Oncogenic chimeric transcription factors drive tumor-specific transcription, processing, and translation of silent genomic regions.

Many cancers are characterized by gene fusions encoding oncogenic chimeric transcription factors (TFs) such as EWS::FLI1 in Ewing sarcoma (EwS). Here, we find that EWS::FLI1 induces the robust expression of a specific set of novel spliced and polyadenylated transcripts within otherwise transcriptionally silent regions of the genome. These neogenes (NGs) are virtually undetectable in large collections of normal tissues or non-EwS tumors and can be silenced by CRISPR interference at regulatory EWS::FLI1-bound microsatellites. Ribosome profiling and proteomics further show that some NGs are translated into highly EwS-specific peptides. More generally, we show that hundreds of NGs can be detected in diverse cancers characterized by chimeric TFs. Altogether, this study identifies the transcription, processing, and translation of novel, specific, highly expressed multi-exonic transcripts from otherwise silent regions of the genome as a new activity of aberrant TFs in cancer.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with solid tumours harbouring specific activating HER2 mutations (DESTINY-PanTumor01): an international, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab deruxtecan is a HER2-directed antibody-drug conjugate approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for HER2-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. Few treatment options exist for patients with HER2-mutant solid tumours beyond lung cancers. We investigated trastuzumab deruxtecan in metastatic solid tumours with specific activating HER2 mutations. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2, basket study done in 29 centres in Asia, Europe, and North America, we investigated trastuzumab deruxtecan (5·4 mg/kg every 3 weeks by intravenous infusion) in patients aged 18 years or older with unresectable or metastatic solid tumours with specific activating HER2 mutations, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and disease progression following previous treatment (previous HER2-targeted therapy was permitted) or with no satisfactory alternative treatment options. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate by independent central review. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of trastuzumab deruxtecan. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04639219, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2020, and Jan 25, 2023, 102 patients (62 [61%] female and 40 [39%] male; median age 66·5 years [IQR 58-72]; 51 [50%] White, two [2%] Black or African American, 38 [37%] Asian, and 11 [11%] did not have race information reported) with solid tumours with activating HER2 mutations received trastuzumab deruxtecan and were included in the anti-tumour activity and safety analyses sets. Patients had a median of three (IQR 2-4) previous treatment regimens. The median duration of follow-up was 8·61 months (IQR 3·71-12·68). The objective response rate by independent central review was 29·4% (95% CI 20·8-39·3; 30 of 102 patients). 52 (51%) patients had a treatment-emergent adverse event of grade 3 or worse; the most common events (in ≥5% of patients) were anaemia (16 [16%]) and neutrophil count decreased (eight [8%]). Drug-related treatment-emergent serious adverse events occurred in ten (10%) patients. Adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis of any grade occurred in 11 patients (11%; three grade 1, five grade 2, one grade 3, and two grade 5); there were two (2%) cases of fatal adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis. INTERPRETATION: Trastuzumab deruxtecan showed anti-tumour activity and durable responses in heavily pretreated patients across multiple tumour types with activating HER2 mutations, with no new safety signals. Prespecified HER2 mutations might be targeted by HER2-directed antibody-drug conjugates and our findings support further investigation of trastuzumab deruxtecan in the pan-tumour setting. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo.

Olaparib maintenance versus placebo in platinum-sensitive non-small cell lung cancer: the Phase 2 randomized PIPSeN trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-sensitivity is a phenotypic biomarker of Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) sensitivity in histotypes where PARPi are approved. Approximately one-third of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) are platinum-sensitive. The double-blind, randomized phase II PIPSeN (NCT02679963) study evaluated olaparib, a PARPi, as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with ECOG performance status of 0-1, platinum-sensitive, EGFR- and ALK-wild-type, stage IIIB-IV NSCLC were randomized (R) to receive either olaparib (O) maintenance or a placebo (P). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) from R. Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS) and safety. With an anticipated hazard ratio of 0.65, 144 patients were required to be randomized, and approximately 500 patients enrolled. RESULTS: The trial was prematurely terminated because anti-PD(L)1 therapy was approved during the trial recruitment. A total of 182 patients were enrolled, with 60 patients randomized: 33 and 27 in the O and P arms, respectively. Patient and tumor characteristics were well-balanced between arms, except for alcohol intake (33% vs 11% in the O and P arms, respectively, p = 0.043). The median PFS was 2.9 and 2.0 months in the O and P arms, respectively (logrank p = 0.99). The median OS was 9.4 and 9.5 months in the O and P arms, respectively (p = 0.28). Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 15 and 8 patients in O and P arms, with no new safety concerns. CONCLUSION: PIPSeN was terminated early after enrollment of only 50% of the pre-planned population, thus being statistically underpowered. Olaparib maintenance did neither improve median PFS nor OS in this patient population.

Exploiting epigenetic vulnerabilities in solid tumors: Novel therapeutic opportunities in the treatment of SWI/SNF-defective cancers.

Mammalian switch/sucrose non-fermentable (mSWI/SNF) family complexes are pivotal elements of the chromatin remodeling machinery, which contribute to the regulation of several major cellular functions. Large-scale exome-wide sequencing studies have identified mutations in genes encoding mSWI/SNF subunits in 20% of all human cancers, establishing mSWI/SNF deficiency as a recurrent oncogenic alteration. Accumulating evidence now supports that several mSWI/SNF defects represent targetable vulnerabilities in cancer; notably, recent research advances have unveiled unexpected synthetic lethal opportunities that foster the development of novel biomarker-driven and mechanism-based therapeutic approaches for the treatment of mSWI/SNF-deficient tumors. Here, we review the latest breakthroughs and discoveries that inform our understanding of the mSWI/SNF complexes biology in carcinogenesis, and discuss the most promising therapeutic strategies to target mSWI/SNF defects in human solid malignancies.

Understanding genetic determinants of resistance to immune checkpoint blockers.

The advent of immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) has revolutionized patient outcome in many tumor types. However, only a minority of patients truly benefits from these therapies and displays a durable and robust anti-tumor response that translates into improved outcome. Thorough mechanistic preclinical studies and comprehensive investigations performed in tumor biopsies of patients treated with ICB have unveiled multiple resistance mechanisms involving both tumor-intrinsic and tumor-extrinsic characteristics. Here, we comprehensively review all known tumor-intrinsic genetic and epigenetic resistance mechanisms to ICB, provide an evaluation of their current level of evidence and propose rationale therapeutic strategies to circumvent them.

Patterns of progression in patients treated for immuno-oncology antibodies combination.

BACKGROUND: New patterns of progression under immune-oncology (IO) antibodies (mAb) have been described such as pseudoprogression. Except for melanoma, variations between studies reveal difficulties to establish their prevalence. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled patients participating in IO phase I trials at Gustave Roussy cancer center for solid tumors excluding melanoma. Radiological assessment according to iRECIST was correlated with prospectively registered patient characteristics and outcomes. Pseudoprogression (PsPD) was defined as RECIST-defined progression followed by stabilization or decrease at the next imaging, and dissociated response (DisR) as concomitant decrease in some tumor lesions and increase in others at a same timepoint. RESULTS: Among 360 patients included, 74% received IO mAb combination: 45% with another IO mAb, 20% with targeted therapy and 10% with radiotherapy. The overall response rate was 19.7%. PsPD were observed in 10 (2.8%) patients and DisR in 12 (3.3%) patients. Atypical responses (AR), including PsPD and DisR, were not associated with any patient's baseline characteristics. Compare with typical responder patients, patients experiencing AR presented a shorter iPFS (HR 0.34; p < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.27; p = 0.026). Among the 203 patients who progressed in 12 weeks, 80 (39.4%) patients were treated beyond progression. PD was confirmed in 80% of cases, while 10% of patients presented a response. CONCLUSION: Pseudoprogression and dissociated response are uncommon patterns of progression. Their prevalence should be balanced with the rate of real progressing patients treated beyond progression. Prognosis or on-treatment biomarkers are needed to identify early patients who will benefit from immunotherapy.

Olaparib and durvalumab in patients with germline BRCA-mutated metastatic breast cancer (MEDIOLA): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1/2, basket study.

BACKGROUND: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors combined with immunotherapy have shown antitumour activity in preclinical studies. We aimed to assess the safety and activity of olaparib in combination with the PD-L1-inhibitor, durvalumab, in patients with germline BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: The MEDIOLA trial is a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2, basket trial of durvalumab and olaparib in solid tumours. Patients were enrolled into four initial cohorts: germline BRCA-mutated, metastatic breast cancer; germline BRCA-mutated, metastatic ovarian cancer; metastatic gastric cancer; and relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Here, we report on the cohort of patients with breast cancer. Patients who were aged 18 years or older (or aged 19 years or older in South Korea) with germline BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated or both and histologically confirmed, progressive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer were enrolled from 14 health centres in the UK, the USA, Israel, France, Switzerland, and South Korea. Patients should not have received more than two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Patients received 300 mg olaparib in tablet form orally twice daily for 4 weeks and thereafter a combination of olaparib 300 mg twice daily and durvalumab 1·5 g via intravenous infusion every 4 weeks until disease progression. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, and 12-week disease control rate. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, and activity analyses were done in the full-analysis set (patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and were not excluded from the study). Recruitment has completed and the study is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02734004. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2016, and May 2, 2017, 34 patients were enrolled and received both study drugs and were included in the safety analysis. 11 (32%) patients experienced grade 3 or worse adverse events, of which the most common were anaemia (four [12%]), neutropenia (three [9%]), and pancreatitis (two [6%]). Three (9%) patients discontinued due to adverse events and four (12%) patients experienced a total of six serious adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. 24 (80%; 90% CI 64·3-90·9) of 30 patients eligible for activity analysis had disease control at 12 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Combination of olaparib and durvalumab showed promising antitumour activity and safety similar to that previously observed in olaparib and durvalumab monotherapy studies. Further research in a randomised setting is needed to determine predictors of therapeutic benefit and whether addition of durvalumab improves long-term clinical outcomes compared with olaparib monotherapy. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

First-in-human Phase 1 open label study of the BET inhibitor ODM-207 in patients with selected solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Bromodomain and extra-terminal domain (BET) proteins are reported to be epigenetic anti-cancer drug targets. This first-in-human study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary anti-tumour activity of the BET inhibitor ODM-207 in patients with selected solid tumours. METHODS: This was an open-label Phase 1 study comprised of a dose escalation part, and evaluation of the effect of food on pharmacokinetics. ODM-207 was administered orally once daily. The dose escalation part was initiated with a dose titration in the initial cohort, followed by a 3 + 3 design. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were treated with ODM-207, of whom 12 (34%) had castrate-resistant prostate cancer. One dose-limiting toxicity of intolerable fatigue was observed. The highest studied dose achieved was 2 mg/kg due to cumulative toxicity observed beyond the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) treatment window. Common AEs included thrombocytopenia, asthenia, nausea, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, and vomiting. Platelet count decreased proportionally to exposure with rapid recovery upon treatment discontinuation. No partial or complete responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: ODM-207 shows increasing exposure in dose escalation and was safe at doses up to 2 mg/kg but had a narrow therapeutic window. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinical trial registration number is NCT03035591.

Time to progression ratio in cancer patients enrolled in early phase clinical trials: time for new guidelines?

BACKGROUND: Reliable evaluation of treatment benefit in early phase clinical trials is necessary. The time to progression ratio (TTPr), which compares successive TTP in a single patient, is a powerful criteria for determining targeted or immune therapies efficacy. METHODS: We evaluated 205 TTPr in a large cohort of 177 advanced cancer patients enrolled in at least two Phase 1/1b trials (out of 2827 phase 1/1b-treated patients) at Gustave Roussy. RESULTS: This first wide description of TTPr showed that, under the hypothesis of overall absence of treatment line effect, the median TTPr was 0.7 and that 25% of patients presented a TTPr above the conventional efficacy threshold of 1.3. CONCLUSIONS: A higher median TTPr and a larger proportion of patients above the 1.3 threshold should therefore be achieved to conclude to drug efficacy. New guidelines for TTPr interpretation and calibration are proposed, which warrant independent prospective validation.

Outcomes and prognostic factors for relapsed or refractory lymphoma patients in phase I clinical trials.

Background Although safety and prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) have been extensively studied in Phase I clinical trials on patients with solid tumours, data on lymphoma trials are scarce. Here, we investigated safety, outcomes and prognostic factors in relapsed or refractory lymphoma patients included in a series of Phase I trials. Method and patients All consecutive adult patients with recurrent/refractory lymphoma enrolled in 26 Phase I trials at a single cancer centre in France between January 2008 and June 2016 were retrospectively assessed. Results 133 patients (males: 65%) were included in the analysis. The median (range) age was 65 (23-86). Aggressive non-Hodgkin, indolent non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin types accounted for 64%, 25% and 11% of the patients, respectively. The patients had received a median (range) of 3 (1-13) lines of treatment prior to trial entry. The median [95% confidence interval] progression-free survival and OS times were 3.0 [1.8-3.6] and 17.8 [12.7-30.4] months, respectively. High-grade toxicity (grade 3 or higher, according to the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events classification) was experienced by 56 of the 133 patients (42%) and was related to the investigational drug in 44 of these cases (79%). No toxicity-related deaths occurred. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was encountered in 11 (9%) of the 116 evaluable patients. High-grade toxicity occurred during the DLT period for 34 of the 56 patients (61%) and after the DLT period in the remaining 22 (39%). The main prognostic factors for poor OS were the histological type (i.e. tumour aggressiveness), an elevated serum LDH level, and a low serum albumin level. Early withdrawal from a trial was correlated with the performance status score, the histological type and the serum LDH level. The overall objective response and disease control rates were 24% and 57%, respectively. Conclusion Performance status, LDH, albumin and histological type (tumour aggressiveness) appear to be the most relevant prognostic factors for enrolling Phase I participants with relapsed or refractory lymphoma. 39% of the patients experienced a first high-grade toxic event after the dose-limiting toxicity period, suggesting that the conventional concept of dose-limiting toxicity (designed for chemotherapy) should be redefined in the era of modern cancer therapies.

Lorlatinib in non-small-cell lung cancer with ALK or ROS1 rearrangement: an international, multicentre, open-label, single-arm first-in-man phase 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged or ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1)-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are sensitive to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy, but resistance invariably develops, commonly within the CNS. This study aimed to analyse the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic properties of lorlatinib, a novel, highly potent, selective, and brain-penetrant ALK and ROS1 TKI with preclinical activity against most known resistance mutations, in patients with advanced ALK-positive or ROS1-positive NSCLC. METHODS: In this international multicentre, open-label, single-arm, first-in-man phase 1 dose-escalation study, eligible patients had advanced ALK-positive or ROS1-positive NSCLC and were older than 18 years, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate end-organ function. Lorlatinib was administered orally to patients at doses ranging from 10 mg to 200 mg once daily or 35 mg to 100 mg twice daily, with a minimum of three patients receiving each dose. For some patients, tumour biopsy was done before lorlatinib treatment to identify ALK resistance mutations. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of lorlatinib; efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population (patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had either ALK or ROS1 rearrangement). The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicities during cycle 1 according to investigator assessment; secondary endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics, and overall response. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01970865. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2014, and July 10, 2015, 54 patients received at least one dose of lorlatinib, including 41 (77%) with ALK-positive and 12 (23%) with ROS1-positive NSCLC; one patient had unconfirmed ALK and ROS1 status. 28 (52%) patients had received two or more TKIs, and 39 (72%) patients had CNS metastases. The most common treatment-related adverse events among the 54 patients were hypercholesterolaemia (39 [72%] of 54 patients), hypertriglyceridaemia (21 [39%] of 54 patients), peripheral neuropathy (21 [39%] of 54 patients), and peripheral oedema (21 [39%] of 54 patients). One dose-limiting toxicity occurred at 200 mg (the patient did not take at least 16 of 21 prescribed total daily doses in cycle 1 because of toxicities attributable to study drug, which were grade 2 neurocognitive adverse events comprising slowed speech and mentation and word-finding difficulty). No maximum tolerated dose was identified. The recommended phase 2 dose was selected as 100 mg once daily. For ALK-positive patients, the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 19 (46%) of 41 patients (95% CI 31-63); for those who had received two or more TKIs, the proportion of patients with an objective response was 11 (42%) of 26 patients (23-63). In ROS1-positive patients, including seven crizotinib-pretreated patients, an objective response was achieved by six (50%) of 12 patients (95% CI 21-79). INTERPRETATION: In this phase 1, dose-escalation study, lorlatinib showed both systemic and intracranial activity in patients with advanced ALK-positive or ROS1-positive NSCLC, most of whom had CNS metastases and had previously had two or more TKI treatments fail. Therefore, lorlatinib might be an effective therapeutic strategy for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who have become resistant to currently available TKIs, including second-generation ALK TKIs, and is being investigated in a phase 3 randomised controlled trial comparing lorlatinib to crizotinib (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03052608). FUNDING: Pfizer.

Prognostic factors and outcome of patients with hematological malignancies in phase I trials: the Gustave Roussy scoring system.

Despite considerable progress in hematological malignancies (HM) biology during the last decades, translation into clinical benefit remains a major challenge. To improve patient selection and identify patients most likely to benefit from phase I trials, we designed and validated, in an independent cohort, a simple prognostic score. Treatment outcome, toxicity, and survival data from 82 consecutive patients enrolled in 14 phase I trials were reviewed (January 2008-February 2012). We validated these results on a prospectively collected cohort (17 phase I trials, February 2012-May 2014, 88 patients). Within a median follow-up of 19.1 months (range: 2.1-43.8 months), the median progression-free and overall survival (OS) were, respectively, 4.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.0-5.3] and 19.8 months (95% CI: 16.1-36.8). Best overall response and disease control rates were similar to HM salvage regimens (28 and 64%, respectively). Through multivariate analysis of independent prognostic factors, we designed and prospectively validated a simple prognostic score based on histological subtype, performance status, and albumin. Patients with a low-risk score experienced significantly better OS compared with patients with an intermediate or a high score (median OS: 37 vs. 17 vs. 5 months; hazard ratio=11.68, 95% CI: 4.09-33.3). Our data indicate the safety and efficacy of phase I trials in a significant number of relapsed/refractory HM patients, with clinical benefit achieved in more than half of patients. Our simple scoring system offers a valuable selection tool encouraging HM patient inclusions in phase I trials.

Patients aged over 75 years enrolled in Phase I clinical trials: the Gustave Roussy experience.

Although a third of all cancers are diagnosed after the age of 75, only 9% of elderly people are recruited in clinical trials, because of fear of the risk of toxicity. The aim of this study was to compare the tolerance and efficacy observed in Phase I trials among patients aged over 75 years with that observed in younger patients. Patients treated from 2007 to 2012 at Institut Gustave Roussy in Phase I trials were included. The conditional Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare the occurrence of AE and overall survival in a subpopulation of elderly people (EP, aged >75 years) matched with patients aged <75 years (YP) according to the same Phase I protocol and the same Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score. Among the 32 EP and the 158 YP, 63% and 61% experienced Grade 3-4 AEs and dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 6% and 11% in each group respectively. Age over 75 years was neither associated with a greater risk of high toxicity (HR=0.90 [CI95%, 0.47-1.70], p = 0.74) nor of death (HR=0.86; CI95%: 0.38-1.93; p = 0.71). Age over 75 years had no impact on the occurrence of either high toxicity or of death.

Arterial hypertension associated with PARPi: A meta-analysis of 41 placebo randomized controlled trials combined with a World Health Organization's pharmacovigilance study.

BACKGROUND: Arterial hypertension has been recently reported from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi). OBJECTIVE: In a context of increasing use of PARPi, it is crucial to properly assess risk and incidence of this adverse event for clinical practice. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov up to January 4, 2023 with an ongoing surveillance up to June 7, 2023. RCTs comparing PARPi to placebo in adult patients with solid tumors were included if hypertension was reported. The primary outcome was the summary risk ratio (RR, with 95% CIs) of any hypertension of PARPi class in placebo RCTs. Secondary outcomes were the summary risk and incidence of hypertension of each individual PARPi. To provide clinical features of PARPi-associated hypertension, we independently queried the WHO's pharmacovigilance database, up to September 1, 2022. RESULTS: In total, 41 placebo RCTs (n = 15 264 adult patients) were included. PARPi class was not associated with an increased risk of hypertension compared with placebo. In individual analyses, the risk of hypertension was lower with olaparib than placebo (RR 0.77 [95% CI: 0.68-0.86], P < 0.01; I2 = 19%, χ2 P = 0.26). Niraparib monotherapy increased the risk of any (RR 2.84 [95% CI: 1.76-4.57], P < 0.01; I2 = 66%, χ2 P = 0.01) hypertension with a summary incidence of 19.87% (95% CI: 15.23-25.50). In real-life setting, niraparib-associated hypertension occurs within 20 days and was serious in 66%. Co-prescription of at least one antihypertensive or therapy-induced hypertension was reported in 20.5% or 14.4% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a context of extensive assessment of niraparib in combination, these data reinforce the need of a close monitoring of this adverse event to preserve its clinical benefit on patients' survival.

Molecular profiling of biliary tract cancers reveals distinct genomic landscapes between circulating and tissue tumor DNA.

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are heterogeneous malignancies with dismal prognosis due to tumor aggressiveness and poor response to limited current therapeutic options. Tumor exome profiling has allowed to successfully establish targeted therapeutic strategies in the clinical management of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Still, whether liquid biopsy profiling could inform on BTC biology and patient management is unknown. In order to test this and generate novel insight into BTC biology, we analyzed the molecular landscape of 128 CCA patients, using a 394-gene NGS panel (Foundation Medicine). Among them, 32 patients had matched circulating tumor (ct) DNA and tumor DNA samples, where both samples were profiled. In both tumor and liquid biopsies, we identified an increased frequency of alterations in genes involved in genome integrity or chromatin remodeling, including ARID1A (15%), PBRM1 (9%), and BAP1 (14%), which were validated using an in-house-developed immunohistochemistry panel. ctDNA and tumor DNA showed variable concordance, with a significant correlation in the total number of detected variants, but some heterogeneity in the detection of actionable mutations. FGFR2 mutations were more frequently identified in liquid biopsies, whereas KRAS alterations were mostly found in tumors. All IDH1 mutations detected in tumor DNA were also identified in liquid biopsies. These findings provide novel insights in the concordance between the tumor and liquid biopsies genomic landscape in a large cohort of patients with BTC and highlight the complementarity of both analyses when guiding therapeutic prescription.

Translational Aspects of Epithelioid Sarcoma: Current Consensus.

Epithelioid sarcoma (EpS) is an ultra-rare malignant soft-tissue cancer mostly affecting adolescents and young adults. EpS often exhibits an unfavorable clinical course with fatal outcome in ∼50% of cases despite aggressive multimodal therapies combining surgery, chemotherapy, and irradiation. EpS is traditionally classified in a more common, less aggressive distal (classic) type and a rarer aggressive proximal type. Both subtypes are characterized by a loss of nuclear INI1 expression, most often following homozygous deletion of its encoding gene, SMARCB1-a core subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex. In 2020, the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat was the first targeted therapy approved for EpS, raising new hopes. Still, the vast majority of patients did not benefit from this drug or relapsed rapidly. Further, other recent therapeutic modalities, including immunotherapy, are only effective in a fraction of patients. Thus, novel strategies, specifically targeted to EpS, are urgently needed. To accelerate translational research on EpS and eventually boost the discovery and development of new diagnostic tools and therapeutic options, a vibrant translational research community has formed in past years and held two international EpS digital expert meetings in 2021 and 2023. This review summarizes our current understanding of EpS from the translational research perspective and points to innovative research directions to address the most pressing questions in the field, as defined by expert consensus and patient advocacy groups.

Single-cell multiomics profiling reveals heterogeneous transcriptional programs and microenvironment in DSRCTs.

Desmoplastic small round cell tumor (DSRCT) is a rare, aggressive sarcoma driven by the EWSR1::WT1 chimeric transcription factor. Despite this unique oncogenic driver, DSRCT displays a polyphenotypic differentiation of unknown causality. Using single-cell multi-omics on 12 samples from five patients, we find that DSRCT tumor cells cluster into consistent subpopulations with partially overlapping lineage- and metabolism-related transcriptional programs. In vitro modeling shows that high EWSR1::WT1 DNA-binding activity associates with most lineage-related states, in contrast to glycolytic and profibrotic states. Single-cell chromatin accessibility analysis suggests that EWSR1::WT1 binding site variability may drive distinct lineage-related transcriptional programs, supporting some level of cell-intrinsic plasticity. Spatial transcriptomics reveals that glycolytic and profibrotic states specifically localize within hypoxic niches at the periphery of tumor cell islets, suggesting an additional role of tumor cell-extrinsic microenvironmental cues. We finally identify a single-cell transcriptomics-derived epithelial signature associated with improved patient survival, highlighting the clinical relevance of our findings.

Antibody drug conjugates in older patients: State of the art.

More than half of cancer cases occur in patients aged 65 years or older. The efficacy and safety of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) in older patients remains an unclear subject as available evidence is limited. Geriatric population is underrepresented in clinical trials. Consequently, most of our knowledge regarding innovative therapeutics was studied on a younger population. In this review of published literature, we report the available information on efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of FDA approved ADCs for hematologic malignancies and solid tumors in the geriatric population. We explore the results of clinical trials dedicated for older individuals as well as subgroup analyses of the geriatric population in major trials evaluating these drugs. Available data suggest a similar efficacy in older adults as compared to general population. However, older patients might be prone to a higher rate of adverse events in incidence with a potential impact on quality of life. We lack data to support primary dose reductions or schedule modifications in this category of patients. No pharmacokinetic differences were reported between age groups. It is crucial to encourage the development of clinical trials dedicated to older patients with geriatric parameters (G8 score, G-CODE…) so that results can be more representative of this population outside of clinical trials.

Profile and outcome of cancer patients enrolled in contemporary phase I trials.

BACKGROUND: Phase I trials historically involved heavily pretreated patients (pts) with no more effective therapeutic options available and with poor expected outcomes. There are scare data regarding profile and outcomes of pts enrolled into modern phase I trials. Here, we sought to provide an overview of pts' profile and outcome into phase I trials at Gustave Roussy (GR). METHODS: This is a monocentric retrospective study, including all pts enrolled into phase I trials at GR from 2017 to 2021. Data regarding pts' demographics, tumour types, investigational treatments and survival outcomes were collected. RESULTS: In total, 9482 pts were referred for early phase trials; 2478 pts were screened, among which 449 (18.1%) failed screening; 1693 pts finally received at least one treatment dose as part of a phase I trial. Median age of pts was 59 years old (range, 18-88) and most common tumour types included gastrointestinal (25.3%), haematological (15%), lung (13.6%), genitourinary (10.5%) and gynaecologic cancers (9.4%). Amongst all pts treated and evaluable for response (1634 pts), objective response rate was 15.9% and disease control rate was 45.4%. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 2.6 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.3; 2.8) and 12.4 months (95% CI, 11.7; 13.6). CONCLUSION: As compared with historical data, our study shows that outcomes of pts included into modern phase I trials have improved and that these trials constitute nowadays a valid and safe therapeutic option. These updated data provide facts for adapting the methodology, role and place of phase I trials over the next years.

Olaparib and durvalumab in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (MEDIOLA): An open-label, multicenter, phase 1/2, basket study.

INTRODUCTION: Preclinical studies have demonstrated increased efficacy with combined DNA damage response inhibition and immune checkpoint blockade compared with either alone. We assessed olaparib in combination with durvalumab in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS: Patients with previously treated limited or extensive-stage SCLC received oral olaparib 300 mg twice daily, as run-in for 4 weeks, then with durvalumab (1500 mg intravenously every 4 weeks) until disease progression. Primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, and 12-week disease control rate (DCR). Secondary endpoints included 28-week DCR, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, change in tumor size, and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled and analyzed for safety; 38 were analyzed for efficacy. Eleven patients (28.9% [90% confidence interval (CI), 17.2-43.3]) had disease control at 12 weeks. ORR was 10.5% (95% CI, 2.9-24.8). Median progression-free and overall survival were 2.4 (95% CI, 0.9-3.0)months and 7.6(95% CI, 5.6-8.8)months, respectively. The most common adverse events (≥40.0%) were anemia, nausea, and fatigue. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 32 patients (80.0%). PD-L1 levels, tumor mutational burden, and other genetic mutations were evaluated, but no significant correlations with clinical outcomes wereobserved. CONCLUSIONS: Tolerability of olaparib with durvalumab was consistent with the safety profile of each agent alone. Although the 12-week DCR did not meet the prespecified target (60%), four patients responded, and median overall survival was promising for a pretreated SCLC population. Further analyses are required to identify patients most likely to benefit from this treatment approach.