Moore, Nancy

We previously reported initial results of the pivotal phase II trial of atezolizumab for patients with alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03141684 ). Here, we report on three additional years of observation. Fifty-three patients with ASPS received atezolizumab. Median duration of response increased to 37.0 months. Objective response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) remained essentially as previously reported (35.8% [95% CI, 23.1 to 50.2] and 20.8 months [IQR, 7.6-not reached], respectively). ASPSCR1::TFE3 fusion type was determined for 47/53 patients; ORR and mPFS were higher among the 41 patients expressing type 1 (43.9% [95% CI, 28.5 to 60.2] and 28.3 months [IQR, 9.2-not reached], respectively) than the six patients expressing type 2 (0% [95% CI, 0 to 45.9] and 7.5 months [IQR, 3.9-not reached], respectively, PFS HR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.01 to 10.2]). Eleven patients chose a per-protocol drug holiday (range, 3.5-26.4 months) after ≥2 years of treatment; two experienced disease progression during the holiday. Nine eligible patients elected to receive bevacizumab plus atezolizumab after progressing on monotherapy; ORR was 0% and mPFS was 18.5 months (IQR, 7.9-21.1) in this small cohort. Long-term results support using atezolizumab to treat ASPS, even for several years; a drug holiday with careful monitoring may be an option for some patients.

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.