Search

Background The gut microbiome is implicated as a marker of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) based on preclinical mouse models and preliminary observations in limited patient series. Furthermore, early studies suggest faecal microbial transfer may have therapeutic potential, converting ICI non-responders into responders. So far, identification of specific responsible bacterial taxa has been inconsistent, which limits future application. The MITRE study will explore and validate a microbiome signature in a larger scale prospective study across several different cancer types. Methods Melanoma, renal cancer and non-small cell lung cancer patients who are planned to receive standard immune checkpoint inhibitors are being recruited to the MITRE study. Longitudinal stool samples are collected prior to treatment, then at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months during treatment, or at disease progression/recurrence (whichever is sooner), as well as after a severe (≥grade 3 CTCAE v5.0) immune-related adverse event. Additionally, whole blood, plasma, buffy coat, RNA and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) is collected at similar time points and will be used for exploratory analyses. Archival tumour tissue, tumour biopsies at progression/relapse, as well as any biopsies from body organs collected after a severe toxicity are collected. The primary outcome measure is the ability of the microbiome signature to predict 1 year progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced disease. Secondary outcomes include microbiome correlations with toxicity and other efficacy end-points. Biosamples will be used to explore immunological and genomic correlates. A sub-study will evaluate both COVID-19 antigen and antibody associations with the microbiome. Discussion There is an urgent need to identify biomarkers that are predictive of treatment response, resistance and toxicity to immunotherapy. The data generated from this study will both help inform patient selection for these drugs and provide information that may allow therapeutic manipulation of the microbiome to improve future patient outcomes. Trial registration NCT04107168, ClinicalTrials.gov, registered 09/27/2019. Protocol V3.2 (16/04/2021).

Background: Cell-free tumor-derived DNA (ctDNA) allows non-invasive monitoring of cancers, but its utility in renal cell cancer (RCC) has not been established. Methods: Here, a combination of untargeted and targeted sequencing methods, applied to two independent cohorts of patients (n = 91) with various renal tumor subtypes, were used to determine ctDNA content in plasma and urine. Results: Our data revealed lower plasma ctDNA levels in RCC relative to other cancers of similar size and stage, with untargeted detection in 27.5% of patients from both cohorts. A sensitive personalized approach, applied to plasma and urine from select patients (n = 22) improved detection to ~ 50%, including in patients with early-stage disease and even benign lesions. Detection in plasma, but not urine, was more frequent amongst patients with larger tumors and in those patients with venous tumor thrombus. With data from one extensively characterized patient, we observed that plasma and, for the first time, urine ctDNA may better represent tumor heterogeneity than a single tissue biopsy. Furthermore, in a subset of patients (n = 16), longitudinal sampling revealed that ctDNA can track disease course and may pre-empt radiological identification of minimal residual disease or disease progression on systemic therapy. Additional datasets will be required to validate these findings. Conclusions: These data highlight RCC as a ctDNA-low malignancy. The biological reasons for this are yet to be determined. Nonetheless, our findings indicate potential clinical utility in the management of patients with renal tumors, provided improvement in isolation and detection approaches.

BACKGROUND: Cell-free tumor-derived DNA (ctDNA) allows non-invasive monitoring of cancers, but its utility in renal cell cancer (RCC) has not been established. METHODS: Here, a combination of untargeted and targeted sequencing methods, applied to two independent cohorts of patients (n = 91) with various renal tumor subtypes, were used to determine ctDNA content in plasma and urine. RESULTS: Our data revealed lower plasma ctDNA levels in RCC relative to other cancers of similar size and stage, with untargeted detection in 27.5% of patients from both cohorts. A sensitive personalized approach, applied to plasma and urine from select patients (n = 22) improved detection to ~ 50%, including in patients with early-stage disease and even benign lesions. Detection in plasma, but not urine, was more frequent amongst patients with larger tumors and in those patients with venous tumor thrombus. With data from one extensively characterized patient, we observed that plasma and, for the first time, urine ctDNA may better represent tumor heterogeneity than a single tissue biopsy. Furthermore, in a subset of patients (n = 16), longitudinal sampling revealed that ctDNA can track disease course and may pre-empt radiological identification of minimal residual disease or disease progression on systemic therapy. Additional datasets will be required to validate these findings. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight RCC as a ctDNA-low malignancy. The biological reasons for this are yet to be determined. Nonetheless, our findings indicate potential clinical utility in the management of patients with renal tumors, provided improvement in isolation and detection approaches.

Background: Cell-free tumor-derived DNA (ctDNA) allows non-invasive monitoring of cancers, but its utility in renal cell cancer (RCC) has not been established. Methods: Here, a combination of untargeted and targeted sequencing methods, applied to two independent cohorts of patients (n = 91) with various renal tumor subtypes, were used to determine ctDNA content in plasma and urine. Results: Our data revealed lower plasma ctDNA levels in RCC relative to other cancers of similar size and stage, with untargeted detection in 27.5% of patients from both cohorts. A sensitive personalized approach, applied to plasma and urine from select patients (n = 22) improved detection to ~ 50%, including in patients with early-stage disease and even benign lesions. Detection in plasma, but not urine, was more frequent amongst patients with larger tumors and in those patients with venous tumor thrombus. With data from one extensively characterized patient, we observed that plasma and, for the first time, urine ctDNA may better represent tumor heterogeneity than a single tissue biopsy. Furthermore, in a subset of patients (n = 16), longitudinal sampling revealed that ctDNA can track disease course and may pre-empt radiological identification of minimal residual disease or disease progression on systemic therapy. Additional datasets will be required to validate these findings. Conclusions: These data highlight RCC as a ctDNA-low malignancy. The biological reasons for this are yet to be determined. Nonetheless, our findings indicate potential clinical utility in the management of patients with renal tumors, provided improvement in isolation and detection approaches.

BACKGROUND:Cell-free tumor-derived DNA (ctDNA) allows non-invasive monitoring of cancers, but its utility in renal cell cancer (RCC) has not been established. METHODS:Here, a combination of untargeted and targeted sequencing methods, applied to two independent cohorts of patients (n = 91) with various renal tumor subtypes, were used to determine ctDNA content in plasma and urine. RESULTS:Our data revealed lower plasma ctDNA levels in RCC relative to other cancers of similar size and stage, with untargeted detection in 27.5% of patients from both cohorts. A sensitive personalized approach, applied to plasma and urine from select patients (n = 22) improved detection to ~ 50%, including in patients with early-stage disease and even benign lesions. Detection in plasma, but not urine, was more frequent amongst patients with larger tumors and in those patients with venous tumor thrombus. With data from one extensively characterized patient, we observed that plasma and, for the first time, urine ctDNA may better represent tumor heterogeneity than a single tissue biopsy. Furthermore, in a subset of patients (n = 16), longitudinal sampling revealed that ctDNA can track disease course and may pre-empt radiological identification of minimal residual disease or disease progression on systemic therapy. Additional datasets will be required to validate these findings. CONCLUSIONS:These data highlight RCC as a ctDNA-low malignancy. The biological reasons for this are yet to be determined. Nonetheless, our findings indicate potential clinical utility in the management of patients with renal tumors, provided improvement in isolation and detection approaches.

Funder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Addenbrooke’s Charitable Trust, Funder: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Funder: Mark Foundation For Cancer Research, Funder: Cambridge Commonwealth, European and International Trust, Funder: Cancer Research UK, Funder: Cambridge Clinical Trials Unit, Funder: Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, Funder: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Cancer Imaging Centre in Cambridge and Manchester, Funder: Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, PURPOSE: To detect early response to sunitinib treatment in metastatic clear cell renal cancer (mRCC) using multiparametric MRI. METHOD: Participants with mRCC undergoing pre-surgical sunitinib therapy in the prospective NeoSun clinical trial (EudraCtNo: 2005-004502-82) were imaged before starting treatment, and after 12 days of sunitinib therapy using morphological MRI sequences, advanced diffusion-weighted imaging, measurements of R2* (related to hypoxia) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. Following nephrectomy, participants continued treatment and were followed-up with contrast-enhanced CT. Changes in imaging parameters before and after sunitinib were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the log-rank test was used to assess effects on survival. RESULTS: 12 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. After 12 days, the solid and necrotic tumor volumes decreased by 28% and 17%, respectively (p = 0.04). However, tumor-volume reduction did not correlate with progression-free or overall survival (PFS/OS). Sunitinib therapy resulted in a reduction in median solid tumor diffusivity D from 1298x10-6 to 1200x10-6mm2/s (p = 0.03); a larger decrease was associated with a better RECIST response (p = 0.02) and longer PFS (p = 0.03) on the log-rank test. An increase in R2* from 19 to 28s-1 (p = 0.001) was observed, paralleled by a decrease in Ktrans from 0.415 to 0.305min-1 (p = 0.01) and a decrease in perfusion fraction from 0.34 to 0.19 (p