Search

Background: Metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) is an aggressive cancer predominately affecting the liver. Peritoneal metastases (PM) occur rarely, and there is limited knowledge about this subgroup´s clinical course and biology., Methods: We analyzed 41 mUM patients with confirmed PM from the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin database, focusing on clinical characteristics, immune cell infiltrates, genetic alterations and tumor mutational burden (TMB)., Results: The incidence of PM in mUM was 4.27 %. Metastatic disease was diagnosed 3.6 years after primary UM, with PM developing later (median: 4.7 years). Median overall survival (OS) from mUM diagnosis was 22.4 months. Prognosis correlated with metastatic pattern. Patients presenting with synchronous liver and peritoneal metastases or primary hepatic metastases followed by secondary peritoneal dissemination showed a median OS of 19.7 and 17.7 months, respectively. However, PM patients with exclusive extrahepatic disease at diagnosis of mUM had a significantly longer OS of 48.6 months and this metastatic pattern showed highly significant correlation with low and intermediate genetic risk. Metastasis-free survival and OS upon mUM diagnosis were significantly shorter in patients with high-risk UM tumors. TMB also correlated with metastatic pattern, being lowest in patients presenting with only extrahepatic disease. Higher TMB was generally associated with shorter OS., Conclusion: PM in mUM patients is rare and in contrast to other extra-abdominal tumors does not worsen prognosis. Prognosis is greatly influenced by the metastatic pattern, which is determined by tumor biology, as evidenced by its correlation with genetic risk groups and TMB., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. author is an Editorial Board Member/Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editor/Guest Editor for this journal and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. CP and UKei received financial support for an investigator-initiated trial in mUM patients (EudraCT-Number: 2014–002439–32) from Sirtex and PharmaCept (now Magle PharmaCept). UKei is an Editorial Board Member for this journal and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article. SO received financial compensation from Immunocore for participating in advisory boards. The other authors declare that they have no competing financial interests., (Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Transition of cytosine to thymine in CpG dinucleotides is the most frequent type of mutation in cancer. This increased mutability is commonly attributed to the spontaneous deamination of 5-methylcytosine (5mC), which is normally repaired by the base-excision repair (BER) pathway. However, the contribution of 5mC deamination in the increasing diversity of cancer mutational signatures remains poorly explored. We integrate mutational signatures analysis in a large series of tumor whole genomes with lineage-specific epigenomic data to draw a detailed view of 5mC deamination in cancer. We uncover tumor type-specific patterns of 5mC deamination signatures in CpG and non-CpG contexts. We demonstrate that the BER glycosylase MBD4 preferentially binds to active chromatin and early replicating DNA, which correlates with lower mutational burden in these domains. We validate our findings by modeling BER deficiencies in isogenic cell models. Here, we establish MBD4 as the main actor responsible for 5mC deamination repair in humans., Competing Interests: Competing interests D. Rieke reports advisory agreement with BeiGene and Bayer, honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer and Roche, research support from Seagen, and personal fees from Bayer and Johnson & Johnson, all outside the submitted work. A. Picca reports personal fees from AstraZeneca and Servier, all outside the submitted work. F. Bielle reports funding of research from Abbvie, service agreement for research contracted between his institution and Treefrog Therapeutics as well as Owkin, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and a next-of-kin employed by Bristol Myers Squibb, all outside the submitted work. M.L. Yaspo is COO/CSO and shareholder of Alacris Theranostics without conflict of interest with the submitted work. M. Rodrigues reports non-financial support from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp and Dohme, grants from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Immunocore, Merck Sharp and Dohme and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. M.-H. Stern reports grants from Immunocore and Bionano, and royalties from Myriad Genetics, all outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

A patient with gastrointestinal stroma tumor (GIST) and KIT p.V559D and BRAF p.G469A alterations was referred to our institutional molecular tumor board (MTB) to discuss therapeutic implications. The patient had been diagnosed with B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) years prior to the MTB presentation. GIST had been diagnosed 1 month earlier. After structured clinical annotation of the molecular alterations and interdisciplinary discussion, we considered BRAF/KIT co-mutation unlikely in a treatment-naïve GIST. Discordant variant allele frequencies furthermore suggested a second malignancy. NGS of a CLL sample revealed the identical class 2 BRAF alteration, thus supporting admixture of CLL cells in the paragastric mass, leading to the detection of 2 alterations. Following the MTB recommendation, the patient received imatinib and had a radiographic response. Structured annotation and interdisciplinary discussion in specialized tumor boards facilitate the clinical management of complex molecular findings. Coexisting malignancies and clonal hematopoiesis warrant consideration in case of complex and uncommon molecular findings., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Tebentafusp, a bispecific (gp100×CD3) ImmTAC, significantly improved overall survival (OS) outcomes for HLA-A*02:01+ adult patients with untreated metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) and showed promising survival in previously treated mUM with 1-year OS of 62% in the primary analysis of study IMCgp100-102. Here we report long-term outcomes from this phase 1/2 study in pretreated mUM., Patients and Methods: Patients with previously treated mUM received tebentafusp weekly intravenous at 20 µg dose 1, 30 µg dose 2 and either 54, 64, 68, or 73 µg (phase 1) or 68 µg (phase 2) dose 3+. The primary objective was overall response rate. Secondary objectives included OS and safety. OS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Association between OS and baseline covariates, on-treatment Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) response, baseline tumor biopsy and circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA) changes were assessed., Results: 146 patients were treated with tebentafusp: 19 in phase 1 and 127 in phase 2. With a median follow-up duration of 48.5 months, the median OS was 17.4 months (95% CI, 13.1 to 22.8), and the 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 4-year OS rates were 62%, 40%, 23% and 14%, respectively. Improved survival was associated with lower ctDNA baseline levels and greater ctDNA reductions by week 9 on-treatment, with 100% 1-year, 73% 2-year and 45% 3-year OS rates for patients with ctDNA clearance. Baseline gp100 expression was not associated with survival, despite more RECIST responses among patients with higher expression. No new safety signals were reported with long-term dosing., Conclusions: This study represents the longest follow-up of a Tcell receptor bispecific to date and confirms the durable survival benefits achieved with tebentafusp in previously treated mUM with good tolerability long-term. A role for ctDNA reduction as an early indicator of clinical benefit was again suggested for patients treated with tebentafusp., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JJS discloses PI on clinical trial: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Delcath Systems, Merck, Replimune, Transgene; Research Grant/Contract: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore; Consultant/Advisory Board: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Delcath Systems, Immunocore, Merck; Congress attendance: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck. RDC discloses Consultant: Aura Biosciences, Castle Biosciences, Chimeron, Immunocore, InxMed, Iovance, Merck, Oncosec, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals Inc., PureTech Health, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Rgenix, Sanofi Genzyme, Sorrento Therapeutics, TriSalus; Stock Option: Aura Biosciences, Chimeron, Rgenix. MOB discloses Consultant/Advisory Board: Adaptimmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur Inc., Sun Pharma, IDEAYA Bio, Medison, Regeneron and Iovance.; Safety Review Committee: GlaxoSmithKline, Adaptimmune; Research Funding: Merck, Takara Bio, Novartis. ANS discloses Grant/Contract: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Novartis, Targovax, Pfizer, Alkermes, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Foghorn Therapeutics, Linnaeus Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Novartis, Pfizer, Polaris, Xcovery. JCH discloses Speaker: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis Pharma, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC; Sunpharma; Research grant/contract: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Sunpharma; Consultant/Advisory Board: Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Immunocore, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis Pharma, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals Inc., Philogen, Onkowissen, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sun Pharmaeutical Industries Inc. AI discloses Research Funding to Institution: Dynavax, GSK/Sarah Cannon, Immunocore, Merck, Neon Therapeutics/Sarah Cannon, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals. LH-A discloses Advisory/Consulting: BMS, Castle Bioscience; Research Funding to Institution: BMS, AstraZeneca, Merck, Amgen, Roche, Regeneron, Novartis, Immunocore, Merck-EMD, Corvus, Polynoma, Genentech, Foghorn. PN discloses Data and Safety Monitoring: 4SC, Achilles; Consultant/Advisory Board: 4SC, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer; Research Grant/Contract: Immunocore. OH discloses Contract: Aduro biotech, Akeso biotech, Amgen Inc., Beigene Ltd, Bioatla, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech USA, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Immunocore, Incyte Corporation, Janssen Global Services, LLC, Merck, Next Cure Inc., Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Tempus, Zelluna Immunotherapy; Contracted Research for Institution: Aduro biotech, Akeso biotech, Amgen Inc., Arcus Biosciences, Bioatla, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CytomX Therapeutics, Exelixis Inc., Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Immunocore, Incyte Corporation, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Merck Serono, Moderna, NextCure Inc., Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics, Torque Pharma, Zelluna Immunotherapy; Speakers Bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer. MR discloses employment and stock ownership in Syapse Inc. DBJ discloses Advisory Boards/Consultant: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Jansen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax, and Teiko; Research Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte. JJL discloses DSMB: AbbVie, Agenus, Amgen, Immutep, Evaxion; Scientific Advisory Board: (no stock) 7 Hills, Affivant, Bright Peak, Exo, Fstar, Inzen, RefleXion, Xilio (stock) Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, physIQ, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, Tempest; Consultancy with compensation: AbbVie, Agenus, Alnylam, Atomwise, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Castle, Checkmate, Codiak, Crown, Cugene, Curadev, Day One, Eisai, EMD Serono, Endeavor, Flame, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Glenmark, HotSpot, Kadmon, KSQ, Janssen, Ikena, Inzen, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Instil, IO Biotech, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Nektar, Novartis, Partner, Pfizer, Pioneering Medicines, PsiOxus, Regeneron, Replimmune, Ribon, Roivant, Servier, STINGthera, Synlogic, Synthekine; Research Support: (all to institution for clinical trials unless noted) AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvus, Day One, EMD Serono, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena, Immatics, Incyte, Kadmon, KAHR, Macrogenics, Merck, Moderna, Nektar, Next Cure, Numab, Palleon, Pfizer, Replimmune, Rubius, Servier, Scholar Rock, Synlogic, Takeda, Trishula, Tizona, Xencor; Patents: (both provisional) Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof). EE discloses Advisory Boards/Consultant: Immunocore. SL discloses Consulting: Bayer, Immunocore; Expenses: Bayer. LC discloses Employment and Stock: Immunocore. CH discloses Stock: Amgen Inc., Macrogenics; Employment: Immunocore. TS discloses advisory/consulting: Immunocore, Castle Biosciences; research funding to institution (clinical trials): Immunocore, Verastem, IDEAYA, TriSalus, and BMS., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aims: The MAPK pathway is constitutively activated in uveal melanoma (UM). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886), a MEK inhibitor, has shown limited activity as monotherapy in metastatic UM. Pre-clinical studies support synergistic cytotoxic activity for MEK inhibitors combined with taxanes, and here we sought to assess the clinical efficacy of combining selumetinib and paclitaxel., Patients and Methods: Seventy-seven patients with metastatic UM who had not received prior chemotherapy were randomised to selumetinib alone, or combined with paclitaxel with or without interruption in selumetinib two days before paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). After amendment, the combination arms were combined for analysis and the sample size adjusted to detect a hazard ratio (HR): 0.55, 80% power at 1-sided 5% significance level., Results: The median PFS in the combination arms was 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.8 - 5.6) compared with 3.4 months (2.0 - 3.9) in the selumetinib arm (HR 0.62 [90% CI 0.41 - 0.92], 1-sided p-value = 0.022). ORR was 14% and 4% in the combination and monotherapy arms respectively. Median OS was 9 months for the combination and was not significantly different from selumetinib alone (10 months) with HR of 0.98 [90% CI 0.58 - 1.66], 1-sided p-value = 0.469. Toxicity was in keeping with the known profiles of the agents involved., Conclusions: SelPac met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an improvement in PFS for combination selumetinib and paclitaxel. No improvement in OS was observed, and the modest improvement in PFS is not practice changing., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. JJS reports institutional funding for trial delivery from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Delcath Systems, Merck, Replimune, Transgene; research grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore; paint consultancy/advisory Board membership from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Delcath Systems, Immunocore, Merck; and sponsorship for congress attendance: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck. TRJE has received honoraria for consultancies (payable to the employing institution) from Ascelia, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Karus Therapeutics, Medivir, MSD, Otsuka, Roche, and Seagen; honoraria for speaker’s fees (payable to employing institution) from Astra Zeneca, Ascelia, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Nucana, MSD, Roche, Medivir, and United Medical; has received support of costs of commercial clinical trials (payable to employing institution) from Astra Zeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Celgene, Exscientia; Exelexis; MiNa Therapeutics, Roche, Pfizer, Sierra, Lilly, Eisai, GSK, Novartis, Bicycle Therapeutics, Johnson and Johnson, CytomX, Vertex, Plexxikon, Boehringer, Athinex, Adaptimmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Medivir, Versatem, Nucana, Immunocore, Berg, Beigene, Iovance, Modulate, BiolinerX, Merck Serono, Nurix Therapeutics, T3P, Janssen Clovis, Sanofi-Aventis, Halozyme, Starpharma, UCB, Sapience, Seagen, Avacta, and Codiak; has received funding from Cancer Research UK, Chief Scientist’s Office Scotland, and the MRC; (payable to employing institution); has received support to attend national & international congresses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Celgene, Pierre-Fabre (personal). SO reports honoraria from BMS. Merck, MSD, AstraZeneca and Janssen; and consulting fees from MSD, Immuncore, Janssen and Genmab. JL reports research funding from Achilles, BMS, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Immunocore, Aveo, Pharmacyclics; Consulting fees from iOnctura, Apple Tree, Merck, BMS, Eisai, Debipharm, Incyte; and Honoraria from Eisai, Novartis, Incyte, Merck, touchIME, touchEXPERTS, Pfizer, Royal College of Physicians, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Royal College of General Practitioners, VJOncology, Agence Unik, BMSIK reports consulting fees from Merck Serono; and research funding from Genetech, Achilles Therapeutics and Replimune. PL reports honoraria from Norvartis, PierreFabre, Merck , BMS, NeraCare GmbH, Amgen, Roche and oncology Education Canada; and research funding from BMS, PierreFabre. RP report honoraria for attending advisory boards from Pierre Faber, Bayer, Novartis, BMS, Ellipses, Immunocore, Genmab, Astex Therapeutics, MSD, Nerviano, AmLo, Incyte, Cybrexa Benevolent AI and Sanofi Aventis; honoraria for working as an IDMC member for Alligator Biosciences, GSK, Onxeo, SOTIO Biotech AG, and AstraZeneca; honoraria for delivery of educational talks or chairing educational meetings by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer, MSD and BMS; and funds to support attendance at conferences from MSD and BMS. PP reports research funding from AstraZeneca. AO-B reports honoraria from BMS, MSD, Eisai, Roche, Novartis, AZ; and research Funding from BMS UCB pharma, Roche, Novartis and Eli Lily. HS report paid consultancy for Novartis, BMS, MSD, Immunocore, Idera, Iovance, Genmab, Sanofi Genzyme/Regeneron, Macrogenics, Roche, Agenus, Ideaya, iOnctura, CDR-Life, NovalGen, Therakos/Mallinkrodt Pharmaceuticals, ScanCelll; and speakers bureau for Novartis, BMS, MSD, Sanofi Genzyme/Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Eisai. SL reports consulting for Bayer, Immunocore; and expenses from Bayer. PN discloses Data and Safety Monitoring for 4SC, Achilles; and Consultant/Advisory Board for 4SC, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer; Research Grant/Contract: Immunocore. The other authors do not report any potential conflicting interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Larotrectinib, a first-in-class, highly selective tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy in adult and pediatric patients with various solid tumors harboring NTRK gene fusions. This subset analysis focuses on the efficacy and safety of larotrectinib in an expanded cohort of adult patients with TRK fusion sarcomas., Methods: Patients (≥18 years old) with sarcomas harboring NTRK gene fusions were identified from three clinical trials. Patients received larotrectinib 100 mg orally twice daily. Response was investigator-assessed per RECIST v1.1. Data cutoff was July 20, 2021., Results: At the data cutoff, 36 adult patients with TRK fusion sarcomas had initiated larotrectinib therapy: two (6%) patients had bone sarcomas, four (11%) had gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and 30 (83%) had soft tissue sarcomas. All patients were evaluable for response and demonstrated an objective response rate of 58% (95% confidence interval, 41-74). Patients responded well to larotrectinib regardless of number of prior lines of therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were mostly grade 1/2. Grade 3 treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) occurred in 15 (42%) patients. There were no grade 4 TEAEs. Two grade 5 TEAEs were reported, neither of which were considered related to larotrectinib. Four (11%) patients permanently discontinued treatment due to TEAEs., Conclusions: Larotrectinib demonstrated robust and durable responses, extended survival benefit, and a favorable safety profile in adult patients with TRK fusion sarcomas with longer follow-up. These results continue to demonstrate that testing for NTRK gene fusions should be incorporated into the clinical management of adult patients with various types of sarcomas., Plain Language Summary: Tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) fusion proteins result from translocations involving the NTRK gene and cause cancer in a range of tumor types. Larotrectinib is an agent that specifically targets TRK fusion proteins and is approved for the treatment of patients with TRK fusion cancer. This study looked at how well larotrectinib worked in adult patients with sarcomas caused by TRK fusion proteins. Over half of patients had a durable response to larotrectinib, with no unexpected side effects. These results show that larotrectinib is safe and effective in adult patients with TRK fusion sarcomas., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: CB-103 selectively inhibits the CSL-NICD (Notch intracellular domain) interaction leading to transcriptional downregulation of oncogenic Notch pathway activation. This dose-escalation/expansion study aimed to determine safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity., Experimental Design: Patients ≥18 years of age with selected advanced solid tumors [namely, adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC)] and hematologic malignancies were eligible. CB-103 was dosed orally in cycles of 28 days at escalating doses until disease progression. Notch-activating mutations were required in a dose confirmatory cohort. Endpoints included dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), safety, tumor response, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. Exploratory analyses focused on correlates of Notch and target gene expression., Results: Seventy-nine patients (64, 12 dose-escalation cohorts; 15, confirmatory cohort) enrolled with 54% receiving two or more lines of prior therapy. ACC was the dominant tumor type (40, 51%). Two DLTs were observed [elevated gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), visual change]; recommended phase II dose was declared as 500 mg twice daily (5 days on, 2 days off weekly). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 15 patients (19%), including elevated liver function tests (LFTs), anemia, and visual changes. Five (6%) discontinued drug for toxicity; with no drug-related deaths. There were no objective responses, but 37 (49%) had stable disease; including 23 of 40 (58%) patients with ACC. In the ACC cohort, median progression-free survival was 2.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5-3.7] and median overall survival was 18.4 months (95% CI, 6.3-not reached)., Conclusions: CB-103 had a manageable safety profile and biological activity but limited clinical antitumor activity as monotherapy in this first-in-human study., Significance: CB-103 is a novel oral pan-Notch inhibitor that selectively blocks the CSL-NICD interaction leading to transcriptional downregulation of oncogenic Notch pathway activation. This first-in-human dose-escalation and -confirmation study aimed to determine the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor efficacy of CB-103. We observed a favorable safety profile with good tolerability and biological activity but limited clinical single-agent antitumor activity. Some disease stabilization was observed among an aggressive NOTCH-mutant ACC type-I subgroup where prognosis is poor and therapies are critically needed. Peripheral downregulation of select Notch target gene levels was observed with escalating doses. Future studies exploring CB-103 should enrich for patients with NOTCH-mutant ACC and investigate rational combinatorial approaches in tumors where there is limited success with investigational or approved drugs., (© 2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The impact of tumour mutational burden (TMB) on outcome with molecularly matched therapy is unknown. Higher TMB could predict resistance to molecularly matched therapy through co-occurring driver mutations., Methods: One hundred and four patients with advanced cancers underwent molecular profiling in the DKTK-MASTER program. Fifty-five patients received systemic therapy excluding immunotherapy. Patients with molecularly matched (n = 35) or non-molecularly informed therapy (n = 20) were analysed for TMB and survival. Results were validated in an independent cohort of patients receiving molecularly matched (n = 68) or non-molecularly informed therapy (n = 40). Co-occurring driver mutations and TMB were analysed in the exploratory cohort and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) datasets., Results: Patients were stratified by the median TMB of 1.67 mutations per Megabase (mut/Mb) of 35 patients receiving molecularly matched therapy into TMB-high or TMB-low groups. Median overall survival (4 months [95% CI, 3.3-7.6] versus 12.8 months [95% CI, 10-not reached], p < 0.001) and progression-free survival (1.8 months [95% CI, 1.1-3.7] versus 7.9 months [95% CI, 2.8-17.0], p = 0.003) were significantly shorter in the TMB-high group compared to the TMB-low group. In the validation cohort, shorter OS and PFS were identified in the TMB-high group (TMB cut-off of 4 mut/Mb) treated with molecularly matched therapy. No differences were observed in patients receiving non-molecularly informed systemic therapy. A significant correlation between co-occurring driver mutations and TMB (n = 104, r = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.68-0.85], p < 0.001) was found in the exploratory cohort as well as the majority (24/33) of TCGA studies., Conclusion: A high TMB was associated with unfavourable outcome in patients receiving molecularly matched therapy, indicating untargeted resistance pathways. Therefore, TMB should be further investigated as a predictive biomarker in precision oncology programs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Till de Bortoli, Manuela Benary, Mario Lamping, Reinhold Schäfer and Frederick Klauschen report no potential conflicts of interest. Peter Horak reported consulting or advisory board membership for Platomics and honoraria from Platomics, Roche. Sebastian Stintzing has received honoraria/consulting or advisory role from Amgen, Bayer, Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, research funding from Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Roche Molecular Diagnostics, travel, accommodation and expenses support from Amgen, Bayer, Lilly, Merck KgaA, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Sirtex Medical and Takeda. Inge Tinhofer reports honoraria/consulting or advisory role for Merck KgaA and MerckSerono. Serge Leyvraz reports consulting or advisory role and travel expenses support from Bayer. Ulrich Keller reports a consulting role for Roche, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, BMS, Gilead, Hexal, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, Pentixapharm and honoraria from Gilead, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Takeda, MSD, as well as research funding from Celgene, Takeda, BMS, Roche, Astra-Zeneka, Novartis, MSD, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer. Other support was declared from Roche, BMS, Gilead, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag and Celgene. Albrecht Stenzinger reported Advisory Board/Speaker’s Bureau from Aignostics, Astra Zeneca, AGCT, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Illumina, Incyte, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Thermo Fisher and research grants from Bayer, BMS, Chugai, Incyte. Stefan Fröhling reported consulting or advisory board membership from Bayer, Illumina, Roche; honoraria: Amgen, Eli Lilly, PharmaMar, Roche and research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, as well as travel or accommodation expenses support from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Illumina, PharmaMar, Roche. Razelle Kurzrock has received research funding from Biological Dynamics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Debiopharm, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Grifols, Guardant, Incyte, Konica Minolta, Medimmune, Merck Serono, Omniseq, Pfizer, Sequenom, Takeda, and TopAlliance; as well as consultant and/or speaker fees and/or advisory board for Actuate Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bicara Therapeutics, Biological Dynamics, EISAI, EOM Pharmaceuticals, Iylon, Merck, NeoGenomics, Neomed, Pfizer, Prosperdtx, Roche, TD2/Volastra, Turning Point Therapeutics, X-Biotech and has an equity interest in CureMatch Inc., CureMetrix, and IDbyDNA; She also serves on the Board of CureMatch and CureMetrix,and is a co-founder of CureMatch. Ulrich Keilholz has received advisory board/speaker bureau, trial support, research collaboration or research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Glycotope, Innate, Lilly, Medimmune, MerckSerono, MSD/Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech and Sirtex. Damian Rieke has received consultant and/or advisory board and/or speaker fees from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Lilly. Ivan Jelas has received consultant and/or advisory board and/or speaker fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck and Roche., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In patients with previously treated metastatic uveal melanoma, the historical 1 year overall survival rate is 37% with a median overall survival of 7.8 months. We conducted a multicenter, single-arm, open-label phase 2 study of tebentafusp, a soluble T cell receptor bispecific (gp100×CD3), in 127 patients with treatment-refractory metastatic uveal melanoma (NCT02570308). The primary endpoint was the estimation of objective response rate based on RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) v1.1. Secondary objectives included safety, overall survival, progression-free survival and disease control rate. All patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event, with rash (87%), pyrexia (80%) and pruritus (67%) being the most common. Toxicity was mostly mild to moderate in severity but was greatly reduced in incidence and intensity after the initial three doses. Despite a low overall response rate of 5% (95% CI: 2-10%), the 1 year overall survival rate was 62% (95% CI: 53-70%) with a median overall survival of 16.8 months (95% CI: 12.9-21.3), suggesting benefit beyond traditional radiographic-based response criteria. In an exploratory analysis, early on-treatment reduction in circulating tumour DNA was strongly associated with overall survival, even in patients with radiographic progression. Our findings indicate that tebentafusp has promising clinical activity with an acceptable safety profile in patients with previously treated metastatic uveal melanoma, and data suggesting ctDNA as an early indicator of clinical benefit from tebentafusp need confirmation in a randomized trial., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Background: Targeted therapies for metastatic uveal melanoma have shown limited benefit in biomarker-unselected populations. The Treat20 Plus study prospectively evaluated the feasibility of a precision oncology strategy in routine clinical practice., Patients and Methods: Fresh biopsies were analyzed by high-throughput genomics (whole-genome, whole-exome, and RNA sequencing). A multidisciplinary molecular and immunologic tumor board (MiTB) made individualized treatment recommendations based on identified molecular aberrations, patient situation, drug, and clinical trial availability. Therapy selection was at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint was the feasibility of the precision oncology clinical program., Results: Molecular analyses were available for 39/45 patients (87%). The MiTB provided treatment recommendations for 40/45 patients (89%), of whom 27/45 (60%) received ≥1 matched therapy. First-line matched therapies included MEK inhibitors (n = 15), MET inhibitors (n = 10), sorafenib (n = 1), and nivolumab (n = 1). The best response to first-line matched therapy was partial response in one patient (nivolumab based on tumor mutational burden), mixed response in two patients, and stable disease in 12 patients for a clinical benefit of 56%. The matched therapy population had a median progression-free survival and overall survival of 3.3 and 13.9 months, respectively. The growth modulation index with matched therapy was >1.33 in 6/17 patients (35%) with prior systemic therapy, suggesting clinical benefit., Conclusions: A precision oncology approach was feasible for patients with metastatic uveal melanoma, with 60% receiving a therapy matched to identify molecular aberrations. The clinical benefit after checkpoint inhibitors highlights the value of tumor mutational burden testing., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement SL reports travel and advisory board support from Immunocore and Bayer. CP reports speaker honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Daiichi-Sankyo, EUSA Pharma and Sirtex Medical and advisory honoraria from EUSA Pharma. MS is employee of Alacris Theranostics. TK is employee of Alacris Theranostics. SO reports consultancy fees from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Biotech, Merck. DTR reports Honoraria from Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Advisory Honoraria from Bayer and Alacris Theranostics. KK reports advisory board and conference honoraria from Merck, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Glycotope, Roche, Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. CU reports consulting fees from Sanofi, grant for educational activities form Galderma, Beiresdorf and Almirall. GP reports consulting fees and grant for educational activities from Amgen. Novartis, Sun Pharma. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme. FK is co-founder of Aignostics GmbH and has received consulting support from Roche, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Agilent and Iomedico. AJ reports Consultant fees from Novartis, Roche, Boehringer, Allergan, Bayer. MLY is an employee and shareholder of Alacris Theranostics. UK reports consulting fees for Merck Sharp & Dohme, travel support from Merck Serono, Pfizer, grant for educational activities from Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre-Fabre. FK, MD, ES, GD, ML, SB, RS have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) fusion proteins resulting from neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions are rare primary oncogenic drivers in a wide array of tumors. Larotrectinib is a first-in-class, highly selective, central nervous system-active TRK inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and over 40 countries for the treatment of TRK fusion solid tumors in adult and pediatric patients. Due to the rarity of TRK fusion cancer, larotrectinib was granted accelerated approval based on a relatively small number of patients enrolled in three early phase trials. ON-TRK aims to evaluate the safety profile of larotrectinib in a broader population and over extended time periods., Methods: ON-TRK is a prospective, non-interventional, open-label, multicenter, multi-cohort, post-approval study in adult and pediatric patients with locally advanced or metastatic TRK fusion cancer treated with larotrectinib that will describe the safety and effectiveness of larotrectinib in real-world practice conditions. Adult patients will be grouped by tumor type and followed for at least 2 years. Patients < 18 years old will be enrolled under a 'pediatric' cohort regardless of tumor type and will be followed for 5 years to evaluate the risk of potential long-term adverse effects of larotrectinib on their growth and development. The effectiveness of larotrectinib in the overall study population as well as in patient subgroups will also be evaluated. Procedures avoided in patients with infantile fibrosarcoma (e.g., amputation) and the number of patients who were able to undergo surgery with a curative intent (excluding amputation) because of the use of larotrectinib will be described. Larotrectinib treatment patterns in real-world practice, including dosing and duration of treatment, will be described., Discussion: The FDA Accelerated Approval Program allows for earlier approval of and patient access to drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need. This study is designed to fulfill post-approval requirements set by the FDA as well as post-marketing requirements set forth by local regulatory bodies and is part of the risk management plan for the EMA., Study Registration: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04142437 )., Protocol Version: v2.5, 25 March 2021., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: Larotrectinib is a highly selective tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy across various TRK fusion-positive solid tumours. We assessed the efficacy and safety of larotrectinib in patients with TRK fusion-positive thyroid carcinoma (TC)., Methods: We pooled data from three phase I/II larotrectinib clinical trials (NCT02576431, NCT02122913, and NCT02637687). The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Data cut-off: July 2020., Results: Twenty-nine patients (median age: 60; range: 6-80) with TRK fusion-positive TC were treated. Tumour histology was papillary (PTC) in 20 (69%) patients, follicular (FTC) in 2 (7%), and anaplastic (ATC) in 7 (24%) patients. Among 28 evaluable patients, ORR was 71% (95% CI: 51-87); best responses were complete response in 2 (7%) patients, partial response in 18 (64%), stable disease in 4 (14%), progressive disease in 3 (11%), and undetermined in 1 (4%) due to clinical progression prior to the first post-baseline assessment. ORR was 86% (95% CI: 64-97) for PTC/FTC and 29% (95% CI 4-71) for ATC. Median time to response was 1.87 months (range 1.64-3.68). The 24-month DoR, PFS, and OS rates were 81, 69, and 76%, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were mainly grades 1-2., Conclusion: In TRK fusion-positive TC, larotrectinib demonstrates rapid and durable disease control and a favourable safety profile in patients with advanced disease requiring systemic therapy., Significance Statement: NTRK gene fusions are known oncogenic drivers and have been identified in various histologies of thyroid carcinoma, most commonly in papillary thyroid carcinoma. This is the first publication specifically studying a TRK inhibitor in a cohort of TRK fusion-positive thyroid carcinoma patients. In the current study, the highly selective TRK inhibitor larotrectinib showed durable antitumour efficacy and a favourable safety profile in patients with TRK fusion-positive thyroid carcinoma. Our findings show that patients with advanced non-medullary thyroid carcinoma who may require systemic therapy could be considered for testing for gene fusions by next-generation sequencing.