Borad, Mitesh J

PURPOSEAn ASCO provisional clinical opinion offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This provisional clinical opinion addresses the appropriate use of tumor genomic testing in patients with metastatic or advanced solid tumors.CLINICAL CONTEXTAn increasing number of therapies are approved to treat cancers harboring specific genomic biomarkers. However, there is a lack of clarity as to when tumor genomic sequencing should be ordered, what type of assays should be performed, and how to interpret the results for treatment selection.PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINIONPatients with metastatic or advanced cancer should undergo genomic sequencing in a certified laboratory if the presence of one or more specific genomic alterations has regulatory approval as biomarkers to guide the use of or exclusion from certain treatments for their disease. Multigene panel–based assays should be used if more than one biomarker-linked therapy is approved for the patient's disease. Site-agnostic approvals for any cancer with a high tumor mutation burden, mismatch repair deficiency, or neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase ( NTRK) fusions provide a rationale for genomic testing for all solid tumors. Multigene testing may also assist in treatment selection by identifying additional targets when there are few or no genotype-based therapy approvals for the patient's disease. For treatment planning, the clinician should consider the functional impact of the targeted alteration and expected efficacy of genomic biomarker–linked options relative to other approved or investigational treatments. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/assays-and-predictive-markers-guidelines .

Purpose Clinical-pathologic features and natural history of patients with isocitrate dehydrogenase ( IDH)-mutant intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) are not well characterized. Here, we sought to describe the natural history, clinical phenotype, and prognostic impact of advanced, IDH-mutated CCA. METHODS We conducted a multicentric, retrospective analysis of patients with IDH-mutated (IDH1 or IDH2) CCA between 2010 and 2020. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Chi-square test was used to analyze disease control rate (DCR) and overall response rate (ORR). Matched controls were used for comparing survival between patients with and without IDH mutations (mIDH). RESULTS Sixty-five patients with IDH-mutated CCA were included. All patients had intrahepatic CCA. On first-line chemotherapy, median OS and median PFS were 21.2 months and 8.3 months, respectively. Notably, median OS (32.4 v 19.5 months, P = .12) and PFS (18.0 v 8.0 months, P = .12) were not significantly affected by disease status at presentation (locally advanced v metastatic, respectively). Median OS was significantly longer in patients with mIDH (21.2 v 10.5 months; P < .01). First-line gemcitabine-containing regimens had a significantly higher DCR and ORR than non–gemcitabine-containing regimens (DCR: 75% v 33%, P = .01; ORR: 39% v 0%, P = .02). In patients receiving IDH inhibitor therapy, median PFS was 4.6 months with a DCR of 29%. CONCLUSION CCA with m IDH confers a unique subtype resulting in a better survival compared with that of counterparts. IDH inhibitors represent a promising therapeutic option in later lines of therapy in this subgroup.

We observe previously unknown interactions between clinically important adenovirus vector capsids, platelet factor 4, and CAR.

PURPOSECholangiocarcinomas (CCA) are a group of heterogeneous tumors arising from the biliary epithelia. Significant sequencing efforts have provided further insights into the molecular mechanisms of this disease including fibroblast growth factor receptor ( FGFR) alterations, which occurs in approximately 15%-20% of intrahepatic CCAs. Herein, we describe the FGFR inhibitor (FGFRi)-associated treatment toxicity and cancer-specific outcomes from a multicenter single-institution cohort.METHODSThis is a retrospective study of patients with CCA and known FGFR alterations treated with FGFRi. We describe the toxicity and efficacy in patients treated at Mayo Clinic between January 2010 and December 2020.RESULTSOur group identified 61 patients with advanced or metastatic CCA, 19 males (31%) and 42 females (69%), harboring FGFR alterations who received FGFRi. The most common grade 1 or higher adverse events for all patients included fatigue (92%), AST elevations (78%), anemia (80%), decreased platelet count (63%), and hyperphosphatemia (74%). Median progression-free survival on FGFRi was 5.8 months for all patients (95% CI, 4.9 to 9.0). Females had significantly longer progression-free survival at 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.2 to 11.8) on FGFRi compared with males at 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to not estimable; P = .038).CONCLUSIONFGFRi are well tolerated with clinical efficacy. With the recent approval of FGFRi by the US Food and Drug Administration and ongoing clinical trials for new FGFRi, understanding outcomes and toxicity associated with these medications is important for precision oncology.

PURPOSE This phase I/II study evaluated tremelimumab (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 monoclonal antibody) and durvalumab (antiprogrammed death ligand-1 monoclonal antibody) as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including a novel regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02519348 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with HCC who had progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomly assigned to receive T300 + D (tremelimumab 300 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg [one dose each during the first cycle] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), durvalumab monotherapy (1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), tremelimumab monotherapy (750 mg once every 4 weeks [seven doses] and then once every 12 weeks), or T75 + D (tremelimumab 75 mg once every 4 weeks plus durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks [four doses] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks). Safety was the primary end point. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 and overall survival; exploratory end points included circulating lymphocyte profiles. RESULTS A total of 332 patients were enrolled (T300 + D, n = 75; durvalumab, n = 104; tremelimumab, n = 69; and T75 + D, n = 84). Tolerability was acceptable across arms, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in 37.8%, 20.8%, 43.5%, and 24.4%, respectively. Confirmed ORRs (95% CI) were 24.0% (14.9 to 35.3), 10.6% (5.4 to 18.1), 7.2% (2.4 to 16.1), and 9.5% (4.2 to 17.9), respectively. An early expansion of CD8+ lymphocytes was associated with response across arms, with highest proliferating CD8+ lymphocyte levels occurring in the T300 + D arm. The median (95% CI) overall survival was 18.7 (10.8 to 27.3), 13.6 (8.7 to 17.6), 15.1 (11.3 to 20.5), and 11.3 (8.4 to 15.0) months in the T300 + D, durvalumab, tremelimumab, and T75 + D arms, respectively. CONCLUSION All regimens were found to be tolerable and clinically active; however, the T300 + D regimen demonstrated the most encouraging benefit-risk profile. The unique pharmacodynamic activity and association with ORR of the T300 + D regimen further support its continued evaluation in HCC.

Despite advancements in cancer therapy that have occurred over the past several decades, successful treatment of advanced malignancies remains elusive. Substantial resources and significant efforts have been directed toward the development of novel therapeutic modalities to improve patient outcomes. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are emerging tools with unique characteristics that have attracted great interest in developing effective anticancer treatment. The original attraction was directed toward selective replication and cell-specific toxicity, two unique features that are either inherent to the virus or could be conferred by genetic engineering. However, recent advancements in the knowledge and understanding of OVs are shifting the therapeutic paradigm toward a greater focus on their immunomodulatory role. Nonetheless, there are still significant obstacles that remain to be overcome to enhance the efficiency of OVs as effective therapeutic modalities and potentially establish them as part of standard treatment regimens. In this review, we discuss advances in the design of OVs, strategies to enhance their therapeutic efficacy, functional translation into the clinical settings, and various obstacles that are still encountered in the efforts to establish them as effective anticancer treatments.

Selective oncotropism and cytolytic activity against tumors have made certain viruses subject to investigation as novel treatment modalities. However, monotherapy with oncolytic viruses (OVs) has shown limited success and modest clinical benefit. The capacity to genetically engineer OVs makes them a desirable platform to design complementary treatment modalities to overcome the existing treatment options' shortcomings. In recent years, our knowledge of interactions of the tumors with the immune system has expanded profoundly. There is a growing body of literature supporting immunomodulatory roles for OVs. The concept of bioengineering these platforms to induce the desired immune response and complement the current immunotherapeutic modalities to make immune-resistant tumors responsive to immunotherapy is under investigation in preclinical and early clinical trials. This review provides an overview of attempts to optimize oncolytic virotherapy as essential components of the multimodality anticancer therapeutic approach and discusses the challenges in translation to clinical practice.