Search

Background WNT974 is a small molecule inhibitor of Wnt signaling that specifically inhibits porcupine O-acyltransferase. This phase Ib dose-­escalation study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose of WNT974 in combination with encorafenib and cetuximab in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer with RNF43 mutations or RSPO fusions. Patients and Methods Patients received once-daily encorafenib and weekly cetuximab, in addition to once-daily WNT974, in sequential dosing cohorts. In the first cohort, patients received 10-mg WNT974 (COMBO10), which was reduced in subsequent cohorts to 7.5-mg (COMBO7.5) or 5-mg (COMBO5) after dose–limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed. Primary endpoints were incidence of DLTs and exposure to WNT974 and encorafenib. Secondary endpoints were anti-tumor activity and safety. Results Twenty patients were enrolled (COMBO10, n = 4; COMBO7.5, n = 6; COMBO5, n = 10). DLTs were observed in 4 patients, including grade 3 hypercalcemia (COMBO10, n = 1; COMBO7.5, n = 1), grade 2 dysgeusia (COMBO10, n = 1), and lipase increased (COMBO10, n = 1). A high incidence of bone toxicities (n = 9) was reported, including rib fracture, spinal compression fracture, pathological fracture, foot fracture, hip fracture, and lumbar vertebral fracture. Serious adverse events were reported in 15 patients, most frequently bone fracture, hypercalcemia, and pleural effusion. The overall response rate was 10% and disease control rate 85%; most patients achieved stable disease as their best response. Conclusion Concerns surrounding the safety and lack of preliminary evidence of improved anti-tumor activity of WNT974 + encorafenib + cetuximab, compared with previous encorafenib + cetuximab data, ultimately led to study discontinuation. Phase II was not initiated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02278133

Gemcitabina; Cáncer avanzado Gemcitabina; Càncer avançat Gemcitabine; Advanced cancer Purpose: This was a Phase I/II trial of the novel checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) inhibitor SRA737 given in combination with gemcitabine. Its objectives were to establish the safety profile, recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics profile, and clinical activity of SRA737. Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled into dose-escalation cohorts and treated in 28-day cycles with oral SRA737 on days 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17, and intravenous gemcitabine on days 1, 8, and 15. Treatment was continued until progression. Each expansion cohort included up to 20 patients with specific genetically defined tumors. Results: The RP2D was determined to be 500 mg SRA737 combined with low-dose (250 mg/m2) gemcitabine. Of 143 enrolled patients, 77 were treated at doses of at least 500 mg SRA737 combined with 250 mg/m2 gemcitabine. Common toxicities of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and diarrhea were primarily mild to moderate, and rarely led to treatment discontinuation. Anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were grade ≥3 in 11.7%, 16.7%, and 10% of patients treated at the RP2D, respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) was 10.8% overall and notably the ORR in anogenital cancer was 25%. Partial tumor responses were observed in anogenital cancer, cervical cancer, high-grade serous ovarian cancer, rectal cancer, and small cell lung cancer. Conclusions: SRA737 in combination with low-dose gemcitabine was well tolerated with lower myelotoxicity than has been seen at standard doses of gemcitabine or with other combinations of Chk1 inhibitors with gemcitabine. Tumor responses were observed in anogenital and other solid tumors. The trial was sponsored by Sierra Oncology, Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Tina Ippolito, an independent consultant funded by Sierra Oncology. Andrew Dye, an employee of Sierra Oncology, also provided medical writing support and data curation. Bryan Strouse, an employee of Sierra Oncology, also contributed to data curation for this report. UK clinical trial sites acknowledge infrastructural funding from the Experimental Cancer Medical Center and National Institute of Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centers. The ICR/RMH in addition acknowledges Cancer Research UK funding to Cancer Centre Funding and funding to the Cancer Therapeutics Unit. U. Banerji is a recipient of the NIHR RP-2016–07–028. The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of publication fees. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 USC section 1734.

Immunogenicity; Proteogenomics Inmunogenicidad; Proteogenómica Immunogenicitat; Proteogenòmica Purpose: Tumor antigens are central to antitumor immunity. Recent evidence suggests that peptides from noncanonical (nonC) aberrantly translated proteins can be presented on HLA-I by tumor cells. Here, we investigated the immunogenicity of nonC tumor HLA-I ligands (nonC-TL) to better understand their contribution to cancer immunosurveillance and their therapeutic applicability. Experimental Design: Peptides presented on HLA-I were identified in 9 patient-derived tumor cell lines from melanoma, gynecologic, and head and neck cancer through proteogenomics. A total of 507 candidate tumor antigens, including nonC-TL, neoantigens, cancer-germline, or melanocyte differentiation antigens, were tested for T-cell recognition of preexisting responses in patients with cancer. Donor peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) were in vitro sensitized against 170 selected nonC-TL to isolate antigen-specific T-cell receptors (TCR) and evaluate their therapeutic potential. Results: We found no recognition of the 507 nonC-TL tested by autologous ex vivo expanded tumor-reactive T-cell cultures while the same cultures demonstrated reactivity to mutated, cancer-germline, or melanocyte differentiation antigens. However, in vitro sensitization of donor PBL against 170 selected nonC-TL, led to the identification of TCRs specific to three nonC-TL, two of which mapped to the 5′ UTR regions of HOXC13 and ZKSCAN1, and one mapping to a noncoding spliced variant of C5orf22C. T cells targeting these nonC-TL recognized cancer cell lines naturally presenting their corresponding antigens. Expression of the three immunogenic nonC-TL was shared across tumor types and barely or not detected in normal cells. Conclusions: Our findings predict a limited contribution of nonC-TL to cancer immunosurveillance but demonstrate they may be attractive novel targets for widely applicable immunotherapies. We thank the patients for their participation in this study, Steven A. Rosenberg for providing valuable reagents and support for NGS studies, R. Pujol for helpful scientific discussion, J. Gonzalez for bioinformatics support, CRG/UPF Flow Cytometry Unit for assistance with cell sorting, and CRG/UPF and IRB Proteomics Units for technical support. A. Gros and this work were funded by the Comprehensive Program of Cancer Immunotherapy & Immunology II (CAIMI-II) supported by the BBVA Foundation (53/2021), Institute Carlos III (MS15/00058 and PI17/01085), AECC (IDEAS197PORT), and La Fundació La Marató de TV3 (201919–30). We thank CERCA Programme / Generalitat de Catalunya for institutional support. M. Lozano-Rabella was supported by the Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (AGAUR) (2018FI_B 00946). A. Garcia-Garijo was supported by Generalitat PERIS award (SLT017/20/000131). A. Yuste-Estevanez was supported by the Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (AGAUR) (2021 FI_B 00365). J. Palomero was supported by the Beatriu de Pinós programme (BP 2018), cofounded by the Agency for Management of University and Research Grants (AGAUR) and European Union's Horizon 2020.

Checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) have revolutionized the treatment paradigm for advanced solid tumors; however, there remains an opportunity to improve response rates and outcomes. In preclinical models, 4-1BB costimulation synergizes with CPIs targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis by activating cytotoxic T-cell–mediated antitumor immunity. DuoBody-PD-L1×4-1BB (GEN1046) is an investigational, first-in-class bispecific immunotherapy agent designed to act on both pathways by combining simultaneous and complementary PD-L1 blockade and conditional 4-1BB stimulation in one molecule. GEN1046 induced T-cell proliferation, cytokine production, and antigen-specific T-cell–mediated cytotoxicity superior to clinically approved PD-(L)1 antibodies in human T-cell cultures and exerted potent antitumor activity in transplantable mouse tumor models. In dose escalation of the ongoing first-in-human study in heavily pretreated patients with advanced refractory solid tumors (NCT03917381), GEN1046 demonstrated pharmacodynamic immune effects in peripheral blood consistent with its mechanism of action, manageable safety, and early clinical activity [disease control rate: 65.6% (40/61)], including patients resistant to prior PD-(L)1 immunotherapy.Significance:DuoBody-PD-L1×4-1BB (GEN1046) is a first-in-class bispecific immunotherapy with a manageable safety profile and encouraging preclinical and early clinical activity. With its ability to confer clinical benefit in tumors typically less sensitive to CPIs, GEN1046 may fill a clinical gap in CPI-relapsed or refractory disease or as a combination therapy with CPIs.See related commentary by Li et al., p. 1184.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1171

Supplementary Figure from Preclinical Characterization and Phase I Trial Results of a Bispecific Antibody Targeting PD-L1 and 4-1BB (GEN1046) in Patients with Advanced Refractory Solid Tumors

Includes a large list of all the peptides and details of the HLA-I ligands identified at =30 ALC score

Supplementary Figure 1. Validation of HLA-I ligand tumor antigen candidates with synthetic peptides Supplementary Figure 2. Validation of selected HLA-I ligand tumor antigen candidates identified in Mel-1 and Mel-3 with isotope-labeled peptides Supplementary Figure 3. Frequency of nonC peptides detected in HLA-I. Supplementary Fig. 4. HLA-I allele binding motif of all patients included in the study. Supplementary Figure 5. A fraction of nonC-TL can be detected in publicly available immunopeptidomics datasets from human tumor biopsies Supplementary Figure 6. Evaluation of pre-existing T-cell responses to candidate tumor antigens in cancer patients Supplementary Figure 7. Enrichment of antigen-specific T cells from cancer patients by flow cytometry-based sorting. Supplementary Figure 8. Deconvolution of peptide pools containing recognized CGA or melanoma-associated antigens. Supplementary Figure 9. Functional avidity and specificity of neoantigen-specific T cells isolated from cancer patients. Supplementary Figure 10. HLA restriction element and recognition of autologous tumor cell lines by antigen-specific T cells isolated from cancer patients. SupplementaryFigure 11. Genomic location of the three immunogenic nonC-TL identified through IVS. Supplementary Figure 12. Recognition of the predicted ORFs encoding the immunogenic nonC-TL by TCR transduced cells. Supplementary Figure 13. Loss of recognition of TCL transfected with Cas9-sgRNA targeting the predicted 5’U-HOXC13 ORF. Supplementary Figure 14. Assessment of expression and translation of the immunogenic nonC-TL in human healthy cells. Supplementary Figure 15. NonC-TL are the main source of candidate tumor antigens identified by proteogenomics but tumor-reactive T cells preferentially recognize neoantigens derived from NSM.

Show patient characteristics and relevant experimental information

Purpose:FGFR1 amplification (FGFR1amp) is recurrent in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and is associated with resistance to endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is). Multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (MTKIs) and selective pan-FGFR inhibitors (FGFRis) are being developed for FGFR1amp breast cancer. High-level FGFR amplification and protein expression by IHC have identified breast cancer responders to FGFRis or MTKIs, respectively.Experimental Design:Here, we used preclinical models and patient samples to identify predictive biomarkers to these drugs. We evaluated the antitumor activity of an FGFRi and an MTKI in a collection of 17 breast cancer patient–derived xenografts (PDXs) harboring amplification in FGFR1/2/3/4 and in 10 patients receiving either an FGFRi/MTKI. mRNA levels were measured on FFPE tumor samples using two commercial strategies. Proliferation and angiogenesis were evaluated by detecting Ki-67 and CD31 in viable areas by immunofluorescence.Results:High FGFR1–4 mRNA levels but not copy-number alteration (CNA) is associated with FGFRi response. Treatment with MTKIs showed higher response rates than with FGFRis (86% vs. 53%), regardless of the FGFR1–4 mRNA levels. FGFR-addicted PDXs exhibited an antiproliferative response to either FGFRis or MTKIs, and PDXs exclusively sensitive to MTKI exhibited an additional antiangiogenic response. Consistently, the clinical benefit of MTKIs was not associated with high FGFR1–4 mRNA levels and was observed in patients previously treated with antiangiogenic drugs.Conclusions:Tailored therapy with FGFRis in molecularly selected MBC based on high FGFR1–4 mRNA levels warrants prospective validation in patients with CDK4/6i-resistant luminal breast cancer and in patients with TNBC without targeted therapeutic options.

Figure S1: Read alignments from WES-cfDNA, showing somatic mutations in APC and TP53 genes.

Supplementary Figure 1. FGFR1-4 DNA CN, mRNA levels and ROC curves analysis. A) Waterfall plot representing the best antitumor response of FGFRi in 24 patients from 8 different cancer types treated at VHIO. FGFR1/2 amplification status and high FGFR1-4 mRNA levels are indicated in the underneath panel. B) Copy number (CN) values of FGFR1-4 by MSK-IMPACT in the FGFR/FGFamp PDX collection and categorized analysis in PDXs harboring CN amplification (CN>4), according to the response to rogaratinib (responders (SD and PR) and non-responders (PD)). C) Evaluation of FGFR1/4 CN ratio by FISH ratio (the dashed line indicates the CN ratio>2.2 that is considered amplified) and categorized analysis according to the response to rogaratinib. D) Correlation analysis between the CN values (X-axis) and mRNA levels (Y-axis) of FGFR1-4 obtained from MSK-IMPACT or nCounter, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficient (r2) is shown. E) Categorized analysis of FGFR1-4 mRNA composite biomarker according to the response to rogaratinib, obtained from HTG or qPCR data. Statistical test: Mann-Whitney U test. ROC curve analysis the FGFR1-4 mRNA composite biomarker, obtained from HTG or qPCR (AUC=0.89, both).

Legends for Supplementary Figures 1-6

Purpose:FGFR1 amplification (FGFR1amp) is recurrent in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and is associated with resistance to endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is). Multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (MTKIs) and selective pan-FGFR inhibitors (FGFRis) are being developed for FGFR1amp breast cancer. High-level FGFR amplification and protein expression by IHC have identified breast cancer responders to FGFRis or MTKIs, respectively.Experimental Design:Here, we used preclinical models and patient samples to identify predictive biomarkers to these drugs. We evaluated the antitumor activity of an FGFRi and an MTKI in a collection of 17 breast cancer patient–derived xenografts (PDXs) harboring amplification in FGFR1/2/3/4 and in 10 patients receiving either an FGFRi/MTKI. mRNA levels were measured on FFPE tumor samples using two commercial strategies. Proliferation and angiogenesis were evaluated by detecting Ki-67 and CD31 in viable areas by immunofluorescence.Results:High FGFR1–4 mRNA levels but not copy-number alteration (CNA) is associated with FGFRi response. Treatment with MTKIs showed higher response rates than with FGFRis (86% vs. 53%), regardless of the FGFR1–4 mRNA levels. FGFR-addicted PDXs exhibited an antiproliferative response to either FGFRis or MTKIs, and PDXs exclusively sensitive to MTKI exhibited an additional antiangiogenic response. Consistently, the clinical benefit of MTKIs was not associated with high FGFR1–4 mRNA levels and was observed in patients previously treated with antiangiogenic drugs.Conclusions:Tailored therapy with FGFRis in molecularly selected MBC based on high FGFR1–4 mRNA levels warrants prospective validation in patients with CDK4/6i-resistant luminal breast cancer and in patients with TNBC without targeted therapeutic options.

Supplementary Table S2 HTG OBP panel raw data

Purpose:This study examined safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of veliparib, a PARP inhibitor, combined with carboplatin and etoposide in patients with extensive-stage (ED) small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and other solid tumors.Patients and Methods:The 3 + 3 design was used for dose escalation of oral veliparib in combination with carboplatin (AUC 5 on day 1) and etoposide (100 mg/m2 on days 1–3) in 21-day cycles. Veliparib dose was explored from 80 to 240 mg b.i.d. on 7-day, 14-day, or continuous schedules. Patients without disease progression continued on maintenance monotherapy (veliparib 400 mg b.i.d.) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.Results:Thirty-nine patients were enrolled to determine the recommended phase II dose of 240 mg veliparib for 14 days combined with carboplatin and etoposide based on long-term tolerability. Dose-limiting toxicity occurred in 1 patient (grade 2 toxic motor polyneuropathy) at veliparib 240 mg b.i.d. for 7 days. Most common adverse events related to veliparib were nausea (39%), fatigue (39%), and hematologic toxicities. Continuous dosing of veliparib 240 mg b.i.d. with carboplatin and etoposide resulted in excessive chemotherapy dose delays due to hematologic toxicity (grade 3/4 neutropenia/thrombocytopenia). Etoposide pharmacokinetics was not affected by veliparib. Confirmed responses occurred in 17 of 39 (44%) and 16 of 25 (64%) of all enrolled and ED SCLC patients, respectively. At the RP2D, confirmed responses occurred in 6 of 13 (46%) and 5 of 6 (83%) of all enrolled and ED SCLC patients, respectively.Conclusions:Veliparib (240 mg b.i.d. 14 days) plus carboplatin/etoposide can be safely combined. Phase II of this study is ongoing in first-line patients with ED SCLC.

Table S3: Treatment regimens of the Avatar patient derived xenograft models carrying the VEGFR2 WT and L840F genotypes.

PDF file - 57KB, Avatar treatment results.

Table S1. Tolerability of veliparib, carboplatin, and etoposide over entire combination cycles treatment period Table S2. Mean {plus minus} SD (% CV) pharmacokinetic parameters of veliparib following oral administration of veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide on Cycle 1 Day 1 Figure S1. Mean (+SD) dose normalized etoposide plasma concentration-time profile with and without veliparib co-administration Table S3. Pharmacokinetic parameters of etoposide {plus minus} veliparib Table S4. Objective response rate in biomarker cohort by tumor type and veliparib dose level Figure S2. Tumor response and time on study for all dosed patients (n=39) Figure S3. Progression-free survival by disease type Figure S4. Confirmed objective response by gene type in small cell lung cancer samples (n=17)

PDF file - 802KB, Somatic mutations and Copy number variations.

Background: Current technology permits an unbiased massive analysis of somatic genetic alterations from tumor DNA as well as the generation of individualized mouse xenografts (Avatar models). This work aimed to evaluate our experience integrating these two strategies to personalize the treatment of patients with cancer.Methods: We performed whole-exome sequencing analysis of 25 patients with advanced solid tumors to identify putatively actionable tumor-specific genomic alterations. Avatar models were used as an in vivo platform to test proposed treatment strategies.Results: Successful exome sequencing analyses have been obtained for 23 patients. Tumor-specific mutations and copy-number variations were identified. All samples profiled contained relevant genomic alterations. Tumor was implanted to create an Avatar model from 14 patients and 10 succeeded. Occasionally, actionable alterations such as mutations in NF1, PI3KA, and DDR2 failed to provide any benefit when a targeted drug was tested in the Avatar and, accordingly, treatment of the patients with these drugs was not effective. To date, 13 patients have received a personalized treatment and 6 achieved durable partial remissions. Prior testing of candidate treatments in Avatar models correlated with clinical response and helped to select empirical treatments in some patients with no actionable mutations.Conclusion: The use of full genomic analysis for cancer care is encouraging but presents important challenges that will need to be solved for broad clinical application. Avatar models are a promising investigational platform for therapeutic decision making. While limitations still exist, this strategy should be further tested. Clin Cancer Res; 20(9); 2476–84. ©2014 AACR.

Purpose: Vanucizumab is an investigational antiangiogenic, first-in-class, bispecific mAb targeting VEGF-A and angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2). This first-in-human study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of vanucizumab in adults with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard therapies.Experimental Design: Patients received escalating biweekly (3–30 mg/kg) or weekly (10–30 mg/kg) intravenous doses guided by a Bayesian logistic regression model with overdose control.Results: Forty-two patients were treated. One dose-limiting toxicity, a fatal pulmonary hemorrhage from a large centrally located mediastinal mass judged possibly related to vanucizumab, occurred with the 19 mg/kg biweekly dose. Arterial hypertension (59.5%), asthenia (42.9%), and headache (31%) were the most common toxicities. Seventeen (41%) patients experienced treatment-related grade ≥3 toxicities. Toxicity was generally higher with weekly than biweekly dosing. A MTD of vanucizumab was not reached in either schedule. Pharmacokinetics were dose-linear with an elimination half-life of 6–9 days. All patients had reduced plasma levels of free VEGF-A and Ang-2; most had reductions in KTRANS (measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI). Two patients (renal cell and colon cancer) treated with 30 mg/kg achieved confirmed partial responses. Ten patients were without disease progression for ≥6 months. A flat-fixed 2,000 mg biweekly dose (phamacokinetically equivalent to 30 mg/kg biweekly) was recommended for further investigation.Conclusions: Biweekly vanucizumab had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile consistent with single-agent use of selective inhibitors of the VEGF-A and Ang/Tie2 pathway. Vanucizumab modulated its angiogenic targets, impacted tumor vascularity, and demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity in this heterogeneous population. Clin Cancer Res; 24(7); 1536–45. ©2017 AACR.

Detailed methods

Supplementary Figure Legends

Purpose:Most hyperprogression disease (HPD) definitions are based on tumor growth rate (TGR). However, there is still no consensus on how to evaluate this phenomenon.Patients and Methods:We investigated two independent cohorts of patients with advanced solid tumors treated in phase I trials with (i) programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 antibodies in monotherapy or combination and (ii) targeted agents (TA) in unapproved indications. A Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1–based definition of hyperprogression was developed. The primary endpoint was the assessment of the rate of HPD in patients treated with ICIs or TAs using both criteria (RECIST and TGR) and the impact on overall survival (OS) in patients who achieved PD as best response.Results:Among 270 evaluable patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, 29 PD-1/PD-L1–treated patients (10.7%) had HPD by RECIST definition. This group had a significantly lower OS (median of 5.23 months; 95% CI, 3.97–6.45) when compared with the non-HPD progressor group (median, 7.33 months; 95% CI, 4.53–10.12; HR = 1.73, 95% CI, 1.05–2.85; P = 0.04). In a subset of 221 evaluable patients, 14 (6.3%) were categorized as HPD using TGR criteria, differences in median OS (mOS) between this group (mOS 4.2 months; 95% IC, 2.07–6.33) and non-HPD progressors (n = 44) by TGR criteria (mOS 6.27 months; 95% CI, 3.88–8.67) were not statistically significant (HR 1.4, 95% IC, 0.70–2.77; P = 0.346). Among 239 evaluable patients treated with TAs, 26 (10.9%) were classified as having HPD by RECIST and 14 using TGR criteria in a subset of patients. No differences in OS were observed between HPD and non-HPD progressors treated with TAs.Conclusions:HPD measured by TGR or by RECIST was observed in both cohorts of patients; however, in our series, there was an impact on survival only in the immune-checkpoint inhibitor cohort when evaluated by RECIST. We propose a new way to capture HPD using RECIST criteria that is intuitive and easy to use in daily clinical practice.

Supplementary Table S1. Criteria for defining dose-limiting toxicities; Supplementary Table S2. Plasma pharmacokinetic parameters of vanucizumab on Cycles 1 and 4 following bi-weekly administration of ascending doses of vanucizumab; Supplementary Table S3. Plasma pharmacokinetic parameters of vanucizumab on Cycles 1 and 4 following weekly administration of ascending doses of vanucizumab.

PDF file - 38KB, Protocol for Avatar Generation.

Recent debate papers in Child and Adolescent Mental Health (Debate CAMH, May 2022) advocate a more widespread and appropriate use by CAMH clinicians of borderline personality disorder diagnoses. This paper makes the case against the widespread use of other types of PD diagnosis in children and young people. Nevertheless, it would be of interest to establish to what extent adult PDs have their roots in early neurodevelopmental anomalies, and ascertainment of personality traits can help clarify children's response to environmental or traumatic stresses in those presenting with problems such as at the interface between physical and mental health.