Single-Agent Divarasib (GDC-6036) in Solid Tumors with a KRAS G12C Mutation.

BACKGROUND: Divarasib (GDC-6036) is a covalent KRAS G12C inhibitor that was designed to have high potency and selectivity. METHODS: In a phase 1 study, we evaluated divarasib administered orally once daily (at doses ranging from 50 to 400 mg) in patients who had advanced or metastatic solid tumors that harbor a KRAS G12C mutation. The primary objective was an assessment of safety; pharmacokinetics, investigator-evaluated antitumor activity, and biomarkers of response and resistance were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients (60 with non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC], 55 with colorectal cancer, and 22 with other solid tumors) received divarasib. No dose-limiting toxic effects or treatment-related deaths were reported. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 127 patients (93%); grade 3 events occurred in 15 patients (11%) and a grade 4 event in 1 patient (1%). Treatment-related adverse events resulted in a dose reduction in 19 patients (14%) and discontinuation of treatment in 4 patients (3%). Among patients with NSCLC, a confirmed response was observed in 53.4% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.9 to 66.7), and the median progression-free survival was 13.1 months (95% CI, 8.8 to could not be estimated). Among patients with colorectal cancer, a confirmed response was observed in 29.1% of patients (95% CI, 17.6 to 42.9), and the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 8.2). Responses were also observed in patients with other solid tumors. Serial assessment of circulating tumor DNA showed declines in KRAS G12C variant allele frequency associated with response and identified genomic alterations that may confer resistance to divarasib. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with divarasib resulted in durable clinical responses across KRAS G12C-positive tumors, with mostly low-grade adverse events. (Funded by Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04449874.).

The clinical KRAS(G12C) inhibitor AMG 510 drives anti-tumour immunity.

KRAS is the most frequently mutated oncogene in cancer and encodes a key signalling protein in tumours1,2. The KRAS(G12C) mutant has a cysteine residue that has been exploited to design covalent inhibitors that have promising preclinical activity3-5. Here we optimized a series of inhibitors, using novel binding interactions to markedly enhance their potency and selectivity. Our efforts have led to the discovery of AMG 510, which is, to our knowledge, the first KRAS(G12C) inhibitor in clinical development. In preclinical analyses, treatment with AMG 510 led to the regression of KRASG12C tumours and improved the anti-tumour efficacy of chemotherapy and targeted agents. In immune-competent mice, treatment with AMG 510 resulted in a pro-inflammatory tumour microenvironment and produced durable cures alone as well as in combination with immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Cured mice rejected the growth of isogenic KRASG12D tumours, which suggests adaptive immunity against shared antigens. Furthermore, in clinical trials, AMG 510 demonstrated anti-tumour activity in the first dosing cohorts and represents a potentially transformative therapy for patients for whom effective treatments are lacking.

PI3Kα Translocation Mediates Nuclear PtdIns(3,4,5)P3 Effector Signaling in Colorectal Cancer.

The canonical view of PI3Kα signaling describes phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-trisphosphate (PtdIns(3,4,5)P3) generation and activation of downstream effectors at the plasma membrane or at microtubule-bound endosomes. Here, we show that colorectal cancer (CRC) cell lines exhibit a diverse plasma membrane-nuclear distribution of PI3Kα, controlling corresponding levels of subcellular PtdIns(3,4,5)P3 pools. PI3Kα nuclear translocation was mediated by the importin ß-dependent nuclear import pathway. By PtdIns(3,4,5)P3 affinity capture mass spectrometry done in the presence of SDS on CRC cell lines with PI3Kα nuclear localization, we identified 867 potential nuclear PtdIns(3,4,5)P3 effector proteins. Nuclear PtdIns(3,4,5)P3 interactome proteins were characterized by noncanonical PtdIns(3,4,5)P3-binding domains and showed overrepresentation for nuclear membrane, nucleolus, and nuclear speckles. The nuclear PtdIns(3,4,5)P3 interactome was enriched for proteins related to RNA metabolism, with splicing reporter assays and SC-35 foci staining suggesting a role of epidermal growth factor-stimulated nuclear PI3Kα signaling in modulating pre-mRNA splicing. In patient tumors, nuclear p110α staining was associated with lower T stage and mucinous histology. These results indicate that PI3Kα translocation mediates nuclear PtdIns(3,4,5)P3 effector signaling in human CRC, modulating signaling responses.

CD74 is associated with inflamed tumor immune microenvironment and predicts responsiveness to PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody in patients with solid tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Cadonilimab (AK104) is a first-in-class tetravalent bispecific antibody that targets both PD-1 and CTLA-4, showing a manageable safety profile and favorable clinical benefits. This study aimed to identify the biomarkers of clinical response and explore the immune response within the tumor microenvironment upon the AK104 therapy in advanced solid tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Gene expression profiles of paired pre- and post-treatment tumor tissues from twenty-one patients were analyzed. The association of gene expression levels with either clinical efficacy or prognosis was evaluated and subsequently validated with published datasets using log-rank for Kaplan-Meier estimates. Comparative immune profile analyses of tumor microenvironment before and after AK104 treatment were conducted. The visualization of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes was performed using multiplex immunohistochemistry. The predictive value of CD74 was further validated with protein expression by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Baseline CD74 gene expression was associated with favorable patient outcomes (overall survival [OS], HR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.11-1.03, p = 0.0463), which was further confirmed with the published datasets. Tumors with high CD74 gene expression at baseline were more likely to exhibit an immune-inflamed microenvironment. AK104 efficiently enhanced the infiltration of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Additionally, high CD74 protein expression (≥ 10% of the tumor area occupied by CD74 stained immune cells) at baseline was associated with better progressive-free survival (HR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.68, p = 0.0065) and OS (HR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.12-1.08, p = 0.0615). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that CD74 is a promising predictive biomarker for AK104 therapeutic response in advanced solid tumors. Trial registration number NCT03261011.

Long-term benefit of sotorasib in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of a study called CodeBreaK 100. The CodeBreaK 100 study included patients with non-small-cell lung cancer that had spread outside the lung (advanced). Lung cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer. CodeBreaK 100 specifically looked at patients with a particular change(mutation) in the KRAS gene resulting in the mutated protein called KRAS G12C. The KRAS G12C mutation can lead to development and growth of lung cancer. Patients received a treatment called sotorasib, which has accelerated approval or full approval in over 50 countries for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with the KRAS G12C mutation. The CodeBreaK 100 study looked at whether sotorasib is a safe and effective treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Sotorasib is designed to specifically target and lock the mutated KRAS protein in the inactive state to treat non-small-cell lung cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In total, 174 adults were treated with sotorasib. Treatment-related side effects were seen in 70% of patients and were severe in 21% of patients. The most common side effects included diarrhea, increased liver enzymes, nausea and tiredness. 70 (41%) patients responded to sotorasib and 144 (84%) patients had tumors that either remained stable or shrunk in size. 29 (41%) patients who responded to sotorasib responded for over 12 months. After 2 years, 9 patients with a response remained on sotorasib; there were no notable increases in tumor size or development of new tumors over this time. There were 5patients who received sotorasib for more than 2 years and continued to respond. Long-term benefit was seen for some patients. Patients also benefitted from treatment when the tumor expressed different amounts of a protein called PD-L1.In total, 33% of patients were still alive after 2 years. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: Results show the long-term benefit of sotorasib therapy for people with advanced KRAS G12C-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03600883 (CodeBreaK 100) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

A Phase 1/2 study of the PD-L1 inhibitor, BGB-A333, alone and in combination with the PD-1 inhibitor, tislelizumab, in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Many patients do not respond or eventually relapse on treatment with programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors due to secondary or acquired resistance; therefore, there is a need to investigate novel PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. METHODS: This open-label, non-randomised study investigated the safety and anti-tumour activity of BGB-A333, a PD-L1 inhibitor, alone and in combination with tislelizumab in patients with advanced solid tumours with progression during/after standard therapy. The primary objectives were to determine the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D), safety and tolerability for BGB-A333 alone and in combination with tislelizumab (Phase 1a/1b) and to determine the overall response rate (ORR) with BGB-A333 plus tislelizumab (Phase 2). RESULTS: Overall, 39 patients across Phase 1a (N = 15), 1b (N = 12) and 2 (N = 12) were enroled. In Phase 1a, an RP2D of 1350 mg was determined. In Phase 1a and 1b/2, serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in five and eight patients, respectively. Two patients experienced TEAEs that led to death. In Phase 2, the ORR was 41.7% (n = 5/12; 95% confidence interval: 15.17%, 72.33%). CONCLUSIONS: TEAEs reported with BGB-A333 were consistent with other PD-L1 inhibitors. Encouraging preliminary anti-tumour activity was observed with BGB-A333 in combination with tislelizumab. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03379259.

KRASG12C Inhibition with Sotorasib in Advanced Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: No therapies for targeting KRAS mutations in cancer have been approved. The KRAS p.G12C mutation occurs in 13% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) and in 1 to 3% of colorectal cancers and other cancers. Sotorasib is a small molecule that selectively and irreversibly targets KRASG12C. METHODS: We conducted a phase 1 trial of sotorasib in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring the KRAS p.G12C mutation. Patients received sotorasib orally once daily. The primary end point was safety. Key secondary end points were pharmacokinetics and objective response, as assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients (59 with NSCLC, 42 with colorectal cancer, and 28 with other tumors) were included in dose escalation and expansion cohorts. Patients had received a median of 3 (range, 0 to 11) previous lines of anticancer therapies for metastatic disease. No dose-limiting toxic effects or treatment-related deaths were observed. A total of 73 patients (56.6%) had treatment-related adverse events; 15 patients (11.6%) had grade 3 or 4 events. In the subgroup with NSCLC, 32.2% (19 patients) had a confirmed objective response (complete or partial response) and 88.1% (52 patients) had disease control (objective response or stable disease); the median progression-free survival was 6.3 months (range, 0.0+ to 14.9 [with + indicating that the value includes patient data that were censored at data cutoff]). In the subgroup with colorectal cancer, 7.1% (3 patients) had a confirmed response, and 73.8% (31 patients) had disease control; the median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (range, 0.0+ to 11.1+). Responses were also observed in patients with pancreatic, endometrial, and appendiceal cancers and melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Sotorasib showed encouraging anticancer activity in patients with heavily pretreated advanced solid tumors harboring the KRAS p.G12C mutation. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effects occurred in 11.6% of the patients. (Funded by Amgen and others; CodeBreaK100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03600883.).

First-in-human study of oleclumab, a potent, selective anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody, alone or in combination with durvalumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: CD73 upregulation in tumors leads to local immunosuppression. This phase I, first-in-human study evaluated oleclumab (MEDI9447), an anti-CD73 human IgG1λ monoclonal antibody, alone or with durvalumab in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), or epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients received oleclumab 5-40 mg/kg (dose-escalation) or 40 mg/kg (dose-expansion) intravenously every 2 weeks (Q2W), alone (escalation only) or with durvalumab 10 mg/kg intravenously Q2W. RESULTS: 192 patients were enrolled, 66 during escalation and 126 (42 CRC, 42 PDAC, 42 NSCLC) during expansion. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred during escalation. In the monotherapy and combination therapy escalation cohorts, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 55 and 54%, respectively, the most common being fatigue (17 and 25%). In the CRC, PDAC, and NSCLC expansion cohorts, 60, 57, and 45% of patients had TRAEs, respectively; the most common were fatigue (15%), diarrhea (9%), and rash (7%). Free soluble CD73 and CD73 expression on peripheral T cells and tumor cells showed sustained decreases, accompanied by reduced CD73 enzymatic activity in tumor cells. Objective response rate during escalation was 0%. Response rates in the CRC, PDAC, and NSCLC expansion cohorts were 2.4% (1 complete response [CR]), 4.8% (1 CR, 1 partial response [PR]), and 9.5% (4 PRs), respectively; 6-month progression-free survival rates were 5.4, 13.2, and 16.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Oleclumab ± durvalumab had a manageable safety profile, with pharmacodynamic activity reflecting oleclumab's mechanism of action. Evidence of antitumor activity was observed in tumor types that are generally immunotherapy resistant. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02503774; date of registration, July 17, 2015.

Pexidartinib Provides Modest Pain Relief in Patients With Tenosynovial Giant Cell Tumor: Results From ENLIVEN.

BACKGROUND: The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of orally administered PLX3397 in patients with pigmented villonodular synovitis or giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath (ENLIVEN) showed that pexidartinib provides a robust objective tumor response in adults with tenosynovial giant cell tumors (TGCT) not amenable to improvement with surgery. Based on these results, in 2019, pexidartinib received accelerated approval in the United States in this population as a breakthrough therapy under an orphan drug designation. However, the ability of pexidartinib to relieve pain in ENLIVEN was not fully detailed, and the relationship between pain relief and objective tumor response was not described. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What level of pain relief was achieved by pexidartinib treatment in ENLIVEN? (2) How was pain relief related to objective tumor responses? (3) How durable was pain relief? METHODS: The current study included planned primary and exploratory assessments of patient-assessed worst pain at the site of the tumor in the ENLIVEN trial. ENLIVEN was a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in which adults with TGCT not amenable to improvement with surgery received pexidartinib or placebo for 24 weeks, after which eligible patients could receive open-label pexidartinib. Of 174 patients assessed for eligibility, 121 were randomized (50% [60] to placebo, 50% [61] to pexidartinib), and 120 were given either placebo or pexidartinib (59 received placebo and 61 received pexidartinib) and were included in an intent-to-treat analysis. Fifty-nine percent (71 of 120) of the overall treated population was female, and 88% (106 of 120) were White. Mean age was 45 ± 13 years. Tumors were mostly in the lower extremities (92% [110 of 120]), most commonly in the knee (61% [73 of 120]) and ankle (18% [21 of 120]). As a secondary outcome, patients scored worst pain at the site of the tumor in the past 24 hours on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). The primary definition of a pain response was a decrease of at least 30% in the weekly mean worst-pain NRS score and increase of less than 30% in narcotic analgesic use between baseline and week 25. Planned exploratory assessments of pain included the frequency of a pain response using alternative thresholds, including a decrease in worst-pain NRS score of 50% or more and a decrease of at least 2 points (minimum clinically important difference [MCID]), the magnitude of pain reduction between baseline and week 25, correlation between worst-pain NRS score and tumor shrinkage by RECIST 1.1 criteria, and the durability of the pain response during the open-label extension. Pain responses during the randomized portion of the trial were compared according to intention-to-treat analysis, with a one-sided threshold of p < 0.025 to reduce the risk of false-positive results. Pain assessment was complete for 59% (35 of 59) of patients in the placebo group and 54% (33 of 61) of patients in the pexidartinib group. Demographic and disease characteristics did not differ between the two treatment groups. RESULTS: A difference in the primary assessment of a pain response was not detected between pexidartinib and placebo (response percentage 31% [19 of 61] [95% CI 21% to 44%] versus 15% [9 of 59] [95% CI 8% to 27%]; one-sided p = 0.03). In the exploratory analyses, pexidartinib provided a modest improvement in pain (response percentage 26% [16 of 61] [95% CI 17% to 38%] versus 10% [6 of 59] [95% CI 5% to 20%]; one-sided p = 0.02 using the 50% threshold and 31% [19 of 61] [95% CI 21% to 44%] versus 14% [8 of 59] [95% CI 7% to 25%]; one-sided p = 0.02 using the MCID threshold). The least-squares mean change in the weekly mean worst-pain NRS score between baseline and week 25 was larger in patients treated with pexidartinib than placebo (-2.5 [95% CI -3.0 to -1.9] versus -0.3 [95% CI -0.9 to 0.3]; p < 0.001), although the mean difference between the two groups (-2.2 [95% CI -3.0 to -1.4]) was just over the MCID. Improvement in the weekly mean worst-pain NRS score correlated with the reduction in tumor size (r = 0.44; p < 0.001) and tumor volume score (r = 0.61; p < 0.001). For patients in the open-label extension, the change in the worst-pain NRS score from baseline was similar to the change at the end of the randomized portion and just above the MCID (mean -2.7 ± 2.2 after 25 weeks and -3.3 ± 1.7 after 50 weeks of receiving pexidartinib). CONCLUSION: Based on the current study, a modest reduction in pain, just larger than the MCID, may be an added benefit of pexidartinib in these patients, although the findings are insufficient to justify the routine use of pexidartinib for pain relief. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab in BRAF V600E-Mutated Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with the BRAF V600E mutation have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of 4 to 6 months after failure of initial therapy. Inhibition of BRAF alone has limited activity because of pathway reactivation through epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we enrolled 665 patients with BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer who had had disease progression after one or two previous regimens. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab (triplet-therapy group); encorafenib and cetuximab (doublet-therapy group); or the investigators' choice of either cetuximab and irinotecan or cetuximab and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) (control group). The primary end points were overall survival and objective response rate in the triplet-therapy group as compared with the control group. A secondary end point was overall survival in the doublet-therapy group as compared with the control group. We report here the results of a prespecified interim analysis. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 9.0 months in the triplet-therapy group and 5.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.70; P<0.001). The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% CI, 18 to 35) in the triplet-therapy group and 2% (95% CI, 0 to 7) in the control group (P<0.001). The median overall survival in the doublet-therapy group was 8.4 months (hazard ratio for death vs. control, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 58% of patients in the triplet-therapy group, in 50% in the doublet-therapy group, and in 61% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of encorafenib, cetuximab, and binimetinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and a higher response rate than standard therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with the BRAF V600E mutation. (Funded by Array BioPharma and others; BEACON CRC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02928224; EudraCT number, 2015-005805-35.).

Long-term outcomes of pexidartinib in tenosynovial giant cell tumors.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to report on the long-term effects of pexidartinib on tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT). METHODS: This was a pooled analysis encompassing 3 pexidartinib-treated TGCT cohorts: 1) a phase 1 extension study (NCT01004861; 1000 mg/d; n = 39), 2) ENLIVEN patients randomized to pexidartinib (1000 mg/d for 2 weeks and then 800 mg/d; n = 61), and 3) ENLIVEN crossover patients (NCT02371369; 800 mg/d; n = 30). Eligible patients were 18 years old or older and had a histologically confirmed TGCT that was unresectable and symptomatic. Efficacy endpoints included the best overall response (complete or partial response) and the duration of response (DOR) by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and the tumor volume score (TVS). The safety assessment included the frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and hepatic laboratory abnormalities (aminotransferase elevations and mixed/cholestatic hepatotoxicity). The data cutoff was May 31, 2019. RESULTS: One hundred thirty patients with TGCT received pexidartinib (median treatment duration, 19 months; range, 1 to 76+ months); 54 (42%) remained on treatment at the end of the analysis (26 months after initial data cut of March 2017). The RECIST overall response rate (ORR) was 60%; the TVS ORR was 65%. The median times to response were 3.4 (RECIST) and 2.8 months (TVS), with 48 of the responding patients (62%) achieving a RECIST partial response by 6 months and with 72 (92%) doing so by 18 months. The median DOR was reached for TVS (46.8 months). Reported TEAEs were mostly low-grade, with hair color changes being most frequent (75%). Most liver abnormalities (92%) were aminotransferase elevations; 4 patients (3%) experienced mixed/cholestatic hepatotoxicity (all within the first 2 months of treatment), which was reversible in all cases (recovery spanned 1-7 months). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the prolonged efficacy and tolerability of long-term pexidartinib treatment for TGCT.

Ultra-rare sarcomas: A consensus paper from the Connective Tissue Oncology Society community of experts on the incidence threshold and the list of entities.

BACKGROUND: Among sarcomas, which are rare cancers, many types are exceedingly rare; however, a definition of ultra-rare cancers has not been established. The problem of ultra-rare sarcomas is particularly relevant because they represent unique diseases, and their rarity poses major challenges for diagnosis, understanding disease biology, generating clinical evidence to support new drug development, and achieving formal authorization for novel therapies. METHODS: The Connective Tissue Oncology Society promoted a consensus effort in November 2019 to establish how to define ultra-rare sarcomas through expert consensus and epidemiologic data and to work out a comprehensive list of these diseases. The list of ultra-rare sarcomas was based on the 2020 World Health Organization classification, The incidence rates were estimated using the Information Network on Rare Cancers (RARECARENet) database and NETSARC (the French Sarcoma Network's clinical-pathologic registry). Incidence rates were further validated in collaboration with the Asian cancer registries of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. RESULTS: It was agreed that the best criterion for a definition of ultra-rare sarcomas would be incidence. Ultra-rare sarcomas were defined as those with an incidence of approximately ≤1 per 1,000,000, to include those entities whose rarity renders them extremely difficult to conduct well powered, prospective clinical studies. On the basis of this threshold, a list of ultra-rare sarcomas was defined, which comprised 56 soft tissue sarcoma types and 21 bone sarcoma types. CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, the incidence of ultra-rare sarcomas accounts for roughly 20% of all soft tissue and bone sarcomas. This confirms that the challenges inherent in ultra-rare sarcomas affect large numbers of patients.

Characterising the immune microenvironment in liposarcoma, its impact on prognosis and the impact of radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Limited literature exists examining the immune microenvironment in liposarcoma, particularly with regard to the impact of radiotherapy. A major problem is the lack of scoring system for the tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in sarcoma. This study aims to describe the immune environment pre- and postradiotherapy and identify the optimal immune infiltrate scoring system for sarcoma. METHODS: Thirty-nine paired tissue samples (pre- and postradiotherapy) from patients with liposarcoma were scored by two pathologists for TILs using pre-existing systems (for breast cancer and melanoma) and compared for interobserver reliability. Immunohistochemical staining was performed for various immune markers. RESULTS: The TIL scoring system for breast cancer yielded perfect agreement (κ = 1.000). 21% of patients had increased TILs after radiotherapy, 87.5% of whom had dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Immune suppressor expression was increased frequently after radiotherapy (CD68 increased in 59.4%, PD-L1 increased in 25%). Immune effector expression (CD8) was unchanged in 84.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer TIL scoring is reproducible in liposarcoma and has high interobserver reliability. Radiotherapy was observed to have a limited impact on immune effectors but seemed to have more impact in upregulating immune suppressors, suggesting radiotherapy may contribute to disease control through immunomodulatory effects. Dedifferentiated liposarcoma represents a uniquely responsive subtype.

Pexidartinib improves physical functioning and stiffness in patients with tenosynovial giant cell tumor: results from the ENLIVEN randomized clinical trial.

Background and purpose - The ENLIVEN trial showed that, after 25 weeks, pexidartinib statistically significantly reduced tumor size more than placebo in patients with symptomatic, advanced tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) for whom surgery was not recommended. Here, we detail the effect of pexidartinib on patient-reported physical function and stiffness in ENLIVEN.Patients and methods - This was a planned analysis of patient-reported outcome data from ENLIVEN, a double-blinded, randomized phase 3 trial of adults with symptomatic, advanced TGCT treated with pexidartinib or placebo. Physical function was assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-physical function (PF), and worst stiffness was assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS). A mixed model for repeated measures was used to compare changes in PROMIS-PF and worst stiffness NRS scores from baseline to week 25 between treatment groups. Response rates for the PROMIS-PF and worst stiffness NRS at week 25 were calculated based on threshold estimates from reliable change index and anchor-based methods.Results - Between baseline and week 25, greater improvements in physical function and stiffness were experienced by patients receiving pexidartinib than patients receiving placebo (change in PROMIS-PF = 4.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-6.3] vs. -0.9 [CI -3.0 to 1.2]; change in worst stiffness NRS = -2.5 [CI -3.0 to -1.9] vs. -0.3 [CI -0.9 to 0.3]). Patients receiving pexidartinib had higher response rates than patients receiving placebo for meaningful improvements in physical function and stiffness. Improvements were sustained after 50 weeks of pexidartinib treatment.Interpretation - Pexidartinib treatment provided sustained, meaningful improvements in physical function and stiffness for patients with symptomatic, advanced TGCT.

Pexidartinib versus placebo for advanced tenosynovial giant cell tumour (ENLIVEN): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tenosynovial giant cell tumour (TGCT), a rare, locally aggressive neoplasm, overexpresses colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1). Surgery is standard with no approved systemic therapy. We aimed to evaluate pexidartinib, a CSF1 receptor inhibitor, in patients with TGCT to provide them with a viable systemic treatment option, especially in cases that are not amenable to surgical resection. METHODS: This phase 3 randomised trial had two parts. Part one was a double-blind study in which patients with symptomatic, advanced TGCT for whom surgery was not recommended were randomly assigned via an integrated web response system (1:1) to the pexidartinib or placebo group. Individuals in the pexidartinib group received a loading dose of 1000 mg pexidartinib per day orally (400 mg morning; 600 mg evening) for the first 2 weeks, followed by 800 mg per day (400 mg twice a day) for 22 weeks. Part two was an open-label study of pexidartinib for all patients. The primary endpoint, assessed in all intention-to-treat patients, was overall response at week 25, and was centrally reviewed by RECIST, version 1.1. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02371369. FINDINGS: Between May 11, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, of 174 patients assessed for eligibility, 120 patients were randomly assigned to, and received, pexidartinib (n=61) or placebo (n=59). There were 11 dropouts in the placebo group and nine in the pexidartinib group. Emergence of mixed or cholestatic hepatotoxicity caused the data monitoring committee to stop enrolment six patients short of target. The proportion of patients who achieved overall response was higher for pexidartinib than placebo at week 25 by RECIST (24 [39%] of 61 vs none of 59; absolute difference 39% [95% CI 27-53]; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events occurred in eight (13%) of 61 patients in the pexidartinib group and one (2%) of 59 patients in the placebo group. Hair colour changes (67%), fatigue (54%), aspartate aminotransferase increase (39%), nausea (38%), alanine aminotransferase increase (28%), and dysgeusia (25%) were the most frequent pexidartinib-associated adverse events. Three patients given pexidartinib had aminotransferase elevations three or more times the upper limit of normal with total bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase two or more times the upper limit of normal indicative of mixed or cholestatic hepatotoxicity, one lasting 7 months and confirmed by biopsy. INTERPRETATION: Pexidartinib is the first systemic therapy to show a robust tumour response in TGCT with improved patient symptoms and functional outcomes; mixed or cholestatic hepatotoxicity is an identified risk. Pexidartinib could be considered as a potential treatment for TGCT associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations in cases not amenable to improvement with surgery. FUNDING: Daiichi Sankyo.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of imaging surveillance in stage II and III extremity soft tissue sarcoma: an Australian perspective.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance imaging is used to detect local and/or distant recurrence following primary treatment of localised soft tissue sarcoma (STS), however evidence supporting optimal surveillance modality or frequency is lacking. We used prospectively collected sarcoma data to describe current surveillance imaging practice in patients with AJCC stage II and III extremity STS and evaluate its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: From three selected Australian sarcoma referral centres, we identified patients with stage II and III extremity STS treated between 2009 and 2013. Medical records were reviewed to ascertain surveillance imaging practices, including modality, frequency and patient outcomes. A discrete event simulation model was developed and calibrated using clinical data to estimate health service costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with alternative surveillance strategies. RESULTS: Of 133 patients treated for stage II and III extremity STS, the majority were followed up with CT chest (86%), most commonly at 3-monthly intervals and 62% of patients had the primary site imaged with MRI at 6-monthly. There was limited use of chest-X-ray. A discrete event simulation model demonstrated that CT chest screening was the most cost effective surveillance strategy, gaining additional QALYs at a mean incremental cost of $30,743. MRI alone and PET-CT alone were not cost-effective, whilst a combined strategy of CT + MRI had an incremental cost per QALY gained of $96,556. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variations were observed in surveillance imaging practices in this high-risk STS cohort. Modelling demonstrated the value of CT chest for distant recurrence surveillance over other forms of imaging in terms of cost and QALYs. Further work is required to evaluate cost-effectiveness in a prospective manner.

Utilisation of systemic therapy options in routine treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Australia.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), exposure to all three active cytotoxic agents, 5-fluorouracil/capecitabine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin, improves overall survival. The addition of biologic agents (bevacizumab and cetuximab/panitumumab) further improves survival. The uptake of available systemic agents for mCRC in routine practice in Australia is poorly described. METHODS: The ACCORD database was interrogated to determine demographics, treatments and outcomes for patients diagnosed with mCRC between 1 January 2011 and 1 January 2016 at six Melbourne centres. RESULTS: About 1130 mCRC patients were identified: median age was 69 years (range 26-105); 61% had synchronous disease. KRAS status was known in 62%, of whom 49% were KRAS wild-type. At the time of analysis, 67% of all patients had commenced systemic treatment, 50% had received two or more lines of therapy and 19% of KRAS wild-type patients had received all five active drugs. Of KRAS-mutated patients, 35% had received all four Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme-reimbursed active drugs. Patients who had not received chemotherapy included 72 patients who underwent metastasectomy alone. At a median follow up of 34 months, median overall survival was 25 months for all patients and 69 months for those who underwent metastasectomy. CONCLUSION: In this community-based cohort, 33% of patients had not received any systemic therapy for mCRC, and few patients had received all available active systemic agents. As many patients remain alive, these figures will likely increase over time. The overall survival of patients with mCRC in this community-based cohort was 25 months and not dissimilar to that achieved in recent clinical trials.

Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes Following Various Treatment Options for Patients with Extraabdominal Desmoid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Desmoid tumors (DT) are rare clonal proliferations that arise from mesenchymal cells. These tumors do not metastasize but are locally aggressive, and their growth may lead to significant morbidity. Their clinical course is both variable and unpredictable; tumors may rapidly progress but in other instances remain stable or regress without intervention. AIMS: To examine current treatment of DT and assist with decision-making at time of presentation. METHODS: A literature search was conducted of MEDLINE and Cochrane databases for published studies (1995-July 2015) using the search terms fibromatosis aggressive, desmoid with drug therapy, radiation therapy, prevention and control, radiotherapy, surgery, and therapy. Articles were categorized as surgery, radiation, surgery + radiation, systemic therapy, and front-line observation. Articles were included if they reported a retrospective or prospective comparative or observational study with an analyzed sample size of 10 patients or more with confirmed diagnosis of desmoid tumor and described one of the following clinical outcomes: relapse- or progression-free survival, local control rate, response rate. RESULTS: 258 articles were reviewed; following screening for eligibility, 54 were identified; following full-text screen, 31 were included in final evaluation. The control rate for patients treated with a "wait and see" observational approach compared favorably with management with surgery and resulted in disease control rates of between 60 and 92%. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making in this rare tumor is complicated by the range of treatment options available. Our evidence supports use of an upfront observational approach.

An Update on Immunotherapy for Solid Tumors: A Review.

In recent years, it has been demonstrated that immunotherapy is an effective strategy for the management of solid tumors. The origins of immunotherapy can be traced back to the work of William Coley, who elicited an immune response against sarcoma by injecting patients with a mixture of dead bacteria. Significant progress has been made since, with immune markers within the tumor now being used as predictors of cancer prognosis and manipulated to improve patient survival. While surgery remains central to the management of most patients with solid malignancies, it is important that surgeons consider the different immunotherapy strategies that can be employed to manage disease. Here, we highlight how the immune system influences tumorigenesis and bring attention to how current and future immunotherapies can serve as an adjunct to surgery.

A phase I trial to determine safety and pharmacokinetics of ASLAN002, an oral MET superfamily kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced or metastatic solid cancers.

Background The MET tyrosine kinase and its ligand, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) also known as scatter factor, are associated with tumourigenesis and metastasis by promotion of scattering, proliferation, angiogenesis, motility and invasion. ASLAN-002 is a potent inhibitor of MET as well as related kinases. A phase I dose escalation study was conducted to determine the safety and pharmacokinetics of ASLAN-002 in patients with advanced cancer. Methods Patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumours, who had progressed on standard therapy or for whom standard therapy was not known, were administered ASLAN-002 orally. The starting dose was 100 mg once daily (QD) with subsequent cohorts to receive doses of 200 mg QD, 300 mg QD, 450 mg QD, 600 mg QD, 300 mg twice daily (BID), 450 mg BID, and 600 mg BID. Results Forty patients were included across 7 dose cohorts. Cohort 8 (600 mg BID) was not opened due to the lack of appreciable pharmacokinetic (PK) differences between 300 mg BID and 450 mg BID and higher incidences of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AE) in Cohort 7 (450 mg BID). Fifteen patients (37.5%) experienced a grade 3 or 4 AE. The most commonly reported AEs were nausea (55%), fatigue (47.5%) and constipation (30%). One dose limiting toxicity (DLT) of atrial fibrillation was observed with 450 mg BID. Conclusions ASLAN-002 is well tolerated at 300 mg BID and is the recommended dose for future phase II studies (RP2D). Clinical Trials Registry Number: NCT01721148 .