Metastatic extraneural glioblastoma diagnosed with molecular testing.

Glioblastoma, the most common malignant brain tumor in adults, is associated with a median overall survival duration of less than 2 years. Extraneural metastases occur in less than 1% of all patients with glioblastoma. The mechanism of extraneural metastasis is unclear. We present a case of extensive extraneural, extraosseous, epidural, and soft-tissue metastasis of glioblastoma. The diagnosis of metastatic glioblastoma was made only after next-generation sequencing (NGS) of the metastatic paraspinal lesions was completed. The CDK4, pTERT, PTEN, and TP53 molecular alterations seen in the initial intracranial glioblastoma were found in the paraspinal tumor, along with the addition of MYC, which is implicated in angiogenesis and epidermal-to-mesenchymal transition. Immunohistochemical stains showed that neoplastic cells were negative for GFAP. In conclusion, this case raises awareness about the role of NGS in the diagnosis of extraneural glioblastoma. This diagnosis was not possible with histology alone and only became evident after molecular profiling of the metastatic lesions and its comparison to the original tumor.

Phase 1 dose-escalation study evaluating the safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of OBI-3424 in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Report of a Phase 1 dose-escalation study of OBI-3424 monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors (NCT03592264). METHODS: A classic 3 + 3 design was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of OBI-3424 administered intravenously, as a single agent, at doses of 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, or 12 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle, Schedule A) or 8, 10, 12, or 14 mg/m2 (day 1 of a 21-day cycle, Schedule B). RESULTS: Dose-limiting hematologic toxicities at 12 mg/m2 in Schedule A led to dose and schedule modifications (Schedule B). In Schedule B, maximum tolerated dose was not reached at the maximum dose tested (14 mg/m2). Grade ≥3 anemia was noted in 3/6 patients treated at 14 mg/m2; the RP2D was 12 mg/m2 (Schedule B). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were experienced by 19/39 (49%) and included anemia (41%) and thrombocytopenia (26%); three patients experienced serious treatment-emergent adverse events (grade ≥3 anemia and thrombocytopenia). One patient had a partial response and 21/33 (64%) had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D is 12 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks. OBI-3424 was well tolerated; dose-dependent, noncumulative thrombocytopenia and anemia were dose-limiting.

Phase 1 trial of ADI-PEG20 plus cisplatin in patients with pretreated metastatic melanoma or other advanced solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Arginine depletion interferes with pyrimidine metabolism and DNA damage-repair pathways, and pairing arginine deiminase pegylated with 20,000-molecular-weight polyethylene glycol (ADI-PEG20) with platinum enhances cytotoxicity in vitro and in vivo in arginine auxotrophs. METHODS: This single-centre, Phase 1 trial was conducted using a 3 + 3 dose escalation designed to assess safety, tolerability and determine the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ADI-PEG20. RESULTS: We enrolled 99 patients with metastatic argininosuccinate synthetase 1 (ASS1) deficient malignancies. We observed no dose-limiting toxic effects or treatment-related mortality. Three percent of patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity. After treatment, 5% (5/99) of patients had partial responses, and 41% had stable disease. The median progression-free and overall survival durations were 3.62 and 8.06 months, respectively. Substantial arginine depletion and citrulline escalation persisted in most patients through weeks 24 and 8, respectively. Tumour responses were associated with anti-ADI-PEG20 antibody levels at weeks 8 and 16 (p = 0.031 and p = 0.0357, respectively). CONCLUSION: Concurrently administered ADI-PEG20 and cisplatin had an acceptable safety profile and had shown antitumour activity against metastatic ASS1-deficient solid tumours. Further evaluation of this treatment combination is warranted.

Pembrolizumab in Patients with Advanced Metastatic Germ Cell Tumors.

LESSONS LEARNED: Advanced germ cell tumors are aggressive and associated with poor prognosis. Pembrolizumab was overall well tolerated in 12 heavily pretreated patients. Three patients had radiographic stable disease that lasted for 10.9 months, 5.5 months, and 4.5 months, respectively. Published data of immunotherapeutic agents in patients with advanced germ cell tumors are confirmed. The limited antitumor activity of immunotherapy in germ cell tumors is, at least partially, attributed to tumor biology (low tumor mutational burden; low PD-1 expression) and other poor-risk features. Tumor profiling to understand the mechanisms of resistance to pembrolizumab and innovative clinical trials that may include immunotherapy are warranted. BACKGROUND: Advanced germ cell tumors are associated with poor prognosis. We investigated the role of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced germ cell tumors. METHODS: We analyzed a prespecified cohort of an open-label, phase II clinical trial in which patients with advanced germ cell tumors were treated with pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously every 21 days. The endpoints of the study were the non-progression rate (NPR) at 27 weeks, safety, and tolerability. An NPR >20% was considered successful and worthy of further pursuit. RESULTS: From August 2016 to February 2018, 12 patients (10 men, 2 women) were treated (median age, 35 years [range, 22-63 years]; median number of prior systemic therapies, 3.5 [range, 2-7]; median number of metastatic sites, 3 [range, 2-8]). Overall, pembrolizumab was well tolerated. One patient experienced both grade 1 immune-related skin rash and grade 3 immune-related pneumonitis. No patient died from toxicity. Three patients had radiographic stable disease that lasted for 10.9 months, 5.5 months, and 4.5 months, respectively. No objective response was noted. The median progression-free survival was 2.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-4.5 months), and the median overall survival was 10.6 months (95% CI, 4.6-27.1 months). The 27-week NPR was 9.0% (95% CI, 0.23-41.2%). CONCLUSION: Overall, pembrolizumab was safe and had limited antitumor activity in these patients. In the advanced, metastatic setting, tumor profiling to understand the mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy and innovative clinical trials to identify efficacious combination regimens rather than off-label use of pembrolizumab are warranted.

Phase I study of imalumab (BAX69), a fully human recombinant antioxidized macrophage migration inhibitory factor antibody in advanced solid tumours.

AIM: Preclinical evidence suggests that oxidized macrophage migration inhibitory factor (oxMIF) may be involved in carcinogenesis. This phase 1 study (NCT01765790) assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and antitumour activity of imalumab, an oxMIF inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer using '3 + 3' dose escalation. METHODS: In Schedule 1, patients with solid tumours received doses from 1 to 50 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks. In Schedule 2, patients with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma, non-small-cell lung, or ovarian cancer received weekly doses of 10 or 25 mg/kg IV (1 cycle = 28 days). Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, dose-limiting toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. RESULTS: Fifty of 68 enrolled patients received imalumab. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) included fatigue (10%) and vomiting (6%); four grade 3 serious TRAEs (two patients) occurred. The dose-limiting toxicity was allergic alveolitis (one patient, 50 mg/kg every 2 weeks). The maximum tolerated and biologically active doses were 37.5 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 10 mg/kg weekly, respectively. Of 39 assessed patients, 13 had stable disease (≥4 months in 8 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Imalumab had a maximum tolerated dose of 37.5 mg/kg every 2 weeks in patients with advanced solid tumours, with a biologically active dose of 10 mg/kg weekly. Further investigation will help define the role of oxMIF as a cancer treatment target.

Tumor-agnostic baskets to N-of-1 platform trials and real-world data: Transforming precision oncology clinical trial design.

Choosing the right drug(s) for the right patient via advanced genomic sequencing and multi-omic interrogation is the sine qua non of precision cancer medicine. Traditional cancer clinical trial designs follow well-defined protocols to evaluate the efficacy of new therapies in patient groups, usually identified by their histology/tissue of origin of their malignancy. In contrast, precision medicine seeks to optimize benefit in individual patients, i.e., to define who benefits rather than determine whether the overall group benefits. Since cancer is a disease driven by molecular alterations, innovative trial designs, including biomarker-defined tumor-agnostic basket trials, are driving ground-breaking regulatory approvals and deployment of gene- and immune-targeted drugs. Molecular interrogation further reveals the disruptive reality that advanced cancers are extraordinarily complex and individually distinct. Therefore, optimized treatment often requires drug combinations and N-of-1 customization, addressed by a new generation of N-of-1 trials. Real-world data and structured master registry trials are also providing massive datasets that are further fueling a transformation in oncology. Finally, machine learning is facilitating rapid discovery, and it is plausible that high-throughput computing, in silico modeling, and 3-dimensional printing may be exploitable in the near future to discover and design customized drugs in real time.

Phase I-II study of OBI-888, a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody against the tumor-associated carbohydrate antigen Globo H, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: OBI-888 is a humanized, monoclonal IgG1 antibody specific to the tumor-associated carbohydrate antigen Globo H. We conducted a phase I-II study of OBI-888 in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Patients were treated with OBI-888 5, 10, or 20 mg/kg IV weekly in Part A ("3 + 3" design) and 20 mg/kg IV weekly in Part B (Simon's 2-stage design) (1 cycle = 28 days). RESULTS: Overall, 54 patients were treated (Part A, n = 14; Part B, n = 40). OBI-888 was safe and well tolerated across the doses studied, with a low incidence of OBI-888-related treatment emergent adverse events. The maximum tolerated dose of OBI-888 was not reached. No dose-limiting toxicities were noted up to the 20 mg/kg dose level (recommended phase 2 dose). Stable disease (SD) was noted in 28.6% and 20% of Parts A and B, respectively, including three patients with SD for 6+, 7+, and 9 months. Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) was induced after each OBI-888 treatment (average increase, 3.8-fold and 4.7-fold in Parts A and B, respectively), suggesting that ADCC induction is a potential mechanism of action of OBI-888. CONCLUSIONS: OBI-888 was well tolerated. Prolonged SD was noted in three patients. ADCC was induced after each OBI-888 treatment.

Dataset of phase I and II immunotherapy clinical trials used for a meta-analysis to assess the role of biomarkers in treatment outcomes in diverse cancers.

We performed a literature search in PubMed to identify phase I/II clinical trials with immunotherapy drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (labeled, off-label, and/or combined with investigational immune checkpoint inhibitors or other treatment modalities) from 2018 to 2020. We used the following key words: clinical trials, phase 1, Phase 2; and the following filters: cancer, humans; and selected the checkpoint inhibitors that had been approved by the FDA by March 2021, i.e., "pembrolizumab", "nivolumab", "atezolizumab", "durvalumab", "cemiplimab", "avelumab", and "ipilimumab. Clinical trials with their checkpoint inhibitors as in their labeled indications, off-label use or their combinations with investigational immune checkpoint inhibitors or other treatment modalities were included. Studies describing supportive care or locoregional treatments; cellular, viral, or vaccine therapy; studies in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting; and pediatric studies were excluded. Overall, 173 articles reporting on relevant studies were identified. Using these articles, we compiled a data file of study-specific covariates for each study. We recorded the immunotherapeutic agent, tumor type and biomarker, and clinical outcomes (objective response rate and median values [point estimate] and confidence intervals for progression-free survival and overall survival. Using these data, we carried out meta-analyses for the three outcomes and meta-regression on study-specific covariates. The same data could be used for any alternative implementation of meta-analysis and meta-regression, using more structured inference models reflecting different levels of dependence based on the available study-specific covariates.

Correlation between biomarkers and treatment outcomes in diverse cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase I and II immunotherapy clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Many immuno-oncology (IO) trials are conducted without biomarker selection. We performed a meta-analysis of phase I/II clinical trials evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to determine the association between biomarkers and clinical outcomes, if any. METHODS: A PubMed search for phase I/II clinical trials with drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (labelled, off-label, combined with investigational ICIs or other treatment modalities) from 2018 to 2020 was performed. The objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative groups, using studies that explored the correlation of biomarkers with outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 174 clinical studies that included 19,178 patients were identified, and 132 studies investigated>30 correlative biomarkers that included PD-L1 expression (≥1%, 111 studies), tumour mutational burden (20 studies) and microsatellite instability/mismatch repair deficiency (10 studies). Overall, 123, 46 and 30 cohorts (drugs, tumour types or biomarkers) with 11,692, 3065, and 2256 patient outcomes for ORR, PFS and OS, respectively, were analysed in correlation with biomarkers. Meta-analyses demonstrated that ICIs in patients with biomarker-positive tumours were associated with higher ORR (odds ratio 2.15 [95% CI, 1.79-2.58], p < 0.0001); and longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55 [95% CI, 0.45-0.67], p < 0.0001), and OS (HR 0.65 [95% CI, 0.53-0.80], p < 0.0001) compared with those with biomarker-negative tumours. Significance for ORR and PFS was retained in multivariate analysis (p < 0.001) (OS, not included owing to the small number of trials reporting OS). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that IO biomarkers should be used in patient selection for ICIs. Prospective studies are warranted.

First-in-Human Study of OBI-999, a Globo H-Targeting Antibody-Drug Conjugate, in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: OBI-999 is a novel antibody-drug conjugate comprising the Globo H-targeting antibody (OBI-888) linked to the cytotoxic payload monomethyl auristatin E. OBI-999 demonstrated excellent dose-dependent tumor growth inhibition in breast, gastric, and pancreatic cancer xenograft models as well as a lung cancer patient-derived xenograft model. We conducted a phase I study of OBI-999 monotherapy in patients with advanced cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04084366). PATIENTS AND METHODS: OBI-999 was administered intravenously at doses of 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, and 1.6 mg/kg every 21 days as part of a 3 + 3 trial design. Primary end points were the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events and determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/recommended phase II dose. RESULTS: Fifteen adult patients were treated. OBI-999 was well tolerated up to 1.2 mg/kg, the maximum tolerated dose. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia and anemia. OBI-999 exhibited nonlinear pharmacokinetics at all doses, with lower clearance at higher doses. The three patients treated at the 1.6 mg/kg dose level developed grade 4 neutropenia during cycles 1 and 2. Five (33.3%) patients had stable disease (SD) including one patient with adenoid cystic carcinoma of the oropharynx with SD for 13 cycles and one patient with gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma with SD for eight cycles. OBI-999 was well tolerated; however, dose-dependent, noncumulative neutropenia was dose-limiting. CONCLUSION: The recommended phase II dose was determined to be 1.2 mg/kg once every 3 weeks. A phase II cohort-expansion study is now enrolling patients with pancreatic, colorectal, and other cancers expressing high levels of Globo H.

A phase I trial of the pan-ERBB inhibitor neratinib combined with the MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with advanced cancer with EGFR mutation/amplification, HER2 mutation/amplification, HER3/4 mutation or KRAS mutation.

PURPOSE: Aberrant alterations of ERBB receptor tyrosine kinases lead to tumorigenesis. Single agent therapy targeting EGFR or HER2 has shown clinical successes, but drug resistance often develops due to aberrant or compensatory mechanisms. Herein, we sought to determine the feasibility and safety of neratinib and trametinib in patients with EGFR mutation/amplification, HER2 mutation/amplification, HER3/4 mutation and KRAS mutation. METHODS: Patients with actionable somatic mutations or amplifications in ERBB genes or actionable KRAS mutations were enrolled to receive neratinib and trametinib in this phase I dose escalation trial. The primary endpoint was determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetic analysis and preliminary anti-tumor efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled with a median age of 50.5 years and a median of 3 lines of prior therapy. Grade 3 treatment-related toxicities included: diarrhea (25%), vomiting (10%), nausea (5%), fatigue (5%) and malaise (5%). The MTD was dose level (DL) minus 1 (neratinib 160 mg daily with trametinib 1 mg, 5 days on and 2 days off) given 2 DLTs of grade 3 diarrhea in DL1 (neratinib 160 mg daily with trametinib 1 mg daily). The treatment-related toxicities of DL1 included: diarrhea (100%), nausea (55.6%) and rash (55.6%). Pharmacokinetic data showed trametinib clearance was significantly reduced leading to high drug exposures of trametinib. Two patients achieved stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months. CONCLUSION: Neratinib and trametinib combination was toxic and had limited clinical efficacy. This may be due to suboptimal drug dosing given drug-drug interactions. TRIAL REGISTRATION ID: NCT03065387.

Phase 1 trial of ADI-PEG 20 and liposomal doxorubicin in patients with metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Arginine depletion interferes with pyrimidine metabolism and DNA damage repair pathways. Preclinical data demonstrated that depletion of arginine by PEGylated arginine deiminase (ADI-PEG 20) enhanced liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) cytotoxicity in cancer cells with argininosuccinate synthase 1 (ASS1) deficiency. The objective of this study was to assess safety and tolerability of ADI-PEG 20 and PLD in patients with metastatic solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with advanced ASS1-deficient solid tumors were enrolled in this phase 1 trial of ADI-PEG 20 and PLD following a 3 + 3 design. Eligible patients were given intravenous PLD biweekly and intramuscular (IM) ADI-PEG 20 weekly. Toxicity and efficacy were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1), respectively. RESULTS: Of 15 enrolled patients, 9 had metastatic HER2-negative breast carcinoma. We observed no dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related deaths. One patient safely received 880 mg/m2 PLD in this study and 240 mg/m2 doxorubicin previously. Treatment led to stable disease in 9 patients and was associated with a median progression-free survival time of 3.95 months in 15 patients. Throughout the duration of treatment, decreased arginine and increased citrulline levels in peripheral blood remained significant in a majority of patients. We detected no induction of anti-ADI-PEG 20 antibodies by week 8 in one third of patients. CONCLUSION: Concurrent IM injection of ADI-PEG 20 at 36 mg/m2 weekly and intravenous infusion of PLD at 20 mg/m2 biweekly had an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced ASS1-deficient solid tumors. Further evaluation of this combination is under discussion.

AKT inhibition in the central nervous system induces signaling defects resulting in psychiatric symptomatology.

BACKGROUND: Changes in the expression and activity of the AKT oncogene play an important role in psychiatric disease. We present translational data assessing the role of AKT in psychiatric symptoms. METHODS: (1) We assessed the protein activity of an AKT3 mutant harboring a PH domain mutation (Q60H) detected in a patient with schizophrenia, the corresponding AKT1 mutant (Q61H), and wild-type AKT1 and AKT3 transduced in AKT-null mouse fibroblasts and modeled the Q61H mutation onto the crystal structure of the Akt1 PH domain. (2) We analyzed the results of earlier genome-wide association studies to determine the distribution of schizophrenia-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the AKT3 gene. (3) We analyzed the psychiatric adverse events (AEs) of patients treated with M2698 (p70S6K/AKT1/AKT3 inhibitor) and with other PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors. RESULTS: (1) Proteins encoded by AKT3 (AKT3Q60H) and AKT1 (AKT1Q61H) mutants had lower kinase activity than those encoded by wild-type AKT3 and AKT1, respectively. Molecular modeling of the AKT1-Q61H mutant suggested conformational changes that may reduce the binding of D3-phosphorylated phosphoinositides to the PH domain. (2) We identified multiple SNPs in the AKT3 gene that were strongly associated with schizophrenia (p < 0.5 × 10-8). (3) Psychiatric AEs, mostly insomnia, anxiety, and depression, were noted in 29% of patients treated with M2698. In randomized studies, their incidence was higher in PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitor arms compared with placebo arms. All psychiatric AEs were reversible. CONCLUSIONS: Our data elucidate the incidence and mechanisms of psychiatric AEs in patients treated with PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors and emphasize the need for careful monitoring.

Ipilimumab, Pembrolizumab, or Nivolumab in Combination with BBI608 in Patients with Advanced Cancers Treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Background: BBI608 is an investigational reactive oxygen species generator that affects several molecular pathways. We investigated BBI608 combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced cancers. Methods: BBI608 (orally twice daily) was combined with ipilimumab (3 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks); pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks); or nivolumab (3 mg/kg IV every 4 weeks). We assessed the safety, antitumor activity and the pharmacokinetic profile of BBI combined with immunotherapy. Results: From 1/2017 to 3/2017, 12 patients were treated (median age, 54 years; range, 31-78; 6 men). Treatment was overall well tolerated. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed. The most common adverse events were diarrhea (5 patients: grade (G)1-2, n = 3; G3, n = 2) and nausea (4 patients, all G1). Prolonged disease stabilization was noted in five patients treated with BBI608/nivolumab lasting for 12.1, 10.1, 8.0, 7.7 and 7.4 months. The median progression-free survival was 2.73 months. The median overall survival was 7.56 months. Four patients had prolonged overall survival (53.0, 48.7, 51.9 and 48.2 months). Conclusions: Checkpoint inhibitors combined with BBI608 were well tolerated. Several patients had prolonged disease stabilization and overall survival. Prospective studies to elucidate the mechanisms of response and resistance to BBI608 are warranted.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of phase I cancer patients with CCNE1 amplification: MD Anderson experiences.

Cyclin E is frequently encoded by CCNE1 gene amplification in various malignancies. We reviewed the medical records of patients with solid tumors displaying CCNE1 amplification to determine the effect of this amplification for future therapeutic development. We reviewed the medical records of patients with advanced solid tumors harboring CCNE1 amplification who were seen at the phase I clinic between September 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019. Among 79 patients with solid tumors harboring CCNE1 amplification, 56 (71%) received phase 1 clinical trial therapy, 39 (49%) had 3 or more concurrent genomic aberrances, and 52 (66%) had a concurrent TP53 mutation. The median overall survival (OS) after patients' initial phase I visit was 8.9 months and after their initial metastasis diagnosis was 41.4 months. We identified four factors associated with poor risk: age < 45 years, body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2, presence of the TP53 mutation, and elevated LDH > upper limit of normal. In patients treated with gene aberration-related therapy, anti-angiogenic therapy led to significantly longer OS after their initial phase I trial therapy than those who did not: 26 months versus 7.4 months, respectively (P = 0.04). This study provided preliminary evidence that CCNE1 amplification was associated with frequent TP53 mutation and aggressive clinical outcomes. Survival benefit was observed in patients who received antiangiogenic therapy and gene aberration-related treatment, supporting the future development of a personalized approach to combine gene aberration-related therapy with antiangiogenesis for the treatment of advanced malignancies harboring CCNE1 amplification.

Patient-reported symptom burden in patients with rare cancers receiving pembrolizumab in a phase II Clinical Trial.

Patients with rare solid tumors treated on early phase trials experience toxicities from their tumors and treatments. However, limited data exist to describe the detailed symptom burden suffered by these patients, particularly those with rare solid tumors treated with immunotherapy. We performed a prospective longitudinal study to capture patient-reported symptom burden. Patients completed the validated MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)-Immunotherapy with 20 symptoms including 7 immunotherapy-specific items and 6 interference items at baseline and weekly thereafter for up to 9 weeks. Symptoms and interference were rated on 0-10 scales (0 = none or no interference, 10 = worst imaginable or complete interference). Group-based trajectory modelling determined higher and lower symptom groups. A total of 336 MDASI questionnaires were completed by 53 patients (mean age 55.4y, 53% male) with advanced rare cancers receiving pembrolizumab in a Phase II clinical trial. Symptoms reported as most severe over the course of the treatment over 9 weeks were fatigue [mean (M) = 3.8, SD = 2.3], pain (M = 3.7, SD = 2.9), disturbed sleep (M = 2.7, SD = 2.3), drowsiness (M = 2.6, SD = 2.0) and lack of appetite (M = 2.5, SD = 2.1). Pain in the abdomen (M = 2.2, SD = 2.4), rash (M = 1.1, SD = 1.8) and diarrhea (M = 0.9, SD = 1.5) were less severe. Interference with walking was rated the highest (M = 3.4, SD = 2.8) and relations with others was rated the lowest (M = 2.1, SD = 2.6). Using a composite score based on the five most severe symptoms (fatigue, pain, lack of appetite, feeling drowsy and sleep disturbance), 43% were classified into the high symptom burden group. Using a score based on immunotherapy-specific symptoms (e.g., rash, diarrhea) 33% of patients were included in the high symptom group. Symptom burden stayed relatively stable in the high- and low-symptom burden patient groups from baseline through 9 weeks. Some patients with rare malignancies experienced high symptom burden even at baseline. In patients with rare cancers, symptom trajectories stayed relatively stable over nine weeks of treatment with pembrolizumab.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02721732.

Challenges and opportunities associated with the MD Anderson IMPACT2 randomized study in precision oncology.

We investigated the challenges of conducting IMPACT2, an ongoing randomized study that evaluates molecular testing and targeted therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02152254). Patients with metastatic cancer underwent tumor profiling and were randomized between the two arms when eligibility criteria were met (Part A). In Part B, patients who declined randomization could choose the study arm. In Part A, 69 (21.8%) of 317 patients were randomized; 78.2% were not randomized because of non-targetable alterations (39.8%), unavailability of clinical trial (21.8%), other reasons (12.6%), or availability of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs for the indication (4.1%). In Part B, 32 (20.4%) of 157 patients were offered randomization; 16 accepted and 16 selected their treatment arm; 79.0% were not randomized (patient's/physician's choice, 29.3%; treatment selection prior to genomic reports, 16.6%; worsening performance status/death, 12.7%; unavailability of clinical trials, 6.4%; other, 6.4%; non-targetable alterations, 5.7%; or availability of FDA-approved drugs for the indication, 1.9%). In conclusion, although randomized controlled trials have been considered the gold standard for drug development, the execution of randomized trials in precision oncology in the advanced metastatic setting is complicated. We encountered various challenges conducting the IMPACT2 study, a large precision oncology trial in patients with diverse solid tumor types. The adaptive design of IMPACT2 enables patient randomization despite the continual FDA approval of targeted therapies, the evolving tumor biomarker landscape, and the plethora of investigational drugs. Outcomes for randomized patients are awaited.

Wedding of Molecular Alterations and Immune Checkpoint Blockade: Genomics as a Matchmaker.

The development of checkpoint blockade immunotherapy has transformed the medical oncology armamentarium. But despite its favorable impact on clinical outcomes, immunotherapy benefits only a subset of patients, and a substantial proportion of these individuals eventually manifest resistance. Serious immune-related adverse events and hyperprogression have also been reported. It is therefore essential to understand the molecular mechanisms and identify the drivers of therapeutic response and resistance. In this review, we provide an overview of the current and emerging clinically relevant genomic biomarkers implicated in checkpoint blockade outcome. US Food and Drug Administration-approved molecular biomarkers of immunotherapy response include mismatch repair deficiency and/or microsatelliteinstability and tumor mutational burden of at least 10 mutations/megabase. Investigational genomic-associated biomarkers for immunotherapy response include alterations of the following genes/associated pathways: chromatin remodeling (ARID1A, PBRM1, SMARCA4, SMARCB1, BAP1), major histocompatibility complex, specific (eg, ultraviolet, APOBEC) mutational signatures, T-cell receptor repertoire, PDL1, POLE/POLD1, and neo-antigens produced by the mutanome, those potentially associated with resistance include ß2-microglobulin, EGFR, Keap1, JAK1/JAK2/interferon-gamma signaling, MDM2, PTEN, STK11, and Wnt/Beta-catenin pathway alterations. Prospective clinical trials are needed to assess the role of a composite of these biomarkers to optimize the implementation of precision immunotherapy in patient care.

Prolonged response to treatment based on cell-free DNA analysis and molecular profiling in three patients with metastatic cancer: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced and/or metastatic solid tumors have limited treatment options. Mutations that serve as biomarkers of carcinogenesis can be found in cell-free DNA of patients' plasma. Analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was developed as a non-invasive, cost-effective alternative to tumor biopsy when such biopsy is not technically feasible or it is associated with high risk for complications. The role of ctDNA in precision oncology is promising but its clinical significance across tumor types remains to be validated. We report a case series of three heavily pretreated patients with advanced solid tumors who received matched targeted therapy based on ctDNA analysis and/or tumor molecular profiling. CASE PRESENTATION: Three patients with advanced, metastatic cancer and the following characteristics are presented: a 71-year-old woman with ovarian cancer and BRCA2 mutation identified in ctDNA and tumor tissue was treated with a PARP inhibitor and achieved partial response by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) for 22.6+ months; a 40-year-old woman with adenoid cystic carcinoma of the parotid gland was treated with a MEK/RAF pathway inhibitor on the basis of RAF1 amplification on ctDNA analysis and had stable disease for 20.2 months; and a 56-year-old woman with breast cancer and a BRCA1 mutation identified by ctDNA analysis was treated with a PARP inhibitor and achieved stable disease for 9.1 months. All three patients are alive at the time of this report. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that ctDNA analysis can contribute to selection of targeted therapy in patients with advanced, metastatic cancer. Prospective clinical trials to evaluate and optimize ctDNA biomarkers, as well as the integration of novel and/or alternative targeted therapies, are warranted to fully assess the role of ctDNA analysis in cancer therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02152254). Registered May 28, 2014. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02152254. MD Anderson protocol # PA12-1161 (approval ID IRB1 FWA00000121) and # PA11-0377 (approval ID IRB4 FWA00005015).

T-cell receptor-based therapy: an innovative therapeutic approach for solid tumors.

T-cell receptor (TCR)-based adoptive therapy employs genetically modified lymphocytes that are directed against specific tumor markers. This therapeutic modality requires a structured and integrated process that involves patient screening (e.g., for HLA-A*02:01 and specific tumor targets), leukapheresis, generation of transduced TCR product, lymphodepletion, and infusion of the TCR-based adoptive therapy. In this review, we summarize the current technology and early clinical development of TCR-based therapy in patients with solid tumors. The challenges of TCR-based therapy include those associated with TCR product manufacturing, patient selection, and preparation with lymphodepletion. Overcoming these challenges, and those posed by the immunosuppressive microenvironment, as well as developing next-generation strategies is essential to improving the efficacy and safety of TCR-based therapies. Optimization of technology to generate TCR product, treatment administration, and patient monitoring for adverse events is needed. The implementation of novel TCR strategies will require expansion of the TCR approach to patients with HLA haplotypes beyond HLA-A*02:01 and the discovery of novel tumor markers that are expressed in more patients and tumor types. Ongoing clinical trials will determine the ultimate role of TCR-based therapy in patients with solid tumors.