Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA): a multicentre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Molecularly targeted agents have been reported to have anti-tumour activity for patients whose tumours harbour the matching molecular alteration. These results have led to increased off-label use of molecularly targeted agents on the basis of identified molecular alterations. We assessed the efficacy of several molecularly targeted agents marketed in France, which were chosen on the basis of tumour molecular profiling but used outside their indications, in patients with advanced cancer for whom standard-of-care therapy had failed. METHODS: The open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 SHIVA trial was done at eight French academic centres. We included adult patients with any kind of metastatic solid tumour refractory to standard of care, provided they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, disease that was accessible for a biopsy or resection of a metastatic site, and at least one measurable lesion. The molecular profile of each patient's tumour was established with a mandatory biopsy of a metastatic tumour and large-scale genomic testing. We only included patients for whom a molecular alteration was identified within one of three molecular pathways (hormone receptor, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, RAF/MEK), which could be matched to one of ten regimens including 11 available molecularly targeted agents (erlotinib, lapatinib plus trastuzumab, sorafenib, imatinib, dasatinib, vemurafenib, everolimus, abiraterone, letrozole, tamoxifen). We randomly assigned these patients (1:1) to receive a matched molecularly targeted agent (experimental group) or treatment at physician's choice (control group) by central block randomisation (blocks of size six). Randomisation was done centrally with a web-based response system and was stratified according to the Royal Marsden Hospital prognostic score (0 or 1 vs 2 or 3) and the altered molecular pathway. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. Treatments in both groups were given in accordance with the approved product information and standard practice protocols at each institution and were continued until evidence of disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, which was not assessed by independent central review. We assessed safety in any patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01771458. FINDINGS: Between Oct 4, 2012, and July 11, 2014, we screened 741 patients with any tumour type. 293 (40%) patients had at least one molecular alteration matching one of the 10 available regimens. At the time of data cutoff, Jan 20, 2015, 195 (26%) patients had been randomly assigned, with 99 in the experimental group and 96 in the control group. All patients in the experimental group started treatment, as did 92 in the control group. Two patients in the control group received a molecularly targeted agent: both were included in their assigned group for efficacy analyses, the patient who received an agent that was allowed in the experimental group was included in the experimental group for the purposes of safety analyses, while the other patient, who received a molecularly targeted agent and chemotherapy, was kept in the control group for safety analyses. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 5·8-11·6) in the experimental group and 11·3 months (8·1-11·6) in the control group at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Median progression-free survival was 2·3 months (95% CI 1·7-3·8) in the experimental group versus 2·0 months (1·8-2·1) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·88, 95% CI 0·65-1·19, p=0·41). In the safety population, 43 (43%) of 100 patients treated with a molecularly targeted agent and 32 (35%) of 91 patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy had grade 3-4 adverse events (p=0·30). INTERPRETATION: The use of molecularly targeted agents outside their indications does not improve progression-free survival compared with treatment at physician's choice in heavily pretreated patients with cancer. Off-label use of molecularly targeted agents should be discouraged, but enrolment in clinical trials should be encouraged to assess predictive biomarkers of efficacy.

PIK3CA Pathway Mutations Predictive of Poor Response Following Standard Radiochemotherapy ± Cetuximab in Cervical Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: EGFR is frequently overexpressed in cervical cancer, suggesting EGFR blockade as a promising treatment approach. Cetuximab, an anti EGFR antibody, used conjointly with radiochemotherapy, was feasible in first-line treatment of cervix carcinoma limited to the pelvis. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This randomized phase II trial enrolled 78 FIGO stage IB2-IIIB cervical cancer patients to either cisplatin-based radiochemotherapy alone (arm B, n = 38) or conjointly with a 6-week course of weekly cetuximab (arm A, n = 40). Brachytherapy was given to the pelvic mass. Primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) at 2 years. EGFR expression and targeted sequencing were performed in 54 of 78 patients. RESULTS: Cetuximab over a 6-week period did not improve DFS at 24 months. At 31 months median follow-up, DFS was not significantly different (P = 0.18). Complete response at 4 to 6 months was strongly predictive for excellent DFS (log-rank test; P < 0.001). PIK3CA, KRAS, and STK11 mutations were observed in 22%, 4%, and 2% of patients, respectively. No tumor with a PI3K pathway mutation showed complete response (0/8 in arm A and 0/6 in arm B), whereas 14 of 52 (27%) tumors without mutations did (P = 0.021). PI3K pathway-mutated tumors showed a trend toward poorer DFS (P = 0.06) following cetuximab (8/22) as compared with those following standard treatment only (6/18). CONCLUSIONS: Similar to patients with head and neck cancer, patients with cervical cancer showed no gain in DFS at 2 years following a combined treatment of cetuximab with radiochemotherapy. Although treatment tolerance and compliance were satisfactory, it remains to be demonstrated whether maintenance therapy with cetuximab could be beneficial in selected patient groups.

Designs and challenges for personalized medicine studies in oncology: focus on the SHIVA trial.

Personalized medicine is defined by the National Cancer Institute as "a form of medicine that uses information about a person's genes, proteins, and environment to prevent, diagnose, and treat disease." In oncology, the term "personalized medicine" arose with the emergence of molecularly targeted agents. The prescription of approved molecularly targeted agents to cancer patients currently relies on the primary tumor location and histological subtype. Predictive biomarkers of efficacy of these modern agents have been exclusively validated in specific tumor types. A major concern today is to determine whether the prescription of molecularly targeted therapies based on tumor molecular abnormalities, independently of primary tumor location and histology, would improve the outcome of cancer patients. This new paradigm requires prospective validation before being implemented in clinical practice. In this paper, we will first review different designs, including observational cohorts, as well as nonrandomized and randomized clinical trials, that have been recently proposed to evaluate the relevance of this approach, and further discuss their advantages and drawbacks. The design of the SHIVA trial, a randomized proof-of-concept phase II trial comparing therapy based on tumor molecular profiling versus conventional therapy in patients with refractory cancer will be detailed. Finally, we will discuss the multiple challenges associated with the implementation of personalized medicine in oncology, as well as perspectives for the future.