Explore the vast range of titles available.

Tumour mutational burden (TMB) has been retrospectively correlated with response to immune checkpoint blockade. We prospectively explored the association of high tissue TMB (tTMB-high) with outcomes in ten tumour-type-specific cohorts from the phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study, which assessed the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab in patients with selected, previously treated, advanced solid tumours. In the multi-cohort, open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study, patients were enrolled from 81 academic facilities and community-based institutions across 21 countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced (ie, unresectable or metastatic, or both) incurable solid tumour (eligible tumour types were anal, biliary, cervical, endometrial, mesothelioma, neuroendocrine, salivary, small-cell lung, thyroid, and vulvar), progression on or intolerance to one or more lines of standard therapy, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1) assessed by independent central radiological review, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, life expectancy of at least 3 months, adequate organ function, and a tumour sample for biomarker analysis. Participants were given pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Tissue TMB (tTMB) was assessed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour samples using the FoundationOne CDx assay (Foundation Medicine, Cambridge, MA, USA). The prespecified definition of tTMB-high status was at least 10 mutations per megabase. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an objective response (complete or partial response) as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) by independent central review. This prespecified analysis assessed the association between antitumour activity and tTMB in treated patients with evaluable tTMB data. Efficacy was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab, had evaluable tTMB data, and were enrolled at least 26 weeks before data cutoff (June 27, 2019), and safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab and had tTMB-high status. KEYNOTE-158 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02628067, and is ongoing. Between Jan 15, 2016, and June 25, 2019, 1073 patients were enrolled. 1066 participants were treated as of data cutoff (June 27, 2019), of whom 805 (76%) were evaluable for TMB, and 105 (13%) of 805 had tTMB-high status and were assessed for safety. 1050 (98%) of 1066 patients enrolled by at least 26 weeks before data cutoff, of whom 790 (75%) were evaluable for TMB and included in efficacy analyses. 102 (13%) of these 790 patients had tTMB-high status (≥10 mutations per megabase), and 688 (87%) patients had non-tTMB-high status (<10 mutations per megabase). Median study follow-up was 37·1 months (IQR 35·0–38·3). Objective responses were observed in 30 (29%; 95% CI 21–39) of 102 patients in the tTMB-high group and 43 (6%; 5–8) of 688 in the non-tTMB-high group. 11 (10%) of 105 patients had treatment-related serious adverse events. 16 (15%) participants had a grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse event, of which colitis was the only such adverse event that occurred in more than one patient (n=2). One patient had fatal pneumonia that was assessed by the investigator to be treatment related. tTMB-high status identifies a subgroup of patients who could have a robust tumour response to pembrolizumab monotherapy. tTMB could be a novel and useful predictive biomarker for response to pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated recurrent or metastatic advanced solid tumours. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors combined with immunotherapy have shown antitumour activity in preclinical studies. We aimed to assess the safety and activity of olaparib in combination with the PD-L1-inhibitor, durvalumab, in patients with germline BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated metastatic breast cancer. The MEDIOLA trial is a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2, basket trial of durvalumab and olaparib in solid tumours. Patients were enrolled into four initial cohorts: germline BRCA-mutated, metastatic breast cancer; germline BRCA-mutated, metastatic ovarian cancer; metastatic gastric cancer; and relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Here, we report on the cohort of patients with breast cancer. Patients who were aged 18 years or older (or aged 19 years or older in South Korea) with germline BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated or both and histologically confirmed, progressive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer were enrolled from 14 health centres in the UK, the USA, Israel, France, Switzerland, and South Korea. Patients should not have received more than two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Patients received 300 mg olaparib in tablet form orally twice daily for 4 weeks and thereafter a combination of olaparib 300 mg twice daily and durvalumab 1·5 g via intravenous infusion every 4 weeks until disease progression. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, and 12-week disease control rate. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, and activity analyses were done in the full-analysis set (patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and were not excluded from the study). Recruitment has completed and the study is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02734004. Between June 14, 2016, and May 2, 2017, 34 patients were enrolled and received both study drugs and were included in the safety analysis. 11 (32%) patients experienced grade 3 or worse adverse events, of which the most common were anaemia (four [12%]), neutropenia (three [9%]), and pancreatitis (two [6%]). Three (9%) patients discontinued due to adverse events and four (12%) patients experienced a total of six serious adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. 24 (80%; 90% CI 64·3–90·9) of 30 patients eligible for activity analysis had disease control at 12 weeks. Combination of olaparib and durvalumab showed promising antitumour activity and safety similar to that previously observed in olaparib and durvalumab monotherapy studies. Further research in a randomised setting is needed to determine predictors of therapeutic benefit and whether addition of durvalumab improves long-term clinical outcomes compared with olaparib monotherapy. AstraZeneca.

Few options exist for treatment of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of first-line therapy. Lurbinectedin is a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. In this phase 2 study, we evaluated the acti and safety of lurbinectedin in patients with SCLC after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. In this single-arm, open-label, phase 2 basket trial, we recruited patients from 26 hospitals in six European countries and the USA. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with a pathologically proven diagnosis of SCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, measurable disease as per Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, absence of brain metastasis, adequate organ function, and pre-treated with only one previous chemotherapy-containing line of treatment (minimum 3 weeks before study initiation) were eligible. Treatment consisted of 3·2 mg/m2 lurbinectedin administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an overall response (complete or partial response) as assessed by the investigators according to RECIST 1.1. All treated patients were analysed for activity and safety. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02454972. Between Oct 16, 2015, and Jan 15, 2019, 105 patients were enrolled and treated with lurbinectedin. Median follow-up was 17·1 months (IQR 6·5–25·3). Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 patients (35·2%; 95% CI 26·2–45·2). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events (irrespective of causality) were haematological abnormalities—namely, anaemia (in nine [9%] patients), leucopenia (30 [29%]), neutropenia (48 [46%]), and thrombocytopenia (seven [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 11 (10%) patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (five [5%] patients for each). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Lurbinectedin was active as second-line therapy for SCLC in terms of overall response and had an acceptable and manageable safety profile. Lurbinectedin could represent a potential new treatment for patients with SCLC, who have few options especially in the event of a relapse, and is being investigated in combination with doxorubicin as second-line therapy in a randomised phase 3 trial. Pharma Mar.

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.

Diffuse-type tenosynovial giant cell tumour (dt-GCT) of the soft tissue (alternatively known as pigmented villonodular synovitis), an orphan disease with unmet medical need, is characterised by an overexpression of colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1), and is usually caused by a chromosomal translocation involving CSF1. CSF1 receptor (CSF1R) activation leads to the recruitment of CSF1R-expressing cells of the mononuclear phagocyte lineage that constitute the tumor mass in dt-GCT. Emactuzumab (RG7155) is a novel monoclonal antibody that inhibits CSF1R activation. We have assessed the safety, tolerability and activity of emactuzumab in patients with Dt-GCT of the soft tissue. In this phase 1, first-in-human dose-escalation and dose-expansion study, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with dt-GCT of the soft tissue with locally advanced disease or resectable tumours requiring extensive surgery, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, and adequate end-organ function. Patients with GCT of the bone were not eligible. Patients received intravenous emactuzumab at 900 mg, 1350 mg, or 2000 mg every 2 weeks in the dose-escalation phase and at the optimal biological dose in a dose-expansion phase. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of emactuzumab, and to determine the maximum tolerated dose or optimal biological dose. All treated patients were included in the analyses. Expansion cohorts are currently ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01494688. Between July 26, 2012, and Oct 21, 2013, 12 patients were enrolled in the dose-escalation phase. No dose-limiting toxicities were noted in the dose-escalation cohort; on the basis of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and safety information, we chose a dose of 1000 mg every 2 week for the dose-expansion cohort, into which 17 patients were enrolled. Owing to different cutoff dates for safety and efficacy readouts, the safety population comprised 25 patients. Common adverse events after emactuzumab treatment were facial oedema (16 [64%] of 25 patients), asthenia (14 [56%]), and pruritus (14 [56%]). Five serious adverse events (periorbital oedema, lupus erythematosus [occurring twice], erythema, and dermohypodermitis all experienced by one [4%] patient each) were reported in five patients. Three of the five serious adverse events—periorbital oedema (one [4%]), lupus erythematosus (one [4%]), and dermohypodermitis (one [4%])—were assessed as grade 3. Two other grade 3 events were reported: mucositis (one [4%]) and fatigue (one [4%]). 24 (86%) of 28 patients achieved an objective response; two (7%) patients achieved a complete response. Further study of dt-GCT is warranted and different possibilities, such as an international collaboration with cooperative groups to assure appropriate recruitment in this rare disease, are currently being assessed. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Background Immunotherapy (IO) has become a standard of care for treating various types of metastatic cancers and has significantly improved clinical outcome. With the exception of metastatic melanoma in complete response for which treatment can be stopped at 6 months, these treatments are currently administered until either disease progression for some IO, 2 years for others, or unacceptable toxicity. However, a growing number of studies are reporting maintenance of response despite discontinuation of therapy. There is currently no evidence of a dose effect of IO in pharmacokinetic studies. Maintaining efficacy despite a reduction in treatment intensity by decreasing the frequency of administration in patients with highly selected metastatic cancer, is the hypothesis evaluated in the MOIO study. Method/design This non-inferiority, randomized phase III study aims to compare the standard regimen to a 3 monthly regimen of variousIO drugs in adult patients with metastatic cancer in partial (PR) or complete response (CR) after 6 months of standard IO dosing (except melanoma in CR). This is a French national study conducted in 36 centers. The main objective is to demonstrate that the efficacy of a three-monthly administration is not unacceptably less efficacious than a standard administration. Secondary objectives are cost-effectiveness, quality of life (QOL), anxiety, fear of relapse, response rate, overall survival and toxicity. After 6 months of standard IO, patients with partial or complete response will be randomized 1:1 between standard IO or a reduced intensity dose of IO, administered every 3 months. The randomization will be stratified on therapy line,, tumor type, IO type and response status. The primary endpoint is the hazard ratio of progression-free survival. With a planned study duration of 6 years, including 36 months enrolment time, 646 patients are planned to demonstrate with a statistical level of evidence of 5% that the reduced IO regimen is non-inferior to the standard IO regimen, with a relative non-inferiority margin set at 1.3. Discussion Should the hypothesis of non-inferiority with an IO reduced dose intensity be validated, alternate scheduling could preserve efficacy while being cost-effective and allowing a reduction of the toxicity, with an increase in patient’s QOL. Trial registration NCT05078047.

Background Deregulation of FGF19-FGFR4 signaling is found in several cancers, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), nominating it for therapeutic targeting. FGF401 is a potent, selective FGFR4 inhibitor with antitumor activity in preclinical models. This study was designed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), characterize PK/PD, and evaluate the safety and efficacy of FGF401 alone and combined with the anti-PD-1 antibody, spartalizumab. Methods Patients with HCC or other FGFR4/KLB expressing tumors were enrolled. Dose-escalation was guided by a Bayesian model. Phase 2 dose-expansion enrolled patients with HCC from Asian countries (group1), non-Asian countries (group2), and patients with other solid tumors expressing FGFR4 and KLB (group3). FGF401 and spartalizumab combination was evaluated in patients with HCC. Results Seventy-four patients were treated in the phase I with single-agent FGF401 at 50 to 150 mg. FGF401 displayed favorable PK characteristics and no food effect when dosed with low-fat meals. The RP2D was established as 120 mg qd. Six of 70 patients experienced grade 3 dose-limiting toxicities: increase in transaminases ( n  = 4) or blood bilirubin ( n  = 2). In phase 2, 30 patients in group 1, 36 in group 2, and 20 in group 3 received FGF401. In total, 8 patients experienced objective responses (1 CR, 7 PR; 4 each in phase I and phase II, respectively). Frequent adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (73.8%), increased AST (47.5%), and ALT (43.8%). Increase in levels of C4, total bile acid, and circulating FGF19, confirmed effective FGFR4 inhibition. Twelve patients received FGF401 plus spartalizumab. RP2D was established as FGF401 120 mg qd and spartalizumab 300 mg Q3W; 2 patients reported PR. Conclusions At biologically active doses, FGF401 alone or combined with spartalizumab was safe in patients with FGFR4/KLB-positive tumors including HCC. Preliminary clinical efficacy was observed. Further clinical evaluation of FGF401 using a refined biomarker strategy is warranted. Trial registration NCT02325739 .

Background Patients suffering from cancers are increasingly numerous in general practice consultations. The General Practitioner (GP) should be at the heart of the management of patients. Several studies have examined the perceptions of GPs confronted with the patient suffering from cancer and the relationships of GPs with oncologists, but few studies have focused on the patients’ perspective. We studied the three-way relationship between the oncologist, the GP, and the patient, from the patient’s point of view. Methods A questionnaire validated by a group consisting of GPs, oncologists, nurses, an epidemiologist and quality analyst, was administered over a three-week period to patients suffering from cancer receiving chemotherapy in a day hospital. Results The analysis was based on 403 questionnaires. Patients had confidence in the GP’s knowledge of oncology in 88% of cases; 49% consulted their GP for pain, 15% for cancer-related advice, and 44% in emergencies. Perceived good GP/oncologist communication led patients to turn increasingly to their GP for cancer-related consultations (RR = 1.14; p  = 0.01) and gave patients confidence in the GP’s ability to manage cancer-related problems (RR = 1.30; p  < 0.01). Mention by the oncologist of the GP’s role increased the consultations for complications (RR = 1.82; p  < 0.01) as well as recourse to the GP in an emergency (RR = 1.35; p  < 0.01). Conclusion Patients suffering from cancer considered that the GP was competent, but did not often consult their GP for cancer-related problems. There is a discrepancy between patients’ beliefs and their behaviour. When the oncologist spoke to patients of the GP’s role, patients had recourse to their GP more often. Systematically integrating a GP consultation to conclude cancer diagnosis disclosure, could improve management and care coordination.

Background Glioblastoma, a high-grade glial infiltrating tumor, is the most frequent malignant brain tumor in adults and carries a dismal prognosis. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) increases overall survival but this is still low due to local relapses, mostly occurring in the irradiation field. As the ratio of spectra of choline/N acetyl aspartate> 2 (CNR2) on MR spectroscopic imaging has been described as predictive for the site of local relapse, we hypothesized that dose escalation on these regions would increase local control and hence global survival. Methods/design In this multicenter prospective phase III trial for newly diagnosed glioblastoma, 220 patients having undergone biopsy or surgery are planned for randomization to two arms. Arm A is the Stupp protocol (EBRT 60 Gy on contrast enhancement + 2 cm margin with concomitant temozolomide (TMZ) and 6 months of TMZ maintenance); Arm B is the same treatment with an additional simultaneous integrated boost of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of 72Gy/2.4Gy delivered on the MR spectroscopic imaging metabolic volumes of CHO/NAA > 2 and contrast-enhancing lesions or resection cavity. Stratification is performed on surgical and MGMT status. Discussion This is a dose-painting trial, i.e. delivery of heterogeneous dose guided by metabolic imaging. The principal endpoint is overall survival. An online prospective quality control of volumes and dose is performed in the experimental arm. The study will yield a large amount of longitudinal multimodal MR imaging data including planning CT, radiotherapy dosimetry, MR spectroscopic, diffusion and perfusion imaging. Trial registration NCT01507506 , registration date December 20, 2011.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients frequently suffer from undetected micro‐metastatic disease. This clinical situation would greatly benefit from additional investigation. Therefore, we set out to identify key signalling events that drive metastatic evolution from the pancreas. We searched for a gene signature that discriminate localised PDAC from confirmed metastatic PDAC and devised a preclinical protocol using circulating cell‐free DNA (cfDNA) as an early biomarker of micro‐metastatic disease to validate the identification of key signalling events. An unbiased approach identified, amongst actionable markers of disease progression, the PI3K pathway and a distinctive PI3Kα activation signature as predictive of PDAC aggressiveness and prognosis. Pharmacological or tumour‐restricted genetic PI3Kα‐selective inhibition prevented macro‐metastatic evolution by hindering tumoural cell migratory behaviour independently of genetic alterations. We found that PI3Kα inhibition altered the quantity and the species composition of the produced lipid second messenger PIP 3 , with a selective decrease of C36:2 PI‐3,4,5‐P 3 . Tumoural PI3Kα inactivation prevented the accumulation of pro‐tumoural CD206‐positive macrophages in the tumour‐adjacent tissue. Tumour cell‐intrinsic PI3Kα promotes pro‐metastatic features that could be pharmacologically targeted to delay macro‐metastatic evolution. SYNOPSIS Primary tumours from metastatic PDAC patients are characterized by a selective transcriptomics signature, including a gene signature representative of PI3Kα activation, which predicts tumour evolution. PDAC tumour cell migration is regulated by a minimal PI3Kα activity. PI3Kα tumour cell intrinsic activity is triggered by oncogenic mutations and by a tumoural context such as secreted FGF receptor ligands. Macrophage TNFα secretion is promoted by PI3Kα activity‐induced IL‐3 in tumour cell; conversely, tumour cell migration is promoted by TNFα. Higher level of cfDNA with KRAS mutation in pancreatic cancer patients is associated with increased PI3K activity markers in primary tumour. Evolution from micro‐metastatic disease to macro‐metastatic stage is dependent on PI3Kα activity and is prevented by PI3Kα pharmacological inhibition. Graphical Abstract Primary tumours from metastatic PDAC patients are characterized by a selective transcriptomics signature, including a gene signature representative of PI3Kα activation, which predicts tumour evolution.