Search

Introduction: High-throughput sequencing techniques have revolutionized oncology. Paired germline-tumor DNA analysis has emerged as a comprehensive strategy to uncover actionable alterations in advanced cancer patients (ACP) enrolled in precision oncology trials. However, challenges persist in variant interpretation and managing incidental germline findings., Methods: We conducted a study involving 288 ACP from MOSCATO (NCT01566019) and MATCHR (NCT02517892) trials to assess germline variants impacting cancer-related genes. Germline DNA sequencing was performed using a panel of 250 cancer-related genes, and the results were discussed during tumor molecular board sessions., Results: Germline pathogenic variants (PV) were classified according to the ESCAT classification. Lung cancer (36.8 %), followed by prostate (18.4 %) and breast cancer (17.7 %), comprised the most prevalent tumor types. PVs were found in 12.5 % of patients. Most PVs were classified as ESCAT X (63.9 %), highlighting limited therapeutic actionability. Notably,2 % of patients had actionable variants (ESCAT I-A/II-A). Incidental findings included 7.3 % of patients with PVs in cancer-predisposition genes, with 2.4 % having very high-risk potential, necessitating mandatory oncogenetic counseling. Nearly one in five patients (21.9 %) had at least one VUS., Discussion: Our study underscores the significance of germline sequencing in identifying actionable alterations and the need for improved variant interpretation as well as pretest counseling plans in precision oncology trials., 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., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

T-cell engagers (TCE) are cancer immunotherapies that have recently demonstrated meaningful benefit for patients with hematological malignancies and solid tumors. The anticipated widespread use of T cell engagers poses implementation challenges and highlights the need for guidance to anticipate, mitigate, and manage adverse events. By mobilizing T-cells directly at the contact of tumor cells, TCE mount an obligatory and immediate anti-tumor immune response that could result in diverse reactions and adverse events. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is the most common reaction and is largely confined to the first drug administrations during step-up dosage. Cytokine release syndrome should be distinguished from infusion related reaction by clinical symptoms, timing to occurrence, pathophysiological aspects, and clinical management. Other common reactions and adverse events with TCE are immune effector Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS), infections, tumor flare reaction and cytopenias. The toxicity profiles of TCE and CAR-T cells have commonalities and distinctions that we sum-up in this review. As compared with CAR-T cells, TCE are responsible for less frequently severe CRS or ICANS. This review recapitulates terminology, pathophysiology, severity grading system and management of reactions and adverse events related to TCE., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Jean-Marie Michot (JMM) declare conflict of interest outside of the considered work, as being principal/sub-Investigator of clinical trials for Abbvie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Casi Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Celgene Corporation, Cellcentric, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, Gamamabs, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Incyte Corporation, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Janssen R&D LLC, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Regeneron, Relay Therapeutics, Inc, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Transgene S.A, Turning Point Therapeutics, Xencor. JMM declare conflict of interest outside of the considered work, research grants from Astex pharmaceuticals. JMM declare conflict of interest outside of the considered work, personal fees (fees paid for services rendered, generally honoraria, royalties or fees for consulting, lectures, speakers bureaus, expert testimony, employment, ad-boards, etc.) from: Ideogen, Glaxosmithkline, MSD, Therakos/Mallinckrodt, Regeneron. Thomas Hueso (TH) declare conflict of interest outside of the considered work, as being principal/sub-Investigator of clinical trials for Abbvie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Casi Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Celgene Corporation, Cellcentric, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, Gamamabs, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Incyte Corporation, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Janssen R&D LLC, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Regeneron, Relay Therapeutics, Inc, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Transgene S.A, Turning Point Therapeutics, Xencor. Arthur Geraud (AG) declare conflict of interest outside of the considered work, as being principal/sub-Investigator of clinical trials for Abbvie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Casi Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Celgene Corporation, Cellcentric, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, Gamamabs, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Incyte Corporation, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Janssen R&D LLC, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Regeneron, Relay Therapeutics, Inc, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Transgene S.A, Turning Point Therapeutics, Xencor. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: At metastatic stage, treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) relies in first line on mitotane therapy, combination of mitotane with locoregional therapies or cisplatin-based chemotherapy according to initial presentation. In second line, ESMO-EURACAN recommendations favour enrolment of patients in clinical trials investigating experimental therapies. However, the benefit of this approach remains unknown., Methods: The aim of our retrospective study was to analyse the inclusion and outcomes of all patients of the French cohort ENDOCAN-COMETE included in early clinical trials between 2009 and 2019., Results: Of the 141 patients for whom a local or national multidisciplinary tumour board recommended, as first choice, to look for clinical trial, 27 patients (19%) were enroled in 30 early clinical trials. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.02 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI]; 2.3-4.6) and median overall survival (OS) was 10.2 months (95% CI; 7.13-16.3) while the best response, evaluable in 28 of 30 trial participants according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, was partial response for 3 patients (11%) stable disease for 14 patients (50%) and progressive disease for 11 patients (39%), resulting in a disease control rate of 61%. Median growth modulation index (GMI) in our cohort was 1.32, with a significantly prolonged PFS in 52% of the patients compared to the previous line. The Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score was not associated with OS in this cohort., Conclusion: Our study suggests that patients with metastatic ACC benefit from inclusion in early clinical trials in second line. As recommended, if a clinical trial is available, it should be the first choice for suitable patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapies improve survival in multiple cancers but remain ineffective for most patients. We applied machine-learning algorithms and multivariate analyses on baseline medical data to estimate their relative impact on overall survival (OS) upon anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapies., Method: This prognostic/predictive study retrospectively analysed 33 baseline routine medical variables derived from computed tomography (CT) images, clinical and biological meta-data. 695 patients with a diagnosis of advanced cancer were treated in prospective clinical trials in a single tertiary cancer centre in 3 cohorts including systemic anti-PD-(L)1 (251, 235 patients) versus other systemic therapies (209 patients). A random forest model combined variables to identify the combination (signature) which best estimated OS in patients treated with immunotherapy. The performance for estimating OS [95%CI] was measured using Kaplan-Meier Analysis and Log-Rank test., Results: Elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH hi ) and presence of liver metastases (LM+) were dominant and independent predictors of short OS in independent cohorts of melanoma and non-melanoma solid tumours. Overall, LDH hi LM+ patients treated with anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy had a poorer outcome (median OS: 3.1[2.4-7.8] months]) compared to LDH low LM-patients (median OS: 15.3[8.9-NA] months; P < 0.0001). The OS of LDH low LM-patients treated with immunotherapy was 28.8[17.9-NA] months (vs 13.1[10.8-18.5], P = 0.02) in the overall population and 30.3[19.93-NA] months (vs 14.1[8.69-NA], P = 0.0013) in patients with melanoma., Conclusion: LDH hi LM+ status identifies patients who shall not benefit from anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy. It could be used in clinical trials to stratify patients and eventually address this specific medical need., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Mithat Gönen. Consulting or Advisory Role: Tesaro. Aurelien Marabelle. In the last 5 years, consulting and/or participation to scientific advisory boards with the following companies developing or commercialising anti-PD(L)1 antibodies: BMS, MSD, Roche/Genentech, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novartis, Merck Serono, Symphogen, Servier, GSK. Lawrence H. Schwartz. Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Regeneron. Research Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), BMS (Inst). Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Varian Medical Systems. Jean-Charles Soria. In the last 3 years, consultancy fees from: AstraZeneca, Astex, Clovis, GSK, GamaMabs, Lilly, MSD, Mission Therapeutics, Merus, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Symphogen, Takeda. Full time employee for AstraZeneca from September 2017 to December 2019. Shareholder Gritstone. Lambros Tselikas. Grants: Terumo, BMS foundation. Fees, education, lecture: BMS, Boston Scientific, GE, Guerbet, Sirtex. Other authors. None., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Although the role of epigenetic alterations in oncogenesis has been well studied, their prevalence in metastatic solid tumours is still poorly described. We therefore aimed at: (i) describing the presence of epigenetic gene alterations (EGA) - defined by an alteration in a gene encoding an epigenetic regulator; and (ii) evaluating their relationship with clinical characteristics and outcome in patients (pts) included in prospective molecular profiling trials., Materials and Methods: On-purpose tumour biopsies from pts with metastatic solid tumours enrolled in the Gustave Roussy-sponsored MOSCATO (NCT01566019) and MATCHR (NCT02517892) trials were molecularly profiled using whole exome sequencing (WES). Alterations in 176 epigenetic genes were assessed and classified as pathogenic variants (PV) or non-pathogenic variants by a molecular tumour board. Clinical characteristics and outcome were collected., Results: Between Dec 2011 and Oct 2016, WES was successfully performed in 292 pts presenting various solid tumours. We found 496 epigenetic gene alterations in 134 patients (49%), including 237 pathogenic variants in 86 patients; 63 tumour samples (47%) presented ≥3 EGAs. The median number of previous treatment lines was 3 (1-10). The most frequently altered genes were KMT2D and KMT2C (16% each), ARID1A and SETD2 (10% each) and KMT2A (8%).; 31% of EGA co-occurred with a driver gene alteration (p &lt; 0.001). Outcome was not correlated with the presence of EGA., Conclusions: Epigenetic alterations occur frequently in metastatic solid tumours. With the current development of epigenetic modifiers, they increasingly represent actionable targets. Such genes should now be systematically analysed in molecular profiling studies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement PMR: Consultant/Advisory fees from Roche and AbilityPharma; CB declares Consulting BMS, GSK, AZ and Funding from BMS; LV reports personal fees from Adaptherapy, is CEO of RESOLVED, non-personal fees from Pierre-Fabre and Servier, grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, all outside the submitted work; AV is an employee and stakeholder of Astrazeneca since August 2020; JCS received consultancy fees from Relay Therapeutics; was an employee of AstraZeneca 2017–2019; has shares in AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gritstone; he is an employee of Amgen since August, 2021; CM is a consultant/Advisory fees from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Orion. SPC declares honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, EISAI, Janssen, MSD, Novartis and Roche, advisory Board from Alderaan Biotechnology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Avacta, Oncovita, Seagen, UltraHuman and Travel and congress support from AstraZeneca, MSD, Ose Pharma, Roche, Sotio. JMM declares participating in advisory board from BMS - Celgene, GSK, MSD, Roche; As part of the Drug Development Department (DITEP) the authors principal investigator/sub-Investigator from Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Bioalliance Pharma, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, Gamamabs, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Chibret, Merus, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Onyx Therapeutics, Orion Pharma, Oryzon Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Plexxikon, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Turning Point Therapeutics, Xencor; Research Grants from Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, INCA, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi; Non-financial support (drug supplied) from Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boringher Ingelheim, GSK, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, Roche. The other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Many intratumoural (IT) immunotherapies are currently developed in the clinic with the aim of overcoming primary and secondary resistance and/or to limit on-target/off-tumour toxicities of immune checkpoint targeted therapies. This study aimed to describe the feasibility, safety and efficacy of IT immunotherapy treatments., Design: This retrospective single-centre study included the first 100 consecutive patients enrolled in Gustave Roussy's Human IntraTumoral-ImmunoTherapy (HIT-IT) program. Patient characteristics, target description, image guidance, safety and response according to iRECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours for immunotherapy trials) were recorded. Predictive factors of complications and responses were analysed. Survival was also reported., Results: From 09/2015 to 05/2020, 100 patients had 115 tumours injected during 423 treatment cycles. Most frequent primary tumour arose from the skin (n = 49), digestive track (n = 4) or head and neck (n = 8). Injected tumours' mean diameter was 37 ± 23 mm, and a median number of 4 IT injections per patient (interquartile range:3-5) were performed. Targeted tumours for IT injections were superficial lymph nodes (36.5%), subcutaneous lesions (25.2%), liver tumours (20.9%) and others (17.4% including tumour sites such as deep lymph nodes or lung). Most patients (72%) received systemic immunotherapy in combination with HIT-IT. Procedure- and drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 11.3% and 33.3% of the treatment cycles, respectively. Only 3 procedure-related AEs were grade-3 (0.7%); and no grade-4 or 5 occurred. Among all cycles, 7 grade-3 and 1 grade-5 drug-related AEs were reported. Complete and partial responses were achieved for 5% and 18% of patients, respectively, while stable disease was the best response for 11%. Patients receiving HIT-IT as a 1st-line treatment (24%), or not previously pre-treated with immunotherapy (53%) responded better, p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively. From 1st cycle of IT, 12-month overall progression-free survival and overall survival were 21% (14-31%) and 57% (47-68%), respectively., Conclusions: This retrospective study, conducted on patients with cancer and treated within clinical trials at Gustave Roussy, demonstrates the feasibility and safety of the IT immunotherapy strategy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Lambros Tselikas received honoraria from the following companies: Amgen, Boston Scientific, Medincell, GE Healthcare, Guerbet, SIRTEX, Quantum Surgical, and received grants from BMS foundation and Terumo. Thierry de Baere, has consulted or received advisory fees from: AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Eisai, GE Healthcare, Guerbet, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Nanobiotix, Roche, Terumo, Quantum surgical, Frédéric Deschamps, has received honoraria from: Ablatech, Boston Scientific, General Electric, Medtronic and Terumo. Capucine Baldini, reports research funding from BMS, honoraria from Sanofi, BMS, Astra Zeneca, and Abbvie Jean-Charles Soria, received honoraria from Astex, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blend Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Clovis, Eli Lily, Gammamabs, Merus, Mission Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Symhogen, Tarveda; is a Gritstone stockholder and was an AstraZeneca full time employee from Sept 2017 to Dec 2019 and is an AMGEN full time employee since July 2021. Fabrice Barlesi, reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer–Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer and Takeda. Christophe Massard, has consulted or received advisory fees from: Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Orion. Caroline Robert, has consulted for BMS, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Amgen, Merck, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Biothera, Ultimovacs. Stéphane Champiat, has received honoraria or consulted for the following companies: Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Novartis and Roche. Aurélien Marabelle, has participated to Scientific Advisory Boards or Consulted for the following companies: MSD, Astra Zeneca/Medimmune, Bayer, Pillar Partners, Bioncotech, Rigontec, Curevac, Servier, Amgen. Antoine Dardenne, , Matthieu Faron, , Samy Ammari, Siham Farhane, Steve Suzzoni, François-Xavier Danlos, Thibault Raoult, Sandrine Susini, Nael Al-Shatti, Severine Mouraud, Adrian Kobe, Alexandre Delpla, Charles Roux, have no conflict of interest to declare •No specific funding was obtained for this study. The Intratumoral programm of Gustave Roussy is partially funded by the Centre d’Investigation Clinique BIOTHERIS (CIC1428 INSERM), (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) in combination with antiangiogenic drugs showed synergistic efficacy in several tumour types. New patterns of progression have recently been defined upon treatment with ICB alone including atypical responses such as pseudoprogression (PsPD), dissociated response and hyperprogressive disease (HPD). This study aimed to describe the patterns of response observed in patients treated with combination ICB with antiangiogenic drugs., Methods: We conducted a monocentric retrospective analysis of patients (pts) enrolled in phase I trials at Gustave Roussy assessing the combination of ICB and antiangiogenic drugs. Radiological CT scans were centrally reviewed by a senior radiologist according to iRECIST criteria including progressive disease (PD), partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD). HPD was defined as a progression at the first evaluation with a delta tumour growth rate exceeding 50%. PsPD was defined as initial progression followed by stabilisation or decrease of tumour size, DisR as a concomitant size decrease in some tumour lesions and size increase in others. Both PsPD and DisR are defined as atypical responses. Overall response rate included PR and complete response (CR) and disease control rate included PR, CR and SD., Results: Between December 2016 and June 2020, 111 pts were included. The median follow up was 12.8 months (11.3-15.1). The most common tumour types were lung and pleura (20%), kidney (18%) and bladder (17%). The overall response rate and disease control rate were 21.6% (n = 24) and 59% (n = 65), respectively. Twenty-one patients (19%) experienced PD as the best response. PsPD, DisR and HPD were observed in 4 (3.6%), 11 (9.9%) and 7 (6.3%) pts, respectively. DisR and PsPD were associated with longer iProgression Free Survival (median: 6.9 and 18.9 months, respectively) and iOverall Survival (median: 28.4 and 31.1 months, respectively) than a median of SD in immune progression-free survival (median: 4.2 months) and immune overall survival (median: 12.7 months)., Conclusion: Patients treated with ICBs and antiangiogenic agents display atypical responses. Survival might be longer in patients with DisR responses and PsPD disease than patients with HPD, PD and SD., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: As part of the Drug Development Department (DITEP): Principal/sub-Investigator of Clinical Trials for Abbvie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Bioalliance Pharma, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, Gamamabs, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merus, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Onyx Therapeutics, Orion Pharma, Oryzon Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Plexxikon, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Turning Point Therapeutics, Xencor. Research Grants from Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, INCA, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Non-financial support (drug supplied) from Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boringher Ingelheim, GSK, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, Roche. T.Assi and S.Ammari have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recent studies showed that patients with glioma can safely participate in early phase clinical trials; however, clinical benefits in this population were limited. We aimed to evaluate the benefit of molecular profiling to guide enrolment in early phase trials for patients with recurrent glioma., Methods: Records of patients enrolled in early phase trials of cytotoxic therapies, small molecule inhibitors or monoclonal antibodies from 2008 to 2018 were reviewed for clinico-pathological characteristics, toxicity, response, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). The primary objective was to evaluate response rates in molecularly-oriented versus non-molecularly-oriented patients., Results: Eighty-eight patients were enrolled, of whom 45 (51.1%) patients were molecularly-oriented. Targets included IDH1/2 (n = 15), BRAF (n = 11), and FGFR1 (n = 3) mutations, FGFR2-3 fusions (n = 9), and mismatch repair deficiency (n = 7). Among patients with high-grade glioma (n = 74), the rate of stable disease ≥6 months and partial or complete response was 25.7% in molecularly-oriented versus 5.1% in non-molecularly-oriented patients (p = 0.02). Upon multivariable adjustment, baseline steroid use ≥20 mg prednisone equivalent per day was associated with shorter OS (OR 3.15 [95% CI 1.62-6.13], p = 0.0008), while molecular enrichment strategy was associated with longer OS (OR 0.40 [95% CI 0.22-0.73], p = 0.003). Nine (10.2%) patients experienced grade 3-4 toxicity and no dose limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred in both cohorts., Conclusion: The use of molecular profiling to guide enrolment in early phase trials is feasible and might provide benefits to selected patients with glioma. Further studies are warranted to confirm these results in larger randomised settings and identify the patients most likely to benefit from this approach., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement CB reports personal fees from BMS, Sanofi, Abbvie, Roche, Astra Zeneca. As a subinvestigator at the DITEP: Abbvie, Aduro biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Aeneca, Astra Zeneca Ab, Aveo, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, Bioalliance Pharma, Biontech Ag, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingel-heim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bristol-Myers Squibb Inter-national Corporation, Ca, Celgene Corpo-ration, Cephalon, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm S.a, Eisai, Eli lilly, Exelixis, Forma, Gamamabs, Genentech, Inc, Gilead Sciences, Inc, Glaxosmithkline, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, H3 Biomedicine, Inc, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Incyte Corpora-tion, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recher-che Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev., Inc, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Kgaa, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Mil-lennium Pharmaceuticals, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Onco-logy Nv, Oncoethix, Oncomed, Oncopep-tides, Onyx Therapeutics, Orion Pharma, Oryzon Genomics, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Plexxikon, Rigontec Gmbh, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Tioma Therapeutics, Wyeth Pharma-ceuticals France, Xencor, Y's Therapeutics. JCS is an employee of Amgen and former employee of AstraZeneca. FB reports research funding from Abbvie and Sanofi; employment from Celgene (I); stocks from Crossject (I); travel, accommodations, expenses from Bristol-Myers Squibb for travel expenses, outside the submitted work. KHX reports consulting fees and research grant from BTG, outside the submitted work. AI reports grants and other from Carthera (September 2019); research grants from Transgene; grants from Sanofi, and Air Liquide; and travel funding from Leo Pharma, outside the submitted work. MT reports research funding from Sanofi; consulting or advisory role from Agios Pharmaceutical, Integragen, Taiho Oncology, and Servier, outside the submitted work; travel, accommodations, expenses from Merck Sharp & Dome and Servier, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Despite unprecedented results of anti-programmed death protein (ligand) 1 (PD-(L)1) immune checkpoint inhibitor in the oncology's armamentarium, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) represent a therapeutic hurdle. Currently, there is no consensual recommendation on a routinely monitored biomarker to early detect irAE. Biological markers such as serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) are commonly used to measure muscular tissue injury. The potential of routine serum CPK monitoring to predict cardiac or neuromuscular irAE in patients treated with immunotherapy remains unknown., Methods: In this retrospective study between January 2016 and December 2018 at Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 1151 cancer patients treated with anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy were systematically monitored with serum CPK measurements before each immunotherapy cycle. We considered significant CPK increases according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 (CTCAEV5) of grade ≥2 severity. Comparisons were performed in patients with immune-related CPK (ir-CPK) elevations symptomatic versus asymptomatic., Results: Overall, 53 of 1151 (4.6%) patients showed a CPK increase. Elevations of CPK were deemed to be immunotherapy-related in 31 of 1151 (2.7%) patients. Among them, 12 of 31 (38.7%) patients experienced symptomatic cardiac or neuromuscular irAE, whereas the other 19 of 31 (61.3%) patients remained asymptomatic. In patients with symptomatic irAE, the mean ir-CPK level was higher compared with asymptomatic patients (1271 versus 771 UI/L, P value = 0.02). In the asymptomatic group, all patients experienced a spontaneous resolution of the ir-CPK increase, and none required medical intervention., Conclusion: Most patients with immune-related CPK increase remained asymptomatic. The CPK serum increase did not alter the clinical management of asymptomatic patients. The results of this study did not support a significant clinical interest for a systematic routine CPK monitoring in patients amenable to anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement S.H. declares that she has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article. J.-M.M. declares that in the last 5 years, he has been the principal investigator or the subinvestigator of clinical trials for Abbvie, Agios, Amgen, Astex, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, BMS, Celgene, Forma, Genentech, GSK, H3 biomedecine, Incyte, Innate Pharma, Janssen, Lilly, Medimmune, MSD, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Oncopeptides AB, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Sierra Oncology and Xencor. All the remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) remain generally unpredictable, and severe irAEs remain challenging to detect early and manage. Very severe (grade IV-V) irAEs have not been extensively characterised in prospective studies, and their predictive factors remain unknown., Objective: The objective of the study was to describe and identify predictive factors of very severe (grade IV-V) irAEs., Design: The French Registre des Effets Indésirables Sévères des Anticorps Monoclonaux Immunomodulateurs en Cancérologie (REISAMIC) registry has prospectively collected all clinically significant irAEs occurring in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors at Gustave Roussy Institute since 2014., Setting: This was a single-centre prospective cohort study at the Gustave Roussy Institute cancer centre (Villejuif, France)., Participants: The participants were all adult patients with a solid or haematological cancer treated with an anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or an anti-programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and who presented a clinically significant irAE., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes included the clinical and laboratory characteristics of patients with very severe irAEs, including tumour type, affected organs, time to irAE occurrence, blood cell count and serum biochemistry parameters., Results: Of the 1187 patients prospectively followed in REISAMIC between December 2014 and January 2020, 380 (32.0%) had at least one irAE, and 34 (2.86%) presented with very severe irAEs (grades IV-V). Among the 380 patients with an irAE, the distribution of very severe irAEs (grades IV-V) was 8.95% and death (grade V) was 3.95%. Among the 34 patients with very severe irAEs, 33 were treated with monotherapy of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors, and one patient was treated with a combination of PD-1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitors. The median time to occurrence was shorter for very severe irAEs (median [interquartile range]: 41 days [0-634] for grades IV-V; versus 91 days [0-1123] for grades I-III; p = 0.01680). On initiation of immunotherapy, the predictive factors for very severe irAEs were performance status ≥2, elevated neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and treatment for lung cancer., Conclusions: Very severe (grade IV-V) immunological toxicities occurred earlier than mild severe toxicities. On initiation of immunotherapy, patients with poor performance status, elevated neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and lung cancer are identified at risk of developing these very severe toxicities. These results could help to develop risk scores to identify patients at risk of developing severe toxicities., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement V.R., V.G., A.L., S.M., F-X.D., A-L.V. and S.L. have no conflicts of interest to declare. P.M-R. reports personal payment from Abilitypharma and Roche. S.C. is the principal investigator of clinical trials for Amgen, Merck and Sanofi Aventis, reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis and Roche, reports support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, MSD and Roche, reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board in Amgen, AstraZeneca and Oncovita, reports as part of the Drug Development Department (DITEP) the role of the principal/sub-investigator of clinical trials for AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Astex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, BeiGene, BicycleTx Ltd, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Clovis Oncology, Cullinan-Apollo, CureVac, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Therapeutics, GamaMabs, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, iTeos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, MedImmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre, Medicament, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, SOTIO A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Turning Point Therapeutics and Xencor, reports research grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, INCA, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi and reports non-financial support (drug supplied) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boringher Ingelheim, GSK, MedImmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer and Roche. C.B. reports grants or contracts from any entity made to the institution from BMS and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from BMS and Astra Zeneca. C.M. reports consultant/advisory fees from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Orion and the role of the principal/sub-investigator of clinical trials for AbbVie, Aduro, Agios, Amgen, Argen-x, Astex, AstraZeneca, Aveo pharmaceuticals, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eos, Exelixis, Forma, GamaMabs, Genentech, Gortec, GSK, H3 Biomedicine, Incyte, Innate Pharma, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa, Lilly, Loxo, Lysarc, Lytix Biopharma, MedImmune, Menarini, Merus, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Octimet, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides AB, Orion, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro and Xencor. A.M. reports the role of the principal investigator of clinical trials for the following companies: Roche/Genentech, BMS, Merck (MSD), Pfizer, Lytix pharma, Eisai, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Tesaro, Chugai, OSE immunotherapeutics, SOTIO, Molecular Partners, IMCheck, Pierre Fabre and Adlai Nortye; is a member of Clinical Trial Steering Committee: NCT02528357 (GSK) and NCT03334617 (AZ); is a member of Data Safety and Monitoring Board: NCT02423863 (Sponsor: Oncovir); is a member of scientific advisory boards in the following companies: Merck Serono, eTheRNA, Lytix pharma, Kyowa Kirin Pharma, Novartis, BMS, Symphogen, Genmab, Amgen, Biothera, Nektar, Tesaro/GSK, OncoSec, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Servier, Gritstone, Molecular Partners, Bayer, Partner Therapeutics, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, RedX pharma, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Medicxi, HiFiBio, IMCheck, MSD, iTeos, Innate Pharma, Shattuck Labs, MedinCell, Tessa Therapeutics and Deka Biosciences; reports teaching/speaker activities in the following companies: Roche/Genentech, BMS, Merck (MSD), Merck Serono, Astra Zeneca/MedImmune, Amgen, Sanofi and Servier; reports the scientific and medical consulting in Roche, Pierre Fabre, Onxeo, EISAI, Bayer, Genticel, Rigontec, Daiichi Sankyo, Imaxio, Sanofi/BioNTech, Molecular Partners, Pillar Partners, BPI, Faron and Applied Materials; reports non-financial support (travel expenses) from Astra Zeneca, BMS, Merck (MSD) and Roche; is a shareholder in Pegascy SAS, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, HiFiBio and Shattuck Labs; is a patent holder, patent issued (not licenced): ‘Humanized and Chimeric Monoclonal Antibodies to CD81’, Stanford Office of Technology Licensing, 3000 El Camino Real, Bldg. 5, Suite 300, Palo Alto, CA 94306-2100. U.S. Application Serial No. 62/351,054; reports pre-clinical and clinical research grants (institutional funding) from Merus, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Transgene, Fondation MSD Avenir and Sanofi and reports the following institutional links: As part of the Drug Development Department (DITEP) from Gustave Roussy, the role of the sub-investigator of clinical trials sponsored by the following companies: AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Clovis Oncology, Cullinan-Apollo, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Forma Therapeutics, GamaMabs, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, MedImmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre, Medicament, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, SOTIO A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro and Xencor; research grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi and non-financial support (drug supply to Gustave Roussy sponsored trials) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, MedImmune, MSD, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer and Roche. O.L. reports consulting fees from BMS, MSD and AstraZeneca; payment for expert testimony form BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca and Incyte and support for attending meetings and/or travel from BMS. J-M.M. reports consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca and BMS., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Sarcoid-like granulomatosis (SLG) reaction caused by immunotherapy remains poorly understood. This study aims to investigate the outcome of patients with cancer and SLG associated with immunotherapy., Patients and Methods: Between April 2016 and June 2020, 434 patients with immunological adverse events were screened from the ImmunoTOX assessment board of Gustave Roussy, an academic cancer centre in France. Among them, 28 patients had SLG associated with immunotherapy (SLG cohort) and 406 patients had other immunological adverse events (control cohort). Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients were compared from SLG and control cohort., Results: The SLG cohort consisted of 28 patients, 14 women and 14 men, with the median (range) age of 56.5 (28.7-75.3) years. Patients in the SLG cohort with sarcoidosis were asymptomatic (only radiographical finding) in 13 (46.4%) cases; otherwise, the most frequent symptoms were dyspnoea in 8 (28.6%) patients and cough in 5 (17.8%) patients. The computerised tomography scan found sarcoidosis localisations in mediastinal or peri-hilar thoracic lymph nodes in 26 (92.9%) patients, and lung parenchymal involvement was found in 14 (50.0%) patients. The radiographic Scadding stages for sarcoidosis classification were distributed in stages 0, I, II, III and IV in 2 patients (7.1%), 13 patients (46.4%), 11 patients (39.3%), 1 patient (3.6%) and 1 patient (3.6%), respectively. Compared with patients with other immunological toxicities (cohort control), patients with sarcoidosis presented most frequently with melanoma (75.0% versus 21.9% of patients; p < 0.001) and more often received combined therapies of anti-programmed cell death 1 plus anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 protein (46.4% versus 12.6% of patients; p = 0.002). Patients with sarcoidosis had an improved overall survival (OS); the median OS was not reached in the SLG cohort and 40.4 months in the control cohort, hazard ratio = 0.232 (95% confidence interval: 0.086-0.630) (p = 0.002)., Conclusion: Sarcoidosis-like reactions in patients receiving immunotherapy were reported as non-severe immunological reactions in most cases and were correlated with improved OS. SLG should not be misdiagnosed as tumour progression in patients receiving immunotherapy treatment for cancer., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement O.L. has received expert testimony and consultancy fees from BMS France, MSD and AstraZeneca, consultancy fees from Genzyme and expert testimony fees from Janssen. J-M.M. is a principal/sub-investigator of clinical trials for AbbVie, Aduro, Agios, Amgen, Argen-x, Astex, AstraZeneca, Aveo pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Beigene, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eos, Exelixis, Forma, GamaMabs, Genentech, Gortec, GSK, H3 Biomedecine, Incyte, Innate Pharma, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa, Lilly, Loxo, Lysarc, Lytix Biopharma, MedImmune, Menarini, Merus, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Octimet, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides AB, Orion, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro and Xencor. A.M. is a principal/sub-investigator of clinical trials for AbbVie, Aduro, Agios, Amgen, Argen-x, Astex, AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Beigene, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eos, Exelixis, Forma, Gamamabs, Genentech, Gortec, GSK, H3 Biomedecine, Incyte, Innate Pharma, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa, Lilly, Loxo, Lysarc, Lytix Biopharma, MedImmune, Menarini, Merus, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Octimet, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides AB, Orion, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro and Xencor. He reports personal fees (monies paid to you for services rendered, generally honoraria, royalties or fees for consulting, lectures, speaker bureaus, expert testimony, employment, ad-boards, etc.) from MedImmune, Pfizer, Servier, AstraZeneca and Janssen Bristol Myers Squibb. B.B. reports sponsored Research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cristal Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, OSE Immunopharmaceutics, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda and Tiziana Pharma. C.P. reports hosting fees from Chugai, Sandoz and Amgen. E.R. reports consultancy fees and/or conference fees unrelated to the topic from BMS France, Novartis and Roche and reports grants from BMS, Novartis, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Idera, Iovance, Regeneron and Debiopharm outside the submitted work. All the other authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Changes in the management of patients with cancer and delays in treatment delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic may impact the use of hospital resources and cancer mortality., Patients and Methods: Patient flows, patient pathways and use of hospital resources during the pandemic were simulated using a discrete event simulation model and patient-level data from a large French comprehensive cancer centre's discharge database, considering two scenarios of delays: massive return of patients from November 2020 (early-return) or March 2021 (late-return). Expected additional cancer deaths at 5 years and mortality rate were estimated using individual hazard ratios based on literature., Results: The number of patients requiring hospital care during the simulation period was 13,000. In both scenarios, 6-8% of patients were estimated to present a delay of >2 months. The overall additional cancer deaths at 5 years were estimated at 88 in early-return and 145 in late-return scenario, with increased additional deaths estimated for sarcomas, gynaecological, liver, head and neck, breast cancer and acute leukaemia. This represents a relative additional cancer mortality rate at 5 years of 4.4 and 6.8% for patients expected in year 2020, 0.5 and 1.3% in 2021 and 0.5 and 0.5% in 2022 for each scenario, respectively., Conclusions: Pandemic-related diagnostic and treatment delays in patients with cancer are expected to impact patient survival. In the perspective of recurrent pandemics or alternative events requiring an intensive use of limited hospital resources, patients should be informed not to postpone care, and medical resources for patients with cancer should be sanctuarised., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: No author reported potential conflict of interest in link with the submitted work. A.B. reports personal fees from Roche SAS. I.B. reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, CSL Behring and Takeda. M.F. reports fees from HRA Pharma (participation to board) and travel grants from Ipsen, Pfizer and Novartis. S.D. reports grants and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants from Novartis, grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants and non-financial support from Roche Genentech, grants from Lilly, grants from Puma, grants from Myriad, grants from Orion, grants from Amgen, grants from Sanofi, grants from Genomic Health, grants from GE, grants from Servier, grants from MSD, grants from BMS, grants from Pierre Fabre, grants from Seagen and grants from Exact Sciences. L.A. reports a consulting/advisory role for Novartis (Institution), Amgen (Institution), Bristol Myers Squibb (Institution), Ipsen (Institution), Roche (Institution), Pfizer (Institution), Astellas Pharma (Institution), Merck (Institution), MSD (Institution), AstraZeneca (Institution), Exelixis (Institution), Corvus Pharmaceuticals (Institution) and Peloton Therapeutics (Institution) and research Funding from Bristol Myers Squibb (Institution). D.P. reports a consulting, advisory role or lectures for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche and Samsung; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche and Samsung; institutional financial interests (clinical trials research as the principal or co-investigator) from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, MedImmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure and Daiichi Sankyo and travel and accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, prIME Oncology and Pfizer. M.D. reports honoraria for advisory boards or as a presenter in symposium from Merck Serono, MSD, AMGEN, Roche, Bayer, Ipsen, Pfizer, Servier, Pierre Fabre, HalioDx, Lilly and Sanofi. E.C. reports consulting advisory board activity for BMS, Ipsen, Sanofi, Pfizer, GSK and Merck. C.R. reports a consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi and Pierre Fabre. C.M. reports consultant/advisory fees from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Orion and as acted as a principal/sub-investigator of clinical trials for AbbVie, Aduro, Agios, Amgen, Argen-x, Astex, AstraZeneca, Aveo pharmaceuticals, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eos, Exelixis, Forma, GamaMabs, Genentech, Gortec, GSK, H3 Biomedecine, Incyte, Innate Pharma, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa, Lilly, Loxo, Lysarc, Lytix Biopharma, MedImmune, Menarini, Merus, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Octimet, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides AB, Orion, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro and Xencor. J.B.M. reports personal fees from AbbVie, Jazz PHARMA and Astellas. S.M. reports personal fees from statistical advice to IDDI, Janssen Cilag and Amaris and from data and safety monitoring membership of clinical trials (Hexal, Steba, IQVIA, Roche, Sensorion, Biophytis, Servier and Yuhan). A.A. reports grant support, paid to her institution, from F. Hoffmann-La Roche. F.B. reports personal financial interests with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics and Takeda; institutional financial interests with AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, MedImmune, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis and Takeda and non-financial interests (as a principal investigator) for AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Pierre Fabre and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd–sponsored trials (or ISR). J.B. reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb; a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, PharmaMar (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst) and Merck Serono (Inst) and travel and accommodation expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb. Other authors report no conflict of interest. Y. Takahashi declares no conflict of interest. Her editorial work for the present article has been funded by Inserm., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has deeply challenged healthcare systems and care of patients with cancer. Phase 1 studies are among the most complicated clinical trials and require thorough patient selection, as well as intensive patient monitoring. In this perspective, we discuss the key factors that should be considered for the conduct of phase 1 trials and management of COVID-19-positive patients with cancer enrolled in such trials. We notably present the risks and challenges raised by COVID-19-infected phase 1 patients, in terms of safety, toxicity causality assessment, drug efficacy evaluation and clinical research priorities. We finally propose some guidelines for the conduct of phase 1 trials and management of COVID-19-infected patients in a pandemic time., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone or in combination with chemotherapy (CT) are the current standard of therapy in several cancer types. Patients (pts) with lung cancer display higher response rates to CT when given after ICIs. Although ICIs have failed to demonstrate antitumour activity in microsatellite stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), little is known about CT effect after ICIs. We aimed to assess whether sequential ICIs followed by CT may be an alternative therapeutic approach in a population of pts with mCRC., Material and Methods: We retrospectively assessed CT after ICI (CAICI) failure in pts with mCRC. The ICI regimen consisted of anti-PD(L)1 alone or in combination. The primary end-point was objective response rate. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were secondary end-points., Results: Between 2014 and 2018, 29 pts with mCRC received CAICI (MSS tumours, 27 pts [86%]). The median number of previous lines was 4 (range, 2-7). Regimens included TAS-102 (n = 14), FOLFIRI (irinotecan, leucovorin, and fluorouracil; n = 6) or FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil; n = 4), regorafenib (n = 3) and carboplatin (1 pt with BRCA mutation). Partial response and stable disease were observed in 4 (19%) and 9 (43%) pts, respectively (disease control rate, 62%). The median PFS and OS were 3.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-5.4) and 8.0 months (95% CI = 4.2-14.0), respectively., Conclusion: ICIs administered before CT might enhance cytotoxic effects even in pts with immunorefractory MSS mCRC. The results of this small cohort need to be validated in independent prospective cohorts. The role of ICIs as modifiers of both tumour cells and microenvironment in mCRC deserves further research., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement All authors report being a Principal/sub-Investigator of Clinical Trials for Abbvie, Adaptimmune, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Clovis Oncology, Cullinan-Apollo, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Forma Tharapeutics, Gamamabs, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre, Medicament, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro and Xencor; report receiving research grants from Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi and report receiving non-financial support (drug supplied) from Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boringher Ingelheim, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer and Roche. C.M. reports receiving honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Orion. S.C. reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Novartis and Roche. A. H. has received honoraria from Amgen, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Lilly. J.C.S. reports receiving consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Astex, Clovis, GSK, GamaMabs, Lilly, MSD, Mission Therapeutics, Merus, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Symphogen and Takeda over the past 3 years; reports serving as a full-time employee for AstraZeneca between September 2017–December 2019 and reports being a shareholder of Gritstone. A.M. reports receiving honoraria from GSK, AstraZeneca, Oncovir, Merck Serono, eTheRNA, Lytix pharma, Kyowa Kirin Pharma, Bayer, Novartis, BMS, Symphogen, Genmab, Amgen, Biothera, Nektar, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Flexus Bio, Roche/Genentech, OSE immunotherapeutics, Transgene, Gritstone, Merck (MSD), Cerenis, Innate pharma, Protagen, Partner Therapeutics and Servier. S.P.V. reports receiving honoraria from Merck KGaA and AstraZeneca. V. B. reports receiving honoraria from Bayer, Merck Serono, MSD, Roche, Sanofi and Ipsen. D.M. reports receiving honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Merck Serono, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, HalioDx and Servier., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: BRAF is a confirmed therapeutic target in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib, in combination with the MEK inhibitor trametinib, is approved for the treatment of NSCLC harbouring BRAF V600E mutation. Scant evidence is available concerning the mechanisms of resistance to BRAF/MEK inhibitors in BRAF V600E NSCLC., Patients and Methods: Patients with BRAF V600E NSCLC with acquired resistance to BRAF/MEK inhibitors were included in the institutional, prospective MATCH-R (from "Matching Resistance") trial and underwent tumour and liquid biopsies at the moment of radiological progression. Extensive molecular analyses were performed, including targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS), whole-exome sequencing (WES), RNA sequencing and comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) array., Results: Of the 11 patients included, eight had progressed on dabrafenib-trametinib combination, two on dabrafenib monotherapy and one on vemurafenib (BRAF inhibitor). Complete molecular analyses were available for seven patients, whereas an additional case had only targeted NGS and CGH array data. Among these eight patients, acquired molecular events potentially responsible for resistance were detected in three who progressed on dabrafenib-trametinib combination, that is, MEK1 K57N, RAS viral (v-ras) oncogene homolog (NRAS) Q61R and rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) Q61R mutations. One patient progressing on dabrafenib monotherapy developed a PTEN frameshift mutation. No molecular hints addressing resistance emerged in the remaining four patients with analyses performed. Tumour mutational burden, evaluated by WES in seven patients, was low (median = 2.06 mutations/megabase, range = 1.57-3.75 mut/Mb)., Conclusions: Novel resistance mechanisms to BRAF/MEK inhibitors in BRAF V600E NSCLC were identified, pointing out the recurring involvement of the MAPK pathway and guiding the development of new treatment strategies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement F.F. reports attending editorial activities sponsored by Roche and BMS. L.M. reports serving a consulting and advisory role for Roche Diagnostics, reports participating in lectures and educational activities for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tecnofarma, Roche and AstraZeneca and reports receiving funds for travel, accommodations and expenses from Chugai. A.G. reports receiving funds for travel, accommodation, congress registration expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. A.G. reports serving a consultant/expert role for Novartis and serving as a Principal/sub-Investigator of Clinical Trials for Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca, Aveo, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, Bioalliance Pharma, Biontech Ag, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm S.A., Eisai, Exelixis, Forma, Gamamabs, Genentech, Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc, Glaxosmithkline, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, H3 Biomedicine, Inc, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Incyte Corporation, Innate Pharma, Iris Servier, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncomed, Oncopeptides, Onyx Therapeutics, Orion Pharma, Oryzon Genomics, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre, Rigontec Gmbh, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Sierra Oncology, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Inc, Tioma Therapeutics, Inc. and Xencor. A.G. reports receiving research grants from Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi and non-financial support (drug supplied) from Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boringher Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer and Roche. J.A. reports serving as advisor/consultant roles for AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, MSD and Roche and reports receiving research funding form MSD. C.M. reports receiving consultant/advisory fees from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Orion and reports serving as a Principal/sub-Investigator of Clinical Trials for Abbvie, Aduro, Agios, Amgen, Argen-x, Astex, AstraZeneca, Aveopharmaceuticals, Bayer, Beigene, Blueprint, BMS, BoeringerIngelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eos, Exelixis, Forma, Gamamabs, Genentech, Gortec, GSK, H3 biomedecine, Incyte, InnatePharma, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa, Lilly, Loxo, Lysarc, Lytix Biopharma, Medimmune, Menarini, Merus, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Octimet, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides AB, Orion, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro and Xencor. F.A. reports receiving grants from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Roche and Daiichi Sankyo. K.H. reports being an employee and shareholder of Inivata. B.B. reports receiving sponsor for research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre, Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Inivata, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, OSE immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma and Tolero Pharmaceuticals. J.-C.S. reports receiving consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Astex, Clovis, GSK, GamaMabs, Lilly, MSD, Mission Therapeutics, Merus, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Symphogen and Takeda over the last 5 years. J.-C.S. reports being a full-time employee of AstraZeneca until December 2019. J.-C.S. reports being a shareholder of AstraZeneca and Gritstone. D.P. reports serving consulting, advisory role or lectures for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME and Roche; reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME and Roche; reports conducting clinical trials research for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medimmun, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure and Daiichi Sankyo and reports receiving funding for travel, accommodations and expenses from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, prIME Oncology and Pfizer. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We investigated the activities of an ImmunoTOX board, an academic, multidisciplinary group of oncologists and organ specialists that adopts a real-life, case-by-case approach in the management of patients with immune-related adverse events (irAEs)., Experimental Design: The ImmunoTOX assessment board was set up in 2016 at Gustave Roussy in France. It meets every 2 weeks to discuss the case-by-case management of patients presenting with irAEs. Here, we describe the ImmunoTOX board's activities between 2016 and 2019., Results: Over study period, 398 requests (concerning 356 patients) were submitted to the ImmunoTOX board. Most of the requests concerned the putative causal link between immunotherapy and the irAE (n = 148, 37%), followed by possible retreatment after temporary withdrawal because of an adverse event (n = 109, 27%), the clinical management of complex situations (n = 100, 25%) and the initiation of immunotherapy in patients with pre-existing comorbidities (n = 41, 10%). The ImmunoTOX board discerned 273 irAEs. The five organ systems most frequently involved by irAEs were lung (n = 58, 21%), gastrointestinal tract (n = 36, 13%), liver or biliary tract (n = 33, 12%), musculoskeletal system (n = 27, 10%), and nervous system (n = 23, 8%). The time to occurrence was shorter for severe irAEs (grade III and VI) than for mild irAEs (grades I and II), with medians of 47 and 91 days, respectively (p = 0.0216)., Conclusion: The main medical needs in the management of irAEs involved the lung organ. Severe irAEs were expected to occur earlier than mild irAEs. This real-life study can help to better estimate medical needs and therefore help to assess the management of irAEs., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Pr Olivier Lambotte: Has received expert testimony and consultancy fees from BMS France, MSD, and Astra Zeneca, consultancy fees from Genzyme, and expert testimony fees from Janssen. Dr Jean-Marie Michot: Principal/sub-Investigator of Clinical Trials for: Abbvie, Aduro, Agios, Amgen, Argen-x, Astex, AstraZeneca, Aveo pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Beigene, Blueprint, BMS, Boeringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eos, Exelixis, Forma, Gamamabs, Genentech, Gortec, GSK, H3 biomedecine, Incyte, Innate Pharma, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa, Lilly, Loxo, Lysarc, Lytix Biopharma, Medimmune, Menarini, Merus, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Octimet, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides AB, Orion, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro, Xencor. PERSONAL FEES (Monies paid to you for services rendered, generally honoraria, royalties or fees for consulting, lectures, speakers bureaus, expert testimony, employment, ad-boards, etc.): Roche, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Janssen. Dr Aurélien Marabelle: Principal/sub-Investigator of Clinical Trials for: Abbvie, Aduro, Agios, Amgen, Argen-x, Astex, AstraZeneca, Aveo pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Beigene, Blueprint, BMS, Boeringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eos, Exelixis, Forma, Gamamabs, Genentech, Gortec, GSK, H3 biomedecine, Incyte, Innate Pharma, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa, Lilly, Loxo, Lysarc, Lytix Biopharma, Medimmune, Menarini, Merus, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Octimet, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides AB, Orion, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro, Xencor. PERSONAL FEES (Monies paid to you for services rendered, generally honoraria, royalties or fees for consulting, lectures, speakers bureaus, expert testimony, employment, ad-boards, etc.): Medimmune, Pfizer, Servier, AstraZeneca, Janssen Bristol-Myers Squibb. Pr Christophe Massard: Principal/sub-Investigator of Clinical Trials for: Abbvie, Aduro, Agios, Amgen, Argen-x, Astex, AstraZeneca, Aveo pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Beigene, Blueprint, BMS, Boeringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eos, Exelixis, Forma, Lilly, Loxo, Lysarc, Lytix Biopharma, Medimmune, Menarini, Merus, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Octimet, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides AB, Orion, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro, Xencor. PERSONAL FEES (Monies paid to you for services rendered, generally honoraria, royalties or fees for consulting, lectures, speakers bureaus, expert testimony, employment, ad-boards, etc.): Medimmune, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Pr Jean-Charles Soria: From September 2017 to the end of 2019, Pr Soria was Senior Vice-President Research & Development Oncology at AstraZeneca in Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States. Pr Benjamin Besse: Sponsored research at Gustave Roussy Cancer CenterAbbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cristal Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, GSK, Ignyta, IPSEN, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, OSE Immunopharmaceutics, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma. Dr Stéphane Champiat: Principal/sub-Investigator of Clinical Trials for: Abbvie, Aduro, Agios, Amgen, Argen-x, Astex, AstraZeneca, Aveo pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Beigene, Blueprint, BMS, Boeringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eos, Exelixis, Forma, Lilly, Loxo, Lysarc, Lytix Biopharma, Medimmune, Menarini, Merus, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Octimet, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides AB, Orion, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro, Xencor. PERSONAL FEES (Monies paid to you for services rendered, generally honoraria, royalties or fees for consulting, lectures, speakers bureaus, expert testimony, employment, ad-boards, etc.): Amgen. All other authors: no conflicts of interests., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Abiraterone acetate (abiraterone) combined with prednisone is a standard of care in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Recently, benefit in overall survival was reported in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer also, and an extension of indication has been granted. Abiraterone is seldom associated with liver toxicity. The clinical management and the outcome of patients with transaminase increase while on abiraterone have not been described., Patients and Method: We identified 25 men with metastatic prostate cancer and liver function test disorders occurring while on abiraterone treatment from December 2009 to September 2017 in three oncology centres in France., Results: Forty-six liver disorder events occurred in 25 patients while on abiraterone treatment. The median age at liver function test increase was 67 (55-85) years. The incidence of aspartate aminotransférase (AST) (24 events) and that of alanine aminotransférase (ALT) (22 events) increases were similar. Liver toxicity was of grade 1, 2 and 3 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. version 4) in 7 (32%), 6 (27%) and 9 (41%) patients for ALT, and in 12 (50%), 6 (25%) and 6 (25%) for AST, respectively. The median time from abiraterone initiation to the detection of liver toxicity was 7.1 (4-95) weeks. The median time from highest ALT/AST increase to normalisation was 6.2 [2-14] weeks. In 13 patients (52%), liver tests spontaneously returned to baseline values, while abiraterone was continued at full dose., Conclusion: Liver function test increase is a rare event that typically occurs within the first two months on abiraterone. Most patients experience normalisation of the tests, either spontaneously or after dose reduction/discontinuation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement E.C. declared having received personal fees from Ipsen, Sanofi, BMS and Pfizer. G.B. declared having received consulting fees from Janssen-Cilag and Sanofi. Y.L. has received honoraria from Sanofi, Janssen, MSD, Roche, BMS, AstraZeneca, Astellas and Seattle Genetics; has received grants from Sanofi, Janssen and MSD and has been an investigator in trials sponsored by MSD, Roche, Astellas, Janssen, Nektar, BMS, Pfizer, Incyte, Clovis, AstraZeneca and Seattle Genetics. L.A. declared serving consulting or advisory role in Novartis, Amgen (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Roche (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst) and Merck (Inst). C.M. reported receiving grants and personal fees and is a principal investigator/co-principal investigator for Amgen, Astella, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Orion and Abbvie. J.A. has received grants and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Ipsen and Jansen. O.H. declared having received personal fees from IPSEN, Janssen, Bayer, BMS and Sanofi. S.C. declares serving a consultant role for Janssen, Roche and Merck; that he has received research funding from Astellas and Roche and that he has been beneficiant of travel support from Janssen, Roche and Astellas. K.F. declared having received fees for participation to advisory boards or lectures for Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, Janssen-Cilag, Orion and Sanofi. G.M., P.L. and E.C. declared no disclosure., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aging is an important risk factor for cancers and is associated with poor prognosis. Weakness of the immune system, also called immunosenescence may occur with older age. The impact of aging on efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint blockers, such as anti-programmed death (ligand) PD-(L)1, remains undetermined. This study aims to evaluate the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients aged 70 years or older than their younger counterparts., Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumors treated at Gustave Roussy with an anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy between June 2014 and October 2017 were prospectively included within the dedicated irAEs pharmacovigilance registry REISAMIC (Registre des Effets Indésirables Sévères des Anticorps Monoclonaux Immunomodulateurs en Cancérologie). The incidence of irAEs of grade ≥II was compared between patients aged ≥70 (old patients, OP) versus patients aged < 70 years (young patients, YP) using a chi-squared test. Survivals were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Among the 603 patients treated by anti-PD(L)1, 191 were ≥70 y.o (OP) and 424 < 70 y.o (YP). The median (range) age of OP and YP were respectively 77 (70-93) and 59 years old (17-69). A total of 165 irAEs occurred in these patients (103 grade II and 58 grade III-IV). The overall incidence of grade ≥II irAEs was higher in OP than in YP (33% versus 25%, p = 0.03). In addition, OP were more prone of having multiples irAEs compared with YP (p = 0.037). Skin toxicities were more frequent in OP than in YP (p = 0.007) but endocrine toxicities were less frequent in OP than in YP (p = 0.044). This higher level of irAEs seems to be responsible for a higher rate of treatment discontinuation in OP (p = 0.2). There was no statistical difference in median time to toxicity, exposure to steroids or survival between the two groups., Conclusion: Although anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapies remain an acceptable treatment option for older patients, prescribers should be aware that irAEs are more frequent in the elderly. Further translational studies are warranted to better understand the relationship between aging and irAEs., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Academic, industry, regulatory leaders and patient advocates in cancer clinical research met in November 2018 at the Innovation and Biomarkers in Cancer Drug Development meeting in Brussels to address the existing dichotomy between increasing calls for personalised oncology approaches based on individual molecular profiles and the need to make resource and regulatory decisions at the societal level in differing health-care delivery systems around the globe. Novel clinical trial designs, the utility and limitations of real-world evidence (RWE) and emerging technologies for profiling patient tumours and tumour-derived DNA in plasma were discussed. While randomised clinical trials remain the gold standard approach to defining clinical utility of local and systemic therapeutic interventions, the broader adoption of comprehensive tumour profiling and novel trial designs coupled with RWE may allow patient and physician autonomy to be appropriately balanced with broader assessments of safety and overall societal benefit., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Durvalumab selectively blocks programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) binding to programmed cell death-1. Encouraging clinical activity and manageable safety were reported in urothelial carcinoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in a multicenter phase I/II study. Safety and clinical activity in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) were evaluated in the expansion phase., Methods: Patients received 10 mg/kg of durvalumab intravenously every 2 weeks for 12 months or until confirmed progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was safety; clinical activity was a secondary objective., Results: Sixty-two patients were enrolled and evaluable (received first dose ≥24 weeks before data cutoff). Median age was 57 years; 40.3% were human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive; 32.3% had tumour cell PD-L1 expression ≥25%, and 62.9% were current/former smokers. They had a median of 2 prior systemic treatments (range, 1-13). All-causality adverse events (AEs) occurred in 98.4%; drug-related AEs occurred in 59.7% and were grade III-IV in 9.7%. There were no drug-related discontinuations or deaths. Objective response rate (blinded independent central review) was 6.5% (15.0% for PD-L1 ≥25%, 2.6% for <25%). Median time to response was 2.7 months (range, 1.2-5.5); median duration was 12.4 months (range, 3.5-20.5+). Median progression-free survival was 1.4 months; median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 months. OS rate was 62% at 6 months and 38% at 12 months (42% for PD-L1 ≥25%, 36% for <25%)., Conclusions: Durvalumab safety in HNSCC was manageable and consistent with other cohorts of the study. Early, durable responses in these heavily pretreated patients warrant further investigation; phase III monotherapy and combination therapy studies are ongoing. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01693562; MedImmune study 1108., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bromodomain and extraterminal motif (BET) protein inhibition is a promising cancer treatment strategy, notably for targeting MYC- or BRD4-driven diseases. A first-in-human study investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase II dose of the BET inhibitor BAY 1238097 in patients with advanced malignancies., Material and Methods: In this phase I, open-label, non-randomised, multicentre study, patients with cytologically or histologically confirmed advanced refractory malignancies received oral BAY 1238097 twice weekly in 21-day cycles using an adaptive dose-escalation design at a starting dose of 10 mg/week. Model-based dose-response analysis was performed to guide dose escalation. Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and tumour response were evaluated., Results: Eight patients were enrolled at three dose levels (10 mg/week, n = 3; 40 mg/week, n = 3; 80 mg/week, n = 2). Both patients receiving 80 mg/week had dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (grade 3 vomiting, grade 3 headache and grade 2/3 back pain). The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, headache, back pain and fatigue. Pharmacokinetic analysis indicated a linear dose response with increasing dose. Two patients displayed prolonged stable disease; no responses were observed. Biomarker evaluation of MYC and HEXIM1 expression demonstrated an emerging pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship, with a trend towards decreased MYC and increased HEXIM1 expression in response to treatment., Conclusion: The study was prematurely terminated because of the occurrence of DLTs at a dose below targeted drug exposure. Pharmacokinetic modelling indicated that an alternate dosing schedule whereby DLTs could be avoided while reaching efficacious exposure was not feasible. Registration number: NCT02369029., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: LY3039478 is an orally bioavailable selective Notch inhibitor. This phase 1a/b trial evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics and antitumour activity of LY3039478 in patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST)., Methods: This multipart, phase 1 trial enrolled patients with refractory advanced/metastatic STS and GIST, measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤1 and baseline tumour tissue. Eligible patients received LY3039478 50mg/75 mg three times per week, for 28-day cycle until disease progression. Safety assessments were based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, V4.0. Tumour responses were assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST 1.1) and Choi criteria. Primary objectives were to confirm the recommended phase 2 dose of LY3039478 and document the antitumour activity. Secondary objectives were safety and toxicity, pharmacokinetics (PK), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Sixty-nine patients were enrolled and received LY3039478 (27 males, 42 females; median age 58, range 31-78). 16/37 (43%) patients with evaluable samples were positive for Notch 1 immunohistochemistry. Per RECIST 1.1, in leiomyosarcoma (LMS) group (n = 29), ten (36%) had stable disease (SD) and one (4%) had unconfirmed partial response (PR). In GIST group (n = 13), four (31%) had SD. Among other STS subtypes (n = 27), one patient with angiosarcoma had unconfirmed PR, six (21%) had SD. Median PFS was 1.9 months (95% confidence interval:1.6-3.3) for LMS, 1.9 months (0.3-6.1) for GIST and 1.7 months (1.4-2.2) for other STS groups. Median OS was 7.4 months (4.3-non-evaluable [NE]) for LMS, 16.5 months (3.9-16.5) for GIST and 5.6 months (3.4-NE) for other STS groups. Most common adverse events were diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting and decreased appetite., Conclusion: LY3039478 suggested a modest clinical activity in patients with STS and GIST and had a manageable safety profile., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate efficacy, complications and preprocedural risk factors for percutaneous image-guided core needle biopsy of malignant tumours for genomic tumour analysis., Materials and Methods: Procedural data for core biopsies performed at a single centre for the MOSCATO-01 clinical trial were prospectively recorded between December 2011 and March 2016. Data assessed included patient demographics, tumour characteristics, procedural outcomes and complications., Results: A total of 877 biopsies were performed under computed tomography (38.4%) or ultrasound guidance (61.6%) for tumours in the liver (n = 363), lungs (n = 229), lymph nodes (n = 138), bones (n = 15) and other miscellaneous sites (n = 124). Each biopsy harvested a mean 4.4 samples [1-15], with adequate tumour yield for genomic analysis in 95.3% of cases. Procedural complications occurred in 89 cases (10.1%), with minor grade I complications in 59 (66.3%); grade II in 16 (18%) and grade III in 14 (15.7%). No grade IV complications and no procedure-related death occurred. The most common complications were pneumothorax (51/89, 57.3%), haemorrhage (24/89, 27%) and pain (8/89, 8.9%). Predictive factors for complications by univariate analysis included biopsied organ (lung vs other), sample number, prone position, lesion size, lesion depth and biopsy approach. By multivariate analysis, only pulmonary biopsy was a significant risk factor (odds ratio = 27.23 [4.93-242.76], p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Percutaneous image-guided core needle biopsy in cancer patients provides an effective method to obtain molecular screening samples, with an overall low complication rate. Lung mass biopsies present a higher risk of complication, although complications are manageable by minimally invasive techniques without prolonged sequelae., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Long-term responders have been observed with anti-programmed death 1 and anti-programmed death ligand 1 (anti-PD(L)1). Optimal duration of therapy in responding and stable disease (SD) patients is unclear with various attitudes encompassing treatment until progression disease, stopping therapy after a defined timeframe., Patients and Methods: We report the experience of 13 patients who discontinued immune checkpoint inhibitor in phase I trials as per protocol while experiencing a tumour-controlled disease. According to protocols, patients could restart the same immunotherapy if radiological or clinical progression occurred., Results: Patients were treated for colorectal microsatellite instability-high genotype (n = 5), urothelial carcinoma (n = 3), melanoma (n = 2), non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 2) and triple-negative breast cancer (n = 1) for a median time of 12 months (range 10.6-12). Patients achieved 1 (8%) complete response, 10 (77%) partial response (PR) and 2 (15%) SD. The median progression-free survival 1 (PFS1) defined as the time from the first infusion until progression was 24.4 months (range 15.8-49). The median time free-treatment after discontinuation was 12.6 months (range 4-39.7). Eight patients experienced disease progression and were retreated. Best responses observed after rechallenging were 2 PR (25%) and 6 SD (75%). Median PFS2 defined from the first day of retreatment until disease progression or the last news was 12.9 months (range 5-35.4). No grade 3/4 events occurred during the study period., Conclusion: Our data suggest that anti-PD(L)1 therapy should be resumed if progression occurs after a planned anti-PD(L)1 interruption. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Enrolment process influences the likelihood of patients' inclusion in early clinical trials (ECT) through social, medical and organisational factors., Patients and Methods: All patients referred from 2008 to 2016 to the Drug Development Department (DITEP) of Gustave Roussy (GR) were reviewed. Referring physician, organisational factors, medical and socioeconomic characteristics for patients were analysed. Multivariate analysis was performed with regard to those factors. A telephone survey was conducted on a sample of referring physicians located outside GR (N = 142)., Results: Between 2008 and 2016, 8694 requests were received with 49% from external physicians. Here, 4517 were male patients with a median age of 58 [49-66] years (range 18-85). Tumour types were gastrointestinal (28%), lung (19%), breast (9%) and gynaecologic (8%). Mean enrolment rate was 37% (ranging from 24 to 45%). From 2008 to 2016, the enrolment rate decreases from 39% to 24%. In the meantime, DITEP trials portfolio evolves with the part of precision medicine trials increase from 12% to 40%. Factors that were significantly associated with a lower likelihood of being enrolled were referral from an external physician (OR 0.15 s.16-0.21]) compared to a physician from DITEP and year of the request (2.74 [1.8-2.9] 2008 versus 2016). The enrolment rate and the number of patients addressed have a high variability regarding referring physicians, which is little explained by characteristics as training, previous experience or attitude regarding ECT., Conclusion: Beyond patients' individual characteristics, we show that organisational and professional factors have a major impact on likelihood of enrolment in ECT., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The development of immune checkpoint blocker development brings new hope in older patients (OPs) because of clinical efficacy and low toxicity. Clinical indications are rising steadily, but very few data are available in the geriatric population where comorbidities, reduced functional reserve and immunosenescence may affect efficacy and tolerance., Methods: All cases of patients enrolled in immunotherapy phase I trials between January 2012 and December 2016 in the Drug Development Department (DITEP) at Gustave Roussy were retrospectively reviewed. Case-control analysis was performed in OPs (patients ≥ 70 years) matched to younger patients (YPs) (patients < 70 years) by trial and treatment dose. We compared cumulative incidence, grade and type of immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) and survival outcomes., Results: Among the 46 OPs and the 174 YPs enrolled in 14 phase I/II trials, 10 (22%) and 23 (13%) patients experienced grade III-IV IrAEs. Cumulative incidence of grade I-II IrAEs was significantly higher in OPs than YPs (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between the two groups for grade III-IV IrAEs (p = 0.50). Older age was not associated with lower dose intensity of treatment (p = 0.14). No significant difference was observed between OPs and YPs in median progression-free survival (hazards ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.94-2.11] p = 0.09) or median overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI [0.61-1.39] p = 0.77)., Conclusion: Immune checkpoint blockade appears to be an acceptable treatment option for OPs in the setting of phase I trials., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Therapeutic inhibition of the human epidermal receptor 3 (ERBB3, HER3) has been challenged by the low frequency of ERBB3 somatic alterations across cancer types. We have evaluated the clinical utility to use available inhibitors of the HER family in the context of ERBB3 mutations., Patients and Methods: In this study, we have selected patients with somatic ERBB3 alterations detected in their tumours from the molecular screening programs running at our institution. Techniques used for molecular screening were targeted next generation sequencing, comparative genomic hybridisation and/or whole exome sequencing on fresh frozen tumour biopsies., Results: On the 844 patients with a molecular portrait of their tumours, 31 (3.7%) had a somatic mutation of ERBB3. Overall, 9 patients received available inhibitors of HER family, including trastuzumab and/or lapatinib or afatinib. Sixteen patients received other molecularly targeted agents, including the Mammalian Target Of Rapamycin (mTOR), the Phosphatidylinositol-4,5-Bisphosphate 3-Kinase (PI3K) or NOTCH inhibitors or chemotherapy, and 4 patients failed being treated. Thirteen different histological subtypes were affected by ERBB3 mutations; top ones were colorectal carcinomas (6 patients), non-small cell lung cancers (4 patients, including a squamous cell carcinoma), head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (3 patients) and breast carcinomas (3 patients). The presence of a mutation in the tyrosine kinase domain of the ERBB3/HER3 protein detected in four patients' tumours was significantly related to good progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.18, p value = 0.022) and overall survival (HR = 0.19, p value = 0.03) in univariate analysis. Treatment of these four patients included at least a tyrosine kinase inhibitor lapatinib or afatinib., Conclusion: Our exploratory analysis suggests that mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the HER3 protein are related to a favourable outcome under HER family inhibitors., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disease (AID) are susceptible to immune-related adverse events (irAEs) when treated with immune check-point inhibitors (ICIs). We decided to analyse the safety and effectiveness of anti-PD-1 antibodies in AID patients and look for an association between the presence of pre-existing AID and the clinical outcome., Methods: In a prospective study of the REISAMIC registry of grade ≥2 irAEs occurring in ICI-treated patients, we studied the associations between pre-existing AID on one hand and irAE-free survival, overall survival and best objective response rate on the other., Results: We identified 45 patients with 53 AIDs in REISAMIC. The cancer diagnoses included melanoma (n = 36), non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 6) and others (n = 3). The most frequent pre-existing AIDs were vitiligo (n = 17), psoriasis (n = 12), thyroiditis (n = 7), Sjögren syndrome (n = 4) and rheumatoid arthritis (n = 2). Twenty patients (44.4%) presented with at least one irAE: eleven of these were associated with a pre-existing AID ('AID flare'). Treatment with anti-PD-1 antibodies was maintained in 15 of the 20 patients with an irAE. The IrAE-free survival time was significantly shorter in AID patients (median: 5.4 months) than in AID-free patients (median: 13 months, p = 2.1 × 10 -4 ). The AID and AID-free groups did not differ significantly with regard to the overall survival time and objective response rate (p = 0.38 and 0.098, respectively)., Conclusion: In patients treated with anti-PD-1 antibody, pre-existing AID was associated with a significantly increased risk of irAEs. Our results indicate that cancer treatments with anti-PD-1 antibodies are just as effective in AID patients as they are in AID-free patients., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recommended treatments of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC) are limited to one chemotherapy doublet. Nevertheless, efficacy of treatment personalisation for aBTCs is supported by accumulating evidences but remains to be evaluated., Patients and Methods: Patients with aBTCs included in the prospective clinical trial MOSCATO-01 were treated by at least one previous systemic treatment, had an ECOG performance status of 0-1, and at least one tumour site accessible to biopsy. Multiple high-throughput molecular analysis was performed on biopsies to drive the administration of molecular targeted agents (MTAs)., Results: From November 2011 to March 2016, 43 patients (4%) of the 1035 adult patients included in MOSCATO-01 had aBTCs with a majority of intrahepatic localisation (67%). Successful biopsy procedures and DNA extractions led to molecular portraits for 34 patients (79%). Orientation to an appropriate early clinical trial or accessible MTA(s) was possible for 23 of these patients (68%), and 18 (53%) have received matched MTA(s). Among them, the overall response rate was 33% and the disease control rate was 88%. A PFS ≥6 months was observed in 37% and the PFS ratio was >1.3 for 50% of the patients. These patients had a lower risk for death as compared to the 20 patients not orientated to a matched MTA (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.76; p = 0.008)., Conclusions: Within the MOSCATO-01 trial, patients with aBTCs had the highest rate of orientation to matched MTAs and derived a clear clinical benefit. A broader evaluation of these findings may improve future treatments strategies for aBTCs., Trial Registration: NCT01566019., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Life expectancy evaluation is crucial when selecting patients who may benefit from phase I studies. The Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score, based on three objective variables (number of metastatic sites, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and serum albumin) was validated in patients treated with cytotoxics and targeted therapies. We aimed to determine if those factors were applicable to immune-checkpoint therapies (ICTs) in phase I trials and to evaluate new variables that may preclude a better prognosis in patients receiving ICT., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of survival risk factors in a discovery cohort of 155 patients enrolled into ICT phase I trials at our institution. We computed univariate analysis and multivariate analysis (MVA) of demographics, clinical and biological data to assess their prognostic value for overall survival (OS). MVA results were used to build a prognostic score for OS. A validation cohort of 113 patients enrolled in phase I ICT trials was used to prospectively validate this score., Results: A total of 155 patients (M/F: 83/72; median age 59) receiving an experimental ICT between March 2012 and January 2016 were included in the discovery cohort. An MVA assessing the RMH score variables showed that low albumin (hazard ratio [HR] 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.86) and LDH > upper limit normal (ULN) (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.12-3.15) were independent negative prognostic factors for OS. Interestingly, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) > 6 (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.04-2.95) was associated with a decrease in OS. The number of metastases was not associated with a poorer outcome for this ICT cohort (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51-1.35). A risk score based on the results of the MVA (NLR > 6 = 1; LDH > ULN = 1; albumin < 35 g/l = 1) showed that patients presenting a high score (>1) had a significantly shorter OS (20.4 weeks; 95% CI 5.7-35.2) compared to those with a low score (0 or 1) (68.9 weeks; 95% CI 50-83.7) (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.87-4.64). In the validation cohort of 113 patients, again the patients presenting a high score showed an inferior OS (HR 6.3, 95% CI 2.7-14.8)., Conclusion: In ICT phase I trials, traditional prognostic variables included in the RMH score may be suboptimal to determine patient's prognosis. In this context, the NLR is a significant prognostic variable. The Gustave Roussy Immune Score, based on albumin, LDH and NLR, allows a better selection of patients for ICT phase I trials., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A number of phase I immunotherapy trials for cancer patients incorporate the absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) as an inclusion criteria. This study aims to assess whether ALC is associated with a lack of response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in early clinical trials., Methods: All consecutive patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy in phase I trials in our institution between December 2011 and January 2014 were reviewed. Baseline ALC, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), Royal-Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score, objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR = SD + PR + CR, stable disease (SD), partial response (PR), complete response (CR)) defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 were retrieved., Results: Out of a total of 167 patients, 48 (28.7%) and 8 patients (4.8%) had baseline ALCs of <1 G/l and <0.5 G/l, respectively. The RECIST change (%) was not correlated with ALC (G/l) (Spearman's rho = -0.06, P = 0.43). We did not observe any difference in terms of ORR (8.3% versus 15.1%, P = 0.32) or of DCR (58.3% versus 61.3%, P = 0.73) between patients with ALC <1 G/l versus >1 G/l. When using 0.5 G/l as ALC threshold, we did not find any difference either in ORR or in DCR. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, baseline ALC was not associated with overall survival, whereas the RMH and the number of previous lines of treatment remained independent prognostic factors., Conclusions: Baseline ALC was not associated with response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in cancer patients enrolled in phase I trials. Patients should not be excluded from early phase clinical trials testing immune checkpoints blockers because of ALC., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Circulating tumour cell (CTC) counting could be a new biomarker for better evaluation of tumour response to molecules tested in phase I trials., Patients and Methods: Consenting patients with advanced metastatic cancer referred to various phase I units were enrolled prospectively in this study. CTCs from 7.5 ml of whole blood drawn at baseline and after starting experimental therapy were counted using the CellSearch system, and tumour response was assessed using RECIST 1.1 criteria at baseline and 2 months after treatment initiation., Results: Between March 2010 and May 2013, a total of 326 patients were enrolled, among whom 214 were evaluable (49% male, median age = 56; main cancer types: lung [28], colon [53], ovarian [18], breast [28]). At baseline, we detected ≥1 CTC/7.5 ml in 113/214 patients (53%), and at day 30, we observed ≥1 CTC/7.5 ml in 103/214 patients (48%). Two months after treatment initiation, 11 (5%) of the 214 patients were classified as having a partial response, with no CTCs in 9 of them or a decrease in the CTC count after therapy. In contrast, among the 104 patients (49%) classified as having progressive disease, 38 patients had a higher CTC count. The remaining 99 patients (49%), 33 of whom (33%) had a lower CTC count, were classified as having stable disease. The sensitivity and specificity of CTC variation for predicting progressive disease were 41% (32-51%) and 80% (73-88%) respectively., Conclusion: An early CTC change following therapy does not correlate with RECIST response in patients with advanced cancer enrolled in phase I trials., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Preclinical studies suggest synergistic antitumour effects of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor such as temsirolimus combined with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody such as cetuximab., Methods: Temsirolimus (T) and cetuximab (C) were combined and escalated in cohorts of patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumours, respectively from 15 to 25 mg and 150-250 mg/m 2 , until the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined. Effort was made in the expansion cohort to enrol patients harbouring a molecular aberration in the human epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and/or phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways. Paired biopsies were optional to evaluate pathway modulation., Results: Among 39 patients enrolled, three experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs): pulmonary embolism (C200 + T20), stomatitis (C250 + T20) and acneiform rash (C250 + T25). The weekly C 250 mg/m 2 and T 25 mg dose level was selected as the MTD. The most common treatment-related adverse events were: acneiform rash (97%), oral mucositis (82%), fatigue (59%), nausea (41%) and diarrhoea (36%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were respectively 2.0 months [95% CI: 1.8, 3.5] and 7.5 months [95% CI: 5.5, 11.9]. Among all patients, partial responses (PRs) and stable diseases (SDs) were observed in 2 (5.1%) and 18 patients (46.2%), respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) in patients with a molecular aberration was 2/14 (14%), versus 0/24 in those without molecular aberration., Conclusions: Combination of T + C showed significant but manageable toxicities. Due to modest clinical activity, further evaluation is not recommended. Molecular selection could potentially increase the objective response rate and should be implemented during drug development., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Axitinib has shown activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a large phase III clinical trial and was approved in patients who failed first-line therapy. This drug has been available in France since November 2012. The objective is to report efficacy and safety of axitinib in mRCC outside of clinical trials., Methods: A prospective evaluation of mRCC patients treated by axitinib in second or further next-line therapy at Gustave Roussy was conducted from 2012 to 2015. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS) and toxicities were analysed. The correlation between clinical markers and ORR, PFS, TTF and OS were explored., Results: One-hundred and sixty patients with mRCC, received axitinib in second (40%) or further next-line therapy (60%). International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification was good, intermediate and poor in 13%, 54% and 32%, respectively. Dose titration (DT) to 7 mg twice a day (bid) was performed in 38% and to 10 mg bid in 19% of the patients. Hypertension was the most common adverse event, (grade (G)3: 39%; G4: 2%). ORR occurred in 32% (n = 33, only partial response). Median PFS, TTF and OS were 8.3, 5.8 and 16.4 months, respectively. IMDC risk group and DT at 2 weeks are associated to ORR while grade 3 hypertension is marginally associated. IMDC risk group and grade 3 hypertension are significantly associated with better PFS, TTF and OS while DT at 2 weeks is associated to PFS and TTF., Conclusion: Efficacy of axitinib in routine practice is similar to that previously reported, not only in second- but also in further next-lines of therapy., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (Akt) signalling axis and androgen receptor (AR) pathways exhibit reciprocal feedback regulation in phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN)-deficient metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in preclinical models. This phase Ib study evaluated the pan-PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120) and the dual pan-PI3K/ mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor dactolisib (BEZ235) in combination with abiraterone acetate (AA) in patients with CRPC., Materials and Methods: Patients with CRPC who had progressed on AA therapy received escalating doses of either buparlisib or dactolisib, along with fixed doses of AA (1000 mg once daily (qd)) and prednisone (5 mg twice daily (bid)). The primary objective was to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or the recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of either buparlisib or dactolisib in combination with AA. Secondary objectives included safety, antitumour activity (Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 (PCWG2) criteria; 30% of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline at ≥week 12) and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile., Results: In buparlisib + AA arm, 25 patients received buparlisib + AA (median age, 67 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0/1/2 for 7/17/1 patients, respectively). At 100 mg qd; two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (grade 3 hyperglycaemia; grade 2 asthenia), and this was the maximum buparlisib dose explored. Buparlisib + AA showed a 26% lower median area under the curve from time zero to 24°h (AUC 0-24 ) and 48% lower median maximum serum concentration (Cmax) versus the single-agent buparlisib assessed in first-in-human study. No objective response and few PSA decreases were reported. In dactolisib + AA arm, 18 patients (median age, 71 years; ECOG PS of 0/1 for 6/12 patients, respectively) received dactolisib + AA at the first dose level (200 mg bid). Five patients had 9 DLTs (grades 2&3 stomatitis; grade 3 hyperglycaemia; grades 2& 3 diarrhoea; grades 1& 2 pyrexia, grade 2 vomiting, and grade 2 chills)., Conclusions: Based on the assessment of available pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy data, no further study is planned for either buparlisib or dactolisib in combination with AA in CRPC., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with germ cell tumours (GCT) receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy are at high risk of thromboembolic events (TEE). Previously, we identified serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and body surface area (BSA) as independent predictive factors for TEE. The aim of this study was to validate these predictive factors and to assess the impact of thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients at risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT)., Methods: Between 2001 and 2014, 295 patients received first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy for GCT. Preventive anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was progressively implemented in patients with predictive factors. Sixteen patients with evidence of TEE before starting chemotherapy were excluded from the analysis., Results: Among 279 eligible patients, a TEE occurred in 38 (14%) consisting of DVT (n = 26), arterial thrombosis (n = 2), and superficial thrombophlebitis (n = 10). DVT occurred in 26 (12.7%) of 204 patients with risk factors versus two (2.6%) of 75 patients with no risk factors (p = 0.01). After a prevention protocol was progressively implemented from 2005, primary thromboprophylaxis was administered to 104 patients (68%) with risk factors. Among patients at risk (n = 151), the incidence of DVT decreased by roughly half when they received a LMWH: 9/97 (9.2%) and 9/54 (16.6%), respectively (p = 0.23)., Conclusion: Patients with GCT who receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy are at risk of developing a TEE which can be predicted by elevated serum LDH. To our knowledge this is the first study exploring LMWH as thromboprophylaxis in GCT patients. A prospective trial testing prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess preliminary safety and efficacy results of the anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 (anti-PD-L1) durvalumab in combination with radiotherapy (RT) in an expansion cohort of patients included in a phase 1/2 trial at our institution., Patients and Methods: Data from patients who received concurrent palliative RT with durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks via intravenous infusion) were analysed in terms of safety (CTCAE v4.0) and efficacy (RECIST v1.1 and tumour growth rate [TGR])., Results: Between 02/2014 and 04/2016, 10 patients received palliative local irradiation of 15 isolated lesions. Most patients (90%) had received one or more prior lines of systemic therapy for advanced disease. The median duration of exposure to durvalumab was 5.2 months with a median delivery of 11 cycles (range, 4-38 cycles). RT (conformal 3D RT, 79% and intracranial stereotactic RT, 21%) was delivered at a median biologically-effective dose of 28 Gy (range, 6-92), in a median number of five fractions (range, 1-10) and over a median duration of 6 d (range, 1-14). Five patients (50%) reported an irradiation-related adverse event (AE) grade (G) 1 or 2 and one patient had two G2 AEs. The most frequently reported AE (3/6) was G2 mucositis. There was no G3 or more RT-related AEs. All AEs were transient, lasted less than one week, and were manageable by standard guidelines. There was no unexpected AE. On 10/15 in-field (IF) evaluable lesions, the objective response (OR) rate was 60% (complete response, 2/10 and partial response, 4/10) and 4/10 stable disease (SD). All evaluated IF lesions had a TGR decrease resulting in a significant decrease in the TGR between the two periods (before versus after RT; p < 0.01). Outfields disease evaluation retrieved 10/14 SD and 4/14 progressive disease (PD). There was no out-field OR, no abscopal effect and no out-field difference between the two periods according to TGR (p = 0.09)., Conclusion: In this small data set of patients, concurrent palliative RT with the anti-PD-L1 durvalumab was well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01693562; EudraCT number: 2012-002206-52., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Drugs targeting programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1 have shown activity in multiple malignancies. Considering their novel mechanism of action, whether traditional prognostic scores also apply to patients treated with these drugs is unknown. We investigated whether a baseline 3-point (pt) computed tomography (CT) scan (PS3-CT) score and a 7-pt prognostic (PS7) score allowed identifying long-term survivors on anti-PD-1/-L1 therapy., Materials and Methods: We reviewed 251 consecutive patients enrolled in phase I trials evaluating anti-PD-1/-L1 agents between 26th December 2011 and 7th September 2015. PS3-CT was calculated using high tumour burden (TB1D-RECIST > 9 cm), low skeletal muscle index (SMI < 53 cm(2) m(-2)) and non-pulmonary visceral metastases (NPVM) (1 pt each). PS7 was calculated by adding lower performance status, decreased serum albumin, increased serum lactate dehydrogenase and more than two distant metastases (1 pt each). Effect on overall survival (OS) of each parameter was tested using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox analyses., Results: PS3-CT was a significant independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.39 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.07-1.81], p = 0.01) when compared to the Royal Marsden Hospital, Barbot and American Joint Committee on Cancer scores. High TB (n = 78), low SMI (n = 55) and NPVM (n = 146) were associated with poorer survival (p < 0.01). High TB and low SMI were independent predictors of OS (respective HR of death: 2.00 [95% CI = 1.38-2.88], p < 0.01 and 1.75 [95% CI = 1.15-2.66], p < 0.01). PS7 was a significant predictor of OS (HR = 1.40 [95% CI = 1.25-1.56], p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Objective and rapid-risk scoring based on three CT scan parameters allows identifying patients with prolonged OS on anti-PD-1/-L1 therapy, independently from conventional clinical-biological prognostic scores., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal use of new therapies in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains to be clarified. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response used as a pharmacodynamic end-point may help identify patients with early resistance to new androgen receptor-pathway inhibitors. We aimed to determine the clinical significance of early PSA response (EPR) during therapy with enzalutamide, abiraterone acetate (AA) and orteronel in mCRPC., Methods: Data from patients recruited in clinical trials were studied. PSA values were obtained at baseline and 28 d after treatment initiation. EPR defined as a decline >50% from baseline was calculated according to the Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria. The effects of clinical characteristics on radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were examined using the Cox model., Results: EPR was assessed in 118 patients treated in clinical trials and was found to be associated with longer rPFS and OS (P < 0.0001 for both). Median rPFS was 13.9 and 5.6 months (hazard ratio [HR]:0.38, P < 0.001) for patients with and without an EPR, respectively. Median OS was 32.2 months in patients with an EPR and 15.9 months in patients without an EPR (HR: 0.4, P < 0.01). EPR remained prognostic for OS in multivariate analyses (HR: 0.5, p=0.009) that included validated pre-therapeutic prognostic factors for mCRPC. Prognostic values of EPR for rPFS and OS were confirmed in an independent cohort of 95 AA-treated non-trial patients., Conclusions: EPR is an independent prognostic factor in patients with mCRPC treated with next-generation androgen pathway inhibitors and may be useful for the therapeutic management of these patients., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: MOSCATO-01 is a molecular triage trial based on on-purpose tumour biopsies to perform molecular portraits. We aimed at identifying factors associated with high tumour cellularity., Material and Methods: Tumour cellularity (percentage of tumour cells in samples defined at pathology) was evaluated according to patient characteristics, target lesion characteristics, operators' experience and biopsy approach., Results: Among 460 patients enrolled between November, 2011 and March, 2014, 334 patients (73%) had an image-guided needle biopsy of the primary tumour (N = 38) or a metastatic lesion (N = 296). Biopsies were performed on liver (N = 127), lung (N = 72), lymph nodes (N = 71), bone (N = 11), or another tumour site (N = 53). Eighteen patients (5%) experienced a complication: pneumothorax in 10 patients treated medically, and haemorrhage in 8, requiring embolisation in 3 cases. Median tumour cellularity was 50% (interquartile range, 30-70%). The molecular analysis was successful in 291/334 cases (87%). On-going chemotherapy, tumour origin (primary versus metastatic), lesion size, tumour growth rate, presence of necrosis on imaging, standardised uptake value, and needle size were not statistically associated with cellularity. Compared to liver or lung biopsies, cellularity was significantly lower in bone and higher in other sites (P < 0.0001). Cellularity significantly increased with the number of collected samples (P < 0.0001) and was higher in contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided biopsies (P < 0.02). In paired samples, cellularity in central samples was lower than in peripheral samples in 85, equal in 68 and higher in 89 of the cases., Conclusion: Image-guided biopsy is feasible and safe in cancer patients for molecular screening. Imaging modality, multiple sampling of the lesion, and the organ chosen for biopsy were associated with higher tumour cellularity., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Cancer immunotherapy is coming of age; it has prompted a paradigm shift in oncology, in which therapeutic agents are used to target immune cells rather than cancer cells. The first generation of new immunotherapies corresponds to antagonistic antibodies that block specific immune checkpoint molecules cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1. Targeting these checkpoints in patients living with cancer had led to long-lasting tumour responses. By unbalancing the immune system, these new immunotherapies also generate dysimmune toxicities, called immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) that mainly involve the gut, skin, endocrine glands, liver, and lung but can potentially affect any tissue. In view of their undisputed clinical efficacy, anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies are entering in the routine oncological practice, and the number of patients exposed to these drugs will increase dramatically in the near future. Although steroids can be used to treat these IRAEs, the associated immunosuppression may compromise the antitumour response. Oncologists must be ready to detect and manage these new types of adverse events. This review focuses on the mechanisms of IRAE generation, putative relationship between dysimmune toxicity and antitumour efficacy, as a basis for management guidelines., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer studies have shown that body mass index (BMI), skeletal muscle mass (SMM) and adipose tissue indexes are linked to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). New treatments (abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide cabazitaxel, radium-223, sipuleucel-T) have improved patient outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Our objective was to analyse whether body composition parameters exert a prognostic role in mCRPC patients treated with next generation of androgen receptor (AR) axis inhibitors (abiraterone and enzalutamide)., Methods: All mCRPC patients from our institution who were enrolled in two prospective trials, assessing the efficacy of abiraterone acetate and the efficacy of enzalutamide, were selected. SMM, visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) indexes were assessed with computed tomography imaging by measuring cross-sectional areas of the tissues., Results: In the 120 patients with available data, median OS and PFS were respectively: 16 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 12-19) and 4 months (95% [CI] = 3-6). OS was associated with the SAT index: median survival was 15 months (95% [CI] 9-18) for patients with a SAT index < median value and 18 months (95% [CI] 13-30) for patients with a SAT index above (P = 0.008). In multivariate analyses, only the occurrence of visceral metastasis (P = 0.004), pain (P = 0.015) and SAT index (P = 0.036) were statistically significant predictors of OS. From baseline to 3 months, the SMM index loss was 2.49 ± 0.44 cm(2)/m(2) (P < 0.001) corresponding to nearly 3.4 kg of muscle loss., Conclusions: High volume of SAT is independently associated with overall survival in mCRPC patients treated with next generation AR axis inhibitors., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is an urgent need for qualified predictive biomarkers of sensitivity for the treatments used in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We attempted to identify ready-to-use clinical predictors of improved outcome in metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) patients treated with next generation androgen receptor (AR) axis targeted drugs., Patients and Methods: We reviewed a cohort of patients who received AR axis targeted drugs for CRPC at two major French cancer centres. The predictive role of several clinical, biological and radiological parameters on progression-free survival (PFS) was studied., Results: The study cohort consisted of 173 patients. Median duration of response to initial androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (time to castration resistance, TTCRPC) was 17.8 months. The 50% prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate to AR axis targeted drugs was 16% (95% confidence interval (CI): 6-27) and 41% (95% CI: 30-47) in patients with TTCRPC of under and over 12 months respectively (p=0.005). Median PFS was 2.8 months (95% CI: 2.1-3.9) and 5.8 (95% CI: 4.6-7.8; HR: 0.58, p=0.002). In patients treated with post-docetaxel enzalutamide (n=57), median PFS was 2.8 months and 8.6 months, (Hazard ratio (HR)=3.1; 95% CI: 1.6-5.8, p=0.0016) according to TTCRPC, whereas no difference was observed in placebo-treated patients (n=27). The 50% PSA response rate to enzalutamide was 8% (95% CI: 0-38) and 58% (95% CI: 42-73) in patients with a TTCRPC of under and over 12 months respectively (p<0.001)., Conclusion: The previous duration of response to ADT is a predictor of sensitivity to next generation AR axis targeted drugs in patients with mCRPC., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Traditional dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition, which uses grade (G) 3-4 toxicity data from cycle 1 (C1) only, may not be appropriate for molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) of prolonged administration, for which late or lower grade toxicities also deserve attention., Patients and Methods: In collaboration with pharmaceutical companies and academia, an European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-led initiative, Dose-Limiting Toxicity and Toxicity Assessment Recommendation Group for Early Trials of Targeted therapies (DLT-TARGETT), collected data from completed phase 1 trials evaluating MTAs as monotherapy. All toxicities at least possibly related to the study drugs that occurred during C1-6, their type, grade (CTCAEv3.0), and duration as well as patients' relative dose-intensity (RDI), were recorded., Results: The 54 eligible trials enrolled 2084 evaluable adult patients with solid tumours between 1999 and 2013, and evaluated small molecules (40), antibodies (seven), recombinant peptides (five) and antisense oligodeoxynucleotides (two). A maximum tolerated dose was set in 43 trials. Fifteen percent of the patients received <75% of the intended RDI in C1, but only 9.1% of them presented protocol-defined DLTs. After C1, 16-19% of patients received <75% of the intended RDI. A similar proportion of G ⩾ 3 toxicities was recorded in C1 and after C1 (936 and 1087 toxicities, respectively), with the first G⩾3 toxicity occurring after C1 in 18.6% of patients., Conclusion: Although protocol-defined DLT period is traditionally limited to C1, almost 20% of patients present significant reductions in RDI at any time in phase 1 trials of MTAs. Recommended phase 2 dose assessment should incorporate all available information from any cycle (notably lower grade toxicities leading to such RDI decrease), and be based on achieving >75% RDI., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)