ERBB2 (HER2) amplifications and co-occurring KRAS alterations in the circulating cell-free DNA of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients and response to HER2 inhibition.

Purpose: Despite accumulating data regarding the genomic landscape of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), olaparib is the only biomarker-driven FDA-approved targeted therapy with a PDAC-specific approval. Treating ERBB2(HER2)-amplified PDAC with anti-HER2 therapy has been reported with mixed results. Most pancreatic adenocarcinomas have KRAS alterations, which have been shown to be a marker of resistance to HER2-targeted therapies in other malignancies, though the impact of these alterations in pancreatic cancer is unknown. We describe two cases of ERBB2-amplified pancreatic cancer patients treated with anti-HER2 therapy and provide data on the frequency of ERBB2 amplifications and KRAS alterations identified by clinical circulating cell-free DNA testing. Methods: De-identified molecular test results for all patients with pancreatic cancer who received clinical cell-free circulating DNA analysis (Guardant360) between 06/2014 and 01/2018 were analyzed. Cell-free circulating DNA analysis included next-generation sequencing of up to 73 genes, including select small insertion/deletions, copy number amplifications, and fusions. Results: Of 1,791 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, 36 (2.0%) had an ERBB2 amplification, 26 (72.2%) of whom had a KRAS alteration. Treatment data were available for seven patients. Two were treated with anti-HER2 therapy after their cell-free circulating DNA result, with both benefiting from therapy, including one with a durable response to trastuzumab and no KRAS alteration detected until progression. Conclusion: Our case series illustrates that certain patients with ERBB2-amplified pancreatic adenocarcinoma may respond to anti-HER2 therapy and gain several months of prolonged survival. Our data suggests KRAS mutations as a possible mechanism of primary and acquired resistance to anti-HER2 therapy in pancreatic cancer. Additional studies are needed to clarify the role of KRAS in resistance to anti-HER2 therapy.

Plain language summary of the HIMALAYA study: tremelimumab and durvalumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer).

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of results from a phase 3 clinical study called HIMALAYA. HIMALAYA looked at treatment with one dose of a medication called tremelimumab combined with multiple doses of a medication called durvalumab (the STRIDE regimen) or multiple doses of durvalumab alone. These treatments were compared with a medication called sorafenib in participants with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HCC is a type of liver cancer that is difficult to treat because it is often diagnosed when it is unresectable, meaning it can no longer be removed with surgery. Sorafenib has been the main treatment for unresectable HCC since 2007. However, people who take sorafenib may experience side effects that can reduce their quality of life, so alternative medicines are being trialed. Tremelimumab and durvalumab are types of drugs called immunotherapies, and they both work in different ways to help the body's immune system fight cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: Participants who took STRIDE lived longer than participants who took sorafenib, whilst participants who took durvalumab alone lived a similar length of time as participants who took sorafenib. Participants who took STRIDE or durvalumab had a lower relative risk of experiencing worsening in their quality of life than participants who took sorafenib. The side effects that participants who received STRIDE or durvalumab experienced were expected for these types of treatments and could mostly be managed. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Overall, STRIDE is more effective than sorafenib for people with unresectable HCC.

The Cholangiocarcinoma in the Young (CITY) Study: Tumor Biology, Treatment Patterns, and Survival Outcomes in Adolescent Young Adults With Cholangiocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Increased awareness of the distinct tumor biology for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer has led to improvement in outcomes for this population. However, in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), a paucity of data exist on the AYA population. To our knowledge, we present the largest study to date on AYA disease biology, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes in CCA. METHODS: A multi-institutional cohort of patients with CCA diagnosed with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) was used for analysis. Retrospective chart review was conducted on patients who were 50 years old and younger (young; n = 124) and older than 50 years (older; n = 723). RESULTS: Among 1,039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (72% ICC, 28% ECC). Young patients had a larger median tumor size at resection compared with older patients (4.2 v 3.6 cm; P = .048), more commonly had N1 disease (65% v 43%; P = .040), and were more likely to receive adjuvant therapy (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.64 to 9.74). Tumors of young patients were more likely to harbor an FGFR2 fusion, BRAF mutation, or ATM mutation (P < .05 for each). Young patients were more likely to receive palliative systemic therapy (96% v 69%; P < .001), targeted therapy (23% v 8%; P < .001), and treatment on a clinical trial (31% v 19%; P = .004). Among patients who presented with advanced disease, young patients had a higher median overall survival compared with their older counterparts (17.7 v 13.5 months; 95% CI, 12.6 to 22.6 v 11.4 to 14.8; P = .049). CONCLUSION: Young patients with CCA had more advanced disease at resection, more commonly received both adjuvant and palliative therapies, and demonstrated improved survival compared with older patients. Given the low clinical trial enrollment and poor outcomes among some AYA cancer populations, data to the contrary in CCA are highly encouraging.

Molecular profiling and treatment pattern differences between intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment patterns for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) differ, but limited studies exist comparing them. This study examines differences in molecular profiling rates and treatment patterns in these populations, focusing on use of adjuvant, liver-directed, targeted, and investigational therapies. METHODS: This multicenter collaboration included patients with ICC or ECC treated at 1 of 8 participating institutions. Retrospective data were collected on risk factors, pathology, treatments, and survival. Comparative statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Among 1039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (ICC = 611, ECC = 236). Patients with ECC were more likely than those with ICC to present with early stage disease (53.8% vs 28.0%), undergo surgical resection (55.1% vs 29.8%), and receive adjuvant chemoradiation (36.5% vs 4.2%) (all P < .00001). However, they were less likely to undergo molecular profiling (50.3% vs 64.3%) or receive liver-directed therapy (17.9% vs 35.7%), targeted therapy (4.7% vs 18.9%), and clinical trial therapy (10.6% vs 24.8%) (all P < .001). In patients with recurrent ECC after surgery, the molecular profiling rate was 64.5%. Patients with advanced ECC had a shorter median overall survival than those with advanced ICC (11.8 vs 15.1 months; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced ECC have low rates of molecular profiling, possibly in part because of insufficient tissue. They also have low rates of targeted therapy use and clinical trial enrollment. While these rates are higher in advanced ICC, the prognosis for both subtypes of cholangiocarcinoma remains poor, and a pressing need exists for new effective targeted therapies and broader access to clinical trials.

Silmitasertib plus gemcitabine and cisplatin first-line therapy in locally advanced/metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: A Phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to investigate safety and efficacy of silmitasertib, an oral small molecule casein kinase 2 inhibitor, plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (G+C) versus G+C in locally advanced/metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. APPROACH AND RESULTS: This work is a Phase 1b/2 study (S4-13-001). In Phase 2, patients received silmitasertib 1000 mg twice daily for 10 days with G+C on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified intent-to-treat population (defined as patients who completed at least one cycle of silmitasertib without dose interruption/reduction) from both phases (silmitasertib/G+C n = 55, G+C n = 29). The response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. The median PFS was 11.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6, 14.7) versus 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.1, not evaluable [NE]) ( p  = 0.0496); 10-month PFS was 56.1% (95% CI, 38.8%, 70.2%) versus 22.2% (95% CI, 1.8%, 56.7%); and median overall survival was 17.4 months (95% CI, 13.4, 25.7) versus 14.9 months (95% CI, 9.9, NE) with silmitasertib/G+C versus G+C. Overall response rate was 34.0% versus 30.8%; the disease control rate was 86.0% versus 88.5% with silmitasertib/G+C versus G+C. Almost all silmitasertib/G+C (99%) and G+C (93%) patients reported at least one treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common TEAEs (all grades) with silmitasertib/G+C versus G+C were diarrhea (70% versus 13%), nausea (59% vs. 30%), fatigue (47% vs. 47%), vomiting (39% vs. 7%), and anemia (39% vs. 30%). Twelve patients (10%) discontinued treatment because of TEAEs during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Silmitasertib/G+C demonstrated promising preliminary evidence of efficacy for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Treatment Patterns and Survival in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer Using SEER Medicare Data.

Background and Aims: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a rare, lethal, heterogeneous group of cancers often diagnosed at an advanced stage. While gemcitabine plus cisplatin is the standard of care for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BTC, no globally accepted standard of care currently exists for second-line treatment of BTC following chemotherapy. However, the treatment landscape is evolving with approvals for therapies targeting actionable mutations. This study aimed to characterize treatment patterns and survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic BTC. Methods: Patients with advanced or metastatic BTC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare database between 2010 and 2015 (N = 2063) were included; patients with nonprimary BTC were excluded. Patient and clinical characteristics, line and type of therapy, and overall survival of patients were analyzed. Results: Only 45.5% (n = 938) of patients initiated systemic therapy within 90 days of diagnosis. The most common event following diagnosis was initiation of first-line therapy, and the most common event following first-line treatment was death. Median survival ranged from 5.0 months for patients receiving second-line fluoropyrimidine to 9.7 months for patients receiving second-line gemcitabine. Duration of therapy ranged from 0.7 months for patients receiving second-line fluoropyrimidine to 3.7 months for patients receiving first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin therapy. Conclusion: Overall survival from diagnosis was poor and influenced by age, sex, stage, mobility limitations, comorbidity burden, poverty, and previous cancer. Treatment patterns varied for patients who progressed following first-line therapy, as there was no consensus second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic BTC without clinically targetable mutations.

Pharmacotherapeutic options for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal malignancy projected to be the 2nd leading cause of cancer related death in the USA by 2030. This manuscript discusses current and evolving treatment approaches in patients with pancreatic cancer. AREAS COVERED: PDAC is classified as: a) resectable, b) borderline resectable, c) unresectable (locally advanced and metastatic). The standard of care for patients who present with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma is six months of adjuvant modified (m) FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine plus capecitabine, or single agent gemcitabine. For many reasons, there has been a paradigm shift to employing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. For resectable and borderline resectable patients, we generally start with systemic therapy and reevaluate resectability with subsequent scans specifically when the tumor is located in the head or body of the pancreas. Combined chemoradiation therapy can be employed in select patients. The standard of care for metastatic PDAC is FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel. Germline and somatic genomic profiling should be obtained in all patients. Patients with a germline BRCA mutation can receive upfront gemcitabine and cisplatin. EXPERT OPINION: Thorough understanding of molecular pathogenesis in PDAC has opened various therapeutic avenues. We remain optimistic that future treatment modalities such as targeted therapies, cellular therapies and immunotherapy will further improve survival in PDAC.

Profile and Predictors of Blood Tumor Mutational Burden in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors, but there are currently no known biomarkers to predict treatment benefit. Blood TMB (bTMB) estimation via circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) profiling can provide a convenient means to estimate HCC TMB. Here we provide the first landscape of bTMB in advanced HCC using a commercially available next-generation sequencing assay, show that it is approximately three times as high as matched tissue TMB, and show that bTMB correlates with NAFLD cirrhosis etiology and the presence of genomic alterations in HTERT and TP53. These results lay the foundation for subsequent studies evaluating bTMB as an immune therapy predictive biomarker in HCC.

Cell-Free Tumor DNA Dominant Clone Allele Frequency Is Associated With Poor Outcomes in Advanced Biliary Cancers Treated With Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This investigation sought to evaluate the prognostic value of pretreatment of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in metastatic biliary tract cancers (BTCs) treated with platinum-based first-line chemotherapy treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 67 patients who underwent ctDNA testing before platinum-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment for metastatic BTC. For analysis, we considered the detected gene with highest variant allele frequency as the dominant clone allele frequency (DCAF). Results of ctDNA analysis were correlated with patients' demographics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The median age of patients was 67 (27-90) years. Fifty-four (80.6%) of 67 patients evaluated had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; seven had extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and six gallbladder cancers. Forty-six (68.6%) of the patients were treated with cisplatin plus gemcitabine, and 16.4% of patients received gemcitabine and other platinum (carboplatin or oxaliplatin) combinations, whereas 15% of patients were treated on a clinical trial with gemcitabine and cisplatin plus additional agents (CX4945, PEGPH20, or nab-paclitaxel). TP53, KRAS, FGFR2, ARID1A, STK11, and IDH1 were the genes with highest frequency as DCAF. The median DCAF was 3% (0%-97%). DCAF > 3% was associated with worse OS (median OS: 10.8 v 18.8 months, P = .032). Stratifying DCAF in quartiles, DCAF > 10% was significantly related to worse PFS (median PFS: 3 months, P = .014) and worse OS (median OS: 7.0 months, P = .001). Each 1% increase in ctDNA was associated with a hazard ratio of 13.1 in OS when adjusting for subtypes, metastatic sites, size of largest tumor, age, sex, and CA19-9. CONCLUSION: DCAF at diagnosis of advanced BTC can stratify patients who have worse outcomes when treated with upfront platinum-based chemotherapy. Each increase in %ctDNA decreases survival probabilities.

Clinical, Genomic, and Transcriptomic Data Profiling of Biliary Tract Cancer Reveals Subtype-Specific Immune Signatures.

PURPOSE: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are aggressive cancers that carry a poor prognosis. An enhanced understanding of the immune landscape of anatomically and molecularly defined subsets of BTC may improve patient selection for immunotherapy and inform immune-based combination treatment strategies. METHODS: We analyzed deidentified clinical, genomic, and transcriptomic data from the Tempus database to determine the mutational frequency and mutational clustering across the three major BTC subtypes (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [IHC], extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and gallbladder cancer). We subsequently determined the relationship between specific molecular alterations and anatomical subsets and features of the BTC immune microenvironment. RESULTS: We analyzed 454 samples of BTC, of which the most commonly detected alterations were TP53 (42.5%), CDKN2A (23.4%), ARID1A (19.6%), BAP1 (15.5%), KRAS (15%), CDKN2B (14.2%), PBRM1 (11.7%), IDH1 (11.7%), TERT (8.4%), KMT2C (10.4%) and LRP1B (8.4%), and FGFR2 fusions (8.7%). Potentially actionable molecular alterations were identified in 30.5% of BTCs including 39.1% of IHC. Integrative cluster analysis revealed four distinct molecular clusters, with cluster 4 predominately associated with FGFR2 rearrangements and BAP1 mutations in IHC. Immune-related biomarkers indicative of an inflamed tumor-immune microenvironment were elevated in gallbladder cancers and in cluster 1, which was enriched for TP53, KRAS, and ATM mutations. Multiple common driver genes, including TP53, FGFR2, IDH1, TERT, BRAF, and BAP1, were individually associated with unique BTC immune microenvironments. CONCLUSION: BTC subtypes exhibit diverse DNA alterations, RNA inflammatory signatures, and immune biomarkers. The association between specific BTC anatomical subsets, molecular alterations, and immunophenotypes highlights new opportunities for therapeutic development.

Radiation Segmentectomy for the Treatment of Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Outcomes Compared with Those of Surgical Resection.

PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of radiation segmentectomy (RS) versus standard-of-care surgical resection (SR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multisite, retrospective analysis of treatment-naïve patients who underwent either RS or SR was performed. The inclusion criteria were solitary hepatocellular carcinoma ≤8 cm in size, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Cohort performance status of 0-1, and absence of macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic disease. Target tumor and overall progression, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival rates were assessed. Outcomes were censored for liver transplantation. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were included (RS, 57; SR, 66). Tumor size, Child-Pugh class, albumin-bilirubin score, platelet count, and fibrosis stage were significantly different between cohorts (P ≤ .01). Major adverse events (AEs), defined as grade ≥3 per the Clavien-Dindo classification, occurred in 0 patients in the RS cohort vs 13 (20%) patients in the SR cohort (P < .001). Target tumor progression occurred in 3 (5%) patients who underwent RS and 5 (8%) patients who underwent SR. Overall progression occurred in 19 (33%) patients who underwent RS and 21 (32%) patients who underwent SR. The median overall TTP was 21.9 and 29.4 months after RS and SR, respectively (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.5-28.2 and 18.5-40.3, respectively; P = .03). Overall TTP subgroup analyses showed no difference between treatment cohorts with fibrosis stages 3-4 (P = .26) and a platelet count of <150 × 109/L (P = .29). The overall progression hazard ratio for RS versus SR was not significant per the multivariate Cox regression analysis (1.16; 95% CI, 0.51-2.63; P = .71). The median overall survival was not reached for either of the cohorts. Propensity scores were calculated but were too dissimilar for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: RS and SR were performed in different patient populations, which limits comparison. RS approached SR outcomes, with a lower incidence of major AEs, in patients who were not eligible for hepatectomy.

Novel and emerging targets for cholangiocarcinoma progression: therapeutic implications.

INTRODUCTION: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a heterogeneous group of aggressive biliary malignancies. While surgery and liver transplantation are the only potentially curative modalities for early-stage disease, limited options are available for most patients with incurable-stage disease. Survival outcomes remain dismal. Recent molecular profiling efforts have led to improved understanding of the genomic landscape of CCA and to the identification of subgroups with distinct diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. AREAS COVERED: : We provide an updated review and future perspectives on features of cholangiocarcinogenesis that can be translated into therapeutic biomarkers and targets. We highlight the critical studies that have established current systemic chemotherapy and targeted therapeutics, while elaborating on novel targeted and immunotherapeutic approaches in development. Relevant literature and clinical studies were identified by searching PubMed and www.ClinicalTrials.gov. EXPERT OPINION: : While therapies targeting the various molecular subgroups of CCA are rapidly emerging and changing treatment paradigms, their success has been limited by the genetic heterogeneity of CCA and the plasticity of the targets. Novel strategies aiming to combine immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and molecularly targeted therapeutics will be required to offer durable clinical benefit and maximize survival.

Isocitrate Dehydrogenase-Mutated Cholangiocarcinoma: Natural History and Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Clinical-pathologic features and natural history of patients with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) are not well characterized. Here, we sought to describe the natural history, clinical phenotype, and prognostic impact of advanced, IDH-mutated CCA. METHODS: We conducted a multicentric, retrospective analysis of patients with IDH-mutated (IDH1 or IDH2) CCA between 2010 and 2020. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Chi-square test was used to analyze disease control rate (DCR) and overall response rate (ORR). Matched controls were used for comparing survival between patients with and without IDH mutations (mIDH). RESULTS: Sixty-five patients with IDH-mutated CCA were included. All patients had intrahepatic CCA. On first-line chemotherapy, median OS and median PFS were 21.2 months and 8.3 months, respectively. Notably, median OS (32.4 v 19.5 months, P = .12) and PFS (18.0 v 8.0 months, P = .12) were not significantly affected by disease status at presentation (locally advanced v metastatic, respectively). Median OS was significantly longer in patients with mIDH (21.2 v 10.5 months; P < .01). First-line gemcitabine-containing regimens had a significantly higher DCR and ORR than non-gemcitabine-containing regimens (DCR: 75% v 33%, P = .01; ORR: 39% v 0%, P = .02). In patients receiving IDH inhibitor therapy, median PFS was 4.6 months with a DCR of 29%. CONCLUSION: CCA with mIDH confers a unique subtype resulting in a better survival compared with that of counterparts. IDH inhibitors represent a promising therapeutic option in later lines of therapy in this subgroup.

Humoral Responses After SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination and Breakthrough Infection in Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the magnitude of humoral response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines in patients with cancer receiving active therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients 18 years or older in whom SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody (anti-S Ab) levels were measured after 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were included. Patients with prior coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection or receiving other immunosuppressive therapy were excluded. RESULTS: Among 201 patients who met the criteria, 61 were immunocompetent, 91 had a hematologic malignancy, and 49 had a solid malignancy while receiving treatments associated with cytopenia, including chemotherapy or cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors. A significantly greater proportion of immunocompetent patients (96.7% [59 of 61]) had anti-S Ab titers of 500 U/mL or greater compared to patients with hematologic (7.7% [7 of 91) and solid (55.1% [27 of 49]) malignancy (P<.001). Despite 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, 52.7% of patients with hematologic malignancy (48 of 91) and 8.2% of those with solid malignancy (4 of 49) receiving cytopenic therapy had no seroconversion (spike antibody titers <0.8 U/mL). Two patients subsequently had development of breakthrough COVID-19 infection after full vaccination. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients with hematologic and solid malignancies receiving chemotherapies and CDK4/6i had poor humoral responses after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Our study adds to a growing body of literature suggesting that immunosuppressed patients have a suboptimal humoral response to COVID-19 vaccination. Our study also underscores the importance of assessing antibody response after COVID-19 vaccines in these vulnerable patients.

Tilsotolimod: an investigational synthetic toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist for the treatment of refractory solid tumors and melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer immunotherapy has seen tremendous strides in the past 15 years, with the introduction of several novel immunotherapeutic agents. Nevertheless, as clinical practice has shown, significant challenges remain with a considerable number of patients responding sub-optimally to available therapeutic options. Research has demonstrated the important immunoregulatory role of the tumor microenvironment (TME), with the potential to either hinder or promote an effective anti-tumor immune response. As such, scientific efforts have focused on investigating novel candidate immunomodulatory agents with the potential to alter the TME toward a more immunopotentiating composition. AREAS COVERED: Herein, we discuss the novel investigational toll-like receptor 9 agonist tilsotolimod currently undergoing phase II and III clinical trials for advanced refractory cancer, highlighting its mode of action, efficacy, tolerability, and potential future applications in the treatment of cancer. To this effect, we conducted an exhaustive Web of Science and PubMed search to evaluate available research on tilsotolimod as of August 2021. EXPERT OPINION: With encouraging early clinical results demonstrating extensive TME immunomodulation and abscopal effects on distant tumor lesions, tilsotolimod has emerged as a potential candidate immunomodulatory agent with the possibility to augment currently available immunotherapy and provide novel avenues of treatment for patients with advanced refectory cancer.

A pilot study of Pan-FGFR inhibitor ponatinib in patients with FGFR-altered advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

Background Biliary tract cancers (BTC) are rare, chemo resistant and are associated with a poor prognosis. Preclinical and early clinical work had demonstrated interesting anti-tumor activity from targeting fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway. We hypothesized that ponatinib, a multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against FGFR, would be active in BTC patients with FGFR alterations. Methods This was a multi-center, single institution pilot study of ponatinib in patients with advanced, refractory BTC with FGFR alterations. The primary end point was overall response rate, with secondary points of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) assessment. Results Twelve patients were enrolled prior to early termination of the trial. Partial responses were observed in 1 from 12 patients. Median PFS was 2.4 months and median OS was 15.7 months. All observed toxicities were manageable and reversible. Toxicities were mild, with lymphopenia (75%), rash (63%) and fatigue (50%) being the most frequent. No significant detriment in global QoL was observed. Conclusions Ponatinib as a single agent in FGFR altered BTC is tolerable with limited clinical activity. This is the first report of prospective assessment of FGFR inhibition in BTC using ponatinib, and the first study to report its effect on HRQoL. Further development of ponatinib will involve correlative studies to better refine patient selection, focus on combinations with other molecular targeted agents, conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy, and studies to better understand mechanisms of treatment resistance.

Tremelimumab plus Durvalumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A single, high priming dose of tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte­associated antigen 4) plus durvalumab (anti­programmed cell death ligand-1), an infusion regimen termed STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab), showed encouraging clinical activity and safety in a phase 2 trial of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, open-label, phase 3 trial, the majority of the patients we enrolled with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and no previous systemic treatment were randomly assigned to receive one of three regimens: tremelimumab (300 mg, one dose) plus durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks; STRIDE), durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks), or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary objective was overall survival for STRIDE versus sorafenib. Noninferiority for overall survival for durvalumab versus sorafenib was a secondary objective. RESULTS: In total, 1171 patients were randomly assigned to STRIDE (n=393), durvalumab (n=389), or sorafenib (n=389). The median overall survival was 16.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.16 to 19.58) with STRIDE, 16.56 months (95% CI, 14.06 to 19.12) with durvalumab, and 13.77 months (95% CI, 12.25 to 16.13) with sorafenib. Overall survival at 36 months was 30.7%, 24.7%, and 20.2%, respectively. The overall survival hazard ratio for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (96.02% CI, 0.65 to 0.93; P=0.0035). Overall survival with durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95.67% CI, 0.73 to 1.03; noninferiority margin, 1.08). Median progression-free survival was not significantly different among all three groups. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred for 50.5% of patients with STRIDE, 37.1% with durvalumab, and 52.4% with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE significantly improved overall survival versus sorafenib. Durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03298451.)

FGFR Inhibitor Toxicity and Efficacy in Cholangiocarcinoma: Multicenter Single-Institution Cohort Experience.

Cholangiocarcinomas (CCA) are a group of heterogeneous tumors arising from the biliary epithelia. Significant sequencing efforts have provided further insights into the molecular mechanisms of this disease including fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) alterations, which occurs in approximately 15%-20% of intrahepatic CCAs. Herein, we describe the FGFR inhibitor (FGFRi)-associated treatment toxicity and cancer-specific outcomes from a multicenter single-institution cohort. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients with CCA and known FGFR alterations treated with FGFRi. We describe the toxicity and efficacy in patients treated at Mayo Clinic between January 2010 and December 2020. RESULTS: Our group identified 61 patients with advanced or metastatic CCA, 19 males (31%) and 42 females (69%), harboring FGFR alterations who received FGFRi. The most common grade 1 or higher adverse events for all patients included fatigue (92%), AST elevations (78%), anemia (80%), decreased platelet count (63%), and hyperphosphatemia (74%). Median progression-free survival on FGFRi was 5.8 months for all patients (95% CI, 4.9 to 9.0). Females had significantly longer progression-free survival at 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.2 to 11.8) on FGFRi compared with males at 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to not estimable; P = .038). CONCLUSION: FGFRi are well tolerated with clinical efficacy. With the recent approval of FGFRi by the US Food and Drug Administration and ongoing clinical trials for new FGFRi, understanding outcomes and toxicity associated with these medications is important for precision oncology.

Population pharmacokinetics of liposomal irinotecan in patients with cancer and exposure-safety analyses in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Liposomal irinotecan is a liposomal formulation of irinotecan, which prolongs circulation of irinotecan and its active metabolite SN-38. A population pharmacokinetic (PK) model was developed based on data from seven studies (N = 440). Adequacy of the model was assessed using multiple methods, including visual predictive check. Associations between PK exposure and the incidence of diarrhea (grade ≥3) and neutropenia adverse events (AEs) (grade ≥3) at first event in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) were investigated using logistic regression based on data from two studies (the phase III NAPOLI-1 [N = 260] and phase I/II NCT02551991 [N = 56] trials). The PKs of total irinotecan was described by a two-compartment model with first-order elimination, with SN-38 formed directly by a first-order constant from the central compartment of irinotecan or after using a transit compartment. Clearance was 17.9 L/week (0.107 L/h) and 19,800 L/week (118 L/h) for total irinotecan and SN-38, respectively. The UGT1A1*28 7/7 homozygous genotype had no significant impact on SN-38 clearance. Model evaluation was satisfactory for both irinotecan and SN-38. The incidence of diarrhea (grade ≥3) at first event was significantly higher with increasing average concentrations of total irinotecan and SN-38; there was no significant association between an increased risk of neutropenia AEs (grade ≥3) at first event and average SN-38 concentrations. In summary, the PKs of total irinotecan and SN-38 after administration of liposomal irinotecan were well-described by the model. The UGT1A1*28 status had no significant impact on the PKs of liposomal irinotecan.

Tumor-Treating Fields: A fourth modality in cancer treatment, new practice updates.

Although major innovations in treatment are advancing, cancer persists as one of the leading causes of mortality. With the rising incidence of cancer and as we treat them, patients incur short term and long-term toxicities of current traditional therapies, including chemotherapy. This imposes a significant physical, emotional, and financial burden among patients, which affects their quality of life. Tumor-Treating Fields (TTFields) is a novel innovative new treatment modality that utilizes alternating electric fields at specific intermediate frequencies to diminish tumor growth by inhibiting mitosis and thus proliferation of malignant cells. The distinguishing feature of this new treatment modality is that it is noninvasive and tolerable. In fact, TTFields is currently FDA approved for the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) as well as malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Recently, TTFields have also been found to affect immunogenic cell death resulting in stronger anti-neoplastic effects. In this review, we discuss the mechanism of action of TTFields, the plethora of clinical trials being conducted in patients with GBM, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, ovarian cancer, non-small-cell-lung-cancer (NSCLC), brain metastasis from NSCLC, and MPM and toxicity profile.