Angiogenesis and Its Role in the Tumour Microenvironment: A Target for Cancer Therapy

The process of angiogenesis refers to the growth of new blood vessels from existing ones. Tumours can produce factors in the micro-environment which act on blood vessels to promote angiogenesis. It is therefore considered to be fundamental in tumour progression and metastatic dissemination. This neovascularization can be regulated by numerous endogenous factors in the tumour micro-environment. As a result, anti-angiogenic therapies have been developed in the hope of targeting this process to reduce tumour growth and progression. However, only a proportion of patients respond to therapy, indicating the presence of treatment resistance in some. In this chapter, we aim to highlight the process of angiogenesis and to review pivotal evidence for the use of anti-angiogenic therapies thus far (alone and in combination with other agents). Finally, we will illustrate recent evidence for the discovery of biomarkers for anti-angiogenic therapies and potential mechanisms of resistance to such agents

Current Utility and Future Applications of ctDNA in Colorectal Cancer

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) shows promise as a minimally invasive biomarker with a myriad of emerging applications including early detection and diagnosis, monitoring of disease and treatment efficacy, and identification of actionable alterations to guide treatment. The potential utility of ctDNA in colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is of particular interest given the limitations of current radiographic imaging and blood-based tumour markers in detecting disease and evaluating therapeutic benefit. While ctDNA has yet to demonstrate clinical utility in CRC, a growing body of research highlights the potential of these novel biomarkers. This chapter provides an overview of the current evidence for employing ctDNA in CRC as well as previewing the future directions that these exciting technologies may take

Preclinical Evidence That Trametinib Enhances the Response to Antiangiogenic Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Sunitinib and pazopanib are antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) used to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the ability of these drugs to extend progression-free and overall survival in this patient population is limited by drug resistance. It is possible that treatment outcomes in RCC patients could be improved by rationally combining TKIs with other agents. Here, we address whether inhibition of the Ras-Raf-MEK-ERK1/2 pathway is a rational means to improve the response to TKIs in RCC. Using a xenograft model of RCC, we found that tumors that are resistant to sunitinib have a significantly increased angiogenic response compared with tumors that are sensitive to sunitinib in vivo. We also observed significantly increased levels of phosphorylated ERK1/2 in the vasculature of resistant tumors, when compared with sensitive tumors. These data suggested that the Ras-Raf-MEK-ERK1/2 pathway, an important driver of angiogenesis in endothelial cells, remains active in the vasculature of TKI-resistant tumors. Using an in vitro angiogenesis assay, we identified that the MEK inhibitor (MEKI) trametinib has potent antiangiogenic activity. We then show that, when trametinib is combined with a TKI in vivo, more effective suppression of tumor growth and tumor angiogenesis is achieved than when either drug is utilized alone. In conclusion, we provide preclinical evidence that combining a TKI, such as sunitinib or pazopanib, with a MEKI, such as trametinib, is a rational and efficacious treatment regimen for RCC

International consensus guidelines for scoring the histopathological growth patterns of liver metastasis

BACKGROUND: Liver metastases present with distinct histopathological growth patterns (HGPs), including the desmoplastic, pushing and replacement HGPs and two rarer HGPs. The HGPs are defined owing to the distinct interface between the cancer cells and the adjacent normal liver parenchyma that is present in each pattern and can be scored from standard haematoxylin-and-eosin-stained (H&E) tissue sections. The current study provides consensus guidelines for scoring these HGPs. METHODS: Guidelines for defining the HGPs were established by a large international team. To assess the validity of these guidelines, 12 independent observers scored a set of 159 liver metastases and interobserver variability was measured. In an independent cohort of 374 patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRCLM), the impact of HGPs on overall survival after hepatectomy was determined. RESULTS: Good-to-excellent correlations (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.5) with the gold standard were obtained for the assessment of the replacement HGP and desmoplastic HGP. Overall survival was significantly superior in the desmoplastic HGP subgroup compared with the replacement or pushing HGP subgroup (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The current guidelines allow for reproducible determination of liver metastasis HGPs. As HGPs impact overall survival after surgery for CRCLM, they may serve as a novel biomarker for individualised therapies

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

Treatment with olaparib in a patient with PTEN-deficient endometrioid endometrial cancer

Background. A 58-year-old woman presented with metastatic endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma after being previously treated with surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage endometrial cancer. She had received several lines of chemotherapy for multiple relapses over 9 years and displayed a profound sensitivity to platinum-containing regimens. Investigation. CT scans demonstrated progressing liver, lung and peritoneal metastases and MRI detected multiple intracerebral metastases. Diagnosis. New brain metastases secondary to progressive endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. Management. On the basis of her sensitivity to repeated platinum treatment she was treated with the oral poly(ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) 1 inhibitor olaparib as part of a phase I trial. Repeat MRI scan at week 10 of treatment showed a significant reduction in the size of the brain metastases without steroid treatment or radiotherapy and the patient reported subjective improvement in tumor-related symptoms. After 8 months of olaparib treatment the patient developed objective disease progression. The tumor biopsy was negative for somatic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, but displayed loss of PTEN, which has been suggested to be another predictive marker for sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. The patient remained alive for 10 months after completing olaparib, having gone on to derive further clinical benefit from repeat exposure to platinum-based therapy

Endometrial cancer PDX-derived organoids (PDXOs) and PDXs with FGFR2c isoform expression are sensitive to FGFR inhibition

Abstract Endometrial cancer (EC) patients with metastatic/recurrent disease have limited treatment options and poor survival outcomes. Recently, we discovered the FGFR2c splice isoform is associated with poor prognosis in EC patients. Here we report the establishment of 16 EC patient-derived xenografts (PDX)-derived organoids (PDXOs) with or without FGFR2c expression. In vitro treatment of 5 EC PDXOs with BGJ398 showed significant cell death in 3 models with FGFR2c expression. PDXs with high/moderate FGFR2c expression showed significant tumour growth inhibition (TGI) following 21-day treatment with FGFR inhibitors (BGJ398 or pemigatinib) and significantly prolonged survival in 4/5 models. Pemigatinib + cisplatin combination therapy (n = 5) resulted in significant TGI and prolonged survival in one of two p53abn PDXs. All five models treated with cisplatin alone showed de novo resistance and no survival benefit. Seven-day treatment with BGJ398 revealed a significant reduction in angiogenesis and CD206 + M2 macrophages. These data collectively support the evaluation of FGFR inhibitors in a clinical trial

Phase 3, randomized, open-label study of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer : ENGOT-en9/LEAP-001

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is a novel combination with promising efficacy in patients with advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer. This combination demonstrated high objective response rates in a single-arm phase 1b/2 trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (KEYNOTE-146/Study 111) after ≤2 previous lines of therapy. In a randomized phase 3 trial of lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (KEYNOTE-775/Study 309), after 1‒2 previous lines of therapy (including neoadjuvant/adjuvant), this combination improved objective response rates, progression-free survival, and overall survival compared with chemotherapy. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of first-line pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV or recurrent endometrial cancer, with measurable or radiographically apparent disease. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is superior to chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with mismatch repair-proficient tumors and all patients (all-comers). TRIAL DESIGN: Phase 3, randomized (1:1), open-label, active-controlled trial. Patients will receive pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks plus lenvatinib orally daily or paclitaxel plus carboplatin intravenously every 3 weeks, stratified by mismatch repair status (proficient vs deficient). Patients with mismatch repair-proficient tumors will be further stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0/1), measurable disease (yes/no), and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation (yes/no). MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Adults with stage III/IV/recurrent histologically confirmed endometrial cancer that is measurable or radiographically apparent per blinded independent central review. Patients may have received previous chemotherapy only as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy and/or concurrently with radiation. Patients with carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed Müllerian tumor), endometrial leiomyosarcoma, or other high grade sarcomas, or endometrial stromal sarcomas were excluded. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: Progression-free and overall survival (dual primary endpoints). SAMPLE SIZE: About 875 patients. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: Enrollment is expected to take approximately 24 months, with presentation of results in 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03884101

Vessel co-option mediates resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy in liver metastases

The efficacy of angiogenesis inhibitors in cancer is limited by resistance mechanisms that are poorly understood. Notably, instead of through the induction of angiogenesis, tumor vascularization can occur through the nonangiogenic mechanism of vessel co-option. Here we show that vessel co-option is associated with a poor response to the anti-angiogenic agent bevacizumab in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases. Moreover, we find that vessel co-option is also prevalent in human breast cancer liver metastases, a setting in which results with anti-angiogenic therapy have been disappointing. In preclinical mechanistic studies, we found that cancer cell motility mediated by the actin-related protein 2/3 complex (Arp2/3) is required for vessel co-option in liver metastases in vivo and that, in this setting, combined inhibition of angiogenesis and vessel co-option is more effective than the inhibition of angiogenesis alone. Vessel co-option is therefore a clinically relevant mechanism of resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy and combined inhibition of angiogenesis and vessel co-option might be a warranted therapeutic strategy