Citations

Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 10 6 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 10 8 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.

Purpose Abemaciclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy as monotherapy and in combination with fulvestrant in women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer previously treated with endocrine therapy. Methods MONARCH 3 is a double-blind, randomized phase III study of abemaciclib or placebo plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in 493 postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting. Patients received abemaciclib or placebo (150 mg twice daily continuous schedule) plus either 1 mg anastrozole or 2.5 mg letrozole, daily. The primary objective was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary objectives included response evaluation and safety. A planned interim analysis occurred after 189 events. Results Median progression-free survival was significantly prolonged in the abemaciclib arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.72; P = .000021; median: not reached in the abemaciclib arm, 14.7 months in the placebo arm). In patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was 59% in the abemaciclib arm and 44% in the placebo arm ( P = .004). In the abemaciclib arm, diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect (81.3%) but was mainly grade 1 (44.6%). Comparing abemaciclib and placebo, the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21.1% v 1.2%), diarrhea (9.5% v 1.2%), and leukopenia (7.6% v 0.6%). Conclusion Abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor was effective as initial therapy, significantly improving progression-free survival and objective response rate and demonstrating a tolerable safety profile in women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

A simple, and yet robust, high pass filter is designed to remove non-linear background drift in fast scan cyclic voltammetry.

Abstract Purpose: Current clinical parameters do not stratify indolent from aggressive prostate cancer. Aggressive prostate cancer, defined by the progression from localized disease to metastasis, is responsible for the majority of prostate cancer–associated mortality. Recent gene expression profiling has proven successful in predicting the outcome of prostate cancer patients; however, they have yet to provide targeted therapy approaches that could inhibit a patient's progression to metastatic disease. Experimental Design: We have interrogated a total of seven primary prostate cancer cohorts (n = 1,900), two metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer datasets (n = 293), and one prospective cohort (n = 1,385) to assess the impact of TOP2A and EZH2 expression on prostate cancer cellular program and patient outcomes. We also performed IHC staining for TOP2A and EZH2 in a cohort of primary prostate cancer patients (n = 89) with known outcome. Finally, we explored the therapeutic potential of a combination therapy targeting both TOP2A and EZH2 using novel prostate cancer–derived murine cell lines. Results: We demonstrate by genome-wide analysis of independent primary and metastatic prostate cancer datasets that concurrent TOP2A and EZH2 mRNA and protein upregulation selected for a subgroup of primary and metastatic patients with more aggressive disease and notable overlap of genes involved in mitotic regulation. Importantly, TOP2A and EZH2 in prostate cancer cells act as key driving oncogenes, a fact highlighted by sensitivity to combination-targeted therapy. Conclusions: Overall, our data support further assessment of TOP2A and EZH2 as biomarkers for early identification of patients with increased metastatic potential that may benefit from adjuvant or neoadjuvant targeted therapy approaches. Clin Cancer Res; 23(22); 7072–83. ©2017 AACR.

Abstract Background: Comorbidities can affect survival of ovarian cancer patients by influencing treatment efficacy. However, little evidence exists on the association between individual concurrent comorbidities and prognosis in ovarian cancer patients. Methods: Among patients diagnosed with invasive ovarian carcinoma who participated in 23 studies included in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, we explored associations between histories of endometriosis; asthma; depression; osteoporosis; and autoimmune, gallbladder, kidney, liver, and neurological diseases and overall and progression-free survival. Using Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage of disease, histology, and study site, we estimated pooled HRs and 95% confidence intervals to assess associations between each comorbidity and ovarian cancer outcomes. Results: None of the comorbidities were associated with ovarian cancer outcome in the overall sample nor in strata defined by histologic subtype, weight status, age at diagnosis, or stage of disease (local/regional vs. advanced). Conclusions: Histories of endometriosis; asthma; depression; osteoporosis; and autoimmune, gallbladder, kidney, liver, or neurologic diseases were not associated with ovarian cancer overall or progression-free survival. Impact: These previously diagnosed chronic diseases do not appear to affect ovarian cancer prognosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(9); 1470–3. ©2017 AACR.