across different countries. The European Network for Gynecological Rare Cancer Research: GYNOCARE aims to address these challenges by creating a unique network between key stakeholders covering distinct domains from basic research to cure. GYNOCARE is part of a European Collaboration in Science and Technology (COST) with the aim to focus on the development of new approaches to improve the diagnosis and treatment of rare gynecological tumors. Here, we provide a brief overview describing the goals of this COST Action and its future challenges with the aim to continue fighting against this rare cancer.

Abstract

More than 50% of all gynecologic tumors can be classified as rare (defined as an incidence of ≤6 per 100,000 women) and usually have a poor prognosis owing to delayed diagnosis and treatment. In contrast to almost all other common solid tumors, the treatment of rare gynecologic tumors (RGT) is often based on expert opinion, retrospective studies, or extrapolation from other tumor sites with similar histology, leading to difficulty in developing guidelines for clinical practice. Currently, gynecologic cancer research, due to distinct scientific and technological challenges, is lagging behind. Moreover, the overall efforts for addressing these challenges are fragmented across different European countries and indeed, worldwide. The GYNOCARE, COST Action CA18117 (European Network for Gynecological Rare Cancer Research) programme aims to address these challenges through the creation of a unique network between key stakeholders covering distinct domains from concept to cure: basic research on RGT, biobanking, bridging with industry, and setting up the legal and regulatory requirements for international innovative clinical trials. On this basis, members of this COST Action, (Working Group 1, “Basic and Translational Research on Rare Gynecological Cancer”) have decided to focus their future efforts on the development of new approaches to improve the diagnosis and treatment of RGT. Here, we provide a brief overview of the current state-of-the-art and describe the goals of this COST Action and its future challenges with the aim to stimulate discussion and promote synergy across scientists engaged in the fight against this rare cancer worldwide.

Results and Clinical Utilization of Foundation Medicine Molecular Tumor Profiling in Uterine and Ovarian Cancers

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in next-generation sequencing have allowed for an increase in molecular tumor profiling.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the actionability and clinical utilization of molecular tumor profiling results obtained via Foundation Medicine tumor sequencing tests in uterine and ovarian cancers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a single-institution retrospective chart review to obtain demographic and clinical information in patients with uterine and ovarian cancer whose tumors were submitted to Foundation Medicine for molecular tumor profiling over a 7-year period. Alterations identified on testing were stratified according to the OncoKB database actionability algorithm. Descriptive statistics were primarily used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Tumors from 185 women with gynecologic cancer were submitted for molecular tumor profiling between 2013 and 2019. The majority of tests (144/185; 78%) were ordered after a diagnosis of recurrence. In 60 (32%), no actionable molecular alteration was identified. Thirteen (7%) identified an alteration that directed to a US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy in that tumor type, while 112 (61%) had alterations with investigational or hypothetical treatment implications. In patients with any actionable finding, treatment was initiated in 27 (15%) based on these results.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of uterine and ovarian cancers (93%) did not have molecular alterations with corresponding Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments. Even in patients with a potentially actionable alteration, gynecologic oncologists were more likely to choose an alternative therapy. Further investigation is warranted to determine which patients with uterine and ovarian cancer are most likely to benefit from molecular tumor profiling and the ideal timing of testing. The potential to identify effective therapeutic options in a minority of patients needs to be balanced with the current limited clinical applicability of these results in most cases.

Matched sequential tumor molecular profiling in solid malignancies may impact clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

To determine if performing repeat tumor molecular profiling in solid malignancies over time can identify new findings that impact clinical care.

METHODS

All patients with a solid malignancy and more than 1 tumor molecular analysis were identified at a single institution. Each test report was examined to identify the genomic alterations. Chart review was performed to determine subsequent therapies following each test result and the impact of tumor profiling on clinical practice.

RESULTS

At a single institution, 110 patients were identified with having more than 1 tumor molecular analysis, with 98 subjects having test results available for review. Eighty-seven patients had differences in reported results at the time of subsequent analysis. These differences may reflect changes in tumor biology, be attributed to intra-patient or intra-tumor heterogeneity or be due to technical updates of the next generation sequencing platforms. Among the 98 subjects with solid tumors, the median time between tests was 10 months (range 0.5-66 months), with the majority of tests performed at the time of disease progression or recurrence. In this population, a total of 30 patients received targeted therapies that were associated with actionable findings on any tumor molecular analysis. Of these, 6 patients had new genomic findings identified on sequential testing that affected treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The future of cancer care must include precision medicine approaches. Evolution of next generation sequencing has contributed to this effort. Results of this single institution study summarize the reported findings on tumor molecular testing and suggest that subsequent testing may impact clinical care in a subset of patients. While only 6% of patients in this study saw a change in treatment based on new findings on sequential testing reports, this approach may be more clinically relevant in the future with the development of novel targeted therapies. This may be especially significant in a patient population that has progressed on standard therapies and where treatment options are limited.

Unique Molecular Features in High-Risk Histology Endometrial Cancers

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States and the sixth most common cancer in women worldwide. Fortunately, most women who develop endometrial cancer have low-grade early-stage endometrioid carcinomas, and simple hysterectomy is curative. Unfortunately, 15% of women with endometrial cancer will develop high-risk histologic tumors including uterine carcinosarcoma or high-grade endometrioid, clear cell, or serous carcinomas. These high-risk histologic tumors account for more than 50% of deaths from this disease. In this review, we will highlight the biologic differences between low- and high-risk carcinomas with a focus on the cell of origin, early precursor lesions including atrophic and proliferative endometrium, and the potential role of stem cells. We will discuss treatment, including standard of care therapy, hormonal therapy, and precision medicine-based or targeted molecular therapies. We will also discuss the impact and need for model systems. The molecular underpinnings behind this high death to incidence ratio are important to understand and improve outcomes.

Impact of molecular testing in clinical practice in gynecologic cancers

Background

With the growing understanding of the molecular and genetic profiles of cancers, targeted treatments are increasingly utilized in personalized cancer care. The objective of this study was to determine how these advances have translated into practice by examining how often molecular profiling of gynecological tumors led to treatment changes.

Methods

We identified women with gynecological cancers at our institution who had molecular tumor testing performed from November 2014 to June 2017. Clinicopathologic data were extracted from medical records. We determined (a) if molecular profiling identified actionable targets for which therapy is available, and (b) whether the patient's treatment course changed as a result of molecular profiling. Chi‐square, Wilcoxon rank‐sum, and Fisher's exact tests were used with a P < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

We identified 152 patients with gynecologic cancers who underwent molecular profiling. Of the 152 patients, 116 (76.3%) had actionable mutations identified, with 41 (35.3%) patients having a treatment change. Stratified by cancer type, molecular profiling most frequently identified an actionable target in patients with endometrial cancer (73.6%). Changes in treatment occurred most frequently in patients with endometrial cancer, 22 (56.4%), and ovarian cancers, 16 (39%), as compared to patients with cervical and vulvar cancer (P = 0.02). Of those patients who received a change in treatment, 39 patients (95.1%) received an FDA‐approved therapeutic agent, while two patients (4.8%) were enrolled in a clinical trial.

Conclusion

Molecular profiling in gynecologic cancers often identified at least one actionable mutation; however, only in a minority of these cases was the course of treatment changed. Further studies are needed to elucidate optimal timing for testing to best utilize actionable information.