Prognostic and predictive value of circulating tumor cells and CXCR4 expression as biomarkers for a CXCR4 peptide antagonist in combination with carboplatin-etoposide in small cell lung cancer: exploratory analysis of a phase II study.

Background Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4 (CXCR4) expression in CTCs and tumor tissue were evaluated as prognostic or predictive markers of CXCR4 peptide antagonist LY2510924 plus carboplatin-etoposide (CE) versus CE in extensive-stage disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Methods This exploratory analysis of a phase II study evaluated CXCR4 expression in baseline tumor tissue and peripheral blood CTCs and in post-treatment CTCs. Optimum cutoff values were determined for CTC counts and CXCR4 expression in tumors and CTCs as predictors of survival outcome. Kaplan-Meier estimates and hazard ratios were used to determine biomarker prognostic and predictive values. Results There was weak positive correlation at baseline between CXCR4 expression in tumor tissue and CTCs. Optimum cutoff values were H-score ≥ 210 for CXCR4+ tumor, ≥7% CTCs with CXCR4 expression (CXCR4+ CTCs), and ≥6 CTCs/7.5 mL blood. Baseline H-score for CXCR4+ tumor was not prognostic of progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). Baseline CXCR4+ CTCs ≥7% was prognostic of shorter PFS. CTCs ≥6 at baseline and cycle 2, day 1 were prognostic of shorter PFS and OS. None of the biomarkers at their respective optimum cutoffs was predictive of treatment response of LY2510924 plus CE versus CE. Conclusions In patients with ED-SCLC, baseline CXCR4 expression in tumor tissue was not prognostic of survival or predictive of LY2510924 treatment response. Baseline CXCR4+ CTCs ≥7% was prognostic of shorter PFS. CTC count ≥6 at baseline and after 1 cycle of treatment were prognostic of shorter PFS and OS

The participation paradigm in audience research

As today's media simultaneously converge and diverge, fusing and hybridizing across digital services and platforms, some researchers argue that audiences are dead-long live the user! But for others, it is the complex interweaving of continuities and changes that demands attention, especially now that audiencing has become a vital mode of engaging with all dimensions of daily life. This article asks how we should research audiences in a digital networked age. I argue that, while many avenues are being actively pursued, many researchers are concentrating on the notion of participation, asking, on the one hand, what modes of participation are afforded to people by the particular media and communication infrastructures which mediate social, cultural or political spheres of life? And, on the other hand, how do people engage with, accede to, negotiate or contest this as they explore and invent new ways of connecting with each other through and around media? The features of this emerging participation paradigm of audience research are examined in this article

Modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab with and without nivolumab for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: phase 2 results from the CheckMate 9X8 randomized clinical trial

Gastrointestinal neoplasms; Immune checkpoint inhibitors; Tumor biomarkersNeoplasias gastrointestinales; Inhibidores de puntos de control inmunitario; Biomarcadores tumoralesNeoplàsies gastrointestinals; Inhibidors de punts de control immunitari; Biomarcadors tumoralsBackground Standard first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include fluoropyrimidine-containing regimens with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan and a biologic agent. Immunotherapy may enhance antitumor activity in combination with standard therapies in patients with mCRC. Here, we present phase 2 results of nivolumab plus standard-of-care therapy (SOC; 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/bevacizumab) versus SOC in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC (CheckMate 9X8). Methods CheckMate 9X8 was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 2/3 trial. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age with unresectable mCRC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab 240 mg plus SOC or SOC alone every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Secondary endpoints included PFS by investigator assessment; objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, duration of response, and time to response, all by BICR and investigator assessments; overall survival; and safety. Preplanned exploratory biomarker analyses were also performed. Results From February 2018 through April 2019, 310 patients were enrolled, of which 195 patients were randomized to nivolumab plus SOC (n=127) or SOC (n=68). At 21.5-month minimum follow-up, PFS with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance; median PFS by BICR was 11.9 months in both arms (HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.23); p=0.30). Higher PFS rates after 12 months (18 months: 28% vs 9%), higher ORR (60% vs 46%), and durable responses (median 12.9 vs 9.3 months) were observed with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 75% versus 48% of patients; no new safety signals were identified. Conclusions The CheckMate 9X8 trial investigating first-line nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in patients with mCRC did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS by BICR. Nivolumab plus SOC showed numerically higher PFS rates after 12 months, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC alone, with acceptable safety. Further investigation to identify subgroups of patients with mCRC that may benefit from nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in the first-line setting is warranted.The study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb

Randomized phase II study of erlotinib in combination with placebo or R1507, a monoclonal antibody to insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor, for advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: R1507 is a selective, fully human, recombinant monoclonal antibody (immunoglobulin G1 subclass) against insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R). The strong preclinical evidence supporting coinhibition of IGF-1R and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) as anticancer therapy prompted this study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with progression following one or two prior regimens, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 to 2, and measurable disease were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib (150 mg orally once a day) in combination with either placebo, R1507 9 mg/kg weekly, or R1507 16 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks. Treatment cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. The primary end point was comparison of the 12-week progression-free survival (PFS) rate. RESULTS: In all, 172 patients were enrolled: median age, 61 years; female, 33%; never-smokers, 12%; and performance status 0 or 1, 88%. The median number of R1507 doses was six for the weekly arm and 3.5 for the every-3-weeks arm. Grades 3 to 4 adverse events occurred in 37%, 44%, and 48% of patients with placebo, R1507 weekly, and R1507 every 3 weeks, respectively. The 12-week PFS rates were 39%, 37%, and 44%, and the median overall survival was 8.1, 8.1, and 12.1 months for the three groups, respectively, with statistically nonsignificant hazard ratios. The 12-week PFS rate in patients with KRAS mutation was 36% with R1507 compared with 0% with placebo. CONCLUSION: The combination of R1507 with erlotinib did not provide PFS or survival advantage over erlotinib alone in an unselected group of patients with advanced NSCLC. Predictive biomarkers are essential for further development of combined inhibition of IGF-1R and EGFR

A manifesto for researching entrepreneurial ecosystems

Entrepreneurial ecosystems are the focus of government economic policies around the world for their potential to generate entrepreneur-led economic development. The paper identifies key research questions and challenges to building effective public policy: (i) the limitations of existing data sources, (ii) the need to balance findings from quantitative and qualitative studies, (iii) the danger that entrepreneurial ecosystems will be just a policy fad, (iv) the narrow focus of policy and research on high tech firms and scale-ups, and (v) the need to balance research approaches between simplified models and a complex systems approach. There is a need for a better understanding of the diversity of policy contexts (level of government, country context) and model of ecosystem governance. A more granulated understanding of ecosystem thinking is required, with greater consideration of the diversity of actors and the institutional context, with more attention given to the heterogeneous nature of places and complex interactions between actors and networks. Looking to the future, the potential of new data sources and methodologies is identified. Future research should give greater consideration to the institutional context to understand how policy can better support entrepreneurial activity and the extent to which specific policies can be replicated elsewhere

A Phase I Dose Escalation Study of the LRP5 Antagonist BI 905681 in Patients with Advanced and Metastatic Solid Tumors

BACKGROUND: The Wnt pathway is involved in proliferation and tissue homeostasis. Aberrant activation promotes cancer cell proliferation and survival. Inhibition of the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5/6 (LRP5/6) coreceptors that regulate Wnt signaling could prevent cancer cell proliferation. BI 905681 is a novel LRP5 antagonist that has demonstrated potent in vivo antitumor activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a phase I, dose escalation study (NCT04147247) evaluating BI 905681 in patients with advanced solid tumors over two dosing schedules (schedule A: every 3 weeks, 3-week cycles and schedule B: every 2 weeks, 4-week cycles). The primary endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of BI 905681 and the number of patients experiencing adverse events (AEs). Other endpoints were pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy. RESULTS: As a result of difficulties enrolling patients, the trial was terminated early and the MTD for schedule A could not be determined. Twenty-one patients received BI 905681 over five dose cohorts (schedule A: 1.0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.0, and 8.5 mg/kg). No patients received schedule B. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported during the MTD evaluation period. However, during the entire treatment period, two patients (9.5%) experienced a DLT of grade 1 C-telopeptide increase in the 5.0 and 8.5 mg/kg dose cohorts. The most frequent treatment-related AEs were diarrhea (23.8%), vomiting (23.8%), nausea (19.0%), and infusion-related reactions (IRRs; 14.3%). Despite premedication to mitigate IRRs, one patient experienced a grade 2 IRR. The pharmacokinetic profiles of BI 905681 were biphasic, with a rapid distribution phase in the beginning followed by a slower elimination phase. The objective response rate was 0%; 5 (23.8%) and 14 patients (66.7%) had a best overall response of stable disease and progressive disease, respectively. CONCLUSION: BI 905681 has minimal efficacy in an unselected patient population and was generally well tolerated