Search

BackgroundThe Worldwide Innovative Network (WIN) Consortium has developed the Simplified Interventional Mapping System (SIMS) to better define the cancer molecular milieu based on genomics/transcriptomics from tumor and analogous normal tissue biopsies. SPRING is the first trial to assess a SIMS-based tri-therapy regimen in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsPatients with advanced NSCLC (no EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 alterations; PD-L1 unrestricted; ≤2 prior therapy lines) received avelumab, axitinib, and palbociclib (3 + 3 dose escalation design).ResultsFifteen patients were treated (five centers, four countries): six at each of dose levels 1 (DL1) and DL2; three at DL3. The most common ≥Grade 3 adverse events were neutropenia, hypertension, and fatigue. The recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) was DL1: avelumab 10 mg/kg IV q2weeks, axitinib 3 mg po bid, and palbociclib 75 mg po daily (7 days off/21 days on). Four patients (27%) achieved a partial response (PR) (progression-free survival [PFS]: 14, 24, 25 and 144+ weeks), including two after progression on pembrolizumab. Four patients attained stable disease (SD) that lasted ≥24 weeks: 24, 27, 29, and 64 weeks. At DL1 (RP2D), four of six patients (66%) achieved stable disease (SD) ≥6 months/PR (2 each). Responders included patients with no detectable PD-L1 expression and low tumor mutational burden.ConclusionsOverall, eight of 15 patients (53%) achieved clinical benefit (SD ≥ 24 weeks/PR) on the avelumab, axitinib, and palbociclib combination. This triplet showed antitumor activity in NSCLC, including in tumors post-pembrolizumab progression, and was active at the RP2D, which was well tolerated. NCT03386929 clinicaltrial.gov.

A number of important drugs used to treat cancer-many of which serve as the backbone of modern chemotherapy regimens-have outdated prescribing information in their drug labeling. The Food and Drug Administration is undertaking a pilot project to develop a process and criteria for updating prescribing information for longstanding oncology drugs, based on the breadth of knowledge the cancer community has accumulated with the use of these drugs over time. This article highlights a number of considerations for labeling updates, including selecting priorities for updating; data sources and evidentiary criteria; as well as the risks, challenges, and opportunities for iterative review to ensure prescribing information for oncology drugs remains relevant to current clinical practice.

A number of important drugs used to treat cancer-many of which serve as the backbone of modern chemotherapy regimens-have outdated prescribing information in their drug labeling. The Food and Drug Administration is undertaking a pilot project to develop a process and criteria for updating prescribing information for longstanding oncology drugs, based on the breadth of knowledge the cancer community has accumulated with the use of these drugs over time. This article highlights a number of considerations for labeling updates, including selecting priorities for updating; data sources and evidentiary criteria; as well as the risks, challenges, and opportunities for iterative review to ensure prescribing information for oncology drugs remains relevant to current clinical practice.

Background: Dysregulated pathways in cancer may be hub addicted. Identifying these dysregulated networks for targeting might lead to novel therapeutic options. Objective: Considering the hypothesis that central hubs are associated with increased lethality, identifying key hub targets within central networks could lead to the development of novel drugs with improved efficacy in advanced metastatic solid tumors. Design: Exploring transcriptomic data (22,000 gene products) from the WINTHER trial (N = 101 patients with various metastatic cancers), in which both tumor and normal organ-matched tissue were available. Methods: A retrospective in silico analysis of all genes in the transcriptome was conducted to identify genes different in expression between tumor and normal tissues (paired t -test) and to determine their association with survival outcomes using survival analysis (Cox proportional hazard regression algorithm). Based on the biological relevance of the identified genes, hub targets of interest within central networks were then pinpointed. Patients were grouped based on the expression level of these genes (K -mean clustering), and the association of these groups with survival was examined (Cox proportional hazard regression algorithm, Forest plot, and Kaplan–Meier plot). Results: We identified four key central hub genes— PLOD3, ARHGAP11A, RNF216, and CDCA8, for which high expression in tumor tissue compared to analogous normal tissue had the most significant correlation with worse outcomes. The correlation was independent of tumor or treatment type. The combination of the four genes showed the highest significance and correlation with the poorer outcome: overall survival (hazard ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 10.5 (3.43–31.9) p = 9.12E−07 log-rank test in a Cox proportional hazard regression model). Findings were validated in independent cohorts. Conclusion: The expression of PLOD3, ARHGAP11A, RNF216, and CDCA8 constitute, when combined, a prognostic tool, agnostic of tumor type and previous treatments. These genes represent potential targets for intercepting central hub networks in various cancers, offering avenues for novel therapeutic interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ImportanceCombining biologic monoclonal antibodies with chemotherapeutic cytotoxic drugs provides clinical benefit to patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, but the optimal choice of the initial biologic therapy in previously untreated patients is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine if the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to the combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) regimen or the combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen is superior as first-line therapy in advanced or metastatic KRAS wild-type (wt) colorectal cancer.Design, setting, and participantsPatients (≥18 years) enrolled at community and academic centers throughout the National Clinical Trials Network in the United States and Canada (November 2005-March 2012) with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors were KRAS wt chose to take either the mFOLFOX6 regimen or the FOLFIRI regimen as chemotherapy and were randomized to receive either cetuximab (n = 578) or bevacizumab (n = 559). The last date of follow-up was December 15, 2015.InterventionsCetuximab vs bevacizumab combined with either mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimen chosen by the treating physician and patient.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was overall survival. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival and overall response rate, site-reported confirmed or unconfirmed complete or partial response.ResultsAmong 1137 patients (median age, 59 years; 440 [39%] women), 1074 (94%) of patients met eligibility criteria. As of December 15, 2015, median follow-up for 263 surviving patients was 47.4 months (range, 0-110.7 months), and 82% of patients (938 of 1137) experienced disease progression. The median overall survival was 30.0 months in the cetuximab-chemotherapy group and 29.0 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .08). The median progression-free survival was 10.5 months in the cetuximab-chemotherapy group and 10.6 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified HR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Response rates were not significantly different, 59.6% vs 55.2% for cetuximab and bevacizumab, respectively (difference, 4.4%, 95% CI, 1.0%-9.0%, P = .13).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with KRAS wt untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to chemotherapy as initial biologic treatment.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00265850.

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with various solid tumors with germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations treated with talazoparib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced solid tumors, measurable disease (RECIST), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. Patients with germline BRCA -mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were not eligible for this study. Primary end point was disease control (DC) determined by investigator assessment of objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+). The results were evaluated on the basis of a one-sided exact binomial test with a null DC rate of 15% versus 35% (power = 0.82; α =.10). Secondary end points were OR, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of SD, and safety. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (20 cancer types) with BRCA1/2 mutations were enrolled from December 2019 to September 2021 and collapsed into a single histology pooled cohort for analysis. All patients were evaluable for efficacy. One complete response, nine partial response, and six SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 57% (one-sided 90% CI, 43 to 100) and 36% (95% CI, 19 to 56), respectively. The null hypothesis of a 15% DC rate was rejected (P <.001). Patients with OR had the following tumor types: breast (2), nonmelanoma skin, mesothelioma, stomach, uterus, non–small cell lung cancer, ovary, hepatocellular carcinoma, and pancreas. Thirteen patients had at least one grade 3-5 adverse event (AE) or serious AE at least possibly related to talazoparib. All were consistent with the drug label except bilirubin increase and hyponatremia (both grade 3 AEs). CONCLUSION: Talazoparib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors and BRCA1/2 mutations, including cancer types for which poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors are not yet US Food and Drug Administration–approved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer with BRCA1 / 2 mutations treated with olaparib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced pancreatic cancer, measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options available. Genomic testing was performed in Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified, College of American Pathologists-accredited site selected laboratories. Simon's two-stage design was used with a primary end point of disease control (DC), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary end points included OR, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety. RESULTS: Thirty patients with BRCA1 / 2 mutations were enrolled from November 2016 to August 2019. The median number of reported previous therapies was 3 (range, 1-10). Two patients were not evaluable and excluded from efficacy analyses. Two patients with complete response, three with partial response and three with SD16+, were observed for DC and OR rates of 31% (90% CI, 18 to 40; P =.04) and 18% (95% CI, 6 to 37), respectively. The median PFS was 8 (95% CI, 8 to 15) weeks, and the median OS was 38 (95% CI, 21 to 65) weeks. Three patients had at least one drug-related grade 3 adverse event or serious adverse event of anemia, fever, or oral mucositis. CONCLUSION: Olaparib showed antitumor activity in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer with BRCA1 / 2 mutations extending findings of recent studies of olaparib in patients with this disease. @ASCO #TAPUR confirms and extends olaparib antitumor activity in pretreated patients w/BRCA1/2 mutated pancreatic cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeConventional staging methods are inadequate to identify patients with stage II colon cancer (CC) who are at high risk of recurrence after surgery with curative intent. ColDx is a gene expression, microarray-based assay shown to be independently prognostic for recurrence-free interval (RFI) and overall survival in CC. The objective of this study was to further validate ColDx using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens collected as part of the Alliance phase III trial, C9581.Patients and methodsC9581 evaluated edrecolomab versus observation in patients with stage II CC and reported no survival benefit. Under an initial case-cohort sampling design, a randomly selected subcohort (RS) comprised 514 patients from 901 eligible patients with available tissue. Forty-nine additional patients with recurrence events were included in the analysis. Final analysis comprised 393 patients: 360 RS (58 events) and 33 non-RS events. Risk status was determined for each patient by ColDx. The Self-Prentice method was used to test the association between the resulting ColDx risk score and RFI adjusting for standard prognostic variables.ResultsFifty-five percent of patients (216 of 393) were classified as high risk. After adjustment for prognostic variables that included mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, ColDx high-risk patients exhibited significantly worse RFI (multivariable hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.5; P < .01). Age and MMR status were marginally significant. RFI at 5 years for patients classified as high risk was 82% (95% CI, 79% to 85%), compared with 91% (95% CI, 89% to 93%) for patients classified as low risk.ConclusionColDx is associated with RFI in the C9581 subsample in the presence of other prognostic factors, including MMR deficiency. ColDx could be incorporated with the traditional clinical markers of risk to refine patient prognosis.

PurposeThe impact of a personalized cancer treatment strategy (ie, matching patients with drugs based on specific biomarkers) is still a matter of debate.MethodsWe reviewed phase II single-agent studies (570 studies; 32,149 patients) published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012 (PubMed search). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared for arms that used a personalized strategy versus those that did not.ResultsMultivariable analysis (both weighted multiple linear regression and random effects meta-regression) demonstrated that the personalized approach, compared with a nonpersonalized approach, consistently and independently correlated with higher median RR (31% v 10.5%, respectively; P < .001) and prolonged median PFS (5.9 v 2.7 months, respectively; P < .001) and OS (13.7 v 8.9 months, respectively; P < .001). Nonpersonalized targeted arms had poorer outcomes compared with either personalized targeted therapy or cytotoxics, with median RR of 4%, 30%, and 11.9%, respectively; median PFS of 2.6, 6.9, and 3.3 months, respectively (all P < .001); and median OS of 8.7, 15.9, and 9.4 months, respectively (all P < .05). Personalized arms using a genomic biomarker had higher median RR and prolonged median PFS and OS (all P ≤ .05) compared with personalized arms using a protein biomarker. A personalized strategy was associated with a lower treatment-related death rate than a nonpersonalized strategy (median, 1.5% v 2.3%, respectively; P < .001).ConclusionComprehensive analysis of phase II, single-agent arms revealed that, across malignancies, a personalized strategy was an independent predictor of better outcomes and fewer toxic deaths. In addition, nonpersonalized targeted therapies were associated with significantly poorer outcomes than cytotoxic agents, which in turn were worse than personalized targeted therapy.

In order to ascertain the impact of a biomarker-based (personalized) strategy, we compared outcomes between US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cancer treatments that were studied with and without such a selection rationale. Anticancer agents newly approved (September 1998 to June 2013) were identified at the Drugs@FDA website. Efficacy, treatment-related mortality, and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event endpoints were analyzed and compared in registration trials for these agents. All statistical tests were two-sided. Fifty-eight drugs were included (leading to 57 randomized [32% personalized] and 55 nonrandomized trials [47% personalized], n = 38 104 patients). Trials adopting a personalized strategy more often included targeted (100% vs 65%, P < .001), oral (68% vs 35%, P = .001), and single agents (89% vs 71%, P = .04) and more frequently permitted crossover to experimental treatment (67% vs 28%, P = .009). In randomized registration trials (using a random-effects meta-analysis), personalized therapy arms were associated with higher relative response rate ratios (RRRs, compared with their corresponding control arms) (RRRs = 3.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.51 to 5.82, vs RRRs = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.76 to 2.47, adjusted P = .03), longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.51, vs HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.65, adjusted P < .001) and a non-statistically significantly longer OS (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.83, vs HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.85, adjusted P = .07) compared with nonpersonalized trials. Analysis of experimental arms in all 112 registration trials (randomized and nonrandomized) demonstrated that personalized therapy was associated with higher response rate (48%, 95% CI = 42% to 55%, vs 23%, 95% CI = 20% to 27%, P < .001) and longer PFS (median = 8.3, interquartile range [IQR] = 5 vs 5.5 months, IQR = 5, adjusted P = .002) and OS (median = 19.3, IQR = 17 vs 13.5 months, IQR = 8, Adjusted P = .04). A personalized strategy was an independent predictor of better RR, PFS, and OS, as demonstrated by multilinear regression analysis. Treatment-related mortality rate was similar for personalized and nonpersonalized trials. A biomarker-based approach was safe and associated with improved efficacy outcomes in FDA-approved anticancer agents.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a leading cause of death worldwide. Targeted monotherapies produce high regression rates, albeit for limited patient subgroups, who inevitably succumb. We present a novel strategy for identifying customized combinations of triplets of targeted agents, utilizing a simplified interventional mapping system (SIMS) that merges knowledge about existent drugs and their impact on the hallmarks of cancer. Based on interrogation of matched lung tumor and normal tissue using targeted genomic sequencing, copy number variation, transcriptomics, and miRNA expression, the activation status of 24 interventional nodes was elucidated. An algorithm was developed to create a scoring system that enables ranking of the activated interventional nodes for each patient. Based on the trends of co-activation at interventional points, combinations of drug triplets were defined in order to overcome resistance. This methodology will inform a prospective trial to be conducted by the WIN consortium, aiming to significantly impact survival in metastatic NSCLC and other malignancies.

PurposeA greater understanding of the biology of tumor recurrence should improve adjuvant treatment decision making. We conducted a validation study of the 12-gene recurrence score (RS), a quantitative assay integrating stromal response and cell cycle gene expression, in tumor specimens from patients enrolled onto Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 9581.Patients and methodsCALGB 9581 randomly assigned 1,713 patients with stage II colon cancer to treatment with edrecolomab or observation and found no survival difference. The analysis reported here included all patients with available tissue and recurrence (n = 162) and a random (approximately 1:3) selection of nonrecurring patients. RS was assessed in 690 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples with quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction by using prespecified genes and a previously validated algorithm. Association of RS and recurrence was analyzed by weighted Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsContinuous RS was significantly associated with risk of recurrence (P = .013) as was mismatch repair (MMR) gene deficiency (P = .044). In multivariate analyses, RS was the strongest predictor of recurrence (P = .004), independent of T stage, MMR, number of nodes examined, grade, and lymphovascular invasion. In T3 MMR-intact (MMR-I) patients, prespecified low and high RS groups had average 5-year recurrence risks of 13% (95% CI, 10% to 16%) and 21% (95% CI, 16% to 26%), respectively.ConclusionThe 12-gene RS predicts recurrence in stage II colon cancer in CALGB 9581. This is consistent with the importance of stromal response and cell cycle gene expression in colon tumor recurrence. RS appears to be most discerning for patients with T3 MMR-I tumors, although markers such as grade and lymphovascular invasion did not add value in this subset of patients.

The conceptual framework of pragmatism in clinical trials is explored using the American Society of Clinical Oncology's pragmatic, non-randomized, phase II, multi-center basket clinical trial, the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study (NCT02693535) as a model. The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study aims to identify signals of drug activity when Food and Drug Administration approved drugs are matched to pre-specified genomic targets in patients with advanced cancer outside of their approved indication(s). The objectives of the study are to generate evidence of potential signals of activity in targeted therapies prescribed in an off-label setting as well as to expose and educate community cancer centers to genomic testing and precision medicine through the study protocol. The principles of pragmatic trial design can be applied across a broad spectrum of evidence-generation strategies, from explanatory trials to real-world evidence studies, and are briefly discussed. American Society of Clinical Oncology's Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study falls closer to the pragmatic end of this spectrum as it seeks to assess the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration approved drugs used outside their approved indications under usual care conditions, yielding results generalizable to the population that would likely receive the intervention in practice, while still adhering to rigorous data quality standards. The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study's pragmatic objectives, characteristics, strengths, and limitations in its implementation are discussed and demonstrate that a large, multi-center, precision medicine basket trial can be mounted in the context of community practice and can generate clinically useful information with minimal burden to patients and clinical trial sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]