Pilot Clinical Trial of Perioperative Durvalumab and Tremelimumab in the Treatment of Resectable Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases.

PURPOSE: Despite the prognostic importance of immune infiltrate in colorectal cancer, immunotherapy has demonstrated limited clinical activity in refractory metastatic proficient mismatch-repair (pMMR) colorectal cancer. This study explores combining anti-CTLA-4 and an anti-PD-L1 therapy in the preoperative management of resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases with the intent to improve immune responses in this disease setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resectable colorectal cancer liver-only metastases received one dose of tremelimumab and durvalumab preoperatively followed by single-agent durvalumab postoperatively. Primary objectives were to determine feasibility and safety. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients were enrolled between November 2016 and November 2019. Twenty-three patients received treatment [21 pMMR and 2 deficient mismatch-repair (dMMR)] and subsequently 17 (74%; 95% CI: 53%-88%) underwent surgical resection. Grade 3/4 treatment-related immune toxicity and postoperative grade 3/4 toxicity were seen in 5/23 (22%; 95% CI: 10%-44%) and 2/17 (12%; 95% CI: 2%-38%) patients. The median relapse-free survival (RFS) was 9.7 (95% CI: 8.1-17.8) months, and overall survival was 24.5 (95% CI: 16.5-28.4) months. Four patients demonstrated complete pathologic response, two dMMR patients and two POLE mutation patients. Pre- and post-tumor tissue analysis by flow cytometry, immunofluorescence, and RNA sequencing revealed similar levels of T-cell infiltration, but did demonstrate evidence of CD8+ and CD4+ activation posttreatment. An increase in B-cell transcriptome signature and B-cell density was present in posttreatment samples from patients with prolonged RFS. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the safety of neoadjuvant combination tremelimumab and durvalumab prior to colorectal cancer liver resection. Evidence for T- and B-cell activation following this therapy was seen in pMMR metastatic colorectal cancer.

Timing of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients.

While TKI are the preferred first-line treatment for chronic phase (CP) CML, alloHCT remains an important consideration. The aim is to estimate residual life expectancy (RLE) for patients initially diagnosed with CP CML based on timing of alloHCT or continuation of TKI in various settings: CP1 CML, CP2 + [after transformation to accelerated phase (AP) or blast phase (BP)], AP, or BP. Non-transplant cohort included single-institution patients initiating TKI and switched TKI due to failure. CIBMTR transplant cohort included CML patients who underwent HLA sibling matched (MRD) or unrelated donor (MUD) alloHCT. AlloHCT appeared to shorten survival in CP1 CML with overall mortality hazard ratio (HR) for alloHCT of 2.4 (95% CI 1.2-4.9; p = .02). In BP CML, there was a trend toward higher survival with alloHCT; HR = 0.7 (0.5-1.1; p = .099). AlloHCT in CP2 + [HR = 2.0 (0.8-4.9), p = .13] and AP [HR = 1.1 (0.6-2.1); p = .80] is less clear and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Macrophage HIF-1α Is an Independent Prognostic Indicator in Kidney Cancer.

PURPOSE: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is frequently associated with inactivation of the von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor, resulting in activation of HIF-1α and HIF-2α. The current paradigm, established using mechanistic cell-based studies, supports a tumor promoting role for HIF-2α, and a tumor suppressor role for HIF-1α. However, few studies have comprehensively examined the clinical relevance of this paradigm. Furthermore, the hypoxia-associated factor (HAF), which regulates the HIFs, has not been comprehensively evaluated in ccRCC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: To assess the involvement of HAF/HIFs in ccRCC, we analyzed their relationship to tumor grade/stage/outcome using tissue from 380 patients, and validated these associations using tissue from 72 additional patients and a further 57 patients treated with antiangiogenic therapy for associations with response. Further characterization was performed using single-cell mRNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), RNA-in situ hybridization (RNA-ISH), and IHC. RESULTS: HIF-1α was primarily expressed in tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), whereas HIF-2α and HAF were expressed primarily in tumor cells. TAM-associated HIF-1α was significantly associated with high tumor grade and increased metastasis and was independently associated with decreased overall survival. Furthermore, elevated TAM HIF-1α was significantly associated with resistance to antiangiogenic therapy. In contrast, high HAF or HIF-2α were associated with low grade, decreased metastasis, and increased overall survival. scRNA-seq, RNA-ISH, and Western blotting confirmed the expression of HIF-1α in M2-polarized CD163-expressing TAMs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight a potential role of TAM HIF-1α in ccRCC progression and support the reevaluation of HIF-1α as a therapeutic target and marker of disease progression.

Bayesian clinical trials at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center: An update.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In our 2009 article, we showed that Bayesian methods had established a foothold in developing therapies in our institutional oncology trials. In this article, we will document what has happened since that time. In addition, we will describe barriers to implementing Bayesian clinical trials, as well as our experience overcoming them. METHODS: We reviewed MD Anderson Cancer Center clinical trials submitted to the institutional protocol office for scientific and ethical review between January 2009 and December 2013, the same length time period as the previous article. We tabulated Bayesian methods implemented for design or analyses for each trial and then compared these to our previous findings. RESULTS: Overall, we identified 1020 trials and found that 283 (28%) had Bayesian components so we designated them as Bayesian trials. Among MD Anderson-only and multicenter trials, 56% and 14%, respectively, were Bayesian, higher rates than our previous study. Bayesian trials were more common in phase I/II trials (34%) than in phase III/IV (6%) trials. Among Bayesian trials, the most commonly used features were for toxicity monitoring (65%), efficacy monitoring (36%), and dose finding (22%). The majority (86%) of Bayesian trials used non-informative priors. A total of 75 (27%) trials applied Bayesian methods for trial design and primary endpoint analysis. Among this latter group, the most commonly used methods were the Bayesian logistic regression model (N = 22), the continual reassessment method (N = 20), and adaptive randomization (N = 16). Median institutional review board approval time from protocol submission was the same 1.4 months for Bayesian and non-Bayesian trials. Since the previous publication, the Biomarker-Integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial was the first large-scale decision trial combining multiple treatments in a single trial. Since then, two regimens in breast cancer therapy have been identified and published from the cooperative Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging and Molecular Analysis (I-SPY 2), enhancing cooperation among investigators and drug developers across the nation, as well as advancing information needed for personalized medicine. Many software programs and Shiny applications for Bayesian trial design and calculations are available from our website which has had more than 21,000 downloads worldwide since 2004. CONCLUSION: Bayesian trials have the increased flexibility in trial design needed for personalized medicine, resulting in more cooperation among researchers working to fight against cancer. Some disadvantages of Bayesian trials remain, but new methods and software are available to improve their function and incorporation into cancer clinical research.