Wang, Hao

Abstract Purpose: The addition of MEK inhibition (MEKi) to programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade improves progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Although MEK inhibitors may increase tumor cell immunogenicity, they can impair T-cell priming/effector function, limiting combination efficacy. We hypothesized that the addition of a CD27 agonist could restore T-cell function and enhance antitumor immunity in this combination. Patients and Methods: We conducted a randomized, phase II trial evaluating atezolizumab (840 mg, intravenously, days 1 and 15) in combination with the CD27 costimulatory monoclonal antibody [CDX-1127/varlilumab (3 mg/kg, intravenously, days 1 and 15)], with/without the addition of an MEK inhibitor [cobimetinib (60 mg, orally, daily, days 1–21, off days 22–28)] in unresectable biliary tract cancer following at least one metastatic therapy. Overall response rate (ORR) and PFS were coprimary endpoints. Treatment-related changes in CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) were the primary correlative outcomes. Results: The trial was closed early following interim preplanned ORR analysis. At closure, 57 patients had been enrolled [n = 29 in the cobimetinib + atezolizumab + varlilumab (CAV) arm; n = 28 in the atezolizumab + varlilumab (AV) arm]. A majority (67%) had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and 32% were immunotherapy experienced. Both regimens were well tolerated without new safety signals. Objective responses were rare [0% (CAV); 3.8% (AV)]. The median PFS (mPFS) was 2.40 (CAV) and 1.84 (AV) months [hazard ratio (HR), 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38–1.18]. Among immunotherapy-experienced patients, the mPFS was 3.62 (CAV) and 1.84 (AV) months (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.18–1.62). Treatment with CAV increased intratumoral CD8+ T-cell density compared with treatment with AV. Conclusions: The combinations of atezolizumab and varlilumab with/without cobimetinib were safe, but neither meaningfully improved outcomes in biliary tract cancer treated in the later lines. Correlative tissue studies validated preclinical work that MEKi increases CD8+ TILs.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is the second-most lethal cancer in the United States, with Barrett esophagus (BE) being the strongest risk factor. Assessing the future risk of neoplastic progression in patients with BE is difficult; however, high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and early EAC are treatable by endoscopic eradication therapy (EET), with survival rates of 90%. Thus, it would be beneficial to develop a molecular assay to identify high-risk patients, who merit more frequent endoscopic surveillance or EET, as well as low-risk patients, who can avoid EET and undergo less frequent surveillance. METHODS: Deidentified endoscopic biopsies were acquired from 240 patients with BE at 6 centers and confirmed as future progressors or nonprogressors. Tissues were analyzed by a set of methylation-specific biomarker assays. Test performance was assessed in an independent validation set using 4 stratification levels: low risks, low-moderate risks, high-moderate risks, and high risks. RESULTS: Relative to patients in the low-risk group, high-risk patients were 15.2 times more likely to progress within 5 years to HGD or EAC. For patients in the high-risk category, the average risk of progressing to HGD or EAC within 5 years was 21.5%, 4-fold the BE population prevalence within 5 years, whereas low-risk patients had a progression risk of only 1.85%. DISCUSSION: This clinical assay, Esopredict, stratifies future neoplastic progression risk to identify higher-risk patients with BE who can benefit from EET or more frequent surveillance and lower-risk patients who can benefit from reduced surveillance.

PURPOSE Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/ 2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. METHODS We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/ 2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. RESULTS A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA 50 responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively ( P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity. CONCLUSION PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.