Search

The eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E (eIF4E) is a potent oncogene that is found to be dysregulated in 30% of human cancer, including colorectal carcinogenesis (CRC). ISIS 183750 is a second-generation antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) designed to inhibit the production of the eIF4E protein. In preclinical studies we found that EIF4e ASOs reduced expression of EIF4e mRNA and inhibited proliferation of colorectal carcinoma cells. An additive antiproliferative effect was observed in combination with irinotecan. We then performed a clinical trial evaluating this combination in patients with refractory cancer. No dose-limiting toxicities were seen but based on pharmacokinetic data and tolerability the dose of irinotecan was reduced to 160 mg/m(2) biweekly. Efficacy was evaluated in 15 patients with irinotecan-refractory colorectal cancer. The median time of disease control was 22.1 weeks. After ISIS 183750 treatment, peripheral blood levels of eIF4E mRNA were decreased in 13 of 19 patients. Matched pre- and posttreatment tumor biopsies showed decreased eIF4E mRNA levels in five of nine patients. In tumor tissue, the intracellular and stromal presence of ISIS 183750 was detected by IHC in all biopsied patients. Although there were no objective responses stable disease was seen in seven of 15 (47%) patients who were progressing before study entry, six of whom were stable at the time of the week 16 CT scan. We were also able to confirm through mandatory pre- and posttherapy tumor biopsies penetration of the ASO into the site of metastasis.

Adults with cancer may perceive cannabis as beneficial for managing their cancer-related symptoms, but the evidence supporting its medical use is varied and inconclusive. This study characterized associations of cannabis use with cancer-related symptom trajectories. Participants were adults undergoing cancer treatment at the Stephenson Cancer Center (SCC; n = 218) in Oklahoma; they were 71% female, 10% minoritized race, and 45% had stage III or IV cancer. Participants completed surveys at baseline and 2-, 4-, and 6-months post-baseline. Assessments queried about cannabis use behavior, physical and psychological distress via the Rotterdam Symptoms Checklist (RSCL), respiratory symptoms via the American Thoracic Society Questionnaire (ATSQ), and quality of life indices (physical and social functioning, pain interference, sleep quality, fatigue) via the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29). Cannabis use status was categorized based on self-reported past 30-day cannabis use at each assessment as non-use [no use at any assessment], occasional-use [use at 1-2 assessments], or consistent-use [use at 3-4 assessments]. Longitudinal hierarchical linear modeling evaluated associations of cannabis use status with average symptoms and symptom trajectories across all four assessments. One-third (33%) of participants reported past 30-day cannabis use at ≥ 1 assessment. Participants who reported cannabis use (occasional-use and consistent-use) had more severe symptoms overall across assessments. While most cancer symptom trajectories did not differ by cannabis use status, participants who reported consistent cannabis use uniquely showed worsening physical function over time. Cannabis use was associated with greater cancer-related symptom severity over time., Competing Interests: Declarations Competing interests Kendzor and Businelle are inventors of the Insight Mobile Health Platform (not used or evaluated in the current study) and receive royalties for the external use of the platform outside of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. Kendzor is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Qnovia. Inc., which is a drug development company focused on inhaled therapies including prescription inhaled nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation (no medications provided or evaluated in the current study). Kendzor previously received medication (varenicline) at no cost from Pfizer to support a now completed pilot study (no medications provided or evaluated in the current study). The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: TPST-1120 is a first-in-class oral inhibitor of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα), a fatty acid ligand-activated transcription factor that regulates genes involved in fatty acid oxidation, angiogenesis, and inflammation, and is a novel target for cancer therapy. TPST-1120 displayed antitumor activity in xenograft models and synergistic tumor reduction in syngeneic tumor models when combined with anti-PD-1 agents., Experimental Design: This phase I, open-label, dose-escalation study (NCT03829436) evaluated TPST-1120 as monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors and in combination with nivolumab in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), or hepatocellular carcinoma. Objectives included evaluation of safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary antitumor activity (RECIST v1.1)., Results: A total of 39 patients enrolled with 38 treated (20 monotherapy, 18 combination; median 3 prior lines of therapy). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were grade 1-2 nausea, fatigue, and diarrhea. No grade 4-5 TRAEs or dose-limiting toxicities were reported. In the monotherapy group, 53% (10/19) of evaluable patients had a best objective response of stable disease. In the combination group, 3 patients had partial responses, for an objective response rate of 20% (3/15) across all doses and 30% (3/10) at TPST-1120 ≥400 mg twice daily. Responses occurred in 2 patients with RCC, both of whom had previously progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy, and 1 patient with late-line CCA., Conclusions: TPST-1120 was well tolerated as monotherapy and in combination with nivolumab and the combination showed preliminary evidence of clinical activity in PD-1 inhibitor refractory and immune compromised cancers., Significance: TPST-1120 is a first-in-class oral inhibitor of PPARα, whose roles in metabolic and immune regulation are implicated in tumor proliferation/survival and inhibition of anticancer immunity. This first-in-human study of TPST-1120 alone and in combination with nivolumab supports proof-of-concept of PPARα inhibition as a target of therapeutic intervention in solid tumors., (© 2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background & Aims: Sex-related differences in the immune pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), particularly related to oestrogen-dependent secretion of pro-tumourigenic cytokines, are well-known. Whether sex influences the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy is not known., Methods: We performed a restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analysis of five phase III trials that evaluated immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced HCC and reported overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) stratified by sex to evaluate sex-related differences in OS. In a real-world cohort of 840 patients with HCC from 22 centres included between 2018 and 2023, we directly compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab (A+B) between sexes. Radiological response was reported according to RECIST v1.1. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed for OS and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: In the meta-analysis, immunotherapy was associated with a significant OS benefit only in male (pooled HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.86) but not in female (pooled HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.70-1.03) patients with HCC. When directly comparing model estimates, no differences in the treatment effect between sexes were observed. Among 840 patients, 677 (81%) were male (mean age 66 ± 11 years), and 163 (19%) were female (mean age 67 ± 12 years). Type and severity of adverse events were similar between the two groups. OS and PFS were comparable between males and females upon uni- and multivariable analyses (aHR for OS and PFS: 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.04; 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.30, respectively). Objective response rates (24%/22%) and disease control rates (59%/59%) were also similar between sexes., Conclusion: Female phase III trial participants experienced smaller OS benefit following ICI therapy for advanced HCC, while outcomes following A+B treatment were comparable between sexes in a large real-world database. Based on the ambiguous sex-related differences in survival observed here, further investigation of sex-specific clinical and biologic determinants of responsiveness and survival following ICIs are warranted., Impact and Implications: While immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as standard of care for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, there are conflicting reports on whether the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy differs between females and males. Our study suggests ambiguous sex-related differences in outcomes from immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Further investigation of sex-specific clustering in clinicopathologic and immunologic determinants of responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy should be prioritised., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023429625., Competing Interests: The authors have nothing to disclose regarding the work under consideration for publication. The following authors disclose conflicts of interests outside the submitted work: L.B. has nothing to disclose. B.Sc. received travel support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead and Ipsen as well as grant support from AstraZeneca. C.A.M.F. has nothing to disclose. A.D. is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Imperial BRC, by grant funding from the European Association for the Study of the Liver (2021 Andrew Burroughs Fellowship) and from Cancer Research UK (RCCPDB- Nov21/100008). A.D. received educational support for congress attendance and consultancy fees from Roche. K.P. has nothing to disclose. M.B.R. has nothing to disclose. E.L.M. is a salaried employee of Berry Consultants. J.C. has nothing to disclose. N.N. has nothing to disclose. P.-C.L. has nothing to disclose. L.W. has nothing to disclose. C.A. has nothing to disclose. A.K. has nothing to disclose. An.S. has nothing to disclose. B.St. has nothing to disclose. A.Ca. has nothing to disclose. T.P. has nothing to disclose. Y.I.A. has nothing to disclose. S.C. has nothing to disclose. B.W. has nothing to disclose. A.P. has nothing to disclose. Y.-H.H. has nothing to disclose. S.P. has nothing to disclose. C.V. has nothing to disclose. F.S. has nothing to disclose. G.M. has nothing to disclose. D.B. has nothing to disclose. A.V. has nothing to disclose. J.v.F. has received advisory board fees from Roche. K.S. has nothing to disclose. M.S. has nothing to disclose. M.T. served as a speaker and/or consultant and/or advisory board member for Albireo, BiomX, Falk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Falk, Genfit, Gilead, Hightide, Intercept, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Phenex, Pliant, Regulus, Siemens and Shire, and received travel support from AbbVie, Falk, Gilead, and Intercept as well as grants/research support from Albireo, Alnylam, Cymabay, Falk, Gilead, Intercept, MSD, Takeda, and UltraGenyx. He is also co-inventor of patents on the medical use of 24-norursodeoxycholic acid. Ad.S. is supported by grant funding from CRUK, served as a speaker for Merck and Chugai and received grants from Histosonics, Transgene, Oncolytics and Theolytics. H.W. has received lecture and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Eisai. F.P. has received honoraria for advisory board or lecturing from Astrazeneca, Bayer, Bracco, ESAOTE, EISAI, Exact Sciences, GE, IPSEN, MSD, Roche, Samsung, Siemens Healthineers. P.R.G. received honoraria from Bayer, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Adaptimmune, BMS, Eisai, MSD, Sirtex, Lilly, Roche, Guerbet, Ipsen and Daiichi-Sankyo. R.S. has nothing to disclose. M.K. received lecture fees from Eli Lilly, Bayer, Eisai, Chugai, Takeda, AstraZeneca as well as grant support from Taiho, Otsuka, EA Pharma, AbbVie, Eisai, Chugai, GE Healthcare; and acts on advisory boards from Chugai, Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai. A.G.S. has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Genentech, AztraZeneca, Eisai, Exelixis, Bayer, Boston Scientific, FujiFilm Medical Sciences, Exact Sciences, Roche, Glycotest, Freenome, and GRAIL. Dr. Singal’s research is conducted with support from National Cancer Institute R01 MD012565 and R01 CA256977. A.I. has nothing to disclose. S.V.U. has served on advisory boards for Eisai, Astra Zeneca, IgM biosciences and received institutional support for research from AbbVie, Inc, Adlai Nortye, ArQule, Inc, AstraZeneca, Atreca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Ciclomed LLC, Erasca, Evelo Biosciences, Inc, Exelexis, G1 Therapeutics, Inc, GlaxoSmithKline GSK, IGM biosciences, Incyte, Isofol, Klus Pharma, Inc, Macrogenics, Merck Co. Inc, Mersana Therapeutics, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Inc, Revolution Medicines, Inc, Synermore Biologics Co, Takeda, Tarveda Therapeutics, Tesaro, Tempest, Vigeo Therapeutics Inc. (all funds to institution). N.D.P. serves as a consultant for Exact Sciences, Eli Lilly, Freenome, Astra Zeneca and has served on advisory boards of Genentech, Eisai, Bayer, Exelixis, Wako/Fujifilm and has received research funding from Bayer, Target Pharmasolutions, Exact Sciences, and Glycotest. A.Co. served as consultant/advisory role for AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, IQVIA and OncoC4. He also received speaker’s fees from AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, EISAI. A.K. has nothing to disclose. L.R. reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck, Serono, Roche, Sanofi, Servier; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; research grants (to Institution) from Agios, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks. H.J.C. has nothing to disclose. D.J.P. is supported by grant funding from the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund (PS3416) and acknowledges grant support from the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust (CTRT); the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre; and the AIRC MFAG Grant No. 25697, Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Foundation, Milan, Italy. D.J.P. acknowledges the following COIs: Lecture fees: Bayer Healthcare, Astra Zeneca, EISAI, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Roche, Ipsen; Travel expenses: Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Roche, Bayer Healthcare; Consulting fees: Mina Therapeutics, Boeringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, EISAI, Ipsen, Roche, H3B, Astra Zeneca, DaVolterra, Mursla, Avammune Therapeutics, LiFT Biosciences, Exact Sciences; Research funding (to institution): MSD, BMS, GSK. M.P. served as a speaker and/or consultant and/or advisory board member for Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche, and received travel support from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Roche. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Tebotelimab, a bispecific PD-1×LAG-3 DART molecule that blocks both PD-1 and LAG-3, was investigated for clinical safety and activity in a phase 1 dose-escalation and cohort-expansion clinical trial in patients with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies and disease progression on previous treatment. Primary endpoints were safety and maximum tolerated dose of tebotelimab when administered as a single agent (n = 269) or in combination with the anti-HER2 antibody margetuximab (n = 84). Secondary endpoints included anti-tumor activity. In patients with advanced cancer treated with tebotelimab monotherapy, 68% (184/269) experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs; 22% were grade ≥3). No maximum tolerated dose was defined; the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was 600 mg once every 2 weeks. There were tumor decreases in 34% (59/172) of response-evaluable patients in the dose-escalation cohorts, with objective responses in multiple solid tumor types, including PD-1-refractory disease, and in LAG-3 + non-Hodgkin lymphomas, including CAR-T refractory disease. To enhance potential anti-tumor responses, we tested margetuximab plus tebotelimab. In patients with HER2 + tumors treated with tebotelimab plus margetuximab, 74% (62/84) had TRAEs (17% were grade ≥3). The RP2D was 600 mg once every 3 weeks. The confirmed objective response rate in these patients was 19% (14/72), including responses in patients typically not responsive to anti-HER2/anti-PD-1 combination therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03219268 ., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Little is known about the risks and benefits of cannabis use in the context of cancer care. This study characterized the prevalence, reasons for use, and perceived benefits of cannabis and compared symptoms and perceived risks between those who reported past 30-day cannabis use and those who did not., Methods: Adults undergoing cancer treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center completed measures of sociodemographic characteristics, cannabis use, use modalities, reasons for use, perceived harms/benefits of use, physical and psychological symptoms, and other substance/medication use. Analyses compared patients who used or did not use cannabis in the past 30 days., Results: Participants (N = 267) were 58 years old on average, primarily female (70%), and predominantly White (88%). Over a quarter of respondents (26%) reported past 30-day cannabis use, and among those, 4.5% screened positive for cannabis use disorder. Participants who used cannabis most often used edibles (65%) or smoked cannabis (51%), and they were younger and more likely to be male, Black, and disabled, and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance than participants who did not use cannabis. Those who used cannabis reported more severe symptoms and perceived cannabis as less harmful than those who did not use cannabis. The most common medical reasons for cannabis use were pain, cancer, sleep problems, anxiety, nausea/vomiting, and poor appetite. Participants reported the greatest cannabis-related symptom relief from sleep problems, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain, muscle spasms, and anxiety., Conclusions: Patients with cancer who used cannabis perceived benefits for many symptoms, although they showed worse overall symptomatology., Plain Language Summary: Among adults undergoing cancer treatment, 26% reported cannabis use in the past 30 days. Those who used cannabis were more likely to be male and disabled and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance than those who did not use cannabis. Participants most commonly reported using cannabis for pain, cancer, sleep, anxiety, and nausea/vomiting and reported the greatest perceived benefits for sleep, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain, muscle spasms, and anxiety, yet participants who used cannabis also reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared to those who did not use cannabis. Participants who used cannabis were more likely to report that cannabis was less risky to their health than alcohol, smoking, and opioids than those who did not use cannabis., (© 2023 American Cancer Society.)

AZD5153, a reversible, bivalent inhibitor of the bromodomain and extraterminal family protein BRD4, has preclinical activity in multiple tumors. This first-in-human, phase I study investigated AZD5153 alone or with olaparib in patients with relapsed/refractory solid tumors or lymphoma. Adults with relapsed tumors intolerant of, or refractory to, prior therapies received escalating doses of oral AZD5153 once daily or twice daily continuously (21-day cycles), or AZD5153 once daily/twice daily continuously or intermittently plus olaparib 300 mg twice daily, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Between June 30, 2017 and April 19, 2021, 34 patients received monotherapy and 15 received combination therapy. Dose-limiting toxicities were thrombocytopenia/platelet count decreased (n = 4/n = 2) and diarrhea (n = 1). The recommended phase II doses (RP2D) were AZD5153 30 mg once daily or 15 mg twice daily (monotherapy) and 10 mg once daily (intermittent schedule) with olaparib. With AZD5153 monotherapy, common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) included fatigue (38.2%), thrombocytopenia, and diarrhea (each 32.4%); common grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were thrombocytopenia (14.7%) and anemia (8.8%). With the combination, common TEAEs included nausea (66.7%) and fatigue (53.3%); the most common grade ≥ 3 TEAE was thrombocytopenia (26.7%). AZD5153 had dose-dependent pharmacokinetics, with minimal accumulation, and demonstrated dose-dependent modulation of peripheral biomarkers, including upregulation of HEXIM1. One patient with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving combination treatment had a partial response lasting 4.2 months. These results show AZD5153 was tolerable as monotherapy and in combination at the RP2Ds; common toxicities were fatigue, hematologic AEs, and gastrointestinal AEs. Strong evidence of peripheral target engagement was observed., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: In this first-in-human phase 1b study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02761694) of advanced solid tumors with PIK3CA/AKT/PTEN mutations, the authors investigated the safety and efficacy of the pan-AKT inhibitor vevorisertib (MK-4440; ARQ 751) as monotherapy or with paclitaxel or fulvestrant., Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed, advanced or recurrent, PIK3CA/AKT/PTEN-mutated solid tumors, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1 received vevorisertib (dose range, 5-100 mg) alone or with paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 or fulvestrant 500 mg. The primary end point was safety and tolerability. Secondary end points included pharmacokinetics and the objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1., Results: Of 78 patients enrolled, 58 received vevorisertib monotherapy, 10 received vevorisertib plus paclitaxel, and nine received vevorisertib plus fulvestrant. Dose-limiting toxicity occurred in three patients (vevorisertib monotherapy, n = 2 [grade 3 pruritic and maculopapular rashes]; vevorisertib plus paclitaxel, n = 1 [grade 1 asthenia]). Across doses, treatment-related AEs occurred in 46 patients (79%) with vevorisertib monotherapy, in 10 patients (100%) with vevorisertib plus paclitaxel, and in nine patients (100%) with vevorisertib plus fulvestrant; and grade 3 treatment-related AEs occurred in 13 (22%), 7 (70%), and 3 (33%) patients, respectively. No grade 4/5 treatment-related AEs occurred. Maximum vevorisertib concentrations were reached 1-4 hours after dosing; the elimination half-life ranged from 8.8 to 19.3 hours. The objective response rate was 5% with vevorisertib monotherapy (three partial responses), 20% with vevorisertib plus paclitaxel (two partial responses), and 0% with vevorisertib plus fulvestrant., Conclusions: Vevorisertib alone or with paclitaxel or fulvestrant had a manageable safety profile, and vevorisertib alone or with paclitaxel had minimal to modest antitumor activity in this patient population with PIK3CA/AKT/PTEN-mutated advanced solid tumors., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02761694., (© 2023 American Cancer Society.)

Importance: Nonclinical studies suggest that the combination of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase and programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death-ligand 1 inhibitors has enhanced antitumor activity; however, the patient populations that may benefit from this combination have not been identified., Objective: To evaluate whether the combination of avelumab and talazoparib is effective in patients with pathogenic BRCA1/2 or ATM alterations, regardless of tumor type., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pan-cancer tumor-agnostic phase 2b nonrandomized controlled trial, patients with advanced BRCA1/2-altered or ATM-altered solid tumors were enrolled into 2 respective parallel cohorts. The study was conducted from July 2, 2018, to April 12, 2020, at 42 institutions in 9 countries., Interventions: Patients received 800 mg of avelumab every 2 weeks and 1 mg of talazoparib once daily., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was confirmed objective response (OR) per RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review., Results: A total of 200 patients (median [range] age, 59.0 [26.0-89.0] years; 132 [66.0%] women; 15 [7.5%] Asian, 11 [5.5%] African American, and 154 [77.0%] White participants) were enrolled: 159 (79.5%) in the BRCA1/2 cohort and 41 (20.5%) in the ATM cohort. The confirmed OR rate was 26.4% (42 patients, including 9 complete responses [5.7%]) in the BRCA1/2 cohort and 4.9% (2 patients) in the ATM cohort. In the BRCA1/2 cohort, responses were more frequent (OR rate, 30.3%; 95% CI, 22.2%-39.3%, including 8 complete responses [6.7%]) and more durable (median duration of response: 10.9 months [95% CI, 6.2 months to not estimable]) in tumor types associated with increased heritable cancer risk (ie, BRCA1/2-associated cancer types, such as ovarian, breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancers) and in uterine leiomyosarcoma (objective response in 3 of 3 patients and with ongoing responses greater than 24 months) compared with non-BRCA-associated cancer types. Responses in the BRCA1/2 cohort were numerically higher for patients with tumor mutational burden of 10 or more mutations per megabase (mut/Mb) vs less than 10 mut/Mb. The combination was well tolerated, with no new safety signals identified., Conclusions and Relevance: In this phase 2b nonrandomized controlled trial, neither the BRCA1/2 nor ATM cohort met the prespecified OR rate of 40%. Antitumor activity for the combination of avelumab and talazoparib in patients with BRCA1/2 alterations was observed in some patients with BRCA1/2-associated tumor types and uterine leiomyosarcoma; benefit was minimal in non-BRCA-associated cancer types., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03565991.

Background: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) is globally treated with chemotherapy plus trastuzumab. Novel therapeutic strategies strive to not only optimize efficacy, but also limit toxicities. In MAHOGANY cohort A, margetuximab, an Fc-engineered, anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) was combined with retifanlimab, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 mAb, in the first-line HER2-positive/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive GEA., Patients and Methods: MAHOGANY cohort A part 1 is a single-arm trial to evaluate margetuximab plus retifanlimab in patients with HER2 immunohistochemistry 3+, PD-L1-positive (combined positive score ≥1%), and non-microsatellite instability-high tumors. Primary objectives for cohort A were safety/tolerability and the confirmed objective response rate (ORR)., Results: As of 3 August 2021, 43 patients were enrolled and received margetuximab/retifanlimab. Nine grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in eight (18.6%) patients and eight serious TRAEs in seven (16.3%) patients. There were no grade 4/5 TRAEs. Three patients discontinued margetuximab/retifanlimab because of immune-related adverse events. The ORR by independent assessment was 53% [21/40 (95% confidence interval (CI) 36.1-68.5)], with a median duration of response of 10.3 months (95% CI 4.6-not evaluable); disease control rate was 73% [29/40 (95% CI 56.1-85.4)]. The study sponsor discontinued the study in advance of the planned enrollment when it became apparent that the study design would no longer meet the requirements for drug approval because of recent advances in the treatment of GEA., Conclusions: The chemotherapy-free regimen of combined margetuximab/retifanlimab as first-line treatment in double biomarker-selected patients demonstrated a favorable toxicity profile compared with historical outcomes using chemotherapy plus trastuzumab. The ORR observed in this study compares favorably versus ORR observed with other chemotherapy-free approaches., Competing Interests: Disclosure DVTC has received personal fees from Archer, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Five Prime Therapeutics, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Tempus Labs, Genentech/Roche, Gritstone Oncology, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Natera, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, QED Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Zymeworks. YKK has received consulting fees from ALX Oncology, Amgen, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daehwa Pharmaceutical, MacroGenics, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis, Roche, Surface Oncology, and Zymeworks. HHY has received payments to the institution for grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck & Co., Inc.; consulting fees from ALX Oncology, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, MacroGenics, Merck & Co, Inc., Novartis, OncXerna Therapeutics, and Zymeworks; honoraria from BeiGene; and advisory board or data safety monitoring board payments from ALX Oncology, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, MacroGenics, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis, OncXerna Therapeutics, and Zymeworks. DYO has received grants from Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Lilly, HANDOK, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis, and Servier Pharmaceuticals; and participated in advisory boards for ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Bayer, BeiGene, Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Genentech/Roche, Halozyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Turning Point Therapeutics, and Zymeworks. AIS has received stock payments from Lilly; payments for leadership role from NEXT Oncology; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CytomX Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Takeda; and personal and institutional payments for advisory boards from Amgen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, Incyte, Janssen Research and Development, Merck & Co., Inc., Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, and Takeda; consulting fees from Amgen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, Janssen Research and Development, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Merck & Co., Inc., Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, and Takeda; and grants and other support from AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Amgen, Arch Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma, Astex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gritstone Oncology, Ignyta, Incyte, Janssen Oncology, LAM Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, MacroGenics, MedImmune, Mirati Therapeutics, NewLink Genetics, Novartis, Plexxikon, Roche, Rubius Therapeutics, Takeda, and TrovaGene. SVU has participated in advisory boards for Array BioPharma, Bayer, Eisai, Exelixis, Incyte, and Syros Pharmaceuticals; and grants to institution from AbbVie, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Atreca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, CicloMed, Evelo Biosciences, Exelixis, G1 Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, IGM Biosciences, Incyte, Isofol Medical, KLUS Pharma, MacroGenics, Merck & Co., Inc., Mersana Therapeutics, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicines, Synermore Biologics, Takeda, Tarveda Therapeutics, Tesaro, Tempest Therapeutics, and Vigeo Therapeutics. EJA has received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Seagen, AbbVie, and Lilly; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen Biotech, and McKesson. PMB has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck; grants/research support to institution from Ipsen, Processa Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, MacroGenics, Merck, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Athenex. JC has received consulting fees from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Foundation Medicine, Lilly, MacroGenics, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Silverback Therapeutics, and Turning Point Therapeutics; speaker’s bureau honorarium from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck and Co., Inc.; data safety monitoring board member fees from Yiviva; and research payments to the institution from Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics, MacroGenics, and Merck & Co., Inc. HCC received grants/research support from Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb/Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Amgen, BeiGene, Incyte, and Zymeworks; received honoraria from Lilly and Merck Serono; and did consultation for Amgen, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Gloria Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Serono, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Zymeworks. FG has received consulting fees for participating on advisory boards from Janssen, Epizyme, and Regeneron/Sanofi; speaker’s bureau honorarium from Epizyme, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Pfizer. SJK has received consulting fees for participating on advisory boards from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck & Co., Inc., Natera, and Pieris Pharmaceuticals; and stock options from Turning Point Therapeutics. KWL has received consulting fees from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and ISU ABXIS; honorarium from Boryung Pharmaceutical and Ono Pharmaceutical; and research grants to the institution from ABL Bio, ALX Oncology, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Five Prime Therapeutics, Genexine, Green Cross Corp, InventisBio, Leap Therapeutics, LSK BioPharma, MacroGenics, MedPacto, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Oncologie, Pharmacyclics, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Seagen, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Trishula Therapeutics, Y-Biologics, and Zymeworks for conducting clinical trials. JP has received honoraria from Agendia, Guardant Health, and Tempus; consulting fees from TerSera Therapeutics; research funding for clinical trials from AbbVie, BerGenBio, Calithera Biosciences, Inc, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Genentech/Roche, Immunity Bio, Immutep S.A.S., Incyte, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jounce Therapeutics, Lilly, KeChow Pharma, Loxo Oncology, MacroGenics, Inc., Merck, Mirati, Natera, Novocure Ltd, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, TerSera Therapeutics, Turning Point Therapeutics, Salarius Pharmaceuticals, Immunomedics, Pfizer, and Kyowa Kirin; and owns stocks of Oncology Consultants, Zogen, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Roche, TerSera Therapeutics. LS has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Haichuang Pharmaceutical, Harbour BioMed, Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., and Mingji Biopharmaceutical; speaker’s bureau fees from CStone Pharmaceuticals, Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Hutchison Whampoa, and Zai Lab; participated on advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Rongchang Pharmaceuticals, and Zai Lab; and grants to the institution from Beihai Kangcheng (Beijing) Medical Technology, Beijing Xiantong Biomedical Technology, Jacobio Pharmaceuticals, Qilu Pharmaceutical, and Zai Lab. MM has received grants and nonfinancial support from the AIO, BMBF, EORTC, and German Cancer Aid; personal fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Falk Foundation, Lilly, MGI Group, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer, Roche, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; grants to the institution from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., and Pfizer; and nonfinancial support from Amgen and Bristol Myers Squibb paid to the institution. JS, DL, and MKR are/were employees of MacroGenics and hold stock in the company. HP has received grants to institution from Adlai Nortye USA, Alpine Immune Sciences, Ambrx, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics AB, Array BioPharma, Bayer, BeiGene, BJ Bioscience Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Elicio Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Hoffman-La Roche, Hutchison MediPharma, ImmuneOncia Therapeutics, Incyte, Jounce Therapeutics, MabSpace Biosciences, MacroGenics, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck & Co., Inc., Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, Oncologie, Pfizer, PsiOxus Therapeutics, Puma Biotechnology, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Repare Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Synermore Biologics, Taiho Pharmaceutical, TopAlliance Biosciences, Turning Point Therapeutics, Vedanta Biosciences, and Xencor; writing support from MacroGenics; and participated in advisory boards for Jacobio Pharmaceuticals. BYS, STK, SCO, and MBS have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing The data collected for the study will not be made available to others., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To report 3 cases of reversible epitheliopathy induced by A166-a human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)-targeted antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) therapy for resistant HER2 tumours., Methods: Advanced HER2 tumour patients were enrolled in A166 phase I/II clinical trial using Bayesian logistic regression model dose escalation. Key exclusion criteria were ≥grade 2 (G2) corneal pathology, severe organ disease, and other cancer therapy within 4 weeks. Eye exams were performed at baseline, regularly scheduled intervals, and additionally upon A166-induced ocular symptoms. Topical therapy with autologous serum tears (ASTs) was implemented based on visual acuity, symptoms, and slit lamp exam. A166 was withheld if ≥G2 ocular toxicity developed; if status improved to ≤G1, A166 therapy was resumed. Visual acuity, corneal exam, and subjective comfort were recorded., Results: After ≥2 cycles of A166, 6 eyes of 3/23 enrolled patients developed whorl pattern epitheliopathy suggestive of limbal stem cell (LSC) dysfunction requiring cessation of A166 despite positive tumour response. Patients 1 and 3 received 3.6 mg/kg A166 dose, and patient 2 received 3.0 mg/kg. Topical steroids (2/4 eyes) failed to improve epitheliopathy. Adding ASTs improved vision, ocular comfort, and whorl pattern epitheliopathy in 6/6 eyes within 3 weeks. Patient 1 continues to improve on ASTs; patient 2 withdrew from the study; and patient 3 resumed A166 therapy., Conclusion: A166 precipitates LSC dysfunction-like epitheliopathy. Combination therapy including aggressive lubrication, withholding drug, and ASTs help reverse toxicity. Recognizing that ADC-induced epitheliopathy can respond to ocular management may enable cancer patients to continue lifesaving therapy., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Ophthalmological Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: TIGIT (T-cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif domain) is a co-inhibitory receptor of T-cell and natural killer cell activity. Targeting TIGIT with or without PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibition may enhance antitumor immunity., Patients and Methods: This Phase 1a/b trial was a first-in-human, open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation and -expansion study in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Using 3 + 3 design, patients underwent 14-day treatment cycles with anti-TIGIT antibody etigilimab alone (Phase 1a; 0.3, 1.0, 3.0, 10.0, 20.0 mg/kg intravenously) or in combination with anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab (Phase 1b; 3.0, 10.0, 20.0 mg/kg etigilimab and 240 mg nivolumab). Primary objective was safety and tolerability., Results: Thirty-three patients were enrolled (Phase 1a, n = 23; Phase 1b, n = 10). There were no dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). MTD for single and combination therapy was not determined; maximum administered dose was 20 mg/kg. The most commonly reported adverse events (AE) were rash (43.5%), nausea (34.8%), and fatigue (30.4%) in Phase 1a and decreased appetite (50.0%), nausea (50.0%), and rash (40%) in Phase 1b. Six patients experienced Grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs. In Phase 1a, 7 patients (30.0%) had stable disease. In Phase 1b, 1 patient had a partial response; 1 patient had prolonged stable disease of nearly 8 months. Median progression-free survival was 56.0 days (Phase 1a) and 57.5 days (Phase 1b). Biomarker correlative analyses demonstrated evidence of clear dose-dependent target engagement by etigilimab., Conclusions: Etigilimab had an acceptable safety profile with preliminary evidence of clinical benefit alone and in combination with nivolumab and warrants further investigation in clinical trials., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) inhibitor prexasertib exhibited modest monotherapy antitumor activity in prior trials, suggesting that combination with chemotherapy or other targeted agents may be needed to maximize efficacy., Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the recommended phase II dose and schedule of prexasertib in combination with either cisplatin, cetuximab, pemetrexed, or 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced and/or metastatic cancer, and to summarize preliminary antitumor activity of these combinations., Patients and Methods: This phase Ib, nonrandomized, open-label study comprised dose-escalation phase(s) with multiple sub-arms evaluating different prexasertib-drug combinations: Part A, prexasertib + cisplatin (n = 63); Part B, prexasertib + cetuximab (n = 41); Part C, prexasertib + pemetrexed (n = 3); Part D, prexasertib + 5-fluorouracil (n =8). Alternate dose schedules/regimens intended to mitigate toxicity and maximize dose exposure and efficacy were also explored in sub-parts., Results: In Part A, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of prexasertib in combination with cisplatin (75 mg/m 2 ) was declared at 80 mg/m 2 , with cisplatin administered on Day 1 and prexasertib on Day 2 of a 21-day cycle. The overall objective response rate (ORR) in Part A was 12.7%, and 28 of 55 evaluable patients (50.9%) had a decrease in target lesions from baseline. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in Part A were hematologic, with the most common being white blood cell count decreased/neutrophil count decreased, experienced by 73.0% (any grade) and 66.7% (grade 3 or higher) of patients. In Part B, an MTD of 70 mg/m 2 was established for prexasertib administered in combination with cetuximab (500 mg /m 2 ), both administered on Day 1 of a 14-day cycle. The overall ORR in Part B was 4.9%, and 7 of 31 evaluable patients (22.6%) had decreased target lesions compared with baseline. White blood cell count decreased/neutrophil count decreased was also the most common treatment-related AE (56.1% any grade; 53.7% grade 3 or higher). In Parts A and B, hematologic toxicities, even with the addition of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, resulted in frequent dose adjustments (> 60% of patients). In Part C, evaluation of prexasertib + pemetrexed was halted due to dose-limiting toxicities in two of the first three patients; MTD was not established. In Part D, the MTD of prexasertib in combination with 5-fluorouracil (label dose) was declared at 40 mg /m 2 , both administered on Day 1 of a 14-day cycle. In Part D, overall ORR was 12.5%., Conclusions: This study demonstrated the proof-of-concept that prexasertib can be combined with cisplatin, cetuximab, and 5-fluorouracil. Schedule was a key determinant of the tolerability and feasibility of combining prexasertib with these standard-of-care agents. Reversible hematologic toxicity was the most frequent AE and was dose-limiting. Insights gleaned from this study will inform future combination strategies for the development of prexasertib and next-generation CHK1 inhibitors. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT02124148 (date of registration 28 April 2014)., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Purpose: Prexasertib, a checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor (CHK1), exhibited modest monotherapy antitumor activity in previous studies. Preclinical data were generated to support the clinical combination of prexasertib + samotolisib, a PI3K/mTOR inhibitor., Patients and Methods: Prexasertib + samotolisib was first evaluated in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells, MDA-MB-231 orthotopic xenograft tumors, and TNBC patient-derived xenograft (PDX) mouse models. In the phase Ib trial, following dose escalation, the initial expansion arm (E1, solid tumors) explored prexasertib 105 mg/m 2 intravenously every 14 days + samotolisib 200 mg orally twice daily. Subsequent expansion arms evaluated samotolisib 150 mg twice daily in patients carrying PIK3CA mutations (E2, solid tumors) or with TNBC (E3). Safety and antitumor activity were assessed., Results: Prexasertib + samotolisib inhibited cell proliferation in TNBC lines and primary tumor growth in the MDA-MB-231 model. Prexasertib + samotolisib exhibited synergistic or additive effects in 30 of 38 PDX single-mouse (" n = 1") models, and provided rationale for clinical evaluation. In the phase Ib study, 53 patients were enrolled (escalation, n = 13; E1, n = 9; E2, n = 15; and E3, n = 16). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were observed during escalation; however, DLT-equivalent toxicities were observed in E1, leading to samotolisib dose reduction (150 mg twice daily) in E2/E3. Common treatment-related adverse events were leukopenia/neutropenia (94.3%), thrombocytopenia (62.3%), and nausea (52.8%). During escalation, 2 patients achieved partial response for an overall response rate (ORR) of 15.4%, and ORRs were 13.3% for E2 ( PIK3CA ) and 25% for E3 (TNBC)., Conclusions: Prexasertib + samotolisib showed antitumor activity in preclinical models and preliminary efficacy in heavily pretreated patients. The clinical combination was associated with toxicity, suggesting supportive measures may be required. However, these data may inform future trials using other CHK1 and PI3K pathway inhibitors., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Endoglin (CD105) is an endothelial cell membrane receptor highly expressed on proliferating tumor vasculature, including that of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and is associated with poor prognosis. Endoglin is essential for angiogenesis, and its expression is induced by hypoxia and VEGF pathway inhibition. TRC105 is a chimeric IgG1 CD105 mAb that inhibits angiogenesis and causes antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and apoptosis of proliferating endothelium. Experimental Design: Patients with HCC (Child-Pugh A/B7), ECOG 0/1, were enrolled in a phase I study of TRC105 at 3, 6, 10, and 15 mg/kg every 2 weeks given with sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Correlative biomarkers included DCE-MRI and plasma levels of angiogenic factors, including soluble endoglin. Pharmacokinetics were assessed in serum. Results: Twenty-six patients were enrolled, of whom 25 received treatment, 15 with cirrhosis. Hep B/C: 3/15; M:F 19:6; mean age of 60 (range, 18-76); 1 DLT (grade 3 AST) occurred at 10 mg/kg. The most frequent toxicity was low-grade epistaxis, a known toxicity of TRC105. One patient experienced an infusion reaction and was replaced. One patient with coronary stenosis developed a fatal myocardial infarction, and one patient developed G3 cerebral tumor hemorrhage. MTD was not established and DL4 (15 mg/kg) was expanded. The overall response rate in 24 evaluable patients at all 4 dose levels was 21% [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.1-42.2], and 25% (95% CI, 8.7-49.1) in patients with measureable disease. Four patients had confirmed stable disease, one of whom was treated for 22 months. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for 24 patients evaluable for PFS was 3.8 months (95% CI, 3.2-5.6 months); median overall survival was 15.5 months (95% CI, 8.5-26.3 months). Conclusions: TRC105 combined with sorafenib was well tolerated at the recommended single agent doses of both drugs. Encouraging evidence of activity to date (PR rate 25%) was observed, and the study is now continuing to recruit in the phase II stage as a multicenter study to confirm activity of the combination. Clin Cancer Res; 23(16); 4633-41. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background & Aims: Tremelimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) on the surface of activated T lymphocytes. Ablative therapies induce a peripheral immune response which may enhance the effect of anti-CTLA4 treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to demonstrate whether tremelimumab could be combined safely and feasibly with ablation., Methods: Thirty-two patients with HCC were enrolled: male:female: 28:4; median age: 62 (range 36-76). Patients were given tremelimumab at two dose levels (3.5 and 10mg/kg i.v.) every 4weeks for 6 doses, followed by 3-monthly infusions until off-treatment criteria were met. On day 36, patients underwent subtotal radiofrequency ablation or chemoablation. Staging was performed by contrast-enhanced CT or MRI scan every 8weeks., Results: No dose-limiting toxicities were encountered. The most common toxicity was pruritus. Of the 19 evaluable patients, five (26.3%; 95% CI: 9.1-51.2%) achieved a confirmed partial response. Twelve of 14 patients with quantifiable HCV experienced a marked reduction in viral load. Six-week tumor biopsies showed a clear increase in CD8 + T cells in patients showing a clinical benefit only. Six and 12-month probabilities of tumor progression free survival for this refractory HCC population were 57.1% and 33.1% respectively, with median time to tumor progression of 7.4months (95% CI 4.7 to 19.4months). Median overall survival was 12.3months (95% CI 9.3 to 15.4months)., Conclusions: Tremelimumab in combination with tumor ablation is a potential new treatment for patients with advanced HCC, and leads to the accumulation of intratumoral CD8 + T cells. Positive clinical activity was seen, with a possible surrogate reduction in HCV viral load., Lay Summary: Studies have shown that the killing of tumors by direct methods (known as ablation) can result in the immune system being activated or switched on. The immune system could potentially also recognize and kill the cancer that is left behind. There are new drugs available known as immune checkpoint inhibitors which could enhance this effect. Here, we test one of these drugs (tremelimumab) together with ablation., Clinical Trial Number: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01853618., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Biliary tract carcinoma is a rare malignancy. We performed a comprehensive analysis of published prospective clinical trials in advanced biliary tract carcinoma in an attempt to identify active regimens in this setting. We searched PubMed and abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Gastrointestinal Cancer Symposium, European Society of Medical Oncology and European Cancer Organization conferences for clinical trials in this disease. We found 83 trials. The effect of gemcitabine on overall survival benefit showed a strong trend (p = 0.014) and an improvement in progression-free survival (p = 0.003). Gemcitabine-based regimens containing 5-fluorouracil showed a trend toward an improved overall survival (p = 0.047) relative to platinum agents. Our findings support gemcitabine as the chemotherapy backbone for the treatment of patients with cholangiocarcinoma. Gemcitabine plus 5-fluorouracil combinations warrant further investigations.

Unlabelled: The purpose of the study was to assess the use of curative therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the population. HCC treatment patterns were examined in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 registries (28% of U.S.). Joinpoint regression analyses were performed to assess 2000-2010 incidence trends by tumor size, count, and receipt of potentially curative treatments (transplantation, resection, and ablation). SEER-Medicare data enabled evaluation of treatment patterns including receipt of sorafenib or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) by HCC-associated comorbidities. Diagnoses of tumors≤5.0 cm in diameter significantly increased during 2000-2010, surpassing diagnosis of larger tumors. Overall, 23% of cases received potentially curative treatment. Joinpoint models indicated incidence rates of treatment with curative intent increased 17.6% per year during 2000-2005, then declined by -2.9% per year during 2005-2010 (P<0.001). Among HCC cases with a single tumor≤5.0 cm and no extension beyond the liver, use of ablative therapy significantly increased during 2000-2010. Use of invasive surgery for single tumors, regardless of size, significantly increased during the initial years of the decade, then plateaued. The group most likely to receive curative treatment in the SEER-Medicare cases was patients with one, small tumor confined to the liver (657 of 1,597 cases, 41%), with no difference in treatment by hepatic comorbidity status (P=0.24). A higher proportion of cases with reported liver-associated comorbidities were, however, diagnosed with tumors≤5.0 cm in diameter (1,745 0f 2,464, 71%) compared to patients with no reported comorbidities (996 of 2,596, 38%, P<0.001)., Conclusion: Although more HCC patients were diagnosed with early disease over time, the use of curative treatments in this patient group has recently plateaued. Efforts to identify and treat more eligible candidates for curative therapy could be beneficial., (Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Most patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) present with advanced disease requiring systemic chemotherapy. Treatment with the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab in combination with standard platinum-based doublet chemotherapy has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC. Several multitargeted antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (e.g., sorafenib, sunitinib, cediranib, vandetanib, BIBF 1120, pazopanib, and axitinib) are also being evaluated in combination with standard chemotherapy. Here we review current clinical data with combination therapy involving antiangiogenic agents and cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.