Filipa Lynce

Dr. Filipa Lynce


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 November 2018 in JCO Precision Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AHArielle L. Heeke
Arielle L. Heeke
MPMichael J. Pishvaian
Michael J. Pishvaian
FLFilipa Lynce
Filipa Lynce
JXJoanne Xiu
Joanne Xiu
JBJonathan R. Brody
Jonathan R. Brody
CIClaudine Isaacs
Claudine Isaacs
Purpose: The prevalence of homologous recombination DNA damage repair (HR-DDR) deficiencies among all tumor lineages is not well characterized. Therapy directed toward homologous recombination DDR deficiency (HRD) is now approved in ovarian and breast cancer, and there may be additional opportunities for benefit for patients with other cancers. Comprehensive evaluations for HRD are limited in part by the lack of a uniform, cost-effective method for testing and defining HRD. Methods: Molecular profiles of 52,426 tumors were reviewed to identify pathogenic mutations in the HR-DDR genes ARID1A, ATM, ATRX, BAP1, BARD1, BLM, BRCA1/2, BRIP1, CHEK1/2, FANCA/C/D2/E/F/G/L, MRE11A, NBN, PALB2, RAD50, RAD51, RAD51B, or WRN. From solid tumors submitted to Caris Life Sciences, molecular profiles were generated using next-generation sequencing (NGS; average read depth, 500×). A total of 17,566 tumors were sequenced with NGS600 (n = 592 genes), and 34,860 tumors underwent hotspot Illumina MiSeq platform testing (n = 47 genes). Results: Of the tumors that underwent NGS600 testing, the overall frequency of HR-DDR mutations detected was 17.4%, and the most commonly mutated lineages were endometrial (34.4%; n = 1,475), biliary tract (28.9%; n = 343), bladder (23.9%; n = 201), hepatocellular (20.9%; n = 115), gastroesophageal (20.8%; n = 619), and ovarian (20.0%; n = 2,489). Least commonly mutated lineages included GI stromal (3.7%; n = 108), head and neck (6.8%; n = 206), and sarcoma (9.3%; n = 592). ARID1A was the most commonly mutated gene (7.2%), followed by BRCA2 (3.0%), BRCA1 (2.8%), ATM (1.3%), ATRX (1.3%), and CHEK2 (1.3%). Conclusions: HR-DDR mutations were seen in 17.4% of tumors across 21 cancer lineages, providing a path to explore the role of HRD-directed therapies, including poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors, DNA-damaging chemotherapies, and newer agents such as ATR inhibitors.

10 February 2024 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
IBIsabelle Bedrosian
Isabelle Bedrosian
MSMark R. Somerfield
Mark R. Somerfield
MAMaria Isabel Achatz
Maria Isabel Achatz
JBJudy C. Boughey
Judy C. Boughey
GCGiuseppe Curigliano
Giuseppe Curigliano
MRMark E. Robson
Mark E. Robson
PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for germline mutation testing for patients with breast cancer. METHODS: An ASCO–Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) panel convened to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and formal consensus process. RESULTS: Forty-seven articles met eligibility criteria for the germline mutation testing recommendations; 18 for the genetic counseling recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: BRCA1/ 2 mutation testing should be offered to all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer ≤65 years and select patients >65 years based on personal history, family history, ancestry, or eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy. All patients with recurrent breast cancer who are candidates for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered BRCA1/ 2 testing, regardless of family history. BRCA1/ 2 testing should be offered to women who develop a second primary cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. For patients with prior history of breast cancer and without active disease, testing should be offered to patients diagnosed ≤65 years and selectively in patients diagnosed after 65 years, if it will inform personal and family risk. Testing for high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/ 2 should be offered to those with supportive family histories; testing for moderate-penetrance genes may be offered if necessary to inform personal and family cancer risk. Patients should be provided enough pretest information for informed consent; those with pathogenic variants should receive individualized post-test counseling. Variants of uncertain significance should not impact management, and patients with such variants should be followed for reclassification. Referral to providers experienced in clinical cancer genetics may help facilitate patient selection and interpretation of expanded testing, and provide counseling of individuals without pathogenic germline variants but with significant family history. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

1 November 2018 in Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
FLFilipa Lynce
Filipa Lynce
ASAyeasha Shajahan-Haq
Ayeasha Shajahan-Haq
SSSandra Swain
Sandra Swain

20 May 2018 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SVShaveta Vinayak
Shaveta Vinayak
STSara M. Tolaney
Sara M. Tolaney
LSLee Steven Schwartzberg
Lee Steven Schwartzberg
MMMonica M. Mita
Monica M. Mita
GMGeorgia Anne-Lee McCann
Georgia Anne-Lee McCann
MTMelinda L. Telli
Melinda L. Telli
1011Background: Chemotherapy is a standard of care for TNBC despite its suboptimal efficacy. ≈15–20% of TNBC have BRCA1/2 mutations (mut); ≈75% of BRCA1 mut BCs are TN. Single agent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have clinical activity in pts with BRCA1/2 mutations (BRCAmut) BC and provide median PFS of 6 mos in pts with BRCAmut TNBC vs 3.5 mos for chemotherapy. Single-agent pembrolizumab (pembro), a programmed death 1(PD–1) inhibitor, has shown objective response rates (ORR) of 5–18% in previously treated TNBC. TOPACIO (NCT02657889) is a fully enrolled study evaluating the safety and efficacy of combination treatment with selective PARP1/2 inhibitor niraparib + pembro in pts with met TNBC. Methods: Pts received niraparib 200 mg orally once daily + pembro 200 mg IV on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Primary efficacy endpoint was ORR and secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR = CR+PR+SD [stable disease]). Results: As of Jan 2018, 12 of 54 enrolled TNBC pts (22%) had deleterious B...

5 January 2025 in ESMO Open
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
HRHope Rugo
Hope Rugo
RLRachel M Layman
Rachel M Layman
FLFilipa Lynce
Filipa Lynce
Xianchen LiuXianchen Liu
Xianchen Liu
BLB. Li
B. Li
ABAdam Brufsky
Adam Brufsky
Randomized controlled trials have shown inconsistent overall survival (OS) benefit among the three cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) as first-line (1L) treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Several real-world studies compared CDK4/6i effectiveness, with inconsistent findings. This study compared overall survival (OS) of patients with HR+/HER2- mBC receiving 1L palbociclib, ribociclib, or abemaciclib, in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI), in US clinical practice. This retrospective study used real-world data from the Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived deidentified longitudinal database. Patients with HR+/HER2- mBC aged ≥18 years at mBC diagnosis started 1L CDK4/6i therapy (index treatment) between February 2015 and November 2023, with a potential ≥6-month follow-up. OS was defined as months from start of index treatment to death. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW; primary analysis) was used to balance baseline patient characteristics. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was carried out as a sensitivity analysis. Of 9146 eligible patients, 6831, 1279, and 1036 received palbociclib plus AI, ribociclib plus AI, or abemaciclib plus AI, respectively. After sIPTW, baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. After sIPTW, no significant OS differences were found between treatment groups [ribociclib versus palbociclib: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-1.10, P = 0.7531; abemaciclib versus palbociclib: aHR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84-1.08, P = 0.4292; abemaciclib versus ribociclib: aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82-1.14, P = 0.6956]. Sensitivity analysis including a subanalysis of patients who started index treatment in 2017 or later also showed no significant OS differences between treatment groups. This large real-world study suggested that there were no significant OS differences between 1L ribociclib, abemaciclib, and palbociclib in combination with an AI for patients with HR+/HER2- mBC. These findings together with other factors such as safety and quality of life are helpful in the selection of CDK4/6i combination therapy for patients with HR+/HER2- mBC.

1 February 2022 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BSBryan P. Schneider
Bryan P. Schneider
GJGuanglong Jiang
Guanglong Jiang
TBTarah J. Ballinger
Tarah J. Ballinger
FSFei Shen
Fei Shen
CCChristopher Chitambar
Christopher Chitambar
MRMilan Radovich
Milan Radovich
PURPOSE: Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have high risk of recurrence with prior data suggesting improved outcomes with capecitabine. Targeted agents have demonstrated activity across multiple cancer types. BRE12-158 was a phase II, multicenter trial that randomly allocated patients with TNBC with residual disease after NAC to genomically directed therapy versus treatment of physician choice (TPC).PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 2014 to December 2018, 193 patients were enrolled. Residual tumors were sequenced using a next-generation sequencing test. A molecular tumor board adjudicated all results. Patients were randomly allocated to four cycles of genomically directed therapy (arm A) versus TPC (arm B). Patients without a target were assigned to arm B. Primary end point was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) among randomly assigned patients. Secondary/exploratory end points included distant disease-free survival, overall survival, toxicity assessment, time-based evolution of therapy, and drug-specific outcomes.RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three patients were randomly allocated or were assigned to arm B. The estimated 2-year DFS for the randomized population only was 56.6% (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.70) for arm A versus 62.4% (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.75) for arm B. No difference was seen in DFS, distant disease-free survival, or overall survival for the entire or randomized populations. There was increased uptake of capecitabine for TPC over time. Patients randomly allocated later had less distant recurrences. Circulating tumor DNA status remained a significant predictor of outcome with some patients demonstrating clearance with postneoadjuvant therapy.CONCLUSION: Genomically directed therapy was not superior to TPC for patients with residual TNBC after NAC. Capecitabine should remain the standard of care; however, the activity of other agents in this setting provides rationale for testing optimal combinations to improve outcomes. Circulating tumor DNA should be considered a standard covariate for trials in this setting.