Search

PURPOSE: Up to 25% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PDACs) harbor mutations in the homologous recombination DNA damage response (HR-DDR) pathway. Although known to affect responsiveness to DNA-damaging chemotherapy, the prognostic relevance of these mutations is unclear and outcomes in patients with PDAC who harbor HR-DDR mutations beyond BRCA1/2 remain unexplored. METHODS: We evaluated 820 patients with PDAC enrolled in the Know Your Tumor program for whom we had collected comprehensive genomic testing results and longitudinal clinical outcomes. Patients were categorized as having resected versus advanced disease, and as having received platinum-based therapy versus being platinum naïve. Tumor genomic profiles were categorized as HR-DDR mutated (HR-DDRmut) or proficient (pHR-DDR) on the basis of the presence of pathogenic mutations of somatic or germline origin in BRCA1/2 or PALB2 (group 1); ATM/ATR/ATRX (group 2); or BAP1, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK1/2, RAD50/51/51B, or FANCA/C/D2/E/F/G/L (group 3). Overall survival was measured from the date of diagnosis until death. RESULTS: Median overall survival (mOS) was similar in all resected patients irrespective of exposure to platinum-based therapy, whereas for platinum-treated patients with advanced disease, mOS was significantly longer for HR-DDRmut versus pHR-DDR (2.37 years v 1.45 years, respectively). Of importance, no difference was identified in platinum-naïve patients. mOS in patients with mutations in all three HR-DDRmut groups was greater than that for pHR-DDR patients, but this difference was lost in platinum-naïve patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced HR-DDRmut have improved mOS when treated with platinum-based therapy compared with pHR-DDR patients. In platinum-naïve patients, there is no mOS difference, which suggests that HR-DDR status has no pure prognostic value. These findings support the need to test all patients with advanced PDAC to ensure that HR-DDRmut patients receive the benefit of treatment with platinum-based therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 53-year-old woman suffering from cholangiocarcinoma. Computed tomography of the chest revealed multiple bilateral pulmonary lesions, after which she underwent a liver biopsy. She was diagnosed with cancer of thyroid transcription factor 1, napsin A, GATA-3, arginase, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. She was given the drugs fluorouracil and oxaliplatin for treatment.

PURPOSE: It has been estimated that 5% to 10% of cancers are due to hereditary causes. Recent data sets indicate that the incidence of hereditary cancer may be as high as 17.5% in patients with cancer, and a notable subset is missed if screening is solely by family history and current syndrome-based testing guidelines. Identification of germline variants has implications for both patients and their families. There is currently no comprehensive overview of cancer susceptibility genes or inclusion of these genes in commercially available somatic testing. We aimed to summarize genes linked to hereditary cancer and the somatic and germline panels that include such genes. METHODS: Germline predisposition genes were chosen if commercially available for testing. Penetrance was defined as low, moderate, or high according to whether the gene conferred a 0% to 20%, 20% to 50%, or 50% to 100% lifetime risk of developing the cancer or, when percentages were not available, was estimated on the basis of existing literature descriptions. RESULTS: We identified a total of 89 genes linked to hereditary cancer predisposition, and we summarized these genes alphabetically and by organ system. We considered four germline and six somatic commercially available panel tests and quantified the coverage of germline genes across them. Comparison between the number of genes that had germline importance and the number of genes included in somatic testing showed that many but not all germline genes are tested by frequently used somatic panels. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of cancer-predisposing genes in somatic variant testing panels makes incidental germline findings likely. Although somatic testing can be used to screen for germline variants, this strategy is inadequate for comprehensive screening. Access to genetic counseling is essential for interpretation of germline implications of somatic testing and implementation of appropriate screening and follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Precision oncology is widely discussed, but cohort studies are limited. We previously reported our prospective experience of precision oncology in solid tumors, and here we report our longitudinal experience, focusing on therapeutic impact. Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 600 consecutive patients seen at Cleveland Clinic from 2013 to 2016 for treatment of incurable solid tumor malignancies for whom tumor genomic profiling was ordered using FoundationOne (Cambridge, MA). Results were discussed at our multidisciplinary genomics tumor board. Data analyzed included subsequent therapy and overall survival (OS). Results: Median age was 59 years (range, 18 to 94 years), 308 (51.3%) were female, and 533 (88.8%) were white. Targeted therapy was recommended in 310 patients (51.7%). After results, 313 patients (52.2%) started any subsequent therapy; of these, 95 (30%; 15.8% overall) received genomics-driven therapy (G), and 218 (70%) received non–genomics-driven treatment (NG). For the G versus NG group, the on-label, off-label, and clinical trial therapy breakdowns were 23% versus 88%, 47% versus 3%, and 30% versus 9%, respectively. Median OS for patients receiving no therapy after tumor genomic profiling was 5.5 months; for the G and NG groups, it was 18 (P <.001) and 14.4 (P <.001) months, respectively (P = NS for G v NG). The use of G increased from 10% in the first 250-patient cohort (reported earlier) to 20% in the subsequent 350-patient cohort. Conclusion: Tumor genomic profiling influenced treatment in 15.8% of patients. More patients received treatment via clinical trials in the G cohort, and although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward increased OS in the G (v NG) group. These data can further guide real-world applications of precision oncology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABTL0812 is an autophagy inducer that promotes cancer cell death by activation of cytotoxic autophagy selectively in tumour cells. ABTL0812 induces endoplasmic reticulum stress and blocks the Akt-mTOR axis; both actions converge to activate a robust and sustained autophagy leading to cancer cell death. Preclinical data supported the initiation of clinical trials in patients with cancer. This first-in-human trial consisted of an escalation phase (3 + 3 design), followed by an expansion phase, to assess safety and tolerability of ABTL0812. Secondary objectives were determining the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), clinical antitumour activity, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). A total of 29 patients were enrolled and treated; fifteen patients were treated in four escalation dosing cohorts (ranging from 500 mg once a day to 2000 mg twice a day) and fourteen in the expansion phase (dosed with 1300 mg three times a day). No maximum tolerated dose was attained, and RP2D was determined by PK/PD modelling. Most drug-related adverse events were gastrointestinal grade I–II. Correlation between drug levels and pAkt/Akt ratio was found. Two cases of long-term (>1 year) stable disease were observed. ABTL0812 is safe and has an acceptable tolerability profile, allowing a long-term oral dosing. RP2D of 1300 mg three times a day was determined according to PK/PD modelling, and preliminary antitumour efficacy was observed. NCT02201823. • The present First-in-human (FiH) study showed that ABTL0812 long-term oral treatment is safe. • Recommended phase II dose was determined by pharmacokinetics/ pharmacodynamics modelling, using pAkt as a surrogate biomarker. • Preliminary efficacy signs were detected, including long-term disease stabilisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]