The use of research biopsies in oncology trials: challenges and controversies

Practical consideration for successful sequential tumor biopsies in first-in-human trials

In first-in-human (FIH) trials, sequential tumor biopsies, i.e., two consecutive tumor biopsies, the first performed at baseline (pretreatment) and the second during the early treatment period (on-treatment), provide proof of concept in investigational new drugs. We evaluated the success of sequential tumor biopsies in FIH trials, and explored approaches for improved success rates. We retrospectively reviewed the sequential tumor biopsies required in 17 of 52 FIH trials conducted from 2015 to 2020. One hundred and thirty-eight patients were identified. Success of either pretreatment or on-treatment biopsy alone, and of sequential tumor biopsies, was defined as the acquisition of viable tumor cells and as obtaining tumor cells from both biopsy specimens, respectively. The success rates of pretreatment and on-treatment biopsy were 98.6% and 94.2%, respectively, and of sequential tumor biopsies was 70.3%. Adverse events associated with the pretreatment biopsies (33.3% positive; 72.0% negative) and timing of the first imaging assessment (before on-treatment biopsy = 40.0%; after on-treatment biopsy = 82.7%) correlated with successful sequential tumor biopsies. The reasons for unsuccessful sequential tumor biopsies could be categorized into two groups: 1) patient refusal of the on-treatment biopsy (most frequently due to early disease progression); and 2) absence of tumor cells in the pretreatment or on-treatment biopsy specimen. We propose an approach to achieving greater success in sequential tumor biopsies in FIH trials; the first imaging assessment during the study should be scheduled after on-treatment biopsy. (Registration number UMIN000042487, Date of registration November 18, 2020).

Research biopsies in patients with gynecologic cancers: patient-reported outcomes, perceptions, and preferences

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing integration of mandatory biopsies for correlative endpoints within oncology clinical trials, there are sparse data on patient-reported outcomes, perceptions, and preferences.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to prospectively assess the impact of research biopsies on the quality of life in patients with gynecologic cancer, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, and determine factors associated with patients' willingness to undergo sequential biopsies.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a prospective study in patients with gynecologic malignancies undergoing research biopsies between 2015 and 2019 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02334761). Here, we report the results of the paper-based surveys performed before and 1 week after biopsy. Although the questionnaires each assessed the impact of anxiety using a modified version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the postbiopsy questionnaire specifically assessed the likelihood of future biopsies, postbiopsy symptoms, complications, and perceptions.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients were enrolled, of which 91 (70.5%) completed at least 1 questionnaire. These patients had either ovarian (89%; 81 of 91) or endometrial cancer (11%; 10 of 91). Of all biopsies taken, 75% were from the abdomen or pelvis (67 of 89). There was 1 clinician-reported complication, a perihepatic hematoma (1%). Pain during the biopsy and physical discomfort were experienced by 60.3% (41 of 68) and 61.8% (42 of 68), respectively. Embarrassment and loss of dignity were experienced by 13.2% (9 of 68) and 11.8% (8 of 68), respectively. Although the mean Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score was in the normal range before and after biopsy, there was a significant decline in the total score after the biopsy (prebiopsy, 5.3 [standard deviation, 4.7] vs postbiopsy, 3.7 [standard deviation, 4.5]; P=.005); 84% of subjects (58 of 69) stated that they would definitely or likely consent to another biopsy. There was no impact on patients' willingness for future biopsies based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, biopsy site, age, number of cores, and pain during the biopsy; however, subjects who reported feeling physically uncomfortable (odds ratio, 0.14; P=.005), embarrassed (odds ratio, 0.03; P=.004) or experienced loss of dignity (odds ratio, 0.05; P=.01) during the biopsy and those who experienced flu-like symptoms (odds ratio, 0.2; P=.018) or felt feverish (odds ratio, 0.2; P=.035) 1 week after biopsy, were less likely to undergo a sequential biopsy. Similarly, those with higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores before biopsy (odds ratio, 0.83; P=.008) and after biopsy (odds ratio, 0.8; P=.003) were less likely to consent for another biopsy.

CONCLUSION

Research biopsies were generally well accepted. Most patients (83%) were willing to undergo serial biopsies if necessary. Addressing the potentially modifiable psychosocial aspects of the procedure may improve the experience with research biopsies for patients with gynecologic cancers.

Fine-needle aspiration as an alternative to core needle biopsy for tumour molecular profiling in precision oncology: prospective comparative study of next-generation sequencing in cancer patients included in the SHIVA02 trial

High-throughput molecular profiling of solid tumours using core needle biopsies (CNB) allows the identification of actionable molecular alterations, with around 70% success rate. Although several studies have demonstrated the utility of small biopsy specimens for molecular testing, there remains debate as to the sensitivity of the less invasive fine-needle aspiration (FNA) compared to CNB to detect molecular alterations. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the potential of FNA to detect such alterations in various tumour types as compared to CNB in cancer patients included in the SHIVA02 trial. An in-house amplicon-based targeted sequencing panel (Illumina TSCA 99.3 kb panel covering 87 genes) was used to identify pathogenic variants and gene copy number variations (CNV) in concomitant CNB and FNA samples obtained from 61 patients enrolled in the SHIVA02 trial (NCT03084757). The main tumour types analysed were breast (38%), colon (15%), pancreas (11%), followed by cervix and stomach (7% each). We report 123 molecular alterations (85 variants, 23 amplifications and 15 homozygous deletions) among which 98 (80%) were concordant between CNB and FNA. The remaining discordances were mainly related to deletions status, yet undetected alterations were not exclusively specific to FNA. Comparative analysis of molecular alterations in CNB and FNA showed high concordance in terms of variants as well as CNVs identified. We conclude FNA could therefore be used in routine diagnostics workflow and clinical trials for tumour molecular profiling with the advantages of being minimally invasive and preserve tissue material needed for diagnostic, prognostic or theranostic purposes.

Phase I trial of TRC102 (methoxyamine HCl) in combination with temozolomide in patients with relapsed solid tumors and lymphomas

BACKGROUND

TRC102 inhibits base excision repair by binding abasic sites and preventing AP endonuclease processing; it potentiates the activity of alkylating agents, including temozolomide, in murine models. In published xenograft studies, TRC102 enhanced the antitumor effect of temozolomide regardless of cell line genetic characteristics, e.g., O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT), mismatch repair (MMR), or p53 status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a phase 1 trial of TRC102 with temozolomide given orally on days 1-5 of 28-day cycles in adult patients with refractory solid tumors that had progressed on standard therapy. Tumor induction of nuclear biomarkers of DNA damage response (DDR) γH2AX, pNBs1, and Rad51 was assessed in the context of MGMT and MMR protein expression for expansion cohort patients.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were enrolled (37 escalation, 15 expansion) with 51 evaluable for response. The recommended phase 2 dose was 125 mg TRC102, 150 mg/m2 temozolomide QDx5. Common adverse events (grade 3/4) included anemia (19%), lymphopenia (12%), and neutropenia (10%). Four patients achieved partial responses (1 non-small cell lung cancer, 2 granulosa cell ovarian cancer, and 1 colon cancer) and 13 patients had a best response of stable disease. Retrospective analysis of 15 expansion cohort patients did not demonstrate a correlation between low tumor MGMT expression and patient response, but treatment induced nuclear Rad51 responses in 6 of 12 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of TRC 102 with temozolomide is active, with 4 of 51 patients experiencing a partial response and 13 of 51 experiencing stable disease, and the side effect profile is manageable.

Lessons learned from clinical trial queries on small biopsy collections: importance of rapid on-site evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Small biopsies and cytology specimens have become increasingly important for clinical trials and biomarker testing. Thus, institutions must ensure that adequate lesional material meeting the specifications for a multitude of different protocols is available. This can be achieved using rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). The aim of the present study was to determine the recent clinical trial biopsy characteristics and study the feedback on these collections at our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical trial biopsies performed at our institution and trial feedback (including "queries") were analyzed from the 2017 to 2019. The query data were reviewed in detail, in addition to any protocol modifications related to biopsy requirements and study protocol changes.

RESULTS

A total of 698 biopsy collections were performed for clinical trial purposes for 95 trials, with most requiring biopsies at >1 time point (63.2%), for phase I or II trials (92.6%), and for specific tumor types (67.4%). Only 18 of the trials (18.9%) requiring fresh tissue biopsies provided feedback. The feedback included data from 90 cases (12.9%), of which 27 (30.0%) had queries regarding insufficient (n = 10; 37.0%) or borderline (n = 17; 63.0%) tumor tissue. Only 1 (3.7%) of these had had ROSE by cytology. ROSE was performed in accordance with institutional guidelines (45.3%), as required by the study (1.1%), or because of trial modification (5.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present investigation has shown the high volume of clinical trial biopsies managed at our academic cancer center. Feedback from the trials was low at 18.9% and frequently involved suboptimal cases without ROSE used at acquisition. This has led to more widespread adoption of ROSE to mitigate insufficient biopsy specimens and repeat procedures. The high volume of clinical trial biopsies and variability in trial needs necessitates a collaborative multidisciplinary network, including cytology services, to facilitate these important biopsies for patients with cancer.