PURPOSE This trial assessed the utility of applying tumor DNA sequencing to treatment selection for patients with advanced, refractory cancer and somatic mutations in one of four signaling pathways by comparing the efficacy of four study regimens that were either matched to the patient's aberrant pathway (experimental arm) or not matched to that pathway (control arm). MATERIALS AND METHODS Adult patients with an actionable mutation of interest were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either (1) a study regimen identified to target the aberrant pathway found in their tumor (veliparib with temozolomide or adavosertib with carboplatin [DNA repair pathway], everolimus [PI3K pathway], or trametinib [RAS/RAF/MEK pathway]), or (2) one of the same four regimens, but chosen from among those not targeting that pathway. RESULTS Among 49 patients treated in the experimental arm, the objective response rate was 2% (95% CI, 0% to 10.9%). One of 20 patients (5%) in the experimental trametinib cohort had a partial response. There were no responses in the other cohorts. Although patients and physicians were blinded to the sequencing and random assignment results, a higher pretreatment dropout rate was observed in the control arm (22%) compared with the experimental arm (6%; P = .038), suggesting that some patients may have had prior tumor mutation profiling performed that led to a lack of participation in the control arm. CONCLUSION Further investigation, better annotation of predictive biomarkers, and the development of more effective agents are necessary to inform treatment decisions in an era of precision cancer medicine. Increasing prevalence of tumor mutation profiling and preference for targeted therapy make it difficult to use a randomized phase II design to evaluate targeted therapy efficacy in an advanced disease setting.
Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Abstract Esophageal cancer is the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common histology in Eastern Europe and Asia, and adenocarcinoma is most common in North America and Western Europe. Surgery is a major component of treatment of locally advanced resectable esophageal and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer, and randomized trials have shown that the addition of preoperative chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy to surgery significantly improves survival. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, ramucirumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with esophageal and EGJ cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on recommendations for the management of locally advanced and metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and EGJ.
Phase Ib study of mapatumumab in combination with sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and chronic viral hepatitis.
261 Background: Mapatumumab is a fully human agonist monoclonal antibody to the tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand receptor 1 (TRAIL-R1). Sorafenib targets Mcl-1, a key TRAIL resistance protein, and accordingly could enhance mapatumumab's pro-apoptotic activity. Based on this and on preclinical data on mapatumumab in HCC cell lines, the current dose-escalation study is evaluating mapatumumab in combination with sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC. Methods: Eligible patients had advanced HCC, Child-Pugh A or Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score < 15, and were positive for hepatitis B surface antigen or hepatitis C antibody. Intravenous mapatumumab was administered at 3, 10 or 30 mg/kg every 21 days with sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included events considered at least possibly related to mapatumumab and/or its interaction with sorafenib. Tumor measurements were performed every 2 cycles. Dose escalation required at least 3 patients in a cohort to receive >= 50% of full-dose sorafenib in the first 2 cycles. Results: To date, 19 patients have been enrolled in the 3 mg/kg (n=6), 10 mg/kg (n=9) and 30 mg/kg (n=4) cohorts and have received a median of 4 cycles (range 1 to 24 cycles); 4 patients have received >= 11 cycles. The maximum tolerated dose has not been reached. DLTs that prompted expansion of the 3 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg cohorts were elevations of amylase and/or lipase (1 at 3 mg/kg, 1 at 10 mg/kg). Other Grade 3-4 events considered at least possibly related to mapatumumab and/or its interaction with sorafenib included hepatic pain (1/17), thrombocytopenia (1/17), increased aspartate aminotransferase (1/17), increased lipase (1/17), and increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (1/17). Two patients have had a partial response and 4 patients have had stable disease lasting > 12 weeks, based on investigator assessment. Conclusions: Mapatumumab was well-tolerated at doses up to 30 mg/kg in combination with sorafenib in patients with HCC and viral hepatitis. A randomized phase II study of this combination in patients with advanced HCC is planned. [Table: see text]