High p16 expression and heterozygous RB1 loss are biomarkers for CDK4/6 inhibitor resistance in ER+ breast cancer.

CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with endocrine therapy have demonstrated higher antitumor activity than endocrine therapy alone for the treatment of advanced estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Some of these tumors are de novo resistant to CDK4/6 inhibitors and others develop acquired resistance. Here, we show that p16 overexpression is associated with reduced antitumor activity of CDK4/6 inhibitors in patient-derived xenografts (n = 37) and estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer cell lines, as well as reduced response of early and advanced breast cancer patients to CDK4/6 inhibitors (n = 89). We also identified heterozygous RB1 loss as biomarker of acquired resistance and poor clinical outcome. Combination of the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib with the PI3K inhibitor alpelisib showed antitumor activity in estrogen receptor-positive non-basal-like breast cancer patient-derived xenografts, independently of PIK3CA, ESR1 or RB1 mutation, also in drug de-escalation experiments or omitting endocrine therapy. Our results offer insights into predicting primary/acquired resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors and post-progression therapeutic strategies.

Cancer Treatment and Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience of the First 6 Months.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on patients with underlying malignancy. In this article, we summarize emerging data related to patients with cancer and COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19, a higher proportion have an underlying diagnosis of cancer than seen in the general population. Also, patients with malignancy are likely to be more vulnerable than the general population to contracting COVID-19. Mortality is significantly higher in patients with both cancer and COVID-19 compared with the overall COVID-19-positive population. The early months of the pandemic saw a decrease in cancer screening and diagnosis, as well as postponement of standard treatments, which could lead to excess deaths from cancer in the future.

The prevalence of unmet needs in 625 women living beyond a diagnosis of early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are over half a million women with a previous breast cancer diagnosis living in the UK. It is important to establish their level of unmet physical and psychosocial needs, as many are not routinely seen for follow-up under current models of care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of early breast cancer survivors entering an Open Access Follow-Up (OAFU) programme in 2015. Unmet needs were assessed using the Holistic Needs Assessment (HNA) or extracted directly from the electronic patient record (EPR), when the HNA had not been completed. RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-five patients were eligible. Sixty-one per cent of the survivors had at least one unmet need and 18% had ⩾5 needs. Consistently higher levels of unmet needs were identified using the formal HNA checklist as opposed to extraction from EPR (P<0.001). Physical and emotional needs were the most frequently reported (55 and 24% respectively). Patients receiving endocrine therapy and those who had received chemotherapy were more likely to report unmet needs (both P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Unmet physical and emotional needs are common in breast cancer survivors. It is vital that the services are available for these patients as they transition from hospital-based follow-up to patient-led self-management models of care.

Phase I clinical trials in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated within a Drug Development Unit: What have we learnt?

OBJECTIVES: Despite advances in novel drug development for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there are still only a limited number of approved treatments. We therefore evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients with advanced NSCLC referred to a dedicated phase I clinical trials unit assessed baseline clinical factors associated with successful enrollment onto phase I trials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study involving patients with advanced NSCLC referred to the Drug Development Unit at the RMH between January 2005 and December 2013. RESULTS: 257 patients with advanced NSCLC were referred for consideration of phase I trials, of which only 89 (35%) patients successfully commenced phase I trials. The commonest reasons for not entering study included poor ECOG performance status and rapid disease progression. A multivariate analysis identified that ECOG performance status (0-1) and RMH prognostic score (0-1) were associated with successful enrollment onto phase I trials (p<0.001). Single agent therapies included novel agents against the phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase pathway, insulin growth factor-1 receptor and pan-HER family tyrosine kinases. These trial therapies were well tolerated and mainly associated with grade 1-2 adverse events, with a minority experiencing grade 3 toxicities. Nine (10%) patients, 4 with known EGFR or KRAS mutations, achieved RECIST partial responses. Median time to progression was 2.6 months and median overall survival was 8.1 months for patients enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: Phase I trial therapies were generally well tolerated with potential antitumor benefit for patients with advanced NSCLC. Early referral to drug development units at time of disease progression should be considered to enhance the odds of patient participation in these studies.

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of patients with advanced mesothelioma treated in a phase I clinical trials unit.

BACKGROUND: We have previously reported a prognostic score for patients in phase I trials in the Drug Development Unit, treated at the Royal Marsden Hospital (RPS). The RPS is an objective tool used in patient selection for phase I trials based on albumin, number of disease sites and LDH. Patients with mesothelioma are often selected for phase I trials as the disease remains localised for long periods of time. We have now reviewed the clinical outcomes of patients with relapsed malignant mesothelioma (MM) and propose a specific mesothelioma prognostic score (m-RPS) that can help identify patients who are most likely to benefit from early referral. METHODS: Patients who participated in 38 phase I trials between September 2003 and November 2015 were included in the analysis. Efficacy was assessed by response rate, median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Univariate (UVA) and multivariate analyses (MVA) were carried out to develop the m-RPS. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients with advanced MM were included in this retrospective study. The PFS was 2.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-3.1 months) and OS was 8 months (95% CI 5.6-9.8 months). A total of four (6%) patients had RECIST partial responses, whereas 26 (40%) patients had RECIST stable disease >3 months. The m-RPS was developed comprising of three different prognostic factors: a neutrophil: lymphocyte ratio greater than 3, the presence of more than two disease sites (including lymph nodes as a single site of disease) and albumin levels less than 35 from the MVA. Patients each received a score of 1 for the presence of each factor. Patients in group A (m-RPS 0-1; n = 35) had a median OS of 13.4 months (95% CI 8.5-21.6), whereas those in group B (m-RPS 2-3; n = 30) had a median OS of 4.0 months (95% CI 2.9-7.1, P < 0.0001). A total of 56 (86%) patients experienced G1-2 toxicities, whereas reversible G3-4 toxicities were observed in 18 (28%) patients. Only 10 (15%) patients discontinued phase I trials due to toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Phase I clinical trial therapies were well tolerated with early signals of antitumour activity in advanced MM patients. The m-RPS is a useful tool to assess MM patient suitability for phase I trials and should now be prospectively validated.

Higher Risk of Infections with PI3K-AKT-mTOR Pathway Inhibitors in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors on Phase I Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Novel antitumor therapies against the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway are increasingly used to treat cancer, either as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy or other targeted therapies. Although these agents are not known to be myelosuppressive, an increased risk of infection has been reported with rapamycin analogues. However, the risk of infection with new inhibitors of this pathway such as PI3K, AKT, mTORC 1/2, or multikinase inhibitors is unknown. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this retrospective case-control study, we determined the incidence of infection in a group of 432 patients who were treated on 15 phase I clinical trials involving PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway inhibitors (cases) versus a group of 100 patients on 10 phase I clinical trials of single agent non-PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway inhibitors (controls) which did not involve conventional cytotoxic agents. We also collected data from 42 patients who were treated with phase I trials of combinations of PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors and MEK inhibitors and 24 patients with combinations of PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors and cytotoxic chemotherapies. RESULTS: The incidence of all grade infection was significantly higher with all single-agent PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors compared with the control group [27% vs. 8%, respectively, OR, 4.26; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.9-9.1, P = 0.0001]. The incidence of grade 3 and 4 infection was also significantly higher with PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors compared with the control group (10.3% vs. 3%, OR, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.1-12.4; P = 0.02). Also, the combination of PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors and chemotherapy was associated with a significantly higher incidence of all grade (OR, 4.79; 95% CI, 2.0-11.2; P = 0.0001) and high-grade (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.0-7.6; P = 0.03) infection when compared with single-agent PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Inhibitors of the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway can be associated with a higher risk of infection. Combinations of PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors and cytotoxic chemotherapy significantly increase the risk of infection. This should be taken into consideration during the design and conduct of trials involving PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway inhibitors, particularly when combined with chemotherapy or myelosuppressive agents.

Pulmonary toxicity in patients treated with gemcitabine plus vinorelbine or docetaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: outcome data on a randomized phase II study.

Studies with the gemcitabine/vinorelbine (GV) or the gemcitabine/docetaxel (GD) combinations have shown similar efficacy and less toxicity compared to platinum-based chemotherapies, in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The present trial was designed to test the efficacy and safety of both, GV and GD, combinations. Chemotherapy-naïve patients (n=39)or=60% and adequate hematological, renal and hepatic function were randomly assigned to receive G 1,000 mg/m2+either V 25 mg/m2 or D 35 mg/m2 (all of which were administered i.v.) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. Baseline characteristics were comparable in GV (n=20) and GD (n=19) groups. Results indicated objective response of 7 (35%) vs 6 (31%) patients and median time-to-treatment failure of 120 versus 90 days in the GV and GD arms, respectively. The most common non-hematological toxicities were (GV vs GD): grade 2-4 pulmonary toxicity in 1 (5%) vs 7 (37%); grade 2-3 diarrhea 0 versus 4 (21%) and edema 1 (5%) vs 3 (16%); grade 3-4 hematological toxicities occurred in 3 (15%) vs 1 (5%) patients. Our results indicate that the combination of gemcitabine/docetaxel does not have a favorable safety profile with this schedule of administration, particularly in terms of pulmonary toxicity.