The detection of germline and somatic BRCA1/2 genetic variants through parallel testing of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a national retrospective audit

Objective

To determine the frequency of germline and somatic pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants in patients with high‐grade serous ovarian cancer tested by next‐generation sequencing (NGS), with the aim of defining the best strategy to be implemented in future routine testing.

Design

National retrospective audit.

Setting

The All Wales Medical Genomics Service (AWMGS).

Population

Patients with high‐grade serous ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancer referred by oncologists to the AWMGS between February 2015 and February 2021 for germline and/or tumour testing of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes by NGS.

Methods

Analysis of NGS data from germline and/or tumour testing.

Main outcome measures

Frequency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Results

The overall observed germline/somatic pathogenic variant detection rate was 11.6% in the 844 patients included in this study, with a 9.2% (73/791) germline pathogenic variant detection rate. Parallel tumour and germline testing was carried out for 169 patients and the overall pathogenic variant detection rate for this cohort was 14.8%, with 6.5% (11/169) shown to have a somatic pathogenic variant. Two BRCA1 dosage variants were found during germline screens, representing 2.0% (2/98) of patients with a pathogenic variant that would have been missed through tumour testing alone.

Conclusions

Parallel germline and tumour BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing maximises the detection of pathogenic variants in patients with high‐grade serous ovarian cancer.

Tweetable abstract

Parallel germline and tumour testing maximises BRCA pathogenic variant detection in ovarian cancer.

Parallel germline and tumour testing maximises BRCA pathogenic variant detection in ovarian cancer.

Linked article This article is commented on by C Gourley, p. 443 in this issue. To view this mini commentary visit https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16978.

Erlotinib and gefitinib for treating non-small cell lung cancer that has progressed following prior chemotherapy (review of NICE technology appraisals 162 and 175): a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer in the UK. Over 70% of lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC may be offered treatment to improve survival, disease control and quality of life. One-third of these patients receive further treatment following disease progression; these treatments are the focus of this systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib [Tarceva(®), Roche (UK) Ltd] and gefitinib (IRESSA(®), AstraZeneca) compared with each other, docetaxel or best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of NSCLC after disease progression following prior chemotherapy. The effectiveness of treatment with gefitinib was considered only for patients with epidermal growth factor mutation-positive (EGFR M+) disease.

DATA SOURCES

Four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations. Manufacturers' evidence submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were also considered.

REVIEW METHODS

Outcomes for three distinct patient groups based on EGFR mutation status [EGFR M+, epidermal growth factor mutation negative (EGFR M-) and epidermal growth factor mutation status unknown (EGFR unknown)] were considered. Heterogeneity of the data precluded statistical analysis. A de novo economic model was developed to compare treatments (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained).

RESULTS

Twelve trials were included in the review. The use of gefitinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 6) or BSC (n = 1), and the use of erlotinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 3) or BSC (n = 1). One trial compared the use of gefitinib with the use of erlotinib. No trials included solely EGFR M+ patients; all data were derived from retrospective subgroup analyses from six RCTs [Kim ST, Uhm JE, Lee J, Sun JM, Sohn I, Kim SW, et al. Randomized phase II study of gefitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who failed previous chemotherapy. Lung Cancer 2012;75:82-8, V-15-32, Tarceva In Treatment of Advanced NSCLC (TITAN), BR.21, IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer (ISEL) and IRESSA NSCLC Trial Evaluating REsponse and Survival versus Taxotere (INTEREST)]. These limited data precluded conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of any treatment for EGFR M+ patients. For EGFR M- patients, data were derived from the TArceva Italian Lung Optimization tRial (TAILOR) trial and Docetaxel and Erlotinib Lung Cancer Trial (DELTA). Retrospective data were also derived from subgroup analyses of BR.21, Kim et al., TITAN, INTEREST and ISEL. The only statistically significant reported results were for progression-free survival (PFS) for TAILOR and DELTA, and favoured docetaxel over erlotinib [TAILOR hazard ratio (HR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.82; DELTA HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.92]. In EGFR unknown patients, nine trials (INTEREST, IRESSA as Second-line Therapy in Advanced NSCLC - KoreA, Li, Second-line Indication of Gefitinib in NSCLC, V-15-32, ISEL, DELTA, TITAN and BR.21) reported overall survival data and only one (BR.21) reported a statistically significant result favouring the use of erlotinib over BSC (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85). For PFS, BR.21 favoured the use of erlotinib when compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.74) and the use of gefitinib was favoured when compared with BSC (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92) in ISEL. Limitations in the clinical data precluded assessment of cost-effectiveness of treatments for an EGFR M+ population by the Assessment Group (AG). The AG's economic model suggested that for the EGFR M- population, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective compared with the use of docetaxel and compared with BSC. For EGFR unknown patients, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective when compared with BSC.

CONCLUSIONS/FUTURE WORK

The lack of clinical data available for distinct patient populations limited the conclusions of the assessment. Future trials should distinguish between patients with EGFR M+ and EGFR M- disease.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Integration of rapid PCR testing as an adjunct to NGS in diagnostic pathology services within the UK: evidence from a case series of non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with follow-up

AIMS

Somatic genetic testing in non-squamous, non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patients is required to highlight subgroups eligible for a number of novel oncological therapies. This study aims to determine whether turnaround times for reporting epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR) by next-generation sequencing (NGS) alone is sufficient to meet the needs of lung cancer patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective case series with follow-up. Outcomes of EGFR testing (102 tests) in 96 patients by NGS were compared with a rapid, fully automated PCR-based platform (Idylla) in local histopathology laboratories.

RESULTS

Turnaround time for reporting NGS was 17 calendar days. Reporting using the Idylla EGFR Mutation Test, by contrast, gave a potential turnaround time of 3.8 days from request to authorisation. Three-quarters of patients presenting with stage IV disease had a performance status of 0, 1, or 2 but 18% experienced rapid clinical deterioration (p<0.05). A third of these patients were deceased by the time NGS reports were available.

CONCLUSIONS

We discuss issues around integrating rapid PCR testing alongside NGS in multidisciplinary care pathways and strategies for mitigating against foreseeable difficulties. Dual testing for stage IV non-squamous, NSCLC patients has the potential to improve care and survival outcomes by providing access to the right test at the right time.

Checklists for Complications During Systemic Cancer Treatment Shared by Patients, Friends, and Health Care Professionals: Prospective Interventional Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Advances in cancer management have been associated with an increased incidence of emergency presentations with disease- or treatment-related complications.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to measure the ability of patients and members of their social network to complete checklists for complications of systemic treatment for cancer and examine the impact on patient-centered and health-economic outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective interventional cohort study was performed to assess the impact of a smartphone app used by patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy and members of their network to monitor for common complications. The app was used by patients, a nominated "safety buddy," and acute oncology services. The control group was made up of patients from the same institution. Measures were based on process (completion of checklists over 60 days), patient experience outcomes (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the General version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy at baseline, 1 month, and 2 months) and health-economic outcomes (usage of appointments in primary care and elective and unscheduled hospital admissions).

RESULTS

At the conclusion of the study, 50 patients had completed 2882 checklists, and their 50 "safety buddies" had completed 318 checklists. Near daily usage was maintained over the 60-day study period. When compared to a cohort of 50 patients with matching disease profiles from the same institution, patients in the intervention group had comparable changes in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and General version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy. Patients in the Intervention Group required a third (32 vs 97 nights) of the hospital days with overnight stay compared to patients in the Control Group, though the difference was not significant. The question, "I feel safer with the checklist," received a mean score of 4.27 (SD 0.87) on a Likert scale (1-5) for patients and 4.55 (SD 0.65) for family and friends.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing treatment for cancer and their close contacts can complete checklists for common complications of systemic treatments and take an active role in systems supporting their own safety. A larger sample size will be needed to assess the impact on clinical outcomes and health economics.

A Prospective Phase I/II Study of Docetaxel, Cisplatin and Continuous Capecitabine in Advanced Oesophago-Gastric Cancer (NWCOG-3)

AIMS

This open-label prospective phase I/II dose-escalation study determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and then evaluated response, safety and feasibility of a novel combination of docetaxel, cisplatinum and capecitabine (DCC) in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced oesophago-gastric carcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus or stomach, of good performance status, deemed too advanced for curative treatment, were given systematically increasing doses of 3 weekly DCC to ascertain the MTD. Phase II administered up to six cycles of DCC at the MTD, assessing response and toxicity.

RESULTS

Between November 2007 and November 2012, 15 patients were recruited into phase I and 41 into phase II. The MDT was a 21 day cycle of docetaxel 60 mg/m² IV day 1, cisplatinum 60 mg/m² IV day 1 and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m² daily in two divided doses for days 1-21. The most common phase II grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia 88% (10% febrile neutropenia), fatigue 15%, sensory neuropathy 10% and non-neutropenic infection 10%. The overall response rate was 51%, median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (confidence interval 6.7-9.4) and median overall survival was 10.9 months (confidence interval 7.7-13.7).

CONCLUSION

DCC was tolerable and feasible with promising efficacy, and may be suitable for future investigation in both first-line metastatic and neoadjuvant settings.

Evaluating process and effectiveness of a low-intensity CBT intervention for women with gynaecological cancer (the EPELIT Trial)

Background

Improving survival from gynaecological cancers is creating an increasing clinical challenge for long-term distress management. Psychologist-led interventions for cancer survivors can be beneficial, but are often costly. The rise of the Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner (PWP) workforce in the UK might offer a cheaper, but equally effective, intervention delivery method that is more sustainable and accessible. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a PWP co-facilitated intervention for reducing depression and anxiety, quality of life and unmet needs.

Methods

We planned this trial using a pragmatic, non-randomised controlled design, recruiting a comparator sample from a second clinical site. The intervention was delivered over six-weekly sessions; data were collected from participants at baseline, weekly during the intervention, and at one-week and three-month follow-up. Logistical challenges meant that we only recruited 8 participants to the intervention group, and 26 participants to the control group.

Results

We did not find significant, between-group differences for depression, quality of life or unmet needs, though some differences at follow-up were found for anxiety ( p<.001). Analysis of potential intervention mediator processes indicated the potential importance of self-management self-efficacy. Low uptake into the psychological intervention raises questions about (a) patient-driven needs for group-based support, and (b) the sustainability of this intervention programme.

Conclusions

This study failed to recruit to target; the under-powered analysis likely explains the lack of significant effects reported, though some trends in the data are of interest. Retention in the intervention group, and low attrition in the control group indicate acceptability of the intervention content and trial design; however a small baseline population rendered this trial infeasible in its current design. Further work is required to answer our research questions, but also, importantly, to address low uptake for psychological interventions in this group of cancer survivors.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553784 (registered 14 June 2018).