Search

Background: High throughput molecular screening techniques allow the identification of multiple molecular alterations, some of which are actionable and can be targeted by molecularly targeted agents (MTA). We aimed at evaluating the relevance of using this approach in the frame of Institut Curie Molecular Tumor Board (MTB) to guide patients with cancer to clinical trials with MTAs., Patients and Methods: We included all patients presented at Institut Curie MTB from 4 October 2014 to 31 October 2017. The following information was extracted from the chart: decision to perform tumour profiling, types of molecular analyses, samples used, molecular alterations identified and those which are actionable, and inclusion in a clinical trial with matched MTA., Results: 736 patients were presented at the MTB. Molecular analyses were performed in 442 patients (60%). Techniques used included next-generation sequencing, comparative genomic hybridisation array and/or other techniques including immunohistochemistry in 78%, 51% and 58% of patients, respectively. Analyses were performed on a fresh frozen biopsy in 91 patients (21%), on archival tissue (fixed or frozen) in 326 patients (74%) and on both archival and fresh frozen biopsy in 25 patients (6%). At least one molecular alteration was identified in 280 analysed patients (63%). An actionable molecular alteration was identified in 207 analysed patients (47%). Forty-five analysed patients (10%) were enrolled in a clinical trial with matched MTA and 29 additional patients were oriented and included in a clinical trial based on a molecular alteration identified prior to the MTB analysis. Median time between date of specimen reception and molecular results was 28 days (range: 5-168)., Conclusions: The implementation of an MTB at Institut Curie enabled the inclusion of 10% of patients into a clinical trial with matched therapy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Phase I experts recommend revisiting dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition to include chronic and cumulative toxicities induced by new molecularly targeted therapies. Patient's assessment of late toxicities' tolerability is, however, unknown., Materials and Methods: A prospective survey on adverse events (AEs) tolerability on 23 National Cancer InstituteCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event, Version 4 (NCI-CTCAE.v4) items was conducted at Gustave Roussy's Phase I department. Patients' maximum tolerability duration was recorded at baseline, during trial and at trial completion. Results were compared with the corresponding physicians' survey., Results: 52 patients enrolled in 27 Phase I trials between May 2014 and November 2015 completed 102 forms. At baseline, the most feared G2/G3 AEs were haematuria (74%), vomiting (71%) and hyperglycemia (64%)/dry mouth (94%), hyperglycemia (92%) and vomiting (92%). At trial completion, the most feared G2/G3 AEs were personality change (83.3%), haematuria (82%) and fever (80%)/dry mouth, fever and dizziness (100% each). Tolerability score did not differ over time. More previous treatments and occurrence of severe AEs were associated with better tolerability at study completion (p=0.0234 and p=0.0153, respectively, in multivariate analysis). Patient's tolerability differed from physician's assessment., Conclusion: AEs considered intolerable by patients are toxicities that directly impact their quality of life and differ from those feared by physicians or included in DLT definition. Patient-reported tolerability of AEs may help in optimising drug development., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.