Oncology phase I trial design and conduct: time for a change - MDICT Guidelines 2022.

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence announced Project Optimus focusing on dose optimization for oncology drugs. The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) Taskforce met to review and discuss the optimization of dosage for oncology trials and to develop a practical guide for oncology phase I trials. Defining a single recommended phase II dose based on toxicity may define doses that are neither the most effective nor the best tolerated. MDICT recommendations address the need for robust non-clinical data which are needed to inform trial design, as well as an expert team including statisticians and pharmacologists. The protocol must be flexible and adaptive, with clear definition of all endpoints. Health authorities should be consulted early and regularly. Strategies such as randomization, intrapatient dose escalation, and real-world eligibility criteria are encouraged whereas serial tumor sampling is discouraged in the absence of a strong rationale and appropriately validated assay. Endpoints should include consideration of all longitudinal toxicity. The phase I dose escalation trial should define the recommended dose range for later testing in randomized phase II trials, rather than a single recommended phase II dose, and consider scenarios where different populations may require different dosages. The adoption of these recommendations will improve dosage selection in early clinical trials of new anticancer treatments and ultimately, outcomes for patients.

ESMO recommendations on the standard methods to detect RET fusions and mutations in daily practice and clinical research.

Aberrant activation of RET is a critical driver of growth and proliferation in diverse solid tumours. Multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) showing anti-RET activities have been tested in RET-altered tumours with variable results. The low target specificity with consequent increase in side-effects and off-target toxicities resulting in dose reduction and drug discontinuation are some of the major issues with MKIs. To overcome these issues, new selective RET inhibitors such as pralsetinib (BLU-667) and selpercatinib (LOXO-292) have been developed in clinical trials, with selpercatinib recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The results of these trials showed marked and durable antitumour activity and manageable toxicity profiles in patients with RET-altered tumours. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group (TR and PM WG) launched a collaborative project to review the available methods for the detection of RET gene alterations, their potential applications and strategies for the implementation of a rational approach for the detection of RET fusion genes and mutations in human malignancies. We present here recommendations for the routine clinical detection of targetable RET rearrangements and mutations.

IgE blockade with omalizumab reduces pruritus related to immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-HER2 therapies.

BACKGROUND: Immunoglobulin E (IgE) blockade with omalizumab has demonstrated clinical benefit in pruritus-associated dermatoses (e.g. atopic dermatitis, bullous pemphigoid, urticaria). In oncology, pruritus-associated cutaneous adverse events (paCAEs) are frequent with immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) and targeted anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies. Thus, we sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IgE blockade with omalizumab in cancer patients with refractory paCAEs related to CPIs and anti-HER2 agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients included in this multicenter retrospective analysis received monthly subcutaneous injections of omalizumab for CPI or anti-HER2 therapy-related grade 2/3 pruritus that was refractory to topical corticosteroids plus at least one additional systemic intervention. To assess clinical response to omalizumab, we used the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. The primary endpoint was defined as reduction in the severity of paCAEs to grade 1/0. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients (50% female, median age 67.5 years) received omalizumab for cancer therapy-related paCAEs (71% CPIs; 29% anti-HER2). All had solid tumors (29% breast, 29% genitourinary, 15% lung, 26% other), and most (n = 18, 64%) presented with an urticarial phenotype. In total 28 of 34 (82%) patients responded to omalizumab. The proportion of patients receiving oral corticosteroids as supportive treatment for management of paCAEs decreased with IgE blockade, from 50% to 9% (P < 0.001). Ten of 32 (31%) patients had interruption of oncologic therapy due to skin toxicity; four of six (67%) were successfully rechallenged following omalizumab. There were no reports of anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity reactions related to omalizumab. CONCLUSIONS: IgE blockade with omalizumab demonstrated clinical efficacy and was well tolerated in cancer patients with pruritus related to CPIs and anti-HER2 therapies.

Characterization and management of ERK inhibitor associated dermatologic adverse events: analysis from a nonrandomized trial of ulixertinib for advanced cancers.

Background Ulixertinib is the first-in-class ERK1/2 kinase inhibitor with encouraging clinical activity in BRAF- and NRAS-mutant cancers. Dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) are common with ulixertinib, so management guidelines like those established for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi)-associated dAEs are needed. Patients and Methods This was an open-label, multicenter, phase I dose escalation and expansion trial of ulixertinib evaluating data from 135 patients with advanced malignancies enrolled between March 2013 and July 2017. Histopathological features, management, and dAEs in 34 patients are also reported. Twice daily oral ulixertinib was administered at 10 to 900 mg in the dose escalation cohort (n = 27) and at 600 mg in 21-day cycles in the expansion cohort (n = 108). Results The incidence of ulixertinib-induced dAEs and combined rash were 79% (107/135) and 76% (102/135). The most common dAEs included acneiform rash (45/135, 33%), maculopapular rash (36/135, 27%), and pruritus (34/135, 25%). Grade 3 dAEs were observed in 19% (25/135) of patients; no grade 4 or 5 dAEs were seen. The presence of at least 1 dAE was associated with stable disease (SD) or partial response (PR) (OR = 3.64, 95% CI 1.52-8.72; P = .003). Acneiform rash was associated with a PR (OR = 10.19, 95% CI 2.67-38.91; P < .001). Conclusion The clinical spectrum of ulixertinib-induced dAEs was similar to EGFR and MEK inhibitors; dAEs may serve as a surrogate marker of tumor response. We propose treatment algorithms for common ERK inhibitor-induced dAEs to maintain patients' quality of life and dose intensity for maximal clinical benefit. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01781429.

NRG1 fusion-driven tumors: biology, detection, and the therapeutic role of afatinib and other ErbB-targeting agents.

Oncogenic gene fusions are hybrid genes that result from structural DNA rearrangements, leading to deregulated activity. Fusions involving the neuregulin-1 gene (NRG1) result in ErbB-mediated pathway activation and therefore present a rational candidate for targeted treatment. The most frequently reported NRG1 fusion is CD74-NRG1, which most commonly occurs in patients with invasive mucinous adenocarcinomas (IMAs) of the lung, although several other NRG1 fusion partners have been identified in patients with lung cancer, including ATP1B1, SDC4, and RBPMS. NRG1 fusions are also present in patients with other solid tumors, such as pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. In general, NRG1 fusions are rare across different types of cancer, with a reported incidence of <1%, with the notable exception of IMA, which represents ≈2%-10% of lung adenocarcinomas and has a reported incidence of ≈10%-30% for NRG1 fusions. A substantial proportion (≈20%) of NRG1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer cases are nonmucinous adenocarcinomas. ErbB-targeted treatments, such as afatinib, a pan-ErbB tyrosine kinase inhibitor, are potential therapeutic strategies to address unmet treatment needs in patients harboring NRG1 fusions.

Enrichment of kinase fusions in ESR1 wild-type, metastatic breast cancer revealed by a systematic analysis of 4854 patients.

BACKGROUND: Kinase fusions are rare and poorly characterized in breast cancer (BC). We aimed to characterize kinase fusions within a large cohort of advanced BC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 4854 patients with BC were analyzed by Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets (MSK-IMPACT) targeted DNAseq and MSK-Fusion targeted RNAseq during the study time period. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 4854 (0.6%) patients harbored fusions: 11 FGFR (five FGFR2, three FGFR3, three FGFR1), five BRAF, four NTRK1, two RET, two ROS1, one ALK, one ERBB2, and one MET. A history of endocrine therapy was present in 15 (56%) of fusion-positive BC; eight of the 15 cases had available pre-treatment samples, of which six were fusion-negative. None of the fusion-positive BC samples harbored ESR1 hotspot mutations. Two patients with acquired LMNA-NTRK1 fusions and metastatic disease received larotrectinib and demonstrated clinical benefit. CONCLUSION: Kinase fusions in BC are extremely rare, and appear to be enriched in hormone-resistant, metastatic carcinomas and mutually exclusive with ESR1 mutations. The present study expands the spectrum of genetic alterations activating mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling that can substitute for ESR1 mutations in this setting. Molecular testing at progression after endocrine therapy should include fusion testing, particularly in the absence of ESR1 hotspot alterations, in an effort to identify additional therapeutic options which may provide substantial clinical benefit.

Characterization of on-target adverse events caused by TRK inhibitor therapy.

BACKGROUND: The tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) pathway controls appetite, balance, and pain sensitivity. While these functions are reflected in the on-target adverse events (AEs) observed with TRK inhibition, these AEs remain under-recognized, and pain upon drug withdrawal has not previously been reported. As TRK inhibitors are approved by multiple regulatory agencies for TRK or ROS1 fusion-positive cancers, characterizing these AEs and corresponding management strategies is crucial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced or unresectable solid tumors treated with a TRK inhibitor were retrospectively identified in a search of clinical databases. Among these patients, the frequency, severity, duration, and management outcomes of AEs including weight gain, dizziness or ataxia, and withdrawal pain were characterized. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients with 15 unique cancer histologies treated with a TRK inhibitor were identified. Weight gain was observed in 53% [95% confidence interval (CI), 43%-62%] of patients and increased with time on TRK inhibition. Pharmacologic intervention, most commonly with glucagon-like peptide 1 analogs or metformin, appeared to result in stabilization or loss of weight. Dizziness, with or without ataxia, was observed in 41% (95% CI, 31%-51%) of patients with a median time to onset of 2 weeks (range, 3 days to 16 months). TRK inhibitor dose reduction was the most effective intervention for dizziness. Pain upon temporary or permanent TRK inhibitor discontinuation was observed in 35% (95% CI, 24%-46%) of patients; this was more common with longer TRK inhibitor use. TRK inhibitor reinitiation was the most effective intervention for withdrawal pain. CONCLUSIONS: TRK inhibition-related AEs including weight gain, dizziness, and withdrawal pain occur in a substantial proportion of patients receiving TRK inhibitors. This safety profile is unique relative to other anticancer therapies and warrants careful monitoring. These on-target toxicities are manageable with pharmacologic intervention and dose modification.

COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with lung cancers may have disproportionately severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. Understanding the patient-specific and cancer-specific features that impact the severity of COVID-19 may inform optimal cancer care during this pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined consecutive patients with lung cancer and confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 (n = 102) at a single center from 12 March 2020 to 6 May 2020. Thresholds of severity were defined a priori as hospitalization, intensive care unit/intubation/do not intubate ([ICU/intubation/DNI] a composite metric of severe disease), or death. Recovery was defined as >14 days from COVID-19 test and >3 days since symptom resolution. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles were inferred from MSK-IMPACT (n = 46) and compared with controls with lung cancer and no known non-COVID-19 (n = 5166). RESULTS: COVID-19 was severe in patients with lung cancer (62% hospitalized, 25% died). Although severe, COVID-19 accounted for a minority of overall lung cancer deaths during the pandemic (11% overall). Determinants of COVID-19 severity were largely patient-specific features, including smoking status and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [odds ratio for severe COVID-19 2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.07-9.44 comparing the median (23.5 pack-years) to never-smoker and 3.87, 95% confidence interval 1.35-9.68, respectively]. Cancer-specific features, including prior thoracic surgery/radiation and recent systemic therapies did not impact severity. Human leukocyte antigen supertypes were generally similar in mild or severe cases of COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19 controls. Most patients recovered from COVID-19, including 25% patients initially requiring intubation. Among hospitalized patients, hydroxychloroquine did not improve COVID-19 outcomes. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 is associated with high burden of severity in patients with lung cancer. Patient-specific features, rather than cancer-specific features or treatments, are the greatest determinants of severity.

TRK inhibitors in TRK fusion-positive cancers.

TRK fusions are oncogenic drivers of various adult and paediatric cancers. The first-generation TRK inhibitors, larotrectinib and entrectinib, were granted landmark, tumour-agnostic regulatory approvals for the treatment of these cancers in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Brisk and durable responses are achieved with these drugs in patients, including those with locally advanced or metastatic disease. In addition, intracranial activity has been observed with both agents in TRK fusion-positive solid tumours with brain metastases and primary brain tumours. While resistance to first-generation TRK inhibition can eventually occur, next-generation agents such as selitrectinib (BAY 2731954, LOXO-195) and repotrectinib were designed to address on-target resistance, which is mediated by emergent kinase domain mutations, such as those that result in substitutions at solvent front or gatekeeper residues. These next-generation drugs are currently available in the clinic and proof-of-concept responses have been reported. This underscores the utility of sequential TRK inhibitor use in select patients, a paradigm that parallels the use of targeted therapies in other oncogenic driver-positive cancers, such as ALK fusion-positive lung cancers. While TRK inhibitors have a favourable overall safety profile, select on-target adverse events, including weight gain, dizziness/ataxia and paraesthesias, are occasionally observed and should be monitored in the clinic. These side-effects are likely consequences of the inhibition of the TRK pathway that is involved in the development and maintenance of the nervous system.

TRK inhibitors in TRK fusion-positive cancers.

TRK fusions are oncogenic drivers of various adult and paediatric cancers. The first-generation TRK inhibitors, larotrectinib and entrectinib, were granted landmark, tumour-agnostic regulatory approvals for the treatment of these cancers in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Brisk and durable responses are achieved with these drugs in patients, including those with locally advanced or metastatic disease. In addition, intracranial activity has been observed with both agents in TRK fusion-positive solid tumours with brain metastases and primary brain tumours. While resistance to first-generation TRK inhibition can eventually occur, next-generation agents such as selitrectinib (BAY 2731954, LOXO-195) and repotrectinib were designed to address on-target resistance, which is mediated by emergent kinase domain mutations, such as those that result in substitutions at solvent front or gatekeeper residues. These next-generation drugs are currently available in the clinic and proof-of-concept responses have been reported. This underscores the utility of sequential TRK inhibitor use in select patients, a paradigm that parallels the use of targeted therapies in other oncogenic driver-positive cancers, such as ALK fusion-positive lung cancers. While TRK inhibitors have a favourable overall safety profile, select on-target adverse events, including weight gain, dizziness/ataxia and paraesthesias, are occasionally observed and should be monitored in the clinic. These side-effects are likely consequences of the inhibition of the TRK pathway that is involved in the development and maintenance of the nervous system.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with advanced lung cancer and oncogenic driver alterations: results from the IMMUNOTARGET registry.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD1/PD-L1 directed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are widely used to treat patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The activity of ICI across NSCLC harboring oncogenic alterations is poorly characterized. The aim of our study was to address the efficacy of ICI in the context of oncogenic addiction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study for patients receiving ICI monotherapy for advanced NSCLC with at least one oncogenic driver alteration. Anonymized data were evaluated for clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes for ICI therapy: best response (RECIST 1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) from ICI initiation. The primary end point was PFS under ICI. Secondary end points were best response (RECIST 1.1) and OS from ICI initiation. RESULTS: We studied 551 patients treated in 24 centers from 10 countries. The molecular alterations involved KRAS (n = 271), EGFR (n = 125), BRAF (n = 43), MET (n = 36), HER2 (n = 29), ALK (n = 23), RET (n = 16), ROS1 (n = 7), and multiple drivers (n = 1). Median age was 60 years, gender ratio was 1 : 1, never/former/current smokers were 28%/51%/21%, respectively, and the majority of tumors were adenocarcinoma. The objective response rate by driver alteration was: KRAS = 26%, BRAF = 24%, ROS1 = 17%, MET = 16%, EGFR = 12%, HER2 = 7%, RET = 6%, and ALK = 0%. In the entire cohort, median PFS was 2.8 months, OS 13.3 months, and the best response rate 19%. In a subgroup analysis, median PFS (in months) was 2.1 for EGFR, 3.2 for KRAS, 2.5 for ALK, 3.1 for BRAF, 2.5 for HER2, 2.1 for RET, and 3.4 for MET. In certain subgroups, PFS was positively associated with PD-L1 expression (KRAS, EGFR) and with smoking status (BRAF, HER2). CONCLUSIONS: : ICI induced regression in some tumors with actionable driver alterations, but clinical activity was lower compared with the KRAS group and the lack of response in the ALK group was notable. Patients with actionable tumor alterations should receive targeted therapies and chemotherapy before considering immunotherapy as a single agent.

Selective RET kinase inhibition for patients with RET-altered cancers.

Background: Alterations involving the RET kinase are implicated in the pathogenesis of lung, thyroid and other cancers. However, the clinical activity of multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) with anti-RET activity in RET-altered patients appears limited, calling into question the therapeutic potential of targeting RET. LOXO-292 is a selective RET inhibitor designed to inhibit diverse RET fusions, activating mutations and acquired resistance mutations. Patients and methods: Potent anti-RET activity, high selectivity, and central nervous system coverage were confirmed preclinically using a variety of in vitro and in vivo RET-dependent tumor models. Due to clinical urgency, two patients with RET-altered, MKI-resistant cancers were treated with LOXO-292, utilizing rapid dose-titration guided by real-time pharmacokinetic assessments to achieve meaningful clinical exposures safely and rapidly. Results: LOXO-292 demonstrated potent and selective anti-RET activity preclinically against human cancer cell lines harboring endogenous RET gene alterations; cells engineered to express a KIF5B-RET fusion protein -/+ the RET V804M gatekeeper resistance mutation or the common RET activating mutation M918T; and RET-altered human cancer cell line and patient-derived xenografts, including a patient-derived RET fusion-positive xenograft injected orthotopically into the brain. A patient with RET M918T-mutant medullary thyroid cancer metastatic to the liver and an acquired RET V804M gatekeeper resistance mutation, previously treated with six MKI regimens, experienced rapid reductions in tumor calcitonin, CEA and cell-free DNA, resolution of painful hepatomegaly and tumor-related diarrhea and a confirmed tumor response. A second patient with KIF5B-RET fusion-positive lung cancer, acquired resistance to alectinib and symptomatic brain metastases experienced a dramatic response in the brain, and her symptoms resolved. Conclusions: These results provide proof-of-concept of the clinical actionability of RET alterations, and identify selective RET inhibition by LOXO-292 as a promising treatment in heavily pretreated, multikinase inhibitor-experienced patients with diverse RET-altered tumors.

PD-L1 expression, tumor mutational burden, and response to immunotherapy in patients with MET exon 14 altered lung cancers.

Background: MET exon 14 alterations are actionable oncogenic drivers. Durable responses to MET inhibitors are observed in patients with advanced MET exon 14-altered lung cancers in prospective trials. In contrast, the activity of immunotherapy, PD-L1 expression and tumor mutational burden (TMB) of these tumors and are not well characterized. Patients and methods: Patients with MET exon 14-altered lung cancers of any stage treated at two academic institutions were identified. A review of clinicopathologic and molecular features, and an analysis of response to single-agent or combination immune checkpoint inhibition were conducted. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry was carried out and TMB was calculated by estimation from targeted next-generation sequencing panels. Results: We identified 147 patients with MET exon 14-altered lung cancers. PD-L1 expression of 0%, 1%-49%, and ≥50% were 37%, 22%, and 41%, respectively, in 111 evaluable tumor samples. The median TMB of MET exon 14-altered lung cancers was lower than that of unselected non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) in both independently evaluated cohorts: 3.8 versus 5.7 mutations/megabase (P < 0.001, n = 78 versus 1769, cohort A), and 7.3 versus 11.8 mutations/megabase (P < 0.001, n = 62 versus 1100, cohort B). There was no association between PD-L1 expression and TMB (Spearman's rho=0.18, P = 0.069). In response-evaluable patients (n = 24), the objective response rate was 17% (95% CI 6% to 36%) and the median progression-free survival was 1.9 months (95% CI 1.7-2.7). Responses were not enriched in tumors with PD-L1 expression ≥50% nor high TMB. Conclusion: A substantial proportion of MET exon 14-altered lung cancers express PD-L1, but the median TMB is lower compared with unselected NSCLCs. Occasional responses to PD-1 blockade can be achieved, but overall clinical efficacy is modest.

RET fusions in a small subset of advanced colorectal cancers at risk of being neglected.

Background: Recognition of rare molecular subgroups is a challenge for precision oncology and may lead to tissue-agnostic approval of targeted agents. Here we aimed to comprehensively characterize the clinical, pathological and molecular landscape of RET rearranged metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and methods: In this case series, we compared clinical, pathological and molecular characteristics of 24 RET rearranged mCRC patients with those of a control group of 291 patients with RET negative tumors. RET rearranged and RET negative mCRCs were retrieved by systematic literature review and by taking advantage of three screening sources: (i) Ignyta's phase 1/1b study on RXDX-105 (NCT01877811), (ii) cohorts screened at two Italian and one South Korean Institutions and (iii) Foundation Medicine Inc. database. Next-generation sequencing data were analyzed for RET rearranged cases. Results: RET fusions were more frequent in older patients (median age of 66 versus 60 years, P = 0.052), with ECOG PS 1-2 (90% versus 50%, P = 0.02), right-sided (55% versus 32%, P = 0.013), previously unresected primary tumors (58% versus 21%, P < 0.001), RAS and BRAF wild-type (100% versus 40%, P < 0.001) and MSI-high (48% versus 7%, P < 0.001). Notably, 11 (26%) out of 43 patients with right-sided, RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors harbored a RET rearrangement. At a median follow-up of 45.8 months, patients with RET fusion-positive tumors showed a significantly worse OS when compared with RET-negative ones (median OS 14.0 versus 38.0 months, HR: 4.59; 95% CI, 3.64-32.66; P < 0.001). In the multivariable model, RET rearrangements were still associated with shorter OS (HR: 2.97; 95% CI, 1.25-7.07; P = 0.014), while primary tumor location, RAS and BRAF mutations and MSI status were not. Conclusions: Though very rare, RET rearrangements define a new subtype of mCRC that shows poor prognosis with conventional treatments and is therefore worth of a specific management.

A prospective study of total plasma cell-free DNA as a predictive biomarker for response to systemic therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancers.

BACKGROUND: While previous studies have reported on the prognostic value of total plasma cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid (cfDNA) in lung cancers, few have prospectively evaluated its predictive value for systemic therapy response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective study to evaluate the association between changes in total cfDNA and radiologic response to systemic therapy in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Paired blood collections for cfDNA and computed tomography (CT) assessments by RECIST v1.0 were performed at baseline and 6-12 weeks after therapy initiation. Total cfDNA levels were measured in plasma using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Associations between changes in cfDNA and radiologic response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were measured using Kruskal-Wallis and Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients completed paired cfDNA and CT response assessments. Systemic therapy administered included cytotoxic chemotherapy in 57% (59/103), molecularly targeted therapy in 17% (17/103), and combination therapy in 26% (27/103). Median change in cfDNA from baseline to response assessment did not significantly differ by radiologic response categories of progression of disease, stable disease and partial response (P = 0.10). However, using radiologic response as continuous variable, there was a weak positive correlation between change in radiologic response and change in cfDNA (Spearman's correlation coefficient 0.21, P = 0.03). Baseline cfDNA levels were not associated with PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-1.20, P = 0.41] or OS (HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.93-1.17, P = 0.51), neither were changes in cfDNA. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective study, changes in total cfDNA over time did not significantly predict radiologic response from systemic therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. Pretreatment levels of total cfDNA were not prognostic of survival. Total cfDNA level is not a highly specific predictive biomarker and future investigations in cfDNA should focus on tumor-specific genomic alterations using expanded capabilities of next-generation sequencing.

Clinical outcomes with pemetrexed-based systemic therapies in RET-rearranged lung cancers.

BACKGROUND: RET rearrangements are targetable, oncogenic lung cancer drivers. While previous series have shown durable clinical benefit with pemetrexed-based therapies in ALK- and ROS1-rearranged lung cancers, the benefits of pemetrexed-based treatments in patients with RET-rearranged lung cancers relative to other genomic subsets have not previously been explored. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with pathologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinomas and evidence of a RET, ROS1, or ALK rearrangement, or a KRAS mutation was conducted. Patients were eligible if they received treatment with pemetrexed alone or in combination. The primary outcome of progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary outcomes of overall response rate (ORR, RECIST v1.1), time to progression (TTP), and time to treatment discontinuation were compared between RET-rearranged and groups of ROS1-rearranged, ALK-rearranged, and KRAS-mutant lung cancers. RESULTS: We evaluated 104 patients. Patients with RET-rearranged lung cancers (n = 18) had a median PFS of 19 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12-not reached (NR)] that was comparable with patients with ROS1- (23 months, 95% CI 14-NR, n = 10) and ALK-rearranged (19 months, 95% CI 15-36, n = 36) lung cancers, and significantly improved compared with patients with KRAS-mutant lung cancers (6 months, 95% CI 5-9, P < 0.001, n = 40). ORR (45%), median TTP (20 months, 95% CI 17-NR), and median time to treatment discontinuation (21 months, 95% CI 6-NR) in patients with RET-rearranged lung cancers were not significantly different compared with patients with ALK- and ROS1-rearranged lung cancers, and improved compared with patients with KRAS-mutant lung cancers. CONCLUSION: Durable benefits with pemetrexed-based therapies in RET-rearranged lung cancers are comparable with ALK- and ROS1-rearranged lung cancers. When selecting therapies for patients with RET-rearranged lung cancers, pemetrexed-containing regimens should be considered.

What hides behind the MASC: clinical response and acquired resistance to entrectinib after ETV6-NTRK3 identification in a mammary analogue secretory carcinoma (MASC).

BACKGROUND: Mammary analogue secretory carcinoma (MASC) is a recently described pathologic entity. We report the case of a patient with an initial diagnosis of salivary acinic cell carcinoma later reclassified as MASC after next-generation sequencing revealed an ETV6-NTRK3 fusion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This alteration was targeted with the pan-Trk inhibitor entrectinib (Ignyta), which possesses potent in vitro activity against cell lines containing various NTRK1/2/3 fusions. RESULTS: A dramatic and durable response was achieved with entrectinib in this patient, followed by acquired resistance that correlated with the appearance of a novel NTRK3 G623R mutation. Structural modeling predicts that this alteration sterically interferes with drug binding, correlating to decreased sensitivity to drug inhibition observed in cell-based assays. CONCLUSIONS: This first report of clinical activity with TrkC inhibition and the development of acquired resistance in an NTRK3-rearranged cancer emphasize the utility of comprehensive molecular profiling and targeted therapy for rare malignancies (NCT02097810).

Correlation between treatment effects on response rate and progression-free survival and overall survival in trials of targeted therapies in molecularly enriched populations.

BACKGROUND: The number of randomized trials of agents targeting oncogene-addicted tumors has surged in the past 10 years. Using a meta-analysis, we explored whether improvements in objective response rate (ORR) in comparative trials using targeted agents could serve as a potential surrogate endpoint for improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in populations with oncogene-addicted cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using commercial text mining software I2E, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and MEDLINE databases for randomized, phase III trials based on prospectively defined criteria, including (i) use of agents targeting EGFR activating mutations, ALK rearrangements, BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, and BCR-ABL fusion protein; (ii) molecularly enriched trial population or subpopulation; (iii) control arm only randomized to chemo/cytotoxic therapy. Correlative analyses were performed using ORR, OS, and PFS data from trials that met these criteria. RESULTS: A total of 62 trials were identified; 15 met all of the prespecified criteria. The ORR effect size (both the difference in ORR between arms and the log odds ratio) and log PFS hazard ratio were strongly correlated: -0.78 (P = 0.0007) for the ORR difference model; -0.74 (P = 0.0017) for the log odds ratio model. ORR effect size was positively correlated with the log OS hazard ratio, but more weakly: -0.67 (P = 0.013) for the ORR difference model and -0.58 (P = 0.036) for the log odds ratio model. Analysis of the treatment effects between OS and PFS found no correlation. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses identified a strong correlation between treatment effects on ORR and PFS in randomized clinical trials investigating agents targeting oncogene-driven cancers. A weaker correlation was observed between ORR and OS. These meta-analysis results support the use of a high ORR forming the basis of an initial regulatory approval in biomarker-driven studies.

Crizotinib in patients with tumors harboring ALK or ROS1 rearrangements in the NCI-MATCH trial.

The NCI-MATCH was designed to characterize the efficacy of targeted therapies in histology-agnostic driver mutation-positive malignancies. Sub-protocols F and G were developed to evaluate the role of crizotinib in rare tumors that harbored either ALK or ROS1 rearrangements. Patients with malignancies that progressed following at least one prior systemic therapy were accrued to the NCI-MATCH for molecular profiling, and those with actionable ALK or ROS1 rearrangements were offered participation in sub-protocols F or G, respectively. There were five patients who enrolled on Arm F (ALK) and four patients on Arm G (ROS1). Few grade 3 or 4 toxicities were noted, including liver test abnormalities, and acute kidney injury. For sub-protocol F (ALK), the response rate was 50% (90% CI 9.8-90.2%) with one complete response among the 4 eligible patients. The median PFS was 3.8 months, and median OS was 4.3 months. For sub-protocol G (ROS1) the response rate was 25% (90% CI 1.3-75.1%). The median PFS was 4.3 months, and median OS 6.2 months. Data from 3 commercial vendors showed that the prevalence of ALK and ROS1 rearrangements in histologies other than non-small cell lung cancer and lymphoma was rare (0.1% and 0.4% respectively). We observed responses to crizotinib which met the primary endpoint for ALK fusions, albeit in a small number of patients. Despite the limited accrual, some of the patients with these oncogenic fusions can respond to crizotinib which may have a therapeutic role in this setting.

Patient-reported outcomes from STARTRK-2: a global phase II basket study of entrectinib for ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly relevant endpoints in clinical trials, contributing to our understanding of risk-benefit profiles, in addition to efficacy and safety data. We investigated the impact of entrectinib on patient-reported symptoms, functioning, and health-related quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: STARTRK-2 is a phase II basket study in patients with locally advanced/metastatic neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase 1/2/3 (NTRK1/2/3) and ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) fusion-positive solid tumours. PROs (prespecified secondary endpoint) were evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire (QLQ-C30), lung cancer module (QLQ-LC13), and colorectal cancer module (QLQ-CR29), and the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 3-Level instruments, completed before cycle 1 day 1 and each subsequent 4-week cycle of entrectinib dosing, and the end of treatment. Adverse events and treatment-related symptoms were assessed in the safety analysis (SA)-PRO population. Tumour-related symptoms, functioning, and global health status were assessed in the efficacy analysis (EA)-PRO population. Data cut-offs: 31 October 2018 NTRK cohort; 01 May 2019 ROS1 cohort. RESULTS: SA-PRO populations comprised patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours (N = 88) or ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (N = 180) who received one or more doses of entrectinib, completed PRO questionnaires on cycle 1 day 1 and answered one or more questions on-study. EA-PRO populations (N = 71) and (N = 145), respectively, comprised SA-PRO patients with measurable baseline disease. Moderate-to-high baseline global health status scores were maintained in EA-PRO populations during treatment. Role and physical functioning scores were moderate-to-high at baseline, with trends towards clinical improvement during treatment. Both cohorts reported low-to-moderate symptom burden at baseline, which was maintained or trended towards clinically meaningful improvement. Symptoms commonly associated with cancer treatment (e.g. nausea, fatigue) remained stable or improved during treatment. All SA-PRO patients experienced one or more adverse events, most frequently constipation or diarrhoea. CONCLUSIONS: PRO findings were consistent with the favourable safety profile of entrectinib, and further reinforce the positive benefit-risk profile of this treatment, indicating minimal overall treatment burden.