Search

Precision cancer medicine brought the promise of improving outcomes for patients with cancer. High-throughput molecular profiling of tumors at treatment failure aims to direct a patient to a treatment matched to the tumor profile. In this way, improved outcome has been achieved in a small number of patients whose tumors exhibit unique targetable oncogenic drivers. Most cancers, however, contain multiple genetic alterations belonging to and of various hallmarks of cancer; for most of these alterations, there is limited knowledge on the level of evidence, their hierarchical roles in oncogenicity, and utility as biomarkers for response to targeted treatment(s). We developed a proof-of-concept trial that explores new treatment strategies in a molecularly-enriched tumor-agnostic, pediatric population. The evaluation of novel agents, including first-in-child molecules, alone or in combination, is guided by the available understanding of or hypotheses for the mechanisms of action of the diverse cancer events. Main objectives are: to determine 1) recommended phase 2 doses, 2) activity signals to provide the basis for disease specific development, and 3) to define new predictive biomarkers. Here we outline concepts, rationales and designs applied in the European AcSé-ESMART trial and highlight the feasibility but also complexity and challenges of such innovative platform trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: BG has had an advisory role for AstraZeneca and IDMC roles for trials sponsored by Roche and Novartis. SAG has had an advisory role for EMD Serono/MERCK KGaA and AMGEN and received research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, GSK and BAYER. LVM has had Advisory Board Honoraria for Bayer, BMS, Day One Biopharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Novartis and Tesaro. Paediatric Preceptorship/Chair & Speaker's Honoraria - Bayer. IDMC member for clinical trials sponsored by Eisai and Merck. NA has had an advisory role for BAYER and Partners Therapeutics and receives grants (institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb and drugs for a trial from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Pfizer and travel support from Roche; he further has IDMC roles for Accord Healthcare. AR had a consulting role for EusaPharma, Sanofi and SERB. She received honoraria from EusaPharma and Roche for educational events and travel expenses. MC has had advisory roles for Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Pfizer and was invited speaker for Bayer. KN serves on a data monitoring committee for Lilly. All remaining authors have declared no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The French phase II AcSé-crizotinib trial aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of crizotinib in patients with ALK, ROS1, and MET-driven malignancies, including ALK-positive anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALK + ALCL)., Methods: ALK + ALCL patients 12 months or older with measurable disease and no standard care options available received crizotinib twice daily at 165 mg/m 2 in children and adolescents and 250 mg in adults. The primary end-point was the response rate at 8 weeks., Results: Twenty-eight patients were enroled between February 2014 and March 2018. Three patients who were not treated were excluded from the analysis. The median age was 19 years. The median previous line of chemotherapy was two. In the 24 patients with an evaluable response, the response rate at 8 weeks was 67% (95% CI: 47-82%). All patients discontinued crizotinib after a median treatment duration of 3.7 months: eight for progression, two for adverse events (AEs) related to prior treatments, and 15 by choice, including six for allogeneic stem-cell transplantation. The median follow-up was 45 months. Nine patients experienced an event: eight relapses (seven after crizotinib discontinuation and one after dose reduction), and one died in complete remission. The median duration of response was 43.3 months (95% CI: 8.3-not reached). The 3-year progression-free and overall survival rates were 40% (95% CI: 23-59%) and 63% (95% CI: 43-79%). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 32% of patients., Conclusion: Crizotinib shows efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in ALK + ALCL relapsed/refractory patients. However, a large proportion of patients experience a relapse after crizotinib discontinuation. Future studies will assess if prolonged ALK inhibitor exposure has curative potential without consolidation., 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 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To provide practice guidelines about fertility preservation (FP) in oncology., Methods: We selected 400 articles after a PubMed review of the literature (1987-2019)., Recommendations: Any child, adolescent and adult of reproductive age should be informed about the risk of treatment gonadotoxicity. In women, systematically proposed FP counselling between 15 and 38 years of age in case of treatment including bifunctional alkylating agents, above 6 g/m2 cyclophosphamide equivalent dose (CED), and for radiation doses on the ovaries ≥3 Gy. For postmenarchal patients, oocyte cryopreservation after ovarian stimulation is the first-line FP technique. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation should be discussed as a first-line approach in case of treatment with a high gonadotoxic risk, when chemotherapy has already started and in urgent cases. Ovarian transposition is to be discussed prior to pelvic radiotherapy involving a high risk of premature ovarian failure. For prepubertal girls, ovarian tissue cryopreservation should be proposed in the case of treatment with a high gonadotoxic risk. In pubertal males, sperm cryopreservation must be systematically offered to any male who is to undergo cancer treatment, regardless of toxicity. Testicular tissue cryopreservation must be proposed in males unable to cryopreserve sperm who are to undergo a treatment with intermediate or severe risk of gonadotoxicity. In prepubertal boys, testicular tissue preservation is: - recommended for chemotherapy with a CED ≥7500 mg/m2 or radiotherapy ≥3 Gy on both testicles. - proposed for chemotherapy with a CED ≥5.000 mg/m2 or radiotherapy ≥2 Gy. If several possible strategies, the ultimate choice is made by the patient., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement 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 © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Missense mutations in the polymerase epsilon (POLE) gene have been reported to generate proofreading defects resulting in an ultramutated genome and to sensitize tumors to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. However, many POLE-mutated tumors do not respond to such treatment. To better understand the link between POLE mutation variants and response to immunotherapy, we prospectively assessed the efficacy of nivolumab in a multicenter clinical trial in patients bearing advanced mismatch repair-proficient POLE-mutated solid tumors. We found that only tumors harboring selective POLE pathogenic mutations in the DNA binding or catalytic site of the exonuclease domain presented high mutational burden with a specific single-base substitution signature, high T-cell infiltrates, and a high response rate to anti-PD-1 monotherapy. This study illustrates how specific DNA repair defects sensitize to immunotherapy. POLE proofreading deficiency represents a novel agnostic biomarker for response to PD-1 checkpoint blockade therapy., Significance: POLE proofreading deficiency leads to high tumor mutational burden with high tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and predicts anti-PD-1 efficacy in mismatch repair-proficient tumors. Conversely, tumors harboring POLE mutations not affecting proofreading derived no benefit from PD-1 blockade. POLE proofreading deficiency is a new tissue-agnostic biomarker for cancer immunotherapy. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1397., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: The limited knowledge on the molecular profile of patients with BRAF -mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progress under BRAF-targeted therapies (BRAF-TT) has hampered the development of subsequent therapeutic strategies for these patients. Here, we evaluated the clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-targeted sequencing to identify canonical BRAF mutations and genomic alterations potentially related to resistance to BRAF-TT, in a large cohort of patients with BRAF -mutant NSCLC., Experimental Design: This was a prospective study of 78 patients with advanced BRAF -mutant NSCLC, enrolled in 27 centers across France. Blood samples ( n = 208) were collected from BRAF-TT-naïve patients ( n = 47), patients nonprogressive under treatment ( n = 115), or patients at disease progression (PD) to BRAF-TT (24/46 on BRAF monotherapy and 22/46 on BRAF/MEK combination therapy). ctDNA sequencing was performed using InVisionFirst-Lung. In silico structural modeling was used to predict the potential functional effect of the alterations found in ctDNA., Results: BRAF V600E ctDNA was detected in 74% of BRAF-TT-naïve patients, where alterations in genes related with the MAPK and PI3K pathways, signal transducers, and protein kinases were identified in 29% of the samples. ctDNA positivity at the first radiographic evaluation under treatment, as well as BRAF -mutant ctDNA positivity at PD were associated with poor survival. Potential drivers of resistance to either BRAF-TT monotherapy or BRAF/MEK combination were identified in 46% of patients and these included activating mutations in effectors of the MAPK and PI3K pathways, as well as alterations in U2AF1, IDH1 , and CTNNB1 ., Conclusions: ctDNA sequencing is clinically relevant for the detection of BRAF -activating mutations and the identification of alterations potentially related to resistance to BRAF-TT in BRAF -mutant NSCLC., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Single-arm studies are sometimes used as pivotal studies but they have methodological limitations which prevent them from obtaining the high level of reliability as for a randomised controlled study which remains the gold standard in the evaluation of new treatments. The objective of this roundtable was to discuss the limitations of these single-arm studies, to analyse available and acceptable solutions in order to propose guidelines for their conduct and assessment. Single-arm studies themselves are intrinsically inappropriate for demonstrating the benefit of a new treatment because it is impossible to infer the benefit from a value obtained under treatment without knowing what it would have been in the absence of the new treatment. The implication is that comparison with other data is necessary. However this comparison has limitations due to (1) the post hoc choice of the reference used for comparison, (2) the confusion bias for which an adjustment approach is imperative and, (3) the other biases, measure and attrition among others. When these limitations are taken into account this should, first and foremost, lead to the conduct of externally controlled trials instead of single-arm trials as is proposed by the latest version of ICH E10. Moreover, the external control must be formalised in the study protocol with a priori selection of both the reference control and the formal method of comparison: test in relation to a standard, adjustment on individual data, a synthetic control group or matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC). Lastly, externally controlled studies must be restricted to situations where randomisation is infeasible. To be acceptable, these studies must be able to guarantee freedom from residual confusion bias, which is only truly acceptable if the observed effect is dramatic and the usual course of the disease is highly predicable., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Background: Ameloblastomas are uncommon locally aggressive tumors of odontogenic epithelium that rarely metastasize. Currently, there is no standard of care for the metastatic forms. Several studies have shown that ameloblastomas frequently have a BRAF mutation., Case Presentation: We report a case of a 33-year-old Caucasian woman with ameloblastoma diagnosed 30 years ago who developed lung metastasis 19 years ago. Systemic oral treatment with vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, was initiated 28 months ago within the AcSé French basket clinical trial of vemurafenib., Conclusions: The patient has shown a durable clinical, functional, and radiographic partial response with vemurafenib. These observations suggest the possibility of introducing neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant targeted therapy in locally advanced ameloblastoma to improve outcome. BRAF inhibition has proved to be an efficient strategy in patients with a BRAF-mutated ameloblastoma.

Objective: A significant proportion of cancer survivors experience chronic health sequelae, one of them being fertility impairment. However, even if many reports, guidelines and positions papers focus on fertility preservation and its needs, access to fertility preservation is not currently offered to all the patients concerned, and the targeted population is not well counted., Study Design: A cross sectional study was conducted using the French cancer cohort, a cohort covering the whole French population and including around 7 million of cancer patients. Women under the age of 40 and men under the age of 60 included in the cancer cohort in 2013 who had, in the first year, cancer surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy were considered. Patients treated by surgery alone for cancers in locations distant from the reproductive organs, or being treated for a cancer the past 3 years were excluded. The number of patients concerned by fertility preservation was estimated at a national and regional level, and by cancer types., Results: 40,000 patients - 30,000 men under the age of 60 years and 10,000 women under the age of 40 years - were identified. A second estimation concerning women under the age of 35 and men under 50 reduced the number of patients to 17,200-10,400 men and 6800 women. The most frequent locations were malignant neoplasm of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue, lung cancer, cervix uteri, prostate and colorectal cancer. In 2014, around 5 400 persons had a preservation., Conclusion: Around 17,200 cancer patients of reproductive age should be informed about the fertility preservation options available. Medical professionals have to better integrate in their daily practice fertility preservation., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Patients with cancers of differing histologies that express certain biomarkers are likely to benefit from treatment with targeted therapies. However, targets can be present in malignancies other than those indicated by a drug's label, and as a result, affected patients will have no access to those potentially useful drugs. To tackle this issue, the French National Cancer Institute developed the AcSé Programme in 2013. This programme is designed to make treatment decisions or recommendations on the basis of the presence of relevant biomarkers for malignancies with no targeted therapies available and also aims to improve safety, and evaluate the efficacy of targeted drugs used outside of their approved indications. Patients across France have access to molecular testing in 28 molecular genetics centres and to targeted therapies within phase II trials provided no other trials exist in which they could reasonably be included. Trials include patients below the age of 18 if safe dosing data are available. As of January 2016, 183 French clinical sites and over 7,000 patients are participating in AcSé led trials. Proof of concept is being demonstrated through trials designed to investigate the effectiveness of crizotinib and vemurafenib in a wide variety of cancers.

Personalized medicine is based on: 1) improved clinical or non-clinical methods (including biomarkers) for a more discriminating and precise diagnosis of diseases; 2) targeted therapies of the choice or the best drug for each patient among those available; 3) dose adjustment methods to optimize the benefit-risk ratio of the drugs chosen; 4) biomarkers of efficacy, toxicity, treatment discontinuation, relapse, etc. Unfortunately, it is still too often a theoretical concept because of the lack of convenient diagnostic methods or treatments, particularly of drugs corresponding to each subtype of pathology, hence to each patient. Stratified medicine is a component of personalized medicine employing biomarkers and companion diagnostics to target the patients likely to present the best benefit-risk balance for a given active compound. The concept of targeted therapy, mostly used in cancer treatment, relies on the existence of a defined molecular target, involved or not in the pathological process, and/or on the existence of a biomarker able to identify the target population, which should logically be small as compared to the population presenting the disease considered. Targeted therapies and biomarkers represent important stakes for the pharmaceutical industry, in terms of market access, of return on investment and of image among the prescribers. At the same time, they probably represent only the first generation of products resulting from the combination of clinical, pathophysiological and molecular research, i.e. of translational research., (© 2015 Société Française de Pharmacologie et de Thérapeutique.)

Small clinical trials are trials in which the number of patients does not enable the objective of the study to be appropriately met with the usual methodological rules. This situation is common in the case of rare diseases, in paediatrics, in certain cancer pathologies or when the number of patients exposed to the treatment needs to be limited. The principal methodological problems are initially identified, and the classical methods (controlled, randomised, double-blind trial using parallel groups, crossover trial, factorial design, trial performed with several measures repeated over time, add-on design, randomised withdrawal design or early-escape design) and more uncommon methods (sequential approaches, meta-analyses, the 'N of 1' method and other methods that facilitate decision making or modelling) are then discussed. Subsequently, recommendations are made to ensure that the results obtained are not a matter of chance, and to increase the level of proof.

Although drugs are prescribed during pregnancy with some reluctance, they fulfill a real need in some circumstances. Adequate drug evaluation is thus essential, either based on efficacy and safety or mainly safety, using available data from non-pregnant women. Evaluation methodology is not fundamentally different during pregnancy. Recommendations for drug development are formulated on the basis of the most common situations as well as specific suggestions, thus raising the awareness of the different partners participating in healthcare (institutions, the pharmaceutical industry and prescribers). In particular, regulatory and economic incentives superimposed upon those recommendations adopted in Europe and the US for orphan diseases should be put into place to assist in the evaluation of drugs used in obstetrics. Medical needs in obstetrics should be better identified, and labelling of drugs for use during pregnancy should be better directed towards prescribers; a national registry of pregnancies should be established in France.

Long-term follow up for medicines used in children is necessary in some therapeutic areas. Long-term effects (e.g. in cancer) may be detected many years after the treatment period. Growth, development and maturation specific to children can make these effects particularly harmful. The development plan of a paediatric drug should include, long term follow up on the basis of pharmacological-toxicological and safety data. These aspects should be taken into account when modifying the protocol (lower dosage, withdrawal of some associations etc). The follow up period may be very long, as in cancer (e.g. second tumour after treatment for cancer). A cohort is the best choice for this follow up, but other alternatives may be useful, including a specific follow-up Unit. Long-term follow-up is nevertheless difficult and expensive, manpower-dependent and the risk of failure is great especially in the teenage years.