MicroRNAs for the Diagnosis and Management of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Literature Review

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive tumor with a variable incidence among different countries. Occupational asbestos exposure is the most important etiological factor and a very long latency period is widely reported. In the early phase of the disease, clinical signs are absent or not specific. For this reason, the diagnosis is frequently achieved only in the advanced stages. The histopathological diagnosis per se is also very complex, and no known factor can predict the prognosis with certainty. Nonetheless, current survival rates remain very low, despite the use of standard treatments, which include surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The identification of new prognostic and/or diagnostic biomarkers, and the discovery of therapeutic targets is a priority and could lead to a real significant impact on the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. In this scenario, the role of microRNAs is becoming increasingly relevant, with the promise of a quick translation in the current clinical practice. Despite the relative novelty of this field, the number of works and candidate microRNAs that are present in literature is striking. Unfortunately, to date the microRNAs with the most clinical relevance for MPM are still matter of debate, probably due to the variety of approaches, techniques, and collected samples. Although specific microRNAs (e.g., let-7, miR-15 and miR-16, miR-21, miR-34a, and the miR-200 family) have been reported several times from different groups, the heterogeneity of published data reinforces the need of more comprehensive and unified studies on this topic. In this review we collect and discuss the studies focused on the involvement of microRNAs in different aspects of MPM, from their biological role in tumorigenesis and progression, to their possible application as diagnostic, prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Lastly, we examine their potential value as for the design of therapeutic approaches that could benefit MPM patients

A phase I, dose-escalation study of volasertib combined with nintedanib in advanced solid tumors

Background: Volasertib is a potent and selective cell-cycle kinase inhibitor that induces mitotic arrest and apoptosis by targeting Polo-like kinases. This study determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetics of volasertib combined with nintedanib, a potent and orally bioavailable triple angiokinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and methods: This open-label, dose-escalation trial recruited patients with advanced metastatic solid tumors following failure of conventional treatment (NCT01022853; Study 1230.7). Volasertib was administered by intravenous infusion over 2 h, starting at 100 mg in the first dose cohort. Nintedanib was administered orally at a dose of 200 mg twice daily. The first treatment cycle comprised 28 days (days 1-7 and days 9-28: nintedanib; day 8: volasertib). From cycle 2 onwards, volasertib was administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle and nintedanib was administered days 2-21. The primary objective was the MTD of volasertib in combination with nintedanib. Results: Thirty patients were treated. The MTD of volasertib plus fixed-dose nintedanib was 300 mg once every 3 weeks, the same as the recommended single-agent dose of volasertib in solid tumors. Two of 12 assessable patients treated with the MTD experienced dose-limiting toxicities [grade 3 increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT); grade 3 ALT increase and grade 3 increased aspartate aminotransferase]. Disease control [stable disease (SD)/partial response (PR)/complete response (CR)] was achieved in 18 patients (60%): 1 CR (breast cancer), 1 PR (nonsmall-cell lung cancer), and 16 patients with SD. Volasertib showed that multiexponential pharmacokinetic behavior and co-administration of nintedanib had no significant effects on its exposure. Conclusions: Volasertib could be combined with fixed-dose nintedanib at the recommended single-agent dose. At this dose, the combination had a manageable safety profile without unexpected or overlapping adverse events, and showed antitumor activity

Selpercatinib in Patients With RET Fusion–Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Updated Safety and Efficacy From the Registrational LIBRETTO-001 Phase I/II Trial

Selpercatinib; Lung cancer; SafetySelpercatinib; Cáncer de pulmón; SeguridadSelpercatinib; Càncer de pulmó; SeguretatPURPOSE Selpercatinib, a first-in-class, highly selective, and potent CNS-active RET kinase inhibitor, is currently approved for the treatment of patients with RET fusion–positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We provide a registrational data set update in more than double (n = 316) of the original reported population (n = 144) and better characterization of long-term efficacy and safety. METHODS Patients were enrolled to LIBRETTO-001, a phase I/II, single-arm, open-label study of selpercatinib in patients with RET-altered cancers. An analysis of patients with RET fusion–positive NSCLC, including 69 treatment-naive and 247 with prior platinum-based chemotherapy, was performed. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1, independent review committee). Secondary end points included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. RESULTS In treatment-naive patients, the ORR was 84% (95% CI, 73 to 92); 6% achieved complete responses (CRs). The median DoR was 20.2 months (95% CI, 13.0 to could not be evaluated); 40% of responses were ongoing at the data cutoff (median follow-up of 20.3 months). The median PFS was 22.0 months; 35% of patients were alive and progression-free at the data cutoff (median follow-up of 21.9 months). In platinum-based chemotherapy pretreated patients, the ORR was 61% (95% CI, 55 to 67); 7% achieved CRs. The median DoR was 28.6 months (95% CI, 20.4 to could not be evaluated); 49% of responses were ongoing (median follow-up of 21.2 months). The median PFS was 24.9 months; 38% of patients were alive and progression-free (median follow-up of 24.7 months). Of 26 patients with measurable baseline CNS metastasis by the independent review committee, the intracranial ORR was 85% (95% CI, 65 to 96); 27% were CRs. In the full safety population (n = 796), the median treatment duration was 36.1 months. The safety profile of selpercatinib was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION In a large cohort with extended follow-up, selpercatinib continued to demonstrate durable and robust responses, including intracranial activity, in previously treated and treatment-naive patients with RET fusion–positive NSCLC.Supported by Loxo Oncology, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company. A.D. was supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health: 1R01CA251591- 01A1 and P30 CA008748. Partial support was likewise provided by LUNGevity

A Phase Ib/II Study of WNT974 + Encorafenib + Cetuximab in Patients With BRAF V600E-Mutant KRAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Cetuximab; Colorectal cancer; MetastaticCetuximab; Càncer de còlon; MetastàticCetuximab; Cáncer de colon; MetastásicoBackground WNT974 is a small molecule inhibitor of Wnt signaling that specifically inhibits porcupine O-acyltransferase. This phase Ib dose-­escalation study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose of WNT974 in combination with encorafenib and cetuximab in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer with RNF43 mutations or RSPO fusions. Patients and Methods Patients received once-daily encorafenib and weekly cetuximab, in addition to once-daily WNT974, in sequential dosing cohorts. In the first cohort, patients received 10-mg WNT974 (COMBO10), which was reduced in subsequent cohorts to 7.5-mg (COMBO7.5) or 5-mg (COMBO5) after dose–limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed. Primary endpoints were incidence of DLTs and exposure to WNT974 and encorafenib. Secondary endpoints were anti-tumor activity and safety. Results Twenty patients were enrolled (COMBO10, n = 4; COMBO7.5, n = 6; COMBO5, n = 10). DLTs were observed in 4 patients, including grade 3 hypercalcemia (COMBO10, n = 1; COMBO7.5, n = 1), grade 2 dysgeusia (COMBO10, n = 1), and lipase increased (COMBO10, n = 1). A high incidence of bone toxicities (n = 9) was reported, including rib fracture, spinal compression fracture, pathological fracture, foot fracture, hip fracture, and lumbar vertebral fracture. Serious adverse events were reported in 15 patients, most frequently bone fracture, hypercalcemia, and pleural effusion. The overall response rate was 10% and disease control rate 85%; most patients achieved stable disease as their best response. Conclusion Concerns surrounding the safety and lack of preliminary evidence of improved anti-tumor activity of WNT974 + encorafenib + cetuximab, compared with previous encorafenib + cetuximab data, ultimately led to study discontinuation. Phase II was not initiated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02278133This study was sponsored by Array BioPharma in collaboration with Novartis. Array BioPharma was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019. For V.K.M., this work was supported by the generous philanthropic contributions to the Khalifa Scholars Programs (from the Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foundation), the Advanced Scholar Program (from the CG Johnson Foundation), and the NIH/NCI (award number K12 CA088084)

the curious phenomenon of dual positive circulating cells longtime overlooked tumor cells

Abstract The presence in the blood of patients with solid tumors of circulating cells expressing both epithelial and leukocyte markers (dual-positive cells, DPcells), has often been reported, though it has never been investigated in detail. A recent study suggested that DPcells are hybrid cells derived from the fusion of tumor cells with macrophages. Such fusion hybrids acquire macrophage-associated features endowing them with accelerated growth, increased motility, enhanced invasion activity and thus, a higher efficiency in metastasis formation. However, no direct evidence proving the tumor origin of circulating DPcells was provided in patients. Here we contribute a review of literature data on DPcells and on the hybrid theory with the aim of putting the current evidence both in a biological and clinical perspective and to generate new hypotheses on the mechanisms underlying tumor progression. To add further biological and clinical context to our literature review, we also report some preliminary data from our laboratory on the identification of DPcells in several solid tumors and confirmation of their malignant genotype, thus classifying them as DP-CTCs

Location of primary tumor and benefit from anti-epidermal growth factorreceptor monoclonalantibodies in patients with RAS and BRAF wild-typemetastatic colorectal cancer

Introduction. Right- and left-sided colorectal cancers (CRCs) differ in clinical and molecular characteristics. Some retrospective analyses suggested that patients with right-sided tumors derive less benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies; however, molecular selection in those studies was not extensive. Patients and Methods. Patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic CRC (mCRC) who were treated with single-agent anti-EGFRs or with cetuximab-irinotecan (if refractory to previous irinotecan) were included in the study. Differences in outcome between patients with right- and left-sided tumors were investigated. Results. Of 75 patients, 14 and 61 had right- and left-sided tumors, respectively. None of the right-sided tumors responded according to RECIST, compared with 24 left-sided tumors (overall response rate: 0% vs. 41%; p 5 .0032), and only 2 patients with right-sided tumors (15%) versus 47 patients with left-sided tumors (80%) achieved disease control (p, .0001). The median duration of progression-free survival was 2.3 and 6.6 months in patients with right-sided and left-sided tumors, respectively (hazard ratio: 3.97;95%confidence interval: 2.09–7.53; p,.0001). Conclusion. Patients with right-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC seemed to derive no benefit from single-agent anti- EGFRs

Early Access in Oncology: Why Is It Needed?

Timely access to cancer therapies with significant added value is an important expectation for patients and a primary responsibility for every public health service. Over time, collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies has made it possible to agree to implement tools in order to accelerate the development and approval of potentially innovative drugs. In Italy, too, several early access tools have been introduced. In June 2018 a panel of experts agreed on the need to simplify and streamline early access assessment criteria and processes. The panel developed a proposal to categorize cancer drugs eligible for early access. In the curative setting, the evaluation of the medical need should take into account both the relapse rate, attributed on the basis of the disease free survival (DFS), and the strength of the recommendations of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) for any therapeutic alternatives already available. The panel then found it appropriate to use the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) criteria for the evaluation of the clinical benefit. The sum of the scores assigned to the three parameters should allow the clinical value of the drug to be defined and, consequently, the priorities for early access to be established. This multiparameter approach can also be adapted to the non-curative setting. The early access process should be reserved for first-in-class drugs and should provide for the recognition of a conditional reimbursement within 60 days, financed by a special fund. The proposal developed by the panel has the objective of starting a proactive discussion with the Italian health authority

CheckMate-032 study: efficacy and safety of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer

Purpose: Metastatic esophagogastric cancer treatments after failure of second-line chemotherapy are limited. Nivolumab demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) versus placebo in Asian patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancers. We assessed the safety and efficacy of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in Western patients with chemotherapy-refractory esophagogastric cancers. Patients and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic chemotherapy–refractory gastric, esophageal, or gastroesophageal junction cancer from centers in the United States and Europe received nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The primary end point was objective response rate. The association of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 status with response and survival was also evaluated. Results: Of 160 treated patients (59 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg, 49 with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, 52 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg), 79% had received two or more prior therapies. At the data cutoff, investigator-assessed objective response rates were 12% (95% CI, 5% to 23%), 24% (95% CI, 13% to 39%), and 8% (95% CI, 2% to 19%) in the three groups, respectively. Responses were observed regardless of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 status. With a median follow-up of 28, 24, and 22 months across the three groups, 12-month progression-free survival rates were 8%, 17%, and 10%, respectively; 12-month OS rates were 39%, 35%, and 24%, respectively. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 17%, 47%, and 27% of patients in the three groups, respectively. Conclusion: Nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumor activity, durable responses, encouraging long-term OS, and a manageable safety profile in patients with chemotherapy-refractory esophagogastric cancer. Phase III studies evaluating nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in earlier lines of therapy for esophagogastric cancers are underway

Metformin Enhances Cisplatin-Induced Apoptosis and Prevents Resistance to Cisplatin in Co-mutated KRAS/LKB1 NSCLC

Abstract Introduction We hypothesized that activating KRAS mutations and inactivation of the liver kinase B1 (LKB1) oncosuppressor can cooperate to sustain NSCLC aggressiveness. We also hypothesized that the growth advantage of KRAS/LKB1 co-mutated tumors could be balanced by higher sensitivity to metabolic stress conditions, such as metformin treatment, thus revealing new strategies to target this aggressive NSCLC subtype. Methods We retrospectively determined the frequency and prognostic value of KRAS/LKB1 co-mutations in tissue specimens from NSCLC patients enrolled in the TAILOR trial. We generated stable LKB1 knockdown and LKB1-overexpressing isogenic H1299 and A549 cell variants, respectively, to test the in vitro efficacy of metformin. We also investigated the effect of metformin on cisplatin-resistant CD133+ cells in NSCLC patient-derived xenografts. Results We found a trend towards worse overall survival in patients with KRAS/LKB1 co-mutated tumors as compared to KRAS-mutated ones (hazard ratio: 2.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.94–4.35, p = 0.072). In preclinical experiments, metformin produced pro-apoptotic effects and enhanced cisplatin anticancer activity specifically in KRAS/LKB1 co-mutated patient-derived xenografts. Moreover, metformin prevented the development of acquired tumor resistance to 5 consecutive cycles of cisplatin treatment (75% response rate with metformin-cisplatin as compared to 0% response rate with cisplatin), while reducing CD133+ cells. Conclusions LKB1 mutations, especially when combined with KRAS mutations, may define a specific and more aggressive NSCLC subtype. Metformin synergizes with cisplatin against KRAS/LKB1 co-mutated tumors, and may prevent or delay the onset of resistance to cisplatin by targeting CD133+ cancer stem cells. This study lays the foundations for combining metformin with standard platinum-based chemotherapy in the treatment of KRAS/LKB1 co-mutated NSCLC