Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest

BACKGROUND: Resistance to endocrine therapy in breast cancer is associated with activation of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) intracellular signaling pathway. In early studies, the mTOR inhibitor everolimus added to endocrine therapy showed antitumor activity. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized trial, we compared everolimus and exemestane versus exemestane and placebo (randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio) in 724 patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who had recurrence or progression while receiving previous therapy with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in the adjuvant setting or to treat advanced disease (or both). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included survival, response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed by an independent data and safety monitoring committee after 359 progression-free survival events were observed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two study groups. The median age was 62 years, 56% had visceral involvement, and 84% had hormone-sensitive disease. Previous therapy included letrozole or anastrozole (100%), tamoxifen (48%), fulvestrant (16%), and chemotherapy (68%). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were stomatitis (8% in the everolimus-plus-exemestane group vs. 1% in the placebo-plus-exemestane group), anemia (6% vs. <1%), dyspnea (4% vs. 1%), hyperglycemia (4% vs. <1%), fatigue (4% vs. 1%), and pneumonitis (3% vs. 0%). At the interim analysis, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with everolimus plus exemestane and 2.8 months with placebo plus exemestane, according to assessments by local investigators (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.54; P<0.001). Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months and 4.1 months, respectively, according to central assessment (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.47; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus combined with an aromatase inhibitor improved progression-free survival in patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer previously treated with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. (Funded by Novartis; BOLERO-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00863655.).

BACKGROUND: mutations occur in approximately 40% of patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. The PI3Kα-specific inhibitor alpelisib has shown antitumor activity in early studies. METHODS: -mutated cancer. Secondary end points included overall response and safety. RESULTS: -mutated cancer was greater with alpelisib-fulvestrant than with placebo-fulvestrant (26.6% vs. 12.8%); among patients with measurable disease in this cohort, the percentages were 35.7% and 16.2%, respectively. In the overall population, the most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were hyperglycemia (36.6% in the alpelisib-fulvestrant group vs. 0.7% in the placebo-fulvestrant group) and rash (9.9% vs. 0.3%). Diarrhea of grade 3 occurred in 6.7% of patients in the alpelisib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 0.3% of those in the placebo-fulvestrant group; no diarrhea of grade 4 was reported. The percentages of patients who discontinued alpelisib and placebo owing to adverse events were 25.0% and 4.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: -mutated, HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had received endocrine therapy previously. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; SOLAR-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02437318.).

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that harbors KRAS mutations in exon 2 do not benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. Other activating RAS mutations may also be negative predictive biomarkers for anti-EGFR therapy. METHODS: In this prospective-retrospective analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) as compared with FOLFOX4 alone, according to RAS (KRAS or NRAS) or BRAF mutation status. A total of 639 patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without KRAS mutations in exon 2 had results for at least one of the following: KRAS exon 3 or 4; NRAS exon 2, 3, or 4; or BRAF exon 15. The overall rate of ascertainment of RAS status was 90%. RESULTS: Among 512 patients without RAS mutations, progression-free survival was 10.1 months with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus 7.9 months with FOLFOX4 alone (hazard ratio for progression or death with combination therapy, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.90; P=0.004). Overall survival was 26.0 months in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 group versus 20.2 months in the FOLFOX4-alone group (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.99; P=0.04). A total of 108 patients (17%) with nonmutated KRAS exon 2 had other RAS mutations. These mutations were associated with inferior progression-free survival and overall survival with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment, which was consistent with the findings in patients with KRAS mutations in exon 2. BRAF mutations were a negative prognostic factor. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Additional RAS mutations predicted a lack of response in patients who received panitumumab-FOLFOX4. In patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without RAS mutations, improvements in overall survival were observed with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 therapy. (Funded by Amgen and others; PRIME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00364013.).

BACKGROUND: The inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) could potentially overcome or delay resistance to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer that is positive for hormone receptor (HR) and negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). METHODS: . RESULTS: for superiority). The median duration of follow-up was 15.3 months. After 18 months, the progression-free survival rate was 63.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.6 to 70.3) in the ribociclib group and 42.2% (95% CI, 34.8 to 49.5) in the placebo group. In patients with measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate was 52.7% and 37.1%, respectively (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in more than 10% of the patients in either group were neutropenia (59.3% in the ribociclib group vs. 0.9% in the placebo group) and leukopenia (21.0% vs. 0.6%); the rates of discontinuation because of adverse events were 7.5% and 2.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving initial systemic treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, the duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving ribociclib plus letrozole than among those receiving placebo plus letrozole, with a higher rate of myelosuppression in the ribociclib group. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01958021 .).

PURPOSE Patients with advanced esophageal cancer have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options after first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this open-label, phase III study, we randomly assigned (1:1) 628 patients with advanced/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, that progressed after one prior therapy, to pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years or chemotherapy (investigator’s choice of paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan). Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10, in patients with squamous cell carcinoma, and in all patients (one-sided α 0.9%, 0.8%, and 0.8%, respectively). RESULTS At final analysis, conducted 16 months after the last patient was randomly assigned, OS was prolonged with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for patients with CPS ≥ 10 (median, 9.3 v 6.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.93]; P = .0074). Estimated 12-month OS rate was 43% (95% CI, 33.5% to 52.1%) with pembrolizumab versus 20% (95% CI, 13.5% to 28.3%) with chemotherapy. Median OS was 8.2 months versus 7.1 months (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.96]; P = .0095) in patients with squamous cell carcinoma and 7.1 months versus 7.1 months (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.05]; P = .0560) in all patients. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.2% of patients with pembrolizumab versus 40.9% in those who underwent chemotherapy. CONCLUSION Pembrolizumab prolonged OS versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced esophageal cancer in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, with fewer treatment-related adverse events.

PURPOSE: Many patients with HR+, HER2- early breast cancer (EBC) will not experience recurrence or have distant recurrence with currently available standard therapies. However, up to 30% of patients with high-risk clinical and/or pathologic features may experience distant recurrence, many in the first few years. Superior treatment options are needed to prevent early recurrence and development of metastases for this group of patients. Abemaciclib is an oral, continuously dosed, CDK4/6 inhibitor approved for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). Efficacy and safety of abemaciclib in ABC supported evaluation in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: This open-label, phase III study included patients with HR+, HER2-, high-risk EBC, who had surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes, or one to three nodes and either tumor size ≥ 5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥ 20%, were eligible and randomly assigned (1:1) to standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years). The primary end point was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and secondary end points included distant relapse-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% versus 88.7%, respectively. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile of abemaciclib. CONCLUSION: Abemaciclib when combined with ET is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to demonstrate a significant improvement in IDFS in patients with HR+, HER2- node-positive EBC at high risk of early recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is approved for the treatment of patients with progressive glioblastoma on the basis of uncontrolled data. Data from a phase 2 trial suggested that the addition of bevacizumab to lomustine might improve overall survival as compared with monotherapies. We sought to determine whether the combination would result in longer overall survival than lomustine alone among patients at first progression of glioblastoma. METHODS: -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) was assessed. Health-related quality of life and neurocognitive function were evaluated at baseline and every 12 weeks. The primary end point of the trial was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 437 patients underwent randomization. The median number of 6-week treatment cycles was three in the combination group and one in the monotherapy group. With 329 overall survival events (75.3%), the combination therapy did not provide a survival advantage; the median overall survival was 9.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1 to 10.1) in the combination group and 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 10.4) in the monotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21; P=0.65). Locally assessed progression-free survival was 2.7 months longer in the combination group than in the monotherapy group: 4.2 months versus 1.5 months (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.61; P<0.001). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 63.6% of the patients in the combination group and 38.1% of the patients in the monotherapy group. The addition of bevacizumab to lomustine affected neither health-related quality of life nor neurocognitive function. The MGMT status was prognostic. CONCLUSIONS: Despite somewhat prolonged progression-free survival, treatment with lomustine plus bevacizumab did not confer a survival advantage over treatment with lomustine alone in patients with progressive glioblastoma. (Funded by an unrestricted educational grant from F. Hoffmann-La Roche and by the EORTC Cancer Research Fund; EORTC 26101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01290939 ; Eudra-CT number, 2010-023218-30 .).

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy has been the standard of care in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma for 20 years, supported by randomized trials and large, retrospective studies. However, the efficacy of targeted therapies has challenged this standard. We assessed the role of nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were receiving targeted therapies. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with confirmed metastatic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at presentation who were suitable candidates for nephrectomy to undergo nephrectomy and then receive sunitinib (standard therapy) or to receive sunitinib alone. Randomization was stratified according to prognostic risk (intermediate or poor) in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily in cycles of 28 days on and 14 days off every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were enrolled from September 2009 to September 2017. At this planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was 50.9 months, with 326 deaths observed. The results in the sunitinib-alone group were noninferior to those in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group with regard to overall survival (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.10; upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for noninferiority, ≤1.20). The median overall survival was 18.4 months in the sunitinib-alone group and 13.9 months in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group. No significant differences in response rate or progression-free survival were observed. Adverse events were as anticipated in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib alone was not inferior to nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were classified as having intermediate-risk or poor-risk disease. (Funded by Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and others; CARMENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930033 .).

BACKGROUND: occurs in 3 to 4% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tepotinib, a highly selective MET inhibitor, in this patient population. METHODS: exon 14 skipping mutation was detected on liquid biopsy or tissue biopsy. RESULTS: As of January 1, 2020, a total of 152 patients had received tepotinib, and 99 patients had been followed for at least 9 months. The response rate by independent review was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36 to 57), with a median duration of response of 11.1 months (95% CI, 7.2 to could not be estimated) in the combined-biopsy group. The response rate was 48% (95% CI, 36 to 61) among 66 patients in the liquid-biopsy group and 50% (95% CI, 37 to 63) among 60 patients in the tissue-biopsy group; 27 patients had positive results according to both methods. The investigator-assessed response rate was 56% (95% CI, 45 to 66) and was similar regardless of the previous therapy received for advanced or metastatic disease. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that were considered by investigators to be related to tepotinib therapy were reported in 28% of the patients, including peripheral edema in 7%. Adverse events led to permanent discontinuation of tepotinib in 11% of the patients. A molecular response, as measured in circulating free DNA, was observed in 67% of the patients with matched liquid-biopsy samples at baseline and during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: exon 14 skipping mutation, the use of tepotinib was associated with a partial response in approximately half the patients. Peripheral edema was the main toxic effect of grade 3 or higher. (Funded by Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; VISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02864992.).

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) are limited. In cohort A of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study, we evaluated pembrolizumab as second or later line of treatment for patients with mTNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had centrally confirmed mTNBC, ≥1 systemic therapy for metastatic disease, prior treatment with anthracycline and taxane in any disease setting, and progression on or after the most recent therapy. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 2 years. Primary end points were objective response rate in the total and PD-L1-positive populations, and safety. Secondary end points included duration of response, disease control rate (percentage of patients with complete or partial response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks), progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: All enrolled patients (N = 170) were women, 61.8% had PD-L1-positive tumors, and 43.5% had received ≥3 previous lines of therapy for metastatic disease. ORR (95% CI) was 5.3% (2.7-9.9) in the total and 5.7% (2.4-12.2) in the PD-L1-positive populations. Disease control rate (95% CI) was 7.6% (4.4-12.7) and 9.5% (5.1-16.8), respectively. Median duration of response was not reached in the total (range, 1.2+-21.5+) and in the PD-L1-positive (range, 6.3-21.5+) populations. Median PFS was 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.9-2.0), and the 6-month rate was 14.9%. Median OS was 9.0 months (95% CI, 7.6-11.2), and the 6-month rate was 69.1%. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 103 (60.6%) patients, including 22 (12.9%) with grade 3 or 4 AEs. There were no deaths due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated durable antitumor activity in a subset of patients with previously treated mTNBC and had a manageable safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02447003.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether the administration of radioiodine provides any benefit to patients with low-risk thyroid cancer after a complete surgical resection. The administration of the smallest possible amount of radioiodine would improve care. METHODS: In our randomized, phase 3 trial, we compared two thyrotropin-stimulation methods (thyroid hormone withdrawal and use of recombinant human thyrotropin) and two radioiodine ((131)I) doses (i.e., administered activities) (1.1 GBq and 3.7 GBq) in a 2-by-2 design. Inclusion criteria were an age of 18 years or older; total thyroidectomy for differentiated thyroid carcinoma; tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, ascertained on pathological examination (p) of a surgical specimen, of pT1 (with tumor diameter ≤1 cm) and N1 or Nx, pT1 (with tumor diameter >1 to 2 cm) and any N stage, or pT2N0; absence of distant metastasis; and no iodine contamination. Thyroid ablation was assessed 8 months after radioiodine administration by neck ultrasonography and measurement of recombinant human thyrotropin-stimulated thyroglobulin. Comparisons were based on an equivalence framework. RESULTS: There were 752 patients enrolled between 2007 and 2010; 92% had papillary cancer. There were no unexpected serious adverse events. In the 684 patients with data that could be evaluated, ultrasonography of the neck was normal in 652 (95%), and the stimulated thyroglobulin level was 1.0 ng per milliliter or less in 621 of the 652 patients (95%) without detectable thyroglobulin antibodies. Thyroid ablation was complete in 631 of the 684 patients (92%). The ablation rate was equivalent between the (131)I doses and between the thyrotropin-stimulation methods. CONCLUSIONS: The use of recombinant human thyrotropin and low-dose (1.1 GBq) postoperative radioiodine ablation may be sufficient for the management of low-risk thyroid cancer. (Funded by the French National Cancer Institute [INCa] and the French Ministry of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00435851; INCa number, RECF0447.).

BACKGROUND: An improvement in progression-free survival was shown with trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the progression-free survival interim analysis of the DESTINY-Breast03 trial. The aim of DESTINY-Breast03 was to compare the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 169 study centres in North America, Asia, Europe, Australia, and South America. Eligible patients were aged 18 or older, had HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and at least one measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 5·4 mg/kg or trastuzumab emtansine 3·6 mg/kg, both administered by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by hormone receptor status, previous treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, and was managed through an interactive web-based system. Within each stratum, balanced block randomisation was used with a block size of four. Patients and investigators were not masked to the treatment received. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. The key secondary endpoint was overall survival and this prespecified second overall survival interim analysis reports updated overall survival, efficacy, and safety results. Efficacy analyses were performed using the full analysis set. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03529110. FINDINGS: Between July 20, 2018, and June 23, 2020, 699 patients were screened for eligibility, 524 of whom were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan (n=261) or trastuzumab emtansine (n=263). Median duration of study follow-up was 28·4 months (IQR 22·1-32·9) with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 26·5 months (14·5-31·3) with trastuzumab emtansine. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 28·8 months (95% CI 22·4-37·9) with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 6·8 months (5·6-8·2) with trastuzumab emtansine (hazard ratio [HR] 0·33 [95% CI 0·26-0·43]; nominal p<0·0001). Median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 40·5 months-not estimable), with 72 (28%) overall survival events, in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and was not reached (34·0 months-not estimable), with 97 (37%) overall survival events, in the trastuzumab emtansine group (HR 0·64; 95% CI 0·47-0·87]; p=0·0037). The number of grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine (145 [56%] patients versus 135 [52%] patients). Adjudicated drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 39 (15%) patients treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan and eight (3%) patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine, with no grade 4 or 5 events in either group. INTERPRETATION: Trastuzumab deruxtecan showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, as well as the longest reported median progression-free survival, reaffirming trastuzumab deruxtecan as the standard of care in the second-line setting. A manageable safety profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan was confirmed with longer treatment duration. FUNDING: Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) pathway via PIK3CA mutations occurs in 28%-46% of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancers (ABCs) and is associated with poor prognosis. The SOLAR-1 trial showed that the addition of alpelisib to fulvestrant treatment provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in PIK3CA-mutated, HR+, HER2- ABC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men and postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC whose disease progressed on or after aromatase inhibitor (AI) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive alpelisib (300 mg/day) plus fulvestrant (500 mg every 28 days and once on day 15) or placebo plus fulvestrant. Overall survival (OS) in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier methodology and a one-sided stratified log-rank test was carried out with an O'Brien-Fleming efficacy boundary of P ≤ 0.0161. RESULTS: In the PIK3CA-mutated cohort (n = 341), median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 39.3 months (34.1-44.9) for alpelisib-fulvestrant and 31.4 months (26.8-41.3) for placebo-fulvestrant [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (95% CI, 0.64-1.15; P = 0.15)]. OS results did not cross the prespecified efficacy boundary. Median OS (95% CI) in patients with lung and/or liver metastases was 37.2 months (28.7-43.6) and 22.8 months (19.0-26.8) in the alpelisib-fulvestrant and placebo-fulvestrant arms, respectively [HR = 0.68 (0.46-1.00)]. Median times to chemotherapy (95% CI) for the alpelisib-fulvestrant and placebo-fulvestrant arms were 23.3 months (15.2-28.4) and 14.8 months (10.5-22.6), respectively [HR = 0.72 (0.54-0.95)]. No new safety signals were observed with longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the analysis did not cross the prespecified boundary for statistical significance, there was a 7.9-month numeric improvement in median OS when alpelisib was added to fulvestrant treatment of patients with PIK3CA-mutated, HR+, HER2- ABC. Overall, these results further support the statistically significant prolongation of PFS observed with alpelisib plus fulvestrant in this population, which has a poor prognosis due to a PIK3CA mutation. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV ID: NCT02437318.

PURPOSE: No standard adjuvant treatment currently is recommended in localized biliary tract cancer (BTC) after surgical resection. We aimed to assess whether gemcitabine and oxaliplatin chemotherapy (GEMOX) would increase relapse-free survival (RFS) while maintaining health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients who undergo resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: infused on day 2 of a 2-week cycle) for 12 cycles (experimental arm A) or surveillance (standard arm B). Primary end points were RFS and HRQOL. RESULTS: Between July 2009 and February 2014, 196 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two arms. After a median follow-up of 46.5 months (95% CI, 42.6 to 49.3 months), 126 RFS events and 82 deaths were recorded. There was no significant difference in RFS between the two arms (median, 30.4 months in arm A v 18.5 months in arm B; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.25; P = .48). There was no difference in time to definitive deterioration of global HRQOL (median, 31.8 months in arm A v 32.1 months in arm B; HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.26; log-rank P = .39). Overall survival was not different (median, 75.8 months in arm A v 50.8 months in arm B; HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.66; log-rank P = .74). Maximal adverse events were grade 3 in 62% (arm A) versus 18% (arm B) and grade 4 in 11% versus 3% ( P < .001). CONCLUSION: There was no benefit of adjuvant GEMOX in resected BTC despite adequate tolerance and delivery of the regimen.

INTRODUCTION: Effective treatments for hormone-receptor-positive (HR(+)) breast cancer (BC) following relapse/progression on nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) therapy are needed. Initial Breast Cancer Trials of OraL EveROlimus-2 (BOLERO-2) trial data demonstrated that everolimus and exemestane significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus exemestane alone in this patient population. METHODS: BOLERO-2 is a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, international trial comparing everolimus (10 mg/day) plus exemestane (25 mg/day) versus placebo plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR(+) advanced BC with recurrence/progression during or after NSAIs. The primary endpoint was PFS by local investigator review, and was confirmed by independent central radiology review. Overall survival, response rate, and clinical benefit rate were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Final study results with median 18-month follow-up show that median PFS remained significantly longer with everolimus plus exemestane versus placebo plus exemestane [investigator review: 7.8 versus 3.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38-0.54); log-rank P < 0.0001; central review: 11.0 versus 4.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.31-0.48); log-rank P < 0.0001] in the overall population and in all prospectively defined subgroups, including patients with visceral metastases, [corrected] and irrespective of age. The incidence and severity of adverse events were consistent with those reported at the interim analysis and in other everolimus trials. CONCLUSION: The addition of everolimus to exemestane markedly prolonged PFS in patients with HR(+) advanced BC with disease recurrence/progression following prior NSAIs. These results further support the use of everolimus plus exemestane in this patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00863655.

IMPORTANCE: Effective treatment options are limited for patients with advanced, metastatic esophageal cancer progressing after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab for patients with advanced, metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) or advanced, metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction that progressed after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 2, open-label, interventional, single-arm study, KEYNOTE-180, enrolled 121 patients from January 12, 2016, to March 21, 2017, from 57 sites in 10 countries. Patients had advanced, metastatic esophageal cancer that progressed after 2 or more lines of therapy and had evaluable tumor samples for biomarkers. INTERVENTIONS: Pembrolizumab, 200 mg, was administered intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or study withdrawal, for up to 2 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point was objective response rate per the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors by central imaging review for all patients. RESULTS: As of September 18, 2017, of 121 enrolled patients (100 men and 21 women; median age, 65 years [range, 33-87 years]), 18 (14.9%) had undergone 3 or more prior therapies, 63 (52.1%) had ESCC, and 58 (47.9%) had tumors positive for programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), defined as a combined positive score of 10 or higher assessed by immunohistochemistry. Median duration of follow-up was 5.8 months (range, 0.2-18.3 months). Objective response rate was 9.9% (95% CI, 5.2%-16.7%) among all patients (12 of 121), and median duration of response was not reached (range, 1.9-14.4 months). Objective response rate was 14.3% (95% CI, 6.7%-25.4%) among patients with ESCC (9 of 63), 5.2% (95% CI, 1.1%-14.4%) among patients with adenocarcinoma (3 of 58), 13.8% (95% CI, 6.1%-25.4%) among patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (8 of 58), and 6.3% (95% CI, 1.8%-15.5%) among patients with PD-L1-negative tumors (4 of 63). Overall, 15 patients (12.4%) had treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events. Only 5 patients (4.1%) discontinued treatment because of adverse events. There was 1 treatment-related death from pneumonitis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Where effective treatment options are an unmet need, pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity with manageable safety in patients with heavily pretreated esophageal cancer. Phase 3 studies evaluating pembrolizumab vs standard therapy for patients with esophageal cancer progressing after first-line therapy or in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic esophageal cancer are ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02559687.

Background: The use of web-based monitoring for lung cancer patients is growing in interest because of promising recent results suggesting improvement in cancer and resource utilization outcomes. It remains an open question whether the overall survival (OS) in these patients could be improved by using a web-mediated follow-up rather than classical scheduled follow-up and imaging. Methods: Advanced-stage lung cancer patients without evidence of disease progression after or during initial treatment were randomly assigned in a multicenter phase III trial to compare a web-mediated follow-up algorithm (experimental arm), based on weekly self-scored patient symptoms, with routine follow-up with CT scans scheduled every three to six months according to the disease stage (control arm). In the experimental arm, an alert email was automatically sent to the oncologist when self-scored symptoms matched predefined criteria. The primary outcome was OS. Results: From June 2014 to January 2016, 133 patients were enrolled and 121 were retained in the intent-to-treat analysis; 12 deemed ineligible after random assignment were not subsequently followed. Most of the patients (95.1%) had stage III or IV disease. The median follow-up was nine months. The median OS was 19.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.5 to noncalculable) in the experimental and 12.0 months (95% CI = 8.6 to 16.4) in the control arm (one-sided P = .001) (hazard ratio = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.67, one-sided P = .002). The performance status at first detected relapse was 0 to 1 for 75.9% of the patients in the experimental arm and for 32.5% of those in the control arm (two-sided P < .001). Optimal treatment was initiated in 72.4% of the patients in the experimental arm and in 32.5% of those in the control arm (two-sided P < .001). Conclusions: A web-mediated follow-up algorithm based on self-reported symptoms improved OS due to early relapse detection and better performance status at relapse.

Proteasome inhibition has emerged as an important therapeutic strategy in multiple myeloma (MM). Since the publication of the first phase 1 trials of bortezomib 10 years ago, this first-in-class proteasome inhibitor (PI) has contributed substantially to the observed improvement in survival in MM patients over the past decade. Although first approved as a single agent in the relapsed setting, bortezomib is now predominantly used in combination regimens. Furthermore, the standard twice-weekly schedule may be replaced by weekly infusion, especially when bortezomib is used as part of combination regimens in frontline therapy. Indeed, bortezomib is an established component of induction therapy for patients eligible or ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Bortezomib has also been incorporated into conditioning regimens before autologous stem cell transplantation, as well as into post-ASCT consolidation therapy, and in the maintenance setting. In addition, a new route of bortezomib administration, subcutaneous infusion, has recently been approved. Recently, several new agents have been introduced into the clinic, including carfilzomib, marizomib, and MLN9708, and trials investigating these "second-generation" PIs in patients with relapsed/refractory MMs have demonstrated positive results. This review provides an overview of the role of PIs in the treatment of MM, focusing on developments over the past decade.

// Lorenzo Galluzzi 1,2,3,4,* , Erika Vacchelli 1,2,3 , Jos&eacute;-Manuel Bravo-San Pedro 1,2,3 , Aitziber Buqu&eacute; 1,2,3 , Laura Senovilla 1,2,3 , Elisa Elena Baracco 1,2,3,5 , Norma Bloy 1,2,3,5 , Francesca Castoldi 1,2,3,5,6 , Jean-Pierre Abastado 7 , Patrizia Agostinis 8 , Ron N. Apte 9 , Fernando Aranda 1,2,3,10 , Maha Ayyoub 11,12 , Philipp Beckhove 13 , Jean-Yves Blay 14,15 , Laura Bracci 16 , Anne Caignard 17,18 , Chiara Castelli 19 , Federica Cavallo 20 , Estaban Celis 21 , Vincenzo Cerundolo 22 , Aled Clayton 23,24 , Mario P. Colombo 19 , Lisa Coussens 25 , Madhav V. Dhodapkar 26 , Alexander M. Eggermont 3 , Douglas T. Fearon 27 , Wolf H. Fridman 2,4,28,29 , Jitka Fuč&iacute;kov&aacute; 6,30 , Dmitry I. Gabrilovich 31 , J&eacute;r&ocirc;me Galon 2,4,28,32 , Abhishek Garg 8 , Fran&ccedil;ois Ghiringhelli 33,34,35 , Giuseppe Giaccone 36,37 , Eli Gilboa 38 , Sacha Gnjatic 39 , Axel Hoos 40 , Anne Hosmalin 4,41,42,43 , Dirk J&auml;ger 44 , Pawel Kalinski 45,46,47 , Klas K&auml;rre 48 , Oliver Kepp 1,2,49 , Rolf Kiessling 50 , John M. Kirkwood 51 , Eva Klein 48 , Alexander Knuth 52 , Claire E. Lewis 53 , Roland Liblau 54,55,56 , Michael T. Lotze 45,46 , Enrico Lugli 57 , Jean-Pierre Mach 58 , Fabrizio Mattei 16 , Domenico Mavilio 57,59 , Ignacio Melero 60,61 , Cornelis J. Melief 62,63 , Elizabeth A. Mittendorf 64 , Lorenzo Moretta 65 , Adekunke Odunsi 66 , Hideho Okada 67 , Anna Karolina Palucka 68 , Marcus E. Peter 69 , Kenneth J. Pienta 70 , Angel Porgador 9 , George C. Prendergast 71,72,73 , Gabriel A. Rabinovich 74 , Nicholas P. Restifo 75 , Naiyer Rizvi 76 , Catherine Saut&egrave;s-Fridman 2,4,28,29 , Hans Schreiber 77 , Barbara Seliger 78 , Hiroshi Shiku 79 , Bruno Silva-Santos 80 , Mark J. Smyth 81,82 , Daniel E. Speiser 83,84 , Radek Spisek 6,30 , Pramod K. Srivastava 85,86 , James E. Talmadge 87 , Eric Tartour 4,88,89,90 , Sjoerd H. Van Der Burg 91 , Beno&icirc;t J. Van Den Eynde 92,93,94 , Richard Vile 95 , Hermann Wagner 96 , Jeffrey&nbsp;S. Weber 97 , Theresa L. Whiteside 46,98 , Jedd D. Wolchok 99,100 , Laurence Zitvogel 3,101,102 , Weiping Zou 103 and Guido Kroemer 1,2,4,49,104,* 1 Equipe 11 labellis&eacute;e pas la Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France 2 INSERM, U1138, Paris, France 3 Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France 4 Universit&eacute; Paris Descartes/Paris V, Sorbonne Paris Cit&eacute;, Paris, France 5 Facult&eacute; de Medicine, Universit&eacute; Paris Sud/Paris XI, Le Kremlin-Bic&ecirc;tre, France 6 Sotio a.c., Prague, Czech Republic 7 Pole d&rsquo;innovation th&eacute;rapeutique en oncologie, Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier, Suresnes, France 8 Cell Death Research and Therapy (CDRT) Laboratory, Dept. of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium 9 The Shraga Segal Dept. of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel 10 Group of Immune receptors of the Innate and Adaptive System, Institut d&rsquo;Investigacions Biom&eacute;diques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain 11 INSERM, U1102, Saint Herblain, France 12 Institut de Canc&eacute;rologie de l&rsquo;Ouest, Saint Herblain, France 13 Translational Immunology Division, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany 14 Equipe 11, Centre L&eacute;on B&eacute;rard (CLR), Lyon, France 15 Centre de Recherche en Canc&eacute;rologie de Lyon (CRCL), Lyon, France 16 Dept. of Hematology, Oncology and Molecular Medicine, Istituto Superiore di Sanit&agrave;, Rome, Italy 17 INSERM, U1160, Paris, France 18 Groupe Hospitalier Saint Louis-Lariboisi&egrave;re - F. Vidal, Paris, France 19 Unit of Immunotherapy of Human Tumors, Dept. of Experimental Oncology and Molecular Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milano, Italy 20 Molecular Biotechnology Center, Dept. of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Torino, Torino, Italy 21 Cancer Immunology, Inflammation and Tolerance Program, Georgia Regents University Cancer Center, Augusta, GA, USA 22 MRC Human Immunology Unit, Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 23 Institute of Cancer &amp; Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK 24 Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK 25 Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health &amp; Science University, Portland, OR, USA 26 Sect. of Hematology and Immunobiology, Yale Cancer Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA 27 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, USA 28 Universit&eacute; Pierre et Marie Curie/Paris VI, Paris, France 29 Equipe 13, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France 30 Dept. of Immunology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Motol, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic 31 Dept. of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA 32 Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France 33 INSERM, UMR866, Dijon, France 34 Centre Georges Fran&ccedil;ois Leclerc, Dijon, France 35 Universit&eacute; de Bourgogne, Dijon, France 36 Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA 37 Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA 38 Dept. of Microbiology and Immunology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA 39 Sect. of Hematology/Oncology, Immunology, Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA 40 Glaxo Smith Kline, Cancer Immunotherapy Consortium, Collegeville, PA, USA 41 INSERM, U1016, Paris, France 42 CNRS, UMR8104, Paris, France 43 H&ocirc;pital Cochin, AP-HP, Paris, France 44 National Center for Tumor Diseases, University Medical Center Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 45 Dept. of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 46 University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 47 Dept. of Immunology and Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 48 Dept. of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell Biology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden 49 Metabolomics and Cell Biology Platforms, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France 50 Dept. of Oncology, Karolinska Institute Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden 51 University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 52 National Center for Cancer Care and Research, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar 53 Academic Unit of Inflammation and Tumour Targeting, Dept. of Oncology, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK 54 INSERM, UMR1043, Toulouse, France 55 CNRS, UMR5282, Toulouse, France 56 Laboratoire d&rsquo;Immunologie, CHU Toulouse, Universit&eacute; Toulouse II, Toulouse, France 57 Unit of Clinical and Experimental Immunology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Institute, Rozzano, Italy 58 Dept. of Biochemistry, University of Lausanne, Epalinges, Switzerland 59 Dept. of Medical Biotechnologies and Translational Medicine, University of Milan, Rozzano, Italy 60 Dept. of Immunology, Centro de Investigaci&oacute;n M&eacute;dica Aplicada (CIMA), Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain 61 Dept. of Oncology, Cl&iacute;nica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain 62 ISA Therapeutics, Leiden, The Netherlands 63 Dept. of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands 64 Research Dept. of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA 65 Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genova, Italy 66 Center for Immunotherapy, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA 67 Dept. of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA 68 The Jackson Laboratory for Genomics Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA 69 Div. of Hematology/Oncology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA 70 The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA 71 Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, PA, USA 72 Dept. of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, PA, USA 73 Cell Biology and Signaling Program, Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA 74 Laboratorio de Inmunopatolog&iacute;a, Instituto de Biolog&iacute;a y Medicina Experimental (IBYME), Buenos Aires, Argentina 75 National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA 76 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York, NY, USA 77 Dept. of Pathology, The Cancer Research Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA 78 Institute of Medical Immunology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany 79 Dept. of Immuno-GeneTherapy, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsu, Japan 80 Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal 81 Immunology in Cancer and Infection Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Queensland, Australia 82 School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia 83 Dept. of Oncology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland 84 Ludwig Cancer Research Center, Lausanne, Switzerland 85 Dept. of Immunology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA 86 Carole and Ray Neag Comprehensive Cancer Center, Farmington, CT, USA 87 Laboratory of Transplantation Immunology, Dept. of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA 88 INSERM, U970, Paris, France 89 Paris-Cardiovascular Research Center (PARCC), Paris, France 90 Service d&rsquo;Immunologie Biologique, H&ocirc;pital Europ&eacute;en Georges Pompidou (HEGP), AP-HP, Paris, France 91 Dept. of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands 92 Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Brussels, Belgium 93 de Duve Institute, Brussels, Belgium 94 Universit&eacute; Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium 95 Dept. of Molecular Medicine and Immunology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA 96 Institute of Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Hygiene, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany 97 Donald A. Adam Comprehensive Melanoma Research Center, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA 98 University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 99 Dept. of Medicine and Ludwig Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York, NY, USA 100 Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA 101 INSERM, U1015, Villejuif, France 102 Centre d&rsquo;Investigation Clinique Bioth&eacute;rapie 507 (CICBT507), Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France 103 University of Michigan, School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA 104 P&ocirc;le de Biologie, H&ocirc;pital Europ&eacute;en Georges Pompidou (HEGP), AP-HP, Paris, France * share senior co-authorship Correspondence: Lorenzo Galluzzi, email: // Keywords : adoptive cell transfer, checkpoint blockers, dendritic cell-based interventions, DNA-based vaccines, immunostimulatory cytokines, peptide-based vaccines, oncolytic viruses, Toll-like receptor agonists Received : November 02, 2014 Accepted : December 15, 2014 Published : December 18, 2014 Abstract During the past decades, anticancer immunotherapy has evolved from a promising therapeutic option to a robust clinical reality. Many immunotherapeutic regimens are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for use in cancer patients, and many others are being investigated as standalone therapeutic interventions or combined with conventional treatments in clinical studies. Immunotherapies may be subdivided into &ldquo;passive&rdquo; and &ldquo;active&rdquo; based on their ability to engage the host immune system against cancer. Since the anticancer activity of most passive immunotherapeutics (including tumor-targeting monoclonal antibodies) also relies on the host immune system, this classification does not properly reflect the complexity of the drug-host-tumor interaction. Alternatively, anticancer immunotherapeutics can be classified according to their antigen specificity. While some immunotherapies specifically target one (or a few) defined tumor-associated antigen(s), others operate in a relatively non-specific manner and boost natural or therapy-elicited anticancer immune responses of unknown and often broad specificity. Here, we propose a critical, integrated classification of anticancer immunotherapies and discuss the clinical relevance of these approaches.