Identification of Disparities in Personalized Cancer Care-A Joint Approach of the German WERA Consortium

The WERA cancer center matrix: Strategic management of patient access to precision oncology in a large and mostly rural area of Germany

PURPOSE

Providing patient access to precision oncology (PO) is a major challenge of clinical oncologists. Here, we provide an easily transferable model from strategic management science to assess the outreach of a cancer center.

METHODS

As members of the German WERA alliance, the cancer centers in Würzburg, Erlangen, Regensburg and Augsburg merged care data regarding their geographical impact. Specifically, we examined the provenance of patients from WERA´s molecular tumor boards (MTBs) between 2020 and 2022 (n = 2243). As second dimension, we added the provenance of patients receiving general cancer care by WERA. Clustering our catchment area along these two dimensions set up a four-quadrant matrix consisting of postal code areas with referrals towards WERA. These areas were re-identified on a map of the Federal State of Bavaria.

RESULTS

The WERA matrix overlooked an active screening area of 821 postal code areas - representing about 50 % of Bavaria´s spatial expansion and more than six million inhabitants. The WERA matrix identified regions successfully connected to our outreach structures in terms of subsidiarity - with general cancer care mainly performed locally but PO performed in collaboration with WERA. We also detected postal code areas with a potential PO backlog - characterized by high levels of cancer care performed by WERA and low levels or no MTB representation.

CONCLUSIONS

The WERA matrix provided a transparent portfolio of postal code areas, which helped assessing the geographical impact of our PO program. We believe that its intuitive principle can easily be transferred to other cancer centers.

Rapid response to selpercatinib in RET fusion positive pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma confirmed by smartwatch

This case report describes the efficacy of selpercatinib, a selective RET inhibitor, in an unusual case of large-cell neuroendocrine pancreatic carcinoma (LCNEPAC) harboring a CCDC6::RET fusion. A 56-year-old male with a history of multiple lines of systemic therapies exhibited marked clinical amelioration shortly after initiating selpercatinib within the LOXO-RET-17001 study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03157128, first posted: 2017-05-17). Data from the patient's smartwatch suggested early efficacy before conventional methods, such as serum tumor markers and CT imaging confirmed the antitumor activity. This case not only underscores the efficacy of selpercatinib in treating RET fusion-positive rare tumors but also highlights the potential of wearable technology in cancer care. In conclusion, the standard readings from commercially available wearable devices can be useful for the monitoring of treatment response to targeted therapy and may serve as digital biomarkers in clinical trials. This approach marks a significant advancement in patient-centric healthcare, leveraging technology to enhance the effectiveness and precision of treatment evaluation.

The Concept of Stroma AReactive Invasion Front Areas (SARIFA) as a new prognostic biomarker for lipid-driven cancers holds true in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a 'difficult-to-treat' entity. To forecast its prognosis, we introduced a new biomarker, SARIFA (stroma areactive invasion front areas), which are areas at the tumour invasion front lacking desmoplastic stroma reaction upon malignant invasion in the surrounding tissue, leading to direct contact between tumour cells and adipocytes. SARIFA showed its significance in gastric and colorectal carcinoma, revealing lipid metabolism alternations that promote tumour progression.

METHODS

We reviewed the SARIFA status of 166 PDAC cases on all available H&E-stained tumour slides from archival Whipple-resection specimens. SARIFA positivity was defined as SARIFA detection in at least 66% of the available slides. To investigate alterations in tumour metabolism and microenvironment, we performed immunohistochemical staining for FABP4, CD36 and CD68. To verify and quantify a supposed delipidation of adipocytes, adipose tissue was digitally morphometrised.

RESULTS

In total, 53 cases (32%) were classified as SARIFA positive and 113 (68%) as SARIFA negative. Patients with SARIFA-positive PDAC showed a significantly worse overall survival compared with SARIFA-negative cases (median overall survival: 11.0 months vs. 22.0 months, HR: 1.570 (1.082-2.278), 95% CI, p = 0.018), which was independent from other prognostic markers (p = 0.014). At the invasion front of SARIFA-positive PDAC, we observed significantly higher expression of FABP4 (p < 0.0001) and higher concentrations of CD68+ macrophages (p = 0.031) related to a higher risk of tumour progression. CD36 staining showed no significant expression differences. The adipocyte areas at the invasion front were significantly smaller, with mean values of 4021 ± 1058 µm2 and 1812 ± 1008 µm2 for the SARIFA-negative and -positive cases, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SARIFA is a promising prognostic biomarker for PDAC. Its assessment is characterised by simplicity and low effort. The mechanisms behind SARIFA suggest a tumour-promoting increased lipid metabolism and altered immune background, both showing new therapeutic avenues.

Determinants Affecting the Clinical Implementation of a Molecularly Informed Molecular Tumor Board Recommendation: Experience from a Tertiary Cancer Center

Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) converge state-of-the-art next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods with the expertise of an interdisciplinary team consisting of clinicians, pathologists, human geneticists, and molecular biologists to provide molecularly informed guidance in clinical decision making to the treating physician. In the present study, we particularly focused on elucidating the factors impacting on the clinical translation of MTB recommendations, utilizing data generated from gene panel mediated comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of 554 patients at the MTB of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen, Germany, during the years 2016 to 2020. A subgroup analysis of cases with available follow-up data (n = 332) revealed 139 cases with a molecularly informed MTB recommendation, which was successfully implemented in the clinic in 44 (31.7%) of these cases. Here, the molecularly matched treatment was applied in 45.4% (n = 20/44) of cases for ≥6 months and in 25% (n = 11/44) of cases for 12 months or longer (median time to treatment failure, TTF: 5 months, min: 1 month, max: 38 months, ongoing at data cut-off). In general, recommendations were preferentially implemented in the clinic when of high (i.e., tier 1) clinical evidence level. In particular, this was the case for MTB recommendations suggesting the application of PARP, PIK3CA, and IDH1/2 inhibitors. The main reason for non-compliance to the MTB recommendation was either the application of non-matched treatment modalities (n = 30)/stable disease (n = 7), or deteriorating patient condition (n = 22)/death of patient (n = 9). In summary, this study provides an insight into the factors affecting the clinical implementation of molecularly informed MTB recommendations, and careful considerations of these factors may guide future processes of clinical decision making.

[New forms of immunotherapy in uro-oncology : HLA-independent therapeutic approaches with bispecific antibodies and CAR T cells]

Immunotherapies using bispecific antibodies and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells do not depend on previous activation of T cells by the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) system. These HLA-independent approaches displayed groundbreaking clinical results in hematological malignancies-leading to drug approvals for diseases like acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), B-cell Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Currently, several phase I/II trials are investigating the transferability of these results to solid tumors-especially prostate cancer. Compared to established immune checkpoint blockade, bispecific antibodies and CAR T cells have novel and heterogenous side effects such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Treating these side effects and identifying suitable trial participants requires an interdisciplinary treatment approach.

Critical evaluation of molecular tumour board outcomes following 2 years of clinical practice in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre

BACKGROUND

Recently, molecular tumour boards (MTBs) have been integrated into the clinical routine. Since their benefit remains debated, we assessed MTB outcomes in the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ostbayern (CCCO) from 2019 to 2021.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In total, 251 patients were included. Targeted sequencing was performed with PCR MSI-evaluation and immunohistochemistry for PD-L1, Her2, and mismatch repair enzymes. 125 treatment recommendations were given (49.8%). High-recommendation rates were achieved for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (20/30, 66.7%) and gastric adenocarcinoma (10/16, 62.5%) as opposed to colorectal cancer (9/36, 25.0%) and pancreatic cancer (3/18, 16.7%). MTB therapies were administered in 47 (18.7%) patients, while 53 (21.1%) received alternative treatment regimens. Thus 37.6% of recommended MTB therapies were implemented (47/125 recommendations). The clinical benefit rate (complete + partial + mixed response + stable disease) was 50.0% for MTB and 63.8% for alternative treatments. PFS2/1 ratios were 34.6% and 16.1%, respectively. Significantly improved PFS could be achieved for m1A-tier-evidence-based MTB therapies (median 6.30 months) compared to alternative treatments (median 2.83 months; P = 0.0278).

CONCLUSION

The CCCO MTB yielded a considerable recommendation rate, particularly in cholangiocarcinoma patients. The discrepancy between the low-recommendation rates in colorectal and pancreatic cancer suggests the necessity of a weighted prioritisation of entities. High-tier recommendations should be implemented predominantly.

[Patient access - access to innovations in oncology]

INNOVATIVE ONCOLOGICAL DIAGNOSTICS AND THERAPIES

Compared to other European countries, Germany has a large number of innovative therapy options for the treatment of patients with cancer. Currently, the main challenge in care is to be able to offer these options at the right time to all patients, regardless of their place of residence and treatment setting, who could benefit from innovative therapies.

ACCESS VIA CLINICAL TRIALS, MOLECULAR TUMOR BOARDS

Clinical trials are often the first opportunity for controlled access to oncology innovation. Reducing bureaucratic processes and increasing transparency about currently recruiting trials is imperative to allow more patients early access across sectors. The concept of decentralized clinical trials and (virtual) molecular tumor boards is also appropriate to allow more patients potential trial inclusion.

COSTS OF INNOVATIVE ONCOLOGICAL THERAPY

The best possible use of a growing number of innovative and cost-intensive diagnostic and therapeutic options for a wide variety of patient-specific situations requires low-threshold transsectoral exchange, i.e., communication between (certified) oncological competence centers and physicians across the broad spectrum of medical care, who are expected to simultaneously treat the large number of German cancer patients in everyday care and cover the entire range of the increasingly complex oncological therapy landscape.

INNOVATIVE THERAPIES

DIFFERENT ACCESS IN THE REGIONS: The overdue implementation of digital options for cross-sector collaboration is an absolute prerequisite for giving patients who live farther away from a competence or study center access to innovations that are not available at their place of residence or treatment.

NEW FORMS OF CARE

OPTIMIZED ACCESS TO INNOVATIVE CARE: The development and testing of new forms of care requires the participation of all those responsible for the care process in order to jointly improve structural conditions, create sustainable incentives and provide the necessary capacities. The basis for this is an ongoing, concerted provision of evidence on the care situation, e.g. in the context of statutory cancer registration and clinical registries at oncology centers.