Search

Introduction: The objective was to determine the added value of comprehensive molecular profile by whole‐exome and RNA sequencing (WES/RNA‐Seq) in advanced and refractory cancer patients who had no molecular‐based treatment recommendation (MBTR) based on a more limited targeted gene panel (TGP) plus array‐based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). Materials and Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we selected 50 patients previously included in the PROFILER trial (NCT01774409) for which no MBT could be recommended based on a targeted 90‐gene panel and aCGH. For each patient, the frozen tumor sample mirroring the FFPE sample used for TGP/aCGH analysis were processed for WES and RNA‐Seq. Data from TGP/aCGH were reanalyzed, and together with WES/RNA‐Seq, findings were simultaneously discussed at a new molecular tumor board (MTB). Results: After exclusion of variants of unknown significance, a total of 167 somatic molecular alterations were identified in 50 patients (median: 3 [1–10]). Out of these 167 relevant molecular alterations, 51 (31%) were common to both TGP/aCGH and WES/RNA‐Seq, 19 (11%) were identified by the TGP/aCGH only and 97 (58%) were identified by WES/RNA‐Seq only, including two fusion transcripts in two patients. A MBTR was provided in 4/50 (8%) patients using the information from TGP/aCGH versus 9/50 (18%) patients using WES/RNA‐Seq findings. Three patients had similar recommendations based on TGP/aCGH and WES/RNA‐Seq. Conclusions: In advanced and refractory cancer patients in whom no MBTR was recommended from TGP/aCGH, WES/RNA‐Seq allowed to identify more alterations which may in turn, in a limited fraction of patients, lead to new MBTR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), whose high expression has been demonstrated in metastatic aggressive prostate adenocarcinoma, is also highly expressed in the neovessels of various solid tumors, including clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). In the VISION phase III clinical trial, PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy (PRLT) with lutetium 177 demonstrated a 4-month overall survival OS benefit compared to the best standard of care in heavily pretreated metastatic prostate cancer. Despite the improvement in the management of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) with antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and immunotherapy, there is still a need for new treatments for patients who progress despite these drugs. In this study, we discuss the rationale of PRLT applied to the treavtment of mccRCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: high dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) regimen is used in osteosarcoma, leukemia and lymphoma treatment. Osteosarcoma is mostly diagnosed in children and adolescents. Most frequent methotrexate toxicities are mucositis, myelosuppression, renal failure, hepatitis and necrotizing encephalopathy. Toxicities increase with renal impairment, denutrition, in older patients, with some pharmacogenetics factors or with drug interactions. Case report: We report a 16th years old woman diagnosed with osteosarcoma and experienced an unexpected severe hepatic and skin toxicities as toxic epidermal necrolys, Steven Johnson syndrome. Management and outcome: This toxicity occurred despite acid folinic rescue performed as good practice recommendation. Fourteen hours after methotrexate administration, renal failure was observed and after 72 h an erythematous rash and epidermal detachment with toxic epidermal necrolys. Seven days after methotrexate administration, hepatic failure began until grade IV cytolysis. High dose of folinic acid were administered during all severe toxicities. Methotrexate were not longer administered to this young patient and chemotherapy with ifosfamide (IFO), doxorubicine and cisplatin were performed in this patient and complete histologic response were observed in the surgical bone resection. Discussion: No classical toxicities risk factors were identified in this patient but a homozygote mutation of MTHFR gene and homozygote SLCO1B1 gene mutation were found. MTHFR and SLCO1B1 are both implicated in methotrexate metabolism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Xevinapant is an orally available inhibitor of apoptosis proteins (IAP) inhibitor. Preclinical data suggest that IAP antagonism may synergize with immune checkpoint blockers by modulating the NFκB pathway in immune cells., Patients and Methods: Adult patients with non-high microsatellite instability advanced/metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) or colorectal cancer were enrolled in this phase Ib/II study and received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks intravenously, and ascending doses of oral xevinapant (100, 150, and 200 mg daily for 14 days on/7 days off). Dose escalation followed a 3+3 design with a 21-day dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) evaluation period. Following the determination of the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), 14 patients with PDAC and 14 patients with colorectal cancer were enrolled in expansion cohorts to assess preliminary efficacy., Results: Forty-one patients (26 males) with a median age of 64 years were enrolled: 13 in the dose escalation and 28 in the two expansion cohorts. No DLT was observed during dose escalation. The RP2D was identified as xevinapant 200 mg/day + pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The most common adverse events (AE) were fatigue (37%), gastrointestinal AE (decreased appetite in 37%, nausea in 24%, stomatitis in 12%, and diarrhea and vomiting in 10% each), and cutaneous AE (pruritus, dry skin, and rash seen in 20%, 15%, and 15% of patients, respectively). The best overall response according to RECIST1.1 was partial response (confirmed) in 1 (3%), stable disease in 4 (10%), and progressive disease in 35 (88%)., Conclusions: Xevinapant combined with pembrolizumab was well tolerated with no unexpected AEs. However, antitumor activity was low., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: A few studies have highlighted the potential synergy between early palliative care and inclusion in an early-phase clinical trial that may improve quality of life, reduce symptoms of exhaustion related to the side effects of treatment and allow patients to complete their treatment protocol. The primary objective of this qualitative study is to evaluate the reasons for acceptance or refusal of early palliative care in patients included in early-phase clinical trials., Method and Analysis: All patients from the Centre Léon Bérard (Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Lyon, France) who consent to one of the early-phase clinical trials proposed at the centre will be invited to participate in this study. The cohort will consist of a subgroup (n=20) of patients who accept palliative care together with their clinical trial, and a second subgroup (n=20) of patients who decline it. Patients will be interviewed in exploratory interviews conducted by a psychology researcher before the start of their clinical trial. The interviews will be audio-recorded. Patients will also be asked to complete quality of life and anxiety/depression questionnaires both before the beginning of the treatment and at the end of their clinical trial. The content of the interviews will be analysed thematically. Descriptive and comparative statistical analysis of both cohorts will also be conducted., Ethics and Dissemination: Personal data will be collected and processed in accordance with the laws and regulations in force. All patients will give informed consent to participate. This study complies with reference methodology MR004 of the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés. The protocol has received the validation of an ethics committee (Groupe de Réflexion Ethique du CLB, number: 2020-006). The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: NCT04717440., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)