Dosing Oncology Therapeutics in Combination Therapy for Renal Dysfunction: The University of California San Diego Study of Personalized Cancer Therapy to Determine Response and Toxicity (UCSD-PREDICT) Experience.

Introduction Dose reductions are often required to avoid toxicity in combination therapy for advanced cancers, but information on appropriate dose reductions in renal dysfunction is lacking. This study assessed dose reductions of renally cleared oncology agents given in combination therapy in the setting of renal dysfunction. Methods A database of 1,072 patients was screened to identify patients with renal dysfunction (glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min) receiving oncology combination therapy with at least one agent requiring dose reduction for renal insufficiency. The dose of the renal agent was compared to the single-agent renal dosing recommendations to calculate a dose percentage. Tolerability was determined from electronic medical records review. Results Thirty-three regimens (n = 25 patients) were identified: 11 included at least one targeted agent (n = 8 patients) and 22 had only cytotoxic chemotherapy (n = 18 patients). The renal agent was given at the recommended single-agent renal dose in ~50% of combinations; ~50% of all regimens were tolerated, and only six combinations had dose reductions for toxicity. The median final dose percentage was 100% of the recommended renal dose (range: 25% - 333%); no significant differences were seen between groups (cytotoxic - tolerated, cytotoxic - not tolerated, targeted - tolerated, targeted - not tolerated; p = 0.38). No significant differences were observed between tolerated vs. non-tolerated (p = 0.97) or targeted vs. cytotoxic (p = 0.80) regimens. Conclusions Dose reductions of renally cleared agents are highly variable in oncology patients with renal dysfunction. Additional studies are needed to determine appropriate dosing adjustments in this population

Review of precision cancer medicine: Evolution of the treatment paradigm.

In recent years, biotechnological breakthroughs have led to identification of complex and unique biologic features associated with carcinogenesis. Tumor and cell-free DNA profiling, immune markers, and proteomic and RNA analyses are used to identify these characteristics for optimization of anticancer therapy in individual patients. Consequently, clinical trials have evolved, shifting from tumor type-centered to gene-directed, histology-agnostic, with innovative adaptive design tailored to biomarker profiling with the goal to improve treatment outcomes. A plethora of precision medicine trials have been conducted. The majority of these trials demonstrated that matched therapy is associated with superior outcomes compared to non-matched therapy across tumor types and in specific cancers. To improve the implementation of precision medicine, this approach should be used early in the course of the disease, and patients should have complete tumor profiling and access to effective matched therapy. To overcome the complexity of tumor biology, clinical trials with combinations of gene-targeted therapy with immune-targeted approaches (e.g., checkpoint blockade, personalized vaccines and/or chimeric antigen receptor T-cells), hormonal therapy, chemotherapy and/or novel agents should be considered. These studies should target dynamic changes in tumor biologic abnormalities, eliminating minimal residual disease, and eradicating significant subclones that confer resistance to treatment. Mining and expansion of real-world data, facilitated by the use of advanced computer data processing capabilities, may contribute to validation of information to predict new applications for medicines. In this review, we summarize the clinical trials and discuss challenges and opportunities to accelerate the implementation of precision oncology

Relationship between protein biomarkers of chemotherapy response and microsatellite status, tumor mutational burden and PD-L1 expression in cancer patients.

Chemotherapy and checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapies are increasingly used in combinations. We determined associations between the presence of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapeutic biomarkers and protein markers of potential chemotherapy response. Data were extracted from a clinical-grade testing database (Caris Life Sciences; February 2015 through November 2017): immunotherapy response markers (microsatellite instability-high [MSI-H], tumor mutational burden-high [TMB-H], and PD-L1 protein expression) and protein chemotherapy response markers (excision repair complementation group 1 [ERCC1], topoisomerase 1 [TOPO1], topoisomerase 2 [TOP2A], thymidylate synthase [TS], tubulin beta 3 [TUBB3], ribonucleotide reductase regulatory subunit M1 [RRM1] and O-6-methyl guanine DNA methyltransferase [MGMT]). Relationships were determined by the Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test or Fischer's exact tests. Overall, 28,034 patients representing a total of 40 tumor types were assessed. MSI-H was found in 3.3% of patients (73% were also TMB-H), TMB-H, 8.4% (28.3% were also MSI-H) and PD-L1 expression in 11.0% of patients (5.1% were also MSI-H; 16.4% were also TMB-H). Based on concurrent biomarker expression, combinations of immunotherapy with platinum (ERCC1 negativity) or with doxorubicin, epirubicin or etoposide (TOP2A positivity) have a higher probability of response, whereas combinations with irinotecan or topotecan (TOPO1 positivity), with gemcitabine (RRM1 negativity), and fluorouracil, pemetrexed or capecitabine (TS negativity) may be of less benefit. The potential for immunotherapy and taxane (TUBB3 negativity) combinations is present for MSI-H but not TMB-H or PD-L1-expressing tumors; for temozolomide and dacarbazine (MGMT negative), PD-L1 is frequently coexpressed, but MSI-H and TMB-H are not associated. Protein markers of potential chemotherapy response along with next-generation sequencing for immunotherapy response markers can help support rational combinations as part of an individualized, precision oncology approach

Efficacy and safety of anticancer drug combinations: a meta-analysis of randomized trials with a focus on immunotherapeutics and gene-targeted compounds.

Hundreds of trials are being conducted to evaluate combination of newer targeted drugs as well as immunotherapy. Our aim was to compare efficacy and safety of combination versus single non-cytotoxic anticancer agents. We searched PubMed (01/01/2001 to 03/06/2018) (and, for immunotherapy, ASCO and ESMO abstracts (2016 through March 2018)) for randomized clinical trials that compared a single non-cytotoxic agent (targeted, hormonal, or immunotherapy) versus a combination with another non-cytotoxic partner. Efficacy and safety endpoints were evaluated in a meta-analysis using a linear mixed-effects model (guidelines per PRISMA Report).We included 95 randomized comparisons (single vs. combination non-cytotoxic therapies) (59.4%, phase II; 41.6%, phase III trials) (29,175 patients (solid tumors)). Combinations most frequently included a hormonal agent and a targeted small molecule (23%). Compared to single non-cytotoxic agents, adding another non-cytotoxic drug increased response rate (odds ratio [OR]=1.61, 95%CI 1.40-1.84)and prolonged progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR]=0.75, 95%CI 0.69-0.81)and overall survival (HR=0.87, 95%CI 0.81-0.94) (all p<0.001), which was most pronounced for the association between immunotherapy combinations and longer survival. Combinations also significantlyincreased the risk of high-grade toxicities (OR=2.42, 95%CI 1.98-2.97) (most notably for immunotherapy and small molecule inhibitors) and mortality at least possibly therapy related (OR: 1.33, 95%CI 1.15-1.53) (both p<0.001) (absolute mortality = 0.90% (single agent) versus 1.31% (combinations)) compared to single agents. In conclusion, combinations of non-cytotoxic drugs versus monotherapy in randomized cancer clinical trials attenuated safety, but increased efficacy, with the balance tilting in favor of combination therapy, based on the prolongation in survival

Expression of TIM3/VISTA checkpoints and the CD68 macrophage-associated marker correlates with anti-PD1/PDL1 resistance: implications of immunogram heterogeneity.

Although immunotherapies have achieved remarkable salutary effects among subgroups of advanced cancers, most patients do not respond. We comprehensively evaluated biomarkers associated with the "cancer-immunity cycle" in the pan-cancer setting in order to understand the immune landscape of metastatic malignancies as well as anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor resistance mechanisms. Interrogation of 51 markers of the cancer-immunity cycle was performed in 101 patients with diverse malignancies using a clinical-grade RNA sequencing assay. Overall, the immune phenotypes demonstrated overexpression of multiple checkpoints including VISTA (15.8% of 101 patients), PD-L2 (10.9%), TIM3 (9.9%), LAG3 (8.9%), PD-L1 (6.9%) and CTLA4 (3.0%). Additionally, aberrant expression of macrophage-associated markers (e.g. CD68 and CSF1R; 11-23%), metabolic immune escape markers (e.g. ADORA2A and IDO1; 9-16%) and T-cell priming markers (e.g. CD40, GITR, ICOS and OX40; 4-31%) were observed. Most tumors (87.1%, 88/101) expressed distinct immune portfolios, with a median of six theoretically actionable biomarkers (pharmacologically tractable by Food and Drug Administration approved agents [on- or off-label] or with agents in clinical development). Overexpression of TIM-3, VISTA and CD68 were significantly associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) after anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapies (among 39 treated patients) (all P < .01). In conclusion, cancer-immunity cycle biomarker evaluation was feasible in diverse solid tumors. High expression of alternative checkpoints TIM-3 and VISTA and of the macrophage-associated markers CD68 were associated with significantly worse PFS after anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapies. Most patients had distinct and complex immune expression profiles suggesting the need for customized combinations of immunotherapy

Synthetic Nano-Low Density Lipoprotein as Targeted Drug DeliveryVehicle for Glioblastoma Multiforme

This paper discribes a synthetic low density lipoprotein(LDL) made by complexing a 29 amino acid that consists of a lipid bindingdomain and the LDL receptor binding domain with a lipid microemulsion.The nano-LDL particles were intermdiate in size between LDL and HDL andbound to LDL receptors on GBM brain tumor cells. Synthetic nano-LDLuptake by GBM cells was LDL receptor specific and dependent on cellreceptor number. It is suggested that these synthetic particles can serveas a delivery vehicle for hydophobic anti-tumor drugs by targeting theLDL receptor

ATR inhibition facilitates targeting of leukemia dependence on convergent nucleotide biosynthetic pathways.

Leukemia cells rely on two nucleotide biosynthetic pathways, de novo and salvage, to produce dNTPs for DNA replication. Here, using metabolomic, proteomic, and phosphoproteomic approaches, we show that inhibition of the replication stress sensing kinase ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related protein (ATR) reduces the output of both de novo and salvage pathways by regulating the activity of their respective rate-limiting enzymes, ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) and deoxycytidine kinase (dCK), via distinct molecular mechanisms. Quantification of nucleotide biosynthesis in ATR-inhibited acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) cells reveals substantial remaining de novo and salvage activities, and could not eliminate the disease in vivo. However, targeting these remaining activities with RNR and dCK inhibitors triggers lethal replication stress in vitro and long-term disease-free survival in mice with B-ALL, without detectable toxicity. Thus the functional interplay between alternative nucleotide biosynthetic routes and ATR provides therapeutic opportunities in leukemia and potentially other cancers.Leukemic cells depend on the nucleotide synthesis pathway to proliferate. Here the authors use metabolomics and proteomics to show that inhibition of ATR reduced the activity of these pathways thus providing a valuable therapeutic target in leukemia