Cardiovascular and Thromboembolic Events in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Receiving Intensified Neoadjuvant Androgen Deprivation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Several phase II trials have investigated neoadjuvant novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) followed by radical prostatectomy (RP) in prostate cancer (PC) patients. However, data regarding complications of intense hormone therapy and surgical complications are scarce. Our objective was to evaluate the occurrence of cardiovascular (CV) and thromboembolic (TE) adverse events (AE) in patients with localized PC who have received intense neoadjuvant ADT followed by prostatectomy. A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and conference abstracts was performed. The strategies were developed and applied for each electronic database on March 7th, 2023. Eligible studies included randomized and single-arm trials testing ARSIs prior to prostatectomy that adequately reported safety data regarding CV and TE AE, peri-operative complications, and mortality during therapy. Pooled incidence (PI) of AE with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was estimated using a random effects model. Quality assessment and reporting followed Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and PRISMA guidelines. PROSPERO: CRD42022344104. Nine randomized controlled trials and three single-arm phase II trials were included, comprising 702 patients (702 patients for CV AE and 522 for perioperative complications). The neoadjuvant regimen was classified as monotherapy with ARSI (100 patients), combination therapy with ADT + ARSI (383 patients), or ADT + ARSI + ARSI (219 patients). The PI of TE within the perioperative interval was 4.2% (95% CI = 2.6%-6.6%, I2 = 0.0%, P = .65), and the PI for CV AE was 4.6% (95% CI = 3.1%-6.7%, I2 = 0.0%, P = .71). Seven deaths were reported, resulting in a PI of 2.2% (95% CI = 1.3%-3.8%, I2 = 0.0%, P = .99), of which two were considered treatment-related and occurred within the perioperative period. The PI of hypertension grade 3-5 was 7.3% (95% CI = 4.8%-11.0%, I2 = 38.8%, P = .04). CV and TE AE associated with intense neoadjuvant hormone therapy in patients with localized PC can occur in up to 4.6% of cases. Our data warns for further assessment of thrombotic risk and prophylactic anticoagulation in this setting.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma management: the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG) consensus update.

PURPOSE: Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease with a high mortality rate. Management has drastically changed with the new era of immunotherapy, and novel strategies are being developed; however, identifying systemic treatments is still challenging. This paper presents an update of the expert panel consensus from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group on advanced renal cell carcinoma management in Brazil. METHODS: A panel of 34 oncologists and experts in renal cell carcinoma discussed and voted on the best options for managing advanced disease in Brazil, including systemic treatment of early and metastatic renal cell carcinoma as well as nonclear cell tumours. The results were compared with the literature and graded according to the level of evidence. RESULTS: Adjuvant treatments benefit patients with a high risk of recurrence after surgery, and the agents used are pembrolizumab and sunitinib, with a preference for pembrolizumab. Neoadjuvant treatment is exceptional, even in initially unresectable cases. First-line treatment is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the choice of treatment is based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMCD) risk score. Patients at favourable risk receive ICIs in combination with TKIs. Patients classified as intermediate or poor risk receive ICIs, without preference for ICI + ICIs or ICI + TKIs. Data on nonclear cell renal cancer treatment are limited. Active surveillance has a place in treating favourable-risk patients. Either denosumab or zoledronic acid can be used for treating metastatic bone disease. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are the standards of care for advanced disease. The utilization and sequencing of these therapeutic agents hinge upon individual risk scores and responses to previous treatments. This consensus reflects a commitment to informed decision-making, drawn from professional expertise and evidence in the medical literature.

PD-L1 gene amplification and focality: relationship with protein expression.

PD-L1 (CD274) amplification occurs in a small subset of malignancies and may predict anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy responsiveness. We hypothesized that both copy number (CN) and focality of cancer-related PD-L1 amplifications impact protein expression, and, thus, analyzed solid tumors that underwent comprehensive genomic profiling between March 2016 and February 2022 at Foundation Medicine. PD-L1 CN alterations were detected using a comparative genomic hybridization-like method. PD-L1 CN changes were correlated with PD-L1 protein expression (DAKO 22C3 antibody) by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Overall, 60,793 samples were analyzed (most frequent histologies: lung adenocarcinoma (20%), colon adenocarcinoma (12%), lung squamous carcinoma (8%)). Using a definition of CD274 CN ≥ specimen ploidy +4 (6 copies), 1.21% of tumors (738/60,793) were PD-L1 amplified. Focality category distribution was as follows: <0.1 mB (n=18 (2.4%)), ≥0.1 to <4 mB (n=230 (31.1%)), ≥4 to <20 mB (n=310 (42%)), ≥20mB (n=180 (24.4%)). Lower levels of PD-L1 amplification (below specimen ploidy +4) were more frequently non-focal amplifications compared to higher levels. In addition, more focal amplification (<0.1 mB) correlated with higher PD-L1 IHC expression. Median tumor proportion score (TPS) for samples with PD-L1 amplification (ploidy ≥+4) according to focality were 87.5% (<0.1 mB), 80% (≥0.1 to <4 mB), 40% (≥4 to <20 mB), 1% (≥20mB). In specimens with PD-L1 ploidy less than +4, but highly focal (<0.1 mB), the 75th percentile of PD-L1 expression by TPS was 80%. Conversely, non-focal (≥20 mB) PD-L1 amplification (ploidy ≥+4) can present high PD-L1 expression (TPS≥50%), albeit infrequently (0.09% of our cohort). In conclusion, PD-L1 expression measured by IHC is influenced by PD-L1 amplification level and focality. Further correlation between amplification, focality, protein expression and therapeutic outcome for PD-L1 and other targetable genes warrants exploration.

Multicenter Database of Patients with Germ-Cell Tumors: A Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group Registry (LACOG 0515).

INTRODUCTION: Germ-cell tumors (GCTs) are the most common malignancy in young men. There is a paucity of data on GCTs in developing countries. LACOG 0515 study aimed to evaluate clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes in patients with GCTs from Brazilian cancer centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study evaluating male patients diagnosed with GCTs from 2000 to 2018 in 13 Brazilian hospitals. We described baseline characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 1232 patients were included, with a median age of 30 years. Histology was seminoma in 47.1% and non-seminoma GCT (NSGCT) in 52.9%. The primary tumor site was testis in 96.5%. At diagnosis, clinical stage I was present in 68.1% and 34.7% and clinical stages IS/II/III in 31.9% and 65.2% of patients with seminoma and NSCGT, respectively. Following orchiectomy, 55.2% of patients with clinical stage I were managed with surveillance. The 5-year disease-free survival rates among patients with stage I were 98.0% in seminoma and 92.3% in NSGCT, with 5-year OS of 99.6% and 97.6%, respectively. Among patients with advanced disease (IS, II, and III), the 5-year PFS were 88.7% in seminoma and 68.7% in NSGCT, with 5y-OS of 97.6% and 82.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the largest Brazilian cohort of GCTs. Our results show a high rate of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with clinical stage I. Although our data demonstrate slightly inferior PFS compared with the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group and other contemporary series, the OS rates were similar.

Cardiovascular toxicity following immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors may be associated with multiple immune-related toxicities. Cardiovascular adverse effects are underreported in clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate cardiovascular adverse effects incidence among patients with solid tumors receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors in randomized clinical trials and the relative risk of presenting these effects compared to placebo or best supportive care. The search was conducted through MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases from January 1st, 2010 until July 1st, 2020. Outcomes were reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: 57 randomized clinical trials including 12,118 patients were included. All grade CV AEs incidence rate was 8.32% (95% CI = 6.35%-10.53%). When only grade 3-5 CV AEs were considered, ICIs were significantly associated with increased risk than placebo or BSC (RR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.06-1.73; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis corroborates the hypothesis of increased CV risk related to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Identification of the TP53 p.R337H Variant in Tumor Genomic Profiling Should Prompt Consideration of Germline Testing for Li-Fraumeni Syndrome.

PURPOSE: Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is rare in the worldwide population, but it is highly prevalent in the Brazilian population because of a founder mutation, TP53 p.R337H, accounting for 0.3% of south and southeastern population. Clinical criteria for LFS may not identify all individuals at risk of carrying the Brazilian founder mutation because of its lower penetrance and variable expressivity. This variant is rarely described in databases of somatic mutations. Somatic findings in tumor molecular profiling may give insight to identify individuals who might be carriers of LFS and allow the adoption of risk reduction strategies for cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We determined the frequency of the TP53 p.R337H variant in tumor genomic profiling from 755 consecutive Brazilian patients with pan-cancer. This is a retrospective cohort from January 2013 to March 2020 at a tertiary care center in Brazil. RESULTS: The TP53 p.R337H variant was found in 2% (15 of 755) of the samples. The mutation allele frequency ranged from 30% to 91.7%. A total of seven patients were referred for genetic counseling and germline testing after tumor genomic profiling results were disclosed. All the patients who proceeded with germline testing (6 of 6) confirmed the diagnosis of LFS. Family history was available in 12 cases. Nine patients (9 of 12) did not meet LFS clinical criteria. CONCLUSION: The identification of the TP53 p.R337H variant in tumor genomic profiling should be a predictive finding of LFS in the Brazilian population and should prompt testing for germline status confirmation.

Consensus on the Treatment and Follow-Up for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Report From the First Global Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC).

PURPOSE: To present a summary of the recommendations for the treatment and follow-up for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as acquired through a questionnaire administered to 99 physicians working in the field of prostate cancer in developing countries who attended the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries. METHODS: A total of 106 questions out of more than 300 questions addressed the use of imaging in staging mCRPC, treatment recommendations across availability and response to prior drug treatments, appropriate drug treatments, and follow-up, and those same scenarios when limited resources needed to be considered. Responses were compiled and the percentages were presented by clinicians to support each response. Most questions had five to seven relevant options for response including abstain and/or unqualified to answer, or in the case of yes or no questions, the option to abstain was offered. RESULTS: Most of the recommendations from this panel were in line with prior consensus, including the preference of a new antiandrogen for first-line therapy of mCRPC. Important aspects highlighted in the scenario of limited resources included the option of docetaxel as treatment preference as first-line treatment in several scenarios, docetaxel retreatment, consideration for reduced doses of abiraterone, and alternative schedules of an osteoclast-targeted therapy. CONCLUSION: There was wide-ranging consensus in the treatment for men with mCRPC in both optimal and limited resource settings.

Consensus on the Treatment and Follow-Up for the Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Report From the First Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries.

PURPOSE: To present a summary of the recommendations for the treatment and follow-up for the biochemical recurrence of castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa) as acquired through a questionnaire administered at the Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries. METHODS: A total of 27 questions were identified as relating to this topic. Responses from the clinician were tallied and are presented in percentage format. Topics included the use of imaging in staging, treatment recommendations across different patient scenarios of life expectancy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time, and follow-up for nonmetastatic castration-resistant PCa. RESULTS: A consensus agreed that in optimal conditions, positron emission tomography-computed tomography with prostate-specific membrane antigen would be used although in limited resource situations the combined use of CT of the abdomen and pelvic (or pelvic MRI), a bone scan, and a CT of the thorax or chest x-ray was recommended. In cases when PSA levels double in < 10 months, more than 90% of clinicians agreed on the use of apalutamide or enzalutamide, regardless of life expectancy. With a doubling time of more than 10 months, > 54% of experts recommended no treatment independent of life expectancy. More than half of the experts, regardless of resources, recommended follow-up with a physical examination and PSA levels every 3-6 months and imaging only in the case of symptoms. CONCLUSION: The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support management for biochemical recurrence of castration-resistant PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data.

Consensus on diagnosis and management of non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer in Brazil: focus on patient, selection, treatment efficacy, side effects and physician's perception according to patient comorbidities

ABSTRACT Background: Non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC) has seen important developments in drugs and diagnostic tools in the last two years. New hormonal agents have demonstrated improvement in metastasis free survival in M0 CRPC patients and have been approved by regulatory agencies in Brazil. Additionally, newer and more sensitive imaging tools are able to detect metastasis earlier than before, which will impact the percentage of patients staged as M0 CRPC. Based on the available international guidelines, a group of Brazilian urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on the diagnosis and treatment of M0 CRPC in Brazil. These results are reviewed and summarized and associated recommendations are provided. Objective: To present survey results on management of M0 CRPC in Brazil. Design, setting, and participants: A panel of six Brazilian prostate cancer experts determined 64 questions concerning the main areas of interest: 1) staging tools, 2) treatments, 3) side effects of systemic treatment/s, and 4) osteoclast-targeted therapy. A larger panel of 28 Brazilian prostate cancer experts answered these questions in order to create country-specific recommendations discussed in this manuscript. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. These answers are the panelists' opinions, not a literature review or meta-analysis. Therapies not yet approved in Brazil were excluded from answer options. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two non-answers. Results were tabulated in real time. Conclusions: The results and recommendations presented can be used by Brazilian physicians to support the management of M0 CRPC patients. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data, however, for Brazil, guidelines for diagnosis and management of M0 CRPC patients have not been developed. This document will serve as a point of reference when confronting this disease stage.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatments of advanced intermediate- or poor-risk renal-cell carcinoma: a number needed to treat analysis from the Brazilian private perspective.

BACKGROUND: Considering clinical benefits of new combination therapies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), this study aims to calculate the number needed to treat (NTT) and the cost of preventing an event (COPE) for pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P + A), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N + I) as first-line treatments, from the Brazilian private perspective. METHODS: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data for intermediate- and poor-risk groups were obtained from KEYNOTE-426 and CHECKMATE-214 trials for P + A and N + I, respectively, versus sunitinib as mRCC first-line treatment. RESULTS: Considering a 12-month time horizon, 6 patients should be treated with P + A to prevent one death with sunitinib use, resulting in a COPE of 3,773,865 BRL. Using N + I, NNT for 12-month OS rate was 13 compared to sunitinib, with a COPE of 6,357,965 BRL. Regarding PFS data, NNT was also 6 when comparing P + A versus sunitinib, with an estimated COPE of 3,773,865 BRL. Estimated NNT was 20 comparing N + I and sunitinib, resulting in a COPE of 10,172,744 BRL. Cost differences between two treatment options, reached more than 6 million BRL for PFS, and 2 million BRL for OS. CONCLUSION: At the 12-month landmark, P + A suggests better economic scenario versus N + I as first-line mRCC treatment option for intermediate- and poor-risk groups, through an indirect comparison using sunitinib as a common comparator.

Consensus on diagnosis and management of non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer in Brazil: focus on patient, selection, treatment efficacy, side effects and physician's perception according to patient comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC) has seen important developments in drugs and diagnostic tools in the last two years. New hormonal agents have demonstrated improvement in metastasis free survival in M0 CRPC patients and have been approved by regulatory agencies in Brazil. Additionally, newer and more sensitive imaging tools are able to detect metastasis earlier than before, which will impact the percentage of patients staged as M0 CRPC. Based on the available international guidelines, a group of Brazilian urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on the diagnosis and treatment of M0 CRPC in Brazil. These results are reviewed and summarized and associated recommendations are provided. OBJECTIVE: To present survey results on management of M0 CRPC in Brazil. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A panel of six Brazilian prostate cancer experts determined 64 questions concerning the main areas of interest: 1) staging tools, 2) treatments, 3) side effects of systemic treatment/s, and 4) osteoclast-targeted therapy. A larger panel of 28 Brazilian prostate cancer experts answered these questions in order to create country-specific recommendations discussed in this manuscript. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. These answers are the panelists' opinions, not a literature review or meta-analysis. Therapies not yet approved in Brazil were excluded from answer options. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two non-answers. Results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSIONS: The results and recommendations presented can be used by Brazilian physicians to support the management of M0 CRPC patients. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data, however, for Brazil, guidelines for diagnosis and management of M0 CRPC patients have not been developed. This document will serve as a point of reference when confronting this disease stage.

Oncology Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly spread all over the world in the past several months. No effective treatment for COVID-19 has been established. High transmissibility and considerable mortality rates have forced many national governments to implement quarantine measures. Many patients with cancer rely on clinical trials to receive their oncologic care, but the routine conduct of clinical trials has substantially changed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The oncology research community should implement formal policies based on the guidance given from regulatory agencies, with the goal of minimizing the risks of COVID-19 infection while maintaining appropriate oncologic treatments for patients during this pandemic.

Spectrum and Clinical Activity of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors: Regulatory Approval and Under Development.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to highlight the clinical development of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in cancer therapy. We focus on detailing the registration trials that have led to FDA-approved indications of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 therapies and future strategies. RECENT FINDINGS: The number of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors approved and in studies continues to grow, in different scenarios. Although the first wave of approvals included advanced cancers, localized disease is under growing interest in recent trials and approvals. Several of these agents are migrating from a monotherapy strategy to combinations (especially with targeted agents and chemotherapy). To date, several studies are being conducted for a better understanding of predictive biomarkers, mechanisms of resistance, optimal treatment duration, and immune-related toxicities. This article summarizes the recent history of modern cancer immunotherapy, provides an overview of novel drug-development considerations, and thus, illustrates the opportunities these new generations of immunotherapies represent.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) management: an expert panel recommendation from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG).

PURPOSE: The outcome of RCC has improved considerably in the last few years, and the treatment options have increased. LACOG-GU and LARCG held a consensus meeting to develop guidelines to support the clinical decisions of physicians and other health professionals involved in the care of RCC patients. METHODS: Eighty questions addressing relevant advanced RCC treatments were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. Consensus was determined as 75% agreement. For questions with less than 75% agreement, a new discussion was held, and consensus was determined by the majority of votes after the second voting session. RESULTS: The recommendations were based on the highest level of scientific evidence or by the opinion of the RCC experts when no relevant research data were available. CONCLUSION: This manuscript provides guidance for advanced RCC treatment according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG expert recommendations.

Impact of the biomarker enrichment strategy in drug development.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, new oncology therapies were developed using a biomarker for patient selection. In the era of cancer genomics, this paradigm is expected to increase. Most cytotoxic chemotherapies and other oncological treatments were historically approved without a biomarker. However, this strategy seems to be less efficient. We reviewed the biomarker-based strategy and its impact in cancer drug development. AREAS COVERED: Oncology drugs approval rates are low and most of the drugs that failed to be approved were in late stages of development. In addition to that, attrition rates are high. The use of biomarkers in drug development has shown higher response rates, longer progression-free survival rates and even higher overall survival rates. Hence, the biomarker-based strategy seems to be associated with more successful drug programs, including a shorter timeline and higher likelihood of success. EXPERT OPINION: Even though the development of biomarker-driven strategies is promising, there are some challenges surrounding this field of study, such as reducing the cost of drug development, enhancing the technique of biomarkers identification (aiming more specific biomarkers and considering tumor heterogeneity) and exploring the role of next-generation sequencing tests in drug development. Also, collaboration between clinicians, scientists and regulatory agencies is fundamental.

Renal cell cancer treatment: an expert panel recommendation from the Latin American cooperative group-genitourinary and the Latin American renal cancer group: focus on surgery.

BACKGROUND: Renal cell cancer (RCC) is one of the 10 most common cancers in the world, and its incidence is increasing, whereas mortality is declining only in developed countries. Therefore, two collaborative groups, The Latin American Oncology Cooperative Group-Genitourinary Section (LACOG-GU) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG), held a consensus meeting to develop this guideline. METHODS: Issues (134) related to the treatment of RCC were previously formulated by a panel of experts. The voting panel comprised 26 specialists (urologists and medical oncologists) from the LACOG-GU/LARCG. A consensus was reached if 75% agreement was achieved. If there was less concordance, a new discussion was undertaken, and a consensus was determined by the most votes after a second voting session. RESULTS: The expert meeting provided recommendations that were in line with the global literature; 75.0% of the recommendations made by the panel of experts were evidence-based level A, 22.5% of the recommendations were level B, and 2.5% of the recommendations were level D. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests recommendations for the surgical treatment of RCC according to the LACOG-GU/LARCG experts.

An appraisal of drug development timelines in the Era of precision oncology.

The effects of incorporating a biomarker-based (personalized or precision) selection strategy on drug development timelines for new oncology drugs merit investigation. Here we accessed documents from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database for anticancer agents approved between 09/1998 and 07/2014 to compare drugs developed with and without a personalized strategy. Sixty-three drugs were included (28 [44%] personalized and 35 [56%] non-personalized). No differences in access to FDA-expedited programs were observed between personalized and non-personalized drugs. A personalized approach for drug development was associated with faster clinical development (Investigational New Drug [IND] to New Drug Application [NDA] submission; median = 58.8 months [95% CI 53.8-81.8] vs. 93.5 months [95% CI 73.9-112.9], P =.001), but a similar approval time (NDA submission to approval; median=6.0 months [95% CI 5.5-8.4] vs. 6.1 months [95% CI 5.9-8.3], P = .756) compared to a non-personalized strategy. In the multivariate model, class of drug stratified by personalized status (targeted personalized vs. targeted non-personalized vs. cytotoxic) was the only independent factor associated with faster total time of clinical drug development (clinical plus approval phase, median = 64.6 vs 87.1 vs. 112.7 months [cytotoxic], P = .038). Response rates (RR) in early trials were positively correlated with RR in registration trials (r = 0.63, P = <.001), and inversely associated with total time of drug development (r = -0.29, P = .049). In conclusion, targeted agents were developed faster than cytotoxic agents. Shorter times to approval were associated, in multivariate analysis, with a biomarker-based clinical development strategy.

Mechanisms of resistance and sensitivity to anti-HER2 therapies in HER2+ breast cancer.

Breast Cancer (BC) is a highly prevalent disease. A woman living in the United States has a 12.3% lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer [1]. It is the most common female cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death in women [2]. Of note, amplification or overexpression of Human Epidermal Receptor 2 (HER2) oncogene is present in approximately 18 to 20% of primary invasive breast cancers, and until personalized therapy became available for this specific BC subtype, the worst rates of Overall Survival (OS) and Recurrence-Free Survival (RFS) were observed in the HER2+ BC cohort, compared to all other types, including triple negative BC (TNBC) [3].HER2 is a member of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) family. Other family members include EGFR or HER1, HER3 and HER4. HER2 can form heterodimers with any of the other three receptors, and is considered to be the preferred dimerization partner of the other HER or ErbB receptors [4]. Phosphorylation of tyrosine residues within the cytoplasmic domain is the result of receptor dimerization and culminates into initiation of a variety of signalling pathways involved in cellular proliferation, transcription, motility and apoptosis inhibition [5].In addition to being an important prognostic factor in women diagnosed with BC, HER2 overexpression also identifies those patients who benefit from treatment with agents that target HER2, such as trastuzumab, pertuzumab, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and small molecules tyrosine kinase inhibitors of HER2 [6, 11, 127].In fact, trastuzumab altered the natural history of patients diagnosed with HER2+ BC, both in early and metastatic disease setting, in a major way [8-10]. Nevertheless, there are many women that will eventually develop metastatic disease, despite being treated with anti-HER2 therapy in the early disease setting. Moreover, advanced tumors may reach a point where no anti-HER2 treatment will achieve disease control, including recently approved drugs, such as T-DM1.This review paper will concentrate on major biological pathways that ultimately lead to resistance to anti-HER2 therapies in BC, summarizing their mechanisms. Strategies to overcome this resistance, and the rationale involved in each tactics to revert this scenario will be presented to the reader.

Phase I trials of antitumour agents: fundamental concepts.

Phase I trials are an important step in the development of new drugs. Because of the advancing knowledge of cancer's molecular biology, these trials offer an important platform for the development of new agents and also for patient treatment. Therefore, comprehension of their peculiar terminology and methodology are increasingly important. Our objectives were to review the fundamental concepts of phase I designs and to critically contextualise this type of study as a therapeutic option for patients with refractory cancer.

Synergy between VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors and chemotherapy agents in the phase I clinic.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that chemotherapy synergizes with VEGF/VEGFR (VEGF/R) inhibitors in patients with advanced solid malignancies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients treated on phase I protocols between December 2004 and July 2013 (n = 1,498) were included in this analysis. The primary outcome was clinical benefit, defined as stable disease ≥ 6 months, complete response, or partial response. Two odds ratios (OR) for achieving clinical benefit were calculated: one for patients treated with VEGF/R inhibitors (OR with VEGF/R) and another for patients treated without (OR without VEGF/R). To compare these two ORs, an interaction term was included in the multivariate model: (chemotherapy/factor of interest)×(VEGF/R). We took significant interaction terms (Pinteraction < 0.05) to suggest effect modification (either synergy or antagonism) with VEGF/R inhibitors. RESULTS: All patients treated with VEGF/R inhibitors exhibited higher OR for clinical benefit than those who were not [OR = 1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5-2.4; P < 0.0001]. Use of chemotherapy agents concomitant with VEGF/R inhibitors was associated with significantly higher OR for clinical benefit compared with chemotherapy use without VEGF/R inhibitors [OR with VEGF/R = 1.6 (95% CI, 1.1-2.5) vs. OR without VEGF/R = 0.4 (95% CI, 0.3-0.6), Pinteraction = 0.02]. Specifically, the antimetabolite class was associated with the greatest increase in OR for clinical benefit [OR with VEGF/R = 2.7 (95% CI, 1.5-4.7) vs. OR without VEGF/R = 0.2 (95% CI 0.1-0.3), Pinteraction = 0.004]. CONCLUSIONS: VEGF/R inhibitor was found to synergize with chemotherapeutics. This effect was most pronounced with the antimetabolite class.