prospective collection used to train GIScar (n = 250)

Kaplan–Meier estimates of PFS stratified on Giscar HRD status among inconclusive status of MGMC (n = 43).

List of BRCA variants detected by both GIScar tests and MGMC tests

PFS in patients according to GIScar (left panel) and MGMC scores (right panel).

MGMC and GIScar scores among concordant and discordant HRD classification on the clinical collection (n = 469)

Panel of gene used for the GIScar calculation (n =127)

Kaplan–Meier estimates of PFS stratified on treatment arm (n = 469).

Clinical collection used to validate GIScar (n = 469)

Histologic type of tumors used in this study (n = 719)

EGFR status assessment is mandatory for adjuvant decision-making of resected stage IB-IIIA non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC). It is questionable whether single-gene RT-PCR versus next-generation sequencing (NGS) should be used for this evaluation. Moreover, co-occurring mutations have an impact on tumor behavior and may influence future therapeutic decision-making. We aimed to describe the clinico-pathological and molecular features, as well as the prognostic factors of resected EGFR-mutant NS-NSCLC evaluated with reflex NGS and RT-PCR, so as to compare the results of the two methods. We retrospectively included and collected data from patients with resected EGFR-mutant NS-NSCLC diagnosed in our institution between 2005 and 2024. Additional cases from another center were included. Tumors were analyzed using targeted NGS and RT-PCR. A total of 153 patients were selected. The median follow-up after surgery was 22 months. The positive percent agreement of RT-PCR compared to NGS for the detection of an EGFR mutation was 88

e20018 Background: Liquid biopsy (LB) is a useful tool for the detection of actionable mutations in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) at progression. However, the clinical benefits of integrating both LB and tissue biopsy (TB)-based genomic profiling at diagnosis of NS-NSCLC remain uncertain. Methods: We tested three commercially available next-generation sequencing (NGS) gene panel assays in circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) using replicate sets of 85 LB samples from advanced NS-NSCLC patients at baseline and compared the results with matched TB for the detection of tier IA/B (AMP/ASCO/CAP classification) alterations. We used methylation testing of cfDNA to assess the tumor fraction (TF). We correlated molecular data with clinico-pathological features and follow-up data. Results: All TB-based NGS results were interpretable. 5 LB-based NGS results for one assay were not performed due to the material exhaustion. Tier IA/B gene alteration was detected by LB-based NGS and TB-based NGS in 18 to 23 (21 to 27%) patients and in 35 (41%) patients, respectively. The positive percent agreement of each LB-based NGS assay method compared with TB-based NGS assay ranged from 51% to 68%. The incremental add provided by first LB-based NGS ranged from 0 to 23% versus 25 to 45% for first TB-based NGS, depending on the LB-based NGS assay. It includes one EGFR uncommon mutation, 9 MET amplifications and 2 HER2 amplifications detected by LB-based NGS assays that were not detected by TB-based NGS. Overall agreement between the three LB-based NGS assays was 44%. Hybrid-capture based assay detects 14 MET/HER2 CNVs, two METex14 skipping mutation and two ALK fusions that were not detected by amplicon-based assay. Amplicon-based assay detects one uncommon EGFR mutation, one KRAS non-G12C and one ALK fusion that were not detected by hybrid-capture based assay. 64 LB samples were tested for cfDNA methylation. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the detection of TF by cfDNA methylation profiling was 90% and 92%, respectively. The only false-negative result of TF evaluation by cfDNA methylation profiling was observed for a variant with a cfDNA VAF < 1%. Correlation analyses with clinicopathological data are ongoing. Conclusions: While concordance with tissue is relatively high, the incremental add provided by LB-based NGS at diagnosis of advanced NS-NSCLC compared to TB-based NGS is limited and greatly varies according to the sequencing method used. Thus, LB-based NGS at diagnosis of NSCLC can be used as a complement of TB-based NGS or as an alternative when tissue is not available.

5571 Background: In the Phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial, the addition of maintenance olaparib (ola) to bevacizumab (bev) in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed advanced high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) resulted in prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), particularly for pts with HRD-positive tumors including a BRCA1/ BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm; Ray-Coquard et al. NEJM 2019). Preclinical data suggest that pts with mutations (mut) in the RING domain of BRCA1 are less sensitive to ola. The magnitude of benefit from ola + bev, according to the location of mut in the functional domains (FD) of BRCA , remains to be explored. Methods: Pts with newly diagnosed advanced HGOC in response after platinum-based chemotherapy + bev received maintenance bev (15 mg/kg q3w for 15 months [mo]) + either ola (300 mg bid for 24 mo) or placebo (pbo). In this post hoc exploratory analysis, PFS was analyzed in pts with BRCAm according to mut location in the FDs of BRCA1 (RING, DNA-binding domain [DNA-BD], or BRCA1 C terminus [BRCT]) and BRCA2 (RAD51-BD; DNA-BD). Results: Among the 806 randomized pts, 235 (29.2%) harbored a BRCAm: 160 (19.9%) with a BRCA1 mut and 76 (9.4%) with a BRCA2 mut. BRCA1 mut in FDs of RING, DNA-BD and BRCT were detected in 19 (11.8%), 41 (25.6%) and 34 (21.2%) pts, respectively. BRCA2 mut were detected in FDs of RAD51-BD and DNA-BD in 37 (48.7%) and 14 (18.4%) pts, respectively. With a median follow-up of 25.5 mo, 24-mo PFS rates and hazard ratios (HRs) according to mut locations are reported in the Table. In pts with a BRCA1 DNA-BD mut, 24-mo PFS was 89% and 14% (ola + bev vs pbo + bev; HR 0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02–0.26) compared with 64% and 24% for pts with mut in RING + BRCT + other domains (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19–0.57). In pts with BRCA2 mut, 24-mo PFS for pts with mut in the DNA-BD was 91% vs 100% (ola + bev vs pbo + bev) compared with 82% and 44% for pts with mut in RAD51-BD + other domains (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08–0.54). Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis, pts with newly diagnosed advanced HGOC and a BRCAm had a PFS benefit from maintenance ola + bev regardless of mut locations in BRCA1/BRCA2. Sensitivity to ola + bev maintenance was particularly high for pts with mut in the DNA-BD of BRCA1. Pts with a mut in the DNA-BD of BRCA2 commonly had excellent outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT02477644. [Table: see text]

Precise management of kidney cancer requires the identification of prognostic factors. hPG80 (circulating progastrin) is a tumor promoting peptide present in the blood of patients with various cancers, including renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In this study, we evaluated the prognostic value of plasma hPG80 in 143 prospectively collected patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). The prognostic impact of hPG80 levels on overall survival (OS) in mRCC patients after controlling for hPG80 levels in non-cancer age matched controls was determined and compared to the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model (good, intermediate, poor). ROC curves were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of hPG80 using the area under the curve (AUC). Our results showed that plasma hPG80 was detected in 94% of mRCC patients. hPG80 levels displayed high predictive accuracy with an AUC of 0.93 and 0.84 when compared to 18–25 year old controls and 50–80 year old controls, respectively. mRCC patients with high hPG80 levels (>4.5 pM) had significantly lower OS compared to patients with low hPG80 levels (<4.5 pM) (12 versus 31.2 months, respectively; p = 0.0031). Adding hPG80 levels (score of 1 for patients having hPG80 levels > 4.5 pM) to the six variables of the IMDC risk model showed a greater and significant difference in OS between the newly defined good-, intermediate- and poor-risk groups (p = 0.0003 compared to p = 0.0076). Finally, when patients with IMDC intermediate-risk group were further divided into two groups based on hPG80 levels within these subgroups, increased OS were observed in patients with low hPG80 levels (<4.5 pM). In conclusion, our data suggest that hPG80 could be used for prognosticating survival in mRCC alone or integrated to the IMDC score (by adding a variable to the IMDC score or by substratifying the IMDC risk groups), be a prognostic biomarker in mRCC patients.

5514 Background: In the Phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial (NCT02477644), the addition of maintenance olaparib to bev in pts with newly diagnosed advanced high-grade ovarian cancer (HGOC) resulted in a significant PFS benefit, particularly in HRD-positive (HRD+) pts (hazard ratio [HR] 0.33; 95% CI 0.25–0.45) (Ray-Coquard et al. NEJM 2019). We explored efficacy in HRD+ pts by disease stage. Methods: Pts with newly diagnosed, FIGO stage III–IV HGOC in response after platinum-based chemotherapy + bev received bev (15 mg/kg q3w for 15 months [mo]) + either olaparib (300 mg bid for 24 mo) or placebo (pbo). This exploratory analysis evaluated PFS (data cut-off [DCO]: Mar 22 2019) and PFS2 (DCO: Mar 22 2020) in HRD+ pts (tumor BRCA1/ BRCA2 mutation [tBRCAm] or genomic instability score [Myriad myChoice HRD Plus] ≥42) by FIGO stage. Results: 387/806 randomized pts (48%) were HRD+; 272/387 (70%) had stage III disease and 115/387 (30%) had stage IV disease. 153 (56%) HRD+ stage III pts and 61 (53%) HRD+ stage IV pts had a tBRCAm. Among HRD+ stage III pts, 172 (63%) had upfront surgery (51/172 [30%] had residual disease) and 90 (33%) had interval surgery (19/90 [21%] had residual disease); 52 (45%) HRD+ stage IV pts had upfront surgery (34/52 [65%] had residual disease) and 55 (48%) had interval surgery (18/55 [33%] had residual disease). Median follow-up for PFS and PFS2 was respectively 24.8 and 37.2 mo in HRD+ stage III pts and 24.0 and 37.0 mo in HRD+ stage IV pts. Median PFS, PFS2 and HRs are in the Table. Among HRD+ stage III pts, 36-mo PFS2 (olaparib + bev vs pbo + bev) was 74% vs 60%; among HRD+ stage IV pts, 53% vs 30%. Among HRD+ stage III pts with no residual disease after upfront surgery, HR (95% CI) for PFS was 0.15 (0.07–0.30) and for PFS2 was 0.22 (0.06–0.67). Among HRD+ stage III pts with residual disease after upfront surgery or who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or HRD+ stage IV pts, HR (95% CI) for PFS was 0.38 (0.27–0.53) and PFS2 was 0.68 (0.46–1.03). Conclusions: In the PAOLA-1 study, maintenance olaparib + bev provided a PFS and PFS2 benefit over pbo + bev in HRD+ pts, irrespective of FIGO stage and residual disease after upfront surgery. Clinical trial information: NCT02477644. [Table: see text]

Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) defines a group of heterogeneous hematologic malignancies that often progresses to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The leading treatment for high-risk MDS patients is azacitidine (Aza, Vidaza®), but a significant proportion of patients are refractory and all patients eventually relapse after an undefined time period. Therefore, new therapies for MDS are urgently needed. We present here evidence that acadesine (Aca, Acadra®), a nucleoside analog exerts potent anti-leukemic effects in both Aza-sensitive (OCI-M2S) and resistant (OCI-M2R) MDS/AML cell lines in vitro. Aca also exerts potent anti-leukemic effect on bone marrow cells from MDS/AML patients ex-vivo. The effect of Aca on MDS/AML cell line proliferation does not rely on apoptosis induction. It is also noteworthy that Aca is efficient to kill MDS cells in a co-culture model with human medullary stromal cell lines, that mimics better the interaction occurring in the bone marrow. These initial findings led us to initiate a phase I/II clinical trial using Acadra® in 12 Aza refractory MDS/AML patients. Despite a very good response in one out 4 patients, we stopped this trial because the highest Aca dose (210 mg/kg) caused serious renal side effects in several patients. In conclusion, the side effects of high Aca doses preclude its use in patients with strong comorbidities.

Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and VenereologyVolume 34, Issue 10 p. e609-e612 Letter to the Editor Diversity and compartmentalization of Human Polyomavirus 7 in a patient with dyskeratotic dermatosis S. Aboudar, S. Aboudar orcid.org/0000-0001-7345-2591 Service de Dermatologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France These authors share first authorship.Search for more papers by this authorM. Salmona, M. Salmona Insight Team, INSERM U976, Paris, France Virology Laboratory, Microbiology Department, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, France Université de Paris, Paris, France These authors share first authorship.Search for more papers by this authorA. De Masson, A. De Masson orcid.org/0000-0001-7828-6211 Service de Dermatologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France Université de Paris, Paris, France Oncodermatology and Therapies Team, INSERM U976, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorJ. Rivet, J. Rivet Laboratoire de Pathologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorN. Cardot-Leccia, N. Cardot-Leccia Laboratoire de Pathologie, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Nice, Nice, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorS. Mercier-Delarue, S. Mercier-Delarue Virology Laboratory, Microbiology Department, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorC. Ram-Wolff, C. Ram-Wolff Service de Dermatologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorG. Garnier, G. Garnier Service de Spécialités Médicales, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace de Monaco, Les Salines, MonacoSearch for more papers by this authorJ.-D. Bouaziz, J.-D. Bouaziz orcid.org/0000-0002-4993-2461 Service de Dermatologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France Université de Paris, Paris, France Team 1, INSERM U976, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorC. Lebbé, C. Lebbé Service de Dermatologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France Université de Paris, Paris, France Oncodermatology and Therapies Team, INSERM U976, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorM. Cavalie-Meiffren, M. Cavalie-Meiffren Service de Spécialités Médicales, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace de Monaco, Les Salines, Monaco These three authors share last authorship.Search for more papers by this authorJ. Le Goff, J. Le Goff Insight Team, INSERM U976, Paris, France Virology Laboratory, Microbiology Department, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, France Université de Paris, Paris, France These three authors share last authorship.Search for more papers by this authorM. Bagot, Corresponding Author M. Bagot martine.bagot@aphp.fr Service de Dermatologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France Université de Paris, Paris, France Oncodermatology and Therapies Team, INSERM U976, Paris, France These three authors share last authorship. Correspondence: M. Bagot. E-mail: martine.bagot@aphp.frSearch for more papers by this author S. Aboudar, S. Aboudar orcid.org/0000-0001-7345-2591 Service de Dermatologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France These authors share first authorship.Search for more papers by this authorM. Salmona, M. Salmona Insight Team, INSERM U976, Paris, France Virology Laboratory, Microbiology Department, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, France Université de Paris, Paris, France These authors share first authorship.Search for more papers by this authorA. De Masson, A. De Masson orcid.org/0000-0001-7828-6211 Service de Dermatologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France Université de Paris, Paris, France Oncodermatology and Therapies Team, INSERM U976, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorJ. Rivet, J. Rivet Laboratoire de Pathologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorN. Cardot-Leccia, N. Cardot-Leccia Laboratoire de Pathologie, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Nice, Nice, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorS. Mercier-Delarue, S. Mercier-Delarue Virology Laboratory, Microbiology Department, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorC. Ram-Wolff, C. Ram-Wolff Service de Dermatologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorG. Garnier, G. Garnier Service de Spécialités Médicales, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace de Monaco, Les Salines, MonacoSearch for more papers by this authorJ.-D. Bouaziz, J.-D. Bouaziz orcid.org/0000-0002-4993-2461 Service de Dermatologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France Université de Paris, Paris, France Team 1, INSERM U976, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorC. Lebbé, C. Lebbé Service de Dermatologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France Université de Paris, Paris, France Oncodermatology and Therapies Team, INSERM U976, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorM. Cavalie-Meiffren, M. Cavalie-Meiffren Service de Spécialités Médicales, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace de Monaco, Les Salines, Monaco These three authors share last authorship.Search for more papers by this authorJ. Le Goff, J. Le Goff Insight Team, INSERM U976, Paris, France Virology Laboratory, Microbiology Department, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, France Université de Paris, Paris, France These three authors share last authorship.Search for more papers by this authorM. Bagot, Corresponding Author M. Bagot martine.bagot@aphp.fr Service de Dermatologie, APHP, Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France Université de Paris, Paris, France Oncodermatology and Therapies Team, INSERM U976, Paris, France These three authors share last authorship. Correspondence: M. Bagot. E-mail: martine.bagot@aphp.frSearch for more papers by this author First published: 16 April 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.16488Citations: 2 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume34, Issue10October 2020Pages e609-e612 RelatedInformation

BACKGROUND:The introduction of liquid biopsy using PCR-based assays into routine practice has had a strong impact on the treatment of EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma and is now commonly used for routine testing of EGFR mutations in certain clinical settings. To assess whether the claimed benefits of PCR-based assays hold true in daily practice at a multicenter clinical institution, we assessed how treatment decisions are affected by PCR-based assays for the analysis of EGFR mutations from plasma samples in a centralized laboratory (LPCE, Nice, France). PATIENTS AND METHODS:A total of 345 samples were analyzed using the US Food and Drug Administration-approved Cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 and 103 using the Therascreen EGFR Plasma RGQ PCR Kit over 3 years (395 samples from 324 patients). Eleven plasma samples were validated independently using Cobas at 3 institutions, and 130 samples were analyzed using Stilla digital PCR. Clinical data were collected for 175 (54%) of 324 patients. RESULTS:Cobas was superior to the Therascreen assay and demonstrated 100% reproducibility. Digital PCR showed only 48%, 83%, and 58% concordance with Cobas for exon 19 deletions, L858R mutations, and T790M mutations, respectively. Liquid biopsies helped inform and change treatment when resistance occurred and enabled the detection of EGFR mutations in patients when biopsy tissue results were unavailable. CONCLUSION:PCR-based assays are a fast and convenient test, allowing the detection of primary and secondary EGFR mutations from plasma. Cobas proved to be a reliable test, whereas digital PCR produced too many inconclusive results to be currently recommended as a principal testing device.

Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a heterogeneous disease treated with anti-CD20-based immuno-chemotherapy (R-CHOP). We identified that low levels of GAPDH predict a poor response to R-CHOP treatment. Importantly, we demonstrated that GAPDH(low) lymphomas use OxPhos metabolism and rely on mTORC1 signaling and glutaminolysis. Consistently, disruptors of OxPhos metabolism(phenformin) or glutaminolysis (L-asparaginase) induce cytotoxic responses in GAPDH(low) B cells and improve GAPDH(low) B cell-lymphoma-bearing mice survival, while they are low or not efficient on GAPDH(high) B cell lymphomas. Ultimately, we selected four GAPDH(low) DLBCL patients, who were refractory to all anti-CD20-based therapies, and targeted DLBCL metabolism-using L-asparaginase (K), mTOR inhibitor (T), and metformin (M) (called KTM therapy). Three out of the four patients presented a complete response upon one cycle of KTM. These findings establish that the GAPDH expression level predicts DLBCL patients' response to R-CHOP treatment and their sensitivity to specific metabolic inhibitors.

Introduction: Long-term efficacy of anti-PD1 therapy and the need for a consolidation with allogenic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) remain unclear in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Methods: We retrospectively analysed 78 patients with R/R HL treated with nivolumab in the French Early Access Program and compared their outcomes according to subsequent allo-HSCT. Results: After a median follow-up of 34.3 months, the best overall response rate was 65.8%, including 38.2% complete responses (CRs). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.1 months. Patients reaching a CR upon nivolumab had a significantly longer PFS than those reaching a partial response (PR) (median = not reached vs 9.3 months, p < 0.001). In our cohort, 13 patients who responded (i.e. in CR or PR) to nivolumab monotherapy underwent consolidation with allo-HSCT. Among responding patients, none of those who underwent subsequent allo-HSCT (N = 13) relapsed, whereas 62.2% of those who were not consolidated with allo-HSCT (N = 37) relapsed (p < 0.001). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between the two groups. Five of 6 patients who were not in CR at the time of transplantation (4 PRs and 1 progressive disease) converted into a CR after allo-HSCT. Conclusion: Most patients with R/R HL treated with anti-PD1 monotherapy eventually progressed, notably those who did not achieve a CR. Patients undergoing consolidation with allo-HSCT after anti-PD1 therapy experienced prolonged disease-free survival compared with non-transplanted patients, but this difference did not translate into a benefit in OS. This information should be considered when evaluating the risk/benefit ratio of allo-HSCT after anti-PD1 therapy. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: Nivolumab demonstrated remarkable activity in patients with relapse or refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). However, long term efficacy and the need for a consolidation with allogenic stem cell transplantation remain unclear.