Safety and efficacy of atezolizumab in patients with autoimmune disease: subgroup analysis of the SAUL study in locally advanced/metastatic urinary tract carcinoma

Aim Patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease (AID) are typically excluded from clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and there are limited data on outcomes in this population. The single-arm international SAUL study of atezolizumab enrolled a broader ‘real-world’ patient population. We present outcomes in patients with a history of AID. Methods Patients with locally advanced/metastatic urinary tract carcinoma received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was safety. Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end-point. Subgroup analyses of AID patients were prespecified. Results Thirty-five of 997 treated patients had AID at baseline, most commonly psoriasis ( n = 15). Compared with non-AID patients, AID patients experienced numerically more adverse events (AEs) of special interest (46% versus 30%; grade ≥3 14% versus 6%) and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs (26% versus 12%), but without relevant increases in treatment-related deaths (0% versus 1%) or AEs necessitating treatment discontinuation (9% versus 6%). Pre-existing AID worsened in four patients (11%; two flares in two patients); three of the six flares resolved, one was resolving, and two were unresolved. Efficacy was similar in AID and non-AID patients (median OS, 8.2 versus 8.8 months, respectively; median progression-free survival, 4.4 versus 2.2 months; disease control rate, 51% versus 39%). Conclusions In 35 atezolizumab-treated patients with pre-existing AID, incidences of special- interest and treatment-related AEs appeared acceptable. AEs were manageable, rarely requiring atezolizumab discontinuation. Treating these patients requires caution, but pre-existing AID does not preclude atezolizumab therapy

High-throughput molecular assays for inclusion in personalised oncology trials – State-of-the-art and beyond

In the last decades, the development of high-throughput molecular assays has revolutionised cancer diagnostics, paving the way for the concept of personalised cancer medicine. This progress has been driven by the introduction of such technologies through biomarker-driven oncology trials. In this review, strengths and limitations of various state-of-the-art sequencing technologies, including gene panel sequencing (DNA and RNA), whole-exome/whole-genome sequencing and whole-transcriptome sequencing, are explored, focusing on their ability to identify clinically relevant biomarkers with diagnostic, prognostic and/or predictive impact. This includes the need to assess complex biomarkers, for example microsatellite instability, tumour mutation burden and homologous recombination deficiency, to identify patients suitable for specific therapies, including immunotherapy. Furthermore, the crucial role of biomarker analysis and multidisciplinary molecular tumour boards in selecting patients for trial inclusion is discussed in relation to various trial concepts, including drug repurposing. Recognising that today's exploratory techniques will evolve into tomorrow's routine diagnostics and clinical study inclusion assays, the importance of emerging technologies for multimodal diagnostics, such as proteomics and in vivo drug sensitivity testing, is also discussed. In addition, key regulatory aspects and the importance of patient engagement in all phases of a clinical trial are described. Finally, we propose a set of recommendations for consideration when planning a new precision cancer medicine trial.imag

High-throughput molecular assays for inclusion in personalised oncology trials – State-of-the-art and beyond

In the last decades, the development of high-throughput molecular assays has revolutionised cancer diagnostics, paving the way for the concept of personalised cancer medicine. This progress has been driven by the introduction of such technologies through biomarker-driven oncology trials. In this review, strengths and limitations of various state-of-the-art sequencing technologies, including gene panel sequencing (DNA and RNA), whole-exome/whole-genome sequencing and whole-transcriptome sequencing, are explored, focusing on their ability to identify clinically relevant biomarkers with diagnostic, prognostic and/or predictive impact. This includes the need to assess complex biomarkers, for example microsatellite instability, tumour mutation burden and homologous recombination deficiency, to identify patients suitable for specific therapies, including immunotherapy. Furthermore, the crucial role of biomarker analysis and multidisciplinary molecular tumour boards in selecting patients for trial inclusion is discussed in relation to various trial concepts, including drug repurposing. Recognising that today's exploratory techniques will evolve into tomorrow's routine diagnostics and clinical study inclusion assays, the importance of emerging technologies for multimodal diagnostics, such as proteomics and in vivo drug sensitivity testing, is also discussed. In addition, key regulatory aspects and the importance of patient engagement in all phases of a clinical trial are described. Finally, we propose a set of recommendations for consideration when planning a new precision cancer medicine trial.imag

European experts consensus: BRCA/homologous recombination deficiency testing in first-line ovarian cancer

Background: Homologous recombination repair (HRR) enables fault-free repair of double-stranded DNA breaks. HRR deficiency is predicted to occur in around half of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas. Ovarian cancers harbouring HRR deficiency typically exhibit sensitivity to poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Current guidelines recommend a range of approaches for genetic testing to identify predictors of sensitivity to PARPi in ovarian cancer and to identify genetic predisposition. Design: To establish a European-wide consensus for genetic testing (including the genetic care pathway), decision making and clinical management of patients with recently diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, and the validity of biomarkers to predict the effectiveness of PARPi in the first-line setting. The collaborative European experts’ consensus group consisted of a steering committee (n = 14) and contributors (n = 84). A (modified) Delphi process was used to establish consensus statements based on a systematic literature search, conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Results: A consensus was reached on 34 statements amongst 98 caregivers (including oncologists, pathologists, clinical geneticists, genetic researchers, and patient advocates). The statements concentrated on (i) the value of testing for BRCA1/2 mutations and HRR deficiency testing, including when and whom to test; (ii) the importance of developing new and better HRR deficiency tests; (iii) the importance of germline non-BRCA HRR and mismatch repair gene mutations for predicting familial risk, but not for predicting sensitivity to PARPi, in the first-line setting; (iv) who should be able to inform patients about genetic testing, and what training and education should these caregivers receive. Conclusion: These consensus recommendations, from a multidisciplinary panel of experts from across Europe, provide clear guidance on the use of BRCA and HRR deficiency testing for recently diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer

Durvalumab Plus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel Followed by Maintenance Durvalumab With or Without Olaparib as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Endometrial Cancer: The Phase III DUO-E Trial

PURPOSE Immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations have shown activity in endometrial cancer, with greater benefit in mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient (dMMR) than MMR-proficient (pMMR) disease. Adding a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor may improve outcomes, especially in pMMR disease. METHODS This phase III, global, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer 1:1:1 to: carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control arm); carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib placebo (durvalumab arm); or carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib arm). The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the durvalumab arm versus control and the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control. RESULTS Seven hundred eighteen patients were randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population, statistically significant PFS benefit was observed in the durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89]; P = .003) and durvalumab + olaparib arms (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.69]; P < .0001) versus control. Prespecified, exploratory subgroup analyses showed PFS benefit in dMMR (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.80]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75]) and pMMR subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control] 0.57; [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.73]); and in PD-L1-positive subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.83]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.57]). Interim overall survival results (maturity approximately 28%) were supportive of the primary outcomes (durvalumab v control: HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.07]; P = .120; durvalumab + olaparib v control: HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83]; P = .003). The safety profiles of the experimental arms were generally consistent with individual agents. CONCLUSION Carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS benefit in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer

Combined treatment of uveal melanoma liver metastases

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most prevalent intraocular malignant tumor in the Western world. The prognosis of survival in the presence of metastatic disease is 2-7 months, depending on the treatment applied.</p> <p>This article presents a case of metastatic UM with successful complex treatment of liver metastases.</p> <p>A 49-year old female, underwent removal of the right eyeball in 1996 due to a histologically confirmed uveal melanoma. After 11 years, CT revealed a mass in the left kidney and multiple metastases in the liver. After left nephrectomy, 6 chemotherapy courses with dacarbazine were performed. The increasing liver metastases were observed. Additional 4 intraarterial (i/a) chemotherapy courses were administered using cisplatin, doxorubicin, fluorouracil, and interferon alfa. After few courses increase in CTC Grade 4 liver transaminases was seen. A partial response was observed, and in December 2008 the patient underwent surgery removing all liver metastases by 7 wedge or atypical resections. All margins were tumor-free. 21 months after liver resections and 14 years since diagnosis, the patient is alive without evidence of disease.</p> <p>Successful treatment of metastatic uveal melanoma was due to a timely application of a combination of several treatment methods and good prognostic factors of the patient.</p

Outcomes of Treatment for Melanoma Brain Metastases

Background. Historically, melanoma with brain metastases has a poor prognosis. In this retrospective medical record review, we report basic clinicopathological parameters and the outcomes of patients with melanoma and brain metastases treated with different treatment modalities before the era of immunotherapy and modern radiotherapy technique. Methods. Patients with metastatic melanoma were treated with surgery, radiotherapy, and/or systemic therapy from 1998 to 2017. In our study, they were identified and stratified depending on treatment methods. Overall survival was defined as the time from the date of brain metastases to the death or last follow-up (2019 June 1st). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method that was employed to calculate the hazard ratio. Results. Six (12%) of 50 patients are still alive as of the last follow-up. The median overall survival from the onset of brain metastases was 11 months. The longest survival time was observed in patients treated by surgery followed by radiotherapy, surgery followed by radiotherapy and systemic therapy, and also radiotherapy followed by systemic therapy. The shortest survival was observed in the best supportive care group and patients treated by systemic therapy only. Conclusions. Patients with brain metastases achieved better overall survival when treated by combined treatment modalities: surgery followed by radiotherapy (26.6 months overall survival), combining surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapy (18.7 months overall survival), and also radiotherapy followed by systemic therapy (13.8 months overall survival)

Molecular profiling and precision medicine in rare gastrointestinal cancers within EURACAN in the SPECTA Arcagen study (EORTC-1843): too few

peer reviewe