Explore the vast range of titles available.

Pancreatic and colorectal cancers are often KRAS mutated and are incurable when tumor DNA or protein persists or recurs after curative intent therapy. Cancer vaccine ELI-002 2P enhances lymph node delivery and immune response using amphiphile (Amph) modification of G12D and G12R mutant KRAS (mKRAS) peptides (Amph-Peptides-2P) together with CpG oligonucleotide adjuvant (Amph-CpG-7909). We treated 25 patients (20 pancreatic and five colorectal) who were positive for minimal residual mKRAS disease (ctDNA and/or serum tumor antigen) after locoregional treatment in a phase 1 study of fixed-dose Amph-Peptides-2P and ascending-dose Amph-CpG-7909; study enrollment is complete with patient follow-up ongoing. Primary endpoints included safety and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The secondary endpoint was tumor biomarker response (longitudinal ctDNA or tumor antigen), with exploratory endpoints including immunogenicity and relapse-free survival (RFS). No dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and the RP2D was 10.0 mg of Amph-CpG-7909. Direct ex vivo mKRAS-specific T cell responses were observed in 21 of 25 patients (84%; 59% both CD4 + and CD8 + ); tumor biomarker responses were observed in 21 of 25 patients (84%); biomarker clearance was observed in six of 25 patients (24%; three pancreatic and three colorectal); and the median RFS was 16.33 months. Efficacy correlated with T cell responses above or below the median fold increase over baseline (12.75-fold): median tumor biomarker reduction was −76.0% versus −10.2% ( P  < 0.0014), and the median RFS was not reached versus 4.01 months (hazard ratio = 0.14; P  = 0.0167). ELI-002 2P was safe and induced considerable T cell responses in patients with immunotherapy-recalcitrant KRAS-mutated tumors. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04853017 . In a phase 1 trial, a lymph node-targeting mutant KRAS peptide vaccine combined with CpG adjuvant is safe, reduces expression of tumor biomarkers and elicits mutant KRAS-specific T cells in patients with pancreatic cancer and colorectal cancer.

Despite tremendous gains in the molecular understanding of exocrine pancreatic cancer, the prognosis for this disease remains very poor, largely because of delayed disease detection and limited effectiveness of systemic therapies. Both incidence rates and mortality rates for pancreatic cancer have increased during the past decade, in contrast to most other solid tumor types. Recent improvements in multimodality care have substantially improved overall survival, local control, and metastasis‐free survival for patients who have localized tumors that are amenable to surgical resection. The widening gap in prognosis between patients with resectable and unresectable or metastatic disease reinforces the importance of detecting pancreatic cancer sooner to improve outcomes. Furthermore, the developing use of therapies that target tumor‐specific molecular vulnerabilities may offer improved disease control for patients with advanced disease. Finally, the substantial morbidity associated with pancreatic cancer, including wasting, fatigue, and pain, remains an under‐addressed component of this disease, which powerfully affects quality of life and limits tolerance to aggressive therapies. In this article, the authors review the current multidisciplinary standards of care in pancreatic cancer with a focus on emerging concepts in pancreatic cancer detection, precision therapy, and survivorship.

Coronary vasospasm is a known side effect of 5-FU (fluorouracil) therapy. Beyond switching to non-5FU-based chemotherapy, there are no established treatments for 5-FU associated coronary vasospam. Our objective was to assess the safety and efficacy of re-challenge with 5-FU after pre-treatment with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and long-acting nitrates among patients 5-FU associated coronary vasospasm. We conducted a retrospective study of patients with 5-FU coronary vasospasm at a single academic center. By protocol, those referred to cardio-oncology received pre-treatment with either combination [nitrates and CCBs] or single-agent therapy [nitrates or CCBs]) prior to re-challenge with 5-FU. Our primary outcome was overall survival. Other important outcomes included progression-free survival and safety. Among 6,606 patients who received 5-FU from January 2001 to Dec 2020, 115 (1.74%) developed coronary vasospasm. Of these 115 patients, 81 patients continued 5-FU therapy, while 34 stopped. Of the 81 who continued, 78 were referred to cardio-oncology and prescribed CCBs and/or nitrates prior to subsequent 5-FU, while the remaining 3 continued 5-FU without cardiac pre-treatment. Of the 78, 56.4% (44/78) received both nitrates and CCBs, 19.2% (15/78) received CCBs alone, and 24.4% (19/78) received nitrates alone. When compared to patients who stopped 5-FU, those who continued 5-FU after pre-treatment (single or combination therapy) had a decreased risk of death (HR 0.42, P = 0.005 [95% CI 0.23-0.77]) and a trend towards decreased cancer progression (HR 0.60, P = 0.08 [95% CI 0.34-1.06]). No patient in the pre-treatment group had a myocardial infarct after re-challenge; however, chest pain (without myocardial infarction) recurred in 19.2% (15/78) among those who received cardiac pre-treatment vs. 66.7% (2/3) among those who did not (P = 0.048). There was no difference in efficacy or the recurrence of vasospasm among patients who received pre-treatment with a single agent (nitrates or CCBs) or combination therapy (14.7% (5/34) vs. 25.0% (11/44), P = 0.26). Re-challenge after pre-treatment with CCBs and nitrates guided by a cardio-oncology service was safe and allowed continued 5-FU therapy.

Background: Binimetinib (MEK162; ARRY-438162) is a potent and selective oral MEK 1/2 inhibitor. This phase 1 study determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and preliminary anti-tumour activity of binimetinib in patients with advanced solid tumours, with expansion cohorts of patients with biliary cancer or KRAS - or BRAF -mutant colorectal cancer. Methods: Binimetinib was administered twice daily. Expansion cohorts were enroled after MTD determination following a 3+3 dose-escalation design. Pharmacokinetic properties were determined from plasma samples. Tumour samples were assessed for mutations in RAS , RAF , and other relevant genes. Pharmacodynamic properties were evaluated in serum and skin punch biopsy samples. Results: Ninety-three patients received binimetinib (dose-escalation phase, 19; expansion, 74). The MTD was 60 mg twice daily, with dose-limiting adverse events (AEs) of dermatitis acneiform and chorioretinopathy. The dose for expansion patients was subsequently decreased to 45 mg twice daily because of the frequency of treatment-related ocular toxicity at the MTD. Common AEs across all dose levels included rash (81%), nausea (56%), vomiting (52%), diarrhoea (51%), peripheral oedema (46%), and fatigue (43%); most were grade 1/2. Dose-proportional increases in binimetinib exposure were observed and target inhibition was demonstrated in serum and skin punch biopsy samples. Three patients with biliary cancer had objective responses (one complete and two partial). Conclusions: Binimetinib demonstrated a manageable safety profile, target inhibition, and dose-proportional exposure. The 45 mg twice daily dose was identified as the recommended phase 2 dose. The three objective responses in biliary cancer patients are encouraging and support further evaluation in this population.

The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway is frequently dysregulated in cancers and inhibition of mTOR has demonstrated the ability to modulate pro-survival pathways. As such, we sought to determine the ability of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus to potentiate the antitumor effects of irinotecan in colorectal cancer (CRC). The combinatorial effects of everolimus and irinotecan were evaluated in vitro and in vivo in CRC cell lines harboring commonly found mutations in PIK3CA, KRAS and/or BRAF. Pharmacokinetically-directed dosing protocols of everolimus and irinotecan were established and used to assess the in vivo antitumor effects of the agents. At the end of treatment, 3-6 tumors per treatment arm were harvested for biomarker analysis by NMR metabolomics. Everolimus and irinotecan/SN38 demonstrated synergistic anti-proliferative effects in multiple CRC cell lines in vitro. Combination effects of everolimus and irinotecan were determined in CRC xenograft models using clinically-relevant dosing protocols. Everolimus demonstrated significant tumor growth inhibition alone and when combined with irinotecan in HT29 and HCT116 tumor xenografts. Metabolomic analysis showed that HT29 tumors were more metabolically responsive than HCT116 tumors. Everolimus caused a decrease in glycolysis in both tumor types whilst irinotecan treatment resulted in a profound accumulation of lipids in HT29 tumors indicating a cytotoxic effect. Quantitative analysis of tumor growth and metabolomic data showed that the combination of everolimus and irinotecan was more beneficial in the BRAF/PIK3CA mutant HT29 tumor xenografts, which had an additive effect, than the KRAS/PIK3CA mutant HCT116 tumor xenografts, which had a less than additive effect.

In this Review, Tentler et al . present the opportunities and challenges of using patient-derived tumour xenograft models in oncology drug development, provide specific disease examples, and describe concepts regarding predictive biomarker development and future applications. Progress in oncology drug development has been hampered by a lack of preclinical models that reliably predict clinical activity of novel compounds in cancer patients. In an effort to address these shortcomings, there has been a recent increase in the use of patient-derived tumour xenografts (PDTX) engrafted into immune-compromised rodents such as athymic nude or NOD/SCID mice for preclinical modelling. Numerous tumour-specific PDTX models have been established and, importantly, they are biologically stable when passaged in mice in terms of global gene-expression patterns, mutational status, metastatic potential, drug responsiveness and tumour architecture. These characteristics might provide significant improvements over standard cell-line xenograft models. This Review will discuss specific PDTX disease examples illustrating an overview of the opportunities and limitations of these models in cancer drug development, and describe concepts regarding predictive biomarker development and future applications. Key Points Many preclinical animal models fail to accurately predict the clinical efficacy of novel anticancer agents, largely due to their inability to reflect the complexity and heterogeneity of human tumours Patient-derived tumour xenograft models (PDTX), where surgically resected tumour samples are engrafted directly into immune-compromised mice, offer several advantages over standard cell-line xenograft models PDTX tumours maintain the molecular, genetic and histological heterogeneity typical of tumours of origin through serial passaging in mice The tumour histology of PDTX models provides an excellent in vivo preclinical platform to study cancer stem-cell biology and stromal–tumour interactions; novel cancer therapeutics can also be assessed Well-characterized PDTX models represent an information-rich preclinical resource for analysis of drug activity, including novel–novel drug combinations, as well as predictive biomarker discovery The PDTX approach to modelling of specific cancer types could potentially reduce non-informative animal studies while providing a more-relevant system to test clinically directed hypotheses

Background The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) Patient Registry is an online, pancreatic cancer‐specific, global registry enabling patients to self‐report sociodemographics, disease/management characteristics, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). We sought to describe the creation, user experience, and research potential of the PanCAN Registry. Methods We obtained data to describe (1) the creation of the Registry (questionnaire development, marketing efforts, and regulatory considerations); (2) the user experience (user characteristics and interactions with the registry following inception); and (3) the research potential of the registry (comparing PROs and treatment patterns by age [±65 years] and treatment site [community or academic] for users with de novo metastatic disease). Results The Registry was conceived as part of PanCAN’s strategic plan for a personalized therapy initiative. PanCAN staff and disease expert consultants developed questionnaires hosted on an electronic PRO platform. Users had the option to include their data in research efforts, and the Registry platform received institutional review board approval. From 7/2015 to 12/2020, 2187 patients visited the registry and 1697 (77.6%) completed at least one survey (median age = 64 years [range: 24–90], 47.9% women, 88.7% White, 34.0% metastatic disease). Among patients with metastatic disease (N = 567), 46.0% were ≥65 years old and 67.5% received treatment at community sites. Patients ≥65 years reported feeling less hopeful about the treatment plan (12.4% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.003), and patients treated at community sites reported more frequent treatment breaks of >2 weeks (58.2% vs. 28.1%, p < 0.001). Conclusions Our findings demonstrate the feasibility, usability, and research potential of an online PRO registry for patients with cancer. This description of the PanCAN Registry should inform future registry‐building efforts to facilitate standardized PRO reporting and provide a valuable research database. Clinical trial registration number: Not applicable. The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) Patient Registry is a voluntary, global, pancreatic cancer‐specific registry enabling patients to self‐report sociodemographics, disease/ management characteristics, and patient‐reported outcomes. In this manuscript, based on over 2000 patients visiting the PanCAN Registry over a 5‐year period, we describe its creation, user experience, and research potential, which can guide future registry building efforts (including standardized patient‐reported outcomes collection).

Overcoming intrinsic resistance to immune checkpoint blockade for microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer (CRC) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains challenging. We conducted a single-arm, non-randomized, phase II trial (NCT03104439) combining radiation, ipilimumab and nivolumab to treat patients with metastatic MSS CRC (n = 40) and PDAC (n = 25) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR) by intention to treat. DCRs were 25% for CRC (ten of 40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 13-41%) and 20% for PDAC (five of 25; 95% CI, 7-41%). In the per-protocol analysis, defined as receipt of radiation, DCR was 37% (ten of 27; 95% CI, 19-58%) in CRC and 29% (five of 17; 95% CI, 10-56%) in PDAC. Pretreatment biopsies revealed low tumor mutational burden for all samples but higher numbers of natural killer (NK) cells and expression of the HERVK repeat RNA in patients with disease control. This study provides proof of concept of combining radiation with immune checkpoint blockade in immunotherapy-resistant cancers.

Conversely, the phase 3 METIV-HCC study used tivantinib 120 mg tablets on the basis of similar pharmacokinetics to the 240 mg capsules.Since 38 (54%) of 71 patients in the phase 2 study received the 360 mg dose, this deviation in formulation and dosing likely resulted in different tivantinib exposure between the 360 mg phase 2 cohort and the 120 mg cohort in the phase 3 study.The observation of neutropenia being the primary grade 3 or worse toxicity associated with tivantinib exposure in both clinical trials further supports microtubule disruption as its mechanism of action.1 Thus, it seems unlikely that MET inhibition is the main mechanism of action of tivantinib.[...]the fact that tivantinib did not improve overall survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the METIV-HCC trial, does not mean that MET inhibition has no role in targeted therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.Additional research will help to define the optimal selection strategy of patients based on MET status (overexpression or amplification), and further trials of selective MET inhibitors (eg, tepotinib or capmatinib) that incorportate biomarkers studies to stratify patients, will provide additional information on whether MET inhibition is still a potential viable therapeutic strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma.9 Steve Gschmeissner/Science Photo Library AXZ reports personal fees from Exelixis, outside the submitted work.

The combination of drugs targeting Ral and PI3K/AKT signaling has antitumor efficacy in preclinical models of pancreatic cancer. We combined dinaciclib (small molecule cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor with MK‐2206 (Akt inhibitor) in patients with previously treated/metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients were treated with dinaciclib (6–12 mg/m2 i.v.) and MK‐2206 (60–135 mg p.o.) weekly. Tumor biopsies were performed to measure pAKT, pERK, and Ki67 at baseline and after one completed cycle (dose level 2 and beyond). Thirty‐nine patients participated in the study. The maximum tolerated doses were dinaciclib 9 mg/m2 and MK‐2206 135 mg. Treatment‐related grade 3 and 4 toxicities included neutropenia, lymphopenia, anemia, hyperglycemia, hyponatremia, and leukopenia. No objectives responses were observed. Four patients (10%) had stable disease as their best response. At the recommended dose, median survival was 2.2 months. Survival rates at 6 and 12 months were 11% and 5%, respectively. There was a nonsignificant reduction in pAKT composite scores between pretreatment and post‐treatment biopsies (mean 0.76 vs. 0.63; P = 0.635). The combination of dinaciclib and MK‐2206 was a safe regimen in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, although without clinical benefit, possibly due to not attaining biologically effective doses. Given the strong preclinical evidence of Ral and AKT inhibition, further studies with better tolerated agents should be considered.