Search

Drugs Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by April 30, 2014, That Were Included in the Analysis

Table S1 - Histologies and tumor grade by site according to MET amplification status. Table S2- Type of BRAF mutations by tumor site. Table S3 - List of phase I trials included as best trials for MET amplified patients.

Purpose: Evaluate the association between the use of phase I expansion cohorts (ECs) and drug performance in phase II as well as time to approval by the FDA.Experimental Design: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE for single-agent dose-finding adult oncology phase I trials published in 2006 to 2011 and subsequent phase II trials. Successful phase II trials were those that met their primary endpoints. Dates of approval were obtained from the Drugs@FDA website in April 2014. A logistic regression model was used to determine the associations between variables and success in phase II.Results: We identified 533 phase I trials evaluating 381 drugs; 112 drugs had at least one phase I trial with an expansion cohort. Phase I trials with expansion cohorts of two to 20 patients were associated with a higher rate of successful phase II trials than those with no expansion cohort [48% vs. 27%; OR, 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1–4.0; P = 0.037]. Phase II success rates were the same for expansion cohort with two to 20 and more than 20 patients (48% vs. 52%). Other positive associations were disease-specific trials (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0–2.9; P = 0.037), industry sponsorship (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5–5.7; P = 0.0024), and response rate of 6% to 20% (OR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.6–5.2; P = 0.0007). Drugs tested in phase I trials with expansion cohorts had a higher rate of 5-year approval (19% vs. 5%; HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.2–8.8; P < 0.001).Conclusions: The use of expansion cohorts in phase I trials was associated with success of subsequent phase II trials. However, confounders may play a role in this association. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4020–6. ©2017 AACR.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess MET amplification among different cancers, association with clinical factors and genetic aberrations and targeted therapy response modifications.Experimental Design: From May 2010 to November 2012, samples from patients with advanced tumors referred to the MD Anderson Phase I Clinic were analyzed for MET gene amplification by FISH. Patient demographic, histologic characteristics, molecular characteristics, and outcomes in phase I protocols were compared per MET amplification status.Results: Of 1,115 patients, 29 (2.6%) had MET amplification. The highest prevalence was in adrenal (2 of 13; 15%) and renal (4 of 28; 14%) tumors, followed by gastroesophageal (6%), breast (5%), and ovarian cancers (4%). MET amplification was associated with adenocarcinomas (P = 0.007), high-grade tumors (P = 0.003), more sites of metastasis, higher BRAF mutation, and PTEN loss (all P < 0.05). Median overall survival was 7.23 and 8.62 months for patients with and without a MET amplification, respectively (HR = 1.12; 95% confidence intervals, 0.83–1.85; P = 0.29). Among the 20 patients with MET amplification treated on a phase I protocol, 4 (20%) achieved a partial response with greatest response rate on agents targeting angiogenesis (3 of 6, 50%). No patient treated with a c-MET inhibitor (0 of 7) achieved an objective response.Conclusion:MET amplification was detected in 2.6% of patients with solid tumors and was associated with adenocarcinomas, high-grade histology, and higher metastatic burden. Concomitant alterations in additional pathways (BRAF mutation and PTEN loss) and variable responses on targeted therapies, including c-MET inhibitors, suggest that further studies are needed to target this population. Clin Cancer Res; 20(24); 6336–45. ©2014 AACR.

Accessibility to next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has enabled the profiling of microbial communities living in distinct habitats. 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene sequencing is widely used for microbiota profiling with NGS technologies. Since most used NGS platforms generate short reads, sequencing the full-length 16S rRNA gene is impractical. Therefore, choosing which 16S rRNA hypervariable region to sequence is critical in microbiota profiling studies. All nine 16S rRNA hypervariable regions are taxonomically informative, but due to variability in profiling performance for specific clades, choosing the ideal 16S rRNA hypervariable region will depend on the bacterial composition of the habitat under study. Recently, NGS allowed the identification of microbes in the urinary tract, and urinary microbiota has become an active research area. However, there is no current study evaluating the performance of different 16S rRNA hypervariable regions for urinary microbiota profiling. We collected urine samples from male volunteers and profiled their urinary microbiota by sequencing a panel of six amplicons encompassing all nine 16S rRNA hypervariable regions. After systematically comparing their performance, we show that V1V2 hypervariable regions better assess the taxa commonly present in urine samples and V1V2 amplicon sequencing is more suitable for urinary microbiota profiling. We believe our results will be helpful to guide this crucial methodological choice in future urinary microbiota studies.