A prospective, comprehensive registry that integrates the molecular analysis of pediatric and adolescent melanocytic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Childhood melanocytic tumors represent a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, and additional research is needed to better define the natural history of these tumors. METHODS: The authors developed a comprehensive, prospective registry called Molecular Analysis of Childhood Melanocytic Tumors for children and adolescents with an atypical Spitz tumor/Spitz melanoma (AST/SM), conventional or adult-type melanoma (CM), melanoma arising in a giant congenital nevus (MCM), or atypical melanocytic proliferation of other types (OT) to better define the clinical behavior of these lesions by incorporating an integrated clinicopathologic and molecular analysis using centralized pathology review and various platforms, including fluorescence in situ hybridization; array comparative genomic hybridization; and whole genome, exome, and capture targeted panels. RESULTS: From May 2016 to November 2019, 70 children were enrolled with a median age at diagnosis of 9.1 years. Thirty-seven had AST/SM, 17 had CM, 4 had MCM, and 12 had OT. Patients with AST/SM were younger (median age, 7 years), and their tumor most commonly arose in the extremities and trunk. The most common gene rearrangements included MAP3K8 and ALK. None of the 33 patients who underwent a TERT promoter mutation analysis had a mutation, and all patients were alive. Among the CM patients, the median age was 13 years; 11 had a BRAFV600E mutation, and 7 had a TERT promoter mutation. Three patients died of their disease. All 4 patients with MCM harbored an NRASQ61 mutation and died of their disease. The OT group was heterogenous, and all patients survived. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of an integrated clinicopathologic and genomic analysis identifies distinct subgroups of pediatric melanocytic lesions that have different clinical behaviors. The integration of this combined diagnostic modality can help to individualize diagnoses and treatments for these patients.

A phase I trial of talazoparib and irinotecan with and without temozolomide in children and young adults with recurrent or refractory solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib combined with irinotecan and temozolomide demonstrated efficacy in a murine Ewing sarcoma model. Based on these data, we conducted a phase I trial of talazoparib and irinotecan with/without temozolomide in paediatric patients with recurrent/refractory solid malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cohorts of 3-6 patients with recurrent/refractory solid malignancies received escalating doses of oral talazoparib and intravenous irinotecan (arm A) and oral talazoparib, oral temozolomide and intravenous irinotecan (arm B) in a 3 + 3 design. Talazoparib was administered on days 1-6, and intravenous irinotecan and oral temozolomide were administered on days 2-6, of a 21-day course. Serum for talazoparib and irinotecan pharmacokinetics was obtained during course 1. UGT1A1 polymorphism and Schlafen family member 11 (SLFN11) immunohistochemical staining were performed. RESULTS: Forty-one patients (20 males; median age, 14.6 years; 24 with recurrent disease) were evaluable for dose escalation. Twenty-nine and 12 patients were treated on arm A and arm B, respectively, for a total of 208 courses. The most common diagnosis was Ewing sarcoma (53%). The most common ≥grade III haematologic toxicities in arms A and B included neutropenia (78% and 31%, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (42% and 31%, respectively). In arms A and B, febrile neutropenia (24% and 14%, respectively) and diarrhoea (21% and 7%, respectively) were the most common ≥grade III non-hematologic toxicities. Six patients (Ewing sarcoma [5 patients] and synovial sarcoma [1 patient]) had a response (1 with a complete response, 5 with a partial response). The objective response rates were 10.3% (arm A) and 25% (arm B). Pharmacokinetic testing demonstrated no evidence of drug-drug interaction between talazoparib and irinotecan. UGT1A1 was not related to response. SLFN11 positivity was associated with best response to therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of talazoparib and irinotecan with/without temozolomide is feasible and active in Ewing sarcoma, and further investigation is warranted.

UV and sunlight driven photoligation of quantum dots: understanding the photochemical transformation of the ligands.

We have recently reported that photoinduced ligation of ZnS-overcoated quantum dots (QDs) offers a promising strategy to promote the phase transfer of these materials to polar and aqueous media using multidentate lipoic acid (LA)-modified ligands. In this study we investigate the importance of the underlying parameters that control this process, in particular, whether or not photoexcited QDs play a direct role in the photoinduced ligation. We find that irradiation of the ligand alone prior to mixing with hydrophobic QDs is sufficient to promote ligand exchange. Furthermore, photoligation onto QDs can also be carried out simply by using sunlight. Combining the use of Ellman's test with matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization and electrospray ionization mass spectrometry, we probe the nature of the photochemical transformation of the ligands. We find that irradiation (using either a UV photoreactor or sunlight) alters the nature of the disulfide groups in the lipoic acid, yielding a different product mixture than what is observed for chemically reduced ligands. Irradiation of the ligand in solution generates a mixture of monomeric and oligomeric compounds. Ligation onto the QDs selectively favors oligomers, presumably due to their higher coordination onto the metal-rich QD surfaces. We also show that photoligation using mixed ligands allows the preparation of reactive nanocrystals. The resulting QDs are coupled to proteins and peptides and tested for cellular staining. This optically controlled ligation of QDs combined with the availability of a variety of multidentate and multifunctional LA-modified ligands open new opportunities for developing fluorescent platforms with great promises for use in imaging and sensor design.

A single-arm pilot phase II study of gefitinib and irinotecan in children with newly diagnosed high-risk neuroblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Gefitinib potently inhibits neuroblastoma proliferation in vitro, and the gefitinib/irinotecan combination shows greater than additive activity against neuroblastoma xenografts. This Phase II pilot study estimated the rate of response to two courses of intravenous irinotecan plus oral gefitinib in children with untreated high-risk neuroblastoma. METHODS: Two courses of irinotecan [15 mg/m(2)/day (daily ×5)×2] were combined with 12 daily doses of gefitinib (112.5 mg/m(2)/day). Response was assessed after 6 weeks. A response rate >55% was sought. RESULTS: Of the 23 children enrolled, 19 were evaluable for response. Median age at diagnosis was 3.1 years (range, 18 days-12.7 years). Most patients were older than 24 months (n = 20; 87%), male (n = 18; 78%), white (n = 16; 70%), had INSS 4 disease (n = 19; 83%), and had adrenal primary tumors (n = 18; 78%); nine patients (39%) had amplified tumor MYCN. The toxicity of gefitinib/irinotecan was mild and reversible (nausea, 5/20; diarrhea, 8/20; vomiting, 7/20). Five patients had partial responses; 9 others had a 23%-60% decrease in primary tumor volume and/or improved MIBG scans or decreased bone or bone marrow tumor burden. Median (range) systemic irinotecan exposure (AUC) was 283 ng/ml*hr (range, 163-890 ng/ml*hr) and 28 ng/ml*hr (3.6-297 ng/ml*hr) for the active metabolite, SN-38. No relation was observed between response and tumor expression of EGFR, MRP2-4, ABCG2, and Pgp. CONCLUSIONS: Although the gefitinib/irinotecan combination was very tolerable and induced responses, it was not sufficiently active to warrant further investigation. Initial investigational studies of this type can preclude the necessity for larger, longer, and costlier trials.

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of topotecan administered orally once daily for 5 days for 2 consecutive weeks to pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors.

PURPOSE: We conducted a phase I trial of the injectable formulation of topotecan given orally once daily for 5 days for 2 consecutive weeks (qd x 5 x 2) in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cohorts of two to six patients received oral topotecan at 0.8, 1.1, 1.4, 1.8, and 2.3 mg/m(2)/d every 28 days for a maximum of six courses. Twenty patients (median age, 10.6 years) received a total of 51 courses. Eight patients received topotecan capsules during course 2 only. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicity occurred at 2.3 mg/m(2)/d and consisted of prolonged grade 4 neutropenia (n = 2), grade 3 stomatitis as a result of radiation recall (n = 1), grade 3 hemorrhage (epistaxis) in the presence of grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 1), and grade 3 diarrhea in the presence of Clostridium difficile infection (n = 1). Dose-limiting, prolonged grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in one patient at 1.4 mg/m(2)/d. Infrequent toxicities were mild nausea, vomiting, elevated liver ALT or AST, and rash. The maximum-tolerated dosage was 1.8 mg/m(2)/d; the mean (+/- standard deviation) area under the plasma concentration-time curve for topotecan lactone at this dosage was 20.9 +/- 8.4 ng/mL. h. The population mean (+/- standard error) oral bioavailability of the injectable formulation was 0.27 +/- 0.03; that of capsules was 0.36 +/- 0.06 (P =.16). Disease stabilized in nine of 19 assessable patients for 1.5 to 6 months. CONCLUSION: Oral topotecan (1.8 mg/m(2)/d) on a qd x 5 x 2 schedule is well tolerated and warrants additional testing in pediatric patients.