Search

Homozygous MTAP deletion occurs in ~15% of cancers, making them vulnerable to decreases in the concentration of S-adenosylmethionine (SAM). AG-270/S095033 is an oral, potent, reversible inhibitor of methionine adenosyltransferase 2 A (MAT2A), the enzyme primarily responsible for the synthesis of SAM. We report results from the first-in-human, phase 1 trial of AG-270/S095033 as monotherapy in patients with advanced malignancies (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03435250). Eligible patients had tumors with homozygous deletion of CDKN2A/MTAP and/or loss of MTAP protein by immunohistochemistry. Patients received AG-270/S095033 once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) in 28-day cycles. The primary objective was to assess the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of AG-270/S095033. Secondary objectives included safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and efficacy. Forty patients were treated with AG-270/S095033. Plasma concentrations of AG-270/S095033 increased with dose. Maximal reductions in plasma SAM concentrations ranged from 54% to 70%. Analysis of paired tumor biopsies showed decreases in levels of symmetrically di-methylated arginine (SDMA) residues. Reversible increases in liver function tests, thrombocytopenia, anemia and fatigue were common treatment-related toxicities. Two partial responses were observed; five additional patients achieved radiographically confirmed stable disease for ≥16 weeks. AG-270/S095033 has a manageable safety profile. Our data provide preliminary evidence of clinical activity and proof-of-mechanism for MAT2A inhibition., Competing Interests: Competing interests: P.H., M.R., M.H., R.N., A.S.-D., M.C., and V.A. are employed by Servier. The remaining authors declare no competing interests., (© 2025. The Author(s).)

Objective: Phase I clinical trials usually include patients with advanced disease who have failed standard therapies and should benefit from early palliative care. We try to assess whether PALLIA 10, a score developed in France to help identify patients who might benefit from a palliative care referral, could be used in a phase I department trial., Methods: We assessed PALLIA 10 score and other prognostic factors in patients enrolled in phase I trials at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center prospectively during two periods of time (cohort 1 (C1) and 2 (C2)). A double-blind assessment of the PALLIA 10 score was done in C2 by a palliative care specialist and a nurse., Results: From 1 July 2018 to 1 November 2018 (C1) and from 1 December 2020 to 16 April 2021 (C2), 86 patients were assessed in C1 and 302 in C2. Median PALLIA 10 was very low in both cohorts (median 1, range 1-5 in C1 and 1-8 in C2). On C1 and C2, 12% and 5% of patients had a dedicated palliative consultation. In C2, assessment of PALLIA 10 score was significantly different between palliative care physician (median 5, range 3-8), phase I physician (median 1, range 1-6) and phase I nurse (median 3, range 1-8) (p<0.001)., Conclusion: Median PALLIA 10 score was low when assessed by the phase I physician, which suggests the need for a better tool and appropriate clinician's education to implement early palliative care in clinical practice and trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.)

Purpose: Patients with advanced tumors enrolled in phase I trials display strong treatment expectations and few therapeutic alternatives. When oligoacquired resistance (OAR; ≤3 lesions of disease progression) occurs, local ablative stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) could allow disease control and continuing the experimental systemic treatment., Methods and Materials: Data from patients enrolled in phase I trials evaluating systemic treatments, who experienced OAR while on the phase I systemic therapy and subsequently received SRT between January 2014 and April 2023, were retrospectively analyzed. Progression-free survival (PFS)1 (trial entry to OAR), PFS2 (SRT to first subsequent relapse), time to next systemic treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. First subsequent patterns of relapse after SRT were distinguished as OAR2, which could be locally rechallenged, or systemic acquired resistance (SAR; >3 lesions of disease progression). When available, correlations between molecular profile and pathway enrichments of OAR and SAR were explored., Results: Forty-two patients with 52 oligoprogressive lesions were analyzed. The median follow-up was 24 months. SRT allowed a median PFS2 of 7.1 months and a median TTNT of 12.8 months. PFS2 included 49% OAR2 and 51% SAR. Median time to first subsequent relapse (9.6 vs 3.5 months; P = .014) and TTNT (22.4 vs 7.6 months; P < .001) were longer for OAR2 compared with that for SAR. No severe toxicities were reported. A PFS1 of <6 months and de novo oligoprogressive lesions were associated with the presence of SAR. More diverse enriched gene pathways were observed for SAR compared with that for OAR2., Conclusions: In patients enrolled in phase I trials, OAR managed with SRT may increase time on investigational systemic treatments. Predictive factors reflecting tumor aggressiveness and clonal heterogeneity could help deciphering OAR2 from SAR and maximize SRT output in the oligoprogressive setting., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Homozygous deletion of methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) occurs in ∼10%-15% of solid tumors. AMG 193, a CNS-penetrant methylthioadenosine-cooperative protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) inhibitor, selectively induces synthetic lethality in MTAP-deleted tumor cells. Here, we report results of the completed monotherapy dose exploration evaluating AMG 193 in patients with MTAP-deleted solid tumors., Patients and Methods: In this first-in-human, multicenter, open-label, phase I study, patients with advanced CDKN2A-deleted and/or MTAP-deleted solid tumors received AMG 193 orally [once (o.d.) or twice (b.i.d.) daily] continuously in 28-day cycles. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability assessed by dose-limiting toxicities and determination of the maximum tolerated dose; secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics and preliminary antitumor activity measured by RECIST v1.1., Results: As of 23 May 2024, 80 patients in dose exploration received AMG 193 at doses 40-1600 mg o.d. or 600 mg b.i.d. The most common treatment-related adverse events were nausea (48.8%), fatigue (31.3%), and vomiting (30.0%). Dose-limiting toxicities were reported in eight patients at doses ≥240 mg, including nausea, vomiting, fatigue, hypersensitivity reaction, and hypokalemia. The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be 1200 mg o.d. Mean exposure of AMG 193 increased in a dose-proportional manner from 40 mg to 1200 mg. Among the efficacy-assessable patients treated at the active and tolerable doses of 800 mg o.d., 1200 mg o.d., or 600 mg b.i.d. (n = 42), objective response rate was 21.4% (95% confidence interval 10.3% to 36.8%). Responses were observed across eight different tumor types, including squamous/non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and biliary tract cancer. At doses ≥480 mg, complete intratumoral PRMT5 inhibition was confirmed in paired MTAP-deleted tumor biopsies, and molecular responses (circulating tumor DNA clearance) were observed., Conclusions: AMG 193 demonstrated a favorable safety profile without clinically significant myelosuppression. Encouraging antitumor activity across a variety of MTAP-deleted solid tumors was observed based on objective response rate and circulating tumor DNA clearance., (Copyright © 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) offer a promising path for cancer therapy, leveraging the specificity of monoclonal antibodies and the cytotoxicity of linked drugs. The success of ADCs hinges on precise targeting of cancer cells based on protein expression levels. This review explores the relationship between target protein expression and ADC efficacy in solid tumours, focusing on results of clinical trials conducted between January 2019 and May 2023., Recent Findings: We hereby highlight approved ADCs, revealing their effectiveness even in low-expressing target populations. Assessing target expression poses challenges, owing to variations in scoring systems and biopsy types. Emerging methods, like digital image analysis, aim to standardize assessment. The complexity of ADC pharmacokinetics, tumour dynamics, and off-target effects emphasises the need for a balanced approach. This review underscores the importance of understanding target protein dynamics and promoting standardized evaluation methods in shaping the future of ADC-based cancer therapies., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a HER2-directed antibody-drug conjugate approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for HER2-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. Few treatment options exist for patients with HER2-mutant solid tumours beyond lung cancers. We investigated trastuzumab deruxtecan in metastatic solid tumours with specific activating HER2 mutations., Methods: In this open-label, phase 2, basket study done in 29 centres in Asia, Europe, and North America, we investigated trastuzumab deruxtecan (5·4 mg/kg every 3 weeks by intravenous infusion) in patients aged 18 years or older with unresectable or metastatic solid tumours with specific activating HER2 mutations, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and disease progression following previous treatment (previous HER2-targeted therapy was permitted) or with no satisfactory alternative treatment options. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate by independent central review. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of trastuzumab deruxtecan. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04639219, and is active but no longer recruiting., Findings: Between Dec 30, 2020, and Jan 25, 2023, 102 patients (62 [61%] female and 40 [39%] male; median age 66·5 years [IQR 58-72]; 51 [50%] White, two [2%] Black or African American, 38 [37%] Asian, and 11 [11%] did not have race information reported) with solid tumours with activating HER2 mutations received trastuzumab deruxtecan and were included in the anti-tumour activity and safety analyses sets. Patients had a median of three (IQR 2-4) previous treatment regimens. The median duration of follow-up was 8·61 months (IQR 3·71-12·68). The objective response rate by independent central review was 29·4% (95% CI 20·8-39·3; 30 of 102 patients). 52 (51%) patients had a treatment-emergent adverse event of grade 3 or worse; the most common events (in ≥5% of patients) were anaemia (16 [16%]) and neutrophil count decreased (eight [8%]). Drug-related treatment-emergent serious adverse events occurred in ten (10%) patients. Adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis of any grade occurred in 11 patients (11%; three grade 1, five grade 2, one grade 3, and two grade 5); there were two (2%) cases of fatal adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis., Interpretation: Trastuzumab deruxtecan showed anti-tumour activity and durable responses in heavily pretreated patients across multiple tumour types with activating HER2 mutations, with no new safety signals. Prespecified HER2 mutations might be targeted by HER2-directed antibody-drug conjugates and our findings support further investigation of trastuzumab deruxtecan in the pan-tumour setting., Funding: AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BTL has served as an uncompensated advisor and consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, and Lilly. He has received research grants to his institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, and Lilly. He has received academic travel support from Amgen. He is an inventor on two institutional patents at MSK (US62/685,057 and US62/514,661) and has intellectual property rights as a book author at Karger Publishers and Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press. He is supported by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748 and Research Project Grant R01CA249666 from the National Institutes of Health. FM-B reports institutional grants or contracts from Aileron, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Calithera, Curis, CytomX, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, eFFECTOR, Genentech, Guardant, KLUS, Novartis, Puma Biotechnology, Taiho, and Takeda; personal consulting fees from AbbVie, Aduro, Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Calibr (a division of Scripps Research), Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, EcoR1 Capital, eFFECTOR, F Hoffmann-La Roche, GT Apeiron, Genentech, Harbinger Health, IBM Watson, Infinity, Jackson Laboratory, Kolon Life Science, LegoChem Biosciences, Lengo Therapeutics, Menarini Group, OrigiMed, PACT Pharma, Parexel International, Pfizer, Protai, Samsung Bioepis, Seattle Genetics, Tallac, Tyra Biosciences, Xencor, and Zymeworks; personal meeting or travel support from the Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, and the European Society for Medical Oncology; and personal participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Black Diamond, Biovica, Eisai, FogPharma, Immunomedics, Inflection Biosciences, Karyopharm, Loxo Oncology, Mersana, OnCusp, Puma Biotechnology, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Spectrum, Theratechnologies, and Zentalis. AB reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics/Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius/Menarini, and Sanofi; consulting fees from BioTheranostics, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Foundation Medicine, Genentech/Roche, Immunomedics/Gilead, Innocrin Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Philips, Puma Biotechnology, Radius Health, Radius/Menarini, Sanofi, and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals; institutional payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Genentech, Eli Lilly, Immunomedics/Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius Health, and Sanofi; personal participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Genentech, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini, Merck, Mersana, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; other personal financial or non-financial interests for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Mersana, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. YN reports institutional grants or contracts from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Ono, Pfizer, and Taiho; personal payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Guardant, MSD, Nihon Kayaku, Novartis, Ono, PDR Pharma, Pfizer, Taiho, and Takeda. SS reports personal participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Agenus, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, CheckmAb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Novartis, Seagen, and T-One Therapeutics. PA reports institutional grants or contracts from Roche; personal payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or education events for Amgen and Synthon; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; personal participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amcure, Boehringer Ingelheim, Deloitte, Eisai, G1 Therapeutics, Gilead, Lilly, MacroGenics, Menarini, Novartis, Radius, Roche, and Servier. GC reports grants or contracts from Merck; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Ellipsis, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events for Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Relay; support for attending meetings or travel from Daiichi Sankyo. MdM reports institutional payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen and MSD; and other personal financial or non-financial interests for AbbVie, Achilles, Amunix, Arcus, BioNTech, Catalym, Dizal, Furmo, Genentech, Janssen, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Numab, PharmaMar, Replimune, Roche, and Seagen. MK reports stock or stock options from Athenex, CRISPR, Eli Lilly, Natera, and Pfizer. D-YO reports personal grants or contracts from Array, AstraZeneca, Basilea, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Handok, MSD, Novartis, and Servier; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Arcus, ASLAN, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Halozyme, IQVIA, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Taiho, Turning Point, Yuhan, and Zymeworks. MK's current affiliation is Breast Medical Oncology, LifeBridge Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. JOP reports personal grants or contracts from ABL Bio, Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene), Eutilex, MedPacto, and Servier; personal support for attending meetings and/or travel from Minneamrita; personal participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Adicet Bio, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene), ImmuneOncia, MediRama, MedPacto Merck, Merck Sereno, MedPacto, and Servier. SP-V reports institutional grants or contracts from AstraZeneca and IMCore Hoffman LaRoche; institutional participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo; and other personal financial or non-financial interests for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Oxford Biotherapeutics, PEP Therapy, and Roche. SYR reports institutional grants or contracts from ABL Bio, ALX Oncology, Amgen, Arcus Biosciences, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bold Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Ipsen, Leap Therapeutics, MacroGenics, MedPacto, Merck KGaA, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Seagen, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Zymeworks; consulting fees from Individumed and LG Biochem; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events for Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, and MSD; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen. TS reports personal payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or education events for Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck Biopharm, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho, Takara Bio, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha; institutional payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or education events for Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Gilead, HUTCHMED, Merck Biopharm, Ono Pharmaceutical, Parexel, Taiho, and Yakult Honsha; and personal participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Takara Bio. IS reports institutional grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Genentech, Incyte, MSD, Orion, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Incyte, and Merck/Pfizer; and other financial or non-financial interests for AstraZeneca, Genentech, Incyte, MSD, Orion, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, and Roche. FM reports other personal financial or non-financial interests for AstraZeneca. AS reports personal stock or stock options for AstraZeneca and other financial or non-financial interests for AstraZeneca. KKM reports other personal financial or non-financial interests for AstraZeneca. CS reports personal participation in advisory boards or travel grants from AstraZeneca, Ax's Consulting, Byondis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Exeter Pharma, F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Gilead, Lilly, MediTech, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Philips, Pierre Fabre, PintPharma, Puma Biotechnology, SeaGen, Synthon Biopharmaceutical, and Zymeworks. IA declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Phase I trials historically involved heavily pretreated patients (pts) with no more effective therapeutic options available and with poor expected outcomes. There are scare data regarding profile and outcomes of pts enrolled into modern phase I trials. Here, we sought to provide an overview of pts' profile and outcome into phase I trials at Gustave Roussy (GR)., Methods: This is a monocentric retrospective study, including all pts enrolled into phase I trials at GR from 2017 to 2021. Data regarding pts' demographics, tumour types, investigational treatments and survival outcomes were collected., Results: In total, 9482 pts were referred for early phase trials; 2478 pts were screened, among which 449 (18.1%) failed screening; 1693 pts finally received at least one treatment dose as part of a phase I trial. Median age of pts was 59 years old (range, 18-88) and most common tumour types included gastrointestinal (25.3%), haematological (15%), lung (13.6%), genitourinary (10.5%) and gynaecologic cancers (9.4%). Amongst all pts treated and evaluable for response (1634 pts), objective response rate was 15.9% and disease control rate was 45.4%. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 2.6 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.3; 2.8) and 12.4 months (95% CI, 11.7; 13.6)., Conclusion: As compared with historical data, our study shows that outcomes of pts included into modern phase I trials have improved and that these trials constitute nowadays a valid and safe therapeutic option. These updated data provide facts for adapting the methodology, role and place of phase I trials over the next years., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The phase I first-in-human study ENGAGE-1 evaluated the humanized IgG1 OX40 agonistic monoclonal antibody GSK3174998 alone (Part 1 (P1)) or in combination with pembrolizumab (Part 2 (P2)) in patients with advanced solid tumors., Methods: GSK3174998 (0.003-10 mg/kg) ± pembrolizumab (200 mg) was administered intravenously every 3 weeks using a continuous reassessment method for dose escalation. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability; secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity., Results: 138 patients were enrolled (45 (P1) and 96 (P2, including 3 crossovers)). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 51% (P1) and 64% (P2) of patients, fatigue being the most common (11% and 24%, respectively). No dose-toxicity relationship was observed, and maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. Dose-limiting toxicities (P2) included Grade 3 (G3) pleural effusion and G1 myocarditis with G3 increased troponin. GSK3174998 ≥0.3 mg/kg demonstrated pharmacokinetic linearity and >80% receptor occupancy on circulating T cells; 0.3 mg/kg was selected for further evaluation. Limited clinical activity was observed for GSK3174998 (P1: disease control rate (DCR) ≥24 weeks 9%) and was not greater than that expected for pembrolizumab alone (P2: overall response rate 8%, DCR ≥24 weeks 28%). Multiplexed immunofluorescence data from paired biopsies suggested that increased infiltration of natural killer (NK)/natural killer T (NKT) cells and decreased regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment may contribute to clinical responses: CD16+CD56-CD134+ NK /NKT cells and CD3+CD4+FOXP3+CD134+ Tregs exhibited the largest magnitude of change on treatment, whereas CD3+CD8+granzyme B+PD-1+CD134+ cytotoxic T cells were the least variable. Tumor gene expression profiling revealed an upregulation of inflammatory responses, T-cell proliferation, and NK cell function on treatment with some inflammatory cytokines upregulated in peripheral blood. However, target engagement, evidenced by pharmacologic activity in peripheral blood and tumor tissue, did not correlate with clinical efficacy. The low number of responses precluded identifying a robust biomarker signature predictive of response., Conclusions: GSK3174998±pembrolizumab was well tolerated over the dose range tested and demonstrated target engagement. Limited clinical activity does not support further development of GSK3174998±pembrolizumab in advanced cancers., Trial Registration Number: NCT02528357., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SP-V is a principal/subinvestigator of clinical trials for AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argenx BVBA, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca A, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare AG, BBB Technologies BV, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Bioalliance Pharma, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, GamaMabs, Genentech, GSK, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche AG, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma AS, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merus, Molecular Partners AG, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology NV, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Onyx Therapeutics, Orion Pharma, Oryzon Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Plexxikon, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Turning Point Therapeutics, and Xencor outside the submitted work; non-financial support (drug supplied) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, Roche; research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Merck KGaA for projects unrelated to this manuscript. VL reports consulting for Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health; research funding from GSK, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Seattle Genetics. WR reports nothing to disclose. TMB reports consulting for Guardant Health, Loxo Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Exelixis, Blueprint Medicines, Foundation Medicine, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Ignyta, Moderna Therapeutics, Pfizer. Speakers Bureau: Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Lilly; research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Medpacto, Inc., Incyte, Mirati Therapeutics, MedImmune, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Leap Therapeutics, MabVax, Stemline Therapeutics, Merck, Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Deciphera, Merrimack, Immunogen, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Ignyta, Calithera Biosciences, Kolltan Pharmaceuticals, Principa Biopharma, Peleton, Immunocore, Aileron Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Moderna Therapeutics, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas Pharma, Five Prime Therapeutics, Jacobio, Top Alliance BioScience, Loxo, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, Takeda, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Onyx, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Foundation Medicine, and ARMO BioScience; personal expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, EMD Serono, Genentech, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, Sysmex, and Pfizer. AHa reports research funding from Genentech/Roche, Merck, GSK, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca/Medimmune Eisai; personal fees from Merck and GSK. DCC is a consultant for Nektar, Pfizer, Werewolf, and HUYA. FSH reports research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis; receives personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, Surface, Compass Therapeutics, Apricity, Sanofi, Pionyr, Torque, Bicara, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Bioentre, Gossamer, Iovance, Trillium, Catalym, Immunocore, Amgen, Kairos, Eisai, and Rheos. JHMS is a shareholder and part-time employee of Modra Pharmaceuticals BV and patent holder of oral taxanes; reports consulting for Debiopharm. JKL reports other from GSK, Novartis, Medivation/Pfizer, Genentech, EMD-Serono, AstraZeneca, Medimmune, Zenith, Ayala, UpToDate review panels for NCCN, ASCO, NIH PDQ, Medlearning, Physicians Education Resource, Prime Oncology, Medscape, Clinical Care Options, Medpage. SA reports advisory board participation for MSD, Sanofi, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer; research support from Sanofi. KAA reports research funding (to institution) from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Trishula, GSK, Merck, and Eli Lilly. FO is a principal/subinvestigator of clinical trials for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Cytovation, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Revmed, Incyte, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Exelexis, Relay, and InterRNA. MM reports research funding from Alpine Immune Sciences, Arcus Biosciences, Arvinas, Ascentage Pharma Group, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, BioMed Valley Discoveries, BioNTech, Dragonfly Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Erasca, Exelixis, Foghorn Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, IDEAYA Biosciences, Ikena Oncology, ImmVira Pharma, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Jacobio Pharmaceuticals, Kechow Pharma, Kezar Life Sciences, Kinnate BioPharma, MedImmune, Mereo BioPharma, Metabomed, Moderna, NBE Therapeutics, Nektar, Novartis, Oncorus, PACT Pharma, Pfizer, Plexxikon, Prelude Therapeutics, Pyramid Biosciences, Regeneron, Sapience Therapeutics, Scholar Rock Seattle Genetics, Synthrox, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Teneobio, Tempest Therapeutics, Tizona Therapeutics, TMUNITY Therapeutics, TopAlliance Biosciences, and Xilio. M; consulting/advisory role for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BicycleTX Limited, Castle Biosciences, Eisai, Ideaya Biosciences, iTeos, Pfizer, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. NS reports consulting/advisory role for Deciphera, AADi, Blueprint Medicines, Bayer, Epizyme, and Boehringer Ingelheim; research funding from GSK, Karyopharm, Deciphera, Ascentage Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, and AstraZeneca/MedImmune. SC is the principal/subinvestigator of clinical trials for AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Astex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca AB, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare AG, BBB Technologies BV, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Casi Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Celgene Corporation (a Bristol-Myers Squibb company), Cellcentric, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Cytovasion, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, GamaMabs, Genentech, GSK, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche AG, Imcheck Therapeutics, Incyte Corporation, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Janssen R&D LLC, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Molecular Partners AG, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology NV, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Relay Therapeutics, Inc, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Transgene SA, Turning Point Therapeutics, and Xencor; reports research grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, INCA, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; reports non-financial support (drug supplied) from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, and Roche; reports honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, Novartis and Roche; reports participation in advisory boards for Alderaan Biotechnology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Avacta, Ellipses Pharma, Oncovita, Seagen, UltraHuman8; reports travel and congress support from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Ose Pharma, Roche, Sotio. MA reports research funding (to institution) from Genentech, Nektar Therapeutics, Merck, GSK, Novartis, Jounce Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Adaptimmune, Shattuck Lab, and Gilead. Advisory boards: GSK, Shattuck Lab, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca; reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca, and Nektar Therapeutics. AS reports participation in advisory boards for Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Oncorus, Janssen, Medison, and Immunocore; reports research support: Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Symphogen AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Merck, Bayer, Surface Oncology, Northern Biologics, Janssen Oncology/Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Regeneron, Alkermes, Array Biopharma/Pfizer, GSK, Treadwell, and Amgen. OR reports employment with AstraZeneca; reports research funding from Merck; reports speaker for activities supported by educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck; reports consulting for Merck, Celgene, Five Prime, GSK, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, Puretech, Imvax, Sobi, Boehringer Ingelheim; reports pending patent for “Methods of using pembrolizumab and trebananib”. EMP, CMA, HZ, HS, SAG, MW, KMY, NY, and AHo report employment with GSK. MJC is an employee of Merck and owns stock. EVS is an employee of Merck. AM has been a principal or coinvestigator of clinical trials using OX40-targeted agents and/or has provided consulting services for Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, HiFiBiO, Bristol Myers Squibb, Shattuck Labs. JW reports consulting for Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Nektar, Celldex, Incyte, Biond, ImCheck, Sellas, Evaxion and EMD Serono; reports participation in advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb (compensated), CytoMx, Incyte, ImCheck, Biond, Sellas, Instil Bio, OncoC4, and Neximmune; reports equity holdings in Biond, Evaxion, Instil Bio, OncoC4, and Neximmune; reports research support (to institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, GSK, Moderna, Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca, Moffitt Cancer Center; reports patent for ipilimumab biomarker and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes preparation and a PD-1 patent (Biodesix). JVH reports other from GSK, AstraZeneca, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Brightpath Biotherapeutics, Eli Lilly & Co, Kairos Venture Investments, Triptych Health Partners; reports patent with Spectrum Pharmaceuticals., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence announced Project Optimus focusing on dose optimization for oncology drugs. The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) Taskforce met to review and discuss the optimization of dosage for oncology trials and to develop a practical guide for oncology phase I trials. Defining a single recommended phase II dose based on toxicity may define doses that are neither the most effective nor the best tolerated. MDICT recommendations address the need for robust non-clinical data which are needed to inform trial design, as well as an expert team including statisticians and pharmacologists. The protocol must be flexible and adaptive, with clear definition of all endpoints. Health authorities should be consulted early and regularly. Strategies such as randomization, intrapatient dose escalation, and real-world eligibility criteria are encouraged whereas serial tumor sampling is discouraged in the absence of a strong rationale and appropriately validated assay. Endpoints should include consideration of all longitudinal toxicity. The phase I dose escalation trial should define the recommended dose range for later testing in randomized phase II trials, rather than a single recommended phase II dose, and consider scenarios where different populations may require different dosages. The adoption of these recommendations will improve dosage selection in early clinical trials of new anticancer treatments and ultimately, outcomes for patients., (Copyright © 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To facilitate implementation of precision medicine in clinical management of cancer, the European Society of Medical Oncology proposed in 2018 a new scale to harmonize and standardize the reporting and interpretation of clinically relevant genomics data (ESMO Scale of Actionability of molecular Targets [ESCAT]). This study aims to characterize the clinical impact of matching targetable genomic alterations (GAs) in patients with advanced cancer according to ESCAT., Material and Methods: Analysis of next-generation sequencing results from 552 patients is included in two prospective precision medicine studies at Gustave Roussy. End points included objective response rates, progression-free survival, and overall survival according to ESCAT., Results: Molecular data from 516 patients were available and discussed within a Molecular Tumor Board. The most common tumor types were GI (n = 164; 30%), lung (n = 137; 25%), and urologic tumors (n = 68; 13%). Overall, 379 GAs were considered as actionable targets according to ESCAT in 348 (67%) patients. In 31 (6%) patients, two concomitant actionable targets were identified. On the basis of ESCAT, GAs were considered to be classified as tier I in 120 patients (29%), II in 25 patients (5%), III in 80 patients (16%), and IV in 153 patients (30%). A total of 136 patients (27%) received a matched therapy. ESCAT was significantly associated with objective response rates and clinical benefit rates. The median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 8.9), 3 months (95% CI, 1 to not available), 3 months (95% CI, 2.2 to 3.8), and 4 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 6.3) for ESCAT I, II, III, and IV, respectively ( P = .0125)., Conclusion: Implementation of ESCAT classification for clinical decision making by Molecular Tumor Board is feasible and useful to better tailor therapies in patients with cancer.

Introduction: Although the role of epigenetic alterations in oncogenesis has been well studied, their prevalence in metastatic solid tumours is still poorly described. We therefore aimed at: (i) describing the presence of epigenetic gene alterations (EGA) - defined by an alteration in a gene encoding an epigenetic regulator; and (ii) evaluating their relationship with clinical characteristics and outcome in patients (pts) included in prospective molecular profiling trials., Materials and Methods: On-purpose tumour biopsies from pts with metastatic solid tumours enrolled in the Gustave Roussy-sponsored MOSCATO (NCT01566019) and MATCHR (NCT02517892) trials were molecularly profiled using whole exome sequencing (WES). Alterations in 176 epigenetic genes were assessed and classified as pathogenic variants (PV) or non-pathogenic variants by a molecular tumour board. Clinical characteristics and outcome were collected., Results: Between Dec 2011 and Oct 2016, WES was successfully performed in 292 pts presenting various solid tumours. We found 496 epigenetic gene alterations in 134 patients (49%), including 237 pathogenic variants in 86 patients; 63 tumour samples (47%) presented ≥3 EGAs. The median number of previous treatment lines was 3 (1-10). The most frequently altered genes were KMT2D and KMT2C (16% each), ARID1A and SETD2 (10% each) and KMT2A (8%).; 31% of EGA co-occurred with a driver gene alteration (p &lt; 0.001). Outcome was not correlated with the presence of EGA., Conclusions: Epigenetic alterations occur frequently in metastatic solid tumours. With the current development of epigenetic modifiers, they increasingly represent actionable targets. Such genes should now be systematically analysed in molecular profiling studies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement PMR: Consultant/Advisory fees from Roche and AbilityPharma; CB declares Consulting BMS, GSK, AZ and Funding from BMS; LV reports personal fees from Adaptherapy, is CEO of RESOLVED, non-personal fees from Pierre-Fabre and Servier, grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, all outside the submitted work; AV is an employee and stakeholder of Astrazeneca since August 2020; JCS received consultancy fees from Relay Therapeutics; was an employee of AstraZeneca 2017–2019; has shares in AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gritstone; he is an employee of Amgen since August, 2021; CM is a consultant/Advisory fees from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Orion. SPC declares honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, EISAI, Janssen, MSD, Novartis and Roche, advisory Board from Alderaan Biotechnology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Avacta, Oncovita, Seagen, UltraHuman and Travel and congress support from AstraZeneca, MSD, Ose Pharma, Roche, Sotio. JMM declares participating in advisory board from BMS - Celgene, GSK, MSD, Roche; As part of the Drug Development Department (DITEP) the authors principal investigator/sub-Investigator from Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Bioalliance Pharma, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, Gamamabs, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Chibret, Merus, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Onyx Therapeutics, Orion Pharma, Oryzon Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Plexxikon, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Turning Point Therapeutics, Xencor; Research Grants from Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, INCA, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi; Non-financial support (drug supplied) from Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boringher Ingelheim, GSK, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, Roche. The other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of nintedanib, an oral anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in combination with pembrolizumab, an anti-PD1 immunotherapy, in patients with advanced solid tumors (PEMBIB trial; NCT02856425)., Methods: In this monocentric phase Ib dose escalation cohort, we evaluated escalating doses of nintedanib (Dose level 1 (DL1) = 150 mg bid [bis in die, as twice a day]; DL2 = 200 mg bid, oral delivery) in combination with pembrolizumab (200 mg Q3W, IV). Patients received a 1-week lead-in dose of nintedanib monotherapy prior starting pembrolizumab. The primary objective was to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination based on dose limiting toxicity (DLT) occurrence during the first 4 weeks. Secondary objectives were to assess the anti-tumor efficacy and to identify the associated immune and angiogenic parameters in order to establish the recommended nintedanib dose for expansion cohorts. Flow cytometry (FC), Immuno-Histo-Chemistry (IHC) and electrochemiluminescence multi-arrays were prospectively performed on baseline & on-treatment tumor and blood samples to identify immune correlates of efficacy., Results: A total of 12/13 patients enrolled were evaluable for DLT (1 patient withdrew consent prior receiving pembrolizumab). Three patients at 200 mg bid experienced a DLT (grade 3 liver enzymes increase). Four patients developed grade 1-2 immune related adverse events (irAE). Eight patients died because of cancer progression. Median follow-up was 23.7 months (95%CI: 5.55-40.5). Three patients developed a partial response (PR) (ORR = 25%) and five patients (42%) had durable clinical benefit (DCB), defined as PR or stable disease (SD) ≥ 6 months. At baseline, patients with DCB had higher plasma levels of Tie2, CXCL10, CCL22 and circulating CD4 + PD1 + OX40 + T cells than patients without DCB. Patients with DCB presented also with more DC-LAMP + dendritic cells, CD3 + T cells and FOXP3 + Tregs in baseline tumor biopsies. For DCB patients, the nintedanib lead-in monotherapy resulted in higher blood CCL3, Tregs and CCR4 + CXCR3 + CXCR5 - memory CD4 T cells. After the first pembrolizumab infusion, patients with DCB showed lower IL-6, IL-8, IL-27 plasma levels., Conclusion: Nintedanib 150 mg bid is the recommended dose for combination with pembrolizumab and is currently investigated in multiple expansion cohorts. Early tumoral and circulating immune factors were associated with cancer outcome under nintedanib & pembrolizumab therapy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02856425 . Registered August 4, 2016 - Prospectively registered., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Immunotherapy has revolutionized cancer treatment and substantially improved patient outcome with regard to multiple tumour types. However, most patients still do not benefit from such therapies, notably because of the absence of pre-existing T cell infiltration. DNA damage response (DDR) deficiency has recently emerged as an important determinant of tumour immunogenicity. A growing body of evidence now supports the concept that DDR-targeted therapies can increase the antitumour immune response by (1) promoting antigenicity through increased mutability and genomic instability, (2) enhancing adjuvanticity through the activation of cytosolic immunity and immunogenic cell death and (3) favouring reactogenicity through the modulation of factors that control the tumour-immune cell synapse. In this Review, we discuss the interplay between the DDR and anticancer immunity and highlight how this dynamic interaction contributes to shaping tumour immunogenicity. We also review the most innovative preclinical approaches that could be used to investigate such effects, including recently developed ex vivo systems. Finally, we highlight the therapeutic opportunities presented by the exploitation of the DDR-anticancer immunity interplay, with a focus on those in early-phase clinical development., (© 2021. Springer Nature Limited.)

Purpose: This study reports the safety, tolerability, MTD, recommended phase II dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile, and preliminary antitumor activity of ceralasertib combined with carboplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors. It also examined exploratory predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients (n = 36) received a fixed dose of carboplatin (AUC5) with escalating doses of ceralasertib (20 mg twice daily to 60 mg once daily) in 21-day cycles. Sequential and concurrent combination dosing schedules were assessed., Results: Two ceralasertib MTD dose schedules, 20 mg twice daily on days 4-13 and 40 mg once daily on days 1-2, were tolerated with carboplatin AUC5; the latter was declared the RP2D. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥3) were anemia (39%), thrombocytopenia (36%), and neutropenia (25%). Dose-limiting toxicities of grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 2; including one grade 4 platelet count decreased) and a combination of grade 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 3 patients. Ceralasertib was quickly absorbed (tmax ∼1 hour), with a terminal plasma half-life of 8-11 hours. Upregulation of pRAD50, indicative of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) activation, was observed in tumor biopsies during ceralasertib treatment. Two patients with absent or low ATM or SLFN11 protein expression achieved confirmed RECIST v1.1 partial responses. Eighteen of 34 (53%) response-evaluable patients had RECIST v1.1 stable disease., Conclusions: The RP2D for ceralasertib plus carboplatin was established as ceralasertib 40 mg once daily on days 1-2 administered with carboplatin AUC5 every 3 weeks, with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies confirming pharmacodynamic modulation and preliminary evidence of antitumor activity observed., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Bromodomain and extra-terminal domain (BET) proteins are reported to be epigenetic anti-cancer drug targets. This first-in-human study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary anti-tumour activity of the BET inhibitor ODM-207 in patients with selected solid tumours., Methods: This was an open-label Phase 1 study comprised of a dose escalation part, and evaluation of the effect of food on pharmacokinetics. ODM-207 was administered orally once daily. The dose escalation part was initiated with a dose titration in the initial cohort, followed by a 3 + 3 design., Results: Thirty-five patients were treated with ODM-207, of whom 12 (34%) had castrate-resistant prostate cancer. One dose-limiting toxicity of intolerable fatigue was observed. The highest studied dose achieved was 2 mg/kg due to cumulative toxicity observed beyond the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) treatment window. Common AEs included thrombocytopenia, asthenia, nausea, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, and vomiting. Platelet count decreased proportionally to exposure with rapid recovery upon treatment discontinuation. No partial or complete responses were observed., Conclusions: ODM-207 shows increasing exposure in dose escalation and was safe at doses up to 2 mg/kg but had a narrow therapeutic window., Clinical Trial Registration: The clinical trial registration number is NCT03035591.

The COVID-19 pandemic is profoundly changing cancer researchers and cancer research. Leaders from different fields and at different career stages share their perspectives., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The advent of immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) has revolutionized patient outcome in many tumor types. However, only a minority of patients truly benefits from these therapies and displays a durable and robust anti-tumor response that translates into improved outcome. Thorough mechanistic preclinical studies and comprehensive investigations performed in tumor biopsies of patients treated with ICB have unveiled multiple resistance mechanisms involving both tumor-intrinsic and tumor-extrinsic characteristics. Here, we comprehensively review all known tumor-intrinsic genetic and epigenetic resistance mechanisms to ICB, provide an evaluation of their current level of evidence and propose rationale therapeutic strategies to circumvent them., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest As part of the Drug Development Department (DITEP), SC and SPV are principal investigator or sub-investigator of clinical trials from Abbvie, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca, Aveo, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm S.A., Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Forma, Gamamabs, Genentech, Inc., Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Inc, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Innate Pharma, Iris Servier, Janssen Cilag, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev., Inc., Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Onyx Therapeutics, Orion Pharma, Oryzon Genomics, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro Inc, and Xencor. SPV has participated to advisory boards for Merck KGaA, has benefited from reimbursement for attending symposia from AstraZeneca and has received laboratory research funding from Fondation Roche France, Boehringher Ingelheim and Merck KGaA. RMC has no conflicts of interest or financial interests to disclose. SA is currently principal or subinvestigator as part of the department of medical oncology for clinical trials sponsored by Roche and BMS. SA has received during the past 5 years honoraria for advisory board and or presentations by Amgen, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Meyer Squib, MSD, Sanofi and Novartis., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has deeply challenged healthcare systems and care of patients with cancer. Phase 1 studies are among the most complicated clinical trials and require thorough patient selection, as well as intensive patient monitoring. In this perspective, we discuss the key factors that should be considered for the conduct of phase 1 trials and management of COVID-19-positive patients with cancer enrolled in such trials. We notably present the risks and challenges raised by COVID-19-infected phase 1 patients, in terms of safety, toxicity causality assessment, drug efficacy evaluation and clinical research priorities. We finally propose some guidelines for the conduct of phase 1 trials and management of COVID-19-infected patients in a pandemic time., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Mammalian switch/sucrose non-fermentable (mSWI/SNF) family complexes are pivotal elements of the chromatin remodeling machinery, which contribute to the regulation of several major cellular functions. Large-scale exome-wide sequencing studies have identified mutations in genes encoding mSWI/SNF subunits in 20% of all human cancers, establishing mSWI/SNF deficiency as a recurrent oncogenic alteration. Accumulating evidence now supports that several mSWI/SNF defects represent targetable vulnerabilities in cancer; notably, recent research advances have unveiled unexpected synthetic lethal opportunities that foster the development of novel biomarker-driven and mechanism-based therapeutic approaches for the treatment of mSWI/SNF-deficient tumors. Here, we review the latest breakthroughs and discoveries that inform our understanding of the mSWI/SNF complexes biology in carcinogenesis, and discuss the most promising therapeutic strategies to target mSWI/SNF defects in human solid malignancies., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aging is an important risk factor for cancers and is associated with poor prognosis. Weakness of the immune system, also called immunosenescence may occur with older age. The impact of aging on efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint blockers, such as anti-programmed death (ligand) PD-(L)1, remains undetermined. This study aims to evaluate the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients aged 70 years or older than their younger counterparts., Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumors treated at Gustave Roussy with an anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy between June 2014 and October 2017 were prospectively included within the dedicated irAEs pharmacovigilance registry REISAMIC (Registre des Effets Indésirables Sévères des Anticorps Monoclonaux Immunomodulateurs en Cancérologie). The incidence of irAEs of grade ≥II was compared between patients aged ≥70 (old patients, OP) versus patients aged < 70 years (young patients, YP) using a chi-squared test. Survivals were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Among the 603 patients treated by anti-PD(L)1, 191 were ≥70 y.o (OP) and 424 < 70 y.o (YP). The median (range) age of OP and YP were respectively 77 (70-93) and 59 years old (17-69). A total of 165 irAEs occurred in these patients (103 grade II and 58 grade III-IV). The overall incidence of grade ≥II irAEs was higher in OP than in YP (33% versus 25%, p = 0.03). In addition, OP were more prone of having multiples irAEs compared with YP (p = 0.037). Skin toxicities were more frequent in OP than in YP (p = 0.007) but endocrine toxicities were less frequent in OP than in YP (p = 0.044). This higher level of irAEs seems to be responsible for a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in OP (p = 0.2). There was no statistical difference in median time to toxicity, exposure to steroids or survival between the two groups., Conclusion: Although anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapies remain an acceptable treatment option for older patients, prescribers should be aware that irAEs are more frequent in the elderly. Further translational studies are warranted to better understand the relationship between aging and irAEs., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: PD(L)1 antibodies (anti-PD(L)-1) have been a major breakthrough in several types of cancer. Novel patterns of response and progression have been described with anti-PD(L)-1. We aimed at characterizing pseudoprogression (PSPD) among patients with various solid tumor types treated by anti-PD(L)-1., Methods: All consecutive patients (pts) enrolled in phase 1 trials with advanced solid tumors and lymphomas treated in phase I clinical trials evaluating monotherapy by anti-PD(L)-1 at Gustave Roussy were analyzed. We aimed to assess prevalence and outcome of PSPD across tumor types. We also intended to describe potential clinical and pathological factors associated with PSPD., Results: A total of 169 patients treated with anti-PD(L)-1 were included in the study. Most frequent tumor types included melanoma (n = 57) and non-small cell lung cancer (n = 19). At first tumor evaluation 77 patients (46%) presented with immune unconfirmed progressive disease. Six patients (8%) experienced PSPD: 2 patients with partial response; 4 patients with stable disease. Increase in target lesions in the first CT-scan was more frequently associated to PSPD (67% vs 33%; P = .04). Patients with a PSPD had a superior survival when compared to patients progressing (median OS: 10.7 months vs 8.7 months; P = .07)., Conclusions: A small subset of PSPD patients may experience response after an initial progression. Assessment of the current strategy for immune-related response evaluations may require further attention., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Epigenetic dysregulation has long been recognized as a key factor contributing to tumorigenesis and tumour maintenance that can influence all of the recognized hallmarks of cancer. Despite regulatory approvals for the treatment of certain haematological malignancies, the efficacy of the first generation of epigenetic drugs (epi-drugs) in patients with solid tumours has been disappointing; however, successes have now been achieved in selected solid tumour subtypes, thanks to the development of novel compounds and a better understanding of cancer biology that have enabled precision medicine approaches. Several lines of evidence support that, beyond their potential as monotherapies, epigenetic drugs could have important roles in synergy with other anticancer therapies or in reversing acquired therapy resistance. Herein, we review the mechanisms by which epi-drugs can modulate the sensitivity of cancer cells to other forms of anticancer therapy, including chemotherapy, radiation therapy, hormone therapy, molecularly targeted therapy and immunotherapy. We provide a critical appraisal of the preclinical rationale, completed clinical studies and ongoing clinical trials relating to combination therapies incorporating epi-drugs. Finally, we propose and discuss rational clinical trial designs and drug development strategies, considering key factors including patient selection, tumour biomarker evaluation, drug scheduling and response assessment and study end points, with the aim of optimizing the development of such combinations.

Background: Bromodomain and extraterminal motif (BET) protein inhibition is a promising cancer treatment strategy, notably for targeting MYC- or BRD4-driven diseases. A first-in-human study investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase II dose of the BET inhibitor BAY 1238097 in patients with advanced malignancies., Material and Methods: In this phase I, open-label, non-randomised, multicentre study, patients with cytologically or histologically confirmed advanced refractory malignancies received oral BAY 1238097 twice weekly in 21-day cycles using an adaptive dose-escalation design at a starting dose of 10 mg/week. Model-based dose-response analysis was performed to guide dose escalation. Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and tumour response were evaluated., Results: Eight patients were enrolled at three dose levels (10 mg/week, n = 3; 40 mg/week, n = 3; 80 mg/week, n = 2). Both patients receiving 80 mg/week had dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (grade 3 vomiting, grade 3 headache and grade 2/3 back pain). The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, headache, back pain and fatigue. Pharmacokinetic analysis indicated a linear dose response with increasing dose. Two patients displayed prolonged stable disease; no responses were observed. Biomarker evaluation of MYC and HEXIM1 expression demonstrated an emerging pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship, with a trend towards decreased MYC and increased HEXIM1 expression in response to treatment., Conclusion: The study was prematurely terminated because of the occurrence of DLTs at a dose below targeted drug exposure. Pharmacokinetic modelling indicated that an alternate dosing schedule whereby DLTs could be avoided while reaching efficacious exposure was not feasible. Registration number: NCT02369029., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Purpose: Anti-PD-(L)1 can provide overall survival (OS) benefits over conventional treatments for patients with many different cancer types. However, the long-term outcome of cancer patients responding to these therapies remains unknown. This study is an exploratory study that aimed to describe the long-term survival of patients responding to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy across multiple cancer types. Patients and Methods: Data from patients treated with an anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy in a phase I trial at Gustave Roussy were retrospectively analyzed over a period of 5 years. All cancer types ( n = 19) were included. Clinical and biological factors associated with response, long-term survival, and secondary refractory disease were studied., Results: Among 262 eligible patients, the overall objective response rate was 29%. The median progression-free survival of responder patients (RP) at 3 months was 30 months, and the median OS of RP was not reached after a median follow-up of 34 months. In RPs, 3- and 5-year OS percentages were 84% and 64%, respectively. No death occurred in the 21 complete responders (CR) during the overall follow-up. However, many partial responders (PR) showed subsequent tumor relapses to treatment. Long responders (response ≥2 years) represented 11.8% of the overall population. These findings should be validated in further prospective studies., Conclusions: There are currently no differences in therapeutic strategies between CRs and PRs to anti-PD-(L)1. We found a striking difference in OS between these two types of responses. Our results are in favor of evaluating patient stratification strategies and intensification of treatments when tumor lesions of a partial responder to immunotherapy stop improving. See related commentary by Cohen and Flaherty, p. 910 ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Reliable evaluation of treatment benefit in early phase clinical trials is necessary. The time to progression ratio (TTPr), which compares successive TTP in a single patient, is a powerful criteria for determining targeted or immune therapies efficacy., Methods: We evaluated 205 TTPr in a large cohort of 177 advanced cancer patients enrolled in at least two Phase 1/1b trials (out of 2827 phase 1/1b-treated patients) at Gustave Roussy., Results: This first wide description of TTPr showed that, under the hypothesis of overall absence of treatment line effect, the median TTPr was 0.7 and that 25% of patients presented a TTPr above the conventional efficacy threshold of 1.3., Conclusions: A higher median TTPr and a larger proportion of patients above the 1.3 threshold should therefore be achieved to conclude to drug efficacy. New guidelines for TTPr interpretation and calibration are proposed, which warrant independent prospective validation.

Background: Long-term responders have been observed with anti-programmed death 1 and anti-programmed death ligand 1 (anti-PD(L)1). Optimal duration of therapy in responding and stable disease (SD) patients is unclear with various attitudes encompassing treatment until progression disease, stopping therapy after a defined timeframe., Patients and Methods: We report the experience of 13 patients who discontinued immune checkpoint inhibitor in phase I trials as per protocol while experiencing a tumour-controlled disease. According to protocols, patients could restart the same immunotherapy if radiological or clinical progression occurred., Results: Patients were treated for colorectal microsatellite instability-high genotype (n = 5), urothelial carcinoma (n = 3), melanoma (n = 2), non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 2) and triple-negative breast cancer (n = 1) for a median time of 12 months (range 10.6-12). Patients achieved 1 (8%) complete response, 10 (77%) partial response (PR) and 2 (15%) SD. The median progression-free survival 1 (PFS1) defined as the time from the first infusion until progression was 24.4 months (range 15.8-49). The median time free-treatment after discontinuation was 12.6 months (range 4-39.7). Eight patients experienced disease progression and were retreated. Best responses observed after rechallenging were 2 PR (25%) and 6 SD (75%). Median PFS2 defined from the first day of retreatment until disease progression or the last news was 12.9 months (range 5-35.4). No grade 3/4 events occurred during the study period., Conclusion: Our data suggest that anti-PD(L)1 therapy should be resumed if progression occurs after a planned anti-PD(L)1 interruption. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The development of immune checkpoint blocker development brings new hope in older patients (OPs) because of clinical efficacy and low toxicity. Clinical indications are rising steadily, but very few data are available in the geriatric population where comorbidities, reduced functional reserve and immunosenescence may affect efficacy and tolerance., Methods: All cases of patients enrolled in immunotherapy phase I trials between January 2012 and December 2016 in the Drug Development Department (DITEP) at Gustave Roussy were retrospectively reviewed. Case-control analysis was performed in OPs (patients ≥ 70 years) matched to younger patients (YPs) (patients < 70 years) by trial and treatment dose. We compared cumulative incidence, grade and type of immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) and survival outcomes., Results: Among the 46 OPs and the 174 YPs enrolled in 14 phase I/II trials, 10 (22%) and 23 (13%) patients experienced grade III-IV IrAEs. Cumulative incidence of grade I-II IrAEs was significantly higher in OPs than YPs (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between the two groups for grade III-IV IrAEs (p = 0.50). Older age was not associated with lower dose intensity of treatment (p = 0.14). No significant difference was observed between OPs and YPs in median progression-free survival (hazards ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.94-2.11] p = 0.09) or median overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI [0.61-1.39] p = 0.77)., Conclusion: Immune checkpoint blockade appears to be an acceptable treatment option for OPs in the setting of phase I trials., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) inhibition following chemotherapy-elicited DNA damage overrides cell cycle arrest and induces mitotic catastrophe and cell death. GDC-0575 is a highly-selective oral small-molecule Chk1 inhibitor that results in tumor shrinkage and growth delay in xenograft models. We evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic properties of GDC-0575 alone and in combination with gemcitabine. Antitumor activity and Chk1 pathway modulation were assessed., Patients and Methods: In this phase I open-label study, in the dose escalation stage, patients were enrolled in a GDC-0575 monotherapy Arm (1) or GDC-0575 combination with gemcitabine Arm (2) to determine the maximum tolerated dose. Patients in arm 2 received either i.v. gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (arm 2a) or 500 mg/m2 (arm 2b), followed by GDC-0575 (45 or 80 mg, respectively, as RP2D). Stage II enrolled disease-specific cohorts., Results: Of 102 patients treated, 70% were female, the median age was 59 years (range 27-85), and 47% were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 0. The most common tumor type was breast (37%). The most frequent adverse events (all grades) related to GDC-0575 and/or gemcitabine were neutropenia (68%), anemia (48%), nausea (43%), fatigue (42%), and thrombocytopenia (35%). Maximum concentrations of GDC-0575 were achieved within 2 hours of dosing, and half-life was ∼23 hours. No pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction was observed between GDC-0575 and gemcitabine. Among patients treated with GDC-0575 and gemcitabine, there were four confirmed partial responses, three occurring in patients with tumors harboring TP53 mutation. Pharmacodynamic data were consistent with GDC-0575 inhibition of gemcitabine-induced expression of pCDK1/2., Conclusion: GDC-0575 can be safely administered as a monotherapy and in combination with gemcitabine; however, overall tolerability with gemcitabine was modest. Hematological toxicities were frequent but manageable. Preliminary antitumor activity was observed but limited to a small number of patients with a variety of refractory solid tumors treated with GDC-0575 and gemcitabine., Clinical Trial Number: NCT01564251., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Immune therapies have revolutionized cancer treatment over the last few years by allowing improvements in overall survival. However, the majority of patients is still primary or secondary resistant to such therapies, and enhancing sensitivity to immune therapies is therefore crucial to improve patient outcome. Several recent lines of evidence suggest that epigenetic modifiers have intrinsic immunomodulatory properties, which could be of therapeutic interest., Material and Methods: We reviewed preclinical evidence and clinical studies which describe or exploit immunomodulatory properties of epigenetic agents. Experimental approaches, clinical applicability and corresponding ongoing clinical trials are described., Results: Several epigenetic modifiers, such as histone deacetylase inhibitors, DNA methyl transferase inhibitors, bromodomain inhibitors, lysine-specific histone demethylase 1 inhibitors and enhancer of zeste homolog 2 inhibitors, display intrinsic immunomodulatory properties. The latter can be achieved through the action of these drugs either on cancer cells (e.g. presentation and generation of neoantigens, induction of immunogenic cell death, modulation of cytokine secretion), on immune cells (e.g. linage, differentiation, activation status and antitumor capability), or on components of the microenvironment (e.g. regulatory T cells and macrophages). Several promising combinations, notably with immune checkpoint blockers or adoptive T-cell therapy, can be envisioned. Dedicated clinically relevant approaches for patient selection and trial design will be required to optimally develop such combinations., Conclusion: In an era where immune therapies are becoming a treatment backbone in many tumour types, epigenetic modifiers could play a crucial role in modulating tumours' immunogenicity and sensitivity to immune agents. Optimal trial design, including window of opportunity trials, will be key in the success of this approach, and clinical evaluation is ongoing.

Introduction: Therapeutic inhibition of the human epidermal receptor 3 (ERBB3, HER3) has been challenged by the low frequency of ERBB3 somatic alterations across cancer types. We have evaluated the clinical utility to use available inhibitors of the HER family in the context of ERBB3 mutations., Patients and Methods: In this study, we have selected patients with somatic ERBB3 alterations detected in their tumours from the molecular screening programs running at our institution. Techniques used for molecular screening were targeted next generation sequencing, comparative genomic hybridisation and/or whole exome sequencing on fresh frozen tumour biopsies., Results: On the 844 patients with a molecular portrait of their tumours, 31 (3.7%) had a somatic mutation of ERBB3. Overall, 9 patients received available inhibitors of HER family, including trastuzumab and/or lapatinib or afatinib. Sixteen patients received other molecularly targeted agents, including the Mammalian Target Of Rapamycin (mTOR), the Phosphatidylinositol-4,5-Bisphosphate 3-Kinase (PI3K) or NOTCH inhibitors or chemotherapy, and 4 patients failed being treated. Thirteen different histological subtypes were affected by ERBB3 mutations; top ones were colorectal carcinomas (6 patients), non-small cell lung cancers (4 patients, including a squamous cell carcinoma), head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (3 patients) and breast carcinomas (3 patients). The presence of a mutation in the tyrosine kinase domain of the ERBB3/HER3 protein detected in four patients' tumours was significantly related to good progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.18, p value = 0.022) and overall survival (HR = 0.19, p value = 0.03) in univariate analysis. Treatment of these four patients included at least a tyrosine kinase inhibitor lapatinib or afatinib., Conclusion: Our exploratory analysis suggests that mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the HER3 protein are related to a favourable outcome under HER family inhibitors., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The advent of anti-programmed death receptor-1/ligand-1 antibodies (anti-PD(L)1) is profoundly changing the therapeutic strategy of oncology. As anti-PD(L)1 modulate tumour microenvironment, it might impact sensitivity to conventional cancer therapy (CCT). Therefore, we explored whether sensitivity to CCT was different before and after anti-PD(L)1 therapy., Methods: Patients who started anti-PD(L)1 treatment at Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre between February 2012 and December 2015, and who received at least one line of CCT immediately before and immediately after anti-PD(L)1, were eligible. We analysed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) of the CCT line immediately before (PFSpre/ORRpre) and after (PFSpost/ORRpost) anti-PD(L)1. PFS and ORR were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank and McNemar tests in a paired data subset for patients having received identical class of CCT pre and post anti-PD(L)1 therapy., Results: Among 118 eligible patients, 65% received anti-PD1 and 35% anti-PD-L1 agents. Median PFSpre versus PFSpost was 4.7 versus 3.5 months (p = 0.011), respectively; it was 5.7 versus 6.8 months (NS) for patients who derived clinical benefit from immunotherapy and 3.9 versus 3.0 months (p = 0.012) for patients who were primary resistant to anti-PD(L)1 therapy. Subgroup analysis did not reveal any significant difference in PFS or ORR before versus after anti-PD(L)1 therapy according to CCT class or to its ability to induce immunogenic cell death., Conclusion: Patients who derive benefit from immune therapies tend to have better PFS on conventional therapies after having received the anti-PD(L)1 agent. Further studies on larger data sets are warranted to confirm these findings., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Life expectancy evaluation is crucial when selecting patients who may benefit from phase I studies. The Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score, based on three objective variables (number of metastatic sites, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and serum albumin) was validated in patients treated with cytotoxics and targeted therapies. We aimed to determine if those factors were applicable to immune-checkpoint therapies (ICTs) in phase I trials and to evaluate new variables that may preclude a better prognosis in patients receiving ICT., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of survival risk factors in a discovery cohort of 155 patients enrolled into ICT phase I trials at our institution. We computed univariate analysis and multivariate analysis (MVA) of demographics, clinical and biological data to assess their prognostic value for overall survival (OS). MVA results were used to build a prognostic score for OS. A validation cohort of 113 patients enrolled in phase I ICT trials was used to prospectively validate this score., Results: A total of 155 patients (M/F: 83/72; median age 59) receiving an experimental ICT between March 2012 and January 2016 were included in the discovery cohort. An MVA assessing the RMH score variables showed that low albumin (hazard ratio [HR] 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.86) and LDH > upper limit normal (ULN) (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.12-3.15) were independent negative prognostic factors for OS. Interestingly, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) > 6 (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.04-2.95) was associated with a decrease in OS. The number of metastases was not associated with a poorer outcome for this ICT cohort (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51-1.35). A risk score based on the results of the MVA (NLR > 6 = 1; LDH > ULN = 1; albumin < 35 g/l = 1) showed that patients presenting a high score (>1) had a significantly shorter OS (20.4 weeks; 95% CI 5.7-35.2) compared to those with a low score (0 or 1) (68.9 weeks; 95% CI 50-83.7) (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.87-4.64). In the validation cohort of 113 patients, again the patients presenting a high score showed an inferior OS (HR 6.3, 95% CI 2.7-14.8)., Conclusion: In ICT phase I trials, traditional prognostic variables included in the RMH score may be suboptimal to determine patient's prognosis. In this context, the NLR is a significant prognostic variable. The Gustave Roussy Immune Score, based on albumin, LDH and NLR, allows a better selection of patients for ICT phase I trials., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A number of phase I immunotherapy trials for cancer patients incorporate the absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) as an inclusion criteria. This study aims to assess whether ALC is associated with a lack of response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in early clinical trials., Methods: All consecutive patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy in phase I trials in our institution between December 2011 and January 2014 were reviewed. Baseline ALC, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), Royal-Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score, objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR = SD + PR + CR, stable disease (SD), partial response (PR), complete response (CR)) defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 were retrieved., Results: Out of a total of 167 patients, 48 (28.7%) and 8 patients (4.8%) had baseline ALCs of <1 G/l and <0.5 G/l, respectively. The RECIST change (%) was not correlated with ALC (G/l) (Spearman's rho = -0.06, P = 0.43). We did not observe any difference in terms of ORR (8.3% versus 15.1%, P = 0.32) or of DCR (58.3% versus 61.3%, P = 0.73) between patients with ALC <1 G/l versus >1 G/l. When using 0.5 G/l as ALC threshold, we did not find any difference either in ORR or in DCR. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, baseline ALC was not associated with overall survival, whereas the RMH and the number of previous lines of treatment remained independent prognostic factors., Conclusions: Baseline ALC was not associated with response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in cancer patients enrolled in phase I trials. Patients should not be excluded from early phase clinical trials testing immune checkpoints blockers because of ALC., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: S49076 is a novel ATP-competitive tyrosine kinase inhibitor of MET, AXL and FGFR with a unique selectivity profile. A phase I open-label study was undertaken to establish the tolerability profile and determine the recommended dose (RD) and administration schedule., Materials and Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumours received S49076 orally once-daily (qd) or twice-daily (bid) in continuous 21-day cycles at escalating doses guided by a 3 + 3 design and followed by an expansion phase at the RD. Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were assessed and pharmacodynamic end-points were evaluated in pre- and post-treatment tumour biopsies. Preliminary anti-tumour activity was evaluated as per the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours 1.1 criteria., Results: A total of 103 patients were treated: 79 in the dose-escalation and 24 in the expansion. Doses from 15 to 900 mg were evaluated. Dose-limiting toxicities were reported in 9 patients and occurred at 30, 760 and 900 mg in the qd arm and at 180, 225 and 285 mg in the bid arm. The RD was defined at 600 mg qd. Adverse events (AEs) occurred with similar frequency in both regimens at an equivalent total daily dose. Overall, 83 patients (81.4%) had drug-related AEs, the majority (93%) of which were grade I-II (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0) and only 3% led to drug discontinuation. Intratumoural PK analysis at the RD suggested hitting of MET, AXL and FGFR., Conclusion: S49076 demonstrated a tolerable safety profile with limited single-agent activity. PK/pharmacodynamic readouts of S49076 are encouraging for further investigation of S49076 in combination therapies., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN00759419., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

High-throughput genomic analyses may improve outcomes in patients with advanced cancers. MOSCATO 01 is a prospective clinical trial evaluating the clinical benefit of this approach. Nucleic acids were extracted from fresh-frozen tumor biopsies and analyzed by array comparative genomic hybridization, next-generation sequencing, and RNA sequencing. The primary objective was to evaluate clinical benefit as measured by the percentage of patients presenting progression-free survival (PFS) on matched therapy (PFS2) 1.3-fold longer than the PFS on prior therapy (PFS1). A total of 1,035 adult patients were included, and a biopsy was performed in 948. An actionable molecular alteration was identified in 411 of 843 patients with a molecular portrait. A total of 199 patients were treated with a targeted therapy matched to a genomic alteration. The PFS2/PFS1 ratio was >1.3 in 33% of the patients (63/193). Objective responses were observed in 22 of 194 patients (11%; 95% CI, 7%-17%), and median overall survival was 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.5-14.3 months). Significance: This study suggests that high-throughput genomics could improve outcomes in a subset of patients with hard-to-treat cancers. Although these results are encouraging, only 7% of the successfully screened patients benefited from this approach. Randomized trials are needed to validate this hypothesis and to quantify the magnitude of benefit. Expanding drug access could increase the percentage of patients who benefit. Cancer Discov; 7(6); 586-95. ©2017 AACR. See related commentary by Schram and Hyman, p. 552 This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 539 ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: While immune checkpoint inhibitors are disrupting the management of patients with cancer, anecdotal occurrences of rapid progression (i.e., hyperprogressive disease or HPD) under these agents have been described, suggesting potentially deleterious effects of these drugs. The prevalence, the natural history, and the predictive factors of HPD in patients with cancer treated by anti-PD-1/PD-L1 remain unknown. Experimental Design: Medical records from all patients ( N = 218) prospectively treated in Gustave Roussy by anti-PD-1/PD-L1 within phase I clinical trials were analyzed. The tumor growth rate (TGR) prior ("REFERENCE"; REF) and upon ("EXPERIMENTAL"; EXP) anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy was compared to identify patients with accelerated tumor growth. Associations between TGR, clinicopathologic characteristics, and overall survival (OS) were computed. Results: HPD was defined as a RECIST progression at the first evaluation and as a ≥2-fold increase of the TGR between the REF and the EXP periods. Of 131 evaluable patients, 12 patients (9%) were considered as having HPD. HPD was not associated with higher tumor burden at baseline, nor with any specific tumor type. At progression, patients with HPD had a lower rate of new lesions than patients with disease progression without HPD ( P < 0.05). HPD is associated with a higher age ( P < 0.05) and a worse outcome (overall survival). Interestingly, REF TGR (before treatment) was inversely correlated with response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 ( P < 0.05) therapy. Conclusions: A novel aggressive pattern of hyperprogression exists in a fraction of patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1. This observation raises some concerns about treating elderly patients (>65 years old) with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and suggests further study of this phenomenon. Clin Cancer Res; 23(8); 1920-8. ©2016 AACR See related commentary by Sharon, p. 1879 ., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Although the role of epigenetic abnormalities has been studied for several years in cancer genesis and development, epigenetic-targeting drugs have historically failed to demonstrate efficacy in solid malignancies. However, successful targeting of chromatin remodeling deficiencies, histone writers and histone reader alterations has been achieved very recently using biomarker-driven and mechanism-based approaches. Epigenetic targeting is now one of the most active areas in drug development and could represent novel therapeutic opportunity for up to 25% of all solid tumors., Material and Methods: We reviewed preclinical and clinical studies that described epigenetic oncogenic addictions, synthetic lethal relationships or epigenetic antagonisms in chromatin regulators. Experimental approaches, their clinical relevance and applicability, as well as corresponding on-going studies are described., Results: The most successful approaches that have been clinically validated so far include the targeting of the BRD4-NUT fusion transcript in NUT-midline carcinoma by BET (Bromodomain Extra-Terminal) inhibitors, and the use of EZH2 (Enhancer of Zest Homolog 2) inhibitors in SMARCB1-deficient malignant rhabdoid tumors and SMARCA4-deficient ovarian small cell carcinomas. Clinical validation is still required for other synthetic lethal relationships or epigenetic antagonisms, including those described between EZH2 inhibitors and deficiencies in components of the Polycomb or SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complexes (including BAP1, ARID1A and PBRM1 subunits), as well as between the CREBBP and EP300 histone acetylases. Further, interplays between epigenetic modifiers and non-epigenetic cellular processes might be therapeutically exploited, and combinatorial strategies could be envisioned to overcome resistance or to sensitize cells to already approved drugs., Conclusion: Epigenetic-targeting drugs have historically failed proving efficacy in solid malignancies when used broadly, but novel mechanism-based approaches in molecularly selected patient populations have facilitated recent successes in proof-of-concept studies in solid tumors. Appropriate clinical trial design and molecular patient selection will be key for the success of epigenetic modifiers in solid tumours., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Immunotherapy is currently transforming cancer treatment. Notably, immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) have shown unprecedented therapeutic successes in numerous tumor types, including cancers that were traditionally considered as nonimmunogenic. However, a significant proportion of patients do not respond to these therapies. Thus, early selection of the most sensitive patients is key, and the development of predictive companion biomarkers constitutes one of the biggest challenges of ICB development. Recent publications have suggested that the tumor genomic landscape, mutational load, and tumor-specific neoantigens are potential determinants of the response to ICB and can influence patients' outcomes upon immunotherapy. Furthermore, defects in the DNA repair machinery have consistently been associated with improved survival and durable clinical benefit from ICB. Thus, closely reflecting the DNA damage repair capacity of tumor cells and their intrinsic genomic instability, the mutational load and its associated tumor-specific neoantigens appear as key predictive paths to anticipate potential clinical benefits of ICB. In the era of next-generation sequencing, while more and more patients are getting the full molecular portrait of their tumor, it is crucial to optimally exploit sequencing data for the benefit of patients. Therefore, sequencing technologies, analytic tools, and relevant criteria for mutational load and neoantigens prediction should be homogenized and combined in more integrative pipelines to fully optimize the measurement of such parameters, so that these biomarkers can ultimately reach the analytic validity and reproducibility required for a clinical implementation. Clin Cancer Res; 22(17); 4309-21. ©2016 AACR., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: To identify factors associated with troponin elevation and to measure the effect of elevated troponin on survival in cancer patients participating in phase I trials., Methods: Clinical characteristics, cardiovascular risk factors, and biological data from consecutive patients treated in phase I trials (January 2010-November 2012) were reviewed. Troponin value was measured for each patient before study-drug administration and then weekly. Cardiac troponin I was considered elevated if >0.06ng/mL. Incidence and relative risk of elevated troponin adjusted for potential confounding factors were estimated using multivariable Poisson regression models. A conditional Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare overall survival in patients with elevated troponin matched to patients without troponin elevation recruited in the same trial., Results: Of 463 patients, 42 (9%) experienced ≥1 episode of troponin I elevation after a median of 5weeks (interquartile range: 3-13) from drug initiation. Crude incidence of troponin elevation was 36/1000 person-months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25-47). Troponin elevation was more frequent in patients exposed to antiangiogenic compounds versus other treatments (relative risk: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.1-3.3). Median overall survival from drug initiation was 9months (95% CI: 8-10), and 8months (95% CI: 2-13) in patients with troponin elevation. In the case-control analysis, risk of death was higher in patients with troponin elevation (hazard ratio: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.2-6.8)., Conclusion: Patients exposed to antiangiogenic compounds had a higher risk of troponin elevation, which was associated with a higher risk of death., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The limited capacity to predict a patient's response to distinct chemotherapeutic agents is a major hurdle in cancer management. The efficiency of a large fraction of current cancer therapeutics (radio- and chemotherapies) is influenced by chromatin structure. Reciprocally, alterations in chromatin organization may affect resistance mechanisms. Here, we explore how the misexpression of chromatin regulators-factors involved in the establishment and maintenance of functional chromatin domains-can inform about the extent of docetaxel response. We exploit Affymetrix and NanoString gene expression data for a set of chromatin regulators generated from breast cancer patient-derived xenograft models and patient samples treated with docetaxel. Random Forest classification reveals specific panels of chromatin regulators, including key components of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeler, which readily distinguish docetaxel high-responders and poor-responders. Further exploration of SWI/SNF components in the comprehensive NCI-60 dataset reveals that the expression inversely correlates with docetaxel sensitivity. Finally, we show that loss of the SWI/SNF subunit BRG1 (SMARCA4) in a model cell line leads to enhanced docetaxel sensitivity. Altogether, our findings point toward chromatin regulators as biomarkers for drug response as well as therapeutic targets to sensitize patients toward docetaxel and combat drug resistance. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(7); 1768-77. ©2016 AACR., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Liquid biopsies based on circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis are described as surrogate samples for molecular analysis. We evaluated the concordance between tumor DNA (tDNA) and cfDNA analysis on a large cohort of patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumor, eligible for phase I trial and with good performance status, enrolled in MOSCATO 01 trial (clinical trial NCT01566019)., Experimental Design: Blood samples were collected at inclusion and cfDNA was extracted from plasma for 334 patients. Hotspot mutations were screened using next-generation sequencing for 50 cancer genes., Results: Among the 283 patients with tDNA-cfDNA pairs, 121 had mutation in both, 99 in tumor only, 5 in cfDNA only, and for 58 patients no mutation was detected, leading to a 55.0% estimated sensitivity [95% confidence interval (CI), 48.4%-61.6%] at the patient level. Among the 220 patients with mutations in tDNA, the sensitivity of cfDNA analysis was significantly linked to the number of metastatic sites, albumin level, tumor type, and number of lines of treatment. A sensitivity prediction score could be derived from clinical parameters. Sensitivity is 83% in patients with a high score (≥8). In addition, we analyzed cfDNA for 51 patients without available tissue sample. Mutations were detected for 22 patients, including 19 oncogenic variants and 8 actionable mutations., Conclusions: Detection of somatic mutations in cfDNA is feasible for prescreening phase I candidates with a satisfactory specificity; overall sensitivity can be improved by a sensitivity score allowing to select patients for whom cfDNA constitutes a reliable noninvasive surrogate to screen mutations. Clin Cancer Res; 22(12); 2960-8. ©2016 AACR., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

One approach to identifying cancer-specific vulnerabilities and therapeutic targets is to profile genetic dependencies in cancer cell lines. Here, we describe data from a series of siRNA screens that identify the kinase genetic dependencies in 117 cancer cell lines from ten cancer types. By integrating the siRNA screen data with molecular profiling data, including exome sequencing data, we show how vulnerabilities/genetic dependencies that are associated with mutations in specific cancer driver genes can be identified. By integrating additional data sets into this analysis, including protein-protein interaction data, we also demonstrate that the genetic dependencies associated with many cancer driver genes form dense connections on functional interaction networks. We demonstrate the utility of this resource by using it to predict the drug sensitivity of genetically or histologically defined subsets of tumor cell lines, including an increased sensitivity of osteosarcoma cell lines to FGFR inhibitors and SMAD4 mutant tumor cells to mitotic inhibitors., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although a third of all cancers are diagnosed after the age of 75, only 9% of elderly people are recruited in clinical trials, because of fear of the risk of toxicity. The aim of this study was to compare the tolerance and efficacy observed in Phase I trials among patients aged over 75 years with that observed in younger patients. Patients treated from 2007 to 2012 at Institut Gustave Roussy in Phase I trials were included. The conditional Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare the occurrence of AE and overall survival in a subpopulation of elderly people (EP, aged >75 years) matched with patients aged <75 years (YP) according to the same Phase I protocol and the same Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score. Among the 32 EP and the 158 YP, 63% and 61% experienced Grade 3-4 AEs and dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 6% and 11% in each group respectively. Age over 75 years was neither associated with a greater risk of high toxicity (HR=0.90 [CI95%, 0.47-1.70], p = 0.74) nor of death (HR=0.86; CI95%: 0.38-1.93; p = 0.71). Age over 75 years had no impact on the occurrence of either high toxicity or of death., (© 2015 UICC.)

Background: Immunostimulatory monoclonal antibodies (imAbs) targeting immune checkpoint molecules are revolutionizing oncology not only regarding cancer therapeutics and clinical care, but also from a drug development point of view. A handful of first-generation molecules have been approved so far based on their tremendous efficacy, after an expedited development phase that has challenged most paradigms established in the era of conventional cytotoxic therapy and to some extent molecularly targeted agents. A huge wave of second-generation imAbs is just entering into phase 1 trials now, in monotherapy or in combination. In order to maximize their chances of success in early phase trials, and eventually for patients' benefit, their clinical development has to benefit from lessons learnt from previous imAbs phase 1 trials., Materials and Methods: We reviewed the early clinical development of anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and anti-programmed death-1 receptor/ligand. Particularities of each agent, including safety, dose--toxicity and dose--efficacy relationships, scheduling, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), trial design, biomarkers, response assessment and overall drug development strategies, are described and challenged., Results: As opposed to conventional cytotoxic agents, dose of imAbs is not linearly associated with efficacy and toxicity. Therefore, the definition of a minimal immunologically active dose could be proposed. Traditional patient eligibility criteria might also be revisited as the toxicity profile and mechanism of toxicity--immune-related adverse events--are mostly known and their physiopathology somehow less unexpected than with molecularly targeted small molecules. Most challenging are the comprehensive investigation of complex PK and PD characteristics as well as the definition of patient selection biomarkers. Finally, the early focus on efficacy (and not only dose confirmation) in expansion cohorts challenges the traditional phase 1/2/3 drug development process., Conclusion: Several drug development paradigms have been challenged by imAbs. Here, we discuss novel approaches for an efficient and successful drug development of these agents., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Cancer immunotherapy is coming of age; it has prompted a paradigm shift in oncology, in which therapeutic agents are used to target immune cells rather than cancer cells. The first generation of new immunotherapies corresponds to antagonistic antibodies that block specific immune checkpoint molecules cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1. Targeting these checkpoints in patients living with cancer had led to long-lasting tumour responses. By unbalancing the immune system, these new immunotherapies also generate dysimmune toxicities, called immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) that mainly involve the gut, skin, endocrine glands, liver, and lung but can potentially affect any tissue. In view of their undisputed clinical efficacy, anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies are entering in the routine oncological practice, and the number of patients exposed to these drugs will increase dramatically in the near future. Although steroids can be used to treat these IRAEs, the associated immunosuppression may compromise the antitumour response. Oncologists must be ready to detect and manage these new types of adverse events. This review focuses on the mechanisms of IRAE generation, putative relationship between dysimmune toxicity and antitumour efficacy, as a basis for management guidelines., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Molecular tumour profiling technologies have become increasingly important in the era of precision medicine, but their routine use is limited by their accessibility, cost, and tumour material availability. It is therefore crucial to assess their relative added value to optimize the sequence and combination of such technologies., Patients and Methods: Within the MOSCATO-01 trial, we investigated the added value of whole exome sequencing (WES) in patients that did not present any molecular abnormality on array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and targeted gene panel sequencing (TGPS) using cancer specific panels. The pathogenicity potential and actionability of mutations detected on WES was assessed., Results: Among 420 patients enrolled between December 2011 and December 2013, 283 (67%) patients were analysed for both TGPS and aCGH. The tumour sample of 25 (8.8%) of them presented a flat (or low-dynamic) aCGH profile and no pathogenic mutation on TGPS. We selected the first eligible 10 samples-corresponding to a heterogeneous cohort of different tumour types-to perform WES. This allowed identifying eight mutations of interest in two patients: FGFR3, PDGFRB, and CREBBP missense single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in an urothelial carcinoma; FGFR2, FBXW7, TP53, and MLH1 missense SNVs as well as an ATM frameshift mutation in a squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. The FGFR3 alteration had been previously described as an actionable activating mutation and might have resulted in treatment by an FGFR inhibitor. CREBBP and ATM alterations might also have suggested a therapeutic orientation towards epigenetic modifiers and ataxia-telangectasia and Rad3-related inhibitors, respectively., Conclusion: The therapeutic added value of performing WES on tumour samples that do not harbour any genetic abnormality on TGPS and aCGH might be limited and variable according to the histotype. Alternative techniques, including RNASeq and methylome analysis, might be more informative in selected cases., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Immune checkpoint blockade with antagonistic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting B7 immunoglobulin superfamily molecules (CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1) generate long lasting anti-tumour immune responses translating into clinical benefit across many cancer types. However, many patients are primarily resistant to immune checkpoint blockade -based monotherapy and many others will eventually relapse. Therefore, new immunostimulatory targets are needed to overcome primary and secondary resistance to immunotherapy. Besides the B7 co-inhibitory receptors, the tumour necrosis factor receptor superfamily contains many other immune checkpoints, which could become the next generation immunomodulators. Among them stands OX40 (CD134), a co-stimulatory molecule that can be expressed by activated immune cells. Several anti-OX40 agonistic monoclonal antibodies are currently tested in early phase cancer clinical trials. Accumulating preclinical evidence supports their clinical development. However, conflicting results and controversies between in vitro and in vivo data point to the need for comprehensive ancillary studies to be performed in upcoming clinical trials to better understand the mechanism of action of anti-OX40 mAbs-based therapy., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)