Targeting BRCA and PALB2 in Pancreatic Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: An important subgroup of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) harbor pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2. These tumors are exquisitely sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy and patients may experience deep and durable responses to this treatment. PARP inhibitors offer potential respite from the cumulative toxicities of chemotherapy as they significantly extend progression-free survival compared to a chemotherapy holiday. Given the lack of proven survival benefit, the decision to use a maintenance PARP inhibitor rather than continue chemotherapy should be individualized. Interestingly, in both published clinical trials of maintenance PARP inhibitors, there is a striking range of interpatient benefit: Even in the platinum-sensitive setting, roughly 25% of tumors appear to be PARP inhibitor refractory (progressive disease within 2 months of starting treatment), 50% sustain moderate benefit (up to 2 years), and 25% are hyper-responsive (more than 2 years of benefit). This finding highlights the need to refine our understanding of which patients will respond to maintenance PARP inhibitors, both by being able to identify biallelic loss and by deepening our knowledge of resistance mechanisms and who develops them. Recent data supports that reversion mutations are common in PARP inhibitor refractory patients, but we have little understanding of the mechanisms that drive delayed resistance and long-term responses. Identifying which patients are more prone to certain mechanisms of resistance and tackling them with specific treatment strategies are areas of active investigation. Additionally, given that PARP inhibitors have limited overall efficacy for most patients, upfront combination strategies are an important future strategy.

Tumor Differentiation as a Prognostic Marker in Clinically Staged T1bN0 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Current guidelines recommend that clinically staged T1N0 esophageal cancers are to be referred to surgery or endoscopic resection. Using the National Cancer Database, we identified 733 individuals with clinically staged T1N0 esophageal carcinoma, who underwent upfront surgery and did not receive any prior treatment. We assessed upstaging, which was defined as ≥ T2 disease or positive lymph nodes. Poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas were associated with upstaging, whereas squamous cell carcinomas were not. Specifically, the percentage of upstaging among individuals with clinically staged T1b and poorly differentiated tumor was 33.8%. Therefore, clinically staged T1bN0 poorly differentiated esophageal adenocarcinomas are at high risk for upstaging following surgery.

Niraparib plus nivolumab or niraparib plus ipilimumab in patients with platinum-sensitive advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomised, phase 1b/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Establishing alternatives to lifelong chemotherapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer has been proposed to address chemotherapy resistance and cumulative toxicity. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have shown efficacy in this setting, and concurrent immune checkpoint blockade could offer synergistic tumour control. The aim of this study was to test the safety and antitumour activity of maintenance with PARP inhibition combined with immune checkpoint blockade in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had a stable response to platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 1b/2 study of niraparib plus anti-PD-1 (nivolumab) or anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) therapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer whose cancer had not progressed after at least 16 weeks of platinum-based therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via permuted block randomisation (block sizes 2 and 4) to niraparib 200 mg orally per day plus either nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks (later changed to 480 mg intravenously every 4 weeks based on manufacturer update) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks for four doses. The primary endpoints were safety and progression-free survival at 6 months. Treatment groups were not compared for activity, which was assessed in each group against a clinically meaningful progression-free survival at 6 months of 44% (null hypothesis). Superiority of a treatment regimen could be declared if 6-month progression-free survival was 60%, and inferiority if 6-month progression-free survival was 27%. All patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had at least one post-treatment assessment of response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 were included in the efficacy population. The safety population consisted of all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03404960, and enrolment is completed and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: 91 patients were enrolled between Feb 7, 2018, and Oct 5, 2021 and were randomly assigned to niraparib plus nivolumab (n=46) or niraparib plus ipilimumab (n=45). Of these patients, 84 were evaluable for the progression-free survival endpoint (niraparib plus nivolumab=44; niraparib plus ipilimumab=40). Median follow-up was 23·0 months (IQR 15·0-31·5). 6-month progression-free survival was 20·6% (95% CI 8·3-32·9; p=0·0002 vs the null hypothesis of 44%) in the niraparib plus nivolumab group; and 59·6% (44·3-74·9; p=0·045) in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group. Ten (22%) of 46 patients in the niraparib plus nivolumab group and 23 (50%) of 45 patients in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group had a grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the niraparib plus nivolumab group were hypertension (in four [8%] patients), anaemia (two [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (two [4%]) whereas in the niraparib plus ipilimumab group these were fatigue (in six [14%]), anaemia (five [11%]), and hypertension (four [9%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint of 6-month progression-free survival was met in the niraparib plus ipilimumab maintenance group, whereas niraparib plus nivolumab yielded inferior progression-free survival. These findings highlight the potential for non-cytotoxic maintenance therapies in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, the Basser Center Young Leadership Council, The Konner Foundation, The Pearl and Philip Basser Innovation Research Award, the Anonymous Foundation, and the US National Institutes of Health.

Phase I Trial of Regorafenib, Hydroxychloroquine, and Entinostat in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor regorafenib provides a survival benefit in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Antiangiogenic therapy causes hypoxic stress within tumor cells, which activates autophagy as a survival mechanism. The histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDAC) entinostat increases dependence on autophagy through epigenetic mechanisms. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) blocks autophagy by blunting lysosomal acidification. We hypothesized that HCQ and entinostat would be tolerable with regorafenib and potentiate the antitumor response. METHODS: This was a 3+3 phase I trial of HCQ and entinostat with regorafenib in patients with metastatic CRC. The primary objective was safety, and the secondary objective was clinical efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty patients received study therapy. Six evaluable patients were enrolled at each of the three planned dose levels, one patient at an intermediate dose level, and one additional patient withdrew consent after 4 days to receive treatment closer to home. One dose-limiting toxicity was noted in the study at dose level 2 (grade 3 fatigue). Seven patients discontinued therapy due to related toxicities; rapid weight loss was near universal, with a median weight loss of 4.4 kg (range 1.5-12.2 kg) in the first 2 weeks of treatment. No objective responses were observed. CONCLUSION: The combination of regorafenib, HCQ, and entinostat was poorly tolerated without evident activity in metastatic CRC. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03215264.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Risk-Tailored Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection Strategy Among Patients With New-Onset Diabetes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in asymptomatic adults is not recommended, however, patients with new-onset diabetes (NoD) have an 8 times higher risk of PDAC than expected. A novel risk-tailored early detection strategy targeting high-risk NoD patients might improve PDAC prognosis. We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of this strategy. METHODS: We compared PDAC early detection strategies targeting NoD individuals age 50 years and older at various minimal predicted PDAC risk thresholds vs standard of care in a Markov state-transition decision model under the health care sector perspective using a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the early detection strategy targeting patients with a minimum predicted 3-year PDAC risk of 1% was cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $116,911). At a WTP threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the early detection strategy at the 2% risk threshold was cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $63,045). The proportion of PDACs detected at local stage, costs of treatment for metastatic PDAC, utilities of local and regional cancers, and sensitivity of screening were the most influential parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that at a WTP threshold of $150,000, early detection at the 1.0% risk threshold was favored (30.6%), followed by the 0.5% risk threshold (20.4%) vs standard of care (1.7%). At a WTP threshold of $100,000, early detection at the 1.0% risk threshold was favored (27.3%) followed by the 2.0% risk threshold (22.8%) vs standard of care (2.0%). CONCLUSIONS: A risk-tailored PDAC early detection strategy targeting NoD patients with a minimum predicted 3-year PDAC risk of 1.0% to 2.0% may be cost effective.

Prognostic Implications of Tumor Differentiation in Clinical T1N0 Gastric Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locoregional gastric adenocarcinoma. Patients diagnosed with early stage gastric adenocarcinoma are usually managed with upfront surgical intervention. However, pathologic staging in a subset of these clinically staged patients identifies more advanced locoregional disease requiring adjuvant treatment. Therefore, identifying these patients prior to surgical intervention is critical to ensure employment of the appropriate treatment paradigm. The aim of the current study was to define patient characteristics associated with clinical understaging in early gastric cancer. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (2004-2014) we identified 3,892 individuals with clinical T1N0 gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent upfront definitive surgery, had negative surgical margins, and did not receive preoperative chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Patient characteristics were compared between those with pathologic stage T1N0 disease and those who were upstaged upon surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent of clinical T1N0 gastric adenocarcinomas had a change in stage because of pathologically defined ≥T2 disease or positive lymph nodes. Individuals who were upstaged had a higher tumor grade compared with those with pathologic stage T1N0 disease. Specifically, 41.9% (530/1,264) of individuals with a poorly differentiated tumor were upstaged, compared with only 10.7% (70/656) with a well-differentiated tumor. Approximately 75% of cases involved upstaging because of T misclassification. The highest percentage of upstaging was shown for tumors located at the fundus and body of the stomach. CONCLUSION: Upstaging of clinical T1N0 gastric adenocarcinoma is characterized by higher tumor grade and is mostly a result of a change in T stage. These findings mandate thorough workup in order to identify patients with clinically staged T1N0 disease requiring preoperative chemotherapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Upstaging of clinical T1N0 gastric adenocarcinoma is characterized by higher tumor grade and is mostly a result of a change in T stage. These findings mandate thorough workup in order to identify patients with clinically staged T1N0 disease requiring preoperative chemotherapy.

Uptake and acceptability of a mainstreaming model of hereditary cancer multigene panel testing among patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To address demands for timely germline information to guide treatments, we evaluated experiences of patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer with a mainstreaming genetic testing model wherein multigene panel testing was ordered by oncologists with standardized pretest patient education, and genetic counselors delivered results and post-test genetic counseling via telephone. METHODS: Among 1,203 eligible patients, we conducted a prospective single-arm study to examine patient uptake and acceptability (via self-report surveys at baseline and three weeks and three months following result return) of this mainstreaming model. RESULTS: Only 10% of eligible patients declined participation. Among 1,054 tested participants, 10% had pathogenic variants (PV), 16% had variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and 74% had no variant identified (NV). Participants reported high initial acceptability, including high satisfaction with their testing decision. Variability over time in several outcomes existed for participants with PV or NV: those with NV experienced a temporary increase in depression (pTime < 0.001; pTime2 < 0.001), and those with PV experienced a small increase in genetic testing distress (p = 0.03). Findings suggested that result type, sex, and cancer type were also associated with outcomes including clinical depression and uncertainty. CONCLUSION: This mainstreaming model may offer a feasible approach for extending access to germline genetic information.

Platinum response characteristics of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and a germline BRCA1, BRCA2 or PALB2 mutation.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest a survival benefit when platinum-based chemotherapy is administered to patients with pancreatic cancer harbouring a germline mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or PALB2 (mut-positive PDAC). However, the objective response rate (ORR) and real-world progression free survival (rwPFS) achieved with such treatment remain ill-defined. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with advanced-stage mut-positive PDAC who had been treated with platinum-based therapy were matched by age, race and sex to 52 platinum-treated control PDAC patients. Responses to therapy were determined by RECIST v1.1, performed by blinded radiology review. Measured outcomes included ORR and rwPFS. RESULTS: The ORR in mut-positive patients was 58% compared to 21% in the control group (p = 0.0022). There was no significant difference in ORR between platinum regimens in mut-positive patients (p = 0.814), whereas in control patients, the only observed responses were to FOLFIRINOX. rwPFS was 10.1 mo. for mut-positive patients and 6.9 mo. for controls (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.25-0.74; 0.0068). CONCLUSION: Mut-positive PDAC has a high ORR and prolonged rwPFS to platinum-based chemotherapy. These findings may have implications particularly in the neoadjuvant setting, and for future clinical trial design, and highlight the importance of early germline testing in patients with PDAC.

Assessing the effects of beta-blockers on pancreatic cancer risk: A nested case-control study.

PURPOSE: Both ß1- and ß2-adrenoceptor proteins were detected on the cell surface of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The current study evaluated the association between beta-blocker use and pancreatic cancer risk. METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study in a large population representative database. Each pancreatic cancer case was matched with four controls based on age, sex, practice site, and duration of follow-up using incidence density sampling. Beta-blocker use was defined as any prescription prior to index date and was stratified into non-selective and selective ß1 -blockers. The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for pancreatic cancer risk associated with beta-blocker use was estimated using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: The study included 4113 patients with pancreatic cancer and 16 072 matched controls. When compared to never users, there was no association between any beta-blocker use and pancreatic cancer risk (adjusted OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97-1.16, P = .16). Analysis by receptor selectivity showed use of non-selective beta-blockers for more than 2 years was associated with a reduced pancreatic cancer risk (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-1.00, P = .05). When compared to former users both users of selective ß1-blockers and non-selective beta-blockers had a reduced pancreatic cancer risk (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.90, P = .001) and (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.92, P = .01), respectively. CONCLUSION: Beta-blocker use was not associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk. However, long-term use of beta-blockers may be associated with decreased pancreatic cancer risk.

A phase 1 trial of the oral DNA methyltransferase inhibitor CC-486 and the histone deacetylase inhibitor romidepsin in advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Epigenetic abnormalities are manifold in all solid tumors and include changes in chromatin configuration and DNA methylation. The authors designed a phase 1 study to evaluate the oral DNA methyltransferase inhibitor CC-486 combined with the histone deacetylase inhibitor romidepsin in advanced solid tumors with dose expansion to further evaluate pharmacodynamics and possible clinical benefit of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). METHODS: This was a phase 1 study with a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design and an expansion phase for patients with virally mediated cancers. The disease control rate (DCR) was the primary outcome for the expansion cohort. Correlative studies included long interspersed nucleotide element 1 (LINE-1) methylation and drug exposure in blood samples (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01537744). RESULTS: Fourteen patients were enrolled in the dose-escalation portion at 3 dose levels. Three patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities; the RP2D was oral CC-486 300 mg daily on days 1 through 14 and romidepsin 8 mg/m2 on days 8 and 15. Because of slow accrual into the expansion phase, the trial was closed after 4 patients enrolled. Common toxicities of the combination included nausea (83.3%), anorexia (72.2%), fatigue (61.1%), and constipation (55.6%). There were 12 patients evaluable for response, 5 with stable disease, of whom 2 received >4 cycles; there were no responses. Exposure to CC-486 and romidepsin was consistent with prior data. LINE-1 methylation on C1D8 was significantly reduced (mean, -6.23; 95% CI, -12.23, -0.24; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Although, at the RP2D, the combination of CC-486 and romidepsin was tolerable, no significant anticancer activity was observed. Significant demethylation in post-treatment circulating tumor DNA and biopsies provided proof of target acquisition.

Refining the Use of Adjuvant Oxaliplatin in Clinical Stage II or III Rectal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines include the use of adjuvant oxaliplatin in clinical stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma. However, its efficacy is supported by a single phase II trial. We aimed to examine whether oxaliplatin confers survival benefit in this patient population. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (2006-2013) we identified 6,868 individuals with clinical stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy. We used multivariate Cox regression to evaluate survival differences according to treatment intensity and change from clinical to pathological stage. RESULTS: We demonstrated an association with improved overall survival with the use of doublet adjuvant chemotherapy in pathological stage III rectal adenocarcinoma (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.92). This association was confirmed in patients with clinical stage III and subsequent pathological stage III disease (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57-0.83) and was not observed in patients who progressed from clinical stage II to pathological stage III disease. Doublet adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with improved overall survival in patients with pathological stage 0 or I disease, regardless of their clinical stage. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant oxaliplatin following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal adenocarcinoma was confirmed in patients with clinical stage III and subsequent pathological stage III disease. Omission of oxaliplatin can be considered in pathological complete response or pathological stage I disease. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Current guidelines include the use of oxaliplatin as part of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in patients with clinical stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma (RAC). However, its efficacy is supported only by a single phase II trial. This study found an association with improved overall survival with the use of doublet AC in patients diagnosed with clinical stage III and subsequent pathological stage III, and not in patients with pathological stage 0 or I, regardless of their clinical stage. Therefore, omission of oxaliplatin can be considered in patients with either pathological complete response or pathological stage I RAC, thereby avoiding oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy.

Efficacy of Oral Cryotherapy During Oxaliplatin Infusion in Preventing Oral Thermal Hyperalgesia: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced oral thermal hyperalgesia (OTH) is a common and debilitating side effect of platinum-based anticancer agents. This study evaluated the efficacy of oral cryotherapy in preventing OTH during oxaliplatin chemotherapy infusion. METHODS: Patients with gastrointestinal cancer treated with biweekly oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2 over 120 minutes) at Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania were randomized to receive oral cryotherapy (ice chips) during oxaliplatin infusion or standard-of-care treatment. All patients completed baseline questionnaires regarding oral and peripheral symptoms and on-treatment questionnaires on day 1 of each subsequent chemotherapy cycle. Those in the treatment arm were asked to document how long they kept the ice chips in their mouths (0, <30, 30, 60, 90, or 120 minutes) and to report their discomfort associated with oral cryotherapy. Evaluable patients were those who had completed at least 2 cycles of oxaliplatin therapy. RESULTS: Of 62 randomized patients with a variety of gastrointestinal malignancies, 50 (25 per treatment arm) were evaluable for efficacy. The rate of patients with oral symptoms after the first treatment cycle was significantly lower in the intervention arm (n=8; 32%) than in the control arm (n=18; 72%), meeting the primary study objective (P=.01). The magnitude of difference in symptom scores before versus after the first treatment cycle was significantly less in the intervention versus control arm (P=.001). No difference in oral symptoms over time was seen between the intervention and control groups (P=.20), although a high attrition rate was noted. Duration of ice chip exposure was associated with improved oral symptoms over time (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Oral cryotherapy is a tolerable and cost-effective method of diminishing OTH in patients receiving oxaliplatin chemotherapy, and seems to be most effective in the early stages of treatment.

A final report of a phase I study of veliparib (ABT-888) in combination with low-dose fractionated whole abdominal radiation therapy (LDFWAR) in patients with advanced solid malignancies and peritoneal carcinomatosis with a dose escalation in ovarian and fallopian tube cancers.

BACKGROUND: The combination of low-dose radiation therapy with PARP inhibition enhances anti-tumor efficacy through potentiating DNA damage. We combined low-dose fractionated whole abdominal radiation (LDFWAR) with ABT-888 in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis with a dose escalation in ovarian and fallopian cancer patients (OV). METHODS: Patients were treated with veliparib, 40-400mg orally BID on days 1-21 of 3 28-day cycles on 6 dose levels. Dose levels 5 and 6 included only OV patients. LDFWAR consisted of 21.6Gy in 36 fractions, 0.6Gy twice daily on days 1 and 5 for weeks 1-3 of each cycle. Circulating tumor material and quality of life were serially assessed. RESULTS: 32pts were treated. Median follow-up was 45months (10-50). The most common treatment-related grade 3 and 4 toxicities were lymphopenia (59%), anemia (9%), thrombocytopenia (12%), neutropenia (6%), leukopenia (6%), nausea (6%), diarrhea (6%), anorexia (6%), vomiting (6%) and fatigue (6%). The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be 250mg PO BID. Median PFS was 3.6months and median OS was 9.1months. In OV patients, OS was longer for platinum-sensitive patients (10.9mo) compared to platinum-resistant patients (5.8mo). QoL decreased for all groups during treatment. Germline BRCA status was known for 14/18 patients with OV cancers, 5 of whom were BRCA mutation carriers. One objective response (3%) was observed. CONCLUSION: ABT-888 plus LDFWAR is tolerable with gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue and myelosuppression as the most common toxicities. The single observed objective response was in a germline BRCA mutated, platinum-sensitive patient.

Growing Pains: a Simulation-Based Curriculum for Improving the Transition to Hematology/Oncology Fellowship.

Trainee exposure to clinical oncology during residency training is heterogeneous and often modest. The steep learning curve upon entry into fellowship can result in undue stress for fellows and their patients. Simulation-based training has been shown to be superior to classical didactic approaches. We have introduced several innovative simulation-based workshops into the curriculum for the Johns Hopkins Hematology/Oncology Fellowship Training Program in order to address this unmet need. During the first months of training, fellows were engaged in activities emphasizing essential clinical and procedural skills. Specific workshops included the following: (1) chemotherapy writing, (2) cadaveric and simulation-based bone marrow biopsy and intrathecal chemotherapy administration, and (3) simulation-based communication skills training. All first-year fellows in our program participated in these exercises. Pre- and post-workshop surveys were administered to assess knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors; additional distant post-workshop evaluations were disseminated to assess the durability/impact of the curricula and for program evaluation. Overall, participating fellows indicated that the workshops improved patient care and comfort with procedures and patient-centered communication. Continued implementation of these workshops was recommended for program improvement. To the best of our knowledge, ours is amongst the first oncology fellowship training programs to systematically implement simulation-based curricula into our schema for fellowship training. We hypothesize that proactively introducing fellows to these high-yield activities will translate into improved patient care and reduced stress for trainees. Additional investigation into the long-term impact of such curricula remains an area of ongoing need.

What lies within: novel strategies in immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

Immunotherapy has become an increasingly important therapeutic strategy for those with cancer, with phase III studies demonstrating survival advantages in melanoma and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a promising target for the next generation of immune-based strategies. In this article, we examine the current state of the art in lung cancer immunotherapy, including vaccines that specifically target lung tumor antigens and immune checkpoint antibodies such as antiprogrammed death 1 (anti-PD-1). Both approaches harness innate immunity against tumors by suppressing tumor-induced immune paresis. Methods. To identify relevant clinical trials of immunotherapy in NSCLC, PubMed and Medline databases were searched using the terms "immunotherapy" and "NSCLC," and several other therapy-specific search terms (e.g., PD-1, NSCLC). Additionally, abstracts presented at international lung cancer symposia, the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, and the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting between 2005 and 2013 were evaluated. Results. Large international phase III trials of NSCLC vaccines have completed accrual in both the adjuvant and metastatic disease settings. Results of the START study were disappointing, but results from other studies are still awaited. Immune checkpoint modulation has shown promise, with separate phase I studies of the anti-PD-1 antibody, nivolumab, and anti-PD-L1 antibody, MPDL3280A, demonstrating good tolerance and durable responses for certain patients with NSCLC who were heavily pretreated. Conclusions. Immune-based strategies have shown initial promise for early- and advanced-stage NSCLC. Validating these findings in randomized studies and discovering durable biomarkers of response represent the next challenges for investigation.

Advancements in Systemic Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer.

Outcomes for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have improved in the past 12 years, mainly because of progress made in systemic therapies. New treatment strategies for advanced pancreatic cancer include switch maintenance with cytotoxic therapies, induction maintenance, and the utilization of targeted agents for patients with actionable variants, as well as ongoing development of cytotoxic regimens, such as NALIRIFOX. The activity of immunotherapy has been disappointing to date, but novel combinations and identifying appropriate patient populations may further unlock its potential.

The Clinical Implications of Reversions in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer and Pathogenic Variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 after Progression on Rucaparib.

PURPOSE: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) provide an effective maintenance option for patients with BRCA- or PALB2-mutated pancreatic cancer. However, mechanisms of PARPi resistance and optimal post-PARPi therapeutic strategies are poorly characterized. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We collected paired cell-free DNA samples and post-PARPi clinical data on 42 patients with advanced, platinum-sensitive pancreatic cancer who were treated with maintenance rucaparib on NCT03140670, of whom 32 developed progressive disease. RESULTS: Peripherally detected, acquired BRCA or PALB2 reversion variants were uncommon (5/30; 16.6%) in patients who progressed on rucaparib. Reversions were significantly associated with rapid resistance to PARPi treatment (median PFS, 3.7 vs. 12.5 months; P = 0.001) and poor overall survival (median OS, 6.2 vs. 23.0 months; P < 0.0001). All patients with reversions received rechallenge with platinum-based chemotherapy following PARPi progression and experienced faster progression on this therapy than those without reversion variants (real-world time-to-treatment discontinuation, 2.4 vs. 5.8 months; P = 0.004). Of the patients who progressed on PARPi and received further chemotherapy, the OS from initiation of second-line therapy was significantly lower in those with reversion variants than in those without (5.5 vs. 12.0 months, P = 0.002). Finally, high levels of tumor shedding were independently associated with poor outcomes in patients who received rucaparib. CONCLUSIONS: Acquired reversion variants were uncommon but detrimental in a population of patients with advanced BRCA- or PALB2-related pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who received maintenance rucaparib. Reversion variants led to rapid progression on PARPi, rapid failure of subsequent platinum-based treatment, and poor OS of patients. The identification of such variants in the blood may have both predictive and prognostic value. See related commentary by Tsang and Gallinger, p. 5005.

Biallelic BRCA Loss and Homologous Recombination Deficiency in Nonbreast/Ovarian Tumors in Germline BRCA1/2 Carriers.

PURPOSE: Breast and ovarian tumors in germline BRCA1/2 carriers undergo allele-specific loss of heterozygosity, resulting in homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and sensitivity to poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. This study investigated whether biallelic loss and HRD also occur in primary nonbreast/ovarian tumors that arise in germline BRCA1/2 carriers. METHODS: A clinically ascertained cohort of BRCA1/2 carriers with a primary nonbreast/ovarian cancer was identified, including canonical (prostate and pancreatic cancers) and noncanonical (all other) tumor types. Whole-exome sequencing or clinical sequencing results (n = 45) were analyzed. A pan-cancer analysis of nonbreast/ovarian primary tumors from germline BRCA1/2 carriers from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA, n = 73) was used as a validation cohort. RESULTS: Ages of nonbreast/ovarian cancer diagnosis in germline BRCA1/2 carriers were similar to controls for the majority of cancer types. Nine of 45 (20%) primary nonbreast/ovarian tumors from germline BRCA1/2 carriers had biallelic loss of BRCA1/2 in the clinical cohort, and 23 of 73 (32%) in the TCGA cohort. In the combined cohort, 35% and 27% of primary canonical and noncanonical BRCA tumor types, respectively, had biallelic loss. High HRD scores (HRDex > 42) were detected in 81% of tumors with biallelic BRCA loss compared with 22% (P < .001) of tumors without biallelic BRCA loss. No differences in genomic profile, including mutational signatures, mutation spectrum, tumor mutational burden, or microsatellite instability, were found in primary nonbreast/ovarian tumors with or without biallelic BRCA1/2 loss. CONCLUSION: A proportion of noncanonical primary tumors have biallelic loss and evidence of HRD. Our data suggest that assessment of biallelic loss and HRD could supplement identification of germline BRCA1/2 mutations in selection of patients for platinum or PARP inhibitor therapy.

PARPis and Other Novel, Targeted Therapeutics in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis, with a mere ∼10% of patients in the United States surviving 5 years from the time of diagnosis. Until recently, the treatment for advanced PDAC differed little based on patient or tumor characteristics. However, recent breakthroughs have identified subgroups of patients who benefit from novel, biomarker-driven therapies. We review the data and role for PARP inhibitors and for other biomarker-directed therapies, including for patients with NTRK fusions, NRG1 fusions, mismatch repair deficiency, and KRAS p.G12C mutations.