Irinotecan or FOLFIRI for 2nd line colorectal

Background Second-line treatment with irinotecan for advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs survival. It is uncertain whether irinotecan is better administered with 5- fluorouracil or alone in patients previously treated with a fluoropyrimidine. We compared toxicity (particularly diarrhoea), quality of life, and efficacy of combination chemotherapy and irinotecan in these patients. Methods In DaVINCI, a randomised phase II trial, patients with advanced colorectal cancer were randomly allocated to: combination therapy (FOLFIRI), irinotecan (180 mg/m2 IV over 90 min, day 1), 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m2 IV bolus and 2400 mg/m2 by 46-hour infusion from day 1) and folinic acid (20 mg/m2 IV bolus, day 1), 2-weekly; or single-agent, irinotecan (350 mg/m2 IV over 90 min), 3-weekly. Toxicity was evaluated every treatment cycle; QOL and response 6 weekly. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results were also combined with those of other trials. Findings We randomised 44 patients to combination and 45 to single-agent. The most common toxicity was complete alopecia (single-agent 37%, combination 14%, P<0.02). Eight patients in the irinotecan arm and 4 in the combination arm had grade 3–4 diarrhoea (P=0.24). The treatment groups did not differ significantly in overall QOL changes, response rate, or progression free or overall survival. In a systematic review of 29 trials of second-line irinotecan-based treatment, single-agent irinotecan was associated with more diarrhoea and alopecia than the combination, but efficacy was similar. Interpretation Combination treatment compared with single-agent irinotecan appears to reduce the rateof complete alopecia and diarrhoea without compromising efficacy on clinical outcomes.Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Grou

Genetic Evidence Implicates the Immune System and Cholesterol Metabolism in the Aetiology of Alzheimer's Disease

Background 1Late Onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) is the leading cause of dementia. Recent large genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified the first strongly supported LOAD susceptibility genes since the discovery of the involvement of APOE in the early 1990s. We have now exploited these GWAS datasets to uncover key LOAD pathophysiological processes. Methodology We applied a recently developed tool for mining GWAS data for biologically meaningful information to a LOAD GWAS dataset. The principal findings were then tested in an independent GWAS dataset. Principal Findings We found a significant overrepresentation of association signals in pathways related to cholesterol metabolism and the immune response in both of the two largest genome-wide association studies for LOAD. Significance Processes related to cholesterol metabolism and the innate immune response have previously been implicated by pathological and epidemiological studies of Alzheimer's disease, but it has been unclear whether those findings reflected primary aetiological events or consequences of the disease process. Our independent evidence from two large studies now demonstrates that these processes are aetiologically relevant, and suggests that they may be suitable targets for novel and existing therapeutic approaches

Correction: genetic evidence implicates the immune system and cholesterol metabolism in the aetiology of Alzheimer's disease.

[This corrects the article on p. e13950 in vol. 5.]. Background: Late Onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) is the leading cause of dementia. Recent large genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified the first strongly supported LOAD susceptibility genes since the discovery of the involvement of APOE in the early 1990s. We have now exploited these GWAS datasets to uncover key LOAD pathophysiological processes. Methodology: We applied a recently developed tool for mining GWAS data for biologically meaningful information to a LOAD GWAS dataset. The principal findings were then tested in an independent GWAS dataset. Principal Findings: We found a significant overrepresentation of association signals in pathways related to cholesterol metabolism and the immune response in both of the two largest genome-wide association studies for LOAD. Significance: Processes related to cholesterol metabolism and the innate immune response have previously been implicated by pathological and epidemiological studies of Alzheimer's disease, but it has been unclear whether those findings reflected primary aetiological events or consequences of the disease process. Our independent evidence from two large studies now demonstrates that these processes are aetiologically relevant, and suggests that they may be suitable targets for novel and existing therapeutic approaches

CRESTONE: Clinical Study of REsponse to Seribantumab in Tumours with NEuregulin-1 (NRG1) Fusions: A phase 2 study of the anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody for advanced or metastatic solid tumours (MoST CRESTONE in Australia)

Background: Neuregulin-1 (NRG1) gene fusions are rare oncogenic drivers found in 0.2% of solid cancers, including lung, pancreatic, and 10 other tumour types to date. NRG1 is the predominant ligand of HER3 and NRG1 fusion proteins with an active EGF-like domain driving tumourigenesis and proliferation through aberrant HER3 activation. Importantly, NRG1 fusions often demonstrate mutual exclusivity with other driver alterations.NRG1 fusions have been correlated with worse Overall Survival (OS), Disease-Free Survival (DFS) and poor response to treatment with chemotherapy and chemo-IO. Inhibition of HER3, preventing dimerisation with its partners, specifically NRG1 in NRG1 gene fusion positive cancers, represents a novel therapeutic approach.Seribantumab is a fully human IgG2 monoclonal antibody targeting HER3, uniquely inhibiting NRG1-dependent activation of HER3, HER3-HER2 dimerisation and downstream signaling of PI3K/AKT and MAPK pathways. In NRG1 fusion-positive patient-derived xenografts, seribantumab treatment resulted in 50‒100% tumour reduction across multiple cancers and fusion partners. Clinical safety profile of seribantumab is established in monotherapy and combination studies in > 800 patients.Methods: CRESTONE is a multicenter open-label, phase 2 trial of intravenous seribantumab in patients with NRG1 gene fusion-positive, advanced solid tumours, having progressed on, or unsuitable for standard therapies. Australian patients will be identified through the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics (MoST) program with central confirmation after enrollment. MoST CRESTONE refers to the subset of 16 Australian patients who will receive seribantumab treatment and contribute to the Global CRESTONE study.Objectives: The primary endpoint is Overall Response Rate by RECIST. Secondary endpoints include Duration of Response, safety, PFS, OS and Clinical Benefit Rate. An interim analysis is planned following enrollment of 20 patients in the overall global CRESTONE trial and treated at the 3 g weekly IV schedule.CRESTONE (NCT04383210) is accruing patients in the United States with MoST CRESTONE in Australia and Canadian sites to open Q4 2021

Systematic review of combinations of targeted or immunotherapy in advanced solid tumors.

With rapid advances in our understanding of cancer, there is an expanding number of potential novel combination therapies, including novel-novel combinations. Identifying which combinations are appropriate and in which subpopulations are among the most difficult questions in medical research. We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of trials of novel-novel combination therapies involving immunotherapies or molecular targeted therapies in advanced solid tumors. A MEDLINE search was conducted using a modified Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for published clinical trials between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020, in the top-ranked medical and oncology journals. Trials were evaluated according to a criterion adapted from previously published Food and Drug Administration guidance and other key considerations in designing trials of combinations. This included the presence of a strong biological rationale, the use of a new established or emerging predictive biomarker prospectively incorporated into the clinical trial design, appropriate comparator arms of monotherapy or supportive external data sources and a primary endpoint demonstrating a clinically meaningful benefit. Of 32 identified trials, there were 11 (34%) trials of the novel-novel combination of anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) therapy, and 10 (31%) trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination therapy. 20 (62.5%) trials were phase II trials, while 12 (37.5%) were phase III trials. Most (72%) trials lacked significant preclinical evidence supporting the development of the combination in the given indication. A majority of trials (69%) were conducted in biomarker unselected populations or used pre-existing biomarkers within the given indication for patient selection. Most studies (66%) were considered to have appropriate comparator arms or had supportive external data sources such as prior studies of monotherapy. All studies were evaluated as selecting a clinically meaningful primary endpoint. In conclusion, designing trials to evaluate novel-novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design. Designing trials to evaluate novel-novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design

Systematic review of combinations of targeted or immunotherapy in advanced solid tumors.

With rapid advances in our understanding of cancer, there is an expanding number of potential novel combination therapies, including novel-novel combinations. Identifying which combinations are appropriate and in which subpopulations are among the most difficult questions in medical research. We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of trials of novel-novel combination therapies involving immunotherapies or molecular targeted therapies in advanced solid tumors. A MEDLINE search was conducted using a modified Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for published clinical trials between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020, in the top-ranked medical and oncology journals. Trials were evaluated according to a criterion adapted from previously published Food and Drug Administration guidance and other key considerations in designing trials of combinations. This included the presence of a strong biological rationale, the use of a new established or emerging predictive biomarker prospectively incorporated into the clinical trial design, appropriate comparator arms of monotherapy or supportive external data sources and a primary endpoint demonstrating a clinically meaningful benefit. Of 32 identified trials, there were 11 (34%) trials of the novel-novel combination of anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) therapy, and 10 (31%) trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination therapy. 20 (62.5%) trials were phase II trials, while 12 (37.5%) were phase III trials. Most (72%) trials lacked significant preclinical evidence supporting the development of the combination in the given indication. A majority of trials (69%) were conducted in biomarker unselected populations or used pre-existing biomarkers within the given indication for patient selection. Most studies (66%) were considered to have appropriate comparator arms or had supportive external data sources such as prior studies of monotherapy. All studies were evaluated as selecting a clinically meaningful primary endpoint. In conclusion, designing trials to evaluate novel-novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design. Designing trials to evaluate novel-novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design

Designing Clinical Trials for Combination Immunotherapy: A Framework for GlioblastomaCombining Immunotherapy for Glioblastoma

Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment for many hard-to-treat cancers but has yet to produce significant improvement in outcomes for patients with glioblastoma. This reflects the multiple and unique mechanisms of immune evasion and escape in this highly heterogeneous tumor. Glioblastoma engenders profound local and systemic immunosuppression and is remarkably effective at inducing T-cell dysfunction, posing a challenge to any immunotherapy-based approach. To overcome these mechanisms, multiple disparate modes of immune-oriented therapy will be required. However, designing trials that can evaluate these combinatorial approaches requires careful consideration. In this review, we explore the immunotherapy resistance mechanisms that have been encountered to date and how combinatorial approaches may address these. We also describe the unique aspects of trial design in both preclinical and clinical settings and consider endpoints and markers of response best suited for an intervention involving multiple agents

Comparison of two standard chemotherapy regimens for good-prognosis germ cell tumors: Updated analysis of a randomized trial

The Australian and New Zealand Germ Cell Trials Group conducted a multicenter randomized phase III trial in men with good-prognosis germ cell tumors of two standard chemotherapy regimens that contained bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin but differed in the scheduling and total dose of cisplatin, the total dose of bleomycin, and the scheduling and dose intensity of etoposide. The trial was stopped early at a median follow-up of 33 months after a planned interim analysis found a survival benefit for the more dose-intense regimen. The aim of this analysis was to determine if this survival benefit was maintained with long-term follow-up