A Model-Based Approach to Predict Short-Term Toxicity Benefits With Proton Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer

Purpose: The aim of this study was to generate normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models in patients treated with either proton beam therapy (PBT) or intensitymodulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for oropharynx cancer and to use a model-based approach to investigate the added value of PBT in preventing treatment complications. Methods and Materials: For patients with advanced-stage oropharynx cancer treated with curative intent (PBT, n = 30; IMRT, n = 175), NTCP models were developed using multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward selection. For PBTtreated patients, an equivalent IMRT plan was generated to serve as a reference to determine the benefit of PBT in terms of NTCP. The models were then applied to the PBT-treated patients to compare predicted and observed clinical outcomes (calibration- in-the-large). Five binary endpoints were analyzed at 6 months after treatment: dysphagia >= grade 2, dysphagia >= grade 3, xerostomia >= grade 2, salivary duct inflammation >= grade 2, and feeding tube dependence. Corresponding toxicity grading was based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4. Paired t tests and Wilcoxon rank tests were used to compare mean NTCP results for endpoints between PBT and IMRT. Results: NTCP models developed based on outcomes from all patients were applied to those receiving PBT. NTCP values were calculated for the equivalent IMRT plans for all PBT-treated patients, revealing significantly higher NTCP values with IMRT. PBT was associated with statistically significant reductions in the mean NTCP values for each endpoint at 6 months after treatment, with the largest absolute differences in rates of >= grade 2 dysphagia and >= grade 2 xerostomia. Conclusions: NTCP models predict significant improvements in the probability of short-term, treatment-related toxicity with PBT compared with IMRT for oropharyngeal cancer. This study demonstrates an NTCP model-based approach to compare predicted patient outcomes when randomized data are not available. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Toward a Revised Paleogene Geochronology

New information has become available that requires a revision of Paleogene chronology incorporated in most current Cenozoic time scales. Age estimates for the limits of the Paleogene (the Oligocene/Miocene and Cretaceous/Paleogene boundaries) have not changed appreciably and remain at about 24 Ma and about 66 Ma, respectively. However, new radioisotope data indicate that boundaries of subdivisions within the Paleogene are generally younger than previously estimated, for example, the Paleocene/Eocene and Eocene/Oligocene, by about 2 to 3 m.y. We review the current status of magnetobiostratigraphic correlations and new radioisotope data, with particular reference to late Eocene~early Oligocene geochronology and provide a reassessment of the age of the Eocene/Oligocene boundary as 34 Ma. We anticipate that with concurrent work on a fundamental revision of the geomagnetic polarity sequence, a comprehensive and detailed new time scale for the Cenozoic will soon be developed

Immunotherapy of lung cancer: An update

In Germany lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-associated death in men. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiation may enhance survival of patients suffering from lung cancer but the enhancement is typically transient and mostly absent with advanced disease; eventually more than 90% of lung cancer patients will die of disease. New approaches to the treatment of lung cancer are urgently needed. Immunotherapy may represent one new approach with low toxicity and high specificity but implementation has been a challenge because of the poor antigenic characterization of these tumors and their ability to escape immune responses. Several different immunotherapeutic treatment strategies have been developed. This review examines the current state of development and recent advances with respect to non-specific immune stimulation, cellular immunotherapy ( specific and non-specific), therapeutic cancer vaccines and gene therapy for lung cancer. The focus is primarily placed on immunotherapeutic cancer treatments that are already in clinical trial or well progressed in preclinical studies. Although there seems to be a promising future for immunotherapy in lung cancer, presently there is not standard immunotherapy available for clinical routine

Antitumor activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in patients with high grade ovarian carcinoma and a germline or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: integrated analysis of data from Study 10 and ARIEL2

Objective: An integrated analysis was undertaken to characterize the antitumor activity and safety profile of the oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib in patients with relapsed high-grade ovarian carcinoma (HGOC). Methods: Eligible patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) who received a starting dose of oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily (BID) with or without food were included in these analyses. The integrated efficacy population included patients with HGOC and a deleterious germline or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation who received at least two prior chemotherapies and were sensitive, resistant, or refractory to platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS). The integrated safety population included patients with HGOC who received at least one dose of rucaparib 600 mg BID, irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status and prior treatments. Results: In the efficacy population (n = 106), ORR was 53.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.8–63.5); 8.5% and 45.3% of patients achieved complete and partial responses, respectively. Median DOR was 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.6–11.6). In the safety population (n = 377), the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were nausea, asthenia/fatigue, vomiting, and anemia/hemoglobin decreased. The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent AE was anemia/hemoglobin decreased. Treatment-emergent AEs led to treatment interruption, dose reduction, and treatment discontinuation in 58.6%, 45.9%, and 9.8% of patients, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Conclusions: Rucaparib has antitumor activity in advanced BRCA1/2-mutated HGOC and a manageable safety profile

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has anticancer activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity. In this trial we assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 hospitals and cancer centres across 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma, had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, had achieved complete or partial response to their last platinum-based regimen, had a cancer antigen 125 concentration of less than the upper limit of normal, had a performance status of 0–1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central nervous system metastases, had received anticancer therapy 14 days or fewer before starting the study, or had received previous treatment with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo in 28 day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six, stratified by homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to the most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival evaluated with use of an ordered step-down procedure for three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations (carcinoma associated with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations), patients with homologous recombination deficiencies (BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and high loss of heterozygosity), and the intention-to-treat population, assessed at screening and every 12 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01968213; enrolment is complete. Findings: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, we randomly allocated 564 patients: 375 (66%) to rucaparib and 189 (34%) to placebo. Median progression-free survival in patients with a BRCA-mutant carcinoma was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·4–22·9; 130 [35%] patients) in the rucaparib group versus 5·4 months (3·4–6·7; 66 [35%] patients) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·23 [95% CI 0·16–0·34]; p<0·0001). In patients with a homologous recombination deficient carcinoma (236 [63%] vs 118 [62%]), it was 13·6 months (10·9–16·2) versus 5·4 months (5·1–5·6; 0·32 [0·24–0·42]; p<0·0001). In the intention-to-treat population, it was 10·8 months (8·3–11·4) versus 5·4 months (5·3–5·5; 0·36 [0·30–0·45]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in the safety population (372 [99%] patients in the rucaparib group vs 189 [100%] in the placebo group) were reported in 209 (56%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 28 (15%) in the placebo group, the most common of which were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin concentration (70 [19%] vs one [1%]) and increased alanine or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (39 [10%] vs none). Interpretation: Across all primary analysis groups, rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who had achieved a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. ARIEL3 provides further evidence that use of a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the maintenance treatment setting versus placebo could be considered a new standard of care for women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a complete or partial response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. Funding: Clovis Oncology

Secondary somatic mutations restoring RAD51C and RAD51D associated with acquired resistance to the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in high-grade ovarian carcinoma

High-grade epithelial ovarian carcinomas (OC) containing mutated BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) homologous recombination (HR) genes are sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), while restoration of HR function due to secondary mutations in BRCA1/2 has been recognized as an important resistance mechanism. We sequenced core HR pathway genes in 12 pairs of pre-treatment and post-progression tumor biopsy samples collected from patients in ARIEL2 Part 1, a phase 2 study of the PARPi rucaparib as treatment for platinum-sensitive, relapsed OC. In six of 12 pre-treatment biopsies, a truncation mutation in BRCA1, RAD51C or RAD51D was identified. In five of six paired post-progression biopsies, one or more secondary mutations restored the open reading frame. Four distinct secondary mutations and spatial heterogeneity were observed for RAD51C. In vitro complementation assays and a patient-derived xenograft (PDX), as well as predictive molecular modeling, confirmed that resistance to rucaparib was associated with secondary mutations

Rucaparib for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL3): post-progression outcomes and updated safety results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data. METHODS: In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=375) or placebo (n=189). Median follow-up was 28·1 months (IQR 22·0-33·6). In the intention-to-treat population, median CFI was 14·3 months (95% CI 13·0-17·4) in the rucaparib group versus 8·8 months (8·0-10·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·35-0·53]; p<0·0001), median TFST was 12·4 months (11·1-15·2) versus 7·2 months (6·4-8·6; HR 0·43 [0·35-0·52]; p<0·0001), median PFS2 was 21·0 months (18·9-23·6) versus 16·5 months (15·2-18·4; HR 0·66 [0·53-0·82]; p=0·0002), and median TSST was 22·4 months (19·1-24·5) versus 17·3 months (14·9-19·4; HR 0·68 [0·54-0·85]; p=0·0007). CFI, TFST, PFS2, and TSST were also significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination-deficient cohorts. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event of grade 3 or higher was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (80 [22%] patients in the rucaparib group vs one [1%] patient in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 83 (22%) patients in the rucaparib group and 20 (11%) patients in the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths have been previously reported in this trial; there were no new treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: In these exploratory analyses over a median follow-up of more than 2 years, rucaparib maintenance treatment led to a clinically meaningful delay in starting subsequent therapy and provided lasting clinical benefits versus placebo in all three analysis cohorts. Updated safety data were consistent with previous reports. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology

TUBectomy with delayed oophorectomy as an alternative to risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in high-risk women to assess the safety of prevention:the TUBA-WISP II study protocol

BACKGROUND: Risk-reducing salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy has gained interest for individuals at high risk for tubo-ovarian cancer as there is compelling evidence that especially high-grade serous carcinoma originates in the fallopian tubes. Two studies have demonstrated a positive effect of salpingectomy on menopause-related quality of life and sexual health compared with standard risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy is non-inferior to the current standard salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of tubo-ovarian cancer among individuals at high inherited risk.STUDY HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that postponement of oophorectomy after salpingectomy, to the age of 40-45 (BRCA1) or 45-50 (BRCA2) years, compared with the current standard salpingo-oophorectomy at age 35-40 (BRCA1) or 40-45 (BRCA2) years, is non-inferior in regard to tubo-ovarian cancer risk.TRIAL DESIGN: In this international prospective preference trial, participants will choose between the novel salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy and the current standard salpingo-oophorectomy. Salpingectomy can be performed after the completion of childbearing and between the age of 25 and 40 (BRCA1), 25 and 45 (BRCA2), or 25 and 50 (BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers) years. Subsequent oophorectomy is recommended at a maximum delay of 5 years beyond the upper limit of the current guideline age for salpingo-oophorectomy. The current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline age, which is also the recommended age for salpingo-oophorectomy within the study, is 35-40 years for BRCA1, 40-45 years for BRCA2, and 45-50 years for BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers.MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Premenopausal individuals with a documented class IV or V germline pathogenic variant in the BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, RAD51C, or RAD51D gene who have completed childbearing are eligible for participation. Participants may have a personal history of a non-ovarian malignancy.PRIMARY ENDPOINT: The primary outcome is the cumulative tubo-ovarian cancer incidence at the target age: 46 years for BRCA1 and 51 years for BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers.SAMPLE SIZE: The sample size to ensure sufficient power to test non-inferiority of salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy compared with salpingo-oophorectomy requires 1500 BRCA1 and 1500 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers.ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: Participant recruitment is expected to be completed at the end of 2026 (total recruitment period of 5 years). The primary outcome is expected to be available in 2036 (minimal follow-up period of 10 years).TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04294927.</p

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma: the effects of progression-free interval and prior therapies on efficacy and safety in the randomized phase III trial ARIEL3

INTRODUCTION: In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, p<0.0001) for patients who had received two prior chemotherapies, and 11.1 versus 5.3 months (n=144 vs n=65; HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41, p<0.0001) for those who had received ≥3 prior chemotherapies. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 versus 5.4 months (n=83 vs n=43; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0004) for patients who had received prior bevacizumab, and 10.9 versus 5.4 months (n=292 vs n=146; HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.45, p<0.0001) for those who had not. Across subgroups, median progression-free survival was also significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA-mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab

A robust SNP-haplotype assay for Bct gene region conferring resistance to beet curly top virus in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

Beet curly top virus (BCTV), which is synonymous with curly top virus (CTV), causes significant yield loss in common bean (snap and dry beans) cultivars and several other important crops. Common bean cultivars have been found to be resistant to CTV, but screening for resistance is challenging due to the cyclical nature of epidemics and spotty feeding by the leafhopper that vectors the virus. We used an SNP dataset for the Snap Bean Association Panel (SnAP) agro-inoculated with CTV-Logan (CA/Logan) strain to locate the Bct gene region to a 1.7-Mb interval on chromosome Pv07 using genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis. Recombinant lines from the SnAP were used to further narrow the Bct region to a 58.0-kb interval. A missense SNP (S07_2970381) in candidate gene Phvul.007G036300 Exonuclease V (EXO5) was identified as the most likely causal mutation, and it was the most significant SNP detected by GWAS in a dry bean population (DBP) naturally infected by the CTV-Worland (Wor) strain. Tm-shift assay markers developed for SNP S07_2970381 and two linked SNPs, S07_2970276 and S07_2966197, were useful for tracking different origins of the Bct EXO5 candidate gene resistance to CTV in common bean. The three SNPs identified four haplotypes, with haplotype 3-1 (Haplo3-1) of Middle American origin associated with the highest levels of CTV resistance. This SNP-haplotype assay will enable breeders to track resistance sources and to develop cultivars with better CTV resistance