A pan-cancer clinical platform to predict immunotherapy outcomes and prioritize immuno-oncology combinations in early-phase trials.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is effective, but current biomarkers for patient selection have proven modest sensitivity. Here, we developed VIGex, an optimized gene signature based on the expression level of 12 genes involved in immune response with RNA sequencing. METHODS: We implemented VIGex using the nCounter platform (Nanostring) on a large clinical cohort encompassing 909 tumor samples across 45 tumor types. VIGex was developed as a continuous variable, with cutoffs selected to detect three main categories (hot, intermediate-cold and cold) based on the different inflammatory status of the tumor microenvironment. FINDINGS: Hot tumors had the highest VIGex scores and exhibited an increased abundance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes as compared with the intermediate-cold and cold. VIGex scores varied depending on tumor origin and anatomic site of metastases, with liver metastases showing an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. The predictive power of VIGex-Hot was observed in a cohort of 98 refractory solid tumor from patients treated in early-phase immunotherapy trials and its clinical performance was confirmed through an extensive metanalysis across 13 clinically annotated gene expression datasets from 877 patients treated with immunotherapy agents. Last, we generated a pan-cancer biomarker platform that integrates VIGex categories with the expression levels of immunotherapy targets under development in early-phase clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the clinical utility of VIGex as a tool to aid clinicians for patient selection and personalized immunotherapy interventions. FUNDING: BBVA Foundation; 202-2021 Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology Fellowship award; Princess Margaret Cancer Center.

Phase II study of biweekly plitidepsin as second-line therapy for advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium.

The objective of this exploratory, open-label, single-arm, phase II clinical trial was to evaluate plitidepsin (5 mg/m(2)) administered as a 3-hour continuous intravenous infusion every two weeks to patients with locally advanced/metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium who relapsed/progressed after first-line chemotherapy. Treatment cycles were repeated for up to 12 cycles or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient refusal or treatment delay for >2 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate according to RECIST. Secondary endpoints were the rate of SD lasting > or = 6 months and time-to-event variables. Toxicity was assessed using NCI-CTC v. 3.0. Twenty-one patients received 57 treatment cycles. No objective tumor responses occurred. SD lasting <6 months was observed in two of 18 evaluable patients. With a median follow-up of 4.6 months, the median PFR and the median OS were 1.4 months and 2.3 months, respectively. The most common AEs were mild to moderate nausea, fatigue, myalgia and anorexia. Anemia, lymphopenia, and increases in transaminases, alkaline phosphatase and creatinine were the most frequent laboratory abnormalities. No severe neutropenia occurred. Treatment was feasible and generally well tolerated in this patient population; however the lack of antitumor activity precludes further studies of plitidepsin in this setting.

Randomized clinical trial with two palliative radiotherapy regimens in painful bone metastases: 30 Gy in 10 fractions compared with 8 Gy in single fraction.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim was to demonstrate similar pain relief with two schedules of radiotherapy for painful bone metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 160 patients were assigned to receive a single 8-Gy fraction or 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Pain intensity was measured on an ordinal pain scale of 0-10. Partial response was defined as a pain reduction of two points or more and complete response as a pain score of zero at the treated area. Response follow-up was at 3, 12, 24 and 48 weeks. RESULTS: The overall response was 75% in the 8-Gy arm and 86% in the 30-Gy arm. Complete response and partial response rates were 15% and 60% in the 8-Gy arm, 13% and 73% in the 30-Gy arm. Acute toxicity was of 18% in the 30-Gy arm and of 12% in the 8-Gy arm. These differences were not statistically significant. The re-treatment rate was 28% vs 2% in the 8-Gy and 30-Gy arms, respectively, these were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: A single-fraction regimen of 8 Gy was as safe and effective as a multifraction regimen of 30 Gy for painful bone metastases in terms of pain relief.

A phase II study of vinorelbine and estramustine in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer

No disponible

Introduction. This phase II study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of vinorelbine in combination with estramustine in patients with chemotherapy- naïve hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Material and methods. Patients received vinorelbine (i.v. 25 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and estramustine (oral, 600 mg/m2) daily. Eligible patients were required to have progressive metastatic disease following the first hormonal manipulation. Results. Of the 51 patients enrolled (median age = 69 years), 84% presented bone involvement and 75% had at least two organs involved at the time of study entry and 47 were evaluable for treatment efficacy. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) response (≥50% decrease) which was the primary efficacy criterion was reported in 21 patients (41.2%) in the intent- to-treat (ITT) population and in 20 patients (48.8%) in the per protocol (PP) population. Of the 7 patients with measurable disease, 2 achieved partial response. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.7 months (range: 1.9-8.6) and 14.3 months (range: 4.2-21.2), respectively. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was reported in 6.1% of patients and in 1% of cycles. The incidence of complicated neutropenia (febrile neutropenia reported in 1 patient and septic shock with severe neutropenia reported in 2 patients) was 5.8%. The most frequent grade 3-4 non-haematological events (% of patients ≥5%) included anorexia (10%), thrombosis/embolism (8%), vomiting and hypotension (6% each). There were 3 toxic deaths (5.9 %) resulting from pulmonary embolism, angina pectoris, and septic shock. The imimpact of combined chemotherapy on the quality-oflife (QL) of the patients was assessed between baseline and the first evaluation scheduled at 6 weeks indicated a marked reduction in pain while the rest of the symptoms remained stable. Overall, health status improved slightly over the treatment period. Conclusions. This study confirmed that the combination of vinorelbine and estramustine is an active regimen in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer who had not been treated previously with chemotherapy. Main toxicities included complicated neutropenia even though the incidence of severe neutropenia was low. We observed a higher incidence of toxic deaths which could have been related to the regimen of estramustine used in the study