NTRK1, NTRK2 and NTRK3 fusions are present in a plethora of malignancies across different histologies. These fusions represent the most frequent mechanism of oncogenic activation of these receptor ...tyrosine kinases, and biomarkers for the use of TRK small molecule inhibitors. Given the varying frequency of NTRK1/2/3 fusions, crucial to the administration of NTRK inhibitors is the development of optimal approaches for the detection of human cancers harbouring activating NTRK1/2/3 fusion genes.
Experts from several Institutions were recruited by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group (TR and PM WG) to review the available methods for the detection of NTRK gene fusions, their potential applications, and strategies for the implementation of a rational approach for the detection of NTRK1/2/3 fusion genes in human malignancies. A consensus on the most reasonable strategy to adopt when screening for NTRK fusions in oncologic patients was sought, and further reviewed and approved by the ESMO TR and PM WG and the ESMO leadership.
The main techniques employed for NTRK fusion gene detection include immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), RT-PCR, and both RNA-based and DNA-based next generation sequencing (NGS). Each technique has advantages and limitations, and the choice of assays for screening and final diagnosis should also take into account the resources and clinical context.
In tumours where NTRK fusions are highly recurrent, FISH, RT-PCR or RNA-based sequencing panels can be used as confirmatory techniques, whereas in the scenario of testing an unselected population where NTRK1/2/3 fusions are uncommon, either front-line sequencing (preferentially RNA-sequencing) or screening by immunohistochemistry followed by sequencing of positive cases should be pursued.
Cancers with a defective DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) system contain thousands of mutations most frequently located in monomorphic microsatellites and are thereby defined as having microsatellite ...instability (MSI). Therefore, MSI is a marker of dMMR. MSI/dMMR can be identified using immunohistochemistry to detect loss of MMR proteins and/or molecular tests to show microsatellite alterations. Together with tumour mutational burden (TMB) and PD-1/PD-L1 expression, it plays a role as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy.
To define best practices to implement the detection of dMMR tumours in clinical practice, the ESMO Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group launched a collaborative project, based on a systematic review-approach, to generate consensus recommendations on the: (i) definitions related to the concept of MSI/dMMR; (ii) methods of MSI/dMMR testing and (iii) relationships between MSI, TMB and PD-1/PD-L1 expression.
The MSI-related definitions, for which a consensus frame-work was used to establish definitions, included: ‘microsatellites’, ‘MSI’, ‘DNA mismatch repair’ and ‘features of MSI tumour’. This consensus also provides recommendations on MSI testing; immunohistochemistry for the mismatch repair proteins MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 represents the first action to assess MSI/dMMR (consensus with strong agreement); the second method of MSI/dMMR testing is represented by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assessment of microsatellite alterations using five microsatellite markers including at least BAT-25 and BAT-26 (strong agreement). Next-generation sequencing, coupling MSI and TMB analysis, may represent a decisive tool for selecting patients for immunotherapy, for common or rare cancers not belonging to the spectrum of Lynch syndrome (very strong agreement). The relationships between MSI, TMB and PD-1/PD-L1 expression are complex, and differ according to tumour types.
This ESMO initiative is a response to the urgent questions raised by the growing success of immunotherapy and provides also important insights on the relationships between MSI, TMB and PD-1/PD-L1.
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.
The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ...was published in 2016. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group Annual Meeting 2018, in Guangzhou, China. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic NSCLC cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the six participating Asian countries. During the review process, the updated ESMO 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for metastatic NSCLC were released and were also considered, during the final stages of the development of the Pan-Asian adapted Clinical Practice Guidelines.
The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) consensus guidelines for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was published in 2016, ...identifying both a more strategic approach to the administration of the available systemic therapy choices, and a greater emphasis on the use of ablative techniques, including surgery. At the 2016 ESMO Asia Meeting, in December 2016, it was decided by both ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting, endorsed by both ESMO and JSMO, immediately after the JSMO 2017 Annual Meeting. The aim was to adapt the ESMO consensus guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences relating to the toxicity as well as other aspects of certain systemic treatments in patients of Asian ethnicity. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with mCRC identified by the Presidents of the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology), Korea (Korean Association for Clinical Oncology), Malaysia (Malaysian Oncological Society), Singapore (Singapore Society of Oncology) and Taiwan (Taiwan Oncology Society). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.
There is increasing evidence that metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a genetically heterogeneous disease and that tumours arising from different sides of the colon (left versus right) have ...different clinical outcomes. Furthermore, previous analyses comparing the activity of different classes of targeted agents in patients with KRAS wild-type (wt) or RAS wt mCRC suggest that primary tumour location (side), might be both prognostic and predictive for clinical outcome.
This retrospective analysis investigated the prognostic and predictive influence of the localization of the primary tumour in patients with unresectable RAS wt mCRC included in six randomized trials (CRYSTAL, FIRE-3, CALGB 80405, PRIME, PEAK and 20050181), comparing chemotherapy plus EGFR antibody therapy (experimental arm) with chemotherapy or chemotherapy and bevacizumab (control arms). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with left-sided versus right-sided tumours, and odds ratios (ORs) for objective response rate (ORR) were estimated by pooling individual study HRs/ORs. The predictive value was evaluated by pooling study interaction between treatment effect and tumour side.
Primary tumour location and RAS mutation status were available for 2159 of the 5760 patients (37.5%) randomized across the 6 trials, 515 right-sided and 1644 left-sided. A significantly worse prognosis was observed for patients with right-sided tumours compared with those with left-sided tumours in both the pooled control and experimental arms for OS HRs = 2.03 (95% CI: 1.69–2.42) and 1.38 (1.17–1.63), respectively, PFS HRs = 1.59 (1.34–1.88) and 1.25 (1.06–1.47), and ORR ORs = 0.38 (0.28–0.50) and 0.56 (0.43–0.73). In terms of a predictive effect, a significant benefit for chemotherapy plus EGFR antibody therapy was observed in patients with left-sided tumours HRs = 0.75 (0.67–0.84) and 0.78 (0.70–0.87) for OS and PFS, respectively compared with no significant benefit for those with right-sided tumours HRs = 1.12 (0.87–1.45) and 1.12 (0.87–1.44) for OS and PFS, respectively; P value for interaction <0.001 and 0.002, respectively. For ORR, there was a trend (P value for interaction = 0.07) towards a greater benefit for chemotherapy plus EGFR antibody therapy in the patients with left-sided tumours OR = 2.12 (1.77–2.55) compared with those with right-sided tumours OR = 1.47 (0.94–2.29). Exclusion of the unique phase II trial or the unique second-line trial had no impact on the results. The predictive effect on PFS may depend of the type of EGFR antibody therapy and on the presence or absence of bevacizumab in the control arm.
This pooled analysis showed a worse prognosis for OS, PFS and ORR for patients with right-sided tumours compared with those with left-sided tumours in patients with RAS wt mCRC and a predictive effect of tumour side, with a greater effect of chemotherapy plus EGFR antibody therapy compared with chemotherapy or chemotherapy and bevacizumab, the effect being greatest in patients with left-sided tumours. These predictive results should be interpreted with caution due to the retrospective nature of the analysis, which was carried out on subpopulations of patients included in these trials, and because none of these studies contemplated a full treatment sequence strategy.
The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) version 1.0 (v1.0) was published in May 2015 and was the first version of a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of ...clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS was designed to be a dynamic tool with planned revisions and updates based upon recognition of expanding needs and shortcomings identified since the last review.
The revision process for the ESMO-MCBS incorporates a nine-step process: Careful review of critiques and suggestions, and identification of problems in the application of v1.0; Identification of shortcomings for revision in the upcoming version; Proposal and evaluation of solutions to address identified shortcomings; Field testing of solutions; Preparation of a near-final revised version for peer review for reasonableness by members of the ESMO Faculty and Guidelines Committee; Amendments based on peer review for reasonableness; Near-final review by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board; Final amendments; Final review and approval by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board.
Twelve issues for revision or amendment were proposed for consideration; proposed amendments were formulated for eight identified shortcomings. The proposed amendments are classified as either structural, technical, immunotherapy triggered or nuanced. All amendments were field tested in a wide range of studies comparing scores generated with ESMO-MCBS v1.0 and version 1.1 (v1.1).
ESMO-MCBS v1.1 incorporates 10 revisions and will allow for scoring of single-arm studies. Scoring remains very stable; revisions in v1.1 alter the scores of only 12 out of 118 comparative studies and facilitate scoring for single-arm studies.
Previous studies have reported the prognostic impact of primary tumor sidedness in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and its influence on cetuximab efficacy. The present retrospective analysis of ...two panitumumab trials investigated a possible association between tumor sidedness and treatment efficacy in first-line mCRC patients with RAS wild-type (WT) primary tumors.
Data from two randomized first-line panitumumab trials were analyzed for treatment outcomes by primary tumor sidedness for RAS WT patients. PRIME (phase 3; NCT00364013) compared panitumumab plus FOLFOX versus FOLFOX alone; PEAK (phase 2; NCT00819780) compared panitumumab plus FOLFOX versus bevacizumab plus FOLFOX. Primary tumors located in the cecum to transverse colon were coded as right-sided, while tumors located from the splenic flexure to rectum were considered left-sided.
Tumor sidedness ascertainment (RAS WT population) was 83% (n = 559/675); 78% of patients (n = 435) had left-sided and 22% (n = 124) had right-sided tumors. Patients with right-sided tumors did worse for all efficacy parameters compared with patients with left-sided disease in the RAS WT population and also in the RAS/BRAF WT subgroup. In patients with left-sided tumors, panitumumab provided better outcomes than the comparator treatment, including on median overall survival (PRIME: 30.3 versus 23.6 months, adjusted hazard ratio = 0.73, P = 0.0112; PEAK: 43.4 versus 32.0 months, adjusted hazard ratio = 0.77, P = 0.3125).
The results of these retrospective analyses confirm that in RAS WT patients, right-sided primary tumors are associated with worse prognosis than left-sided tumors, regardless of first-line treatment received. RAS WT patients with left-sided tumors derive greater benefit from panitumumab-containing treatment than chemotherapy alone or combined with bevacizumab, including an overall survival advantage (treatment difference: PRIME 6.7 months; PEAK 11.4 months). No final conclusions regarding optimal treatment could be drawn for RAS WT patients with right-sided mCRC due to the relatively low number of paxtients. Further research in this field is warranted.
PRIME (NCT00364013), PEAK (NCT00819780).
The Panitumumab Randomized trial In combination with chemotherapy for Metastatic colorectal cancer to determine Efficacy (PRIME) demonstrated that panitumumab–FOLFOX4 significantly improved ...progression-free survival (PFS) versus FOLFOX4 as first-line treatment of wild-type (WT) KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the primary end point of the study.
Patients were randomized 1:1 to panitumumab 6.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks + FOLFOX4 (arm 1) or FOLFOX4 (arm 2). This prespecified final descriptive analysis of efficacy and safety was planned for 30 months after the last patient was enrolled.
A total of 1183 patients were randomized. Median PFS for WT KRAS mCRC was 10.0 months 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.3–11.4 months for arm 1 and 8.6 months (95% CI 7.5–9.5 months) for arm 2; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.80; 95% CI 0.67–0.95; P = 0.01. Median overall survival (OS) for WT KRAS mCRC was 23.9 months (95% CI 20.3–27.7 months) for arm 1 and 19.7 months (95% CI 17.6–22.7 months) for arm 2; HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.73–1.06; P = 0.17 (68% OS events). An exploratory analysis of updated survival (>80% OS events) was carried out which demonstrated improvement in OS; HR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.70–0.98; P = 0.03 for WT KRAS mCRC. The adverse event profile was consistent with the primary analysis.
In WT KRAS mCRC, PFS was improved, objective response was higher, and there was a trend toward improved OS with panitumumab–FOLFOX4, with significant improvement in OS observed in an updated analysis of survival in patients with WT KRAS mCRC treated with panitumumab + FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 alone (P = 0.03). These data support a positive benefit-risk profile for panitumumab–FOLFOX4 for patients with previously untreated WT KRAS mCRC. KRAS testing is critical to select appropriate patients for treatment with panitumumab.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common tumour type in both sexes combined in Western countries. Although screening programmes including the implementation of faecal occult blood test and ...colonoscopy might be able to reduce mortality by removing precursor lesions and by making diagnosis at an earlier stage, the burden of disease and mortality is still high. Improvement of diagnostic and treatment options increased staging accuracy, functional outcome for early stages as well as survival. Although high quality surgery is still the mainstay of curative treatment, the management of CRC must be a multi-modal approach performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary expert team. Optimal choice of the individual treatment modality according to disease localization and extent, tumour biology and patient factors is able to maintain quality of life, enables long-term survival and even cure in selected patients by a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. Treatment decisions must be based on the available evidence, which has been the basis for this consensus conference-based guideline delivering a clear proposal for diagnostic and treatment measures in each stage of rectal and colon cancer and the individual clinical situations. This ESMO guideline is recommended to be used as the basis for treatment and management decisions.
PDF
