Prospects and pitfalls of personalizing therapies for sarcomas: from children, adolescents, and young adults to the elderly

Translating Precision Health for Pediatrics: A Scoping Review

Precision health aims to personalize treatment and prevention strategies based on individual genetic differences. While it has significantly improved healthcare for specific patient groups, broader translation faces challenges with evidence development, evidence appraisal, and implementation. These challenges are compounded in child health as existing methods fail to incorporate the physiology and socio-biology unique to childhood. This scoping review synthesizes the existing literature on evidence development, appraisal, prioritization, and implementation of precision child health. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched. The included articles were related to pediatrics, precision health, and the translational pathway. Articles were excluded if they were too narrow in scope. In total, 74 articles identified challenges and solutions for putting pediatric precision health interventions into practice. The literature reinforced the unique attributes of children and their implications for study design and identified major themes for the value assessment of precision health interventions for children, including clinical benefit, cost-effectiveness, stakeholder values and preferences, and ethics and equity. Tackling these identified challenges will require developing international data networks and guidelines, re-thinking methods for value assessment, and broadening stakeholder support for the effective implementation of precision health within healthcare organizations. This research was funded by the SickKids Precision Child Health Catalyst Grant.

Examining Stripes on a Herd of Zebras: Impact of Genomic Matching for Ultrarare Sarcomas in Phase 1 Clinical Trials (SAMBA 102)

PURPOSE

Recently, the Connective Tissue Oncology Society published consensus guidelines for recognizing ultrarare sarcomas (URS), defined as sarcomas with an incidence ≤1 per 1,000,000. We assessed the outcomes of 56 patients with soft tissue, and 21 with bone sarcomas, enrolled in Phase 1 trials.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

In this Sarcoma-Matched Biomarker Analysis (SAMBA-102 study), we reviewed records from patients on Phase 1 trials at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 2013 and June 2021.

RESULTS

Among 587 sarcomas, 106 (18.1%) were classified as URS. Fifty (47%) were male, and the median age was 44.3 years (range, 19-82). The most common subtypes were alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS), chordoma, dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma, and sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma. Compared with common sarcomas, median OS was similar 16.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.6-17.5] versus 16.1 (95% CI, 8.2-24.0) in URS (P = 0.359). Objective response to treatment was higher in URS 13.2% (n = 14/106) compared with common sarcomas 6.9% (n = 33/481; P = 0.029). Median OS for those treated on matched trials was 27.3 months (95% CI, 1.9-52.7) compared with 13.4 months (95% CI, 6.3-20.6) for those not treated on matched trials (P = 0.291). Eight of 33 (24%) molecularly matched treatments resulted in an objective response, whereas 6 of 73 unmatched treatments (8.2%) resulted in an objective response (P = 0.024). Clinical benefit rate was 36.4% (12/33) in matched trials versus 26.0% (19/73) in unmatched trials (P = 0.279).

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate the benefit of genomic selection in Phase 1 trials to help identify molecular subsets likely to benefit from targeted therapy.

Staging and Classification of Primary Musculoskeletal Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Based on the 2020 WHO Update, From the AJR Special Series on Cancer Staging

Staging of primary musculoskeletal bone and soft tissue tumors is most commonly performed using the AJCC and the Enneking or Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) staging systems. Radiologic imaging is integral in achieving adequate musculoskeletal neoplastic staging by defining lesion extent and identifying regional lymph node involvement and distant metastatic disease. Additional important features in surgical planning, though not distinct components of the staging systems, include cortical involvement, joint invasion, and neurovascular encasement; these features are optimally evaluated by MRI. In 2020, the WHO updated the classification of primary musculoskeletal tumors of soft tissue and bone. The update reflects the continued explosion in identification of novel gene alterations in many bone and soft tissue neoplasms. This has resulted in newly designated lesions, reclassification of lesion categories, and improved specificity of diagnosis. While radiologists do not need to have a comprehensive knowledge of the pathologic details, a broad working understanding of the most recent update is important to aid accurate and timely diagnosis given that histologic grading is a component of all staging systems. By approaching primary musculoskeletal neoplasms through a multidisciplinary approach with colleagues in pathology, orthopedic oncology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology, radiologists may promote improved diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.

Precision medicine approaches for the management of Ewing sarcoma: current perspectives

Advancements in molecular and genetic techniques have significantly furthered our biological understanding of Ewing sarcoma (ES). ES is typified by a driving TET-ETS fusion with an otherwise relatively quiet genome. Detection of one of several characteristic fusions, most commonly EWSR1-FLI1, is the gold standard for diagnosis. We discuss the current role of precision medicine in the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of ES. Continued efforts toward molecularly guided approaches are actively being pursued in ES to better refine prognosis, identify germline markers of disease susceptibility, influence therapeutic selection, effectively monitor disease activity in real time, and identify genetic and immunotherapeutic targets for therapeutic development.

Clinical genomic profiling to identify actionable alterations for investigational therapies in patients with diverse sarcomas

Background

There are currently no United States Food and Drug Administration approved molecularly matched therapies for sarcomas except gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Complicating this is the extreme diversity, heterogeneity, and rarity of these neoplasms. Few therapeutic options exist for relapsed and refractory sarcomas. In clinical practice many oncologists refer patients for genomic profiling hoping for guidance on treatment options after standard therapy. However, a systematic analysis of actionable mutations has yet to be completed. We analyzed genomic profiling results in patients referred to MD Anderson Cancer Center with advanced sarcomas to elucidate the frequency of potentially actionable genomic alterations in this population.

Methods

We reviewed charts of patients with advanced sarcoma who were referred to investigational cancer therapeutics department and had CLIA certified comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of 236 or 315 cancer genes in at least 50ng of DNA. Actionable alterations were defined as those identifying anti-cancer drugs on the market, in registered clinical trials, or in the Drug-Gene Interaction Database.

Results

Among the 102 patients analyzed median age was 45.5 years (range 8-76), M: F ratio 48:54. The most common subtypes seen in our study were leiomyosarcoma (18.6%), dedifferentiated liposarcoma (11%), osteosarcoma (11%), well-differentiated liposarcoma (7%), carcinosarcoma (6%), and rhabdomyosarcoma (6%). Ninety-five out of 102 patients (93%) had at least one genomic alteration identified with a mean of six mutations per patient. Of the 95 biopsy samples with identifiable genomic alterations, the most commonly affected genes were TP53 (31.4%), CDK4 (23.5%), MDM2 (21.6%), RB1 (18.6%), and CDKN2A/B (13.7%). Notable co-segregating amplifications included MDM2-CDK4 and FRS2-FGF. Sixteen percent of patients received targeted therapy based on CGP of which 50% had at least stable disease.

Conclusions

Incorporating CGP into sarcoma management may allow for more precise diagnosis and sub-classification of this diverse and rare disease, as well as personalized matching of patients to targeted therapies such as those available in basket clinical trials.

Validation of prognostic scoring and assessment of clinical benefit for patients with bone sarcomas enrolled in phase I clinical trials

Background

We sought to validate the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) and MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) prognostic scoring systems for the selection of bone sarcoma patients for phase I clinical trials and to identify additional risk factors related to survival.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the baseline characteristics and outcomes of 92 bone sarcoma patients who were referred to MDACC's Phase I Clinical Trials Program.

Results

Ninety-two patients with Ewing sarcoma (N = 47), osteosarcoma (N = 22), chondrosarcoma (N = 16), and other tumors (N = 7) were evaluated; 78 were enrolled in at least 1 of 43 different phase I trials. The median overall survival (OS) was 8.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.8–13.7 months). Independent factors that predicted shorter survival were male sex, >2 metastatic sites, >3 previous therapies, hemoglobin level <10.5 g/dL, platelet count >200 x10³/L, creatinine level ≥1.3 mg/dL, and lactate dehydrogenase level >ULN. Patients with good RMH scores (0-1) had longer OS than patients with poor RMH scores (2-3) (HR = 5.8, 95% CI = 2.9–11.0; P < 0.0001), as did patients with low MDACC scores (0-1) as compared to patients with higher MDACC scores (2–4) (HR = 3.2, 95% CI = 1.9–5.6; P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The RMH prognostic score can be used to predict the OS of bone cancer patients referred for phase I trials. The MDACC score added no value to the RMH score and therefore does not have a role in assessment of patients with bone tumors. Patients with advanced bone sarcomas should be considered for phase I trials.

Evaluation of Novel Targeted Therapies in Aggressive Biology Sarcoma Patients after progression from US FDA approved Therapies

Prognosis of patients with advanced sarcoma after progression from FDA approved therapies remains grim. In this study, clinical outcomes of 100 patients with advanced sarcoma who received treatment on novel targeted therapy trials were evaluated. Outcomes of interest included best response, clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Median patient age was 48 years (range 14-80). Patients had received a median of 2 prior lines of systemic treatment. Phase I treatments were anti-VEGF-based (n = 45), mTOR inhibitor-based (n = 15), and anti-VEGF + mTOR inhibitor-based (n = 17) or involved other targets (n = 23). Best responses included partial response (n = 4) and stable disease (n = 57). Clinical benefit rate was 36% (95% confidence interval 27-46%). Median OS was 9.6 months (95% Confidence Interval 8.1-14.2); median PFS was 3.5 months (95% Confidence Interval 2.4-4.7). RMH prognostic score of 2 or 3 was associated with lower median OS (log-rank p-value < 0.0001) and PFS (log-rank p-value 0.0081). Receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy as part of phase I trial was also associated with shorter median OS (log-rank p-value 0.039). Patients with advanced sarcoma treated on phase I clinical trials had a clinical benefit rate of 36% and RMH score predicted survival.

Personalized comprehensive molecular profiling of high risk osteosarcoma: Implications and limitations for precision medicine

Background

Despite advances in molecular medicine over recent decades, there has been little advancement in the treatment of osteosarcoma. We performed comprehensive molecular profiling in two cases of metastatic and chemotherapy-refractory osteosarcoma to guide molecularly targeted therapy.

Patients and Methods

Hybridization capture of >300 cancer-related genes plus introns from 28 genes often rearranged or altered in cancer was applied to >50 ng of DNA extracted from tumor samples from two patients with recurrent, metastatic osteosarcoma. The DNA from each sample was sequenced to high, uniform coverage. Immunohistochemical probes and morphoproteomics analysis were performed, in addition to fluorescence in situ hybridization. All analyses were performed in CLIA-certified laboratories. Molecularly targeted therapy based on the resulting profiles was offered to the patients. Biomedical analytics were performed using QIAGEN's Ingenuity^® Pathway Analysis.

Results

In Patient #1, comprehensive next-generation exome sequencing showed MET amplification, PIK3CA mutation, CCNE1 amplification, and PTPRD mutation. Immunohistochemistry-based morphoproteomic analysis revealed c-Met expression [(p)-c-Met (Tyr1234/1235)] and activation of mTOR/AKT pathway [IGF-1R (Tyr1165/1166), p-mTOR [Ser2448], p-Akt (Ser473)] and expression of SPARC and COX2. Targeted therapy was administered to match the P1K3CA, c-MET, and SPARC and COX2 aberrations with sirolimus+ crizotinib and abraxane+ celecoxib. In Patient #2, aberrations included NF2 loss in exons 2–16, PDGFRα amplification, and TP53 mutation. This patient was enrolled on a clinical trial combining targeted agents temsirolimus, sorafenib and bevacizumab, to match NF2, PDGFRα and TP53 aberrations. Both the patients did not benefit from matched therapy.

Conclusions

Relapsed osteosarcoma is characterized by complex signaling and drug resistance pathways. Comprehensive molecular profiling holds great promise for tailoring personalized therapies for cancer. Methods for such profiling are evolving and need to be refined to better assist clinicians in making treatment decisions based on the large amount of data that results from this type of testing. Further research in this area is warranted.