Microsatellite instability (MSI) testing identifies patients who may benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. We developed an MSI assay that uses data from a commercially available next‐generation sequencing (NGS) panel to determine MSI status. The assay is applicable across cancer types and does not require matched samples from normal tissue. Here, we describe the MSI‐NGS method and explore the relationship of MSI with tumor mutational burden (TMB) and PD‐L1. MSI examined by PCR fragment analysis and NGS was compared for 2189 matched cases. Mismatch repair status by immunohistochemistry was compared to MSI‐NGS for 1986 matched cases. TMB was examined by NGS, and PD‐L1 was determined by immunohistochemistry. Among 2189 matched cases that spanned 26 cancer types, MSI‐NGS, as compared to MSI by PCR fragment analysis, had sensitivity of 95.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 92.24, 98.08), specificity of 99.4% (95% CI 98.94, 99.69), positive predictive value of 94.5% (95% CI 90.62, 97.14), and negative predictive value of 99.2% (95% CI, 98.75, 99.57). High MSI (MSI‐H) status was identified in 23 of 26 cancer types. Among 11,348 cases examined (including the 2189 matched cases), the overall rates of MSI‐H, TMB‐high, and PD‐L1 positivity were 3.0%, 7.7%, and 25.4%, respectively. Thirty percent of MSI‐H cases were TMB‐low, and only 26% of MSI‐H cases were PD‐L1 positive. The overlap between TMB, MSI, and PD‐L1 differed among cancer types. Only 0.6% of the cases were positive for all three markers. MSI‐H status can be determined by NGS across cancer types. MSI‐H offers distinct data for treatment decisions regarding immune checkpoint inhibitors, in addition to the data available from TMB and PD‐L1.

Purpose Our previous clinical experience with vaccinia and replication-defective avipox recombinant carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) vaccines has demonstrated safety and clinical activity with a correlation between CEA-specific immune response and survival. Preclinical evidence demonstrated that the addition of the transgenes for three T-cell costimulatory molecules (B7-1, ICAM-1, LFA-3, designated TRICOM) results in a significant improvement in antigen-specific T-cell responses and antitumor activity. We describe here the first trial in humans of the CEA-TRICOM vaccines (also including an enhancer agonist epitope within the CEA gene). Patients and Methods Fifty-eight patients with advanced CEA-expressing cancers were accrued to eight cohorts that involved vaccinations with the following: replication-defective fowlpox recombinant (rF)-CEA(6D)-TRICOM; primary vaccination with recombinant vaccinia (rV)-CEA(6D)-TRICOM plus rF-CEA(6D)-TRICOM booster vaccinations; and rV-CEA(6D)-TRICOM and then rF-CEA(6D)-TRICOM, plus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with vaccines, or with divided doses of vaccine with GM-CSF. Vaccines were administered every 28 days for six doses and then once every 3 months. Reverting to treatments every 28 days was allowed if patients progressed on the 3-month schedule. Results In this phase I study, no significant toxicity was observed. Twenty-three patients (40%) had stable disease for at least 4 months, with 14 of these patients having prolonged stable disease (> 6 months). Eleven patients had decreasing or stable serum CEA, and one patient had a pathologic complete response. Enhanced CEA-specific T-cell responses were observed in the majority of patients tested. Conclusion We demonstrated that the CEA-TRICOM vaccines are safe and can generate significant CEA-specific immune responses, and they seem to have clinical benefit in some patients with advanced cancer.

The world of molecular profiling has undergone revolutionary changes over the last few years as knowledge, technology, and even standard clinical practice have evolved. Broad molecular profiling is now nearly essential for all patients with metastatic solid tumors. New agents have been approved based on molecular testing instead of tumor site of origin. Molecular profiling methodologies have likewise changed such that tests that were performed on patients a few years ago are no longer complete and possibly inaccurate today. As with all rapid change, medical providers can quickly fall behind or struggle to find up‐to‐date sources to ensure he or she provides optimum care. In this review, the authors provide the current state of the art for molecular profiling/precision medicine, practice standards, and a view into the future ahead.

Purpose: KRAS mutation (MT) is a major oncogenic driver in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A small subset of PDACs harbor KRAS wild-type (WT). We aim to characterize the molecular profiles of KRAS WT PDAC to uncover new pathogenic drivers and offer targeted treatments. Experimental Design: Tumor tissue obtained from surgical or biopsy material was subjected to next-generation DNA/RNA sequencing, microsatellite instability (MSI) and mismatch repair status determination. Results: Of the 2,483 patients (male 53.7%, median age 66 years) studied, 266 tumors (10.7%) were KRAS WT. The most frequently mutated gene in KRAS WT PDAC was TP53 (44.5%), followed by BRAF (13.0%). Multiple mutations within the DNA-damage repair (BRCA2, ATM, BAP1, RAD50, FANCE, PALB2), chromatin remodeling (ARID1A, PBRM1, ARID2, KMT2D, KMT2C, SMARCA4, SETD2), and cell-cycle control pathways (CDKN2A, CCND1, CCNE1) were detected frequently. There was no statistically significant difference in PD-L1 expression between KRAS WT (15.8%) and MT (17%) tumors. However, KRAS WT PDAC were more likely to be MSI-high (4.7% vs. 0.7%; P < 0.05), tumor mutational burden–high (4.5% vs. 1%; P < 0.05), and exhibit increased infiltration of CD8+ T cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid dendritic cells. KRAS WT PDACs exhibited gene fusions of BRAF (6.6%), FGFR2 (5.2%), ALK (2.6%), RET (1.3%), and NRG1 (1.3%), as well as amplification of FGF3 (3%), ERBB2 (2.2%), FGFR3 (1.8%), NTRK (1.8%), and MET (1.3%). Real-world evidence reveals a survival advantage of KRAS WT patients in overall cohorts as well as in patients treated with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel or 5-FU/oxaliplatin. Conclusions: KRAS WT PDAC represents 10.7% of PDAC and is enriched with targetable alterations, including immuno-oncologic markers. Identification of KRAS WT patients in clinical practice may expand therapeutic options in a clinically meaningful manner.

Purpose: GEP-NENs are rare malignancies with increasing incidence. Their molecular characteristics are still undefined. We explored the underlying biology of GEP-NENs and the differences between gastrointestinal (GI) and pancreatic (PNEN), high-grade (HG), and low-grade (LG) tumors.Experimental Design: GEP-NENs were analyzed using next-generation sequencing (NGS; MiSeq on 47 genes, NextSeq on 592 genes), IHC, and in situ hybridization. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was calculated on the basis of somatic nonsynonymous missense mutations, and microsatellite instability (MSI) was evaluated by NGS of known MSI loci.Results: In total, 724 GEP-NENs were examined: GI (N = 469), PNEN (N = 255), HG (N = 135), and LG (N = 335). Forty-nine percent were female, and median age was 59. Among LG tumors, the most frequently mutated genes were ATRX (13%), ARID1A (10%), and MEN1 (10%). HG tumors showed TP53 (51%), KRAS (30%), APC (27%), and ARID1A (23%). Immune-related biomarkers yielded a lower prevalence in LG tumors compared with HG [MSI-H 0% vs. 4% (P = 0.04), PD-L1 overexpression 1% vs. 6% (P = 0.03), TMB-high 1% vs. 7% (P = 0.05)]. Compared with LG, HG NENs showed a higher mutation rate in BRAF (5.4% vs. 0%, P < 0.0001), KRAS (29.4% vs. 2.6%, P < 0.0001), and PI3KCA (7% vs. 0.3%, P < 0.0001). When compared with GI, PNEN carried higher frequency of MEN1 (25.9% vs. 0.0%, P < 0.0001), FOXO3 (8.6% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.005), ATRX (20.6% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.007), and TSC2 (6.3% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.007), but lower frequency of mutations in APC (1.0% vs. 13.8%, P < 0.0001).Conclusions: Significant molecular differences were observed in GEP-NENs by tumor location and grade, indicating differences in carcinogenic pathways and biology.