Purpose: Clinical use of analytical tests to assess genomic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is increasing. This joint review from ASCO and the College of American Pathologists summarizes current information about clinical ctDNA assays and provides a framework for future research. Methods: An Expert Panel conducted a literature review on the use of ctDNA assays for solid tumors, including pre-analytical variables, analytical validity, interpretation and reporting, and clinical validity and utility. Results: The literature search identified 1,338 references. Of those, 390, plus 31 references supplied by the Expert Panel, were selected for full-text review. There were 77 articles selected for inclusion. Conclusion: The evidence indicates that testing for ctDNA is optimally performed on plasma collected in cell stabilization or EDTA tubes, with EDTA tubes processed within 6 hours of collection. Some ctDNA assays have demonstrated clinical validity and utility with certain types of advanced cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of clinical validity and utility for the majority of ctDNA assays in advanced cancer. Evidence shows discordance between the results of ctDNA assays and genotyping tumor specimens and supports tumor tissue genotyping to confirm undetected results from ctDNA tests. There is no evidence of clinical utility and little evidence of clinical validity of ctDNA assays in early-stage cancer, treatment monitoring, or residual disease detection. There is no evidence of clinical validity and clinical utility to suggest that ctDNA assays are useful for cancer screening, outside of a clinical trial. Given the rapid pace of research, re-evaluation of the literature will shortly be required, along with the development of tools and guidance for clinical practice.

In recent years, biotechnological breakthroughs have led to identification of complex and unique biologic features associated with carcinogenesis. Tumor and cell-free DNA profiling, immune markers, and proteomic and RNA analyses are used to identify these characteristics for optimization of anticancer therapy in individual patients. Consequently, clinical trials have evolved, shifting from tumor type-centered to gene-directed, histology-agnostic, with innovative adaptive design tailored to biomarker profiling with the goal to improve treatment outcomes. A plethora of precision medicine trials have been conducted. The majority of these trials demonstrated that matched therapy is associated with superior outcomes compared to non-matched therapy across tumor types and in specific cancers. To improve the implementation of precision medicine, this approach should be used early in the course of the disease, and patients should have complete tumor profiling and access to effective matched therapy. To overcome the complexity of tumor biology, clinical trials with combinations of gene-targeted therapy with immune-targeted approaches (e.g., checkpoint blockade, personalized vaccines and/or chimeric antigen receptor T-cells), hormonal therapy, chemotherapy and/or novel agents should be considered. These studies should target dynamic changes in tumor biologic abnormalities, eliminating minimal residual disease, and eradicating significant subclones that confer resistance to treatment. Mining and expansion of real-world data, facilitated by the use of advanced computer data processing capabilities, may contribute to validation of information to predict new applications for medicines. In this review, we summarize the clinical trials and discuss challenges and opportunities to accelerate the implementation of precision oncology.

Purpose: We initiated a personalized medicine program in the context of early clinical trials, using targeted agents matched with tumor molecular aberrations. Herein, we report our observations. Patient and Methods: Patients with advanced cancer were treated in the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy. Molecular analysis was conducted in the MD Anderson Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–certified laboratory. Patients whose tumors had an aberration were treated with matched targeted therapy, when available. Treatment assignment was not randomized. The clinical outcomes of patients with molecular aberrations treated with matched targeted therapy were compared with those of consecutive patients who were not treated with matched targeted therapy. Results: Of 1,144 patients analyzed, 460 (40.2%) had 1 or more aberration. In patients with 1 molecular aberration, matched therapy (n = 175) compared with treatment without matching (n = 116) was associated with a higher overall response rate (27% vs. 5%; P < 0.0001), longer time-to-treatment failure (TTF; median, 5.2 vs. 2.2 months; P < 0.0001), and longer survival (median, 13.4 vs. 9.0 months; P = 0.017). Matched targeted therapy was associated with longer TTF compared with their prior systemic therapy in patients with 1 mutation (5.2 vs. 3.1 months, respectively; P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis in patients with 1 molecular aberration, matched therapy was an independent factor predicting response (P = 0.001) and TTF (P = 0.0001). Conclusion: Keeping in mind that the study was not randomized and patients had diverse tumor types and a median of 5 prior therapies, our results suggest that identifying specific molecular abnormalities and choosing therapy based on these abnormalities is relevant in phase I clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res; 18(22); 6373–83. ©2012 AACR.

Purpose: Mutations of the PIK3CA gene may predict response to phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. Concomitant mutations in the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway may mediate resistance. Patients and Methods: Tumors from patients with breast, cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancer referred to the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy (Phase I Program) were analyzed for PIK3CA, KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations. Patients with PIK3CA mutations were treated, whenever feasible, with agents targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. Results: Of 140 patients analyzed, 25 (18%) had PIK3CA mutations, including five of 14 patients with squamous cell cervical, seven of 29 patients with endometrial, six of 29 patients with breast, and seven of 60 patients with ovarian cancers. Of the 25 patients with PIK3CA mutations, 23 (median of two prior therapies) were treated on a protocol that included a PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitor. Two (9%) of 23 patients had stable disease for more than 6 months, and seven patients (30%) had a partial response. In comparison, only seven (10%) of 70 patients with the same disease types but with wild-type PIK3CA treated on the same protocols responded (P = .04). Seven patients (30%) with PIK3CA mutations had coexisting MAPK pathway (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF) mutations (ovarian cancer, n = 5; endometrial cancer, n = 2), and two of these patients (ovarian cancer) achieved a response. Conclusion: PIK3CA mutations were detected in 18% of tested patients. Patients with PIK3CA mutations treated with PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors demonstrated a higher response rate than patients without mutations. A subset of patients with ovarian cancer with simultaneous PIK3CA and MAPK mutations responded to PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors, suggesting that not all patients demonstrate resistance when the MAPK pathway is concomitantly activated.

Purpose: Little prospective data are available on clinical outcomes and immune correlates from combination radiation and immunotherapy. We conducted a phase I trial (NCT02239900) testing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with ipilimumab.Experimental Design: SABR was given either concurrently (1 day after the first dose) or sequentially (1 week after the second dose) with ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses) to five treatment groups: concurrent 50 Gy (in 4 fractions) to liver; sequential 50 Gy (in 4 fractions) to liver; concurrent 50 Gy (in 4 fractions) to lung; sequential 50 Gy (in 4 fractions) to lung; and sequential 60 Gy (in 10 fractions) to lung or liver. MTD was determined with a 3 + 3 dose de-escalation design. Immune marker expression was assessed by flow cytometry.Results: Among 35 patients who initiated ipilimumab, 2 experienced dose-limiting toxicity and 12 (34%) grade 3 toxicity. Response outside the radiation field was assessable in 31 patients. Three patients (10%) exhibited partial response and 7 (23%) experienced clinical benefit (defined as partial response or stable disease lasting ≥6 months). Clinical benefit was associated with increases in peripheral CD8+ T cells, CD8+/CD4+ T-cell ratio, and proportion of CD8+ T cells expressing 4-1BB and PD1. Liver (vs. lung) irradiation produced greater T-cell activation, reflected as increases in the proportions of peripheral T cells expressing ICOS, GITR, and 4-1BB.Conclusions: Combining SABR and ipilimumab was safe with signs of efficacy, peripheral T-cell markers may predict clinical benefit, and systemic immune activation was greater after liver irradiation. Clin Cancer Res; 23(6); 1388–96. ©2016 AACR.