Explore the vast range of titles available.

Amplification of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and its active mutant EGFRvIII occurs frequently in glioblastoma (GBM). While EGFR and EGFRvIII play critical roles in pathogenesis, targeted therapy with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or antibodies has only shown limited efficacy in patients. Here we discuss signaling pathways mediated by EGFR/EGFRvIII, current therapeutics, and novel strategies to target EGFR / EGFRvIII -amplified GBM.

The world of molecular profiling has undergone revolutionary changes over the last few years as knowledge, technology, and even standard clinical practice have evolved. Broad molecular profiling is now nearly essential for all patients with metastatic solid tumors. New agents have been approved based on molecular testing instead of tumor site of origin. Molecular profiling methodologies have likewise changed such that tests that were performed on patients a few years ago are no longer complete and possibly inaccurate today. As with all rapid change, medical providers can quickly fall behind or struggle to find up‐to‐date sources to ensure he or she provides optimum care. In this review, the authors provide the current state of the art for molecular profiling/precision medicine, practice standards, and a view into the future ahead.

Advances in cancer biology and sequencing technology have enabled the selection of targeted and more effective treatments for individual patients with various types of solid tumour. However, only three molecular biomarkers have thus far been demonstrated to predict a response to targeted therapies in patients with gastric and/or gastro-oesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancers: HER2 positivity for trastuzumab and trastuzumab deruxtecan, and microsatellite instability (MSI) status and PD-L1 expression for pembrolizumab. Despite this lack of clinically relevant biomarkers, distinct molecular subtypes of G/GEJ cancers have been identified and have informed the development of novel agents, including receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies, several of which are currently being tested in ongoing trials. Many of these trials include biomarker stratification, and some include analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA), which both enables the noninvasive assessment of biomarker expression and provides an indication of the contributions of intratumoural heterogeneity to response and resistance. The results of these studies might help to optimize the selection of patients to receive targeted therapies, thus facilitating precision medicine approaches for patients with G/GEJ cancers. In this Review, we describe the current evidence supporting the use of targeted therapies in patients with G/GEJ cancers and provide guidance on future research directions.Despite considerable progress in the development of targeted therapies, only three biomarkers are currently used to guide the treatment of patients with gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancers using approved targeted therapies. Nonetheless, owing to advances in our understanding of tumour biology and sequencing technologies, several novel therapies are expected to soon become available. In this Review, the authors describe current and future biomarker-guided therapies for patients with G/GEJ cancers.

ObjectiveSorafenib is the standard systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Survival benefits of resection/local ablation for early HCC are compromised by 70% 5-year recurrence rates. The phase 3 STORM trial comparing sorafenib with placebo as adjuvant treatment did not achieve its primary endpoint of improving recurrence-free survival (RFS). The biomarker companion study BIOSTORM aims to define (A) predictors of recurrence prevention with sorafenib and (B) prognostic factors with B level of evidence.DesignTumour tissue from 188 patients randomised to receive sorafenib (83) or placebo (105) in the STORM trial was collected. Analyses included gene expression profiling, targeted exome sequencing (19 known oncodrivers), immunohistochemistry (pERK, pVEGFR2, Ki67), fluorescence in situ hybridisation (VEGFA) and immunome. A gene signature capturing improved RFS in sorafenib-treated patients was generated. All 70 RFS events were recurrences, thus time to recurrence equalled RFS. Predictive and prognostic value was assessed using Cox regression models and interaction test.ResultsBIOSTORM recapitulates clinicopathological characteristics of STORM. None of the biomarkers tested (related to angiogenesis and proliferation) or previously proposed gene signatures, or mutations predicted sorafenib benefit or recurrence. A newly generated 146-gene signature identifying 30% of patients captured benefit to sorafenib in terms of RFS (p of interaction=0.04). These sorafenib RFS responders were significantly enriched in CD4+ T, B and cytolytic natural killer cells, and lacked activated adaptive immune components. Hepatocytic pERK (HR=2.41; p=0.012) and microvascular invasion (HR=2.09; p=0.017) were independent prognostic factors.ConclusionIn BIOSTORM, only hepatocytic pERK and microvascular invasion predicted poor RFS. No mutation, gene amplification or previously proposed gene signatures predicted sorafenib benefit. A newly generated multigene signature associated with improved RFS on sorafenib warrants further validation.Trial registration number NCT00692770.

Rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has anticancer activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity. In this trial we assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma. In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 hospitals and cancer centres across 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma, had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, had achieved complete or partial response to their last platinum-based regimen, had a cancer antigen 125 concentration of less than the upper limit of normal, had a performance status of 0–1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central nervous system metastases, had received anticancer therapy 14 days or fewer before starting the study, or had received previous treatment with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo in 28 day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six, stratified by homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to the most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival evaluated with use of an ordered step-down procedure for three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations (carcinoma associated with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations), patients with homologous recombination deficiencies (BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and high loss of heterozygosity), and the intention-to-treat population, assessed at screening and every 12 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01968213; enrolment is complete. Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, we randomly allocated 564 patients: 375 (66%) to rucaparib and 189 (34%) to placebo. Median progression-free survival in patients with a BRCA-mutant carcinoma was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·4–22·9; 130 [35%] patients) in the rucaparib group versus 5·4 months (3·4–6·7; 66 [35%] patients) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·23 [95% CI 0·16–0·34]; p<0·0001). In patients with a homologous recombination deficient carcinoma (236 [63%] vs 118 [62%]), it was 13·6 months (10·9–16·2) versus 5·4 months (5·1–5·6; 0·32 [0·24–0·42]; p<0·0001). In the intention-to-treat population, it was 10·8 months (8·3–11·4) versus 5·4 months (5·3–5·5; 0·36 [0·30–0·45]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in the safety population (372 [99%] patients in the rucaparib group vs 189 [100%] in the placebo group) were reported in 209 (56%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 28 (15%) in the placebo group, the most common of which were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin concentration (70 [19%] vs one [1%]) and increased alanine or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (39 [10%] vs none). Across all primary analysis groups, rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who had achieved a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. ARIEL3 provides further evidence that use of a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the maintenance treatment setting versus placebo could be considered a new standard of care for women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a complete or partial response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. Clovis Oncology.

In recent years, advances in drug therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have progressed rapidly. In addition to cytotoxic anti-cancer agents such as platinum-based drug (cisplatin and carboplatin) and taxane-based drugs (docetaxel and paclitaxel), epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (cetuximab) and immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) antibodies (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) have come to be used. The importance of anti-cancer drug therapy is increasing year by year. Therefore, we summarize clinical trials of molecular targeted therapy and biomarkers in HNSCC from previous studies. Here we show the current trends and future prospects of molecular targeted therapy in HNSCC.

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.

The incidence of brain metastases has markedly increased in the past 20 years owing to progress in the treatment of malignant solid tumours, earlier diagnosis by MRI and an ageing population. Although local therapies remain the mainstay of treatment for many patients with brain metastases, a growing number of systemic options are now available and/or are under active investigation. HER2-targeted therapies (lapatinib, neratinib, tucatinib and trastuzumab emtansine), alone or in combination, yield a number of intracranial responses in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastases. New inhibitors are being investigated in brain metastases from ER-positive or triple-negative breast cancer. Several generations of EGFR and ALK inhibitors have shown activity on brain metastases from EGFR and ALK mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) hold promise in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer without druggable mutations and in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. The survival of patients with brain metastases from melanoma has substantially improved after the advent of BRAF inhibitors and ICIs (ipilimumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab). The combination of targeted agents or ICIs with stereotactic radiosurgery could further improve the response rates and survival but the risk of radiation necrosis should be monitored. Advanced neuroimaging and liquid biopsy will hopefully improve response evaluation.This Review outlines the advances of molecular treatment of brain metastases from non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer and melanoma. Substantial improvements in survival have been achieved in patients with molecular subgroups whose alterations can be targeted with specific molecular compounds.

For decades, anticancer targeted therapies have been designed to inhibit kinases or other enzyme classes and have profoundly benefited many patients. However, novel approaches are required to target transcription factors, scaffolding proteins and other proteins central to cancer biology that typically lack catalytic activity and have remained mostly recalcitrant to drug development. The selective degradation of target proteins is an attractive approach to expand the druggable proteome, and the selective oestrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant served as an early example of this concept. Following a long and tragic history in the clinic, the immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD) thalidomide was discovered to exert its therapeutic activity via a novel and unexpected mechanism of action: targeting proteins to an E3 ubiquitin ligase for subsequent proteasomal degradation. This discovery has paralleled and directly catalysed myriad breakthroughs in drug development, leading to the rapid maturation of generalizable chemical platforms for the targeted degradation of previously undruggable proteins. Decades of clinical experience have established front-line roles for thalidomide analogues, including lenalidomide and pomalidomide, in the treatment of haematological malignancies. With a new generation of ‘degrader’ drugs currently in development, this experience provides crucial insights into class-wide features of degraders, including a unique pharmacology, mechanisms of resistance and emerging therapeutic opportunities. Herein, we review these past experiences and discuss their application in the clinical development of novel degrader therapies.The discovery that the anticancer activity of thalidomide and its analogues, such as lenalidomide, reflects drug-induced degradation of specific target proteins has heightened interest in novel ‘degrader’ drugs. Herein, the authors review the wide and expanding use of thalidomide analogues in the treatment of multiple cancers and outline how lessons learned from this experience, particularly with lenalidomide, can guide the clinical development of new targeted protein degradation platforms.

Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) has been shown to be crucial in tumorigenesis where the EMT program enhances metastasis, chemoresistance and tumor stemness. Due to its emerging role as a pivotal driver of tumorigenesis, targeting EMT is of great therapeutic interest in counteracting metastasis and chemoresistance in cancer patients. The hallmark of EMT is the upregulation of N-cadherin followed by the downregulation of E-cadherin, and this process is regulated by a complex network of signaling pathways and transcription factors. In this review, we summarized the recent understanding of the roles of E- and N-cadherins in cancer invasion and metastasis as well as the crosstalk with other signaling pathways involved in EMT. We also highlighted a few natural compounds with potential anti-EMT property and outlined the future directions in the development of novel intervention in human cancer treatments. We have reviewed 287 published papers related to this topic and identified some of the challenges faced in translating the discovery work from bench to bedside.