In order to facilitate implementation of precision medicine in clinical management of cancer, there is a need to harmonise and standardise the reporting and interpretation of clinically relevant ...genomics data.
The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group (TR and PM WG) launched a collaborative project to propose a classification system for molecular aberrations based on the evidence available supporting their value as clinical targets. A group of experts from several institutions was assembled to review available evidence, reach a consensus on grading criteria and present a classification system. This was then reviewed, amended and finally approved by the ESMO TR and PM WG and the ESMO leadership.
This first version of the ESMO Scale of Clinical Actionability for molecular Targets (ESCAT) defines six levels of clinical evidence for molecular targets according to the implications for patient management: tier I, targets ready for implementation in routine clinical decisions; tier II, investigational targets that likely define a patient population that benefits from a targeted drug but additional data are needed; tier III, clinical benefit previously demonstrated in other tumour types or for similar molecular targets; tier IV, preclinical evidence of actionability; tier V, evidence supporting co-targeting approaches; and tier X, lack of evidence for actionability.
The ESCAT defines clinical evidence-based criteria to prioritise genomic alterations as markers to select patients for targeted therapies. This classification system aims to offer a common language for all the relevant stakeholders in cancer medicine and drug development.
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows sequencing of a high number of nucleotides in a short time frame at an affordable cost. While this technology has been widely implemented, there are no ...recommendations from scientific societies about its use in oncology practice. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) is proposing three levels of recommendations for the use of NGS. Based on the current evidence, ESMO recommends routine use of NGS on tumour samples in advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancers, ovarian cancers and cholangiocarcinoma. In these tumours, large multigene panels could be used if they add acceptable extra cost compared with small panels. In colon cancers, NGS could be an alternative to PCR. In addition, based on the KN158 trial and considering that patients with endometrial and small-cell lung cancers should have broad access to anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD1) antibodies, it is recommended to test tumour mutational burden (TMB) in cervical cancers, well- and moderately-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours, salivary cancers, thyroid cancers and vulvar cancers, as TMB-high predicted response to pembrolizumab in these cancers.
Outside the indications of multigene panels, and considering that the use of large panels of genes could lead to few clinically meaningful responders, ESMO acknowledges that a patient and a doctor could decide together to order a large panel of genes, pending no extra cost for the public health care system and if the patient is informed about the low likelihood of benefit. ESMO recommends that the use of off-label drugs matched to genomics is done only if an access programme and a procedure of decision has been developed at the national or regional level. Finally, ESMO recommends that clinical research centres develop multigene sequencing as a tool to screen patients eligible for clinical trials and to accelerate drug development, and prospectively capture the data that could further inform how to optimise the use of this technology.
•ESMO recommends the use of tumour multigene NGS in NSCLC, cholangiocarcinoma, prostate and ovarian cancers.•It is recommended to test TMB in well- and moderately-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours (NETs), cervical, salivary, thyroid and vulvar cancers.•Academic research centres should perform multigene NGS as part of their missions to enable access to innovative treatments.•A large panel of genes could be ordered, considering the benefit for the patient and the cost for the public health care system.
It is increasingly common in oncology practice to perform tumour sequencing using large cancer panels. For pathogenic sequence variants in cancer susceptibility genes identified on tumour-only ...sequencing, it is often unclear whether they are of somatic or constitutional (germline) origin. There is wide-spread disparity regarding both the extent to which systematic ‘germline-focussed analysis’ is carried out upon tumour sequencing data and for which variants follow-up analysis of a germline sample is carried out. Here we present analyses of paired sequencing data from 17152 cancer samples, in which 1494 pathogenic sequence variants were identified across 65 cancer susceptibility genes. From these analyses, the European Society of Medical Oncology Precision Medicine Working Group Germline Subgroup has generated (i) recommendations regarding germline-focussed analyses of tumour-only sequencing data, (ii) indications for germline follow-up testing and (iii) guidance on patient information-giving and consent.
The European Society for Medical Oncology Precision Medicine Working Group (ESMO PMWG) was reconvened to update its 2018/19 recommendations on follow-up of putative germline variants detected on ...tumour-only sequencing, which were based on an analysis of 17 152 cancers.
We analysed an expanded dataset including 49 264 paired tumour-normal samples. We applied filters to tumour-detected variants based on variant allele frequency, predicted pathogenicity and population variant frequency. For 58 cancer-susceptibility genes, we then examined the proportion of filtered tumour-detected variants of true germline origin germline conversion rate (GCR). We conducted subanalyses based on the age of cancer diagnosis, specific tumour types and ‘on-tumour’ status (established tumour-gene association).
Analysis of 45 472 nonhypermutated solid malignancy tumour samples yielded 21 351 filtered tumour-detected variants of which 3515 were of true germline origin. 3.1% of true germline pathogenic variants were absent from the filtered tumour-detected variants. For genes such as BRCA1, BRCA2 and PALB2, the GCR in filtered tumour-detected variants was >80%; conversely for TP53, APC and STK11 this GCR was <2%.
Strategic germline-focused analysis can prioritise a subset of tumour-detected variants for which germline follow-up will produce the highest yield of most actionable true germline variants. We present updated recommendations around germline follow-up of tumour-only sequencing including (i) revision to 5% for the minimum per-gene GCR, (ii) inclusion of actionable intermediate penetrance genes ATM and CHEK2, (iii) definition of a set of seven ‘most actionable’ cancer-susceptibility genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and RET) in which germline follow-up is recommended regardless of tumour type.
•Strategic filtering improves the GCR with minimal loss of true germline variants present in the tumour.•GCR of filtered tumour-detected variants is very high (>80%) for genes such as BRCA1, BRCA2 and PALB2.•GCR of filtered tumour-detected variants is very low (<2%) for genes such as APC, TP53 and STK11.•Germline follow-up should involve multidisciplinary expertise and follow expert guidance regarding tumour context.•To our knowledge, this is the largest germline-focused analysis to date, including 49 264 paired tumour-normal samples.
The landscape of clinical trials testing risk-adapted modulations of cancer treatments is complex. Multiple trial designs, endpoints, and thresholds for non-inferiority have been used; however, no ...consensus or convention has ever been agreed to categorise biomarkers useful to inform the treatment intensity modulation of cancer treatments.
An expert subgroup under the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group shaped an international collaborative project to develop a classification system for biomarkers used in the cancer treatment de-intensification, based on a tiered approach. A group of disease-oriented clinical, translational, methodology and public health experts, and patients’ representatives provided an analysis of the status quo, and scanned the horizon of ongoing clinical trials. The classification was developed through multiple rounds of expert revisions and inputs.
The working group agreed on a univocal definition of treatment de-intensification. Evidence of reduction in the dose-density, intensity, or cumulative dose, including intermittent schedules or shorter treatment duration or deletion of segment(s) of the standard regimens, compound(s), or treatment modality must be demonstrated, to define a treatment de-intensification. De-intensified regimens must also portend a positive impact on toxicity, quality of life, health system burden, or financial toxicity. ESMO classification categorises the biomarkers for treatment modulation in three tiers, based on the level of evidence. Tier A includes biomarkers validated in prospective, randomised, non-inferiority clinical trials. The working group agreed that in non-inferiority clinical trials, boundaries are highly dependent upon the disease scenario and endpoint being studied and that the absolute differences in the outcomes are the most relevant measures, rather than relative differences. Biomarkers tested in single-arm studies with a threshold of non-inferiority are classified as Tier B. Tier C is when the validation occurs in prospective-retrospective quality cohort investigations.
ESMO classification for the risk-guided intensity modulation of cancer treatments provides a set of evidence-based criteria to categorise biomarkers deemed to inform de-intensification of cancer treatments, in risk-defined patients. The classification aims at harmonising definitions on this matter, therefore offering a common language for all the relevant stakeholders, including clinicians, patients, decision-makers, and for clinical trials.
•The landscape of clinical trials testing risk-adapted modulations of cancer treatments is complex.•Several trial designs and endpoints are used to evaluate de-intensified cancer therapies.•ESMO has developed a classification to categorise biomarkers to inform risk-guided intensity modulation of cancer treatments.•The classification includes three tiers, based on the clinical trial methodology and results.•The ESMO classification will help harmonise definitions, thereby facilitating communication with all relevant stakeholders.
It is well recognised that adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer have inequitable access to oncology services that provide expert cancer care and consider their unique needs. Subsequently, ...survival gains in this patient population have improved only modestly compared with older adults and children with cancer. In 2015, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) established the joint Cancer in AYA Working Group in order to increase awareness among adult and paediatric oncology communities, enhance knowledge on specific issues in AYA and ultimately improve the standard of care for AYA with cancer across Europe. This manuscript reflects the position of this working group regarding current AYA cancer care, the challenges to be addressed and possible solutions. Key challenges include the lack of specific biological understanding of AYA cancers, the lack of access to specialised centres with age-appropriate multidisciplinary care and the lack of available clinical trials with novel therapeutics. Key recommendations include diversifying interprofessional cooperation in AYA care and specific measures to improve trial accrual, including centralising care where that is the best means to achieve trial accrual. This defines a common vision that can lead to improved outcomes for AYA with cancer in Europe.
•Reflects the ESMO/SIOPE AYA Working Group position regarding current AYA cancer care, challenges and possible solutions.•Key challenges are lack of understanding of AYA cancer biology, access to specialised centres, available clinical trials.•Key recommendations include diversifying interprofessional cooperation in AYA cancer care and measures to improve trial accrual.•This defines a common vision that can lead to improved outcomes for AYA with cancer in Europe.
Cancer epidemiology is unique in adolescents and young adults (AYAs; aged 15-39 years). The European Society for Medical Oncology/European Society for Paediatric Oncology (ESMO/SIOPE) AYA Working ...Group aims to describe the burden of cancers in AYAs in Europe and across European Union (EU) countries.
We used data available on the Global Cancer Observatory. We retrieved crude and age-standardised (World Standard Population) incidence and mortality rates. We reported about AYA cancer burden in Europe and between 28 EU member states. We described incidence and mortality for all cancers and for the 13 cancers most relevant to the AYA population.
Incidence and mortality varied widely between countries with the highest mortality observed in Eastern EU countries. Cancers of the female breast, thyroid and male testis were the most common cancers across countries followed by melanoma of skin and cancers of the cervix. Variations in cancer incidence rates across different populations may reflect different distribution of risk factors, variations in the implementation or uptake of screening as well as overdiagnosis. AYA cancer mortality disparities may be due to variation in early-stage diagnoses, different public education and awareness of cancer symptoms, different degrees of access or availability of treatment.
Our results highlight the future health care needs and requirements for AYA-specialised services to ensure a homogeneous treatment across different countries as well as the urgency for preventive initiatives that can mitigate the increasing burden.
•Cancers in AYAs are rare.•Cancers in AYAs are increasing in the current era.•Breast, cervical and thyroid cancers account for a substantial burden of cancer among AYAs, especially among young women.•Differences in AYA cancer incidence and mortality exist within European countries.•Eastern European countries are lagging behind in survival of many cancer types in AYAs.
PDF
