Explore the vast range of titles available.

Molecularly targeted agents have been reported to have anti-tumour activity for patients whose tumours harbour the matching molecular alteration. These results have led to increased off-label use of molecularly targeted agents on the basis of identified molecular alterations. We assessed the efficacy of several molecularly targeted agents marketed in France, which were chosen on the basis of tumour molecular profiling but used outside their indications, in patients with advanced cancer for whom standard-of-care therapy had failed. The open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 SHIVA trial was done at eight French academic centres. We included adult patients with any kind of metastatic solid tumour refractory to standard of care, provided they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, disease that was accessible for a biopsy or resection of a metastatic site, and at least one measurable lesion. The molecular profile of each patient's tumour was established with a mandatory biopsy of a metastatic tumour and large-scale genomic testing. We only included patients for whom a molecular alteration was identified within one of three molecular pathways (hormone receptor, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, RAF/MEK), which could be matched to one of ten regimens including 11 available molecularly targeted agents (erlotinib, lapatinib plus trastuzumab, sorafenib, imatinib, dasatinib, vemurafenib, everolimus, abiraterone, letrozole, tamoxifen). We randomly assigned these patients (1:1) to receive a matched molecularly targeted agent (experimental group) or treatment at physician's choice (control group) by central block randomisation (blocks of size six). Randomisation was done centrally with a web-based response system and was stratified according to the Royal Marsden Hospital prognostic score (0 or 1 vs 2 or 3) and the altered molecular pathway. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. Treatments in both groups were given in accordance with the approved product information and standard practice protocols at each institution and were continued until evidence of disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, which was not assessed by independent central review. We assessed safety in any patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01771458. Between Oct 4, 2012, and July 11, 2014, we screened 741 patients with any tumour type. 293 (40%) patients had at least one molecular alteration matching one of the 10 available regimens. At the time of data cutoff, Jan 20, 2015, 195 (26%) patients had been randomly assigned, with 99 in the experimental group and 96 in the control group. All patients in the experimental group started treatment, as did 92 in the control group. Two patients in the control group received a molecularly targeted agent: both were included in their assigned group for efficacy analyses, the patient who received an agent that was allowed in the experimental group was included in the experimental group for the purposes of safety analyses, while the other patient, who received a molecularly targeted agent and chemotherapy, was kept in the control group for safety analyses. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 5·8–11·6) in the experimental group and 11·3 months (8·1–11·6) in the control group at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Median progression-free survival was 2·3 months (95% CI 1·7–3·8) in the experimental group versus 2·0 months (1·8–2·1) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·88, 95% CI 0·65–1·19, p=0·41). In the safety population, 43 (43%) of 100 patients treated with a molecularly targeted agent and 32 (35%) of 91 patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy had grade 3–4 adverse events (p=0·30). The use of molecularly targeted agents outside their indications does not improve progression-free survival compared with treatment at physician's choice in heavily pretreated patients with cancer. Off-label use of molecularly targeted agents should be discouraged, but enrolment in clinical trials should be encouraged to assess predictive biomarkers of efficacy. Institut Curie.

Background 18 F–FDG PET–CT has emerged as a powerful imaging tool for initial staging and prognosis evaluation of patients with Breast Cancer (BC). However, previous studies are inconsistent on attributing a predictive value to the pathological Complete Response (pCR) determined by PET–CT. Our objective was to assess the association between pCR and 18 F–FDG PET–CT findings in patients with HER2+ BC in neoadjuvant setting. Methods We collected data from patients enrolled in the prospective and multicentric French clinical trial NeoTOP (NCT02339532) who underwent 18 F–FDG PET–CT before and after their first course of neoadjuvant treatment (depending on topoisomerase 2–α amplification status: 3 cycles of FEC 100 followed by 3 cycles of Docetaxel + Trastuzumab + Pertuzumab or 6 cycles of Docetaxel + Carboplatin + Trastuzumab + Pertuzumab). PET response was evaluated with visual and quantitative methods, by measuring tumor uptake parameters (SUV and SUL maximal and mean values), then compared to the pCR established according to Chevallier’s classification. \\ Results Out of 86 patients, 45 had fully analysable PET and pathological data. pCR rate was 73.3%. Sensitivity and specificity of PET visual analysis for pCR diagnosis were 14.0–83.0% respectively. SUVmax baseline value was 12.0±7.2 and decreased by 55.0±21.0% after one cycle of treatment. Quantitative PET parameters and their variations were not significantly different between pCR and non–pCR patients ( p >0.05 in all cases). Conclusions 18 F–FDG PET–CT before and after the first cycle of neoadjuvant treatment does not appear to be an effective tool to predict pCR in patients with HER2+ BC.

Selective inhibition of BCL-2 is expected to enhance therapeutic vulnerability in luminal estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers. We show here that the BCL-2 dependency of luminal tumor cells is nevertheless mitigated by breast cancer-associated fibroblasts (bCAFs) in a manner that defines MCL-1 as another critical therapeutic target. bCAFs favor MCL-1 expression and apoptotic resistance in luminal cancer cells in a IL-6 dependent manner while their own, robust, survival also relies on MCL-1. Studies based on ex vivo cultures of human luminal breast cancer tissues further argue that the contribution of stroma-derived signals to MCL-1 expression shapes BCL-2 dependency. Thus, MCL-1 inhibitors are beneficial for targeted apoptosis of breast tumor ecosystems, even in a subtype where MCL-1 dependency is not intrinsically driven by oncogenic pathways.

CLEOPATRA is a phase 3 study to compare the efficacy and safety of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel with placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in patients with HER2-positive first-line metastatic breast cancer. The results of the primary analysis showed significantly longer median progression-free survival in the pertuzumab group than in the placebo group. Interim analysis of overall survival favoured the pertuzumab group but was not significant. Here, we report results for overall survival after an additional year of follow-up. The study was a double-blind randomised trial undertaken at 204 centres in 25 countries. Patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had not received previous chemotherapy or biological treatment for their metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive either pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel (n=402) or the same regimen with a matching placebo replacing pertuzumab (n=406). Randomisation was in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by geographical region and previous treatment status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (assessed independently), which has been reported previously; no follow-up data were gathered for the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, progression-free survival (assessed by investigator), objective response rate, and safety. Median follow-up was 30 months in both groups. Efficacy endpoints were analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed by treatment received. The study is completed but safety and survival data continue to be followed up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00567190. In the intention-to-treat population, 267 patients died by data cutoff (May 14, 2012), 154 (38%) of 406 in the placebo group and 113 (28%) of 402 in the pertuzumab group. Median overall survival was 37·6 months (95% CI 34·3–NE [not estimable]) in the placebo group but had not been reached (95% CI 42·4–NE) in the pertuzumab group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·52–0·84; p=0·0008). Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 12·4 months (95% CI 10·4–13·5) in the placebo group and 18·7 months (16·6–21·6) in the pertuzumab group (hazard ratio 0·69, 95% CI 0·58–0·81). Serious adverse events were reported in 115 (29%) of 396 patients who received placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel and 148 (36%) of 408 who received pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, and included febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, diarrhoea, pneumonia, and cellulitis. Overall, adverse events were similar to those reported at the primary analysis with respect to frequency, severity, and specificity. Our analysis shows a significant improvement in overall survival with pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, compared with placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel. Since this effect was not achieved at the expense of adverse events, this regimen represents a substantial improvement on the standard of care for this population of patients. F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech.

Background: The SHIVA trial is a multicentric randomised proof-of-concept phase II trial comparing molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling vs conventional therapy in patients with any type of refractory cancer. Results of the feasibility study on the first 100 enrolled patients are presented. Methods: Adult patients with any type of metastatic cancer who failed standard therapy were eligible for the study. The molecular profile was performed on a mandatory biopsy, and included mutations and gene copy number alteration analyses using high-throughput technologies, as well as the determination of oestrogen, progesterone, and androgen receptors by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Results: Biopsy was safely performed in 95 of the first 100 included patients. Median time between the biopsy and the therapeutic decision taken during a weekly molecular biology board was 26 days. Mutations, gene copy number alterations, and IHC analyses were successful in 63 (66%), 65 (68%), and 87 (92%) patients, respectively. A druggable molecular abnormality was present in 38 patients (40%). Conclusions: The establishment of a comprehensive tumour molecular profile was safe, feasible, and compatible with clinical practice in refractory cancer patients.

Purpose This Phase I, multicenter, randomized study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01220128) evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of recombinant Wilms’ tumor 1 (WT1) protein combined with the immunostimulant AS15 (WT1-immunotherapeutic) as neoadjuvant therapy administered concurrently with standard treatments in WT1-positive breast cancer patients. Methods Patients were treated in 4 cohorts according to neoadjuvant treatment (A: post-menopausal, hormone receptor [HR]-positive patients receiving aromatase inhibitors; B: patients receiving chemotherapy; C: HER2-overexpressing patients on trastuzumab–chemotherapy combination; D: HR-positive/HER2-negative patients on chemotherapy). Patients (cohorts A–C) were randomized (2:1) to receive 6 or 8 doses of WT1-immunotherapeutic or placebo together with standard neoadjuvant treatment in a double-blind manner; cohort D patients received WT1-immunotherapeutic in an open manner. Safety was assessed throughout the study. WT1-specific antibodies were assessed pre- and post-vaccination. Results Sixty-two patients were randomized; 60 received ≥ one dose of WT1-immunotherapeutic. Two severe toxicities were reported: diarrhea (cohort C; also reported as a grade 3 serious adverse event) and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (cohort B; also reported as a grade 2 adverse event). Post-dose 4 of WT1-immunotherapeutic, 10/10 patients from cohort A, 0/8 patients from cohort B, 6/11 patients from cohort C, and 2/3 patients from cohort D were humoral responders. The sponsor elected to close the trial prematurely. Conclusions Concurrent administration of WT1-immunotherapeutic and standard neoadjuvant therapy was well tolerated and induced WT1-specific antibodies in patients receiving neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitors. In patients on neoadjuvant chemotherapy or trastuzumab–chemotherapy combination, the humoral response was impaired or blunted, likely due to either co-administration of corticosteroids and/or the chemotherapies themselves.

Background Approximately 10% of IDH -mutant gliomas harbour non-canonical IDH mutations (non- p.R132H IDH1  and IDH2 mutations). Objective The aim of this study was to analyse the characteristics of non-canonical IDH -mutant gliomas. Materials and methods We retrospectively analysed the characteristics of 166 patients with non-canonical IDH mutant gliomas and compared them to those of 155 consecutive patients with IDH1 p.R132H mutant gliomas. Results The median age at diagnosis was 38 years in patients with non-canonical IDH mutant gliomas and 43 years in glioma patients with IDH1 p.R132H -mutant tumours. Family history of cancer was more frequent among glioma patients harbouring non-canonical IDH mutations than in patients with IDH1 p.R132H mutations (22.2% vs 5.1%; P  < 0.05). Tumours were predominantly localised in the frontal lobe regardless of the type of IDH mutation. Compared to IDH1 p.R132H -mutant gliomas, tumours with non-canonical IDH mutations were more frequently found in the infratentorial region (5.5% vs 0%; P  < 0.05) and were often multicentric (4.8% vs 0.9%; P  < 0.05). Compared to IDH1 P.R132H -mutant gliomas, tumours with non-canonical IDH1 mutations were more frequently astrocytomas (65.6% vs 43%, P  < 0.05), while those with IDH 2 mutations were more frequently oligodendrogliomas (85% vs 48.3%; P  < 0.05). The median overall survival was similar in patients with IDH1 p.R132H -mutant gliomas and patients with non-canonical IDH -mutant gliomas. Conclusion Gliomas with non-canonical IDH mutations have distinct radiological and histological characteristics. The presence of such tumours seems to be associated with genetic predisposition to cancer development.

PurposeThe primary objective of this multicentric dose allocation and dose expansion study was to determine the MTD and the DLTs of the lucitanib (a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the FGFR/VEGFR/PDFGR pathways)/fulvestrant combination.MethodsPostmenopausal women with ER+/HER2− mBC, who have relapsed during or after treatment with fulvestrant, were eligible. The study had a dose allocation part to assess the tolerability of the combination followed by a dose expansion part.ResultsEighteen patients with ER+, mBC were enrolled; median age was 66 years, 50% had a PS: 0 and all had received previous endocrine treatment. The study was prematurely terminated after 18 patients (15 in part 1 and 3 in part 2) based on preclinical experiments that failed to confirm the hypothesis that addition of lucitanib would reverse sensitivity to endocrine treatments. Based on data of global lucitanib development, it was decided to stop the dose allocation at 12.5 mg and to start the dose expansion part at 10 mg/day. The most common grade ≥ 3 toxicities (> 10% of patients) were hypertension (78%) and asthenia (22%). All patients required at ≥ 1 interruption, 13 patients (72%) required ≥ 1 dose reduction. Three patients (72%) withdrew from the study for AEs (at 10 mg). Three patients achieved a confirmed PR (10 mg n = 1; 12.5 mg n = 2).ConclusionAlthough the combination is feasible it requires close monitoring of the patients for the management of adverse events. Further investigation is required to better understand the potential role of FGFR inhibition in reversing resistance to endocrine treatment.

Breast cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) have a crucial role in tumor initiation, metastasis and therapeutic resistance by secreting various growth factors, cytokines, protease and extracellular matrix components. Soluble factors secreted by CAFs are involved in many pathways including inflammation, metabolism, proliferation and epigenetic modulation, suggesting that CAF-dependent reprograming of cancer cells affects a large set of genes. This paracrine signaling has an important role in tumor progression, thus deciphering some of these processes could lead to relevant discoveries with subsequent clinical implications. Here, we investigated the mechanisms underlying the changes in gene expression patterns associated with the cross-talk between breast cancer cells and the stroma. From RNAseq data obtained from breast cancer cell lines grown in presence of CAF-secreted factors, we identified 372 upregulated genes, exhibiting an expression level positively correlated with the stromal content of breast cancer specimens. Furthermore, we observed that gene expression changes were not mediated through significant DNA methylation changes. Nevertheless, CAF-secreted factors but also stromal content of the tumors remarkably activated specific genes characterized by a DNA methylation pattern: hypermethylation at transcription start site and shore regions. Experimental approaches (inhibition of DNA methylation, knockdown of methyl-CpG-binding domain protein 2 and chromatin immunoprecipitation assays) indicated that this set of genes was epigenetically controlled. These data elucidate the importance of epigenetics marks in the cancer cell reprogramming induced by stromal cell and indicated that the interpreters of the DNA methylation signal have a major role in the response of the cancer cells to the microenvironment.

Background: We recently identified and validated UBE2C RNA as a prognostic marker in 252 node-positive (N+) breast cancers by means of a microarray study. The aim of this study was to validate UBE2C protein as a prognostic marker in N+ breast cancer by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Methods: To this end, 92 paraffin-embedded blocks were used. The impact of UBE2C IHC value on metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated and compared with Ki-67 and Nottingham prognostic index (NPI) performances. Results: In accordance with genomic data, UBE2C IHC had a significant impact both on MFS and OS (hazard ratio=6.79 – P =0.002; hazard ratio=7.14 – P =0.009, respectively). Akaike information criterion proved that the prognostic power of UBE2C IHC was stronger than that of Ki-67 (and close to that of NPI). Furthermore, multivariate analyses with NPI showed that, contrary to Ki-67 IHC, UBE2C IHC remained an independent factor, both for MFS (adjusted P =0.02) and OS (adjusted P =0.04). Conclusion: We confirmed that UBE2C protein measured by IHC could be used as a prognostic marker in N+ breast cancer. The potential predictive interest of UBE2C as a marker of proteasome activity needs further investigations.