Clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA sequencing with a large panel: a National Center for Precision Medicine (PRISM) study.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) sequencing is a promising approach for tailoring therapy in patients with cancer. We report hereby the results from a prospective study where we investigated the impact of comprehensive molecular profiling of ctDNA in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Genomic analysis was performed using the FoundationOne Liquid CDx Assay [324 genes, tumor mutational burden (TMB), microsatellite instability status]. Each individual genomic report was reviewed and discussed weekly by a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB). Actionable targets were classified by ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) tier leading to molecular-based treatment suggestions wherever it was possible. RESULTS: Between December 2020 and November 2021, 1772 patients with metastatic solid tumors underwent molecular profiling. Median time to assay results was 12 days. Results were contributive for 1658 patients (94%). At least one actionable target was detected in 1059 patients (64%) with a total of 1825 actionable alterations including alteration of the DNA damage repair response pathway (n = 336, 18%), high TMB (>16 mutations/Mb; n = 243, 13%), PIK3CA mutations (n = 150, 8%), ERBB family pathway alterations (n = 127, 7%), PTEN alterations (n = 95, 5%), FGFR alterations (n = 67, 4%) and MET activations (n = 13, 0.7%). The MTB recommended a matched therapy for 597 patients (56%) with a total of 819 therapeutic orientations: clinical trials (n = 639, 78%), off-label/compassionate use (n = 81, 10%), approved drug (n = 51, 6%), and early access program (n = 48, 6%). In total, 122 patients (21%) were treated. Among the assessable patients (n = 107), 4 (4%) had complete response, 35 (33%) had partial response, 27 (25%) had stable disease, and 41 (38%) a progressive disease as best response. The median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 4.7 months (95% confidence interval 2.7-6.7 months) and 8.3 months (95% confidence interval 4.7-11.9 months) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ctDNA sequencing with a large panel is an efficient approach to match patients with advanced cancer with targeted therapies.

Single-cell DNA-seq depicts clonal evolution of multiple driver alterations in osimertinib-resistant patients.

BACKGROUND: The development of targeted agents, such as osimertinib for EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), has drastically improved patient outcome, but tumor resistance eventually always occurs. In osimertinib-resistant NSCLC, the emergence of a second molecular driver alteration (such as ALK, RET, FGFR3 fusions or BRAF, KRAS mutations) has been described. Whether those alterations and the activating EGFR mutations occur within a single cancer cell or in distinct cell populations is largely debated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumor sequencing was used to identify the acquired resistance mechanisms to osimertinib in the MATCH-R trial (NCT0251782). We implemented single-cell next-generation sequencing to investigate tumor heterogeneity on patient's frozen tissues in which multiple alterations have been identified. Patient-derived models, cell lines, and patient-derived xenografts were exposed to specific inhibitors to investigate combination treatment strategies. RESULTS: Among the 45 patients included in MATCH-R who progressed on osimertinib, 9 developed a second targetable alteration (n = 2 FGFR3-TACC3, n = 1 KIF5B-RET, n = 1 STRN-ALK fusions; n = 2 BRAFV600E, n = 1 KRASG12V, n = 1 KRASG12R, n = 1 KRASG12D mutations). Single-cell analysis revealed that the two driver alterations coexist within one single cancer cell in the four patients whose frozen samples were fully contributive. A high degree of heterogeneity within samples and sequential acquisitions of molecular events were highlighted. A combination treatment concomitantly targeting the two driver alterations was required on the corresponding patient-derived models to restore cell sensitivity, which was consistent with clinical data showing efficacy of brigatinib in the patient with ALK fusion after progression to osimertinib and crizotinib administered sequentially. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct molecular driver alterations at osimertinib resistance coexist with initial EGFR mutations in single cancer cells. The clonal evolution of cancer cell populations emphasized their heterogeneity leading to osimertinib relapse. Combining two targeted treatments is effective to achieve clinical benefit.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of the anti-CEACAM5-DM4 antibody-drug conjugate tusamitamab ravtansine (SAR408701) in patients with advanced solid tumors: first-in-human dose-escalation study.

BACKGROUND: Tusamitamab ravtansine (SAR408701) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule-5 (CEACAM5) and a cytotoxic maytansinoid that selectively targets CEACAM5-expressing tumor cells. In this phase I dose-escalation study, we evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity of tusamitamab ravtansine in patients with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, had locally advanced/metastatic solid tumors that expressed or were likely to express CEACAM5, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 or 1. Patients were treated with ascending doses of tusamitamab ravtansine intravenously every 2 weeks (Q2W). The first three dose levels (5, 10, and 20 mg/m2) were evaluated using an accelerated escalation protocol, after which an adaptive Bayesian procedure was used. The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the first two cycles, graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) v4.03 criteria. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received tusamitamab ravtansine (range 5-150 mg/m2). The DLT population comprised 28 patients; DLTs (reversible grade 3 microcystic keratopathy) occurred in three of eight patients treated with tusamitamab ravtansine 120 mg/m2 and in two of three patients treated with 150 mg/m2. The maximum tolerated dose was identified as 100 mg/m2. Twenty-two patients (71%) experienced ≥1 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), seven patients (22.6%) experienced ≥1 treatment-related grade ≥3 TEAE, and three patients (9.7%) discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. The most common TEAEs were asthenia, decreased appetite, keratopathy, and nausea. Three patients had confirmed partial responses. The mean plasma exposure of tusamitamab ravtansine increased in a dose-proportional manner from 10 to 150 mg/m2. CONCLUSIONS: Tusamitamab ravtansine had a favorable safety profile with reversible, dose-related keratopathy as the DLT. Based on the overall safety profile, pharmacokinetic data, and Bayesian model recommendations, the maximum tolerated dose of tusamitamab ravtansine was defined as 100 mg/m2 Q2W.

Immunotherapy phase I trials in patients Older than 70 years with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: The development of immune checkpoint blocker development brings new hope in older patients (OPs) because of clinical efficacy and low toxicity. Clinical indications are rising steadily, but very few data are available in the geriatric population where comorbidities, reduced functional reserve and immunosenescence may affect efficacy and tolerance. METHODS: All cases of patients enrolled in immunotherapy phase I trials between January 2012 and December 2016 in the Drug Development Department (DITEP) at Gustave Roussy were retrospectively reviewed. Case-control analysis was performed in OPs (patients ≥ 70 years) matched to younger patients (YPs) (patients < 70 years) by trial and treatment dose. We compared cumulative incidence, grade and type of immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) and survival outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 46 OPs and the 174 YPs enrolled in 14 phase I/II trials, 10 (22%) and 23 (13%) patients experienced grade III-IV IrAEs. Cumulative incidence of grade I-II IrAEs was significantly higher in OPs than YPs (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between the two groups for grade III-IV IrAEs (p = 0.50). Older age was not associated with lower dose intensity of treatment (p = 0.14). No significant difference was observed between OPs and YPs in median progression-free survival (hazards ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.94-2.11] p = 0.09) or median overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI [0.61-1.39] p = 0.77). CONCLUSION: Immune checkpoint blockade appears to be an acceptable treatment option for OPs in the setting of phase I trials.

Patterns of responses in metastatic NSCLC during PD-1 or PDL-1 inhibitor therapy: Comparison of RECIST 1.1, irRECIST and iRECIST criteria.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are an important tool in the therapeutic strategy against metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, radiological evaluation is challenging due to the emergence of atypical patterns of responses. Several evaluation criteria have been proposed, such as the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), version 1.1, immune -related RECIST (irRECIST) and iRECIST, but have not been systematically compared in a homogeneous population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a monocentric retrospective analysis of consecutive advanced NSCLC patients treated with an anti-programmed cell death-1 or anti-program death-ligand 1. Response patterns and the discordance between RECIST 1.1, irRECIST and iRECIST guidelines were described, and associations of response patterns and clinical outcome were explored. RESULTS: Overall, 160 patients treated between February 2013 and October 2016 were included. Atypical responses were observed in 20 patients (13%), including eight pseudoprogressions (PsPDs) (5%) and 12 dissociated responses (8%). Thirteen of the 20 patients demonstrated clinical benefit. Per the RECIST 1.1, 37 patients (23%) showed an objective response or stable disease, and 123 patients (77%) exhibited progression. Eighty progressive patients were assessable for irRECIST and iRECIST: 15 patients were assessed differently; however, only three (3.8%) mismatches with a theoretical impact on the therapeutic decision were identified. Patients with PsPD or dissociated response had higher overall survival than patients with true progression. CONCLUSION: Atypical responses (PsPD/dissociated response) occurred in 13% of NSCLC patients under immune checkpoint inhibitors. Based on survival analyses, the RECIST 1.1 evaluation underestimated the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors in 11% of the progressive patients. Immune-related RECIST and iRECIST identified these unconventional responses, with a 3.8% discrepancy rate.

Phase I study of temsirolimus in combination with cetuximab in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies suggest synergistic antitumour effects of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor such as temsirolimus combined with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody such as cetuximab. METHODS: Temsirolimus (T) and cetuximab (C) were combined and escalated in cohorts of patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumours, respectively from 15 to 25 mg and 150-250 mg/m2, until the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined. Effort was made in the expansion cohort to enrol patients harbouring a molecular aberration in the human epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and/or phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways. Paired biopsies were optional to evaluate pathway modulation. RESULTS: Among 39 patients enrolled, three experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs): pulmonary embolism (C200 + T20), stomatitis (C250 + T20) and acneiform rash (C250 + T25). The weekly C 250 mg/m2 and T 25 mg dose level was selected as the MTD. The most common treatment-related adverse events were: acneiform rash (97%), oral mucositis (82%), fatigue (59%), nausea (41%) and diarrhoea (36%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were respectively 2.0 months [95% CI: 1.8, 3.5] and 7.5 months [95% CI: 5.5, 11.9]. Among all patients, partial responses (PRs) and stable diseases (SDs) were observed in 2 (5.1%) and 18 patients (46.2%), respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) in patients with a molecular aberration was 2/14 (14%), versus 0/24 in those without molecular aberration. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of T + C showed significant but manageable toxicities. Due to modest clinical activity, further evaluation is not recommended. Molecular selection could potentially increase the objective response rate and should be implemented during drug development.

Osimertinib benefit in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with T790M-mutation detected by circulating tumour DNA.

Background: Approximately 50% of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) will acquire resistance by the T790M mutation. Osimertinib is the standard of care in this situation. The present study assesses the efficacy of osimertinib when T790M status is determined in circulating cell-free tumour DNA (ctDNA) from blood samples in progressing advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Material and methods: ctDNA T790M mutational status was assessed by Inivata InVision™ (eTAm-Seq™) assay in 48 EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC patients with acquired resistance to EGFR TKIs without a tissue biopsy between April 2015 and April 2016. Progressing T790M-positive NSCLC patients received osimertinib (80 mg daily). The objectives were to assess the response rate to osimertinib according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1, the progression-free survival (PFS) on osimertinib, and the percentage of T790M positive in ctDNA. Results: The ctDNA T790M mutation was detected in 50% of NSCLC patients. Among assessable patients, osimertinib gave a partial response rate of 62.5% and a stable disease rate of 37.5%. All responses were confirmed responses. After median follow up of 8 months, median PFS by RECIST criteria was not achieved (95% CI: 4-NA), with 6- and 12-months PFS of 66.7% and 52%, respectively. Conclusion(s): ctDNA from liquid biopsy can be used as a surrogate marker for T790M in tumour tissue.

Immune-related adverse events with immune checkpoint blockade: a comprehensive review.

Cancer immunotherapy is coming of age; it has prompted a paradigm shift in oncology, in which therapeutic agents are used to target immune cells rather than cancer cells. The first generation of new immunotherapies corresponds to antagonistic antibodies that block specific immune checkpoint molecules cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1. Targeting these checkpoints in patients living with cancer had led to long-lasting tumour responses. By unbalancing the immune system, these new immunotherapies also generate dysimmune toxicities, called immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) that mainly involve the gut, skin, endocrine glands, liver, and lung but can potentially affect any tissue. In view of their undisputed clinical efficacy, anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies are entering in the routine oncological practice, and the number of patients exposed to these drugs will increase dramatically in the near future. Although steroids can be used to treat these IRAEs, the associated immunosuppression may compromise the antitumour response. Oncologists must be ready to detect and manage these new types of adverse events. This review focuses on the mechanisms of IRAE generation, putative relationship between dysimmune toxicity and antitumour efficacy, as a basis for management guidelines.

Antitumor activity in advanced cancer patients with thymic malignancies enrolled in early clinical drug development programs (Phase I trials) at Gustave Roussy.

OBJECTIVES: Thymic epithelial neoplasms (TENs) represent a rare entity with poor prognosis and limited systemic treatment options. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical benefit, the efficacy and toxicities of agents for patients with TEN enrolled in Phase I trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively patients with advanced TEN enrolled in Phase I trials at Gustave Roussy (DITEP) between 1994 and 2012. Efficacy was assessed using RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: Twenty-two treated patients were enrolled (15 with thymic carcinoma, 7 with thymoma). The median number of prior systemic therapies was 2 (0-8). The median age was 50 years (range 23-72), and 4 females were treated. Treatments received encompassed mTOR inhibitor (mTORi) in 4 of patients, antiangiogenic agents (AA) in 11 patients, and other targeted therapies in 7 patients. 18% had grade 3-4 toxicity, 85% all grade toxicity and no toxic death was reported. One patient experienced a complete response (CR) and 3 a partial response (PR); 16 patients had stable disease (median 6.6 months; range 1.0-30.7) and 2 had a progressive disease. The median overall survival was 54.5 months (95% CI 25-75.50). The median progression free survival (PFS) was 6.6 months (95% CI 1.35-11.59). Median PFS was 11.6 months for mTORi, 6.9 for AA, and 6.6 for other targeted therapies. CONCLUSION: Phase I trials appear as a sound therapeutic option in TENs pts progressing after standard treatments. Use of AA and mTORi seem to yield a good clinical response and warrant further investigation.

A phase I, dose-escalation study of the Eg5-inhibitor EMD 534085 in patients with advanced solid tumors or lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: The kinesin spindle protein Eg5 is involved in mitosis, and its inhibition promotes mitotic arrest. EMD 534085, a potent, reversible Eg5 inhibitor, demonstrated significant preclinical antitumor activity. METHODS: This first-in-man, single-center, open-label, phase I dose-escalation study (3 + 3 design) investigated EMD 534085 safety, pharmacokinetics and antitumor activity in refractory solid tumors, Hodgkin's lymphoma, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. EMD 534085 (starting dose 2 mg/m²/day) was administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Doses were escalated in 100% steps in successive cohorts of 3 patients until grade 2 toxicity occurred, followed by 50% until the first dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) arose. If <2 of 6 patients experienced a DLT, doses were further increased by 25%. Dose-escalation was stopped if a DLT occurred in ≥2 of 6 patients. RESULTS: Forty-four patients received EMD 534085. Median treatment duration was 43 days (range, 21-337). Thirty-eight patients (86%) received ≥2 cycles. DLTs were grade 4 neutropenia (1 patient each at 108 and 135 mg/m²/day), and grade 3 acute coronary syndrome with troponin I elevation (1 patient at 135 mg/m²/day). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was 108 mg/m²/day. The most common treatment-related adverse events were asthenia (50%) and neutropenia (32%). EMD 534085 appeared to have linear pharmacokinetics. Increase in phospho-histone H3 positive cells in paired pre- and on-treatment biopsies showed evidence of target modulation. No complete or partial responses were observed. Best response was stable disease in 23 patients (52%). CONCLUSIONS: EMD 534085 appeared to be well tolerated; MTD was 108 mg/m²/day. Preliminary antitumor results suggested limited activity in monotherapy.