An international phase II trial and immune profiling of SBRT and atezolizumab in advanced pretreated colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immuno-radiotherapy may improve outcomes for patients with advanced solid tumors, although optimized combination modalities remain unclear. Here, we report the colorectal (CRC) cohort analysis from the SABR-PDL1 trial that evaluated the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in combination with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in advanced cancer patients. METHODS: Eligible patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks until progression or unmanageable toxicity, together with ablative SBRT delivered concurrently with the 2nd cycle (recommended dose of 45 Gy in 3 fractions, adapted upon normal tissue tolerance constraint). SBRT was delivered to at least one tumor site, with at least one additional measurable lesion being kept from the radiation field. The primary efficacy endpoint was one-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate from the start of atezolizumab. Sequential tumor biopsies were collected for deep multi-feature immune profiling. RESULTS: Sixty pretreated (median of 2 prior lines) advanced CRC patients (38 men [63%]; median age, 59 years [range, 20-81 years]; 77% with liver metastases) were enrolled in five centers (France: n = 4, Spain: n = 1) from 11/2016 to 04/2019. All but one (98%) received atezolizumab and 54/60 (90%) received SBRT. The most frequently irradiated site was lung (n = 30/54; 56.3%). Treatment-related G3 (no G4-5) toxicity was observed in 3 (5%) patients. Median OS and PFS were respectively 8.4 [95%CI:5.9-11.6] and 1.4 months [95%CI:1.2-2.6], including five (9%) patients with PFS > 1 year (median time to progression: 19.2 months, including 2/5 MMR-proficient). Best overall responses consisted of stable disease (n = 38; 64%), partial (n = 3; 5%) and complete response (n = 1; 2%). Immune-centric multiplex IHC and RNAseq showed that SBRT redirected immune cells towards tumor lesions, even in the case of radio-induced lymphopenia. Baseline tumor PD-L1 and IRF1 nuclear expression (both in CD3 + T cells and in CD68 + cells) were higher in responding patients. Upregulation of genes that encode for proteins known to increase T and B cell trafficking to tumors (CCL19, CXCL9), migration (MACF1) and tumor cell killing (GZMB) correlated with responses. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new data on the feasibility, efficacy, and immune context of tumors that may help identifying advanced CRC patients most likely to respond to immuno-radiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT N°: 2015-005464-42; Clinicaltrial.gov number: NCT02992912.

Systemic Therapy in Advanced Pleomorphic Liposarcoma: a Comprehensive Review.

OPINION STATEMENT: The therapeutic approach of pleomorphic liposarcoma (PLPS), a rare high-grade subgroup of soft tissue sarcoma, is commonly extrapolated from the management of other LPS subtypes. Only published retrospective data on PLPS currently serve as a guide for oncologists without clear recommendations or specific guidelines. In the advanced setting, specific systemic therapy such as eribulin and trabectedin showed promising activity in comparison to conventional therapy (doxorubicin- and gemcitabine-based protocols), which currently remains the current standard of care at initial stages of the disease. The better understanding of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) pathophysiology and disease course has led to the development of adapted clinical trial designs for rare STS histotypes with specific treatment approach.

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.

Phase 1 study of the immunotoxin LMB-100 in patients with mesothelioma and other solid tumors expressing mesothelin.

BACKGROUND: LMB-100 is an antibody-toxin conjugate with an antimesothelin Fab linked to a 24-kilodalton portion of Pseudomonas exotoxin A with mutations that decrease immunogenicity. The objective of the current first-in-human phase 1 study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety in patients with advanced solid tumors expressing mesothelin. METHODS: Cohorts of 1 to 7 patients received intravenous LMB-100 at 7 dose levels from 40 µg/kg to 250 µg/kg intravenously on days 1, 3, and 5 of a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: Of the 25 patients accrued, 17 had mesothelioma, 3 each had ovarian or pancreatic cancer, and 2 patients had gastric cancer. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 2 of 4 patients treated at a dose of 250 µg/kg (capillary leak syndrome) and in 3 of 7 patients treated at a dose of 170 µg/kg (creatinine increase). The MTD of LMB-100 was 140 µg/kg. Of the 10 patients with mesothelioma who were treated at doses of 170 µg/kg or 140 µg/kg, 8 had stable disease and 2 developed progressive disease. Peak LMB-100 plasma concentrations were dose-dependent during cycle 1. The development of antidrug antibodies decreased LMB-100 blood levels in 8 of 21 patients (38%) who received cycle 2 and 9 of 11 patients (81.8%) who received cycle 3. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD for single-agent LMB-100 was found to be 140 µg/kg given on a schedule of every other day for 3 doses every 3 weeks. Although less immunogenic than the first-generation antimesothelin immunotoxin SS1P, the majority of patients developed antidrug antibodies after 2 cycles, indicating that LMB-100 has limited antitumor efficacy as a single agent. Phase 2 studies of LMB-100 plus pembrolizumab currently are ongoing for patients with mesothelioma and lung cancer. LAY SUMMARY: Mesothelin, a cell surface antigen, is an attractive target for cancer therapy given its limited expression in normal human tissues and high expression in many human cancers. LMB-100 is a recombinant antimesothelin immunotoxin consisting of a humanized antimesothelin antibody fragment fused to a truncated Pseudomonas exotoxin A. In the current study, the authors determined the safety, maximum tolerated dose, and pharmacokinetics of LMB-100, as well as the generation of antidrug antibodies. Ongoing phase 2 clinical trials are evaluating the combination of LMB-100 plus pembrolizumab in patients with treatment-refractory mesothelioma and non-small cell lung cancer.

Phase I dose-escalation study of plitidepsin in combination with sorafenib or gemcitabine in patients with refractory solid tumors or lymphomas.

This phase I trial evaluated the combination of the marine-derived cyclodepsipeptide plitidepsin (trade name Aplidin) with sorafenib or gemcitabine in advanced cancer and lymphoma patients. The study included two treatment arms: a sorafenib/plitidepsin (S/P) and a gemcitabine/plitidepsin (G/P) arm. In the S/P arm, patients were treated orally with sorafenib continuous dosing at two dose levels (DL1: 200 mg twice daily and DL2: 400 mg twice daily) combined with plitidepsin (1.8 mg/m, day 1, day 8, day 15, and, q4wk, intravenously). In the G/P arm, patients with solid tumors or lymphoma were treated at four different DLs with a combination of gemcitabine (DL1: 750 mg/m, DL2-DL4: 1000 mg/m) and plitidepsin (DL1-DL2: 1.8 mg/m; DL3: 2.4 mg/m; DL4: 3 mg/m). Both agents were administered intravenously on day 1, day 8, day 15, and, q4wk. Forty-four patients were evaluable for safety and toxicity. The safety of the combination of plitidepsin with sorafenib or gemcitabine was manageable. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild; no grade 4 treatment-related AEs were reported in any of the groups (except for one grade 4 thrombocytopenia in the gemcitabine arm). The most frequently reported study drug-related (or of unknown relationship) AEs were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, erythema, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue in the S/P arm and nausea, fatigue, and vomiting in the G/P arm. In the S/P arm, one dose-limiting toxicity occurred in two out of six patients treated at the maximum dose tested (DL2): palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia and grade 2 aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase increase that resulted in omission of days 8 and 15 plitidepsin infusions. In the G/P arm, one dose-limiting toxicity occurred in two out of six patients at DL4: grade 2 alanine aminotransferase increase resulted in omission of days 8 and 15 plitidepsin infusions and grade 4 thrombocytopenia. The recommended dose for the combination of plitidepsin with sorafenib was not defined because of a sponsor decision (no expansion cohort to confirm) and for plitidepsin with gemcitabine, it was 2.4 mg/m plitidepsin with 1000 mg/m gemcitabine. In the S/P group, objective disease responses were not observed; however, disease stabilization (≥3months) was observed in four patients. In the gemcitabine group, two lymphoma patients showed an objective response (partial response and complete response) and nine patients showed disease stabilization (≥3months). Combining plitidepsin with gemcitabine and sorafenib is feasible for advanced cancer patients; some objective responses were observed in heavily pretreated lymphoma patients.

An open-label, dose-escalation study to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of CEP-9722 (a PARP-1 and PARP-2 inhibitor) in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 (PARP-1) inhibitors may potentiate chemotherapy by hindering DNA damage repair pathways. CEP-9722 is the prodrug of CEP-8983, a selective inhibitor of PARP-1 and PARP-2. Preclinical studies and a prior phase 1 study suggested that CEP-9722 may cause less myelosuppression than has been observed with other oral PARP inhibitors. The primary objective of this study was to determine the maximum-tolerated dose of CEP-9722 in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors. All patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Patients who completed one cycle of chemotherapy alone continued chemotherapy in combination with CEP-9722 150, 200, 300, or 400 mg orally twice daily on days 2-7, with dose-limiting toxicity assessed in cycle 2. Patients experiencing clinical benefit could continue treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Thirty-two patients enrolled; 18 patients completed cycle 1 and received chemotherapy plus CEP-9722. The median (range) treatment administration with CEP-9722 was five (1-12) cycles. No patient experienced dose-limiting toxicity with CEP-9722 treatment. Grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events included neutropenia (28%) and leukopenia (11%); adverse events led to discontinuation in 33% of patients. One patient achieved complete response, three had partial responses, and 11 had stable disease; however, the relative contribution of CEP-9722 and/or the chemotherapeutic agents cannot be determined from this single-arm design. This study was discontinued before determination of the maximum-tolerated dose because of highly variable CEP-8983 exposure in all cohorts and toxicity, particularly chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression.

Expression patterns of RelA and c-mip are associated with different glomerular diseases following anti-VEGF therapy.

Renal toxicity constitutes a dose-limiting side effect of anticancer therapies targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). In order to study this further, we followed up 29 patients receiving this treatment, who experienced proteinuria, hypertension, and/or renal insufficiency. Eight developed minimal change nephropathy/focal segmental glomerulopathy (MCN/FSG)-like lesions and 13 developed thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). Patients receiving receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (RTKIs) mainly developed MCN/FSG-like lesions, whereas TMA complicated anti-VEGF therapy. There were no mutations in factor H, factor I, or membrane cofactor protein of the complement alternative pathway, while plasma ADAMTS13 activity persisted and anti-ADAMTS13 antibodies were undetectable in patients with TMA. Glomerular VEGF expression was undetectable in TMA and decreased in MCN/FSG. Glomeruli from patients with TMA displayed a high abundance of RelA in endothelial cells and in the podocyte nuclei, but c-mip was not detected. Conversely, MCN/FSG-like lesions exhibited a high abundance of c-mip, whereas RelA was scarcely detected. RelA binds in vivo to the c-mip promoter and prevents its transcriptional activation, whereas RelA knockdown releases c-mip activation. The RTKI sorafenib inhibited RelA activity, which then promoted c-mip expression. Thus, our results suggest that c-mip and RelA define two distinct types of renal damage associated with VEGF-targeted therapies.

A Phase I Study of KIN-3248, an Irreversible Small-molecule Pan-FGFR Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced FGFR2/3-driven Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Despite efficacy of approved FGFR inhibitors, emergence of polyclonal secondary mutations in the FGFR kinase domain leads to acquired resistance. KIN-3248 is a selective, irreversible, orally bioavailable, small-molecule inhibitor of FGFR1-4 that blocks both primary oncogenic and secondary kinase domain resistance FGFR alterations. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A first-in-human, phase I study of KIN-3248 was conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring FGFR2 and/or FGFR3 gene alterations (NCT05242822). The primary objective was determination of MTD/recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary and exploratory objectives included antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and molecular response by circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) clearance. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients received doses ranging from 5 to 50 mg orally daily across six cohorts. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (48.1%), gastric (9.3%), and urothelial (7.4%) were the most common tumors. Tumors harbored FGFR2 (68.5%) or FGFR3 (31.5%) alterations-23 (42.6%) received prior FGFR inhibitors. One dose-limiting toxicity (hypersensitivity) occurred in cohort 1 (5 mg). Treatment-related, adverse events included hyperphosphatemia, diarrhea, and stomatitis. The MTD/RP2D was not established. Exposure was dose proportional and concordant with hyperphosphatemia. Five partial responses were observed; 4 in FGFR inhibitor naïve and 1 in FGFR pretreated patients. Pretreatment ctDNA profiling confirmed FGFR2/3 alterations in 63.3% of cases and clearance at cycle 2 associated with radiographic response. CONCLUSION: The trial was terminated early for commercial considerations; therefore, RP2D was not established. Preliminary clinical data suggest that KIN-3248 is a safe, oral FGFR1-4 inhibitor with favorable pharmacokinetic parameters, though further dose escalation was required to nominate the MTD/RP2D. SIGNIFICANCE: KIN-3248 was a rationally designed, next generation selective FGFR inhibitor, that was effective in interfering with both FGFR wild-type and mutant signaling. Clinical data indicate that KIN-3248 is safe with a signal of antitumor activity. Translational science support the mechanism of action in that serum phosphate was proportional with exposure, paired biopsies suggested phospho-ERK inhibition (a downstream target of FGFR2/3), and ctDNA clearance may act as a RECIST response surrogate.

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.

Epigenetic gene alterations in metastatic solid tumours: results from the prospective precision medicine MOSCATO and MATCH-R trials.

INTRODUCTION: Although the role of epigenetic alterations in oncogenesis has been well studied, their prevalence in metastatic solid tumours is still poorly described. We therefore aimed at: (i) describing the presence of epigenetic gene alterations (EGA) - defined by an alteration in a gene encoding an epigenetic regulator; and (ii) evaluating their relationship with clinical characteristics and outcome in patients (pts) included in prospective molecular profiling trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On-purpose tumour biopsies from pts with metastatic solid tumours enrolled in the Gustave Roussy-sponsored MOSCATO (NCT01566019) and MATCHR (NCT02517892) trials were molecularly profiled using whole exome sequencing (WES). Alterations in 176 epigenetic genes were assessed and classified as pathogenic variants (PV) or non-pathogenic variants by a molecular tumour board. Clinical characteristics and outcome were collected. RESULTS: Between Dec 2011 and Oct 2016, WES was successfully performed in 292 pts presenting various solid tumours. We found 496 epigenetic gene alterations in 134 patients (49%), including 237 pathogenic variants in 86 patients; 63 tumour samples (47%) presented ≥3 EGAs. The median number of previous treatment lines was 3 (1-10). The most frequently altered genes were KMT2D and KMT2C (16% each), ARID1A and SETD2 (10% each) and KMT2A (8%).; 31% of EGA co-occurred with a driver gene alteration (p &lt; 0.001). Outcome was not correlated with the presence of EGA. CONCLUSIONS: Epigenetic alterations occur frequently in metastatic solid tumours. With the current development of epigenetic modifiers, they increasingly represent actionable targets. Such genes should now be systematically analysed in molecular profiling studies.

PALLIA 10 score in phase I cancer studies.

OBJECTIVE: Phase I clinical trials usually include patients with advanced disease who have failed standard therapies and should benefit from early palliative care. We try to assess whether PALLIA 10, a score developed in France to help identify patients who might benefit from a palliative care referral, could be used in a phase I department trial. METHODS: We assessed PALLIA 10 score and other prognostic factors in patients enrolled in phase I trials at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center prospectively during two periods of time (cohort 1 (C1) and 2 (C2)). A double-blind assessment of the PALLIA 10 score was done in C2 by a palliative care specialist and a nurse. RESULTS: From 1 July 2018 to 1 November 2018 (C1) and from 1 December 2020 to 16 April 2021 (C2), 86 patients were assessed in C1 and 302 in C2. Median PALLIA 10 was very low in both cohorts (median 1, range 1-5 in C1 and 1-8 in C2). On C1 and C2, 12% and 5% of patients had a dedicated palliative consultation. In C2, assessment of PALLIA 10 score was significantly different between palliative care physician (median 5, range 3-8), phase I physician (median 1, range 1-6) and phase I nurse (median 3, range 1-8) (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Median PALLIA 10 score was low when assessed by the phase I physician, which suggests the need for a better tool and appropriate clinician's education to implement early palliative care in clinical practice and trials.

Implementing the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets in a Comprehensive Profiling Program: Impact on Precision Medicine Oncology.

PURPOSE: To facilitate implementation of precision medicine in clinical management of cancer, the European Society of Medical Oncology proposed in 2018 a new scale to harmonize and standardize the reporting and interpretation of clinically relevant genomics data (ESMO Scale of Actionability of molecular Targets [ESCAT]). This study aims to characterize the clinical impact of matching targetable genomic alterations (GAs) in patients with advanced cancer according to ESCAT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analysis of next-generation sequencing results from 552 patients is included in two prospective precision medicine studies at Gustave Roussy. End points included objective response rates, progression-free survival, and overall survival according to ESCAT. RESULTS: Molecular data from 516 patients were available and discussed within a Molecular Tumor Board. The most common tumor types were GI (n = 164; 30%), lung (n = 137; 25%), and urologic tumors (n = 68; 13%). Overall, 379 GAs were considered as actionable targets according to ESCAT in 348 (67%) patients. In 31 (6%) patients, two concomitant actionable targets were identified. On the basis of ESCAT, GAs were considered to be classified as tier I in 120 patients (29%), II in 25 patients (5%), III in 80 patients (16%), and IV in 153 patients (30%). A total of 136 patients (27%) received a matched therapy. ESCAT was significantly associated with objective response rates and clinical benefit rates. The median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 8.9), 3 months (95% CI, 1 to not available), 3 months (95% CI, 2.2 to 3.8), and 4 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 6.3) for ESCAT I, II, III, and IV, respectively (P = .0125). CONCLUSION: Implementation of ESCAT classification for clinical decision making by Molecular Tumor Board is feasible and useful to better tailor therapies in patients with cancer.

TP53 Mutation as a Prognostic and Predictive Marker in Sarcoma: Pooled Analysis of MOSCATO and ProfiLER Precision Medicine Trials.

(1) Background: locally resected high-grade sarcomas relapse in 40% of cases. There is no prognostic or predictive genomic marker for response to peri-operative chemotherapy. (2) Methods: MOSCATO and ProfiLER are pan-tumor prospective precision medicine trials for advanced tumors. Molecular analysis in both trials comprised targeted next-generation sequencing and comparative genomic hybridization array. We investigated if molecular alterations identified in these trials in sarcomas were associated with disease-free survival (DFS) and response to anthracyclines. (3) Results: this analysis included 215 sarcomas, amongst which 53 leiomyosarcomas, 27 rhabdomyosarcomas, 20 undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcomas, and 17 liposarcomas. The most frequently altered gene was TP53 (46 mutations and eight deletions). There were 149 surgically resected localized sarcomas. Median DFS in TP53 wild type (WT), deleted, and mutated sarcomas was 16, 10, and 10 months, respectively (p = 0.028; deletions: HR = 1.55; 95% CI = 0.75-3.19; mutations: HR = 1.70; 95%CI = 1.13-2.64). In multivariate analysis, TP53 mutations remained associated with shorter DFS (p = 0.027; HR = 2.30; 95%CI = 1.10-4.82). There were 161 localized and advanced sarcomas evaluable for response to anthracyclines. Objective response rates were 35% and 55% in TP53 WT and mutated sarcomas, respectively (OR = 2.24; 95%CI = 1.01-5.03; p = 0.05). In multivariate analysis, TP53 mutations remained associated with increased response (OR = 3.24; 95%CI = 1.30-8.45; p = 0.01). (4) Conclusions: TP53 mutations are associated with shorter DFS and increased response to anthracyclines. Post-validation, these findings could assist in decision-making for peri-operative treatments.

Dose escalation phase 1 study of radiotherapy in combination with anti-cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 monoclonal antibody ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: A synergy between radiotherapy and anti-cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (anti-CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody has been demonstrated preclinically. The Mel-Ipi-Rx phase 1 study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety profile of radiotherapy combined with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 3+3 dose escalation design was used with 9, 15, 18 and 24 Gy dose of radiotherapy at week 4 combined with 10 mg/kg ipilimumab every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients with evidence of clinical benefit at week 12 were eligible for maintenance with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 12 weeks starting at week 24 until severe toxicity or disease progression. The database lock occurred on April 30, 2019. Tumor growth rate of irradiated lesions and non-irradiated lesions were analyzed to assess the systemic immunologic antitumor response. Blood immune monitoring was performed before and during treatment to determine if radiotherapy could modify ipilimumab pharmacodynamics. RESULTS: 19 patients received ipilimumab between August 2011 and July 2015. Nine patients received the four doses of ipilimumab. All patients received the combined radiotherapy. Grade 3 adverse events occurred in nine patients, the most common being colitis and hepatitis. No drug-related death occurred. Dose limiting toxicity occurred in two of six patients in the cohort receiving 15 Gy. The MTD was 9 Gy. Two patients had complete response, three had partial response response and seven had stable disease, giving an objective response rate of 31% and a clinical benefit rate of 75% at week 24. The median duration of follow-up was 5.8 years (Q1=4.5; Q3=6.8). The median overall survival (95% CI) was estimated at 0.9 years (0.5-2). The median progression-free survival (PFS) (95% CI) was 0.4 (0.2-1.4). Radiotherapy combined with ipilimumab was associated with increased CD4+ and CD8+ICOS+ T cells. Increased CD8+ was significantly associated with PFS. CONCLUSION: When combined with ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg, the MTD of radiotherapy was 9 Gy. This combination of ipilimumab and radiotherapy appears to be associated with antitumor activity. Increased CD8+ was significantly associated with PFS. Thus, immune biomarkers may be useful for early response evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01557114.

Radiomics to predict outcomes and abscopal response of patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy combined with radiotherapy using a validated signature of CD8 cells.

BACKGROUND: Combining radiotherapy (RT) with immuno-oncology (IO) therapy (IORT) may enhance IO-induced antitumor response. Quantitative imaging biomarkers can be used to provide prognosis, predict tumor response in a non-invasive fashion and improve patient selection for IORT. A biologically inspired CD8 T-cells-associated radiomics signature has been developed on previous cohorts. We evaluated here whether this CD8 radiomic signature is associated with lesion response, whether it may help to assess disease spatial heterogeneity for predicting outcomes of patients treated with IORT. We also evaluated differences between irradiated and non-irradiated lesions. METHODS: Clinical data from patients with advanced solid tumors in six independent clinical studies of IORT were investigated. Immunotherapy consisted of 4 different drugs (antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 or anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 in monotherapy). Most patients received stereotactic RT to one lesion. Irradiated and non-irradiated lesions were delineated from baseline and the first evaluation CT scans. Radiomic features were extracted from contrast-enhanced CT images and the CD8 radiomics signature was applied. A responding lesion was defined by a decrease in lesion size of at least 30%. Dispersion metrices of the radiomics signature were estimated to evaluate the impact of tumor heterogeneity in patient's response. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients involving multiple lesions (100 irradiated and 189 non-irradiated lesions) were considered for a statistical interpretation. Lesions with high CD8 radiomics score at baseline were associated with significantly higher tumor response (area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC)=0.63, p=0.0020). Entropy of the radiomics scores distribution on all lesions was shown to be associated with progression-free survival (HR=1.67, p=0.040), out-of-field abscopal response (AUC=0.70, p=0.014) and overall survival (HR=2.08, p=0.023), which remained significant in a multivariate analysis including clinical and biological variables. CONCLUSIONS: These results enhance the predictive value of the biologically inspired CD8 radiomics score and suggests that tumor heterogeneity should be systematically considered in patients treated with IORT. This CD8 radiomics signature may help select patients who are most likely to benefit from IORT.

Diverse Resistance Mechanisms to the Third-Generation ALK Inhibitor Lorlatinib in ALK-Rearranged Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Lorlatinib is a third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor with proven efficacy in patients with ALK-rearranged lung cancer previously treated with first- and second-generation ALK inhibitors. Beside compound mutations in the ALK kinase domain, other resistance mechanisms driving lorlatinib resistance remain unknown. We aimed to characterize the mechanisms of resistance to lorlatinib occurring in patients with ALK-rearranged lung cancer and design new therapeutic strategies in this setting. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Resistance mechanisms were investigated in 5 patients resistant to lorlatinib. Longitudinal tumor biopsies were studied using high-throughput next-generation sequencing. Patient-derived models were developed to characterize the acquired resistance mechanisms, and Ba/F3 cell mutants were generated to study the effect of novel ALK compound mutations. Drug combinatory strategies were evaluated in vitro and in vivo to overcome lorlatinib resistance. RESULTS: Diverse biological mechanisms leading to lorlatinib resistance were identified. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) mediated resistance in two patient-derived cell lines and was susceptible to dual SRC and ALK inhibition. We characterized three ALK kinase domain compound mutations occurring in patients, L1196M/D1203N, F1174L/G1202R, and C1156Y/G1269A, with differential susceptibility to ALK inhibition by lorlatinib. We identified a novel bypass mechanism of resistance caused by NF2 loss-of-function mutations, conferring sensitivity to treatment with mTOR inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that mechanisms of resistance to lorlatinib are diverse and complex, requiring new therapeutic strategies to tailor treatment upon disease progression.

Long-Term Survival in Patients Responding to Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Therapy and Disease Outcome upon Treatment Discontinuation.

PURPOSE: Anti-PD-(L)1 can provide overall survival (OS) benefits over conventional treatments for patients with many different cancer types. However, the long-term outcome of cancer patients responding to these therapies remains unknown. This study is an exploratory study that aimed to describe the long-term survival of patients responding to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy across multiple cancer types.Patients and Methods: Data from patients treated with an anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy in a phase I trial at Gustave Roussy were retrospectively analyzed over a period of 5 years. All cancer types (n = 19) were included. Clinical and biological factors associated with response, long-term survival, and secondary refractory disease were studied. RESULTS: Among 262 eligible patients, the overall objective response rate was 29%. The median progression-free survival of responder patients (RP) at 3 months was 30 months, and the median OS of RP was not reached after a median follow-up of 34 months. In RPs, 3- and 5-year OS percentages were 84% and 64%, respectively. No death occurred in the 21 complete responders (CR) during the overall follow-up. However, many partial responders (PR) showed subsequent tumor relapses to treatment. Long responders (response ≥2 years) represented 11.8% of the overall population. These findings should be validated in further prospective studies. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently no differences in therapeutic strategies between CRs and PRs to anti-PD-(L)1. We found a striking difference in OS between these two types of responses. Our results are in favor of evaluating patient stratification strategies and intensification of treatments when tumor lesions of a partial responder to immunotherapy stop improving.See related commentary by Cohen and Flaherty, p. 910.

Are phase I trials safe for older patients?

Phase I clinical trials in oncology primarily aim to assess the toxicity profile of new drugs and determine recommended phase II doses (RP2D). Since the cancer rate increases with age and our population is continually aging, RP2D must necessarily be assessed in older patients. Few clinical studies include older patients, however, and particularly few Phase I trials. We reviewed published data on the safety and efficacy of Phase I trials in older patients. The majority of studies included primarily young, fit patients, with age thresholds varying widely from 65 to 80years. However, age does not seem to be associated with more toxicity or less efficacy. While Phase I trials seem feasible in fit older patients, geriatric-medicine score systems should be included in the clinical trial design in order to better characterize this population.

Outcomes of long-term responders to anti-programmed death 1 and anti-programmed death ligand 1 when being rechallenged with the same anti-programmed death 1 and anti-programmed death ligand 1 at progression.

BACKGROUND: Long-term responders have been observed with anti-programmed death 1 and anti-programmed death ligand 1 (anti-PD(L)1). Optimal duration of therapy in responding and stable disease (SD) patients is unclear with various attitudes encompassing treatment until progression disease, stopping therapy after a defined timeframe. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report the experience of 13 patients who discontinued immune checkpoint inhibitor in phase I trials as per protocol while experiencing a tumour-controlled disease. According to protocols, patients could restart the same immunotherapy if radiological or clinical progression occurred. RESULTS: Patients were treated for colorectal microsatellite instability-high genotype (n = 5), urothelial carcinoma (n = 3), melanoma (n = 2), non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 2) and triple-negative breast cancer (n = 1) for a median time of 12 months (range 10.6-12). Patients achieved 1 (8%) complete response, 10 (77%) partial response (PR) and 2 (15%) SD. The median progression-free survival 1 (PFS1) defined as the time from the first infusion until progression was 24.4 months (range 15.8-49). The median time free-treatment after discontinuation was 12.6 months (range 4-39.7). Eight patients experienced disease progression and were retreated. Best responses observed after rechallenging were 2 PR (25%) and 6 SD (75%). Median PFS2 defined from the first day of retreatment until disease progression or the last news was 12.9 months (range 5-35.4). No grade 3/4 events occurred during the study period. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that anti-PD(L)1 therapy should be resumed if progression occurs after a planned anti-PD(L)1 interruption. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Phase I dose-escalation study of milciclib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with refractory solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: This phase I trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of milciclib, an inhibitor of multiple cyclin-dependent kinases and tropomycin receptor kinase A, in combination with gemcitabine in patients with refractory solid tumors. DESIGN: Sixteen patients were enrolled and treated with milciclib at three dose levels (45 mg/m2/day, n = 3; 60 mg/m2/day, n = 3; and 80 mg/m2/day, n = 10) with a fixed dose of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2/day). Milciclib was administered orally once daily for 7 days on/7 days off in a 4-week cycle, and gemcitabine was administered intravenously on days 1, 8 and 15 in a 4-week cycle. RESULTS: All 16 enrolled patients were evaluable for safety and toxicity. Dose-limiting toxicities, which occurred in only one out of nine patients treated at the maximum dose tested (milciclib 80 mg/m2/day and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2/day), consisted of Grade 4 thrombocytopenia, Grade 3 ataxia and Grade 2 tremors in the same patient. Most frequent treatment-related AEs were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Among 14 evaluable patients, one NSCLC patient showed partial response and 4 patients (one each with thyroid, prostatic, pancreatic carcinoma and peritoneal mesothelioma) showed long-term disease stabilization (>6-14 months). Pharmacokinetics of the orally administered milciclib (~t1/2 33 h) was not altered by concomitant treatment with gemcitabine. CONCLUSION: The combination treatment was well tolerated with manageable toxicities. The recommended phase II dose was 80 mg/m2/day for milciclib and 1000 mg/m2/day for gemcitabine. This combination treatment regimen showed encouraging clinical benefit in ~36% patients, including gemcitabine refractory patients. These results support further development of combination therapies with milciclib in advanced cancer patients.