OX40/OX40 ligand and its role in precision immune oncology.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed the treatment landscape for various malignancies; however, their benefit is limited to a subset of patients. The immune machinery includes both mediators of suppression/immune evasion, such as PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA-4, and LAG-3, all of which can be inhibited by specific antibodies, and immune-stimulatory molecules, such as T-cell co-stimulatory receptors that belong to the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily (TNFRSF), including OX40 receptor (CD134; TNFRSF4), 4-1BB (CD137; TNFRSF9), and glucocorticoid-induced TNFR-related (GITR) protein (CD357; TNFRSF18). In particular, OX40 and its binding ligand OX40L (CD134L; TNFSF4; CD252) are critical for immunoregulation. When OX40 on activated T cells binds OX40L on antigen-presenting cells, T-cell activation and immune stimulation are initiated via enhanced T-cell survival, proliferation and cytotoxicity, memory T-cell formation, and abrogation of regulatory T cell (Treg) immunosuppressive functions. OX40 agonists are in clinical trials both as monotherapy and in combination with other immunotherapy agents, in particular specific checkpoint inhibitors, for cancer treatment. To date, however, only a minority of patients respond. Transcriptomic profiling reveals that OX40 and OX40L expression vary between and within tumor types, and that only ~ 17% of cancer patients have high OX40 and low OX40L, one of the expression patterns that might be theoretically amenable to OX40 agonist enhancement. Taken together, the data suggest that the OX40/OX40L machinery is a critical part of the immune stimulatory system and that understanding endogenous expression patterns of these molecules and co-existing checkpoints merits further investigation in the context of a precision immunotherapy strategy for cancer therapy.

Neuregulin-1 and ALS19 (ERBB4): at the crossroads of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neuregulin-1 (NRG1) is implicated in both cancer and neurologic diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS); however, to date, there has been little cross-field discussion between neurology and oncology in regard to these genes and their functions. MAIN BODY: Approximately 0.15-0.5% of cancers harbor NRG1 fusions that upregulate NRG1 activity and hence that of the cognate ERBB3/ERBB4 (HER3/HER4) receptors; abrogating this activity with small molecule inhibitors/antibodies shows preliminary tissue-agnostic anti-cancer activity. Notably, ERBB/HER pharmacologic suppression is devoid of neurologic toxicity. Even so, in ALS, attenuated ERBB4/HER4 receptor activity (due to loss-of-function germline mutations or other mechanisms in sporadic disease) is implicated; indeed, ERBB4/HER4 is designated ALS19. Further, secreted-type NRG1 isoforms may be upregulated (perhaps via a feedback loop) and could contribute to ALS pathogenesis through aberrant glial cell stimulation via enhanced activity of other (e.g., ERBB1-3/HER1-3) receptors and downstream pathways. Hence, pan-ERBB inhibitors, already in use for cancer, may be agents worthy of testing in ALS. CONCLUSION: Common signaling cascades between cancer and ALS may represent novel therapeutic targets for both diseases.

Clinical and Biologic Correlates of ADORA2A Transcriptomic Expression in Cancer.

ADORA2A (adenosine A2a receptor) and ADORA2B propagate immunoregulatory signals, including restricting both innate and adaptive immunity, though recent data also suggest a tumor suppressor effect in certain settings. We evaluated the RNA expression from 514 tumors in a clinical-grade laboratory; 489 patients with advanced/metastatic disease had clinical outcome correlates. Transcript expression was standardized to internal housekeeping genes and ranked (0-100 scale) relative to 735 specimens from 35 different cancer types. Transcript abundance rank values were defined as "low/moderate" (0-74) or "high" (75-100) percentile RNA expression ranks. Overall, 20.8% of tumors had high ADORA2A (≥75 percentile RNA rank). The greatest proportion of high ADORA2A expressors was found in neuroendocrine and breast cancers and sarcomas, whereas the lowest was found in colorectal and ovarian cancers, albeit with patient-to-patient variability. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, there was a significant positive correlation between high ADORA2A RNA expression and a high expression of the immune checkpoint-related molecules PD-1 (p = 0.015), VISTA (p ≤ 0.001), CD38 (p = 0.031), and CD39 (p ≤ 0.001). In 217 immunotherapy-treated patients, high ADORA2A did not correlate significantly with progression-free (p = 0.51) or overall survival (OS) (p = 0.09) from the initiation of the checkpoint blockade. However, high versus not-high ADORA2A transcript expression correlated with longer OS from the time of advanced/metastatic disease (N = 489 patients; (HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.51-0.95) (p = 0.02)). Therefore, high ADORA2A transcript levels may be a favorable prognostic factor, unrelated to immunotherapy. Importantly, ascertaining co-expression patterns of ADORA2A with PD-1 and VISTA in individual tumors as a basis for the precision co-targeting of ADORA2A and these other checkpoint-related molecules warrants investigation in clinical trials.

A phase i study of ixazomib and erlotinib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies have shown that the combined inhibition of EGFR and NF-kB pathways to target the RalB/TBK1 pathway led to synergistic antitumor activity. Based on this rationale, we conducted a Phase I dose-escalation study combining the EGFR inhibitor erlotinib with the NF-kB inhibitor ixazomib in advanced solid tumors. Patients and methods. Patients with advanced solid tumors were eligible. The bayesian optimal interval phase I dose escalation design was used to establish the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Results. Nineteen patients with a range of solid tumors were enrolled. The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were diarrhea (42.1%, 8/19), followed by rash (36.8%, 7/19) and nausea (21.1%, 4/19). The combination RP2D for oral ixazomib was 4.0 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle, with oral erlotinib 150 mg daily. While no patient achieved RECIST v1.1 objective responses, 3 patients with advanced sarcoma experienced durable RECIST v1.1 stable disease ≥ 6 months (8.4, 10.6, and 15.7 months) and the best response was -13% decrease in clear cell sarcoma. Conclusions. The combination of erlotinib and ixazomib was safe and well tolerated among patients with advanced cancer, with preliminary signals of antitumor activity in patients with advanced sarcoma.

Cutaneous perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa): case report and world literature review of clinical and molecular characteristics.

Perivascular epithelioid cell tumor (PEComa) expresses melanocytic and smooth muscle markers. A man with a primary malignant cutaneous (distal left forearm) PEComa is reported. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated MiTF, HMB-45, caldesmon, desmin, and smooth muscle actin, as well as BCL1, CD10, and CD68. Next generation sequencing showed four pathogenic genomic aberrations involving BIRC3, FANCC, TP53, and TSC1 genes. His work-up was negative for metastatic disease; a wide local excision was performed. Including the reported patient, cutaneous PEComa has been described in 65 individuals: primary benign (N=58), primary malignant (N=5), and metastatic malignant (N=2). Cutaneous PEComa typically presented as a painless, slowly growing nodule of <2 centimeters on the lower extremity of a woman in her fifth decade. The neoplasms consisted of epithelioid cells, spindle cells, or both. The most reliable markers were MiTF (100%), HMB45 (94%), and NKIC3 (94%) for melanocytes and smooth muscle actin (43%) and desmin (40%) for smooth muscle. There has been no reported recurrence of a primary cutaneous benign or malignant PEComa after complete excision. Genomic alterations in malignant PEComas frequently involve TSC1 and TSC2 genes (mTOR activators), as well as TFE3 fusions. In November 2021, the FDA approved nab-sirolimus (mTOR inhibitor) for PEComas.

High prevalence of clonal hematopoiesis-type genomic abnormalities in cell-free DNA in invasive gliomas after treatment.

Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is emerging as an important diagnostic tool in cancer. However, cfDNA alterations may differ from those in tissue and sometimes may reflect processes unrelated to the cancer, including clonal hematopoiesis (CH). We examined plasma cfDNA, tested by next-generation sequencing (NGS), for characterized alterations (excluding variants of unknown significance) in 135 patients with invasive glioma. Overall, 21% (28/135) had ≥1 alteration; 17% (23/135) had CH-type cfDNA mutations. Temozolomide (a mutagenic alkylating agent) with concurrent radiation therapy prior to blood draw was significantly associated with an increase in CH-type mutations, even after age, race/ethnicity, and WHO-grade were considered as confounders (odds ratio [95% confidence interval, CI] 8.98 [1.13-71.46]; P = .04; multivariable analysis). Further, of 18 patients with invasive glioma who had both cfDNA and tissue DNA NGS and had ≥1 cfDNA alteration, 16 (89%) had ≥1 cfDNA alteration not found in their tissue DNA, including CH-type alterations in genes such as TP53 (most common), ATM, GNAS, and JAK2. Altogether, 87% of cfDNA alterations (20/23) observed in the 18 patients were implicated in CH. Finally, examining all 135 patients, CH-type cfDNA mutations were an independent prognostic factor for shorter survival (hazard ratio [95% CI] 3.28 [1.28-8.40]; P = .01). These findings emphasize that not all characterized cfDNA alterations detected in patients with solid tumors are cancer-related. Importantly, in patients with invasive gliomas who have had prior temozolomide and radiation, CH-related alterations in cfDNA are frequent and correlate with poor outcomes.

Comprehensive genomic landscape and precision therapeutic approach in biliary tract cancers.

Biliary tract cancers have dismal prognoses even when cytotoxic chemotherapy is administered. There is an unmet need to develop precision treatment approaches using comprehensive genomic profiling. A total of 121 patients with biliary tract cancers were analyzed for circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA) and/or tissue-based tumor DNA (tissue-DNA) using clinical-grade next-generation sequencing: 71 patients (59%) had ctDNA; 90 (74%), tissue-DNA; and 40 (33%), both. Efficacy of targeted therapeutic approaches was assessed based upon ctDNA and tissue-DNA. At least one characterized alteration was detected in 76% of patients (54/71) for ctDNA [median, 2 (range, 0-9)] and 100% (90/90) for tissue-DNA [median, 4 (range, 1-9)]. Most common alterations occurred in TP53 (38%), KRAS (28%), and PIK3CA (14%) for ctDNA vs TP53 (44%), CDKN2A/B (33%) and KRAS (29%) for tissue-DNA. In 40 patients who had both ctDNA and tissue-DNA sequencing, overall concordance was higher between ctDNA and metastatic site tissue-DNA than between ctDNA and primary tumor DNA (78% vs 65% for TP53, 100% vs 74% for KRAS and 100% vs 87% for PIK3CA [But not statistical significance]). Among 80 patients who received systemic treatment, the molecularly matched therapeutic regimens based on genomic profiling showed a significantly longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio [95%confidence interval], 0.60 [0.37-0.99]. P = .047 [multivariate]) and higher disease control rate (61% vs 35%, P = .04) than unmatched regimens. Evaluation of ctDNA and tissue-DNA is feasible in biliary tract cancers.

Dose-escalation study of vemurafenib with sorafenib or crizotinib in patients with BRAF-mutated advanced cancers.

BACKGROUND: BRAF inhibitors are effective in melanoma and other cancers with BRAF mutations; however, patients ultimately develop therapeutic resistance through the activation of alternative signaling pathways such as RAF/RAS or MET. The authors hypothesized that combining the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib with either the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib or the MET inhibitor crizotinib could overcome therapeutic resistance. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancers and BRAF mutations were enrolled in a dose-escalation study (3 + 3 design) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of vemurafenib with sorafenib (VS) or vemurafenib with crizotinib (VC). RESULTS: In total, 38 patients (VS, n = 24; VC, n = 14) were enrolled, and melanoma was the most represented tumor type (VS, 38%; VC, 64%). In the VS arm, vemurafenib 720 mg twice daily and sorafenib 400 mg am/200 mg pm were identified as the MTDs, DLTs included grade 3 rash (n = 2) and grade 3 hypertension, and partial responses were reported in 5 patients (21%), including 2 with ovarian cancer who had received previous treatment with BRAF, MEK, or ERK inhibitors. In the VC arm, vemurafenib 720 mg twice daily and crizotinib 250 mg daily were identified as the MTDs, DLTs included grade 3 rash (n = 2), and partial responses were reported in 4 patients (29%; melanoma, n = 3; lung adenocarcinoma, n = 1) who had received previous treatment with BRAF, MEK, and/or ERK inhibitors. Optional longitudinal collection of plasma to assess dynamic changes in circulating tumor DNA demonstrated the elimination of BRAF-mutant DNA from plasma during therapy (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib combined with sorafenib or crizotinib was well tolerated with encouraging activity, including among patients who previously received treatment with BRAF, MEK, or ERK inhibitors.

KRAS-Mutated, Estrogen Receptor-Positive Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: Unraveling an Exceptional Response Mystery.

We report on a woman with aggressive estrogen receptor-positive, KRAS-mutated ovarian cancer who achieved a remarkable response to combination therapy with the MEK inhibitor (trametinib) and the aromatase inhibitor (letrozole), even though the disease had failed to respond to a combination of a PI3K inhibitor and different MEK inhibitor, as well as to trametinib and the estrogen modulator, tamoxifen, and to letrozole by itself. The mechanism of action for exceptional response was elucidated by in vitro experiments that demonstrated that the fact that tamoxifen can have an agonistic effect in addition to antagonist activity, whereas letrozole results only in estrogen depletion was crucial to the response achieved when letrozole was combined with an MEK inhibitor. Our current observations indicate that subtle variations in mechanisms of action of outwardly similar regimens may have a major impact on outcome and that such translational knowledge is critical for optimizing a precision medicine strategy. KEY POINTS: This report describes the remarkable response of a patient with KRAS-mutated, estrogen receptor-positive low-grade serous ovarian cancer treated with trametinib (MEK inhibitor) and letrozole (aromatase inhibitor), despite prior progression on similar agents including tamoxifen (estrogen modulator). In vitro investigation revealed that tamoxifen can have agonistic in addition to antagonistic effects, which could be the reason for the patient not responding to the combination of trametinib and tamoxifen. The current observations suggest that drugs with different mechanisms of action targeting the same receptor may have markedly different anticancer activity when used in combinations.

Comparative Genomic Analysis of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Biopsy Type, Ancestry, and Testing Patterns.

BACKGROUND: At diagnosis, the majority of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) present with advanced disease and a poor prognosis. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) early in the disease course may increase access to targeted therapies and clinical trials; however, unresolved issues remain surrounding the optimal biopsy type to submit for CGP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mutational frequencies between primary tumor biopsies (Pbx), metastatic biopsies (Mbx), and liquid biopsies (Lbx) in 1,632 patients with IHCC were compared. RESULTS: Potentially actionable alterations were found in 52%, 34%, and 35% of patients in the Pbx, Mbx, and Lbx cohorts, respectively. In Pbx, Mbx, and Lbx, FGFR2 rearrangements were found in 9%, 6%, and 4%, and IDH1 mutations were identified in 16%, 5%, and 9% patients, respectively. Moreover, alterations in FGFR2 and IDH1 were significantly associated with distinct ancestries, including 2.1-fold enrichment for FGFR2 rearrangements in patients with African ancestry and 1.5-fold enrichment for IDH1 mutations in patients with admixed American (Hispanic) ancestry. Finally, the publication of biomarker-driven clinical trials in IHCC correlated with changing CGP testing patterns. Significant correlations between patient characteristics and IHCC trial disclosures were observed, including a significant decrease from time between biopsy and CGP testing, and more frequent testing of primary versus metastatic samples. CONCLUSION: Overall, because of the high likelihood of identifying actionable genomic alterations, CGP should be considered for the majority of patients with inoperable IHCC, and Lbx and Mbx can be considered as part of the diagnostic suite. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) should be considered for all patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) or suspected IHCC, as actionable alterations were commonly found in multiple genes and a wide variety of FGFR2 fusion partners were identified. The disclosure of IHCC trial data correlated with increased use of CGP, an encouraging trend that moves new therapeutic options forward for rare cancers with a rare biomarker. Although tissue from the primary lesion may identify actionable alterations at higher rates, CGP of a liquid biopsy or metastatic site can be considered, particularly if the primary tissue block is exhausted.

Clinical Activity and Safety of Cediranib and Olaparib Combination in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma without BRCA Mutation.

LESSONS LEARNED: Cediranib and olaparib combination did not result in clinically meaningful activity in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma without known BRCA mutation. BACKGROUND: Cediranib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, suppresses expression of BRCA1/2 and RAD51 inducing homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) in several cancer cell lines and xenograft models [1]. Olaparib provides a clinical benefit in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) with germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmt) [2]. We hypothesized that cediranib induces HRD in the absence of gBRCAmt and synergizes with olaparib, resulting in an objective response in patients with mPDAC. METHODS: Patients with mPDAC with at least one prior systemic chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients with known gBRCAmt were excluded. Patients took cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib 200 mg twice daily, orally. The primary endpoint was objective response (OR) rate. RESULTS: Nineteen patients received the study drugs. Seven patients came off treatment before the first restaging scan: six because of clinical progression and one because of an adverse event. No OR was observed. Six patients had stable disease (SD) as a best overall response. The median duration of SD was 3.1 months. The median overall survival was 3.4 months. Common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, hypertension, and diarrhea. CONCLUSION: Cediranib and olaparib combination did not result in clinically meaningful activity in patients with mPDAC without gBRCAmt.

Temporal and spatial effects and survival outcomes associated with concordance between tissue and blood KRAS alterations in the pan-cancer setting.

We investigated the impact of time interval, primary vs. metastatic biopsy site, variant allele fraction (VAF) and histology on concordance of KRAS alterations in tissue vs. circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), and association of concordance with survival. Blood and tissue were evaluated by next-generation sequencing in 433 patients with diverse cancers. Altogether, 101 patients (23.3%) had KRAS alterations: 56, ctDNA (12.9%); 81, tissue (18.7%); and 36, both (8.3%). The overall blood and tissue concordance rate for KRAS alterations was 85%, but was mainly driven by the large negative/negative subset. Therefore, specificity of one test for the other was high (88.1-94.3%), while sensitivity was not high (44.4-64.3%) and was lower still in patients with >6 vs. ≤2 months between blood and tissue sampling (31.0-40.9% vs. 51.2-84.0%; p = 0.14 time interval-dependent sensitivity of blood for tissue; p = 0.003, tissue for blood). Positive concordance rate for KRAS alterations was 57.1% vs. 27.4% (colorectal vs. noncolorectal cancer; p = 0.01), but site of biopsy (primary vs. metastatic) and VAF (%ctDNA) was not impactful. The presence of KRAS alterations in both tests was independently associated with shorter survival from diagnosis (hazard ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.86) and from recurrent/metastatic disease (1.70; 1.03-2.81). Positive concordance of KRAS alterations between ctDNA and tissue was negatively affected by a longer time period between blood and tissue sampling and was higher in colorectal cancer than in other malignancies. The presence of KRAS alterations in both tests was an independent prognostic factor for poor survival.

Prognostic implications of RAS alterations in diverse malignancies and impact of targeted therapies.

RAS alterations are often found in difficult-to-treat malignancies and are considered "undruggable." To better understand the clinical correlates and coaltered genes of RAS alterations, we used targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) to analyze 1,937 patients with diverse cancers. Overall, 20.9% of cancers (405/1,937) harbored RAS alterations. Most RAS-altered cases had genomic coalterations (95.3%, median: 3, range: 0-51), often involving genes implicated in oncogenic signals: PI3K pathway (31.4% of 405 cases), cell cycle (31.1%), tyrosine kinase families (21.5%) and MAPK signaling (18.3%). Patients with RAS-altered versus wild-type RAS malignancies had significantly worse overall survival (OS; p = 0.02 [multivariate]), with KRAS alterations, in particular, showing shorter survival. Moreover, coalterations in both RAS and PI3K signaling or cell-cycle-associated genes correlated with worse OS (p = 0.004 and p < 0.0001, respectively [multivariate]). Among RAS-altered patients, MEK inhibitors alone did not impact progression-free survival (PFS), while matched targeted therapy against non-MAPK pathway coalterations alone showed a trend toward longer PFS (vs. patients who received unmatched therapy) (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.61-1.03, p = 0.07). Three of nine patients (33%) given tailored combination therapies targeting both MAPK and non-MAPK pathways achieved objective responses. In conclusion, RAS alterations correlated with poor survival across cancers. The majority of RAS alterations were accompanied by coalterations impacting other oncogenic pathways. MEK inhibitors alone were ineffective against RAS-altered cancers while matched targeted therapy against coalterations alone correlated with a trend toward improved PFS. A subset of the small number of patients given MEK inhibitors plus tailored non-MAPK-targeting agents showed responses, suggesting that customized combinations warrant further investigation.

Hyperprogression and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Hype or Progress?

There are currently seven approved immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of various cancers. These drugs are associated with profound, durable responses in a subset of patients with advanced cancers. Unfortunately, in addition to individuals whose tumors show resistance, there is a minority subgroup treated with ICIs who demonstrate a paradoxical acceleration in the rate of growth or their tumors-hyperprogressive disease. Hyperprogressive disease is associated with significantly worse outcomes in these patients. This phenomenon, though still a matter of dispute, has been recognized by multiple groups of investigators across the globe and in diverse types of cancers. There are not yet consensus standardized criteria for defining hyperprogressive disease, but most commonly time to treatment failure less than 2 months and an increase in pace of progression of at least twofold between pre-immunotherapy and on-treatment imaging has been used. In some patients, the change in rate of progression can be especially dramatic-up to 35- to 40-fold. MDM2 amplification and EGFR mutations have been suggested as genomic correlates of increased risk of hyperprogression, but these correlates require validation. The underlying mechanism for hyperprogression is not known but warrants urgent investigation.

Attrition of Patients on a Precision Oncology Trial: Analysis of the I-PREDICT Experience.

BACKGROUND: Precision oncology uses molecular profiling of tumors to identify biomarker-tailored therapies for patients in the hope of improving outcomes. Typically, only a minority of patients receives evaluable matched treatment. This study explored the reasons for attrition on a precision medicine trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study participants were 190 adult patients who consented to the I-PREDICT (Investigation of molecular Profile-Related Evidence Determining Individualized Cancer Therapy) trial. Patients had metastatic and/or unresectable incurable malignancies. Patients who were not evaluable were analyzed. RESULTS: Of consented patients, 44% were not evaluable. Men were twice as likely to be not evaluable as women. Prominently, 45% of patients who were not evaluable dropped off because of death, hospice referral, or decline in organ function. CONCLUSION: Health deterioration of consented patients is a significant barrier to being evaluable on the I-PREDICT trial. These data suggest that patients are enrolled on precision oncology trials too late in their disease course or with excessive disease burden.

Identification of targets for prostate cancer immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: We performed profiling of the immune microenvironment of castration-resistant (CRPC) and castration-sensitive (CSPC) prostate cancer (PC) in order to identify novel targets for immunotherapy. METHODS: PD-L1 and CD3/CD8 immunohistochemistry, PD-L1/2 fluorescent in situ hybridization, tumor mutation burden, microsatellite instability, and RNA-seq of 395 immune-related genes were performed in 19 CRPC and CSPC. Targeted genomic sequencing and fusion analysis were performed in 17 of these specimens. RESULTS: CD276, PVR, and NECTIN2 were highly expressed in PC. Comparison of CRPC versus CSPC and primary versus metastatic tissue revealed the differential expression of immunostimulatory, immunosuppressive, and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT)-related genes. Unsupervised clustering of differentially expressed genes yielded two final clusters best segregated by CRPC and CSPC status. CONCLUSION: CD276 and the alternative checkpoint inhibition PVR/NECTIN2/CD226/TIGIT pathway emerged as relevant to PC checkpoint inhibition target development.

Phase 1 study of the combination of vemurafenib, carboplatin, and paclitaxel in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma and other advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: BRAF inhibitors are effective against selected BRAFV600 -mutated tumors. Preclinical data suggest that BRAF inhibition in conjunction with chemotherapy has increased therapeutic activity. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancers and BRAF mutations were enrolled into a dose-escalation study (3+3 design) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). RESULTS: Nineteen patients with advanced cancers and BRAF mutations were enrolled and received vemurafenib (480-720 mg orally twice a day), carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 5-6 intravenously every 3 weeks), and paclitaxel (100-135 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks). The MTD was not reached, and vemurafenib at 720 mg twice a day, carboplatin at AUC 5, and paclitaxel at 135 mg/m2 were the last safe dose levels. DLTs included a persistent grade 2 creatinine elevation (n = 1), grade 3 transaminitis (n = 1), and grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 1). Non-dose-limiting toxicities that were grade 3 or higher and occurred in more than 2 patients included grade 3/4 neutropenia (n = 5), grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (n = 5), grade 3 fatigue (n = 4), and grade 3 anemia (n = 3). Of the 19 patients, 5 (26%; all with melanoma) had a partial response (PR; n = 4) or complete response (CR; n = 1); these responses were mostly durable and lasted 3.1 to 54.1 months. Of the 13 patients previously treated with BRAF and/or mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors, 4 (31%) had a CR (n = 1) or PR (n = 3). Patients not treated with prior platinum therapy had a higher response rate than those who did (45% vs 0%; P = .045). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of vemurafenib, carboplatin, and paclitaxel is well tolerated and demonstrates encouraging activity, predominantly in patients with advanced melanoma and BRAFV600 mutations, regardless of prior treatment with BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors.

Phase I study of nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancers.

BACKGROUND: We performed a phase I modified 3 + 3 dose escalation study to evaluate the safety and activity of bevacizumab plus gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients were given fixed dose gemcitabine plus increasing doses of nab-paclitaxel and bevacizumab. Toxicity, response, and association with VEGF polymorphism was analysed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 110 patients who had undergone a median of 3 prior lines of therapy. The median age was 60 years (range, 17-85 years), and 55 patients (50%) had gemcitabine-refractory disease. We observed 3 dose-limiting toxicities during dose escalation and 3 DLTs in expansion cohorts. Dose escalation to 150 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel and 15 mg/kg bevacizumab with 1000 mg/m2 of gemcitabine was well tolerated with no MTD. One patient with gemcitabine-refractory peritoneal papillary carcinoma had a complete response, 13 patients (13%) had partial responses, and 54 patients (52%) had stable disease ≥12 weeks. Exploratory VEGF single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis was performed on 13 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and bevacizumab is safe, well-tolerated, and has activity in advanced malignancies, including gemcitabine-refractory tumours. Based on this study, the recommended phase 2 dose is gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg. VEGF polymorphism data should be evaluated in future bevacizumab-based trials.

Rare Tumor Clinic: The University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center Experience with a Precision Therapy Approach.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rare tumors may lack approved treatments and clinical trial access. Although each rare tumor is uncommon, cumulatively they account for approximately 25% of cancers. We recently initiated a Rare Tumor Clinic that emphasized a precision medicine strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated the first 40 patients presenting at the Rare Tumor Clinic. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tissue and plasma-derived, circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA), and protein markers were assessed. RESULTS: Median age was 58 years (range, 31-78 years); 70% (28/40) were women; median number of previous systemic therapies was 2 (range 0-7). The most common diagnoses were sarcoma (n = 7) for solid tumors and Erdheim-Chester disease (n = 5) for hematologic malignancies. Twenty distinct diagnoses were seen. Examples of ultrarare tumors included ameloblastoma, yolk sac liver tumor, ampullary cancer, and Castleman's disease. Altogether, 32 of 33 patients (97%) with tissue NGS and 15 of 33 (45%) with ctDNA sequencing harbored ≥1 alteration. Overall, 92.5% of patients (37/40) had ≥1 actionable target based on either genomic (n = 32) or protein (n = 27) markers. In total, 52.5% (21/40) received matched therapy; 52.4% (11/21) achieved stable disease (SD) ≥6 months (n = 3), partial remission (PR; n = 6), or complete remission (CR; n = 2). Matched therapy resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival compared with last prior unmatched therapy (hazard ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.10-0.71, p = .008). CONCLUSION: Identifying genomic and protein markers in patients with rare/ultrarare tumors was feasible. When therapies were matched, >50% of patients attained SD ≥6 months, PR, or CR. Further precision medicine clinical investigations focusing on rare and ultrarare tumors are urgently needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although rare tumors are infrequent by definition, when all subtypes of rare cancers are combined, they account for approximately 25% of adult malignancies. However, patients with rare tumors may lack approved treatments and clinical trial access. This paper describes an institutional a Rare Tumor Clinic focused on a precision medicine strategy. Performing genomics and protein analyses was feasible amongst patients with rare cancers. Over 50% of patients attained SD ≥6 months, PR, or CR when they received matched therapy (genomically targeted and/or immunotherapy). Further studies investigating the efficacy of the precision therapy approach among rare tumors are warranted.