Back to Authors

Pugh, Trevor J

0000-0002-8073-5888

Mayo Clinic

Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Citations 4

Translational randomized phase II trial of cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab in advanced, recurrent, or metastatic endometrial cancer
Lheureux, Stéphanie , Konstantinopoulos, Panagiotis A. , Wang, Ben X. , Gadalla, Ramy , Block, Matthew S. , Gaillard, Stéphanie , McHale, Michael , Werner, Theresa L. , Duska, Linda , Kehoe, Siobhan M., Colombo, Ilaria , Wang, Lisa , Wildman, Rachel P., Soleimani, Shirin , Lien, Scott , Wright, John, Pugh, Trevor J. , Pugh, Trevor J , Konstantinopoulos, Panagiotis A , Gaillard, Stéphanie , Matei, Daniela , Jewell, Andrea , McCourt, Carolyn Kay , Temkin, Sarah M. , Girda, Eugenia , Backes, Floor , Li, Xuan , Wildman, Rachel, Wright, John, Ohashi, Pamela S. , Brooks, David G. , Fleming, Gini F.

Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer | March 14, 2022 | Volume: 10 | Issue: 3 | Pages: e004233

10.1136/jitc-2021-004233 Get It

Background Combining immunotherapy and antiangiogenic agents is a promising treatment strategy in endometrial cancer. To date, no biomarkers for response have been identified and data on post-immunotherapy progression are lacking. We explored the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab) and an antiangiogenic agent (cabozantinib) in immunotherapy-naïve endometrial cancer and in patients whose disease progressed on previous immunotherapy with baseline biopsy for immune profiling. Patients and methods In this phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03367741, registered December 11, 2017), women with recurrent endometrial cancer were randomized 2:1 to nivolumab with cabozantinib (Arm A) or nivolumab alone (Arm B). The primary endpoint was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with carcinosarcoma or prior immune checkpoint inhibitor received combination treatment (Arm C). Baseline biopsy and serial peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were analyzed and associations between patient outcome and immune data from cytometry by time of flight (CyTOF) and PBMCs were explored. Results Median PFS was 5.3 (90% CI 3.5 to 9.2) months in Arm A (n=36) and 1.9 (90% CI 1.6 to 3.4) months in Arm B (n=18) (HR=0.59, 90% CI 0.35 to 0.98; log-rank p=0.09, meeting the prespecified statistical significance criteria). The most common treatment-related adverse events in Arm A were diarrhea (50%) and elevated liver enzymes (aspartate aminotransferase 47%, alanine aminotransferase 42%). In-depth baseline CyTOF analysis across treatment arms (n=40) identified 35 immune-cell subsets. Among immunotherapy-pretreated patients in Arm C, non-progressors had significantly higher proportions of activated tissue-resident (CD103+CD69+) ɣδ T cells than progressors (adjusted p=0.009). Conclusions Adding cabozantinib to nivolumab significantly improved outcomes in heavily pretreated endometrial cancer. A subgroup of immunotherapy-pretreated patients identified by baseline immune profile and potentially benefiting from combination with antiangiogenics requires further investigation.
Minimal Residual Disease in Myeloma: Application for Clinical Care and New Drug Registration
Auclair, Daniel , Adam, Stacey J. , Agarwal, Amit , Anderson, Melissa , Bustoros, Mark , Chapman, Jessica R. , Connors, Dana E. , Dash, Ajeeta B. , Bacco, Alessandra Di , Ling, Du, Flores‐Montero, Juan , Ghobrial, Irene M. , Gormley, Nicole , Gupta, Ira, Higley, Howard R., Hillengaß, Jens , Kanapuru, Bindu , Kazandjian, Dickran , Kelloff, Gary J. , Kremer, Brandon E. , Lightbody, Elizabeth D. , Lomas, Oliver , Mateos, María‐Victoria , de, Rocío Montes , Mukundan, Lata , Munshi, Nikhil C. , O’Donnell, Elizabeth , Paiva, Bruno , Patel, Reshma, Pugh, Trevor J. , Ramasamy, Karthik , Ray, Jill, Roshal, Mikhail , Ross, Jeremy A. , Sigman, Caroline C. , Thoren, Katie , Trudel, Suzanne , Ulaner, Gary A. , Valente, Nancy, Weiss, Brendan M. , Zamagni, Elena , Kumar, Shaji , Adam, Stacey J , Anderson, Melissa , Bustoros, Mark , Chapman, Jessica , Connors, Dana E , Dash, Ajeeta B , Di Bacco, Alessandra , Flores-Montero, Juan , Gay, Francesca , Hillengass, Jens , Landgren, C Ola , Lomas, Oliver C , Montes de Oca, Rocio , Pugh, Trevor J , Ramasamy, Karthik , Sigman, Caroline C , Thoren, Katie L , Paiva, Bruno , Ghobrial, Irene M , Ulaner, Gary , Gormley, Nicole , Anderson, Kenneth C. , Avet‐Loiseau, Hervé , Facon, Thierry T.F. , Gay, Francesca , Kirsch, Ilan R. , Landgren, Ola , Lonial, Sagar , Órfão, Alberto , Patel, Reshma, Zamagni, Elena

Clinical Cancer Research | July 28, 2021 | Volume: 27 | Issue: 19 | Pages: 5195-5212

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-1059 Get It

AbstractThe development of novel agents has transformed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma, with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity now achievable across the entire disease spectrum. Bone marrow–based technologies to assess MRD, including approaches using next-generation flow and next-generation sequencing, have provided real-time clinical tools for the sensitive detection and monitoring of MRD in patients with multiple myeloma. Complementary liquid biopsy–based assays are now quickly progressing with some, such as mass spectrometry methods, being very close to clinical use, while others utilizing nucleic acid–based technologies are still developing and will prove important to further our understanding of the biology of MRD. On the regulatory front, multiple retrospective individual patient and clinical trial level meta-analyses have already shown and will continue to assess the potential of MRD as a surrogate for patient outcome. Given all this progress, it is not surprising that a number of clinicians are now considering using MRD to inform real-world clinical care of patients across the spectrum from smoldering myeloma to relapsed refractory multiple myeloma, with each disease setting presenting key challenges and questions that will need to be addressed through clinical trials. The pace of advances in targeted and immune therapies in multiple myeloma is unprecedented, and novel MRD-driven biomarker strategies are essential to accelerate innovative clinical trials leading to regulatory approval of novel treatments and continued improvement in patient outcomes.
Transplant Oncology in Primary and Metastatic Liver Tumors
Hibi, Taizo , Toso, Christian , Man, Kwan , Berenguer, Marina , Pugh, Trevor J. , Dawson, Laura A. , Mazzaferro, Vincenzo , Mazzaferro, Vincenzo , Berenguer, Marina , Pugh, Trevor J , Toso, Christian , Sapisochín, Gonzalo , Heimbach, Julie K. , Greten, Tim F.

Annals of Surgery | October 16, 2020 | Volume: 273 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 483-493

10.1097/sla.0000000000004071 Get It

Transplant oncology defines any application of transplant medicine and surgery aimed at improving cancer patients’ survival and/or quality of life. In practice, liver transplantation for selected hepato-biliary cancers is the only solid organ transplant with demonstrated efficacy in curing cancer. Four are the proposed future contributions of transplant oncology in hepato-biliary cancer (4-e). (1) evolutionary approach to cancer care that includes liver transplantation; (2) elucidation of self and non-self recognition systems, by linking tumor and transplant immunology; (3) exploration of innovative endpoints both in clinical and experimental settings taking advantage from the access to the entire liver explant; (4) extension of surgical limitation in the multidisciplinary approach to hepato-biliary oncology. The aim of this review is to define the principles of transplant oncology that may be applied to hepato-biliary cancer treatment and research, attempting to balance current evidences with future opportunities.
The Role of Minimal Residual Disease Testing in Myeloma Treatment Selection and Drug Development: Current Value and Future Applications
Auclair, Daniel , Kelloff, Gary J. , Sigman, Caroline C. , Avet‐Loiseau, Hervé , Farrell, Ann T. , Gormley, Nicole , Kumar, Shaji , Munshi, Nikhil C. , Cavo, Michèle , Davies, Faith E. , Bacco, Alessandra Di , Dickey, Jennifer S., Gutman, Steven, Higley, Howard R., Hussein, Mohamad A., Jessup, J. Milburn , Little, Richard F. , Loberg, Robert D., Lohr, Jens G. , Mukundan, Lata , Omel, James, Pugh, Trevor J. , Reaman, Gregory H. , Robbins, Michael , Sasser, A. Kate, Valente, Nancy, Zamagni, Elena , Anderson, Kenneth C. , Landgren, Ola , Kirsch, Ilan R. , Pugh, Trevor J , Davies, Faith E , Gormley, Nicole , Zamagni, Elena

Clinical Cancer Research | April 20, 2017 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 15 | Pages: 3980-3993

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-2895 Get It

Abstract Treatment of myeloma has benefited from the introduction of more effective and better tolerated agents, improvements in supportive care, better understanding of disease biology, revision of diagnostic criteria, and new sensitive and specific tools for disease prognostication and management. Assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) in response to therapy is one of these tools, as longer progression-free survival (PFS) is seen consistently among patients who have achieved MRD negativity. Current therapies lead to unprecedented frequency and depth of response, and next-generation flow and sequencing methods to measure MRD in bone marrow are in use and being developed with sensitivities in the range of 10−5 to 10−6 cells. These technologies may be combined with functional imaging to detect MRD outside of bone marrow. Moreover, immune profiling methods are being developed to better understand the immune environment in myeloma and response to immunomodulatory agents while methods for molecular profiling of myeloma cells and circulating DNA in blood are also emerging. With the continued development and standardization of these methodologies, MRD has high potential for use in gaining new drug approvals in myeloma. The FDA has outlined two pathways by which MRD could be qualified as a surrogate endpoint for clinical studies directed at obtaining accelerated approval for new myeloma drugs. Most importantly, better understanding of MRD should also contribute to better treatment monitoring. Potentially, MRD status could be used as a prognostic factor for making treatment decisions and for informing timing of therapeutic interventions. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 3980–93. ©2017 AACR.