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.

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.

Translating Knowledge About the Immune Microenvironment of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors into Effective Clinical Strategies.

OPINION STATEMENT: The role of targeted therapy is firmly established for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs); other modalities for targeting this disease are necessary for recurrent and refractory disease. There are several lines of evidence pointing to an active role of the immune system in GIST. Preclinical and clinical studies revealed that the most common type of immune cell infiltration in GISTs is tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). The mechanism of how TAMs sculpt the tumor microenvironment in GIST is not clear, but it seems that the presence of immunosuppressive regulatory T cells (Tregs) is correlated with the number of TAMs, thus linking macrophages to immunosuppression. CD3+ T cells and NK infiltrates are found in the GIST microenvironment and carry some prognostic value. In early clinical trials, there is evidence for an active role for immunotherapy in treating GIST patients. Moreover, preclinical evidence has indicated that combining TKIs with checkpoint blockers may be synergistic in murine GIST models. Overall, there is substantial preclinical and clinical evidence to support a role for immunoregulation in GIST and further studies will be important for the development of immunotherapies for GIST.

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.

A phase 1 trial of SGN-CD70A in patients with CD70-positive, metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cluster of differentiation 70 (CD70) is frequently expressed in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and has immunomodulatory properties. An antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD70, SGN-CD70A, was developed to treat patients with CD70-positive RCC. METHODS: The objective of this phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation, multicenter study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of SGN-CD70A and establish its maximum tolerated dose in patients with CD70-positive, metastatic RCC (mRCC). All subtypes of RCC were permitted, and no limit was set on the number of prior therapies. Safety assessments consisted of monitoring and recording all adverse events (AEs) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Treatment response was assessed by radiographic tumor evaluation according to the Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors, version 1.1. A model-based, modified continual-reassessment method was used to estimate the probabilities of DLT and response. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be 30 µg/kg, with thrombocytopenia as the DLT. The most common AEs were fatigue (67%), anemia (61%), and thrombocytopenia (56%). Of 18 enrolled patients, 1 achieved a partial response and 13 achieved stable disease, for a clinical benefit rate of 78%. Limitations of the study included the heavily pretreated nature of patients, receipt of a median of 4 prior lines of therapy (range, 1-8 prior lines of therapy), and diminishing response potential. CONCLUSIONS: The modest antitumor activity of SGN-CD70A does not support its development in mRCC. However, given the high disease control rate in a heavily pretreated population and the modest toxicity profile, CD70 remains of interest because of its immunomodulatory properties.

If Walls Could Talk.

A cancer survivor describes a personal cancer journey from patient to survivor to physician and the clarity gained from this big­picture viewpoint.

Artificial Intelligence Systems Assisting Oncologists? Resist and Desist or Enlist and Coexist.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of patient care, but there are concerns about the impact of non­human decision assistance on patient outcomes. This commentary focuses on how AI can assist oncologists and benefit patients.

Extramammary Paget's disease: what do we know and how do we treat?

INTRODUCTION: Extramammary Paget's disease (EMPD) is a rare and complex condition, for which no established guidelines exist regarding diagnosis and management. There have been recent improvements in the diagnosis and management in EMPD, largely due to an enhanced understanding of its underlying pathogenesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search on PubMed including articles that describe pathogenesis, clinical diagnosis, treatment modalities, and future treatment were selected and included to build this review. RESULTS: Recent studies would suggest the expression of HER2 and androgen receptors which could be useful targets for future treatment strategies. Carcinoembryonic antigen as a biomarker for EMPD has shown the potential to aid in the detection of metastatic EMPD and assessment of treatment response. Studies have also demonstrated the initial site of EMPD can be predictive of secondary malignancies, which helps guide initial work up and evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Significant developments in understanding the pathogenesis of EMPD have been made, especially of the genomic aberrations associated with EMPD. This has allowed for the development and use of therapeutic options which may improve outcomes for patients with EMPD.

Adjuvant treatment in renal cell carcinoma.

In parallel with advances in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), multiple adjuvant treatments have been tested for RCC. Adjuvant approaches now extend beyond conventional immunotherapies, such as interferon alfa and interleukins, to targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Most treatment approaches before the targeted treatment era did not improve patient outcomes, or study results were mixed. For example, a recent study found that disease-free survival was longer with sunitinib than with placebo in high-risk clear cell RCC, which led to the regulatory approval of sunitinib. However, another large study of adjuvant sunitinib in a slightly different patient population did not confirm these results. Ongoing studies of targeted treatments and immune checkpoint inhibitors may clarify the effectiveness of these agents in the near future. This review presents a comprehensive, chronologic examination of studies addressing adjuvant treatment in RCC, focusing on the key differences between similar approaches. It also discusses the future of adjuvant treatment in RCC.

Complete morphologic response to gilteritinib in ALK-rearranged acute myeloid leukemia.

The cytogenetic abnormality inv(2)(p23q13) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) results in a fusion of RANBP2 with ALK. This fusion makes ALK constitutively active and acts as a driver for the proliferation of AML cell lines. Gilteritinib, a FLT3 inhibitor approved in AML, also can inhibit ALK among other receptor tyrosine kinases. A 75-year-old-woman with a history of essential thrombocythemia (ET) and a presumed germline DDX41 mutation developed ALK-fusion positive AML and despite standard therapies was transfusion-dependent and globally declining. The patient has been on gilteritinib with an ongoing response of more than one year with near normal blood counts and no evidence of AML. The fact that she was found to harbor a presumed germline DDX41 alteration may account for why she developed, and yet survived, two myeloid neoplasms (ET and AML). Additionally, this demonstrates that gilteritinib is clinically active as an ALK inhibitor, and could be considered for use in any AML patient presenting with an inv(2(p23q13)) translocation. Finally, it is an example of using a disease-agnostic, precision medicine approach to arrive at a beneficial treatment.

Reverse repurposing: Potential utility of cancer drugs in nonmalignant illnesses.

Growth and immune process dysregulation can result in both cancer and nonmalignant disease (hereditary or acquired, with and without predisposition to malignancy). Moreover, perhaps unexpectedly, many nonmalignant illnesses harbor genomic alterations indistinguishable from druggable oncogenic drivers. Therefore, targeted compounds used successfully to treat cancer may have therapeutic potential for nonmalignant conditions harboring the same target. MEK, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), and NRG1/ERBB pathway genes have all been implicated in both cancer and noncancerous conditions, and several cognate antagonists, as well as Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and CD20-directed antibodies, have established or theoretical therapeutic potential to bridge cancer and benign diseases. Intriguingly, pharmacologically tractable cancer drivers characterize a wide spectrum of disorders without malignant potential, including but not limited to Alzheimer's disease and a variety of other neurodegenerative conditions, rheumatoid arthritis, achondroplastic dwarfism, and endometriosis. Expanded repositioning of oncology agents in order to benefit benign but serious medical illnesses is warranted.

If it's a target, it's a pan-cancer target: Tissue is not the issue.

Cancer is traditionally diagnosed and treated on the basis of its organ of origin (e.g., lung or colon cancer). However, organ-of-origin diagnostics does not reveal the underlying oncogenic drivers. Fortunately, molecular diagnostics have advanced at a breathtaking pace, and it is increasingly apparent that cancer is a disease of the genome. Hence, we now have multiple genomic biomarker-based, tissue-agnostic Food and Drug Administration approvals for both gene- and immune-targeted therapies (larotrectinib/entrectinib, for NTRK fusions; selpercatinib, RET fusions; dabrafenib plus trametinib, BRAFV600E mutations; pembrolizumab/dostarlimab, microsatellite instability; and pembrolizumab for high tumor mutational burden; pemigatinib is also approved for FGFR1-rearranged myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms). There are emerging targets as well, including but not limited to ALK, BRCA and/or homologous repair deficiency, ERBB2 (HER2), IDH1/2, KIT, KRASG12C, NRG1, and VHL. Many tissue-agnostic approvals center on rare/ultra-rare biomarkers (often < 1 % of cancers), necessitating screening hundreds of tumors to find a single one harboring the cognate molecular alteration. Approval has generally been based on small single-arm studies (<30-100 patients) with high response rates (>30 % to > 75 %) of remarkable durability. Because of biomarker rarity, single-gene testing is not practical; next generation sequencing of hundreds of genes must be performed to obtain timely answers. Resistance to biomarker-driven therapeutics is often due to secondary mutations or co-driver gene defects; studies are now addressing the need for customized drug combinations matched to the complex molecular alteration portfolio in each tumor. Future investigation should expand tissue-agnostic therapeutics to encompass both hematologic and solid malignancies and include biomarkers beyond those that are DNA-based.

LAG-3 transcriptomic expression correlates linearly with other checkpoints, but not with clinical outcomes.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment landscape for patients with cancer. Multi-omics, including next-generation DNA and RNA sequencing, have enabled the identification of exploitable targets and the evaluation of immune mediator expression. There is one FDA-approved LAG-3 inhibitor and multiple in clinical trials for numerous cancers. We analyzed LAG-3 transcriptomic expression among 514 patients with diverse cancers, including 489 patients with clinical annotation for their advanced malignancies. Transcriptomic LAG-3 expression was highly variable between histologies/cancer types and within the same histology/cancer type. LAG-3 RNA levels correlated linearly, albeit weakly, with high RNA levels of other checkpoints, including PD-L1 (Pearson's R2 = 0.21 (P < 0.001)), PD-1 (R2 = 0.24 (P < 0.001)) and CTLA-4 (R2 = 0.19 (P < 0.001)); when examined for Spearman correlation, significance did not change. LAG-3 expression (dichotomized at ≥ 75th (high) versus < 75th (moderate/low) RNA percentile level) was not a prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) in 272 immunotherapy-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic disease (Kaplan Meier analysis; P = 0.54). High LAG-3 levels correlated with longer OS after anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based checkpoint blockade (univariate (P = 0.003), but not multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval = 0.80 (0.46-1.40) (P = 0.44))); correlation with longer progression-free survival showed a weak univariate trend (P = 0.13). Taken together, these results suggest that high LAG-3 levels in and of themselves do not predict resistance to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade. Even so, since LAG-3 is often co-expressed with PD-1, PD-L1 and/or CTLA-4, selecting patients for combinations of checkpoint blockade based on immunomic co-expression patterns is a strategy that merits exploration.

15 years of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials leading to GU cancer drug approvals: a systematic review on the quality of data reporting and analysis.

Background: Standardized, high-quality PRO data reporting is crucial for patient centered care in the field of oncology, especially in clinical trials that establish standard of care. This study evaluated PRO endpoint design, conduct and reporting methods in FDA approved drugs for GU malignancies. Methods: A systematic review of the FDA archives identified GU cancer drug approvals from Feb 2007 to July 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to retrieve relevant data. PRO data was screened, and analytic tools, interpretation methods in the published papers and study protocols were reviewed. Compliance with PRO reporting standards were assessed using PRO Endpoint Analysis Score (PROEAS), a 24-point scoring scale from Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium (SISAQOL). Findings: We assessed 40 trial protocols with 27,011 participants, resulting in 14 renal cell cancer (RCC), 16 prostate cancer (PC), and 10 urothelial cancer (UC) approvals. PRO data was published for 27 trials, with 23 PRO publications (85%) focusing solely on PRO data, while 4 (15%) included PRO data in the original paper. Median time between primary clinical and secondary paper with PRO data was 10.5 months (range: 9-25 months). PROs were not planned as primary endpoints for any study but 14 (52%) reported them as secondary, 10 (37%) as exploratory outcomes, and 3 (11%) lacked any clarity on PRO data as endpoint. Mean PROEAS score of all GU cancers was 11.10 (range: 6-15), RCC (11.86, range: 6-15), UC (11.50, range: 9-14), and PC (10.56, range: 6-15). None met all the SISAQOL recommendations. Interpretation: Low overall PROEAS score and delays in PRO data publication in GU cancer drug trials conducted in the past decade emphasize the need for improvement in quality of design and conduct of PRO endpoint in future trials and accelerated publication of PRO endpoints, using standardized analysis, and prespecified hypothesis driven endpoint. These improvements are essential for facilitating interpretation and application of PRO study findings to define patient care. Funding: None.

Pan-cancer analysis of TIM-3 transcriptomic expression reveals high levels in pancreatic cancer and interpatient heterogeneity.

BACKGROUND: T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain-containing protein 3 (TIM-3), an immune checkpoint receptor, dampens immune function. TIM-3 antagonists have entered the clinic. METHODS: We analyzed TIM-3 transcriptomic expression in 514 diverse cancers. Transcript abundance was normalized to internal housekeeping genes and ranked (0-100 percentile) to a reference population (735 tumors; 35 histologies [high≥75 percentile rank]). Ninety tumors (17.5%) demonstrated high TIM-3 expression. RESULTS: TIM-3 expression varied between and within tumor types. However, high TIM-3 expression was more common in pancreatic cancer (20/55 tumors, 36.4%; odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (pancreatic vs. other tumors) = 3.176 (1.733-5.818; p < 0.001, multivariate]). High TIM-3 also significantly and independently correlated with high PD-L1 (p = 0.014) and high CTLA-4 (p < 0.001) transcriptomic expression (multivariate). CONCLUSIONS: These observations indicate that TIM-3 RNA expression is heterogeneous, but more common in pancreatic cancer and in tumors exploiting PD-L1 and CTLA-4 checkpoints. Clinical trials with patient selection for matched immune-targeted combinations may be warranted.

Home-run trials for rare cancers: giving the right drug(s) to the right patients at the right time and in the right place.

In oncology clinical trials, many patients spend their final months at a central clinical trial facility far from home for "mandatory" protocol visits/diagnostic testing. Studies suggest that the travel strain may be greatest among patients living in low-income areas and/or participating in early-phase studies. In this regard, rare cancers constitute a special unmet need with limited therapeutic options and few trials. Though individually uncommon, rare cancers as a group constitute ~22% of the cancer burden; the portion of cancer burden may even be greater if biomarker-defined rare subsets of either a single cancer type or a tissue-agnostic subgroup are included. Exacerbating the access issue is the fact that, in addition to the paucity of trials, many centers will not activate existing single-arm trials, often due to accrual concerns, which may further disadvantage this patient group and also jeopardize trial completion. Decentralized clinical trials may resolve some of these challenges by allowing patients to participate from close to home. Decentralized clinical trials can take the form of being site-less, with the coordinating body working remotely and care provided by the home oncologist, or by taking the tack of National Cancer Institute/cooperative groups (e.g., NCI-MATCH genomics matching trial or SWOG1609 [NCI] DART immunotherapy rare cancer trial) using a platform design with multiple cohorts and opening at >1000 sites. Decentralized trials now also have supportive FDA guidance. Importantly, home-run trials permit clinical trial access to underserved groups, including those in rural areas and patients financially unable to travel to a central facility.

Evolution of the Targeted Therapy Landscape for Cholangiocarcinoma: Is Cholangiocarcinoma the 'NSCLC' of GI Oncology?

In the past two decades, molecular targeted therapy has revolutionized the treatment landscape of several malignancies. Lethal malignancies such as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have become a model for precision-matched immune- and gene-targeted therapies. Multiple small subgroups of NSCLC defined by their genomic aberrations are now recognized; remarkably, taken together, almost 70% of NSCLCs now have a druggable anomaly. Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare tumor with a poor prognosis. Novel molecular alterations have been recently identified in patients with CCA, and the potential for targeted therapy is being realized. In 2019, a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) inhibitor, pemigatinib, was the first approved targeted therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic intrahepatic CCA who had FGFR2 gene fusions or rearrangement. More regulatory approvals for matched targeted therapies as second-line or subsequent treatments in advanced CCA followed, including additional drugs that target FGFR2 gene fusion/rearrangement. Recent tumor-agnostic approvals include (but are not limited to) drugs that target mutations/rearrangements in the following genes and are hence applicable to CCA: isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1); neurotrophic tropomyosin-receptor kinase (NTRK); the V600E mutation of the BRAF gene (BRAFV600E); and high tumor mutational burden, high microsatellite instability, and gene mismatch repair-deficient (TMB-H/MSI-H/dMMR) tumors. Ongoing trials investigate HER2, RET, and non-BRAFV600E mutations in CCA and improvements in the efficacy and safety of new targeted treatments. This review aims to present the current status of molecularly matched targeted therapy for advanced CCA.

Comprehensive Analysis of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Through DNA, mRNA, and Protein in Diverse Malignancies.

PURPOSE: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression (protein immunohistochemistry [IHC] or gene amplification [copy-number variation, CNV]) predicts anti-HER2 therapy responsiveness, although recently it was shown that even low HER2-expressing breast cancers benefit from trastuzumab-deruxtecan. Little is known about HER2 transcriptomic (mRNA) expression, and comparisons between genomic, mRNA, and protein HER2 assays. METHODS: HER2 status was evaluated using clinical-grade IHC (protein), quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (mRNA), and next-generation sequencing (NGS; amplifications). RESULTS: Multi-institutional HER2 testing was performed on 5,305 diverse cancers including non-small-cell lung (n = 1,175), breast (n = 1,040), and colon cancers (n = 566; N = 3,926 tested for CNV; N = 1,848, mRNA; N = 2,533, IHC). Overall, 4.1% (161/3,926) had NGS HER2 amplification; 33.3% (615/1,848) had mRNA overexpression; and 9.3% (236/2,533) were IHC-positive. In 723 patients with all three tests (CNV/mRNA/IHC), various amplification/expression patterns occurred: 7.5% (54/723) had all three HER2 tests positive; 62.8% (454/723) had all three tests negative. Discrepant patterns between amplification and overexpression emerged. For instance, 20% (144/723) of patients had mRNA overexpression alone with negative CNV and IHC. A range in values for only mRNA+ cases occurred in different tumor types (eg, 16.9%, breast; 5%, hepatobiliary). There were 53 patients with various tumors from our institution who had all three assays attempted; 22 tested positive for HER2, and seven received anti-HER2 therapy: two patients achieved response: one (esophageal cancer), complete response (≥42 months); one (cholangiocarcinoma), who only had HER2 mRNA positivity (tissue was inadequate for IHC and CNV assessment), partial response (≥24 months) on HER2-based regimens. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate variability of HER2 (protein and mRNA) expression and amplification using comprehensive assays (CNV, mRNA, and IHC) among diverse cancers. As HER2-targeted therapy indications expand, the relative importance of these modalities merits further evaluation.

On target methods to induce abscopal phenomenon for Off-Target effects: From happenstance to happenings.

Although the "abscopal phenomenon" has been described several decades ago, this phenomenon lately has been obtaining momentous traction with the dawn of immune-based therapies. There has been increased cross talk among radiation oncologists, oncologists and immunologists and consequently a surge in the number of prospective clinical trials. This must be coupled with translation work from these clinical trials to aid in eventual identification of patients who may benefit. Abscopal effects may be induced by local and systemic methods, conventional radiotherapy, particle radiation, radionucleotide methods, cryoablation and brachytherapy. These approaches have all been reported to be stimulate abscopal effect. Immune induction by immune checkpoint therapy, immune adjuvants, cellular therapy including CAR and NK cell therapies may generate systemic abscopal response. With increasing recognition of this effect, there remains a lot of work to explore the modalities of inducing abscopal responses and ultimate prediction or prognostication on stratifying who may benefit. Ultimately, there is an urgent need for prospective studies and data to tease apart which one of these modalities can be applied to the appropriate candidate, to the appropriate cancer at the appropriate setting. This review seeks to elucidate readers on the different modalities of radiation, systemic therapies and other techniques rarely explored to potentiate the abscopal effect from a mere coincidence to a finite occurrence.