Multicenter phase-II trial of irinotecan plus oxaliplatin [IROX regimen] in patients with poor-prognosis cancer of unknown primary: a hellenic cooperative oncology group study

Synergic activity of FGFR2 and MEK inhibitors in the treatment of FGFR2-amplified cancers of unknown primary

Patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) carry the double burden of an aggressive disease and reduced access to therapies. Experimental models are pivotal for CUP biology investigation and drug testing. We derived two CUP cell lines (CUP#55 and #96) and corresponding patient-derived xenografts (PDXs), from ascites tumor cells. CUP cell lines and PDXs underwent histological, immune-phenotypical, molecular, and genomic characterization confirming the features of the original tumor. The tissue-of-origin prediction was obtained from the tumor microRNA expression profile and confirmed by single-cell transcriptomics. Genomic testing and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis identified FGFR2 gene amplification in both models, in the form of homogeneously staining region (HSR) in CUP#55 and double minutes in CUP#96. FGFR2 was recognized as the main oncogenic driver and therapeutic target. FGFR2-targeting drug BGJ398 (infigratinib) in combination with the MEK inhibitor trametinib proved to be synergic and exceptionally active, both in vitro and in vivo. The effects of the combined treatment by single-cell gene expression analysis revealed a remarkable plasticity of tumor cells and the greater sensitivity of cells with epithelial phenotype. This study brings personalized therapy closer to CUP patients and provides the rationale for FGFR2 and MEK targeting in metastatic tumors with FGFR2 pathway activation.

Retrospective analysis of clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary from three tertiary centers in Australia

BACKGROUND

Carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) remains an important tumor entity and a disproportionate cause of cancer mortality. Little is known about the contemporary clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of CUP patients based on updated international classification guidelines. We evaluated a contemporary CUP cohort to provide insight into current clinical practice and the impact of tissue of origin assignment, site-specific and empirical therapy in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of CUP patients, as defined by the updated European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 guidelines, across three tertiary referral centers in Australia between 2015 and 2022. We analyzed clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression proportional hazard model between favorable and unfavorable risk groups.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 123 CUP patients (n = 86 unfavorable, n = 37 favorable risk as per the 2023 ESMO guidelines). Sixty-four patients (52%) were assigned a tissue of origin by the treating clinician. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 6.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.1-12.1) months and overall survival (OS) 10.2 (95% CI 6.0-18.5) months. Unfavorable risk (hazard ratio [HR] 2.9, p = 0.006), poor performance status (HR 2.8, p < 0.001), and non-squamous histology (HR 2.5, p < 0.05) were associated with poor survival outcome. A total of 70 patients (57%) proceeded to systemic therapy. In patients with non-squamous histology and unfavorable risk, site-specific therapy compared to empirical chemotherapy did not improve outcome (median OS 8.2 vs. 11.8 months, p = 0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world cohort, CUP presentations were heterogenous. Overall survival and rates of systemic treatment were poor. Poor performance status and unfavorable risk were associated with worse survival. For most patients, site-specific therapy did not improve survival outcome. Improved and timely access to diagnostic tests and therapeutics for this group of patients is urgently required.

Case Report: Combined pembrolizumab, 5-fluorouracil, and cisplatin therapy were remarkably effective in p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary

Background

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a malignant tumor without a known primary lesion with a frequency of 3-5%. It can be divided into favorable and unfavorable prognosis subsets. While recommended treatments are available for the former group, there is no established treatment for the latter. Here, we report the effective treatment of a 32-year-old woman with p16-positive squamous cell CUP with pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin therapy.

Case presentation

A 32-year-old woman presented with metastatic lesions in the liver, lung, bone, cervical region, abdominal region, and pelvic lymph nodes. She was diagnosed with p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary origin. The patient received pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin therapy, which markedly reduced the metastasis and improved her Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status after two courses.

Conclusion

This case report highlights the potential of pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin therapy for treating CUP with an unfavorable prognosis. p16 positivity is worth examining for squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary origin, and if present, this therapy should be considered a promising treatment option.

SEOM-GECOD clinical guideline for unknown primary cancer (2021)

Cancer of unknown primary site (CUP) is defined as a heterogeneous group of tumors that appear as metastases, and of which standard diagnostic work-up fails to identify the origin. It is considered a separate entity with a specific biology, and nowadays molecular characteristics and the determination of actionable mutations may be important in a significant group of patients. In this guide, we summarize the diagnostic, therapeutic, and possible new developments in molecular medicine that may help us in the management of this unique disease entity.

MicroRNA expression profiling with a droplet digital PCR assay enables molecular diagnosis and prognosis of cancers of unknown primary

Metastasis is responsible for the majority of cancer‐related deaths. Particularly, challenging is the management of metastatic cancer of unknown primary site (CUP), whose tissue of origin (TOO) remains undetermined even after extensive investigations and whose therapy is rather unspecific and poorly effective. Molecular approaches to identify the most probable TOO of CUPs can overcome some of these issues. In this study, we applied a predetermined set of 89 microRNAs (miRNAs) to infer the TOO of 53 metastatic cancers of unknown or uncertain origin. The miRNA expression was assessed with droplet digital PCR in 159 samples, including primary tumors from 17 tumor classes (reference set) and metastases of known and unknown origin (test set). We combined two different statistical models for class prediction to obtain the most probable TOOs: the nearest shrunken centroids approach of Prediction Analysis of Microarrays (PAMR) and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) models. The molecular test was successful for all formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded samples and provided a TOO identification within 1 week from the biopsy procedure. The most frequently predicted origins were gastrointestinal, pancreas, breast, lung, and bile duct. The assay was applied also to multiple metastases from the same CUP, collected from different metastatic sites: The predictions showed a strong agreement, intrinsically validating our assay. The final CUPs' TOO prediction was compared with the clinicopathological hypothesis of primary site. Moreover, a panel of 13 miRNAs proved to have prognostic value and be associated with overall survival in CUP patients. Our study demonstrated that miRNA expression profiling in CUP samples could be employed as diagnostic and prognostic test. Our molecular analysis can be performed on request, concomitantly with standard diagnostic workup and in association with genetic profiling, to offer valuable indications about the possible primary site, thereby supporting treatment decisions.

Cancer of Unknown Primary: Challenges and Progress in Clinical Management

Simple Summary

Patients with cancer of unknown primary site suffer the burden of an uncertain disease, which is characterized by the impossibility to identify the tissue where the tumor has originated. The identification of the primary site of a tumor is of great importance for the patient to have access to site-specific treatments and be enrolled in clinical trials. Therefore, patients with cancer of unknown primary have reduced therapeutic opportunities and poor prognosis. Advancements have been made in the molecular characterization of this tumor, which could be used to infer the tumor site-of-origin and thus broaden the diagnostic outcome. Moreover, we describe here the novel therapeutic opportunities that are based on the genetic and immunophenotypic characterization of the tumor, and thus independent from the tumor type, which could provide most benefit to patients with cancer of unknown primary.

Abstract

Distant metastases are the main cause of cancer-related deaths in patients with advanced tumors. A standard diagnostic workup usually contains the identification of the tissue-of-origin of metastatic tumors, although under certain circumstances, it remains elusive. This disease setting is defined as cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Accounting for approximately 3–5% of all cancer diagnoses, CUPs are characterized by an aggressive clinical behavior and represent a real therapeutic challenge. The lack of determination of a tissue of origin precludes CUP patients from specific evidence-based therapeutic options or access to clinical trial, which significantly impacts their life expectancy. In the era of precision medicine, it is essential to characterize CUP molecular features, including the expression profile of non-coding RNAs, to improve our understanding of CUP biology and identify novel therapeutic strategies. This review article sheds light on this enigmatic disease by summarizing the current knowledge on CUPs focusing on recent discoveries and emerging diagnostic strategies.

The diagnostic challenges of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary

INTRODUCTION

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a disease entity encompassing heterogeneous malignancies without a clinically-detectable anatomical primary. It is usually a poor prognosis malignancy with dismal prognosis where molecular and genetic testing were expected to be a major breakthrough.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we provide an overview of the advances in the understanding of the carcinogenesis, biology, diagnosis and treatment of patients with CUP. This review focuses on the advantages and inconveniences of immunohistochemistry and CUP classifiers in assessing the progress in the management of CUP.

EXPERT OPINION

CUP classifiers were expected to gradually replace the classical multistep approach in identifying the culprit tumors to guide site-specific therapy. Immunohistochemistry staining led to the prediction of a single tissue of origin in 10.8-51%. CUP classifiers identified the primary site in 61-89% of these cases and were concordant with immunohistochemistry in 57.1-100%. Immunohistochemistry is cheap, fast and broadly available whereas CUP classifiers are less widely available and have not been validated in randomized control trials. The diagnostic recommendations consist of a standard pathology evaluation based on morphology and algorithmic immunohistochemistry assessment. Physicians should weigh in the input of the CUP classifier to the clinical picture and pathology investigations before performing additional investigations.

Progress in refining the clinical management of cancer of unknown primary in the molecular era

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is an enigmatic disease entity encompassing heterogeneous malignancies without a detectable primary tumour, despite a thorough diagnostic workup. A minority of patients with CUP (15-20%) can be assigned a putative primary tissue of origin according to clinical and histopathological findings and typically have a more favourable prognosis with the use of corresponding tumour type-specific therapies. Thus, the majority of patients with CUP have disease that cannot be assigned to a culprit primary tumour, are treated with empirical chemotherapy and have a poor prognosis. In the molecular era, the use of (epi)genomic or transcriptomic CUP classifiers and DNA or RNA sequencing offers two, sometimes overlapping, therapeutic strategies: tumour type-specific therapy and biomarker-guided therapy. Published data reveal that the accuracy of site-of-origin predictions made using CUP classifiers ranges between 54% and 98% when compared with the assignment made according to the recommended clinicopathological criteria. These advances have led to promising results in non-randomized prospective studies evaluating the efficacy of tumour type-specific therapy; however, the favourable outcomes were not confirmed in randomized controlled studies comparing this approach with standard empirical chemotherapy. Currently, the evidence supporting the use of biomarker-guided therapies is limited to case reports and small case series. In this Review, we discuss the clinical management of CUP in the era of precision medicine. We focus on the advances in understanding the biology of CUP, the implications for the diagnosis and classification of CUP according to the tissue of origin and the shift away from empirical therapy towards tailored therapy.

"Metastatic Cancer of Unknown Primary" or "Primary Metastatic Cancer"?

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is an umbrella term used to classify a heterogeneous group of metastatic cancers based on the absence of an identifiable primary tumor. Clinically, CUPs are characterized by a set of distinct features comprising early metastatic dissemination in an atypical pattern, an aggressive clinical course, poor response to empiric chemotherapy and, consequently, a short life expectancy. Two opposing strategies to change the dismal prognosis for the better are pursued. On the one hand, following the traditional tissue-gnostic approach, more and more sophisticated tissue-of-origin (TOO) classifier assays are employed to push identification of the putative primary to its limits with the clear intent of allowing tumor-site specific treatment. However, robust evidence supporting its routine clinical use is still lacking, notably with two recent randomized clinical trials failing to show a patient benefit of TOO-prediction based site-specific treatment over empiric chemotherapy in CUP. On the other hand, with regards to a tissue-agnostic strategy, precision medicine approaches targeting actionable genomic alterations have already transformed the treatment for many known tumor types. Yet, an unmet need remains for well-designed clinical trials to scrutinize its potential role in CUP beyond anecdotal case reports. In the absence of practice changing results, we believe that the emphasis on finding the presumed unknown primary tumor at all costs, implicit in the term CUP, has biased recent research in the field. Focusing on the distinct clinical features shared by all CUPs, we advocate adopting the term primary metastatic cancer (PMC) to denominate a distinct cancer entity instead. In our view, PMC should be considered the archetype of metastatic disease and as such, despite accounting for a mere 2–3% of malignancies, unraveling the mechanisms at play goes beyond improving the prognosis of patients with PMC and promises to greatly enhance our understanding of the metastatic process and carcinogenesis across all cancer types.

Evaluation of survival benefits by platinums and taxanes for an unfavourable subset of carcinoma of unknown primary: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Although chemotherapeutic regimens containing a taxane or platinum agent have been widely recommended for unfavourable carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP), no evidence exists for the superiority of any administered regimens. To date, the efficacy has been mostly assessed in the limited setting of phase II trials, and few attempts have been made to synthesise all available data for survival outcomes.

Methods:

Electronic databases were searched from 1980 to 2011. Survival results were combined for each pre-specified category of regimens using a random-effects model, and meta-regression models were used to adjust for heterogeneity in some known prognostic factors.

Results:

A total of 32 studies were included for meta-analysis. Tendency towards better survival outcome by platinums or taxanes was indicated. After adjustment for important prognostic factors, however, the difference between the platinum-based and non-platinum regimens became no longer significant. Survival benefits by the taxane-based regimens remained significant, with a prolonged median survival time of 1.52 months (P=0.03) and a higher 1-year survival rate of 6.25% (P=0.05), but the benefit did not sustain for 2 years.

Conclusion:

Although no effective therapies have been established, this meta-analysis helps to fill an important gap of evidence. However, caution should still be taken because of the potential unmeasured confounding.

A phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of oxaliplatin in combination with gemcitabine in carcinoma of unknown primary

BACKGROUND

Preclinical and clinical data suggest synergy for gemcitabine and oxaliplatin. These agents were tested in several known cancers that also comprise the common carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) subtypes; namely, lung and pancreaticobiliary profiles.

METHODS

The study enrolled 29 patients of whom 28 patients were eligible for treatment. Gemcitabine was given at 1,000 mg/m(2) as a fixed dose rate infusion and oxaliplatin was infused at 100 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks with restaging performed after 3 cycles at 6 weeks.

RESULTS

The study reported one complete response (CR) (4%), 6 patients with a partial response (PR) (25%), and 13 with stable disease (SD) (54%); and 4 patients had progressive disease (PD) (17%) on restaging. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were 12.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.5-18.5) and 3.1 months (95% CI 1.7-6), respectively. The 1-year OS was 54%. The most common grade 3 toxicities were nausea (22%), vomiting (15%), and fatigue (11%). There were no grade 4 toxicities. This study was closed early as we moved from an empiric therapy platform to a more individualized approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin is a well-tolerated regimen in CUP with similar outcomes to previously documented CUP studies. In selected good performance status patients this combination may serve as a first-line doublet chemotherapy option for CUP patients.

A case of long-term recurrence-free poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma of lymph nodes treated by surgical resection without any chemotherapy

A 77-year-old man presented with a 2-month history of an enlarged right inguinal lymph node. Diagnostic excisional biopsy of the inguinal lymph node proved it to be a poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma by histological and immunohistological analyses. We diagnosed a poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma by histological examination and immunohistological analysis of the resected inguinal lymph node. We performed computed tomographic examination and positron emission tomography, which identified lymph node involvement without any signs of other tumors. Because these tumors had grown expandingly and had been encapsulated locally, we performed an operation to dissect all of the involved lymph nodes. Direct invasion to the right external iliac artery was not detected, and two of the enlarged lymph nodes were successfully resected without any complications. Pathologically, the resected specimen was diagnosed as a neuroendocrine carcinoma with a negative surgical margin and it was similar to the histology of the inguinal lymph node previously resected. The patient had no recurrence for 3 years without receiving any adjuvant treatment. There have been no reports describing a case of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma, of unknown origin, which metastasized to other lymph nodes. Although further studies are required, complete resection of the involved lymph nodes should be considered as a choice for localized, expanding growth-pattern disease even if it is undifferentiated type.

Irinotecan plus carboplatin for patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site

Carcinoma of unknown primary site (CUP) is rarely encountered in clinical practice and optimal chemotherapy has not yet been established. This phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of combined irinotecan+carboplatin therapy in chemotherapy-naive patients with CUP. Irinotecan was administered at 60 mg m(-2) as a 90-min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8 and 15. Carboplatin was administered at an area-under-the curve of 5 mg ml(-1) min as a 60-min intravenous infusion on day 1. This cycle was repeated every 28 days for up to six cycles. Forty-five patients were enrolled in the study. An intent-to-treat analysis revealed an objective response rate to the treatment of 41.9% (95% confidence interval, 27.0-57.9%). The median time to progression was 4.8 months and the median survival was 12.2 months. The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 44 and 27%, respectively. The most frequent grade 3 or more severe adverse events were leukopaenia (21%), neutropaenia (33%), anaemia (25%) and thrombocytopaenia (20%). Thus, the combination of irinotecan plus carboplatin was found to be active in patients with CUP. Therefore, the regimen may be one of the potentially available chemotherapeutic options for community standard of care in patients with a good performance status.