Tumor Profiling Test Paves Way for Personalized Cancer Therapies

Doctor speaking to patient in exam room setting.

New Study Finds Tissue of Origin Identification and Comprehensive Molecular Profiling Expands Therapy Choices for Patients With Unclear Cancer Diagnoses. 

In the complex landscape of oncology, cancer of unknown primary (CUP) can be particularly challenging, presenting healthcare providers with metastatic cancers whose origins are not clinically identifiable. This disease, accounting for 1%-5% of all metastatic cancers, is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally.1-4

While patients diagnosed with CUP have traditionally faced unfavorable prognoses, advancements in site-specific therapies guided by standard pathology and molecular testing are offering new avenues for improved outcomes.

Recent studies have explored the use of genomic profiling to guide targeted treatments based solely on genomic alterations, but the results have been somewhat limited. Studies including about 3,300 patients revealed that only about 5%-20% had an actionable genomic alteration and received matched therapies,5-9 while another study analyzing gene alterations in 1,709 patients with CUP found that about 25% had actionable gene alterations.10 The use of targeted therapies based on genomic alteration alone further poses challenges due to varying response rates across cancer types, and most Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved uses are specific to particular cancers.11,12

Considering these challenges, a dual approach that combines primary tumor identification with comprehensive biomarker analysis to identify genomic alterations emerges as a promising pathway. This integrated method has the potential to uncover a broader range of treatment options, offering the possibility of more effective and personalized interventions for patients.

A promising method for identifying tumor type

The CancerTYPE ID® 92-gene assay is a gene-expression profiling (GEP) test that has shown promise in identifying tumor types in patients with CUP. In a recent study published in JCO Precision Oncology involving 3,168 patients with CUP or unclear diagnoses, the CancerTYPE ID test detected the type of tumor in 92.5% of cases, allowing doctors to prescribe more targeted, site-specific therapies.13 The study revealed that for 24.6% of patients with a molecularly diagnosed cancer type, a cancer-specific FDA-approved or investigational targeted therapy was potentially available.13

These findings demonstrate the complex nature of CUP cases and have the potential to help many healthcare providers identify targeted treatment options for current and future patients.

“Tumor-agnostic targeted therapies — or treatments that are based on a cancer’s genetic or molecular features without regard to cancer type or origin — are not FDA-approved for the first line of treatment for CUP patients,” said Jennifer Schneiders, PhD, President of Diagnostic Solutions. “This is another reason why identifying the primary cancer site remains crucial for expanding available options and determining the most effective treatment for patients.”

Taking a dual approach

For comprehensive treatment planning and care, studies point toward pairing origin identification tests like CancerTYPE ID® with broader genomic profiling tests, such as the NeoTYPE Cancer Profiles from Neogenomics, a partner laboratory of Biotheranostics.13

The importance of this dual approach is reinforced by clinical evidence showing that CUP patients treated with site-specific therapies based on tests like CancerTYPE ID® have notably better outcomes than those receiving empiric chemotherapy treatment.14-21 Additional treatment options based on accurate tumor identification may help bridge the treatment gap between CUP and known cancer types.

This latest research supports the integration of CancerTYPE ID® testing into the standard diagnostic workup for patients with CUP, which may help more patients gain access to FDA-approved targeted therapies specific to their cancer type or improve their eligibility for relevant clinical trials.10

    1. Ding Y, Jiang J, Xu J, et al. Site-specific therapy in cancers of unknown primary site: A systematic review and meta-analysis. ESMO Open. 2022;7(2):100407. doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100407 2. Olivier T, Fernandez E, Labidi-Galy I, et al. Redefining cancer of unknown primary: Is precision medicine really shifting the paradigm?. Cancer Treat Rev. 2021;97:102204. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102204 3. Ettinger DS, Stevenson MM, Mutar SA, et al. Occult primary (cancer of unknown primary [CUP]). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/occult.pdf 4. American Cancer Society. Facts & Figures 2024. American Cancer Society. Atlanta. 2024. 5. Hyman et al. Vemurafenib in Multiple Nonmelanoma Cancers with BRAF V600 Mutations. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(8):726-36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1502309 6. Le Tourneau et al. Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA): a multicentre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(13):1324-34. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00188-6 7. Stockley et al. Molecular profiling of advanced solid tumors and patient outcomes with genotype-matched clinical trials: the Princess Margaret IMPACT/COMPACT trial. Genome Med. 2016; 8(1)109. doi: 10.1186/s13073-016-0364-2 8. F Schettini et al Next-generation sequencing-based evaluation of the actionable landscape of genomic alterations in solid tumors: the “MOZART” prospective observational study, The Oncologist, 2024;, oyae206, https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae206 9. Teuwen LA, Roets E, D'Hoore P, Pauwels P, Prenen H. Comprehensive Genomic Profiling and Therapeutic Implications for Patients with Advanced Cancers: The Experience of an Academic Hospital. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 May 3;13(9):1619. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13091619. PMID: 37175010; PMCID: PMC10177779. 10. Es, H.A., Mahdizadeh, H., Asl, A.A.H. et al. Genomic alterations and possible druggable mutations in carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP). Sci Rep 11, 15112 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94678-4 11. Chapman PB et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2507-16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103782 12. Kopetz S et al. PLX4032 in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with mutant BRAF tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(15s Suppl):abstract 3534. doi: 10.1200/jco.2010.28.15_suppl.3534 13. Harry E. Fuentes Bayne et al. Personalized Therapy Selection by Integration of Molecular Cancer Classification by the 92-Gene Assay and Tumor Profiling in Patients With Cancer of Unknown Primary. JCO Precis Oncol. 2024;8(e2400191). doi:10.1200/PO.24.00191 14. Hainsworth JD, Greco FA. Cancer of Unknown Primary Site: New Treatment Paradigms in the Era of Precision Medicine. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book. 2018;(38):20-25. doi:10.1200/edbk_100014 15. Hainsworth JD, Rubin MS, Spigel DR, et al. Molecular gene expression profiling to predict the tissue of origin and direct site-specific therapy in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site: A prospective trial of the Sarah cannon research institute. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2013;31(2). doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.43.3755 16. Rassy E, Parent P, Lefort F, Boussios S, Baciarello G, Pavlidis N. New rising entities in cancer of unknown primary: Is there a real therapeutic benefit? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2020;147:102882. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.102882 17. Hainsworth JD, Anthony Greco F. Lung Adenocarcinoma with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Rearrangement Presenting as Carcinoma of Unknown Primary Site: Recognition and Treatment Implications. Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2016;3(1):115-120. doi:10.1007/s40801-016-0064-7 18. Kumar RM, Aziz T, Jamshaid H, Gill J, Kapoor A. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma without evidence of a primary renal tumour. Curr Oncol. 2014;21(3):e521-4. doi:10.3747/co.21.1914 19. Greco FA, Hainsworth JD. Renal Cell Carcinoma Presenting as Carcinoma of Unknown Primary Site: Recognition of a Treatable Patient Subset. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16(4):e893-e898. doi:10.1016/j.clgc.2018.03.001 20. Luo Z, Liu X, Zhang X, et al. 1208MO A randomized phase III trial of site-specific therapy guided by the 90-gene expression assay versus empiric chemotherapy in patients with cancer of unknown primary. Annals of Oncology. 2023;34:S712. doi:10.1016/J.ANNONC.2023.09.2298 21. Hainsworth JD, Schnabel CA, Erlander MG, Haines DW, Greco FA. A retrospective study of treatment outcomes in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site and a colorectal cancer molecular profile. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2012;11(2):112-118. doi:10.1016/j.clcc.2011.08.001