Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in untreated advanced pleural mesothelioma in Canada, Italy, and France: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pleural mesothelioma usually presents at an advanced, incurable stage. Chemotherapy with platinum-pemetrexed is a standard treatment. We hypothesised that the addition of pembrolizumab to platinum-pemetrexed would improve overall survival in patients with pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: We did this open-label, international, randomised phase 3 trial at 51 hospitals in Canada, Italy, and France. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with previously untreated advanced pleural mesothelioma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous chemotherapy (cisplatin [75 mg/m2] or carboplatin [area under the concentration-time curve 5-6 mg/mL per min] with pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles), with or without intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (up to 2 years). The primary endpoint was overall survival in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02784171, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 31, 2017, and Sept 4, 2020, 440 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to chemotherapy alone (n=218) or chemotherapy with pembrolizumab (n=222). 333 (76 %) of patients were male, 347 (79%) were White, and median age was 71 years (IQR 66-75). At final analysis (database lock Dec 15, 2022), with a median follow-up of 16·2 months (IQR 8·3-27·8), overall survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab (median overall survival 17·3 months [95% CI 14·4-21·3] with pembrolizumab vs 16·1 months [13·1-18·2] with chemotherapy alone, hazard ratio for death 0·79; 95% CI 0·64-0·98, two-sided p=0·0324). 3-year overall survival rate was 25% (95% CI 20-33%) with pembrolizumab and 17% (13-24%) with chemotherapy alone. Adverse events related to study treatment of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 60 (27%) of 222 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 32 (15%) of 211 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. Hospital admissions for serious adverse events related to one or more study drugs were reported in 40 (18%) of 222 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 12 (6%) of 211 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. Grade 5 adverse events related to one or more drugs occurred in two patients on the pembrolizumab group and one patient in the chemotherapy alone group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced pleural mesothelioma, the addition of pembrolizumab to standard platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy was tolerable and resulted in a significant improvement in overall survival. This regimen is a new treatment option for previously untreated advanced pleural mesothelioma. FUNDING: The Canadian Cancer Society and Merck & Co.

Complementary Medicine Use Amongst Patients with Metastatic Cancer Enrolled in Phase III Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Complementary medicines (CM) are frequently used by patients with cancer. Controversy exists over the effectiveness and risk that CM may add to conventional cancer therapy. The incidence of CM use among patients enrolled in phase III clinical trials is unknown. METHODS: Medication lists from 6 international phase III clinical trials were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients using CM. Patients had metastatic breast, colorectal, or lung cancers. Quality of life, adverse events, overall survival, and progression-free survival were compared between CM users and non-users. Baseline differences between groups were adjusted with propensity score matching groups. RESULTS: Seven hundred and six of 3446 patients (20.5%) used at least one CM. CM use was highest among patients with breast cancer (35.6%). CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors (ECOG 0-1, non-smoking status, younger age, and fewer metastases). CM use was associated with lower rates of adverse events (50% vs. 62%, P = .002) and quality of life was similar between both groups. After adjustment with propensity score matching, CM use was also associated with longer overall survival in patients with lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.80, 95%CI, 0.68-0.94, P =.0054). However, several key control variables like EGFR status were not available. CONCLUSION: One in 5 patients in phase III clinical trials report using CM. CM was not associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes. However, CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors, and likely other confounders that may have contributed to improved outcomes observed in the lung cohort. Physicians should monitor for CM use and potential interactions with clinical trial drugs.

A phase I study of vistusertib (dual mTORC1/2 inhibitor) in patients with previously treated glioblastoma multiforme: a CCTG study.

The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway activation plays a central role in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) development and progression, and in resistance to anti-cancer therapies. Inhibition of the PI3K pathway has been shown to sensitize cultured glioma cells and tumor xenografts to the effects of temozolomide (TMZ) and radiation. Vistusertib is an oral inhibitor of mTORC1/2 complexes. The primary objective of this Canadian Cancer Trials Group phase I study was to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of vistusertib in patients with GBM receiving TMZ at first progression following primary treatment. Vistusertib was administered at a starting dose of 100 mg bid 2 days on/5 days off weekly with TMZ 150 mg/m2 daily for 5 days/28-days cycle. Dose escalation was according to a 3 + 3 design. Secondary objectives included assessment of vistusertib safety and toxicity profile, and preliminary efficacy. 15 patients were enrolled in the study (median age 66 (range 51-77), females 8). Vistusertib 125 mg BID in combination with TMZ 150 mg/m2 daily for 5 days was well tolerated. Vistusertib treatment-related adverse events were generally grade 1-2, with the most frequently reported being fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, and rash. Of 13 response evaluable patients, 1 patient (8%) had a partial response ongoing at 7.6 months of follow-up, and 5 patients had stable disease (38%) as best response (median duration 9.6 months, range 3.7-not yet reached). Six-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 26.6%. Combination of vistusertib with TMZ in GBM patients at first recurrence demonstrated a favorable safety profile at the tested dose levels.

A phase Ib study of a PI3Kinase inhibitor BKM120 in combination with panitumumab in patients with KRAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer.

Background Resistance to Epidermal Growth Factor inhibition (EGFRi) in patients with KRAS wild-type (wt) Colorectal Cancer (CRC) may occur as a result of PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling. We conducted a study to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and response rate of panitumumab, an EGFRi, plus BKM120, a PI3K inhibitor, in advanced CRC. Methods Patients with chemotherapy refractory KRAS wt CRC, who were EGFRi naive were enrolled. A 3 + 3 dose escalation design was utilized. The starting dose of panitumumab was 6 mg/kg iv every 2 weeks with BKM120 at 60 mg oral daily. Results Nineteen patients were treated and 17 were evaluable for response. The starting dose was not tolerable (mucositis, fatigue). At dose level (DL) 1, three of six patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity, DL - 1 had no significant toxicity. Panitumumab 6 mg/kg iv q 2 weeks with BKM120 60 mg given 5 out of 7 days per week was declared the RP2D. One patient (5.9%) who was PTEN and PIK3CA negative by IHC had a partial response, seven had stable disease, and nine had disease progression. Conclusion Panitumumab (6 mg/kg iv q 2 weeks) with BKM120 60 mg given 5 out of 7 days per week was declared the RP2D. Toxicities including fatigue, rash and mucositis. There was little evidence of activity in this biomarker unselected cohort.

A Canadian cancer trials group phase IB study of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) plus tremelimumab (anti-CTLA-4) given concurrently or sequentially in patients with advanced, incurable solid malignancies.

Background The IND.226 study was a phase Ib study to determine the recommended phase II dose of durvalumab + tremelimumab in combination with standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Sequential administration of multiple agents increases total chair time adding costs overall and inconvenience for patients. This cohort of the IND.226 study evaluated the safety and tolerability of durvalumab + tremelimumab given either sequentially (SEQ) or concurrently (CON). Methods Patients with advanced solid tumours were enrolled and randomised to either SEQ tremelimumab 75 mg IV over 1 h followed by durvalumab 1500 mg IV over 1 h q4wks on the same day, or CON administration over 1 h. The serum pharmacokinetic profile of SEQ versus CON of durvalumab and tremelimumab administration was also evaluated. Results 14 patients either received SEQ (n = 7pts) or CON (n = 7 pts). There were no infusion related reactions. Drug related adverse events (AEs) were mainly low grade and manageable, and comparable in frequency between SEQ/CON- fatigue (43%/57%), rash (43%/43%), pruritus (43%/29%) and nausea (14%/29%). One patient in each cohort discontinued treatment due to toxicity. The PK profiles of durvalumab and tremelimumab were similar between CON and SEQ, and to historical reference data. Conclusions Concurrent administration of durvalumab and tremelimumab over 1 h is safe with a comparable PK profile to sequential administration.

A Phase Ib Trial of Durvalumab in Combination with Trastuzumab in HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer (CCTG IND.229).

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are active in a broad range of cancers, including programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive, triple-negative, metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity is a mechanism of action of trastuzumab. We performed a phase Ib trial of durvalumab and trastuzumab in HER2-positive MBC previously treated with chemotherapy and anti-HER2 antibodies to assess safety, efficacy, and correlative endpoints. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HER2-positive MBC were enrolled on a standard 3 + 3 design. Dose level 1 was durvalumab (1,125 mg intravenously day 1) and trastuzumab (8 mg/kg intravenously loading, then 6 mg/kg day 1) on a q3 weekly cycle. An expansion cohort at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) performed tumor biopsies at baseline and after cycle 1. The primary endpoint was to establish the RP2D. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were accrued from April to December 2016, of which 14 were evaluable for response. Median age was 54 years (range 40-86); the majority had visceral disease (87%) and at least three prior (adjuvant and/or metastatic) lines of chemotherapy (73%), including trastuzumab (93%), pertuzumab (60%), and trastuzumab-emtansine (93%) for MBC. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed at dose level 1 (n = 6) or dose expansion (n = 9) during cycle 1. One patient developed a grade ≥3 immune-related adverse event (grade 4 diabetes mellitus). No responses by RECIST were seen, with 4 of 14 patients (29%) demonstrating stable disease as best response at week 6 (median duration, 2.7 months). All patients had <1% PD-L1 expression on either archival tissue (7/15) or prestudy biopsy (8/15). In the dose expansion cohort, evaluable pretreatment and on-treatment tumor biopsies (n = 5) showed minimal CD8 cell infiltration. CONCLUSION: The RP2D of durvalumab and trastuzumab is standard full doses of both agents. No significant clinical activity was observed in patients with heavily pretreated HER2-positive PD-L1-negative MBC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This phase Ib trial with associated correlative endpoints provides insights into the lack of activity of the combination of durvalumab and trastuzumab in heavily pretreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). No significant clinical activity was observed in patients with heavily pretreated HER2-positive programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-negative MBC with evidence of cytotoxic T-cell exhaustion. Furthermore, all patients had no expression of PD-L1 in the tumor cells. These data support the importance of PD-L1 as an important selection biomarker and the need to assess the tumor microenvironment for immune regulatory cells. Further work is needed to understand how to activate the "cold" tumors to be able to combine current immune-oncology agents.

Phase I study of vinblastine and temsirolimus in pediatric patients with recurrent or refractory solid tumors: Canadian Cancer Trials Group Study IND.218.

Combining mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors and vinca alkaloids has shown therapeutic synergy in xenograft models of pediatric cancers. This phase I study assessed safety and toxicity of temsirolimus in combination with vinblastine in children. PROCEDURE: Patients ≥ 1 and ≤ 18 years with recurrent/refractory solid or CNS tumors were eligible. Vinblastine (4 mg/m2 ) and temsirolimus (15 mg/m2 ) were administered i.v. weekly, with planned dose escalation of vinblastine using a rolling six phase I design. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data were collected. RESULTS: Seven patients with median age 12 years (range, 8-18 years) were enrolled; all were evaluable for toxicity and six for response. At dose level 1, four of six patients developed grade 3 mucositis, of which one met duration criteria for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Four patients required dose omissions for grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity, including one prolonged neutropenia DLT. A subsequent patient was enrolled on dose level -2 (temsirolimus 10 mg/m2 , vinblastine 4 mg/m2 ) with no protocol-related toxicity > grade 1, except grade 2 neutropenia. Two serious adverse events (SAE) occurred-an allergic reaction to temsirolimus (grade 2) and an intracranial hemorrhage in a CNS tumor patient (grade 3)-unlikely related to study therapy. Soluble VEGFR2 was reduced at cycle 1, day 36 in keeping with inhibition of angiogenesis. Four patients achieved prolonged stable disease for a median of 5.0 months (range, 3.1-8.3 months). CONCLUSION: The combination of weekly temsirolimus (15 mg/m2 ) and vinblastine (4 mg/m2 ) exceeds the maximum tolerated dose in children, with frequent oral mucositis and hematologic toxicity.

iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics.

Tumours respond differently to immunotherapies compared with chemotherapeutic drugs, raising questions about the assessment of changes in tumour burden-a mainstay of evaluation of cancer therapeutics that provides key information about objective response and disease progression. A consensus guideline-iRECIST-was developed by the RECIST working group for the use of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) in cancer immunotherapy trials, to ensure consistent design and data collection, facilitate the ongoing collection of trial data, and ultimate validation of the guideline. This guideline describes a standard approach to solid tumour measurements and definitions for objective change in tumour size for use in trials in which an immunotherapy is used. Additionally, it defines the minimum datapoints required from future trials and those currently in development to facilitate the compilation of a data warehouse to use to later validate iRECIST. An unprecedented number of trials have been done, initiated, or are planned to test new immune modulators for cancer therapy using a variety of modified response criteria. This guideline will allow consistent conduct, interpretation, and analysis of trials of immunotherapies.

ERCC1 isoform expression and DNA repair in non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) protein is a potential prognostic biomarker of the efficacy of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although several ongoing trials are evaluating the level of expression of ERCC1, no consensus has been reached regarding a method for evaluation. METHODS: We used the 8F1 antibody to measure the level of expression of ERCC1 protein by means of immunohistochemical analysis in a validation set of samples obtained from 494 patients in two independent phase 3 trials (the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group JBR.10 and the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9633 trial from the Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation Biology project). We compared the results of repeated staining of the entire original set of samples obtained from 589 patients in the International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial Biology study, which had led to the initial correlation between the absence of ERCC1 expression and platinum response, with our previous results in the same tumors. We mapped the epitope recognized by 16 commercially available ERCC1 antibodies and investigated the capacity of the different ERCC1 isoforms to repair platinum-induced DNA damage. RESULTS: We were unable to validate the predictive effect of immunostaining for ERCC1 protein. The discordance in the results of staining for ERCC1 suggested a change in the performance of the 8F1 antibody since 2006. We found that none of the 16 antibodies could distinguish among the four ERCC1 protein isoforms, whereas only one isoform produced a protein that had full capacities for nucleotide excision repair and cisplatin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Immunohistochemical analysis with the use of currently available ERCC1 antibodies did not specifically detect the unique functional ERCC1 isoform. As a result, its usefulness in guiding therapeutic decision making is limited. (Funded by Eli Lilly and others.).

A Phase I study of olaparib and irinotecan in patients with colorectal cancer: Canadian Cancer Trials Group IND 187.

Background Olaparib is an orally available inhibitor of PARP-1. In pre-clinical studies, olaparib was shown to potentiate anti-tumor effects of irinotecan in colon cancer cell lines. This phase I study was conducted to evaluate the safety and tolerability of olaparib in combination with irinotecan. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced colorectal cancer whose disease progressed after at least one systemic therapy regimen were enrolled. Dose escalation and de-escalation were based on toxicity assessment. Pharmacokinetic samples were collected in Cycle 1 for olaparib, irinotecan and SN-38. Results Twenty-five patients were enrolled, 11 patients on a schedule of continuous olaparib and irinotecan every 3 weeks (Part A) and 14 patients on a schedule of intermittent olaparib and irinotecan every 2 weeks (Part B). Continuous olaparib administration was associated with higher than expected toxicities and was not considered to be tolerable. Intermittent olaparib administration was better tolerated, and the recommended phase 2 doses were olaparib 50 mg p.o twice daily days 1-5 and irinotecan 125 mg/m(2) i.v. every 2 weeks. Common toxicities included fatigue, anorexia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and abdominal pain. Nine patients had stable disease as the best response, 2 from Part A (3 and 9 months respectively), and 7 from Part B (median duration: 7.4 months; range: 4 to 13 months). There was no pharmacokinetic interaction between olaparib and irinotecan. Conclusions Olaparib can be combined with irinotecan if administered intermittently. Both olaparib and irinotecan required significant dose reductions. The lack of anti-tumor efficacy observed in this trial makes this combination of little interest for further clinical development. Trial Registration ID NCT00535353.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effects of administering chemotherapy following surgery, or following surgery plus radiotherapy (known as adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC),we performed two systematic reviews and meta-analyses of all randomised controlled trials using individual participant data. Results were first published in The Lancet in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To compare, in terms of overall survival, time to locoregional recurrence, time to distant recurrence and recurrence-free survival:A. Surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapyB. Surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapyin patients with histologically diagnosed early stage NSCLC.(2)To investigate whether or not predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from cisplatin-based chemotherapy in terms of survival. SEARCH METHODS: We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1995 to December 2013) with information from trial registers, handsearching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials of a) surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy; and b) surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy, provided that they randomised NSCLC patients using a method which precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. Data from all patients were sought from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival, and date of last follow-up, as well as details of treatment allocated, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information for all randomised patients, including those excluded from the investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. For trials using cisplatin-based regimens, we carried out subgroup analyses by age, sex, histological cell type, tumour stage, and performance status. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 35 trials evaluating surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone. IPD were available for 26 of these trials and our analyses are based on 8447 participants (3323 deaths) in 34 trial comparisons. There was clear evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy after surgery (hazard ratio (HR)= 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.81 to 0.92, p< 0.0001), with an absolute increase in survival of 4% at five years.We identified 15 trials evaluating surgery plus radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy alone. IPD were available for 12 of these trials and our analyses are based on 2660 participants (1909 deaths) in 13 trial comparisons. There was also evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy to surgery plus radiotherapy (HR= 0.88, 95% CI= 0.81 to 0.97, p= 0.009). This represents an absolute improvement in survival of 4% at five years.For both meta-analyses, we found similar benefits for recurrence outcomes and there was little variation in effect according to the type of chemotherapy, other trial characteristics or patient subgroup.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on quality of life and adverse events. Quality of life information was not routinely collected during the trials, but where toxicity was assessed and mentioned in the publications, it was thought to be manageable. We considered the risk of bias in the included trials to be low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from 47 trial comparisons and 11,107 patients demonstrate the clear benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for these patients, irrespective of whether chemotherapy was given in addition to surgery or surgery plus radiotherapy. This is the most up-to-date and complete systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis that has been carried out.

Dacomitinib compared with placebo in pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NCIC CTG BR.26): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Dacomitinib is an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine-kinase inhibitor with preclinical and clinical evidence of activity in non-small-cell lung cancer. We designed BR.26 to assess whether dacomitinib improved overall survival in heavily pretreated patients with this disease. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer from 75 centres in 12 countries. Eligible patients had received up to three previous lines of chemotherapy and either gefitinib or erlotinib, and had assessable disease (RECIST 1.1) and tumour tissue samples for translational studies. Patients were stratified according to centre, performance status, tobacco use, best response to previous EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, weight loss within the previous 3 months, and ethnicity, and were then randomly allocated 2:1 to oral dacomitinib 45 mg once-daily or matched placebo centrally via a web-based system. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; secondary outcomes included overall survival in predefined molecular subgroups, progression-free survival, the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, safety, and quality of life. This study is completed, although follow-up is ongoing for patients on treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01000025. FINDINGS: Between Dec 23, 2009, and June 11, 2013, we randomly assigned 480 patients to dacomitinib and 240 patients to placebo. At the final analysis (January, 2014), median follow-up was 23·4 months (IQR 15·6-29·6) for patients in the dacomitinib group and 24·4 months (11·5-38·9) for those in the placebo group. Dacomitinib did not improve overall survival compared with placebo (median 6·83 months [95% CI 6·08-7·49] for dacomitinib vs 6·31 months [5·32-7·52] for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 1·00 [95% CI 0·83-1·21]; p=0·506). However, patients in the dacomitinib group had longer progression-free survival than those in the placebo group (median 2·66 months [1·91-3·32] vs 1·38 months [0·99-1·74], respectively; HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·55-0·79]; p<0·0001), and a significantly greater proportion of patients in the dacomitinb group achieved an objective response than in the placebo group (34 [7%] of 480 patients vs three [1%] of 240 patients, respectively; p=0·001). Compared with placebo, the effect of dacomitinib on overall survival seemed similar in patients with EGFR-mutation-positive tumours (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·67-1·44) and EGFR wild-type tumours (0·93, 0·71-1·21; pinteraction=0·69). However, we noted qualitative differences in the effect of dacomitinib on overall survival for patients with KRAS-mutation-positive tumours (2·10, 1·05-4·22) and patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (0·79, 0·61-1·03; pinteraction=0·08). Compared with placebo, patients allocated dacomitinib had significantly longer time to deterioration of cough (p<0·0001), dyspnoea (p=0·049), and pain (p=0·041). 185 (39%) of 477 patients who received dacomitinib and 86 (36%) of 239 patients who received placebo had serious adverse events. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhoea (59 [12%] patients on dacomitinib vs no controls), acneiform rash (48 [10%] vs one [<1%]), oral mucositis (16 [3%] vs none), and fatigue (13 [3%] vs four [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Dacomitinib did not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and an EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and Pfizer.

Tumor Size Is Not Everything: Advancing Radiomics as a Precision Medicine Biomarker in Oncology Drug Development and Clinical Care. A Report of a Multidisciplinary Workshop Coordinated by the RECIST Working Group.

Radiomics, the science of extracting quantifiable data from routine medical images, is a powerful tool that has many potential applications in oncology. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Working Group (RWG) held a workshop in May 2022, which brought together various stakeholders to discuss the potential role of radiomics in oncology drug development and clinical trials, particularly with respect to response assessment. This article summarizes the results of that workshop, reviewing radiomics for the practicing oncologist and highlighting the work that needs to be done to move forward the incorporation of radiomics into clinical trials.

Plasma ctDNA as a treatment response biomarker in metastatic cancers: evaluation by the RECIST working group.

Early indicators of metastatic cancer response to therapy are important for evaluating new drugs and stopping ineffective treatment. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) based on repeat cancer imaging are widely adopted in clinical trials, are used to identify active regimens that may change practice, and contribute to regulatory approvals. However, these criteria do not provide insight before 6 - 12 weeks of treatment and typically require that patients have measurable disease. Recent data suggests that measuring on-treatment changes in the amount or proportion of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in peripheral blood plasma may accurately identify responding and non-responding cancers at earlier time points. Over the past year, the RECIST working group has evaluated current evidence for plasma ctDNA kinetics as a treatment response biomarker in metastatic cancers and early endpoint in clinical trials, to identify areas of focus for future research and validation. Here, we outline the requirement for large standardized trial datasets, greater scrutiny of optimal ctDNA collection time points and assay thresholds, and consideration of regulatory body guidelines and patient opinions. In particular, clinically-meaningful changes in plasma ctDNA abundance are likely to differ by cancer type and therapy class, and must be assessed before ctDNA can be considered as a potential pan-cancer response evaluation biomarker. Despite the need for additional data, minimally-invasive on-treatment ctDNA measurements hold promise to build upon existing response assessments such as RECIST, and offer opportunities for developing novel early endpoints for modern clinical trials.

Meta-Analysis of the Test-Retest Repeatability of [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose Standardized Uptake Values: Implications for Assessment of Tumor Response.

PURPOSE: Currently, guidelines for PET with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) interpretation for assessment of therapy response in oncology primarily involve visual evaluation of FDG-PET/CT scans. However, quantitative measurements of the metabolic activity in tumors may be even more useful in evaluating response to treatment. Guidelines based on such measurements, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Criteria and PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors, have been proposed. However, more rigorous analysis of response criteria based on FDG-PET measurements is needed to adopt regular use in practice. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Well-defined boundaries of repeatability and reproducibility of quantitative measurements to discriminate noise from true signal changes are a needed initial step. An extension of the meta-analysis from de Langen and colleagues (2012) of the test-retest repeatability of quantitative FDG-PET measurements, including mean, maximum, and peak standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVpeak, respectively), was performed. Data from 11 studies in the literature were used to estimate the relationship between the variance in test-retest measurements with uptake level and various study-level, patient-level, and lesion-level characteristics. RESULTS: Test-retest repeatability of percentage fluctuations for all three types of SUV measurement (max, mean, and peak) improved with higher FDG uptake levels. Repeatability in all three SUV measurements varied for different lesion locations. Worse repeatability in SUVmean was also associated with higher tumor volumes. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these results, recommendations regarding SUV measurements for assessing minimal detectable changes based on repeatability and reproducibility are proposed. These should be applied to differentiate between response categories for a future set of FDG-PET-based criteria that assess clinically significant changes in tumor response.

Association of Molecular Profiles and Mutational Status With Distinct Histological Lung Adenocarcinoma Subtypes. An Analysis of the LACE-Bio Data.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is indicated for stage II and stage III lung adenocarcinomas (ADC). Using the LACE Bio II database, we analyzed the distribution of various mutations across the subtypes of ADCs and studied the prognostic and predictive roles of PD-L1, TMB, and Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TILs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical and genomic data from the LACE Bio II data were extracted. Patients were divided into ADC subtypes, in which the grouping was done based on their known clinical behavior (Lepidic [LEP], Acinar/Papillary [ACI or PAP], Micropapillary/Solid [MIP or SOL], Mucinous [MUC] and Others). Kaplan-Meier (KM) and log-rank test were used to compare survival based on PD-L1, TMB, TILs and combinations of TMB with PD-L1 and TILs. Adjusted Hazard Ratios (HR) were analyzed with Overall Survival (OS), Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and Lung Cancer-Specific Survival (LCSS) as endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 375 ADC patients were identified. MIP/SOL was the subtype most commonly positive for various biomarkers. PD-L1 Negative/high TMB was associated with better outcomes in terms of OS (HR = 0.46 [0.23-0.89], P = .021) and DFS (HR = 0.52 [0.30-0.90], P = .02), relative to PD-L1 Negative/low TMB. High TMB predicted worse outcome with AC use in terms of OS (ratio of hazard ratio rHR = 2.75 [1.07-7.04], P = .035). Marked TILs had better outcome with AC for DFS (rHR = 0.22 [0.06-0.87], P = .031 and LCSS (rHR = 0.08 [0.01-0.66], P = .019) respectively. There was also a beneficial effect of AC among patients with Marked TILs/low TMB in terms of DFS (rHR = 0.06 [0.01-0.53], P = .011). CONCLUSION: High TMB has a prognostic role in resectable lung ADC. The high TMB group had a poor outcome with AC, suggesting that this group may be better served with immune checkpoint therapy.

Brief Report: Canadian Cancer Trials Group IND.227: A Phase 2 Randomized Study of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (NCT02784171).

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have activity in mesothelioma. IND.227 was a phase 2 trial (120 patients planned) comparing progression-free survival of standard platinum and pemetrexed (CP) versus CP + pembrolizumab (pembro) versus pembro. Accrual to the pembro arm was discontinued on the basis of interim analysis (IA-16 wk disease control rate). CP + pembro was tolerable, with progression-free survival similar between arms and median survival and overall response rate higher than those of CP alone (19.8 mo [95% confidence interval or CI: 8.4-41.36] versus 8.9 mo [95% CI: 5.3-12.8] and 47% [95% CI: 24%-71%] versus 19% [95% CI: 5%-42%], respectively). The subsequent phase 3 trial has completed accrual; results are expected in 2023.

A phase I/II study of the Src inhibitor saracatinib (AZD0530) in combination with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer.

AIM: This phase I/II study of saracatinib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer was conducted by the NCIC Clinical Trials Group. The aims were to define the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of saracatinib when combined with gemcitabine, and assess the efficacy of this combination in advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and no prior chemotherapy. In phase I saracatinib was escalated in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The study was then expanded to a single arm phase II trial using a Simon 2-stage design. The primary endpoint was objective tumor response (OR) plus stable disease ≥ 4 months (SD4) rate; if ≥ 8 patients had OR+SD4, the study would proceed to stage 2. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled into the phase I portion of this study. Saracatinib 175 mg PO daily was chosen as the RP2D in combination with gemcitabine. Twenty-one additional patients were then enrolled at the RP2D (phase II). Of the 22 response evaluable patients treated at the RP2D, 9 patients (40.9%) had progressive disease, 6 patients (27.3%) had stable disease for less than 4 months, 5 patients (22.7%) had SD4, and 2 patients (9.1%) had a partial response to treatment. Objective criteria for continuing to stage 2 were thus not met and the trial was closed following the accrual of 34 patients. CONCLUSION: Saracatinib 175 mg daily in combination with gemcitabine is well tolerated but the combination did not improve efficacy over what would be expected from gemcitabine alone.

iRECIST and atypical patterns of response to immuno-oncology drugs.

With the advent of immunotherapy as one of the keystones of the treatment of our patients with cancer, a number of atypical patterns of response to these agents has been identified. These include pseudoprogression, where the tumor initially shows objective growth before decreasing in size, and hyperprogression, hypothesized to be a drug-induced acceleration of the tumor burden. Despite it being >10 years since the first immune-oncology drug was approved, neither the biology behind these paradoxical responses has been well understood, nor their incidence, identification criteria, predictive biomarkers, or clinical impact have been fully described. Immune-based Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (iRECIST) guidelines have been published as a revision to the RECIST V.1.1 criteria for use in trials of immunotherapeutics, and the iRECIST subcommittee (of the RECIST Working Group) is working on elucidating these aspects, with data sharing a current major challenge to move forward with this unmet need in immuno-oncology.

Results of the phase I CCTG IND.231 trial of CX-5461 in patients with advanced solid tumors enriched for DNA-repair deficiencies.

CX-5461 is a G-quadruplex stabilizer that exhibits synthetic lethality in homologous recombination-deficient models. In this multicentre phase I trial in patients with solid tumors, 40 patients are treated across 10 dose levels (50-650 mg/m2) to determine the recommended phase II dose (primary outcome), and evaluate safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (secondary outcomes). Defective homologous recombination is explored as a predictive biomarker of response. CX-5461 is generally well tolerated, with a recommended phase II dose of 475 mg/m2 days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks, and dose limiting phototoxicity. Responses are observed in 14% of patients, primarily in patients with defective homologous recombination. Reversion mutations in PALB2 and BRCA2 are detected on progression following initial response in germline carriers, confirming the underlying synthetic lethal mechanism. In vitro characterization of UV sensitization shows this toxicity is related to the CX-5461 chemotype, independent of G-quadruplex synthetic lethality. These results establish clinical proof-of-concept for this G-quadruplex stabilizer. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02719977.