Outcomes of the RAFT trial: robotic surgery after focal therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To report toxicity of treatment observed in men participating in the Robotic surgery After Focal Therapy (RAFT) clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men were eligible for this prospective single group interventional study if they had histologically confirmed recurrent/residual prostate adenocarcinoma following primary FT. The short-form Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) measured prior to salvage robotic prostatectomy (S-RARP) and 3-monthly post-operatively together with Clavien-Dindo complications (I-IV). Secondary outcomes included biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCFS) following surgery and need for salvage treatment after surgery. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03011606. RESULTS: Twenty-four men were recruited between February 2016 and September 2018. 1 patient withdrew from the trial after consenting and before S-RARP. 23 men completed 12-month post S-RARP follow-up. Median EPIC-26 urinary continence scores initially deteriorated after 3 months (82.4 vs 100) but there was no statistically significant difference from baseline at 12 months (100 vs 100, P = 0.31). Median lower urinary tract symptom scores improved after 12 months compared to baseline (93.8 vs 87.5, P = 0.01). At 12 months, 19/23 (83%) were pad-free and 22/23 (96%) required 0/1 pads. Median sexual function subscale scores deteriorated and remained low at 12 months (22.2 vs 58.3, P < 0.001). Utilising a minimally important difference of nine points, at 12 months after surgery 17/23 (74%) reported urinary continence to be 'better' or 'not different' to pre-operative baseline. The corresponding figure for sexual function (utilising a minimally important difference of 12 points) was 7/23 (30%). There was no statistically significant difference on median bowel/hormonal subscale scores. Only a single patient had a post-operative complication (Clavien-Dindo Grade I). BCFS at 12 months after surgery was 82.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.1-93.1%) while 4/23 (17%) received salvage radiation. CONCLUSIONS: The RAFT clinical trial suggests toxicity of surgery after FT is low, with good urinary function outcomes, albeit sexual function deteriorated overall. Oncological outcomes at 12 months appear acceptable.

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) versus colonoscopy for surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) recommends 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance for patients at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) postpolypectomy (those with three to four small adenomas or one ≥10 mm). We investigated whether faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) could reduce surveillance burden on patients and endoscopy services. DESIGN: Intermediate-risk patients (60-72 years) recommended 3 yearly surveillance were recruited within the BCSP (January 2012-December 2013). FITs were offered at 1, 2 and 3 years postpolypectomy. Invitees consenting and returning a year 1 FIT were included. Participants testing positive (haemoglobin ≥40 µg/g) at years one or two were offered colonoscopy early; all others were offered colonoscopy at 3 years. Diagnostic accuracy for CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs) was estimated considering multiple tests and thresholds. We calculated incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT surveillance. RESULTS: 74% (5938/8009) of invitees were included in our study having participated at year 1. Of these, 97% returned FITs at years 2 and 3. Three-year cumulative positivity was 13% at the 40 µg/g haemoglobin threshold and 29% at 10 µg/g. 29 participants were diagnosed with CRC and 446 with AAs. Three-year programme sensitivities for CRC and AAs were, respectively, 59% and 33% at 40 µg/g, and 72% and 57% at 10 µg/g. Incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT (40 µg/g) surveillance were £7354 and £180 778, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Replacing 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance in intermediate-risk patients with annual FIT could reduce colonoscopies by 71%, significantly cut costs but could miss 30%-40% of CRCs and 40%-70% of AAs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18040196; Results.

Adjuvant Intravesical Chemohyperthermia Versus Passive Chemotherapy in Patients with Intermediate-risk Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (HIVEC-II): A Phase 2, Open-label, Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant intravesical chemotherapy following tumour resection is recommended for intermediate-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant intravesical chemohyperthermia (CHT) for intermediate-risk NMIBC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: HIVEC-II is an open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial of CHT versus chemotherapy alone in patients with intermediate-risk NMIBC recruited at 15 centres between May 2014 and December 2017 (ISRCTN 23639415). Randomisation was stratified by treating hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to adjuvant CHT with mitomycin C at 43°C or to room-temperature mitomycin C (control). Both treatment arms received six weekly instillations of 40 mg of mitomycin C lasting for 60 min. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was 24-mo disease-free survival as determined via cystoscopy and urinary cytology. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients (131 CHT vs 128 control) were randomised. At 24 mo, 42 patients (32%) in the CHT group and 49 (38%) in the control group had experienced recurrence. Disease-free survival at 24 mo was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51-69%) in the CHT arm and 60% (95% CI 50-68%) in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.62-1.37; log-rank p = 0.8). Progression-free survival was higher in the control arm (HR 3.44, 95% CI 1.09-10.82; log-rank p = 0.02) on intention-to-treat analysis but was not significantly higher on per-protocol analysis (HR 2.87, 95% CI 0.83-9.98; log-rank p = 0.06). Overall survival was similar (HR 2.55, 95% CI 0.77-8.40; log-rank p = 0.09). Patients undergoing CHT were less likely to complete their treatment (n =75, 59% vs n = 111, 89%). Adverse events were reported by 164 patients (87 CHT vs 77 control). Major (grade III) adverse events were rare (13 CHT vs 7 control). CONCLUSIONS: CHT cannot be recommended over chemotherapy alone for intermediate-risk NMIBC. Adverse events following CHT were of low grade and short-lived, although patients were less likely to complete their treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY: The HIVEC-II trial investigated the role of heated chemotherapy instillations in the bladder for treatment of intermediate-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. We found no cancer control benefit from heated chemotherapy instillations over room-temperature chemotherapy. Adverse events following heated chemotherapy were low grade and short-lived, although these patients were less likely to complete their treatment.

Phase II Study Investigating the Safety and Efficacy of Savolitinib and Durvalumab in Metastatic Papillary Renal Cancer (CALYPSO).

PURPOSE: Metastatic papillary renal cancer (PRC) has poor outcomes, and new treatments are required. There is a strong rationale for investigating mesenchymal epithelial transition receptor (MET) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition in this disease. In this study, the combination of savolitinib (MET inhibitor) and durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) is investigated. METHODS: This single-arm phase II trial explored durvalumab (1,500 mg once every four weeks) and savolitinib (600 mg once daily; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02819596). Treatment-naïve or previously treated patients with metastatic PRC were included. A confirmed response rate (cRR) of > 50% was the primary end point. Progression-free survival, tolerability, and overall survival were secondary end points. Biomarkers were explored from archived tissue (MET-driven status). RESULTS: Forty-one patients treated with advanced PRC were enrolled into this study and received at least one dose of study treatment. The majority of patients had Heng intermediate risk score (n = 26 [63%]). The cRR was 29% (n = 12; 95% CI, 16 to 46), and the trial therefore missed the primary end point. The cRR increased to 53% (95% CI, 28 to 77) in MET-driven patients (n/N = 9/27) and was 33% (95% CI, 17 to 54) in PD-L1-positive tumors (n/N = 9/27). The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 10.0) in the treated population and 12.0 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 19.4) in MET-driven patients. The median overall survival was 14.1 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 30.7) in the treated population and 27.4 months (95% CI, 9.3 to not reached [NR]) in MET-driven patients. Grade 3 and above treatment related adverse events occurred in 17 (41%) patients. There was 1 grade 5 treatment-related adverse event (cerebral infarction). CONCLUSION: The combination of savolitinib and durvalumab was tolerable and associated with high cRRs in the exploratory MET-driven subset.

Final Results of Neoadjuvant Atezolizumab in Cisplatin-ineligible Patients with Muscle-invasive Urothelial Cancer of the Bladder.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant immunotherapies hold promise in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To report on 2-yr disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival including novel tissue-based biomarkers and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in the ABACUS trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: ABACUS was a multicenter, single-arm, neoadjuvant, phase 2 trial, including patients with MIBC (T2-4aN0M0) who were ineligible for or refused neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy. INTERVENTION: Two cycles of atezolizumab were given prior to radical cystectomy. Serial tissue and blood samples were collected. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoints of pathological complete response (pCR) rate and dynamic changes to T-cell biomarkers were published previously. Secondary outcomes were 2-yr DFS and OS. A biomarker analysis correlated with relapse-free survival (RFS) was performed, which includes FOXP3, major histocompatibility complex class I, CD8/CD39, and sequential ctDNA measurements. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up time was 25 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 25-26). Ninety-five patients received at least one cycle of atezolizumab. Eight patients did not undergo cystectomy (only one due to disease progression). The pCR rate was 31% (27/88; 95% CI 21-41). Two-year DFS and OS were 68% (95% CI 58-76) and 77% (95% CI 68-85), respectively. Two-year DFS in patients achieving a pCR was 85% (95% CI 65-94). Baseline PD-L1 and tumor mutational burden did not correlate with RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60 [95% CI 0.24-1.5], p = 0.26, and 0.72 [95% CI 0.31-1.7], p = 0.46, respectively). RFS correlated with high baseline stromal CD8+ (HR 0.25 [95% CI 0.09-0.68], p = 0.007) and high post-treatment fibroblast activation protein (HR 4.1 [95% CI 1.3-13], p = 0.01). Circulating tumor DNA positivity values at baseline, after neoadjuvant therapy, and after surgery were 63% (25/40), 47% (14/30), and 14% (five/36), respectively. The ctDNA status was highly prognostic at all time points. No relapses were observed in ctDNA-negative patients at baseline and after neoadjuvant therapy. The lack of randomization and exploratory nature of the biomarker analysis are limitations of this work. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant atezolizumab in MIBC is associated with clinical responses and high DFS. CD8+ expression and serial ctDNA levels correlated with outcomes, and may contribute to personalized therapy in the future. PATIENT SUMMARY: We showed that bladder cancer patients receiving immunotherapy followed by cystectomy have good long-term outcomes. Furthermore, we found that certain biological features can predict patients who might have particular benefit from this therapy.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Front-line Therapy for Urothelial Cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are the standard-of-care front-line treatment option for PD-L1-positive, cisplatin-ineligible metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The data supporting this are based on two single-arm trials. Randomised trials to confirm these findings and test new combinations have recently been performed. It was hoped that these trials would clarify some of the previous uncertainties. In this report we summarise the findings from these trials and perform a combined analysis. The results show that immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy is not superior to chemotherapy as things currently stand. The chemoimmunotherapy combination shows a probable efficacy signal, but this appears to be insufficient to change practice. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we summarise the outcomes of three recent trials that investigated immunotherapy (IMT) on its own and combined with chemotherapy (CT) for patients with metastatic bladder cancer who had not previously received any treatment. We show that IMT on its own is not better than CT for these patients. There is a sign that combined CT and IMT probably has a benefit, but it does not seem to be large enough to justify a change in treatment recommendations.

Toxicity and Surgical Complication Rates of Neoadjuvant Atezolizumab in Patients with Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer Undergoing Radical Cystectomy: Updated Safety Results from the ABACUS Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on toxicity and surgical safety associated with neoadjuvant programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors prior to radical cystectomy (RC) in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To present a comprehensive safety analysis of the largest neoadjuvant series, with focus on timing and severity of toxicity and surgical complications occurring after neoadjuvant atezolizumab in patients with MIBC enrolled in the ABACUS trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: ABACUS (NCT02662309) is an open-label, multicenter, phase II trial for patients with histologically confirmed (T2-T4aN0M0) MIBC, awaiting RC. Patients either were ineligible or refused cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. INTERVENTION: Two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab (1200 mg, every 3 wk) followed by RC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Description of atezolizumab toxicity profile in the neoadjuvant setting, impact on surgery, and delayed immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) were assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Ninety-five patients received treatment. Of them, 44% (42/95) had atezolizumab-related AEs during the neoadjuvant period (fatigue [20%], decreased appetite [6%], and transaminases increased [6%]). Treatment-related grade 3-5 AEs occurred in 11% (10/95) of patients during the study. Of the patients, 21% (20/95) received only one cycle of atezolizumab due to AEs; 92% (87/95) underwent RC. No surgery was delayed due to atezolizumab-related toxicities. Surgical complications occurred in 62% (54/87) of patients. Of these patients, 43% (37/87) and 20% (17/87) had minor (grade 1-2) and major (grade 3-5) complications, respectively. Thirteen of 87 (15%) patients had post-RC atezolizumab-related AEs, including adrenal insufficiency and transaminases increased. Three deaths occurred during the period of study-related interventions (one non-treatment-related aspiration pneumonia, one immune-related myocardial infarction, and one cardiogenic shock after RC). Not all surgical safety parameters were available. CONCLUSIONS: Two cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab are well tolerated and do not seem to impact surgical complication rates. Owing to the long half-life, AEs may occur in the postoperative period, including endocrine abnormalities requiring attention and intervention. PATIENT SUMMARY: Here, we report a comprehensive dataset of patients receiving neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors before radical cystectomy. Treatment with neoadjuvant atezolizumab is safe and does not seem to complicate surgery significantly.

Phase I clinical trial repurposing all-trans retinoic acid as a stromal targeting agent for pancreatic cancer.

Pre-clinical models have shown that targeting pancreatic stellate cells with all-trans-retinoic-acid (ATRA) reprograms pancreatic stroma to suppress pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) growth. Here, in a phase Ib, dose escalation and expansion, trial for patients with advanced, unresectable PDAC (n = 27), ATRA is re-purposed as a stromal-targeting agent in combination with gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy using a two-step adaptive continual re-assessment method trial design. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D, primary outcome) is the FDA/EMEA approved dose of gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel along-with ATRA (45 mg/m2 orally, days 1-15/cycle). Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) is grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 2). Secondary outcomes show no detriment to ATRA pharmacokinetics.. Median overall survival for RP2D treated evaluable population, is 11.7 months (95%CI 8.6-15.7 m, n = 15, locally advanced (2) and metastatic (13)). Exploratory pharmacodynamics studies including changes in diffusion-weighted (DW)-MRI measured apparent diffusion coefficient after one cycle, and, modulation of cycle-specific serum pentraxin 3 levels over various cycles indicate stromal modulation. Baseline stromal-specific retinoid transport protein (FABP5, CRABP2) expression may be predicitve of response. Re-purposing ATRA as a stromal-targeting agent with gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel is safe and tolerable. This combination will be evaluated in a phase II randomized controlled trial for locally advanced PDAC. Clinical trial numbers: EudraCT: 2015-002662-23; NCT03307148. Trial acronym: STARPAC.

Publisher Correction: Clinical efficacy and biomarker analysis of neoadjuvant atezolizumab in operable urothelial carcinoma in the ABACUS trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Capivasertib Plus Paclitaxel Versus Placebo Plus Paclitaxel As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: The PAKT Trial.

PURPOSE: The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT signaling pathway is frequently activated in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The AKT inhibitor capivasertib has shown preclinical activity in TNBC models, and drug sensitivity has been associated with activation of PI3K or AKT and/or deletions of PTEN. The PAKT trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding capivasertib to paclitaxel as first-line therapy for TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase II trial recruited women with untreated metastatic TNBC. A total of 140 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15) with either capivasertib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo (days 2-5, 9-12, 16-19) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), PFS and OS in the subgroup with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations, tumor response, and safety. RESULTS: Median PFS was 5.9 months with capivasertib plus paclitaxel and 4.2 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.08; 1-sided P = .06 [predefined significance level, 1-sided P = .10]). Median OS was 19.1 months with capivasertib plus paclitaxel and 12.6 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99; 2-sided P = .04). In patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors (n = 28), median PFS was 9.3 months with capivasertib plus paclitaxel and 3.7 months with placebo plus paclitaxel (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.79; 2-sided P = .01). The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events in those treated with capivasertib plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel, respectively, were diarrhea (13% v 1%), infection (4% v 1%), neutropenia (3% v 3%), rash (4% v 0%), and fatigue (4% v 0%). CONCLUSION: Addition of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib to first-line paclitaxel therapy for TNBC resulted in significantly longer PFS and OS. Benefits were more pronounced in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors. Capivasertib warrants further investigation for treatment of TNBC.

Faecal immunochemical tests versus colonoscopy for post-polypectomy surveillance: an accuracy, acceptability and economic study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, patients with one or two adenomas, of which at least one is ≥ 10 mm in size, or three or four small adenomas, are deemed to be at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and referred for surveillance colonoscopy 3 years post polypectomy. However, colonoscopy is costly, can cause discomfort and carries a small risk of complications. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not annual faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are effective, acceptable and cost saving compared with colonoscopy surveillance for detecting CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs). DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study with health psychology assessment and economic evaluation. SETTING: Participants were recruited from 30 January 2012 to 30 December 2013 within the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women, aged 60-72 years, deemed to be at intermediate risk of CRC following adenoma removal after a positive guaiac faecal occult blood test were invited to participate. Invitees who consented and returned an analysable FIT were included. INTERVENTION: We offered participants quantitative FITs at 1, 2 and 3 years post polypectomy. Participants testing positive with any FIT were referred for colonoscopy and not offered further FITs. Participants testing negative were offered colonoscopy at 3 years post polypectomy. Acceptibility of FIT was assessed using discussion groups, questionnaires and interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 3-year sensitivity of an annual FIT versus colonoscopy at 3 years for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) (CRC and/or AA). Secondary outcomes included participants' surveillance preferences, and the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy surveillance. RESULTS: Of 8008 invitees, 5946 (74.3%) consented and returned a round 1 FIT. FIT uptake in rounds 2 and 3 was 97.2% and 96.9%, respectively. With a threshold of 40 µg of haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces (hereafter referred to as µg/g), positivity was 5.8% in round 1, declining to 4.1% in round 3. Over three rounds, 69.2% (18/26) of participants with CRC, 34.3% (152/443) with AAs and 35.6% (165/463) with ACN tested positive at 40 µg/g. Sensitivity for CRC and AAs increased, whereas specificity decreased, with lower thresholds and multiple rounds. At 40 µg/g, sensitivity and specificity of the first FIT for CRC were 30.8% and 93.9%, respectively. The programme sensitivity and specificity of three rounds at 10 µg/g were 84.6% and 70.8%, respectively. Participants' preferred surveillance strategy was 3-yearly colonoscopy plus annual FITs (57.9%), followed by annual FITs with colonoscopy in positive cases (31.5%). FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases was cheaper than 3-yearly colonoscopy (£2,633,382), varying from £485,236 (40 µg/g) to £956,602 (10 µg/g). Over 3 years, FIT surveillance could miss 291 AAs and eight CRCs using a threshold of 40 µg/g, or 189 AAs and four CRCs using a threshold of 10 µg/g. CONCLUSIONS: Annual low-threshold FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases achieved high sensitivity for CRC and would be cost saving compared with 3-yearly colonoscopy. However, at higher thresholds, this strategy could miss 15-30% of CRCs and 40-70% of AAs. Most participants preferred annual FITs plus 3-yearly colonoscopy. Further research is needed to define a clear role for FITs in surveillance. FUTURE WORK: Evaluate the impact of ACN missed by FITs on quality-adjusted life-years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18040196. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Bobby Moore Fund for Cancer Research UK. MAST Group Ltd provided FIT kits.

Clinical efficacy and biomarker analysis of neoadjuvant atezolizumab in operable urothelial carcinoma in the ABACUS trial.

Antibodies targeting PD-1 or its ligand 1 PD-L1 such as atezolizumab, have great efficacy in a proportion of metastatic urothelial cancers1,2. Biomarkers may facilitate identification of these responding tumors3. Neoadjuvant use of these agents is associated with pathological complete response in a spectrum of tumors, including urothelial cancer4-7. Sequential tissue sampling from these studies allowed for detailed on-treatment biomarker analysis. Here, we present a single-arm phase 2 study, investigating two cycles of atezolizumab before cystectomy in 95 patients with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02662309). Pathological complete response was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints focused on safety, relapse-free survival and biomarker analysis. The pathological complete response rate was 31% (95% confidence interval: 21-41%), achieving the primary efficacy endpoint. Baseline biomarkers showed that the presence of preexisting activated T cells was more prominent than expected and correlated with outcome. Other established biomarkers, such as tumor mutational burden, did not predict outcome, differentiating this from the metastatic setting. Dynamic changes to gene expression signatures and protein biomarkers occurred with therapy, whereas changes in DNA alterations with treatment were uncommon. Responding tumors showed predominant expression of genes related to tissue repair after treatment, making tumor biomarker interpretation challenging in this group. Stromal factors such as transforming growth factor-ß and fibroblast activation protein were linked to resistance, as was high expression of cell cycle gene signatures after treatment.

Fulvestrant Plus Vistusertib vs Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus vs Fulvestrant Alone for Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: The MANTA Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated a substantial benefit of adding everolimus to endocrine therapy. Everolimus inhibits the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) complex but not mTORC2, which can set off an activating feedback loop via mTORC2. Vistusertib, a dual inhibitor of mTORC1 and mTORC2, has demonstrated broad activity in preclinical breast cancer models, showing superior activity to everolimus. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vistusertib in combination with fulvestrant compared with fulvestrant alone or fulvestrant plus everolimus in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The MANTA trial is an open-label, phase 2 randomized clinical trial in which 333 patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer progressing after prior aromatase inhibitor treatment underwent randomization (2:3:3:2) between April 1, 2014, and October 24, 2016, at 88 sites in 9 countries: 67 patients were assigned to receive fulvestrant, 103 fulvestrant plus vistusertib daily, 98 fulvestrant plus vistusertib intermittently, and 65 fulvestrant plus everolimus. Treatment was continued until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. INTERVENTIONS: Fulvestrant alone or in combination with vistusertib (continuous or intermittent dosing schedules) or everolimus. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Among the 333 women in the study (median age, 63 years [range, 56-70 years]), median PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5-9.2 months) with fulvestrant, 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.9-9.4 months) with fulvestrant plus daily vistusertib, 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.6-9.9 months) with fulvestrant plus intermittent vistusertib, and 12.3 months (95% CI, 7.7-15.7 months) with fulvestrant plus everolimus. There was no significant difference in PFS between those receiving fulvestrant plus daily or intermittent vistusertib and fulvestrant alone (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.63-1.24]; P = .46; and hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.55-1.12]; P = .16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The combination of fulvestrant plus everolimus demonstrated significantly longer PFS compared with fulvestrant plus vistusertib or fulvestrant alone. The trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of adding the dual mTORC1 and mTORC2 inhibitor vistusertib to fulvestrant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02216786 and EudraCT number: 2013-002403-34.