Translational modeling-based evidence for enhanced efficacy of standard-of-care drugs in combination with anti-microRNA-155 in non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Elevated microRNA-155 (miR-155) expression in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) promotes cisplatin resistance and negatively impacts treatment outcomes. However, miR-155 can also boost anti-tumor immunity by suppressing PD-L1 expression. Therapeutic targeting of miR-155 through its antagonist, anti-miR-155, has proven challenging due to its dual molecular effects. METHODS: We developed a multiscale mechanistic model, calibrated with in vivo data and then extrapolated to humans, to investigate the therapeutic effects of nanoparticle-delivered anti-miR-155 in NSCLC, alone or in combination with standard-of-care drugs. RESULTS: Model simulations and analyses of the clinical scenario revealed that monotherapy with anti-miR-155 at a dose of 2.5 mg/kg administered once every three weeks has substantial anti-cancer activity. It led to a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.7 months, which compared favorably to cisplatin and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Further, we explored the combinations of anti-miR-155 with standard-of-care drugs, and found strongly synergistic two- and three-drug combinations. A three-drug combination of anti-miR-155, cisplatin, and pembrolizumab resulted in a median PFS of 13.1 months, while a two-drug combination of anti-miR-155 and cisplatin resulted in a median PFS of 11.3 months, which emerged as a more practical option due to its simple design and cost-effectiveness. Our analyses also provided valuable insights into unfavorable dose ratios for drug combinations, highlighting the need for optimizing dose regimens to prevent antagonistic effects. CONCLUSIONS: This work bridges the gap between preclinical development and clinical translation of anti-miR-155 and unravels the potential of anti-miR-155 combination therapies in NSCLC.

Is it time to move from the Unidimensional RECIST 1.1 Response Assessment Criteria to a Volumetric Evaluation in the Present Era of Image-based Oncology? An Evaluation in Locally Advanced Head Neck Cancers Undergoing Treatment.

AIMS: Tumour response assessments, as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST 1.1), are based on the sum of diameters (SODs) of the primary tumour (longest diameter) and/or short axis diameter of lymph nodes. This study evaluates the response categorisation as per RECIST 1.1 vs Computed tomography (CT) based volumetric assessment of RECIST (proposed as vRECIST) in locally advanced head and neck cancers (LAHNCs) undergoing treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The pre-treatment SODs and CT estimated tumour volumes were recorded in 45 LAHNCs treated with radiotherapy (RT), chemoradiotherapy (CTRT) or thermochemoradiotherapy (HTCTRT). Tumour responses were assessed independently as per RECIST 1.1 and vRECIST by two radiation oncologists and grouped into complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD) or progressive disease (PD). These response groups were evaluated for the likely congruence of the two approaches, as categorised independently by these two observers. RESULTS: All patients in stages III (n = 7), IVA (n = 16) and IVB (n = 22) were inoperable and had received either RT alone (n = 1), CTRT (n = 12) or HTCTRT (n = 32). Based on SODs criteria of RECIST 1.1, of the 45 patients, 5 and 40 were grouped as PR and SD by the first observer, while this changed to 34 and 10, respectively and 1 PD, with vRECIST (p < 0.001). Similarly, for the second observer, the 4 PR and 41 SD grouped using RECIST 1.1 were recategorised to 34 PR, 10 SD, and 1 PD by vRECIST (p < 0.001). Thus, a mismatch of 66.6% and 68.8%, respectively, was evident by observers first and second in categorising SD based on SODs of RECIST 1.1 vs PR on vRECIST. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment responses in LAHNCs assessed using SODs resulted in significant uncertainties and failed to reflect actual volumetric changes in tumours during treatment. It is perhaps time to consider replacing the SODs of RECIST 1.1 with vRECIST for unequivocal tumour response categorisation in the present era of image-based oncology practice.

RECIST 1.1 assessments variability: a systematic pictorial review of blinded double reads.

Reader variability is intrinsic to radiologic oncology assessments, necessitating measures to enhance consistency and accuracy. RECIST 1.1 criteria play a crucial role in mitigating this variability by standardizing evaluations, aiming to establish an accepted "truth" confirmed by histology or patient survival. Clinical trials utilize Blind Independent Centralized Review (BICR) techniques to manage variability, employing double reads and adjudicators to address inter-observer discordance effectively. It is essential to dissect the root causes of variability in response assessments, with a specific focus on the factors influencing RECIST evaluations. We propose proactive measures for radiologists to address variability sources such as radiologist expertise, image quality, and accessibility of contextual information, which significantly impact interpretation and assessment precision. Adherence to standardization and RECIST guidelines is pivotal in diminishing variability and ensuring uniform results across studies. Variability factors, including lesion selection, new lesion appearance, and confirmation bias, can have profound implications on assessment accuracy and interpretation, underscoring the importance of identifying and addressing these factors. Delving into the causes of variability aids in enhancing the accuracy and consistency of response assessments in oncology, underscoring the role of standardized evaluation protocols and mitigating risk factors that contribute to variability. Access to contextual information is crucial. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: By understanding the causes of diagnosis variability, we can enhance the accuracy and consistency of response assessments in oncology, ultimately improving patient care and clinical outcomes. KEY POINTS: Baseline lesion selection and detection of new lesions play a major role in the occurrence of discordance. Image interpretation is influenced by contextual information, the lack of which can lead to diagnostic uncertainty. Radiologists must be trained in RECIST criteria to reduce errors and variability.

RECIST 1.1, mRECIST, and Choi criteria for evaluating treatment response and survival outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the early responder rates, defined as complete or partial responders, using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST), and Choi criteria in advanced HCC patients treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab (atezo-bev), and to correlate them with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: This retrospective study included advanced HCC patients treated with ≥ 3 cycles of atezo-bev. Two reviewers assessed responses using RECIST 1.1, mRECIST, and Choi criteria at 1st follow-up imaging. Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests evaluated and compared PFS and OS. Cox proportional hazard models identified survival outcome predictors. Kappa statistics assessed inter-reader agreement. RESULTS: We evaluated 77 patients (65 men; mean age, 62.8 ± 12.3 years). Choi's criteria revealed the highest early responders rate (53.2%), exceeding mRECIST (32.5-33.8%) and RECIST 1.1 (24.7-26.0%), with an excellent agreement in all criteria (κ, 0.85-0.95). Across criteria, a consistent number of patients progressed (23-26) and was associated with significantly poor OS (ps ≤ 0.049). Responders by any criteria showed longer PFS (ps ≤ 0.009), and 1-year OS (ps ≤ 0.01). Choi criteria linked to significantly better OS without landmark (p = 0.003), with 1-year OS rates at 76.9% for responders vs 38.1% for non-responders. Cox analysis identified responders by Choi criteria as a significant OS predictor. CONCLUSION: Choi criteria identified more early responders than RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST, significantly correlating with improved OS. Choi criteria could be considered as a formal response assessment criterion for the emerging atezo-bev systemic treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: For atezo-bev treatment of advanced HCC, more comprehensive response criteria, such as Choi criteria, could be effective in identifying early responders and predicting survival outcomes along with RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. KEY POINTS: Choi criteria identified a higher rate of early responders compared to mRECIST and RECIST1.1 following atezo-bev treatment. Responders by all criteria had longer PFS and 1-year OS, and only those by Choi criteria experienced longer OS without landmark time. Choi criteria, with RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST, is an effective response assessment tool for atezo-bev treatment.

Biomarker development for PD-(L)1 axis inhibition: a consensus view from the SITC Biomarkers Committee.

Therapies targeting the programmed cell death protein-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) (abbreviated as PD-(L)1) axis are a significant advancement in the treatment of many tumor types. However, many patients receiving these agents fail to respond or have an initial response followed by cancer progression. For these patients, while subsequent immunotherapies that either target a different axis of immune biology or non-immune combination therapies are reasonable treatment options, the lack of predictive biomarkers to follow-on agents is impeding progress in the field. This review summarizes the current knowledge of mechanisms driving resistance to PD-(L)1 therapies, the state of biomarker development along this axis, and inherent challenges in future biomarker development for these immunotherapies. Innovation in the development and application of novel biomarkers and patient selection strategies for PD-(L)1 agents is required to accelerate the delivery of effective treatments to the patients most likely to respond.

Pooled Rate of Pseudoprogression, Patterns of Response, and Tumor Burden Analysis in Patients Undergoing Immunotherapy Oncologic Trials for Different Malignancies.

AIMS: Assess rates of true pseudoprogression in unconfirmed progressive disease (iUPD) in a pool of immunotherapy clinical trials for different cancers, analyze tumor characteristics that drive iUPD classification, and investigate potentials predictors of pseudoprogression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective interpretation of prospectively acquired data. Patients from 18 immunotherapy clinical trials with two arms (RECIST 1.1, iRECIST), of 10 cancer types were selected. Pooled rate of true pseudoprogression among iUPD was estimated using a common effect meta-analysis. Target, Non-target, and new lesions as the trigger of confirmed-vs pseudo-progression were compared using Chi-Square and Fisher exact tests. Conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the association between age, sex, tumor burden at baseline, and number of follow ups and pseudoprogression. RESULTS: 60/287 (21%) patients (17 women) were classified as iUPD with at least one subsequent confirmatory timepoint. The overall pooled estimate of pseudoprogression was 15% (95%CI: 8%--26%). Nontarget lesions were significantly more frequent the cause of iUPD than change in Target lesions size (p< 0.001). Most observations of true pseudoprogression occurred in the first follow-up (77%), whereas confirmed progression occurred in later time points during the trial. Pseudoprogression was not significantly associated with age, sex, tumor burden at baseline, or number of timepoints. CONCLUSION: In a pool of immunotherapy trials, the rate of true pseudoprogression was 15%, most often in the first timepoint after baseline than later in treatment. iUPD categorization was mostly driven by changes in NT lesions rather than objective changes in measurements of target lesions.

Current Status of Conversion Hepatectomy After Sorafenib and Lenvatinib Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Sorafenib and lenvatinib have long been used as a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Along with the development of systemic chemotherapy for HCC, the concept of conversion hepatectomy has recently become widespread. The present study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of sorafenib and lenvatinib for HCC regarding the possibility of conversion hepatectomy in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 295 patients with advanced HCC receiving sorafenib and lenvatinib, accounting for 306 treatments (sorafenib, n=157; lenvatinib, n=149, 11 patients received lenvatinib after sorafenib treatment) at five different institutions were enrolled. Patients were assessed for their clinical characteristics and therapeutic response using both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria (RECIST) and modified RECIST (mRECIST) criteria. Additionally, an indication of surgery after tyrosine kinase inhibitor administration was determined based on the tumor status of patients. RESULTS: The median survival times of patients treated with sorafenib and lenvatinib were 12.8 and 16.4 months, respectively, without significant difference (p=0.1645). The objective response rates (ORR) of sorafenib based on mRECIST and RECIST were 10.1% and 5.9%, respectively, and those of lenvatinib were 38.1% and 19.0%, respectively. Among the 306 treatments, two cases (sorafenib and lenvatinib, one each) underwent hepatectomy after systemic chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Few cases with unresectable HCC were amenable to conversion hepatectomy after sorafenib and lenvatinib treatments due to the limited ORR by RECIST. Cautious approach must be taken when administering neoadjuvant chemotherapy aimed at conversion hepatectomy.

Can blood-based markers predict RECIST progression in non-small cell lung cancer treated with immunotherapy?

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the potential of routine blood markers, serum tumour markers and their combination in predicting RECIST-defined progression in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS: We employed time-varying statistical models and machine learning classifiers in a Monte Carlo cross-validation approach to investigate the association between RECIST-defined progression and blood markers, serum tumour markers and their combination, in a retrospective cohort of 164 patients with NSCLC. RESULTS: The performance of the routine blood markers in the prediction of progression free survival was moderate. Serum tumour markers and their combination with routine blood markers generally improved performance compared to routine blood markers alone. Elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) ranked as the top predictive routine blood markers, and CYFRA 21.1 was consistently among the most predictive serum tumour markers. Using these classifiers to predict overall survival yielded moderate to high performance, even when cases of death-defined progression were excluded. Performance varied across the treatment journey. CONCLUSION: Routine blood tests, especially when combined with serum tumour markers, show moderate predictive value  of RECIST-defined progression in NSCLC patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. The relationship between overall survival and RECIST-defined progression may be influenced by confounding factors.

Evaluation of chest CT-scans following lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy: Challenges and new insights.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is increasingly used for the treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC) and for pulmonary metastases. In patients with ES-NSCLC, SABR is highly successful with reported 5-year local control rates of approximately 90%. However, the assessment of local control following lung SABR can be challenging as radiological changes arising from radiation-induced lung injury (RILI) can be observed in up to 90% of patients. These so-called 'benign' radiological changes evolve with time and are often asymptomatic. Several radiological and metabolic features have been explored to help distinguish RILI from local recurrences (LR). These include the Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors (RECIST), high-risk features (HRF's) and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on FDG-PET-CT. However, use of some of these approaches have poor predictive values and low specificity for recurrence. A proposed new workflow for the evaluation of post-lung SABR radiological changes will be reviewed which uses the presence of so-called 'actionable radiological features' to trigger changes to imaging schedules and identifies the need for a multidisciplinary board review. Furthermore, this critical review of post-lung SABR imaging will highlight current challenges, new insights, and unknowns in this field.

Imaging response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced melanoma: a retrospective observational cohort study.

Background: The association between objective imaging response and first line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy regimes in advanced melanoma remains uncharacterized in routine practice. Methods: We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort analysis of advanced melanoma patients receiving first line ICI therapy from August 2013-May 2020 in Alberta, Canada. The primary outcome was likelihood of RECIST v1.1 assessed objective imaging response between patients receiving anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD1) monotherapy and those receiving combination ipilimumab-nivolumab. Secondary outcomes were identification of baseline characteristics associated with non-response and the association of imaging response with overall survival (OS) and time to next treatment (TTNT). Results: 198 patients were included, 41/198 (20.7%) had complete response, 86/198 (43.4%) had partial response, 23/198 (11.6%) had stable disease, and 48/198 (24.2%) had progressive disease. Median OS was not reached (NR) (95% CI 49.0-NR) months for complete responders, NR (95%CI 52.9-NR) months for partial responders, 33.7 (95%CI 15.8-NR) months for stable disease, and 6.4 (95%CI 5.2-10.1) months for progressive disease (log-rank p<0.001). Likelihood of objective imaging response remained similar between anti-PD1 monotherapy and ipilimumab-nivolumab groups (OR 1.95 95%CI 0.85-4.63, p=0.121). Elevated LDH level (OR 0.46; 95%CI 0.21-0.98, p=0.043), mucosal primary site (OR 0.14; 95%CI 0.03-0.48, p=0.003), and BRAF V600E mutation status (OR 0.31; 95%CI 0.13-0.72, p=0.007) were associated with decreased likelihood of response. Conclusion: No significant difference in likelihood of imaging response between anti-PD1 monotherapy and combination ipilimumab-nivolumab was observed. Elevated LDH level, mucosal primary site, and BRAF V600E mutation status were associated with decreased likelihood of response. Given that pivotal clinical trials of ipilimumab-nivolumab did not formally compare ipilimumab-nivolumab with nivolumab monotherapy, this work adds context to differences in outcomes when these agents are used. These results may inform treatment selection, and aid in counseling of patients treated with first-line ICI therapy in routine clinical practice settings.

Patient eligibility for trials with imaging response assessment at the time of molecular tumor board presentation.

PURPOSE: To assess the eligibility of patients with advanced or recurrent solid malignancies presented to a molecular tumor board (MTB) at a large precision oncology center for inclusion in trials with the endpoints objective response rate (ORR) or duration of response (DOR) based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1). METHODS: Prospective patients with available imaging at the time of presentation in the MTB were included. Imaging data was reviewed for objectifiable measurable disease (MD) according to RECIST v1.1. Additionally, we evaluated the patients with MD for representativeness of the identified measurable lesion(s) in relation to the overall tumor burden. RESULTS: 262 patients with different solid malignancies were included. 177 patients (68%) had MD and 85 (32%) had non-measurable disease (NMD) at the time point of MTB presentation in accordance with RECIST v1.1. MD was not representative of the overall tumor burden in eleven patients (6%). The main reasons for NMD were lesions with longest diameter shorter than 10 mm (22%) and non-measurable peritoneal carcinomatosis (18%). Colorectal cancer and malignant melanoma displayed the highest rates of MD (> 75%). In contrast, gastric cancer, head and neck malignancies, and ovarian carcinoma had the lowest rates of MD (< 55%). In case of MD, the measurable lesions were representative of the overall tumor burden in the vast majority of cases (94%). CONCLUSION: Approximately one third of cancer patients with advanced solid malignancies are not eligible for treatment response assessment in trials with endpoints ORR or DOR at the time of MTB presentation. The rate of patients eligible for trials with imaging endpoints differs significantly based on the underlying malignancy and should be taken under consideration during the planning of new precision oncology trials.

Tumor marker-based RecistTM is superior to RECIST as criteria to predict the long-term benefits of targeted therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with driver gene mutations.

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are standard first-line treatments for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver gene mutations. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are limited in predicting long-term patient benefits. A tumour marker-based evaluation criteria, RecistTM, was used to investigate the potential for assessing targeted-therapy efficacy in lung cancer treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed patients with stage IIIA-IV NSCLC and driver gene mutations, whose baseline tumour marker levels exceeded the pre-treatment cut-off value three-fold and who received TKI-targeted therapy as a first-line treatment. We compared efficacy, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between RecistTM and RECIST. FINDINGS: The median PFS and OS differed significantly among treatment-response subgroups based on RecistTM but not RECIST. The predicted 1-, 2-, and 3-year disease-progression risk, according to area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, as well as the 1-, 3-, and 5-year mortality risk, differed significantly between RecistTM and RECIST. The median PFS and OS of tmCR according to RecistTM, was significantly longer than (CR+PR) according to RECIST. Imaging analysis revealed that the ΔPFS was 11.27 and 6.17 months in the intervention and non-intervention groups, respectively, suggesting that earlier intervention could extend patients' PFS. INTERPRETATION: RecistTM can assess targeted-therapy efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC and driver gene mutations, along with tumour marker abnormalities. RecistTM surpasses RECIST in predicting short- and long-term patient benefits, and allows the early identification of patients resistant to targeted drugs, enabling prompt intervention and extending the imaging-demonstrated time to progression.

Preliminary efficacy and safety of YSCH-01 in patients with advanced solid tumors: an investigator-initiated trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of YSCH-01 (Recombinant L-IFN adenovirus) in subjects with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: In this single-center, open-label, investigator-initiated trial of YSCH-01, 14 patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled. The study consisted of two distinct phases: (1) the dose escalation phase and (2) the dose expansion phase; with three dose groups in the dose escalation phase based on dose levels (5.0×109 viral particles (VP)/subject, 5.0×1010 VP/subject, and 5.0×1011 VP/subject). Subjects were administered YSCH-01 injection via intratumoral injections. The safety was assessed using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0, and the efficacy evaluation was performed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor V.1.1. RESULTS: 14 subjects were enrolled in the study, including 9 subjects in the dose escalation phase and 5 subjects in the dose expansion phase. Of the 13 subjects included in the full analysis set, 4 (30.8%) were men and 9 (69.2%) were women. The most common tumor type was lung cancer (38.5%, 5 subjects), followed by breast cancer (23.1%, 3 subjects) and melanoma (23.1%, 3 subjects). During the dose escalation phase, no subject experienced dose-limiting toxicities. The content of recombinant L-IFN adenovirus genome and recombinant L-IFN protein in blood showed no trend of significant intergroup changes. No significant change was observed in interleukin-6 and interferon-gamma. For 11 subjects evaluated for efficacy, the overall response rate with its 95% CI was 27.3% (6.02% to 60.97%) and the disease control rate with its 95% CI was 81.8% (48.22% to 97.72%). The median progression-free survival was 4.97 months, and the median overall survival was 8.62 months. In addition, a tendency of decrease in the sum of the diameters of target lesions was observed. For 13 subjects evaluated for safety, the overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was 92.3%, the overall incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was 84.6%, and the overall incidence of >Grade 3 AEs was 7.7%, while no AEs/ADRs leading to death occurred. The most common AEs were fever (69.2%), nausea (30.8%), vomiting (30.8%), and hypophagia (23.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that YSCH-01 injections were safe and well tolerated and exhibited preliminary efficacy in patients with advanced solid tumors, supporting further investigation to evaluate its efficacy and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05180851.

Reproducing RECIST lesion selection via machine learning: Insights into intra and inter-radiologist variation.

Background: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) aims to provide a standardized approach to assess treatment response in solid tumors. However, discrepancies in the selection of measurable and target lesions among radiologists using these criteria pose a significant limitation to their reproducibility and accuracy. This study aimed to understand the factors contributing to this variability. Methods: Machine learning models were used to replicate, in parallel, the selection process of measurable and target lesions by two radiologists in a cohort of 40 patients from an internal pan-cancer dataset. The models were trained on lesion characteristics such as size, shape, texture, rank, and proximity to other lesions. Ablation experiments were conducted to evaluate the impact of lesion diameter, volume, and rank on the selection process. Results: The models successfully reproduced the selection of measurable lesions, relying primarily on size-related features. Similarly, the models reproduced target lesion selection, relying mostly on lesion rank. Beyond these features, the importance placed by different radiologists on different visual characteristics can vary, specifically when choosing target lesions. Worth noting that substantial variability was still observed between radiologists in both measurable and target lesion selection. Conclusions: Despite the successful replication of lesion selection, our results still revealed significant inter-radiologist disagreement. This underscores the necessity for more precise guidelines to standardize lesion selection processes and minimize reliance on individual interpretation and experience as a means to bridge existing ambiguities.

Translational modeling-based evidence for enhanced efficacy of standard-of-care drugs in combination with anti-microRNA-155 in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Elevated microRNA-155 (miR-155) expression in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) promotes cisplatin resistance and negatively impacts treatment outcomes. However, miR-155 can also boost anti-tumor immunity by suppressing PD-L1 expression. We developed a multiscale mechanistic model, calibrated with in vivo data and then extrapolated to humans, to investigate the therapeutic effects of nanoparticle-delivered anti-miR-155 in NSCLC, alone or in combination with standard-of-care drugs. Model simulations and analyses of the clinical scenario revealed that monotherapy with anti-miR-155 at a dose of 2.5 mg/kg administered once every three weeks has substantial anti-cancer activity. It led to a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.7 months, which compared favorably to cisplatin and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Further, we explored the combinations of anti-miR-155 with standard-of-care drugs, and found strongly synergistic two- and three-drug combinations. A three-drug combination of anti-miR-155, cisplatin, and pembrolizumab resulted in a median PFS of 13.1 months, while a two-drug combination of anti-miR-155 and cisplatin resulted in a median PFS of 11.3 months, which emerged as a more practical option due to its simple design and cost-effectiveness. Our analyses also provided valuable insights into unfavorable dose ratios for drug combinations, highlighting the need for optimizing dose regimen to prevent antagonistic effects. Thus, this work bridges the gap between preclinical development and clinical translation of anti-miR-155 and unravels the potential of anti-miR-155 combination therapies in NSCLC.

Circulating miRNA-21 Levels in Breast Cancer Patients Before and After Chemotherapy and Its Association with Clinical Improvement.

Breast cancer is the most frequent type of cancer in women, many patients experience recurrences and metastasis. miR-21 (microRNA-21) as biomarker is under investigation for breast cancer. At present, there is very limited information available regarding effect of chemotherapy on miR-21 expression in breast cancer and its correlation with the clinical improvement. Hence, this study was planned to evaluate the effect of chemotherapy on miR-21 in metastatic breast cancer and its relationship with the clinical outcome. Females, aged-18-90 years diagnosed with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of breast and candidate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy including Adriamycin (60 mg/m2), Cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) with or without Taxane (75-175 mg/m2) were included in the study. Before and after 42 days of staring of chemotherapy sample was collected for circulatory miR-21 and RECIST 1.1 criteria was applied to assess the clinical status. Blood samples for routine clinical biomarkers including liver function test and renal function tests was also collected. miR-21 expression before and after chemotherapy was assessed using standard method based on real time PCR. Expression of miR-21, RECIST criteria and other liver and kidney related biomarkers were compared before and after chemotherapy. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy expression of miR-21 was significantly increased by 5.65-fold. There was significant improvement in clinical scores based on RECIST criteria (0.046). No significant correlation was observed between miR-21 expression and difference in RECIST score (r = - 0.122, p = 0.570). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy causes clinical improvement in breast cancer patients however it is not correlated with the miR-21 expression which significantly increased after chemotherapy.

Prognostic Role of Preoperative Chemotherapy in Liver-Limited Metastasis from Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the prognostic role of preoperative chemotherapy in patients who underwent hepatectomy for liver-limited metastasis (LLM) from gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted for 52 consecutive patients who underwent macroscopically complete (R0 or R1) resection for synchronous or metachronous LLM from GC. RESULTS: Of the 52 patients, 18 (35%) received preoperative chemotherapy (PC group), while 34 (65%) underwent upfront surgery (US group). The PC group had a significantly longer overall survival than the US group (cumulative 5-year OS rate: 47.6% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.041). Multivariate analysis of OS revealed that preoperative chemotherapy was an independent favorable prognostic factor (hazard ratio: 0.445, p = 0.036). Patients showing a partial response to preoperative chemotherapy on RECIST had an improved OS compared with those exhibiting stable or progressive disease after preoperative chemotherapy and with US (p = 0.025), even among those with solitary LLM (p = 0.062) and multiple LLM (p = 0.026). At recurrence after hepatectomy for LLM, the PC group had a significantly higher incidence of solitary tumors than the US group (p = 0.043) and had a higher chance to undergo surgical resection for recurrent sites (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative chemotherapy can be recommended for patients with LLM from GC. The evaluation of the efficacy of preoperative chemotherapy offers additional information to determine the surgical indication for LLM.

Tumor Response Evaluation Using iRECIST: Feasibility and Reliability of Manual Versus Software-Assisted Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the feasibility and reliability of manual versus software-assisted assessments of computed tomography scans according to iRECIST in patients undergoing immune-based cancer treatment. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of 30 tumor patients undergoing cancer treatment were evaluated by four independent radiologists at baseline (BL) and two follow-ups (FU), resulting in a total of 360 tumor assessments (120 each at BL/FU1/FU2). After image interpretation, tumor burden and response status were either calculated manually or semi-automatically as defined by software, respectively. The reading time, calculated sum of longest diameter (SLD), and tumor response (e.g., "iStable Disease") were determined for each assessment. After complete data collection, a consensus reading among the four readers was performed to establish a reference standard for the correct response assignments. The reading times, error rates, and inter-reader agreement on SLDs were statistically compared between the manual versus software-assisted approaches. RESULTS: The reading time was significantly longer for the manual versus software-assisted assessments at both follow-ups (median [interquartile range] FU1: 4.00 min [2.17 min] vs. 2.50 min [1.00 min]; FU2: 3.75 min [1.88 min] vs. 2.00 min [1.50 min]; both p < 0.001). Regarding reliability, 2.5% of all the response assessments were incorrect at FU1 (3.3% manual; 0% software-assisted), which increased to 5.8% at FU2 (10% manual; 1.7% software-assisted), demonstrating higher error rates for manual readings. Quantitative SLD inter-reader agreement was inferior for the manual compared to the software-assisted assessments at both FUs (FU1: ICC = 0.91 vs. 0.93; FU2: ICC = 0.75 vs. 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Software-assisted assessments may facilitate the iRECIST response evaluation of cancer patients in clinical routine by decreasing the reading time and reducing response misclassifications.

Associations of concomitant medications with immune-related adverse events and survival in advanced cancers treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a comprehensive pan-cancer analysis.

BACKGROUND: While concomitant medications can affect the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), few studies have assessed associations of concomitant medications with the occurrence and profile of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). METHODS: This study assessed associations of concomitant medication (antibiotics/proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)/corticosteroids)-based risk model termed the "drug score" with survival and the occurrence and profile of irAEs in 851 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs (with or without other agents). The study also assessed the survival impact of the occurrence of irAEs, using a landmark analysis to minimize immortal time bias. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses were conducted for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The drug score classified patients into three risk groups, with significantly different PFS and OS. Notably, the score's predictive capability was better in patients treated with ICIs only than in those treated with ICIs plus other agents. The landmark analysis showed that patients who developed irAEs had significantly longer PFS and OS than those without irAEs. Generally, concomitant medications were negatively associated with the occurrence of irAEs, especially endocrine irAEs, whereas PPI use was positively associated with gastrointestinal irAEs, as an exception. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large pan-cancer cohort, the prognostic ability of the drug score was validated, as well as that of the occurrence of irAEs. The negative association between concomitant medications and irAE occurrence could be an indirect measure of the detrimental effect on the immune system induced by one or more concomitant drugs.

A novel approach to evaluation of tumor response for advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma using the intertumoral heterogeneity response score.

Treatment response and prognosis estimation in advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma are challenged by the significant heterogeneity of the disease. The current Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria, despite providing a basis for solid tumor response evaluation, do not fully encompass this heterogeneity. To better represent these nuances, we introduce the intertumoral heterogeneity response score (THRscore), a measure built upon and expanding the RECIST criteria. This retrospective study included patients with 3-10 measurable advanced lung adenocarcinoma lesions who underwent first-line chemotherapy or targeted therapy. The THRscore, derived from the coefficient of variation in size for each measurable tumor before and 4-6 weeks posttreatment, unveiled a correlation with patient outcomes. Specifically, a high THRscore was associated with shorter progression-free survival, lower tumor response rate, and a higher tumor mutation burden. These associations were further validated in an external cohort, confirming THRscore's effectiveness in stratifying patients based on progression risk and treatment response, and enhancing the utility of RECIST in capturing complex tumor behaviors in lung adenocarcinoma. These findings affirm the promise of THRscore as an enhanced tool for tumor response assessment in advanced lung adenocarcinoma, extending the RECIST criteria's utility.