Search

BRAF and MEK inhibitors are standard of care for BRAF V600E/K-mutated melanoma, but the benefit of BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors for nonstandard BRAF alterations for melanoma and other cancers is unclear. Patients with diverse malignancies whose cancers had undergone next-generation sequencing were screened for BRAF alterations. Demographics, treatment with BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors, clinical response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were determined from review of the electronic medical records for patients with standard BRAF V600E/K versus nonstandard BRAF alterations. A total of 213 patients with BRAF alterations (87 with nonstandard alterations) were identified; OS from diagnosis was significantly worse with nonstandard BRAF versus standard alterations, regardless of therapy [HR (95% confidence interval), 0.58 (0.38-0.88); P = 0.01]. Overall, 45 patients received BRAF/MEK-directed therapy (eight with nonstandard alterations); there were no significant differences in clinical benefit rate [stable disease ≥6 months/partial/complete response (74% vs. 63%; P = 0.39) or PFS ( P = 0.24; BRAF V600E/K vs. others)]. In conclusion, patients with nonstandard versus standard BRAF alterations ( BRAF V600E/K) have a worse prognosis with shorter survival from diagnosis. Even so, 63% of patients with nonstandard BRAF alterations achieved clinical benefit with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Larger prospective studies are warranted to better understand the prognostic versus predictive implication of standard versus nonstandard BRAF alterations., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: STK11 is an important tumour suppressor gene reported to confer immunotherapy resistance in non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) especially in the presence of KRAS co-alterations., Methods: This study analysed 4446 patients for whom next-generation sequencing of tissue and/or circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) had been performed., Results: Overall, 60 of 4446 tumours (1.35%) harboured STK11 alterations. STK11 alterations were associated with shorter median time to progression and overall survival (OS) across cancers from diagnosis: 6.4 months (5.1-7.9) versus 12 months (11.7-12.3; p = 0.001); and 20.5 (17.4-23.5) versus 29.1 (26.9-31.3; p = 0.03), respectively (pan-cancer). Pan-cancers, the median progression-free survival (PFS; 95% CI) for first-line therapy (regardless of treatment type) for those with co-altered STK11 and KRAS (N = 27; versus STK11-altered and KRAS wild type [N = 33]), was significantly shorter (3 [1.3-4.7] versus 10 [4.9-15.7] months, p < 0.0005, p multivariate, 0.06); the median OS also was also shorter (p multivariate = 0.02). In pan-cancer patients treated with checkpoint blockade, STK11 and KRAS co-altered versus STK11-altered/KRAS wild type had a shorter median PFS and trend toward shorter OS (p = 0.04 and p = 0.06, respectively). In contrast, in examining STK11-altered versus wild-type pan-cancer patients treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, the two groups showed no difference in outcome (PFS [p = 0.4]; OS [p = 0.7]); STK11-altered versus wild-type lung cancer patients also did not fare worse on immunotherapy., Conclusions: Across cancers, STK11 alterations correlated with a poor prognosis regardless of therapy. However, STK11 alterations alone did not associate with inferior immunotherapy outcome in the pan-cancer setting or in NSCLC. Pan-cancer patients with co-altered STK11/KRAS did worse, regardless of treatment type., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: R.K. has the following disclosure information: Stock and Other Equity Interests (IDbyDNA, CureMatch, Inc., and Soluventis); Consulting or Advisory Role (Gaido, LOXO, X-Biotech, Actuate Therapeutics, Roche, NeoMed, Soluventis, Pfizer, and Merck); Speaker's fee (Roche); Research Funding (Incyte, Genentech, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Sequenom, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Grifols, Konica Minolta, DeBiopharm, Boerhringer Ingelheim, and OmniSeq [All institutional]); Board Member (CureMatch, Inc., and CureMetrix, Inc.). A.M.G. consults for Seattle Genetics and EUSA Pharma. D.A.B. has no disclosures to report. N.K. has no disclosures to report., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Higher tumor mutational burden (TMB) has been correlated with response to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. However, it is unclear whether TMB independently serves as a prognostic biomarker for outcomes in immunotherapy-naïve patients. Here, we evaluated the relationship between TMB and overall survival in 1,415 immunotherapy-naïve patients with diverse advanced malignancies. TMB was studied both as a tiered variable (low ≤5 mutations/Mb, intermediate >5 and <20, high ≥20 and <50, and very high ≥50) and as a continuous variable. Interestingly, we observed a parabolic correlation between TMB and overall survival, in which intermediate-range TMB correlated with decreased survival, whereas low and very high TMB correlated with improved outcomes (median survival: 238, 174, 195, and 350 weeks for low, intermediate, high, and very high TMB, respectively; multivariate P < 0.01). This corresponded to an HR of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.54; P < 0.01) for intermediate-range TMB on multivariable survival analysis correcting for known confounders, including primary tumor of origin. These results demonstrate that TMB may have utility as a prognostic biomarker in immunotherapy-naïve patients, with a protective effect at higher TMBs, and that studies of survival in immunotherapy-treated patients may need to stratify or randomize by TMB in a nonlinear fashion to account for this confounding., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies are increasingly used in combinations. We determined associations between the presence of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapeutic biomarkers and protein markers of potential chemotherapy response. Data were extracted from a clinical-grade testing database (Caris Life Sciences; February 2015 through November 2017): immunotherapy response markers (microsatellite instability-high [MSI-H], tumor mutational burden-high [TMB-H], and PD-L1 protein expression) and protein chemotherapy response markers (excision repair complementation group 1 [ERCC1], topoisomerase 1 [TOPO1], topoisomerase 2 [TOP2A], thymidylate synthase [TS], tubulin beta 3 [TUBB3], ribonucleotide reductase regulatory subunit M1 [RRM1] and O-6-methyl guanine DNA methyltransferase [MGMT]). Relationships were determined by the Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test or Fischer's exact tests. Overall, 28,034 patients representing a total of 40 tumor types were assessed. MSI-H was found in 3.3% of patients (73% were also TMB-H), TMB-H, 8.4% (28.3% were also MSI-H) and PD-L1 expression in 11.0% of patients (5.1% were also MSI-H; 16.4% were also TMB-H). Based on concurrent biomarker expression, combinations of immunotherapy with platinum (ERCC1 negativity) or with doxorubicin, epirubicin or etoposide (TOP2A positivity) have a higher probability of response, whereas combinations with irinotecan or topotecan (TOPO1 positivity), with gemcitabine (RRM1 negativity), and fluorouracil, pemetrexed or capecitabine (TS negativity) may be of less benefit. The potential for immunotherapy and taxane (TUBB3 negativity) combinations is present for MSI-H but not TMB-H or PD-L1-expressing tumors; for temozolomide and dacarbazine (MGMT negative), PD-L1 is frequently coexpressed, but MSI-H and TMB-H are not associated. Protein markers of potential chemotherapy response along with next-generation sequencing for immunotherapy response markers can help support rational combinations as part of an individualized, precision oncology approach., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: Fusions are increasingly pursued as oncology therapeutic targets. The current study evaluated differences in outcomes for fusion versus nonfusion targets., Methods: Outcomes were compared for patients with fusions versus those with other alterations for US Food and Drug Administration-approved single agents (from package inserts) and for patients treated at the University of California at San Diego., Results: A total of 28 drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (6189 patients) were included in the analysis. The median response rate was 68% versus 50% for fusions versus nonfusion matches (odds ratio [OR], 1.67; P < .0001); solid tumor therapies had an OR of 2.07 (P < .0001) and hematologic therapies had an OR of 3.35 (P < .0001) for fusion versus nonfusion targets. The University of California at San Diego analysis included 79 patients in whom fusions were treated of the 2455 patients screened. Patients matched to fusions were found to have a longer median progression-free survival (PFS) (11.6 months; 95% CI, 4.0-35.4 months) compared with those unmatched to fusions (4.9 months; 95% CI, 3.5-8.8 months) (P = .034). Patients with fusions matched to other alterations present in the tumor had a median PFS that was indistinguishable from that of those patients with fusions who were treated with unmatched therapy (4.0 months vs 5.0 months; P = .75)., Conclusions: Significantly higher response rates and a longer PFS were observed when targeting fusions compared with nonfusions. The observations reported in the current study suggest that fusions are important targets and that additional studies are needed to confirm that optimized therapy may require targeting fusions, even in the presence of other alterations., (© 2019 American Cancer Society.)

Hundreds of trials are being conducted to evaluate combination of newer targeted drugs as well as immunotherapy. Our aim was to compare efficacy and safety of combination versus single non-cytotoxic anticancer agents. We searched PubMed (01/01/2001 to 03/06/2018) (and, for immunotherapy, ASCO and ESMO abstracts (2016 through March 2018)) for randomized clinical trials that compared a single non-cytotoxic agent (targeted, hormonal, or immunotherapy) versus a combination with another non-cytotoxic partner. Efficacy and safety endpoints were evaluated in a meta-analysis using a linear mixed-effects model (guidelines per PRISMA Report).We included 95 randomized comparisons (single vs. combination non-cytotoxic therapies) (59.4%, phase II; 41.6%, phase III trials) (29,175 patients (solid tumors)). Combinations most frequently included a hormonal agent and a targeted small molecule (23%). Compared to single non-cytotoxic agents, adding another non-cytotoxic drug increased response rate (odds ratio [OR]=1.61, 95%CI 1.40-1.84)and prolonged progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR]=0.75, 95%CI 0.69-0.81)and overall survival (HR=0.87, 95%CI 0.81-0.94) (all p<0.001), which was most pronounced for the association between immunotherapy combinations and longer survival. Combinations also significantlyincreased the risk of high-grade toxicities (OR=2.42, 95%CI 1.98-2.97) (most notably for immunotherapy and small molecule inhibitors) and mortality at least possibly therapy related (OR: 1.33, 95%CI 1.15-1.53) (both p<0.001) (absolute mortality = 0.90% (single agent) versus 1.31% (combinations)) compared to single agents. In conclusion, combinations of non-cytotoxic drugs versus monotherapy in randomized cancer clinical trials attenuated safety, but increased efficacy, with the balance tilting in favor of combination therapy, based on the prolongation in survival., (© 2020 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.)

Purpose: Aurora A kinase (AAK) plays an integral role in mitotic entry, DNA damage checkpoint recovery, and centrosome and spindle maturation. Alisertib (MLN8237) is a potent and selective AAK inhibitor. In pediatric preclinical models, antitumor activity was observed in neuroblastoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and sarcoma xenografts. We conducted a phase 2 trial of alisertib in pediatric patients with refractory or recurrent solid tumors or acute leukemias (NCT01154816)., Patients and Methods: Alisertib (80 mg/m 2 /dose) was administered orally, daily for 7 days every 21 days. Pharmacogenomic (PG) evaluation for polymorphisms in the AURK gene and drug metabolizing enzymes (UGT1A1*28), and plasma pharmacokinetic studies (PK) were performed. Using a 2-stage design, patients were enrolled to 12 disease strata (10 solid tumor and 2 acute leukemia). Response was assessed after cycle 1, then every other cycle., Results: A total of 139 children and adolescents (median age, 10 years) were enrolled, 137 were evaluable for response. Five objective responses were observed (2 complete responses and 3 partial responses). The most frequent toxicity was myelosuppression. The median alisertib trough concentration on day 4 was 1.3 μmol/L, exceeding the 1 μmol/L target trough concentration in 67% of patients. No correlations between PG or PK and toxicity were observed., Conclusions: Despite alisertib activity in pediatric xenograft models and cogent pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships in preclinical models and adults, the objective response rate in children and adolescents receiving single-agent alisertib was less than 5%., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Checkpoint inhibitors demonstrate salutary anticancer effects, including long-term remissions. PD-L1 expression/amplification, high mutational burden, and mismatch repair deficiency correlate with response. We have, however, observed a subset of patients who appear to be "hyperprogressors," with a greatly accelerated rate of tumor growth and clinical deterioration compared with pretherapy, which was also recently reported by Institut Gustave Roussy. The current study investigated potential genomic markers associated with "hyperprogression" after immunotherapy. Experimental Design: Consecutive stage IV cancer patients who received immunotherapies (CTLA-4, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors or other [investigational] agents) and had their tumor evaluated by next-generation sequencing were analyzed ( N = 155). We defined hyperprogression as time-to-treatment failure (TTF) <2 months, >50% increase in tumor burden compared with preimmunotherapy imaging, and >2-fold increase in progression pace. Results: Amongst 155 patients, TTF <2 months was seen in all six individuals with MDM2/MDM4 amplification. After anti-PD1/PDL1 monotherapy, four of these patients showed remarkable increases in existing tumor size (55% to 258%), new large masses, and significantly accelerated progression pace (2.3-, 7.1-, 7.2- and 42.3-fold compared with the 2 months before immunotherapy). In multivariate analysis, MDM2/MDM4 and EGFR alterations correlated with TTF <2 months. Two of 10 patients with EGFR alterations were also hyperprogressors (53.6% and 125% increase in tumor size; 35.7- and 41.7-fold increase). Conclusions: Some patients with MDM2 family amplification or EGFR aberrations had poor clinical outcome and significantly increased rate of tumor growth after single-agent checkpoint (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors. Genomic profiles may help to identify patients at risk for hyperprogression on immunotherapy. Further investigation is urgently needed. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4242-50. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Studies of related individuals have consistently demonstrated notable familial aggregation of cancer. We aim to estimate the heritability and genetic correlation attributable to the additive effects of common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for cancer at 13 anatomical sites., Methods: Between 2007 and 2014, the US National Cancer Institute has generated data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for 49 492 cancer case patients and 34 131 control patients. We apply novel mixed model methodology (GCTA) to this GWAS data to estimate the heritability of individual cancers, as well as the proportion of heritability attributable to cigarette smoking in smoking-related cancers, and the genetic correlation between pairs of cancers., Results: GWAS heritability was statistically significant at nearly all sites, with the estimates of array-based heritability, hl (2), on the liability threshold (LT) scale ranging from 0.05 to 0.38. Estimating the combined heritability of multiple smoking characteristics, we calculate that at least 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 14% to 37%) and 7% (95% CI = 4% to 11%) of the heritability for lung and bladder cancer, respectively, can be attributed to genetic determinants of smoking. Most pairs of cancers studied did not show evidence of strong genetic correlation. We found only four pairs of cancers with marginally statistically significant correlations, specifically kidney and testes (ρ = 0.73, SE = 0.28), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and pediatric osteosarcoma (ρ = 0.53, SE = 0.21), DLBCL and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) (ρ = 0.51, SE =0.18), and bladder and lung (ρ = 0.35, SE = 0.14). Correlation analysis also indicates that the genetic architecture of lung cancer differs between a smoking population of European ancestry and a nonsmoking Asian population, allowing for the possibility that the genetic etiology for the same disease can vary by population and environmental exposures., Conclusion: Our results provide important insights into the genetic architecture of cancers and suggest new avenues for investigation., (Published by Oxford University Press 2015. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have mapped risk alleles for at least 10 distinct cancers to a small region of 63 000 bp on chromosome 5p15.33. This region harbors the TERT and CLPTM1L genes; the former encodes the catalytic subunit of telomerase reverse transcriptase and the latter may play a role in apoptosis. To investigate further the genetic architecture of common susceptibility alleles in this region, we conducted an agnostic subset-based meta-analysis (association analysis based on subsets) across six distinct cancers in 34 248 cases and 45 036 controls. Based on sequential conditional analysis, we identified as many as six independent risk loci marked by common single-nucleotide polymorphisms: five in the TERT gene (Region 1: rs7726159, P = 2.10 × 10(-39); Region 3: rs2853677, P = 3.30 × 10(-36) and PConditional = 2.36 × 10(-8); Region 4: rs2736098, P = 3.87 × 10(-12) and PConditional = 5.19 × 10(-6), Region 5: rs13172201, P = 0.041 and PConditional = 2.04 × 10(-6); and Region 6: rs10069690, P = 7.49 × 10(-15) and PConditional = 5.35 × 10(-7)) and one in the neighboring CLPTM1L gene (Region 2: rs451360; P = 1.90 × 10(-18) and PConditional = 7.06 × 10(-16)). Between three and five cancers mapped to each independent locus with both risk-enhancing and protective effects. Allele-specific effects on DNA methylation were seen for a subset of risk loci, indicating that methylation and subsequent effects on gene expression may contribute to the biology of risk variants on 5p15.33. Our results provide strong support for extensive pleiotropy across this region of 5p15.33, to an extent not previously observed in other cancer susceptibility loci., (Published by Oxford University Press 2014. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Motivation: The development of better tests to detect cancer in its earliest stages is one of the most sought-after goals in medicine. Especially important are minimally invasive tests that require only blood or urine samples. By profiling oligosaccharides cleaved from glycosylated proteins shed by tumor cells into the blood stream, we hope to determine glycan profiles that will help identify cancer patients using a simple blood test. The data in this article were generated using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (MALDI FT-ICR MS). We have developed novel methods for analyzing this type of mass spectrometry data and applied it to eight datasets from three different types of cancer (breast, ovarian and prostate)., Results: The techniques we have developed appear to be effective in the analysis of MALDI FT-ICR MS data. We found significant differences between control and cancer groups in all eight datasets, including two structurally related compounds that were found to be significantly different between control and cancer groups in all three types of cancer studied.

BackgroundStudies of related individuals have consistently demonstrated notable familial aggregation of cancer. We aim to estimate the heritability and genetic correlation attributable to the additive effects of common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for cancer at 13 anatomical sites.MethodsBetween 2007 and 2014, the US National Cancer Institute has generated data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for 49 492 cancer case patients and 34 131 control patients. We apply novel mixed model methodology (GCTA) to this GWAS data to estimate the heritability of individual cancers, as well as the proportion of heritability attributable to cigarette smoking in smoking-related cancers, and the genetic correlation between pairs of cancers.ResultsGWAS heritability was statistically significant at nearly all sites, with the estimates of array-based heritability, hl (2), on the liability threshold (LT) scale ranging from 0.05 to 0.38. Estimating the combined heritability of multiple smoking characteristics, we calculate that at least 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 14% to 37%) and 7% (95% CI = 4% to 11%) of the heritability for lung and bladder cancer, respectively, can be attributed to genetic determinants of smoking. Most pairs of cancers studied did not show evidence of strong genetic correlation. We found only four pairs of cancers with marginally statistically significant correlations, specifically kidney and testes (ρ = 0.73, SE = 0.28), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and pediatric osteosarcoma (ρ = 0.53, SE = 0.21), DLBCL and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) (ρ = 0.51, SE =0.18), and bladder and lung (ρ = 0.35, SE = 0.14). Correlation analysis also indicates that the genetic architecture of lung cancer differs between a smoking population of European ancestry and a nonsmoking Asian population, allowing for the possibility that the genetic etiology for the same disease can vary by population and environmental exposures.ConclusionOur results provide important insights into the genetic architecture of cancers and suggest new avenues for investigation.