METHODS: The APODDC set up a group of experts in the field of clinical cancer genomics to (i) understand the current NGS landscape for metastatic cancers in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region; (ii) discuss key challenges in the adoption of NGS testing in clinical practice; and (iii) adapt/modify the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines for local use. Nine cancer types [breast cancer (BC), gastric cancer (GC), nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), ovarian cancer (OC), prostate cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer (CRC) as well as cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)] were identified, and the applicability of NGS was evaluated in daily practice and/or clinical research. Asian ethnicity, accessibility of NGS testing, reimbursement, and socioeconomic and local practice characteristics were taken into consideration.

RESULTS: The APODDC recommends NGS testing in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Routine NGS testing is not recommended in metastatic BC, GC, and NPC as well as cholangiocarcinoma and HCC. The group suggested that patients with epithelial OC may be offered germline and/or somatic genetic testing for BReast CAncer gene 1 (BRCA1), BRCA2, and other OC susceptibility genes. Access to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors is required for NGS to be of clinical utility in prostate cancer. Allele-specific PCR or a small-panel multiplex-gene NGS was suggested to identify key alterations in CRC.

METHODS: Six key sections were chosen: (1) high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) oligometastatic prostate cancer, (3) castration-naïve prostate cancer, (4) castrate resistant prostate cancer, (5) use of osteoclast-targeted therapy and (6) global access to prostate cancer drugs. There were 101 consensus questions, consisting of 91 questions from APCCC 2017 and 10 new questions from MyAPCCC 2018, selected and modified by the steering committee; of which, 23 questions were assessed in both ideal world and real-world settings. A panel of 22 experts, comprising of 11 urologists and 11 oncologists, voted on 101 predefined questions anonymously. Final voting results were compared with the APCCC 2017 outcomes.

RESULTS: Most voting results from the MyAPCCC 2018 were consistent with the APCCC 2017 outcomes. No consensus was achieved for controversial topics with little level I evidence, such as management of oligometastatic disease. No consensus was reached on using high-cost drugs in castration-naïve or castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer in real-world settings. All panellists recommended using generic drugs when available.

METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or L858R) advanced NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or a standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.

RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.57; P<0.001). The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 80% with osimertinib and 76% with standard EGFR-TKIs (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.90; P=0.24). The median duration of response was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 22.0) with osimertinib versus 8.5 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 9.8) with standard EGFR-TKIs. Data on overall survival were immature at the interim analysis (25% maturity). The survival rate at 18 months was 83% (95% CI, 78 to 87) with osimertinib and 71% (95% CI, 65 to 76) with standard EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P=0.007 [nonsignificant in the interim analysis]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were less frequent with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (34% vs. 45%).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC who progressed following osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous or intravenous amivantamab, both combined with lazertinib. Co-primary pharmacokinetic noninferiority endpoints were trough concentrations (Ctrough; on cycle-2-day-1 or cycle-4-day-1) and cycle-2 area under the curve (AUCD1-D15). Key secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS) was a predefined exploratory endpoint.

RESULTS: Overall, 418 patients underwent randomization (subcutaneous group, n=206; intravenous group, n=212). Geometric mean ratios of Ctrough for subcutaneous to intravenous amivantamab were 1.15 (90% CI, 1.04-1.26) at cycle-2-day-1 and 1.42 (90% CI, 1.27-1.61) at cycle-4-day-1; the cycle-2 AUCD1-D15 was 1.03 (90% CI, 0.98-1.09). ORR was 30% in the subcutaneous and 33% in the intravenous group; median PFS was 6.1 and 4.3 months, respectively. OS was significantly longer in the subcutaneous versus intravenous group (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.92; nominal P=0.02). Fewer patients in the subcutaneous group experienced infusion-related reactions (13% versus 66%) and venous thromboembolism (9% versus 14%) versus the intravenous group. Median administration time for first infusion was reduced to 4.8 minutes (range, 0-18) for subcutaneous amivantamab from 5 hours (range, 0.2-9.9) for intravenous amivantamab. During cycle-1-day-1, 85% and 52% of patients in the subcutaneous and intravenous groups, respectively, considered treatment convenient; end-of-treatment rates were 85% and 35%, respectively.

METHODS: The Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer.

RESULTS: Oncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms.