Search

Purpose of Review: Incidence of brain metastases increases overtime therefore it is important to rapidly progress in the discovery of new strategies of treatment for these patients. In consequence, more and more preclinical models of brain metastases (BM) are established to study new treatments for melanoma, lung, and breast cancer BM. Here, we reviewed the most recent findings of new drugs assessed in BM mouse preclinical models., Recent Findings: BM are a common metastatic site of several types of solid cancers and can be difficult to treat due to the unique environment of the brain and the blood-brain barrier. Currently, several preclinical models of BM have been demonstrated that new molecular targeted therapies, small metabolic inhibitors, immunotherapies or a combination of these drugs with radiotherapy lead to a reduction of BM growth and an improvement of mouse survival., Summary: The use of preclinical models of BM is crucial to discover new treatment strategies for patients with BM. In the last years, some new drugs have been highlighted in preclinical models and are now tested in clinical trials including patients with brain metastases., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Combinations of avelumab [anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1)] or talazoparib [poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor] with binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) were expected to result in additive or synergistic antitumor activity relative to each drug administered alone. Here, we report phase Ib results from JAVELIN PARP MEKi, which investigated avelumab or talazoparib combined with binimetinib in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with mPDAC that had progressed with prior treatment received avelumab 800 mg every 2 weeks plus binimetinib 45 mg or 30 mg two times daily (continuous), or talazoparib 0.75 mg daily plus binimetinib 45 mg or 30 mg two times daily (7 days on/7 days off). The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT)., Results: A total of 22 patients received avelumab plus binimetinib 45 mg (n = 12) or 30 mg (n = 10). Among DLT-evaluable patients, DLT occurred in five of 11 patients (45.5%) at the 45-mg dose, necessitating de-escalation to 30 mg; DLT occurred in three of 10 patients (30.0%) at the 30-mg dose. Among patients treated at the 45-mg dose, one (8.3%) had a best overall response of partial response. Thirteen patients received talazoparib plus binimetinib 45 mg (n = 6) or 30 mg (n = 7). Among DLT-evaluable patients, DLT occurred in two of five patients (40.0%) at the 45-mg dose, necessitating de-escalation to 30 mg; DLT occurred in two of six patients (33.3%) at the 30-mg dose. No objective responses were observed., Conclusions: Combinations of avelumab or talazoparib plus binimetinib resulted in higher-than-expected DLT rates. However, most DLTs were single occurrences, and the overall safety profiles were generally consistent with those reported for the single agents., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT03637491; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03637491., Competing Interests: Disclosure JRA reports nonfinancial support and reasonable reimbursement for travel from the European Society for Medical Oncology; has received travel and accommodation expenses from Ellipses Pharma, IONCTURA, Kelun Pharmaceuticals/KLUS Pharma, Molecular Partners, and Peptomyc; has served in consulting or advisory roles for Boxer Capital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Ellipses Pharma, IONCTURA (including serving on a scientific advisory board), Kelun Pharmaceuticals/KLUS Pharma, Molecular Partners, Peptomyc, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology/Ministerio De Empleo Y Seguridad Social, and Tang Advisors; has received research funding from Black Diamond Therapeutics, Blueprint Medicines, Hummingbird, MSD, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology/Cancer Core Europe, and Yingli; and has served as investigator in clinical trials with Aadi Bioscience, Amgen, Bayer, BioAtla, BioMed Valley Discoveries, Bicycle Therapeutics, Cancer Core Europe, Cellestia, Curis, CytomX, Deciphera, Fore Biotherapeutics, Genmab, GSK, Hummingbird, Hutchison MediPharma, IDEAYA, Kelun-Biotech, Loxo Oncology, Merus, Mirati Linnaeus Therapeutics, Novartis, Nuvation, Pfizer, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, Taiho, Takeda-Millennium, Tango Therapeutics, and Yingli. DSWT has received institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Novartis; has received honoraria from BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; has served in consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and has received travel and accommodation expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Roche. IGL has served in consulting or advisory roles for Array BioPharma, Eisai, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kanaph, OncXerna, SOTIO, and Sumitomo; and has received institutional research funding from ARMO BioSciences, Bayer, BMS, BridgeBio, GSK, Glenmark, Halozyme, Ignyta, Incyte, Lilly, MedImmune, NewLink Genetics, Novartis, OncoMed, and Pfizer. WH has received research funding from AI Therapeutics. JTB has received research funding from Novartis and Pfizer. NB has served in consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, and Exelixis. ZZ reports stock and other ownership interests in and was employed by Pfizer at the time of study. SD, KK, CW, and RJL report employment by and stock and other ownership interests in Pfizer. NP reports stock and other ownership interests in and was employed by Pfizer at the time of study. WAM has served in consulting or advisory roles for Five Prime Therapeutics (DMSC), Zymeworks (DMSC), and QED Therapeutics (DMSC); and has received institutional research funding from ALX Oncology, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, EDDC/D3, Exelixis, Fate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda. AB, SR, NK have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing Upon request, and subject to review, Pfizer will provide the data that support the findings of this study. Subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions, Pfizer may also provide access to the related individual deidentified participant data. See https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/trial-data-and-results for more information. Ethics approval and consent to participate The trial was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Council for Harmonisation Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, and the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. All patients provided written informed consent before enrollment. The protocol, amendments, and informed consent forms were approved by the institutional review board or independent ethics committee at each center., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: A better understanding of the biology of cancer cells has led in the past 20 years to more and more molecular and immunological driven treatment strategies impacting both clinical trials and day-to-day practice. The aim of this review is to describe new approaches to conduct clinical trials in this area to speed up drug development and increase access to innovation for cancer patients., Recent Findings: The design of an early phase trial has an impact on its clinical benefit. Trials deriving from a specific biomarker or histologic characteristic (also known as enrichment design) are more likely to demonstrate benefit than trials based on a more conventional design. However, the increase of low incidence cancer molecular subtypes poses a major hurdle in the clinical management and drug development research for cancer patients., Summary: With the identification of news targets and the subsequent introduction of precision medicine, new strategies and tools are needed to provide access to biomarker identification and target-oriented clinical trials to all cancer patients. We propose to set up a new patient-centered model to conduct clinical trials allowing simply to 'bring the trial to the patient'., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Carcinomatous meningitis (CM) is a severe complication of breast cancer. The Breast International Group (BIG) carried out a survey to describe the approach to CM internationally., Patients and Methods: A questionnaire on the management of CM was developed by the Brain Metastases Task Force of BIG and distributed to its groups, requesting one answer per group site., Results: A total of 241 sites responded, 119 from Europe, 9 from North America, 39 from Central/South America, 58 from Asia, and 16 in Australia/New Zealand, with 24.5% being general hospitals with oncology units, 44.4% university hospitals, 22.4% oncology centers, and 8.7% private hospitals. About 56.0% of sites reported seeing <5 cases annually with 60.6% reporting no increase in the number of cases of CM recently. Nearly 63.1% of sites investigate for CM when a patient has symptoms or radiological evidence, while 33.2% investigate only for symptoms. For diagnosis, 71.8% of sites required a positive cerebrospinal fluid cytology, while magnetic resonance imaging findings were sufficient in 23.7% of sites. Roughly 97.1% of sites treat CM and 51.9% also refer patients to palliative care. Intrathecal therapy is used in 41.9% of sites, mainly with methotrexate (74.3%). As many as 20 centers have a national registry for patients with breast cancer with central nervous system metastases and of those 5 have one for CM. Most (90.9%) centers would be interested in participating in a registry as well as in studies for CM, the latter preferably (62.1%) breast cancer subtype specific., Conclusions: This is the first study to map out the approach to CM from breast cancer globally. Although guidelines with level 1 evidence are lacking, there is a high degree of homogeneity in the approach to CM globally and great interest for conducting studies in this area., Competing Interests: Disclosure ER reports consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer; research funding from Novartis, Demo Pharmaceutical, Celldex, Radius Health, Tesaro, Parexel, and AnaBIOsis Pharmaceuticals; travel funding from Sanofi, Ipsen, Genesis Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Merck, Roche, and GENEKOR. CP reports grant funding from Pfizer and Daiichi Sankyo; honoraria from Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Exact sciences, Gilead, Seagen, and Eli Lilly. VM reports honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Seagen, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Janssen-Cilag, and Gilead; playing an advisory role for Hexal, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Nektar, Seagen, Gilead, and Eisai; research funding from Roche, Novartis, Seagen, Pfizer, and Genentech. RB reports advisory role for Astra-Zeneca, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Puma, Roche, and Seagen; lecture honoraria from Astra-Zeneca, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, and Seagen; research support from Daiichi, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. GR reports research funding (institution) from AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Tesaro, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, Biovica, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi/Aventis; and patents, royalties, other intellectual property from Agendia for MammaPrint due to the collaboration on the conduct of the MINDACT trial (Institution). SPG reports honoraria from Novartis, Roche, BMS, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, and Seagen; advisory/consultancy roles with Novartis, Roche, BMS, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, and Seagen; research grant from Roche; travel/accommodation/expenses from Roche, Amgen, Shire, Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Celgene, and Daiichi Sankyo. HCK reports honoraria and travel support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro, MSD, Onkowissen, Eli Lilly, SurgVision, Exact Sciences, and Genomic Health; and Stock ownership from Theraclion and Phaon scientific. NZ is on the advisory board for Lilly, Eisai, and AstraZeneca; reports receiving honorarium from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, and Amgen; research funding (institutional) from Pfizer, Roche, and GSK; education funding from Roche, Novartis, and Amgen (none considered relevant to the current work). MP is on the advisory boards, and has participated in educational programs and conferences for Pfizer, BMS, Novartis, Astellas, Janssen, MD Serono, Merck, Amgen, and Sanofi; reports research funding (institutional) from Astellas, Novartis, Roche, Merck, BMS, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca. RMC has received (to institution) an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer; and research funds from MSD Ireland and Pfizer. HT reports employment or management position with Partner and Medical Director Oncology Practice at Bethanien Hospital, Frankfurt; honoraria from Novartis, Roche, GSK, Seagen, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and Exact Science; consulting activities for Novartis, Roche, GSK, Seagen, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, and Exact Science. AM reports advisory/consultant role, honoraria, and research grant from Lilly and Roche; advisory/consultant role for Novartis, Merck, Seagen, and Daiichi-Sankyo. LDM reports grants from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Eli Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Genomic Health, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Seagen, Ipsen, and Gilead; personal fees and nonfinancial support from Roche, Pfizer, and Eisai, outside the submitted work. CC reports honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Genesis, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche. SO reports lecture fees, honoraria, or other fees paid by a single company or for-profit organization for the time or labor of a researcher engaged for conference attendance from Chugai, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. IM reports performing consultancy roles for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, In3Bio, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; travel/conference registration activities for Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, and Novartis. ME serves on the advisory boards of Pfizer and Novartis; lecturing for Astra Zeneca (institution), but has no conflicts of interest related to this publication. KZ serves on the advisory board or performs talk for AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, and Viatris/Mylan; unrestricted funding for organization of academic symposium from Agendia, AstraZeneca-MSD, Daiichi, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Viatris/Mylan, and Vifor; support for participation in international congress from AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; is a member of steering committee of Eleanor study (Pierre Fabre); and research funding from Roche. MV reports honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and Daiichi; consulting or advisory role for Novartis and Roche; travel funds from Roche and Pfizer. DF’s institution receives support from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Servier, Tesaro, Sanofi, and Pfizer for the conduct of clinical trials outside the submitted work. MG-G reports honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre; travel/attending meetings for Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca. BL reports consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Pierre Fabre, and Daiichi Sankyo. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: GNS561/Ezurpimtrostat is a first-in-class, orally bioavailable, small molecule that blocks cancer cell proliferation by inhibiting late-stage autophagy and dose-dependent build-up of enlarged lysosomes by interacting with the palmitoyl-protein thioesterase 1 (PPT1)., Methods: This phase I, open-label, dose-escalation trial (3 + 3 design) explored two GNS561 dosing schedules: one single oral intake 3 times a week (Q3W) and twice daily (BID) continuous oral administration in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and pancreatic adenocarcinoma or colorectal adenocarcinomas with liver metastasis. The primary objective was to determine GNS561 recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and schedule. Secondary objectives included evaluation of the safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of GNS561., Results: Dose escalation ranged from 50 to 400 mg Q3W to 200-300 mg BID. Among 26 evaluable patients for safety, 20 were evaluable for efficacy and no dose-limiting toxicity was observed. Adverse events (AEs) included gastrointestinal grade 1-2 events, primarily nausea and vomiting occurred in 13 (50%) and 14 (54%) patients, respectively, and diarrhea in 11 (42%) patients. Seven grade 3 AEs were reported (diarrhea, decreased appetite, fatigue, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase increased). Q3W administration was associated with limited exposure and the BID schedule was preferred. At 200 mg BID GNS561, plasma and liver concentrations were comparable to active doses in animal models. Liver trough concentrations were much higher than in plasma a median time of 28 days of administration with a mean liver to plasma ratio of 9,559 (Min 149-Max 25,759), which is in accordance with rat preclinical data observed after repeated administration. PPT1 expression in cancer tissues in the liver was reduced upon GNS561 exposure. There was no complete or partial response. Five patients experienced tumor stable diseases (25%), including one minor response (-23%)., Conclusion: Based on a favorable safety profile, exposure, and preliminary signal of activity, oral GNS561 RP2D was set at 200 mg BID. Studies to evaluate the antitumor activity of GNS561 in hepatocarcinoma cells and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma are to follow NCT03316222., Competing Interests: J.J.H. received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Exelexis, CytomX, Imvax, Adaptiimmune, QED, and Zymeworks. G.K.A. receives research support from Arcus, Agios, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BioNtech, BMS, Celgene, Flatiron, Genentech/Roche, Genoscience, Incyte, Polaris, Puma, QED, Sillajen, and Yiviva and consulting fees from Adicet, Agios, Astra Zeneca, Alnylam, Autem, Bayer, Beigene, Berry Genomics, Cend, Celgene, CytomX, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Flatiron, Genentech/Roche, Genoscience, Helio, Incyte, Ipsen, Legend Biotech, Loxo, Merck, MINA, Nerviano, QED, Redhill, Rafael, Silenseed, Sillajen, Sobi, Surface Oncology, Therabionics, Twoxar, Vector, and Yiviva. A.A. received consulting fees from Roche, Lilly, Amgen, Eisai, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Genomic Health, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Leo Pharma, Merck, and Daiichi. G.R. received consulting fees and honoraria from Accord Healthcare, Abbvie, Amgen, Ipsen, Sanofi, and Servier. T.D. received research support from Genoscience, ArQule; and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, IPSEN, Becton Dickinson, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Roche, Eisai, Sirtex, BTG, AbbVie, Gilead, Merck, Guerbet, and Sanofi. P.M. received grants from NXEO and IPSEN and consulting/AdBoards fees from Bayer Schering Pharma, Ipsen, Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Merck. N.K. received consulting fees and honoraria from Innate, Erytech, Leopharma, and Seattle genetics. E.R. received consulting fees from Genoscience, SCOR, StromaCare and own shares from SCOR, Genoscience, and Axoltis., (Copyright © 2022 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Biomarkers in clinical trials have led to massive incorporation of research biopsies, with potentially risks and no direct benefit for patients. In 2018, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) released an ethical framework to provide guidance on incorporating research biopsies in cancer clinical trials., Materials and Methods: We collected biopsy requirements of cancer clinical trials conducted at Institut Jules Bordet (IJB) between 2015 and 2019 to examine adherence with the ASCO Ethical Framework. We used logistic regression models to test the association between the request for biopsy, the request for tissue, and the adherence to the ASCO framework as well as some trial characteristics., Results: Between January 2015 and December 2019, 178 oncological studies were conducted at IJB. Of these, 138 (78%) were sponsored by industry, 132 (74%) were phase II and III studies, and 141 (79%) concerned metastatic disease. Tissue was required for inclusion for 119 (67%) studies, among which 59 required at least one new biopsy. Adherence to ASCO's Ethical Framework was 67% for studies requiring tissue and went down to 39% for studies requiring at least one new biopsy. In multivariate analysis, requests for tissue or new biopsies increased in early-phase studies (p < .001, p < .001, respectively) and in studies investigating innovative treatments (immunotherapy or targeted therapies; p < .01, p = .02). Compliance to the ASCO framework significantly decreased with time (p < .001) and in early-phase studies (p < .001)., Conclusion: Numerous studies required tissue or new biopsies for exploratory objectives of unknown clinical utility. Requests for tissue increased over the years, whereas compliance to ASCO's Ethical Framework decreased., Implications for Practice: In 2019, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) developed an ethical framework to provide guidance on incorporating research biopsies in clinical trials. This study underlines the growing request for tissue in clinical trials with potentially no impact on drug development and no benefit to actual or future patients. Adherence to ASCO's Ethical Framework decreases through time. These results highlight the importance of improving the ethics of research biopsies. ASCO's Ethical Framework offers an opportunity to improve quality of care in clinical research by maximizing scientific utility and allowing for clinically meaningful correlative science and safe access to innovative treatments for a maximum number of patients., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

The expression of 5T4/trophoblast glycoprotein was evaluated in several histological subtypes of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) to determine whether the prevalence and level of expression of this membrane-associated glycoprotein is sufficient for use in targeted therapies. Tumor tissue microarrays containing cores from different histological subtypes of STS were stained using a standardized immunohistochemical staining method to detect 5T4; the level of staining was assessed using a semi-quantitative scoring method. No 5T4 staining was seen in the angiosarcomas and liposarcomas investigated in this study. 5T4 staining in the other STS subtypes was seen in more than 50% of cases, warranting further investigation into whether this antigen could evoke an anti-tumor immune response or can be used as target for the delivery of more potent toxins through antibody drug conjugates.

Purpose of Review: Drug development is the process of bringing new anticancer agents into clinical practice. From the basic research to clinical research each step is essential and intimately linked. The aim of this review is to describe emerging preclinical models and to provide an overview of selected drugs recently developed in oncology., Recent Findings: Preclinical models reproducing human immune-tumor interactions, 3D cell cultures and microfluidic platforms are of great interest for the development of immunotherapies and combination therapies and offer the opportunity to better understand the interplay between cancer and stromal cells.Following a better biological understanding of cancer and advances in precision oncology, new exciting drugs (e.g. antibodies-drugs conjugates [ADCs], immunotherapeutic strategies, molecular-targeted therapies) have entered the field of clinical research and even clinical practice., Summary: Recent improvements in preclinical models will allow an accurate selection of drug candidates for clinical research. Innovative drugs are currently being developed from early to later phases of development. An important remaining challenge in drug development is to set up a new model of patient-centered clinical research to facilitate quick access to innovation and target-oriented trials., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

LY3381916 is an orally available, highly selective, potent inhibitor of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1. This study explored the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of LY3381916 monotherapy and in combination with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor (LY3300054) in patients with advanced solid tumors. During dose escalation, patients received escalating doses of LY3381916 at 60-600 mg once daily (qd) and 240 mg twice daily in monotherapy (n=21) and in combination with PD-L1 inhibitor at 700 mg every 2 weeks (n=21). A modified toxicity probability interval method was used to guide dose escalation. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 3 patients; 1 at LY3381916 240 mg twice daily (alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase increase and systemic inflammatory response syndrome) and 2 at LY3381916 240 mg qd in combination with PD-L1 inhibitor (fatigue and immune-related hepatitis). LY3381916, at the recommended phase II dose, 240 mg qd, in combination with PD-L1 inhibitor, produced maximal inhibition of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 activity in plasma and tumor tissue, and led to an increase of CD8 T cells in tumor tissue. In the combination dose expansion cohorts, 14 triple-negative breast cancer and 4 non-small cell lung cancer patients were enrolled. Treatment-related liver toxicity (grade ≥2 alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase increase or immune-related hepatitis) was the most prominent adverse event in triple-negative breast cancer patients (n=5, 35.7%). Best response was stable disease. These preliminary data suggest an alternative dose level of LY3381916 is needed for the combination with PD-L1 inhibitor. The combination clinical activity was limited in this study., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are limited data regarding the impact of body mass index (BMI) on outcomes in advanced breast cancer, especially in patients treated with endocrine therapy (ET) + cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors., Methods: A pooled analysis of individual patient-level data from MONARCH 2 and 3 trials was performed. Patients were classified according to baseline BMI into underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), normal (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (≥30 kg/m2) and divided into 2 treatment groups: abemaciclib + ET vs placebo + ET. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) according to BMI in each treatment group. Secondary endpoints were response rate, adverse events according to BMI, and loss of weight (≥5% from baseline) during treatment., Results: This analysis included 1138 patients (757 received abemaciclib + ET and 381 placebo + ET). There was no difference in PFS between BMI categories in either group, although normal-weight patients presented a numerically higher benefit with abemaciclib + ET (Pinteraction = .07). Normal and/or underweight patients presented higher overall response rate in the abemaciclib + ET group compared with overweight and/or obese patients (49.4% vs 41.6%, odds ratio = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.54 to 0.99) as well as higher neutropenia frequency (51.0% vs 40.4%, P = .004). Weight loss was more frequent in the abemaciclib + ET group (odds ratio = 3.23, 95% confidence interval = 2.09 to 5.01)., Conclusions: Adding abemaciclib to ET prolongs PFS regardless of BMI, showing that overweight or obese patients also benefit from this regimen. Our results elicit the possibility of a better effect of abemaciclib in normal and/or underweight patients compared with overweight and/or obese patients. More studies analyzing body composition parameters in patients under treatment with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors may further clarify this hypothesis., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: AsiDNA, a first-in-class oligonucleotide-mimicking double-stranded DNA breaks, acts as a decoy agonist to DNA damage response in tumour cells. It also activates DNA-dependent protein kinase and poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase enzymes that induce phosphorylation of H2AX and protein PARylation., Methods: The aim of this Phase 1 study was to determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of AsiDNA administered daily for 3 days in the first week then weekly thereafter. Twenty-two patients with advanced solid tumours were enrolled in 5 dose levels: 200, 400, 600, 900, and 1300 mg, using a 3 + 3 design., Results: The MTD was not reached. IV AsiDNA was safe. Two DLTs (grade 4 and grade 3 hepatic enzymes increased at 900 and 1300 mg), and two related SAE at 900 mg (grade 3 hypotension and grade 4 hepatic enzymes increased) were reported. AsiDNA PK increased proportionally with dose. A robust activation of DNA-PK by a significant posttreatment increase of γH2AX was evidenced in tumour biopsies., Conclusion: The dose of 600 mg was identified as the optimal dose for further clinical development., Clinical Trial Registration: Clinical trial registration (NCT number): NCT03579628.

Purpose of Review: We herein review some of the major patterns of resistance and lessons learned from the use of earlier targeted therapies in two genotype-driven solid tumors., Recent Findings: Targeted agents have rapidly expanded in the field of oncology over the past 2 decades. The breakthroughs achieved by these agents have been, however, hindered by the inevitable development of drug resistance. Intrinsic or acquired mechanisms of resistance eventually lead to treatment tolerance and tumoral plasticity with phenotypic switch and evasion of the original targeted pathway. Failures in such therapies also result from poor selectivity of the target, drug delivery, and unaffordable costs., Summary: Based on above findings, collaborative efforts are advancing at the molecular level to design better drugs or combinatorial strategies and to develop more sensitive assays to monitor responses and the emergence of resistance.

Background: Antibodies targeting programmed death-1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) have shown clinical activity in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This phase Ib cohort of the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial assessed the efficacy and safety of avelumab (anti-PD-L1) monotherapy in patients with mRCC as either first-line (1 L) or second-line (2 L) treatment., Methods: Patients with mRCC with a clear-cell component who were treatment naive (1 L subgroup) or had disease progression after one prior line of therapy (2 L subgroup) received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenous infusion every 2 weeks. Endpoints included confirmed best overall response, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), PD-L1 expression, and safety., Results: A total of 62 patients were enrolled in the 1 L subgroup, and 20 patients were enrolled in the 2 L subgroup. In the 1 L and 2 L subgroups, confirmed objective response rates were 16.1 and 10.0%, median DOR was 9.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-not evaluable) and not evaluable (95% CI, 6.9-not evaluable), median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.5-9.5) and 5.6 months (95% CI, 2.3-9.6), and median OS was not evaluable (95% CI, not evaluable) and 16.9 months (95% CI, 8.3-not evaluable), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 51 patients in the 1 L subgroup (82.3%) and 14 patients in the 2 L subgroup (70.0%). Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs occurred in eight patients in the 1 L subgroup (12.9%) and one patient in the 2 L subgroup (5.0%). No treatment-related deaths occurred., Conclusion: Avelumab showed clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in both the 1 L and 2 L treatment setting in patients with mRCC. These data support the use of avelumab in combination with other agents in mRCC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01772004 ; registered 21 January, 2013.

Purpose of Review: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are rapidly changing practice across different tumor settings. With this article, we reflect on how to assimilate the tsunami of ICIs data into clinical practice., Recent Findings: A tremendous increase on approvals, number of publications, and clinical trials ongoing with ICIs on many different tumor types., Summary: ICIs are innovative treatments that are showing a significant benefit on different tumors. More approvals and an explosive increase of knowledge around the usage of ICI are to be expected in the near future, bringing new challenges on how to integrate this fast-growing evidence with ICI into clinical practice. To be updated, oncologists could follow approved guidelines from relevant societies and complement it with an appropriate search from publication databases. There are also some available courses, conferences and online material that are useful to improve knowledge in this so rapidly changing environment. In the future, we believe the integration of artificial intelligence and learning machines will play an important role to facilitate best clinical practices in different fields of medicine but particularly for oncology.

Purpose of Review: The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current development of immuno-oncology in the (neo)adjuvant setting., Recent Findings: Several checkpoint inhibitors (CPis) have been approved for the treatment of advanced solid cancers, mostly for unresectable metastatic setting. Thus, the next logical step is to explore the potential of CPi in earlier stages of the disease., Summary: There are currently many ongoing trials investigating immunotherapy agents in the early setting in various tumor types, involving various CPis and other innovative immunotherapies, as well as combinations with either chemotherapy or radiotherapy. So far, reported results in melanoma, nonsmall-cell lung cancer, and nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer among others are promising. The neoadjuvant setting offers a high potential for translational research and identification of biomarkers with clinical utility.

Introduction : Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2-positive) BC represents up to 15% of all BC cases and is associated with a poor prognosis. Despite the substantial improvement obtained with the addition to the treatment of trastuzumab in this subtype of BC, disease recurrence can still occur. Areas covered : Anti-HER2 targeting drugs such as trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and T-DM1 have shown significant results in (neo)adjuvant setting. In this article, we will focus on available data for neratinib to reduce BC recurrence based mainly on the results of the ExteNET trial. This trial aimed to investigate whether neratinib can further reduce the risk of recurrence of patients diagnosed with HER2-positive BC. This trial demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of invasive disease-free survival, particularly in hormone receptor-positive population. In addition, this review provides an expert opinion and analysis of the current situation in the adjuvant HER2-positive BC setting and in particular the escalation strategy of HER2 targeting. Expert opinion : The treatment landscape of HER2 positive BC in this setting will evolve in the coming years with a need for clinical and molecular perspective tools to guide therapy.

Aim: This study aimed at exploring several brain metastatic prognostic scores in patients with renal cell carcinoma., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data of 93 metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients who were diagnosed with brain metastases between October 2005 and July 2016 who received targeted therapy. Potential prognostic factors (RTOG RPA, BS-BM, and a newly developed score CERENAL) were analyzed., Results: A total of 75 patients received targeted therapy. All scores showed prognostic value in progression-free survival after first-line treatment with CERENAL being the sole independent prognostic factor associated with improved duration of first-line treatment. Both RTOG RPA and CERENAL were potential prognosticators for overall survival, whereas only the CERENAL score was associated with prolonged disease-specific survival., Conclusion: Several prognostic scores can be useful to predict survival of patients with brain metastases from renal cancer, especially the newly developed CERENAL score., (Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: The relationship between cancer and thrombosis has been studied for years, but reliable guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in that situation are still unclear., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the files of 3159 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed solid tumors at Jules Bordet Institute from January 2008 to December 2011. Among them, 99 developed a symptomatic thromboembolic episode and were matched with 2 controls (nested case control). The aim was to identify risk factors of thromboembolic events and to validate in our setting the Khorana score., Results: In the cohort study, nodal status ≥ 2, presence of metastases, and primary tumor site were found to be the most significant predictive factors of a thromboembolic event (n = 99; 3.1%) in the multivariate analysis. In the nested study (n = 265), hemoglobin < 13 g/dL or treatment with a red cell growth factor, CRP ≥ 31.6 mg/L, creatinine level > 0.96 mg/dL, chronic inflammatory disease, and personal or familial history of thromboembolic events were found to be the most significant predictive factors of a thromboembolic event in the multivariate analysis. In our population, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the Khorana score were respectively 29%, 93%, 15%, and 96%., Conclusion: We confirm the value of the risk factors identified in the literature with the additional presence of nodal involvement, elevated CRP, and creatinine levels, which may be helpful for patient risk stratification and should be considered in future clinical trials. Our results also suggest that the Khorana score might help to identify patients who can safely be spared of thromboprophylaxis.

Importance: Dual blockade of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) may overcome immune checkpoint inhibition. It is unknown whether dual blockade can potentiate antitumor activity without compromising safety in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) and low or no PD-L1 tumor cell expression., Objective: To assess safety and objective response rate of durvalumab combined with tremelimumab., Design, Setting, and Participants: The CONDOR study was a phase 2, randomized, open-label study of Durvalumab, Tremelimumab, and Durvalumab in Combination With Tremelimumab in Patients With R/M HNSCC. Eligibility criteria included PD-L1-low/negative disease that had progressed after 1 platinum-containing regimen in the R/M setting. Patients were randomized (N = 267) from April 15, 2015, to March 16, 2016, at 127 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific., Interventions: Durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) + tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks) for 4 cycles, followed by durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks), or durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) monotherapy, or tremelimumab (10 mg/kg every 4 weeks for 7 doses then every 12 weeks for 2 doses) monotherapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Safety and tolerability and efficacy measured by objective response rate., Results: Among the 267 patients (220 men [82.4%]), median age (range) of patients was 61.0 (23-82) years. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (15.8%) treated with durvalumab + tremelimumab, 8 (12.3%) treated with durvalumab, and 11 (16.9%) treated with tremelimumab. Grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 8 patients (6.0%) in the combination arm only. Objective response rate (95% CI) was 7.8% (3.78%-13.79%) in the combination arm (n = 129), 9.2% (3.46%-19.02%) for durvalumab monotherapy (n = 65), and 1.6% (0.04%-8.53%) for tremelimumab monotherapy (n = 63); median overall survival (95% CI) for all patients treated was 7.6 (4.9-10.6), 6.0 (4.0-11.3), and 5.5 (3.9-7.0) months, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with R/M HNSCC and low or no PD-L1 tumor cell expression, all 3 regimens exhibited a manageable toxicity profile. Durvalumab and durvalumab + tremelimumab resulted in clinical benefit, with minimal observed difference between the two. A phase 3 study is under way., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02319044.

Objective: To assess the impact of trabectedin rechallenge., Patients and Methods: In the T-DIS trial (NCT0130309), after the 6 initial cycles of trabectedin, patients who were free from progressive disease (PD) were randomly assigned either to continuous treatment with trabectedin (C arm) or therapy interruption (I arm). Patients randomized in the interruption arm were allowed to restart trabectedin in case of PD. Herein we report an update of the impact of trabectedin discontinuation after subsequent rechallenge., Results: From February 2011 to March 2013, 27 and 26 nonprogressive patients were randomized to C and I arm, respectively. Twenty-two of 26 patients in I arm and 25 of 27 patients in C arm received 7 cycles and more. After randomization, the median number of cycles was similar in both arms (C arm: 5 cycles [range, 1 to 34]; I arm: 6 cycles [range, 1 to 48], P=0.96). After a median follow-up from randomization of 35.3 months, continuous treatment with trabectedin was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with the rechallenge arm (5.3 vs. 3.5 mo, P=0.019). The observed difference in median overall survival from the seventh cycle did not meet the level of significance (26.0 vs. 14.9 mo, P=0.14). The safety profile was similar in both arms. Mean time spent without symptoms and toxicity (Q-TWIST) was higher in the C arm, but the difference did not reach the level of significance., Conclusions: We have demonstrated that trabectedin retains its activity when patients are rechallenged on progression after a treatment break.

Introduction: HER2-positive disease is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer that has been revolutionized by anti-HER2 directed therapies. Multiple drugs have been developed and are currently in clinical use, including trastuzumab, lapatinib, pertuzumab, T-DM1, and neratinib, alone or combined in 'dual HER2-blockade' regimens. Areas covered: A comprehensive literature review was performed regarding the current state and the future of combination regimens containing anti-HER2 agents, focusing on their efficacy, toxicity, and cost-effectiveness. Expert commentary: The combination of trastuzumab/pertuzumab is approved in all disease settings, while trastuzumab/neratinib is approved in the adjuvant setting and trastuzumab/lapatinib in metastatic disease. Meanwhile, as breast cancer biology and resistance mechanisms become clearer, combinations with drugs like PI3K/Akt/mTOR inhibitors, CDK4/6 inhibitors, anti-PD(L)1 antibodies, endocrine therapy, and new anti-HER2 agents (panHER and HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors, bispecific antibodies, anti-HER3 antibodies, and antibody-drug conjugates) are being extensively tested in clinical trials. More specific strategies for the 'triple-positive' (estrogen receptor-positive/HER2-positive) disease are also being explored. However, there is an urgent need for the development of predictive biomarkers for a better tailoring of anti-HER2 directed therapy. This is the only way to further improve clinical outcomes and quality of life and to decrease costs and toxicities of unnecessary treatments.

Brain metastases are the most common central nervous system tumors in adults, and incidence of brain metastases is increasing due to both improved diagnostic techniques (e.g. magnetic resonance imaging) and increased cancer patient survival through advanced systemic treatments. Outcomes of patients remain disappointing and treatment options are limited, usually involving multimodality approaches. Brain metastases represent an unmet medical need in solid tumor care, especially in breast cancer, where brain metastases are frequent and result in impaired quality of life and death. Challenges in the management of brain metastases have been highlighted in this review. Innovative research and treatment strategies, including prevention approaches and emerging systemic treatment options for brain metastases of breast cancer, are further discussed., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Purpose of Review: Despite recent changes in clinical research methodology, many challenges remain in drug development methodology., Recent Findings: Advances in molecular biology and cancer treatments have changed the clinical research landscape. Thus, we moved from empirical clinical oncology to molecular and immunological therapeutic approaches. Along with this move, adapted dose-limiting toxicities definitions, endpoints, and dose escalation methods have been proposed. Moreover, the classical frontier between phase I, phase II, and phase III has become unclear in particular for immunological approaches. So, investigators are facing major challenges in drug development methodology., Summary: We propose to individualize clinical research using innovative approaches to significantly improve patient outcomes and targeting what is considered unmet need. Integrating high level of translational research and performing well designed biomarker studies with great potential for clinical practice are of utmost importance. This could be performed within new models of clinical research networks and by building a strong collaboration between academic, cooperative groups, on-site investigators, and pharma.

Bipolar disorders belong to the spectrum of mood disorders and represent a serious psychiatric comorbidity. Behaviors adopted by bipolar patients can foster cancer occurrence but also impact its management, especially during acute depressive or manic episode. Oncologists must adapt their protocols in order to obtain the best compliance for treatment and avoid any possible mood destabilization, with the inherent risk of suicidal attempt. Potential interactions between mood-stabilizing agents (lithium, divalproate, atypical antipsychotics, and anticonvulsivants) and oncologic treatment (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, corticotherapy) will be particularly watched. To do so, a closely collaboration with the oncopsychiatrist but also with the referent or liaison psychiatry team is necessary during the patient's oncologic care. Some clinical vignettes will illustrate the modalities of care of bipolar disorders in oncology., (Copyright © 2017 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The use of antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is challenging and often requires dose adaptation and transient or definitive treatment interruption. We believe that the inappropriate recommended dose of TKI is related to no optimal study designs in the early development of the drug., Recent Findings: As an example of this, we described herein some pitfalls made in the successive development of sunitinib, sorafenib, regorafenib, and pazopanib, but there are several other examples of early drugs development illustrating this issue., Summary: Regarding the antiangiogenic TKI mechanism of action, we strongly feel that innovative approaches are needed such as extended dose-limiting toxicity period or a better definition of the induced toxicity. Furthermore, before classic phase II/III trials, an intermediate step may be needed to better define the recommended phase II dose, such as a randomized phase I/II trial with several expansion cohorts.

Gemcitabine is largely used in the management of sarcomas. We have systematically reviewed all of the fully published trials that investigated a gemcitabine-based regimen in the management of sarcomas and then provided a grade of recommendations and a level of evidence for every recommendation. Because of conflicting results from successive non-randomized phase II trials, gemcitabine activity alone in unselected pretreated soft tissue sarcomas could not be properly assessed. Gemcitabine alone and gemcitabine-docetaxel appeared to both be active in pretreated uterine and non-uterine leiomyosarcoma (1B;I). Gemcitabine-dacarbazine appeared to be active in pretreated unselected soft tissue sarcomas (1B;I). According the GeDDIS phase III trial (not yet fully published), gemcitabine-docetaxel appeared slightly less active than doxorubicine and more toxic than doxorubicine in chemo-naïve metastatic soft tissue sarcoma patients. Because of the absence of controlled randomized trials, the benefit of gemcitabine-docetaxel as an adjuvant treatment in high-grade uterine leiomyosarcoma could not be appropriately assessed. The level of activity of gemcitabine/docetaxel in bone sarcomas cannot be ascertained with the available data. The level of evidence supporting the use of gemcitabine-based regimens in sarcoma management is limited. Confirmatory phase III trials are warranted when phase II trials suggest some preliminary activity., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study aimed to identify predictors of tumor control (TC) in metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients receiving first-line chemotherapy., Methods: A development cohort of 68 patients from a prospective multicenter trial (NCT01248299) was used to identify predictors of TC at first radiological tumor assessment and to generate a predictive score for TC. That score was applied in an independent retrospective single-center validation cohort of 60 consecutive patients., Results: Multivariate analysis identified three predictors of TC: body mass index ≥18.5 (OR 4.5, 95% CI 0.91-22.5), absence of bone metastasis (OR 4.6, 95% CI 0.91-23.2) and albumin ≥35 g/l (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.0-12.1). Based on the presence or absence of these three independent prognosticators, we built a predictive model using a score from 0 to 3. In the development cohort, the TC rates were 14.3 and 78.0% and in the validation cohort 12.5 and 44.2%, for scores of 0-1 and 2-3, respectively. With negative predictive values of 85 and 88% in the development and validation cohorts, respectively, we were able to identify patients with a very low probability of TC., Conclusion: We have developed and validated a score that can be easily determined at the bedside to predict TC in metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Factitious diseases and pathomimias and particularly Munchausen's syndrome, due to their rarity, are poorly diagnosed by medical teams working in oncology. Consequences can be serious and result in unadapted surgery or non justified implementation of chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens. These patients simulate diseases in order to attract medical attention. They might become belligerent and are likely to promptly discharge themselves from hospital if they do not get the desired attention or are unmasked. With two following case reports and literature review, we would like to alert clinicians about difficulties encountered in diagnosis and management of factitious disorders. When faced with this diagnosis, the patient will tend to deny reality and break contact with the medical team who exposed him. Medical peregrinating behavior surrounded by conflicts with medical team, past psychiatric illness, history of working in the medical and paramedical field and social isolation can guide the diagnosis. Somaticians and especially surgeons working in the oncologic field must remain vigilant about this diagnosis and collaborate with either the psycho-oncologic team or the consultation-liaison psychiatric team. Some recommendations for medical professionals how to cope with these patients will be suggested., (Copyright © 2015 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The everyday use of targeted therapies, whose mechanisms of action differ from the conventional cytotoxic agents, also causes the emergence of new toxicities as metabolic disorders about which little is known. We propose a systematic literature review of the incidence and physiopathology of targeted therapies-induced metabolic disorders and provide some management guidance., Recent Findings: In recent decades, significant breakthroughs in molecular oncology and immunology have been made. The administration of targeted therapies and immunotherapy has been associated with metabolic toxicities such as endocrine disorders, dyslipidemia, induced diabetes, and electrolytic disorders. Current data show that metabolic disorders are becoming increasingly common, but rarely life threatening and often reversible with prompt therapeutic intervention., Summary: In the era of targeted therapies, medical oncologists should know the symptoms, carefully monitor patients for potential metabolic disorders, and manage these emerging side-effects with the help of endocrinologists and other medical specialists.

Background: It is well established that inflammation promotes cancer, including melanoma, although the exact mechanisms involved are less known. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that inflammatory factors affect the cancer stem cell (CSC) compartment responsible for tumor development and relapse., Results: Using an inducible histone 2B-GFP fusion protein as a tracer of cell divisional history, we determined that tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which is a classical pro-inflammatory cytokine, enlarged the CSC pool of GFP-positive label-retaining cells (LRCs) in tumor-like melanospheres. Although these cells acquired melanoma stem cell markers, including ABCB5 and CD271, and self-renewal ability, they lost their capacity to differentiate, as evidenced by the diminished MelanA expression in melanosphere cells and the loss of pigmentation in a skin equivalent model of human melanoma. The undifferentiated cell phenotype could be reversed by LY294002, which is an inhibitor of the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway, and this reversal was accompanied by a significant reduction in CSC phenotypic markers and functional properties. Importantly, the changes induced by a transient exposure to TNF were long-lasting and observed for many generations after TNF withdrawal., Conclusions: We conclude that pro-inflammatory TNF targets the quiescent/slow-cycling melanoma SC compartment and promotes PI3K/AKT-driven expansion of melanoma SCs most likely by preventing their asymmetrical self-renewal. This TNF effect is maintained and transferred to descendants of LRC CSCs and is manifested in the absence of TNF, suggesting that a transient exposure to inflammatory factors imprints long-lasting molecular and/or cellular changes with functional consequences long after inflammatory signal suppression. Clinically, these results may translate into an inflammation-triggered accumulation of quiescent/slow-cycling CSCs and a post-inflammatory onset of an aggressive tumor.

Approximately 2-5 % of patients with breast cancer (BC) develop leptomeningeal metastasis (LM). 103 consecutive patients with BC were diagnosed with LM and initially treated with intra-CSF liposomal cytarabine from 2007 to 2011 at a single institution. Correlations were determined with respect to patient characteristics and BC subtype with regard to overall survival (OS). At LM diagnosis, 61 % of patients had a 0-2 performance status (PS), the remaining 39 % were severely neurologically impaired. Regardless of PS, all patients received intra-cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) liposomal cytarabine as first-line treatment. Systemic treatment and radiotherapy were also given in 58 and 17 % of patients respectively as clinically appropriate. Second- (intra-CSF thiotepa) and third-line (intra-CSF methotrexate) treatment was administered in 24 and 6 patients respectively. Median OS was 3.8 months (range 1 day-2.8 years). In multivariate analysis, an initial combined treatment, a second-line treatment with intra-CSF thiotepa, an initial clinical response, and a non-'ER/PR/HER2 negative' BC were significantly associated with a better OS. Median OS in this heterogeneous retrospective case series was similar to that of previously observed BC patients treated with intra-CSF methotrexate suggesting intra-CSF liposomal cytarabine is a reasonable first choice therapy of BC-related LM.