Lih, Chih‐Jian

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.

5020 Background: V+C was well tolerated in a phase I trial and responses and prolonged disease stabilization were observed in BRCA + patients (pts).To assess the relative contribution of the PARP inhibitor to the efficacy observed for the combination, we conducted a randomized multicenter trial comparing the response rate (RR) of V and C to the RR of C alone in patients with deleterious BRCA mutations and recurrent ovarian, or primary peritoneal, fallopian tube or high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Methods: Pts were ≥ 18 yrs, KPS ≥ 70%, had adequate organ function, prior therapy with PARP inhibitors was allowed.Both drugs were administered orally qd; C 50 mg, V 60 mg; 21 day cycles. Pts were randomized to receive either C alone or V+C. At disease progression, pts on C alone were allowed to cross over to the combination. Radiologic imaging was performed at baseline and q 3 cycles for assessment of response. Dose reduction of V was allowed to 40 mg for gr 3 non-hematologic or gr 4 hematologic toxicities. The study design had an 88% power to detect the difference between a 15% RR for C alone versus 35% for V+C, early closure if fewer responses were observed on the combination arm in the first 65 pts enrolled (half of the total projected accrual). Results: Total of 74 pts were enrolled (36 pts C, 38 pts V+C), median age 58 (37-79 yrs), # of prior therapies: median 4 (1-9), 2 pts had prior PARP therapy. Treatment was well tolerated, Gr ≥ 2 toxicities per arm for initial regimen (# of pts): C alone: lymphopenia (2), mucositis (1); V+C: lymphopenia (4), anemia (2), leucopenia (2), neutropenia (2). Of the 74 pts evaluable for response at the interim analysis, 3 PRs observed in 36 pts on V+C and 5 PRs of 38 pts on C alone arm; thus accrual was stopped. PAR levels assessed by validated ELISA were inhibited (>80%) in PBMCs in 9/10 pts 4 hours post V, no inhibition with C alone. Conclusions: Addition of V, a PARP inhibitor, to C did not improve RR versus C alone. Exomic sequencing, gene expression studies, and Fanconi Anemia triple stain immunofluorescence (FATSI) assay for FancD2 nuclear foci formation using archival tissue are ongoing.

Abstract Background The proportion of tumors of various histologies that may respond to drugs targeted to molecular alterations is unknown. NCI-MATCH, a collaboration between ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and the National Cancer Institute, was initiated to find efficacy signals by matching patients with refractory malignancies to treatment targeted to potential tumor molecular drivers regardless of cancer histology. Methods Trial development required assumptions about molecular target prevalence, accrual rates, treatment eligibility, and enrollment rates as well as consideration of logistical requirements. Central tumor profiling was performed with an investigational next-generation DNA–targeted sequencing assay of alterations in 143 genes, and protein expression of protein expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog, mutL homolog 1, mutS homolog 2, and RB transcriptional corepressor 1. Treatments were allocated with a validated computational platform (MATCHBOX). A preplanned interim analysis evaluated assumptions and feasibility in this novel trial. Results At interim analysis, accrual was robust, tumor biopsies were safe (<1% severe events), and profiling success was 87.3%. Actionable molecular alteration frequency met expectations, but assignment and enrollment lagged due to histology exclusions and mismatch of resources to demand. To address this lag, we revised estimates of mutation frequencies, increased screening sample size, added treatments, and improved assay throughput and efficiency (93.9% completion and 14-day turnaround). Conclusions The experiences in the design and implementation of the NCI-MATCH trial suggest that profiling from fresh tumor biopsies and assigning treatment can be performed efficiently in a large national network trial. The success of such trials necessitates a broad screening approach and many treatment options easily accessible to patients.

BACKGROUND It is possible that the relative lack of progress in treatment outcomes among adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer is caused by a difference in disease biology compared with the corresponding diseases in younger and older individuals. There is evidence that colon cancer is more aggressive and has a poorer prognosis in AYA patients than in older adult patients. METHODS To further understand the molecular basis for this difference, whole‐exome sequencing was conducted on a cohort of 30 adult, 30 AYA, and 2 pediatric colon cancers. RESULTS A statistically significant difference in mutational frequency was observed between AYA and adult samples in 43 genes, including ROBO1 , MYC binding protein 2 ( MYCBP2 ), breast cancer 2 (early onset) ( BRCA2 ), MAP3K3, MCPH1, RASGRP3, PTCH1, RAD9B, CTNND1, ATM, NF1 ; KIT, PTEN , and FBXW7 . Many of these mutations were nonsynonymous, missense, stop‐gain, or frameshift mutations that were damaging. Next, RNA sequencing was performed on a subset of the samples to confirm the mutations identified by exome sequencing. This confirmation study verified the presence of a significantly greater frequency of damaging mutations in AYA compared with adult colon cancers for 5 of the 43 genes ( MYCBP2, BRCA2, PHLPP1, TOPORS , and ATR ). CONCLUSIONS The current results provide the rationale for a more comprehensive study with a larger sample set and experimental validation of the functional impact of the identified variants along with their contribution to the biologic and clinical characteristics of AYA colon cancer. Cancer 2018;124:1070‐82. © 2017 American Cancer Society .

Abstract Purpose: Randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2/3 trial investigating lenalidomide versus investigator's choice (IC) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Experimental Design: Patients with DLBCL who received ≥2 prior therapies were stratified by DLBCL subtype [germinal center B-cell (GCB) vs. non-GCB; determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC)] and then randomized 1:1 to lenalidomide (25 mg/day, 21 days of 28-day cycle) or IC (gemcitabine, rituximab, etoposide, or oxaliplatin). Crossover to lenalidomide was permitted for IC-treated patients with radiologically confirmed progressive disease. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and subtype analysis [GCB vs. activated B-cell (ABC)] using gene expression profiling (GEP) were exploratory endpoints. Results: Stage 1: 102 DLBCL patients (by IHC: non-GCB, n = 54; GCB, n = 48) received ≥1 dose of lenalidomide or IC. Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events with lenalidomide versus IC included neutropenia (42.6%; 36.4%), anemia (33.3%; 47.3%), thrombocytopenia (24.1%; 43.6%), and leukopenia (5.6%; 12.7%), respectively. Overall, lenalidomide-treated patients had an ORR of 27.5% versus 11.8% in IC (ORRs were similar regardless of IHC-defined DLBCL subtype). Median PFS was increased in patients receiving lenalidomide (13.6 weeks) versus IC (7.9 weeks; P = 0.041), with greater improvements in non-GCB patients (15.1 vs. 7.1 weeks, respectively; P = 0.021) compared with GCB (10.1 vs. 9.0 weeks, respectively; P = 0.550). Conclusions: The clinical benefit of lenalidomide monotherapy in DLBCL patients was more evident in the non-GCB subtype. Exploratory analyses suggest that this preferential benefit was more pronounced in the GEP-defined ABC population, demonstrating a need for additional studies of lenalidomide in DLBCL using GEP subtyping. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4127–37. ©2017 AACR.