Mills, Gordon B.

Abstract Systematic multiomic analysis has revealed ancestry-dependent molecular alterations, but their impact on the efficacy of anticancer treatment is yet largely unknown. In this study, we analyzed clinical trials from ClinicalTrials.gov and found that only 8,779/102,721 (8.5%) oncology clinical trials posted information on enrollment by race/ethnicity. The underrepresentation of non-White populations suggests that it remains challenging to determine differences in the efficacy of antitumor treatments among different racial groups. Through a comprehensive analysis of clinically actionable genes, imputed drug responses, and immune features, we identified potential differences in treatment responses to targeted therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy between different ancestral populations. Further analysis of multiple independent cohorts confirmed some of our key findings. Such potential ancestral effects are also identified in response to emerging new treatments like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and proteolysis-targeting chimeras. These findings are made publicly available in a comprehensive web portal, Ancestral Differences of Efficacy in Cancers (https://hanlaboratory.com/ADEC), to facilitate their further investigation. Significance: Our study charts a global landscape of ancestry-associated differences in therapeutic efficacy, highlighting the importance of considering ancestry in anticancer therapies.

Abstract Purpose: Mutations in KRAS/NRAS (RAS) predict lack of anti-EGFR efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, it is unclear if all RAS mutations have similar impact, and atypical mutations beyond those in standard guidelines exist. Experimental Design: We reviewed 7 tissue and 1 cell-free DNA cohorts of 9,485 patients to characterize atypical RAS variants. Using an in vitro cell-based assay (functional annotation for cancer treatment), Ba/F3 transformation, and in vivo xenograft models of transduced isogenic clones, we assessed signaling changes across mutations. Results: KRAS exon 2, extended RAS, and atypical RAS mutations were noted in 37.8%, 9.5%, and 1.2% of patients, respectively. Among atypical variants, KRAS L19F, Q22K, and D33E occurred at prevalence ≥0.1%, whereas no NRAS codon 117/146 and only one NRAS codon 59 mutation was noted. Atypical RAS mutations had worse overall survival than RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC (HR, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.24–6.80; P = 0.014). We functionally characterized 114 variants with the FACT assay. All KRAS exon 2 and extended RAS mutations appeared activating. Of 57 atypical RAS variants characterized, 18 (31.6%) had signaling below wild-type, 23 (40.4%) had signaling between wild-type and activating control, and 16 (28.1%) were hyperactive beyond the activating control. Ba/F3 transformation (17/18 variants) and xenograft model (7/8 variants) validation was highly concordant with FACT results, and activating atypical variants were those that occurred at highest prevalence in clinical cohorts. Conclusions: We provide best available evidence to guide treatment when atypical RAS variants are identified. KRAS L19F, Q22K, D33E, and T50I are more prevalent than many guideline-included RAS variants and functionally relevant.

Abstract Background Accumulated evidence supports the existence of sex-associated differences in immune systems. Understanding the role of sex in immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is important for management of irAE in patients receiving immunotherapy. Methods We performed meta-analysis on published clinical study data and multivariable logistic regression on pharmacovigilance data and applied a propensity algorithm to The Cancer Genome Atlas omics data. We further validated our observations in 2 independent in-house cohorts of 179 and 767 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Results A meta-analysis using 13 clinical studies that reported on 1096 female patients (36.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 35.0% to 38.5%) and 1886 male patients (63.2%, 95% CI = 61.5% to 65.0%) demonstrated no statistically significant irAE risk difference between the sexes (odds ratio [OR] = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.54, 2-sided P = .21). Multivariable logistic regression analysis of 12 225 patients from the Food and drug administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and 10 979 patients from VigiBase showed no statistically significant difference in irAEs by sex. A propensity score algorithm used on multi-omics data for 6019 patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas found no statistically significant difference by sex for irAE-related factors or pathways. The retrospective analysis of 2 in-house patient cohorts validated these results (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.98 to 2.47, false discovery rate = 0.13, for cohort 1; OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.57, false discovery rate = 0.39, for cohort 2). Conclusions We observed minimal sex-associated differences in irAEs among cancer patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It may be unnecessary to consider sex effects for irAE management in clinical practice.

AbstractBackgroundBRCA1 methylation has been associated with homologous recombination deficiency, a biomarker of platinum sensitivity. Studies evaluating BRCA1-methylated tubal and ovarian cancer (OC) do not consistently support improved survival following platinum chemotherapy. We examine the characteristics of BRCA1-methylated OC in a meta-analysis of individual participant data.MethodsData of 2636 participants across 15 studies were analyzed. BRCA1-methylated tumors were defined according to their original study. Associations between BRCA1 methylation and clinicopathological characteristics were evaluated. The effects of methylation on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were examined using mixed-effects models. All statistical tests were 2-sided.Results430 (16.3%) tumors were BRCA1-methylated. BRCA1 methylation was associated with younger age and advanced-stage, high-grade serous OC. There were no survival differences between BRCA1-methylated and non–BRCA1-methylated OC (median PFS = 20.0 vs 18.5 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.16; P = .98; median OS = 46.6 vs 48.0 months, HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.18; P = .96). Where BRCA1/2 mutations were evaluated (n = 1248), BRCA1 methylation displayed no survival advantage over BRCA1/2-intact (BRCA1/2 wild-type non–BRCA1-methylated) OC. Studies used different methods to define BRCA1 methylation. Where BRCA1 methylation was determined using methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction and gel electrophoresis (n = 834), it was associated with improved survival (PFS: HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.97; P = .02; OS: HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.00; P = .05) on mixed-effects modeling.ConclusionBRCA1-methylated OC displays similar clinicopathological features to BRCA1-mutated OC but is not associated with survival. Heterogeneity within BRCA1 methylation assays influences associations. Refining these assays may better identify cases with silenced BRCA1 function and improved patient outcomes.

Abstract Background: In vivo synergy with concurrent PI3-Kinase inhibition and PARP inhibition has been observed in BRCA-deficient and BRCA-proficient preclinical models of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and ovarian cancer (OC). A phase I trial of the oral pan-class I PI3-Kinase inhibitor BKM120 and the PARP inhibitor olaparib demonstrated anti-cancer activity in TNBC and OC, both in patients with and without germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations. However, CNS toxicity (depression) and liver function test abnormalities limited dose escalation of BKM120 prompting evaluation of the alpha specific PI3-Kinase inhibitor BYL719 (which has no CNS toxicity) in combination with olaparib. Methods: Olaparib was administered twice daily (tablet formulation) and BYL719 daily on a 28-day cycle, both orally. A 3 + 3 dose-escalation design was employed with primary objectives of defining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose of the combination of BYL719 and olaparib, and secondary objectives of defining toxicity, activity, and pharmacokinetic profiles of both agents. Eligibility included recurrent TNBC or high grade serous (HGS) OC, or any histology OC or breast cancer (BC) with presence of a known germline BRCA mutation, performance status of 0-1 and measurable/evaluable cancer. Patients with platinum sensitive or resistant or refractory OC were eligible and prior PARP inhibitor use was allowed. Dose-expansion cohorts at the MTD were enrolled for both BC and OC. Results: 46 patients (16 BC and 30 OC) have been enrolled in the study; 28 patients participated in the dose escalation portion of the study (4 BC and 24 OC). Two patients with OC did not receive study drugs because of ineligibility. MTD was defined as BYL719 200mg once daily and olaparib 200mg twice daily. Dose limiting toxicities included hyperglycemia, rash and fever with decreased neutrophil count. Four patients (3 OC and 1 BC) discontinued protocol therapy because of toxicity (2 for hyperglycemia, 1 for nausea and 1 for allergic reaction). Most common toxicities included nausea, hyperglycemia, fatigue, diarrhea and vomiting. At the MTD, 6 patients with OC and 12 patients with BC were enrolled into a dose expansion cohort. The OC expansion cohort has completed enrollment, while the BC cohort is still enrolling. Among patients with OC who received study drugs (28 patients, 26 (93%) with platinum resistant disease), objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1 was 36% (10/28 patients, all partial responses (PRs)). Median duration of response was 167 days (range 16-398 days); 5 of 10 patients with PR remain on treatment. ORR was 33% for patients with germline BRCA mutations and 31% for patients without germline BRCA mutations. Among patients without germline BRCA mutations with platinum resistant OC, ORR was 29%. Conclusions: Combined BYL719 and olaparib is feasible, and similar clinical benefit was observed in patients with and without germline BRCA mutations. The activity of this combination in OC patients without germline BRCA mutations and with platinum resistant disease was higher than expected from olaparib monotherapy and warrants further investigation. This work was funded in part by the Stand Up To Cancer Ovarian Dream Team. Clinical trial: NCT01623349. Citation Format: Panagiotis A. Konstantinopoulos, William T. Barry, Michael Birrer, Shannon N. Westin, Sarah Farooq, Karen Cadoo, Christin Whalen, Weixiu Luo, Hui Liu, Carol Aghajanian, David B. Solit, Gordon B. Mills, Barry S. Taylor, Helen Won, Michael F. Berger, Sangeetha Palakurthi, Joyce F. Liu, Lew Cantley, Scott H. Kaufmann, Elizabeth M. Swisher, Alan D. D'Andrea, Eric Winer, Gerburg M. Wulf, Ursula A. Matulonis. Phase I study of the alpha specific PI3-Kinase inhibitor BYL719 and the poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib in recurrent ovarian and breast cancer: Analysis of the dose escalation and ovarian cancer expansion cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT008. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-CT008

Abstract Biomarkers that select patients for therapeutics would benefit clinical trial design and patient care. The Akt pathway is a therapeutic target in Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) and an important determinant of patient outcome. However, it is not known whether activity of this pathway varies among GBM tumors. To investigate we used Akt pathway genes from published GBM expression datasets. We detected 5 patterns of Akt pathway gene expression and these Akt subgroups correlated with prognosis. We analyzed networks within subgroups using both gene set enrichment analysis and a novel method that scores relevance based on both expression and local network connectivity (Komurov et al., PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 6:8, 1-10). The results suggest therapeutic targets within the individual subgroups. Furthermore, preliminary analysis indicates that human GBM xenograft models and primary human GBM manifest similar Akt subgroups. We are investigating rodent xenograft models of Akt subgroups to evaluate subgroup-specific drug sensitivity, and will present a method and examples of analysis integrating gene expression data from human GBM xenografts and primary human GBM. We hypothesize that Akt subgroups will help personalize treatment for GBM therapeutics. Supported by Barrow Neurological Foundation, Halle Family Foundation, and NIH 1 K01 NS064952-01A1 (AMJ). Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 4138. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-4138

AbstractThis article reviews progress in chemopreventive drug development, especially data and concepts that are new since the 2002 AACR report on treatment and prevention of intraepithelial neoplasia. Molecular biomarker expressions involved in mechanisms of carcinogenesis and genetic progression models of intraepithelial neoplasia are discussed and analyzed for how they can inform mechanism-based, molecularly targeted drug development as well as risk stratification, cohort selection, and end-point selection for clinical trials. We outline the concept of augmenting the risk, mechanistic, and disease data from histopathologic intraepithelial neoplasia assessments with molecular biomarker data. Updates of work in 10 clinical target organ sites include new data on molecular progression, significant completed trials, new agents of interest, and promising directions for future clinical studies. This overview concludes with strategies for accelerating chemopreventive drug development, such as integrating the best science into chemopreventive strategies and regulatory policy, providing incentives for industry to accelerate preventive drugs, fostering multisector cooperation in sharing clinical samples and data, and creating public-private partnerships to foster new regulatory policies and public education.

Abstract Purpose: Advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer has a poor prognosis with long-term survival in less than 30% of patients. When the disease is detected in stage I, more than 90% of patients can be cured by conventional therapy. Screening for early-stage disease with individual serum tumor markers, such as CA125, is limited by the fact that no single marker is up-regulated and shed in adequate amounts by all ovarian cancers. Consequently, use of multiple markers in combination might detect a larger fraction of early-stage ovarian cancers. Experimental Design: To identify potential candidates for novel markers, we have used Affymetrix human genome arrays (U95 series) to analyze differences in gene expression of 41,441 known genes and expressed sequence tags between five pools of normal ovarian surface epithelial cells (OSE) and 42 epithelial ovarian cancers of different stages, grades, and histotypes. Recursive descent partition analysis (RDPA) was performed with 102 probe sets representing 86 genes that were up-regulated at least 3-fold in epithelial ovarian cancers when compared with normal OSE. In addition, a panel of 11 genes known to encode potential tumor markers [mucin 1, transmembrane (MUC1), mucin 16 (CA125), mesothelin, WAP four-disulfide core domain 2 (HE4), kallikrein 6, kallikrein 10, matrix metalloproteinase 2, prostasin, osteopontin, tetranectin, and inhibin] were similarly analyzed. Results: The 3-fold up-regulated genes were examined and four genes [Notch homologue 3 (NOTCH3), E2F transcription factor 3 (E2F3), GTPase activating protein (RACGAP1), and hematological and neurological expressed 1 (HN1)] distinguished all tumor samples from normal OSE. The 3-fold up-regulated genes were analyzed using RDPA, and the combination of elevated claudin 3 (CLDN3) and elevated vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) distinguished the cancers from normal OSE. The 11 known markers were analyzed using RDPA, and a combination of HE4, CA125, and MUC1 expression could distinguish tumor from normal specimens. Expression at the mRNA level in the candidate markers was examined via semiquantitative reverse transcription-PCR and was found to correlate well with the array data. Immunohistochemistry was performed to identify expression of the genes at the protein level in 158 ovarian cancers of different histotypes. A combination of CLDN3, CA125, and MUC1 stained 157 (99.4%) of 158 cancers, and all of the tumors were detected with a combination of CLDN3, CA125, MUC1, and VEGF. Conclusions: Our data are consistent with the possibility that a limited number of markers in combination might identify >99% of epithelial ovarian cancers despite the heterogeneity of the disease.

Abstract Purpose: Epithelial ovarian cancers are thought to arise from flattened epithelial cells that cover the ovarian surface or that line inclusion cysts. During malignant transformation, different histotypes arise that resemble epithelial cells from normal fallopian tube, endometrium, and intestine. This study compares gene expression in serous, endometrioid, clear cell, and mucinous ovarian cancers with that in the normal tissues that they resemble. Experimental Design: Expression of 63,000 probe sets was measured in 50 ovarian cancers, in 5 pools of normal ovarian epithelial brushings, and in mucosal scrapings from 4 normal fallopian tube, 5 endometrium, and 4 colon specimens. Using rank-sum analysis, genes whose expressions best differentiated the ovarian cancer histotypes and normal ovarian epithelium were used to determine whether a correlation based on gene expression existed between ovarian cancer histotypes and the normal tissues they resemble. Results: When compared with normal ovarian epithelial brushings, alterations in serous tumors correlated with those in normal fallopian tube (P = 0.0042) but not in other normal tissues. Similarly, mucinous cancers correlated with those in normal colonic mucosa (P = 0.0003), and both endometrioid and clear cell histotypes correlated with changes in normal endometrium (P = 0.0172 and 0.0002, respectively). Mucinous cancers displayed the greatest number of alterations in gene expression when compared with normal ovarian epithelial cells. Conclusion: Studies at a molecular level show distinct expression profiles of different histologies of ovarian cancer and support the long-held belief that histotypes of ovarian cancers come to resemble normal fallopian tube, endometrial, and colonic epithelium. Several potential molecular markers for mucinous ovarian cancers have been identified.