Citations

Abstract Purpose: HER2 mutations (HER2mut) induce endocrine resistance in estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer. Patients and Methods: In this single-arm multi-cohort phase II trial, we evaluated the efficacy of neratinib plus fulvestrant in patients with ER+/HER2mut, HER2 non-amplified metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in the fulvestrant-treated (n = 24) or fulvestrant-naïve cohort (n = 11). Patients with ER-negative (ER−)/HER2mut MBC received neratinib monotherapy in an exploratory ER− cohort (n = 5). Results: The clinical benefit rate [CBR (95% confidence interval)] was 38% (18%–62%), 30% (7%–65%), and 25% (1%–81%) in the fulvestrant-treated, fulvestrant-naïve, and ER− cohorts, respectively. Adding trastuzumab at progression in 5 patients resulted in three partial responses and one stable disease ≥24 weeks. CBR appeared positively associated with lobular histology and negatively associated with HER2 L755 alterations. Acquired HER2mut were detected in 5 of 23 patients at progression. Conclusions: Neratinib and fulvestrant are active for ER+/HER2mut MBC. Our data support further evaluation of dual HER2 blockade for the treatment of HER2mut MBC.

AbstractBackgroundThe incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) among individuals aged younger than 50 years has been increasing. As screening guidelines lower the recommended age of screening initiation, concerns including the burden on screening capacity and costs have been recognized, suggesting that an individualized approach may be warranted. We developed risk prediction models for early-onset CRC that incorporate an environmental risk score (ERS), including 16 lifestyle and environmental factors, and a polygenic risk score (PRS) of 141 variants.MethodsRelying on risk score weights for ERS and PRS derived from studies of CRC at all ages, we evaluated risks for early-onset CRC in 3486 cases and 3890 controls aged younger than 50 years. Relative and absolute risks for early-onset CRC were assessed according to values of the ERS and PRS. The discriminatory performance of these scores was estimated using the covariate-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.ResultsIncreasing values of ERS and PRS were associated with increasing relative risks for early-onset CRC (odds ratio per SD of ERS = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08 to 1.20; odds ratio per SD of PRS = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.68), both contributing to case-control discrimination (area under the curve = 0.631, 95% CI = 0.615 to 0.647). Based on absolute risks, we can expect 26 excess cases per 10 000 men and 21 per 10 000 women among those scoring at the 90th percentile for both risk scores.ConclusionsPersonal risk scores have the potential to identify individuals at differential relative and absolute risk for early-onset CRC. Improved discrimination may aid in targeted CRC screening of younger, high-risk individuals, potentially improving outcomes.

Abstract Purpose: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is molecularly and clinically heterogeneous, and can be subtyped according to genetic alterations, cell-of-origin, or microenvironmental signatures using high-throughput genomic data at the DNA or RNA level. Although high-throughput proteomic profiling has not been available for DLBCL subtyping, MYC/BCL2 protein double expression (DE) is an established prognostic biomarker in DLBCL. The purpose of this study is to reveal the relative prognostic roles of DLBCL genetic, phenotypic, and microenvironmental biomarkers. Experimental Design: We performed targeted next-generation sequencing; IHC for MYC, BCL2, and FN1; and fluorescent multiplex IHC for microenvironmental markers in a large cohort of DLBCL. We performed correlative and prognostic analyses within and across DLBCL genetic subtypes and MYC/BCL2 double expressors. Results: We found that MYC/BCL2 double-high-expression (DhE) had significant adverse prognostic impact within the EZB genetic subtype and LymphGen-unclassified DLBCL cases but not within MCD and ST2 genetic subtypes. Conversely, KMT2D mutations significantly stratified DhE but not non-DhE DLBCL. T-cell infiltration showed favorable prognostic effects within BN2, MCD, and DhE but unfavorable effects within ST2 and LymphGen-unclassified cases. FN1 and PD-1–high expression had significant adverse prognostic effects within multiple DLBCL genetic/phenotypic subgroups. The prognostic effects of DhE and immune biomarkers within DLBCL genetic subtypes were independent although DhE and high Ki-67 were significantly associated with lower T-cell infiltration in LymphGen-unclassified cases. Conclusions: Together, these results demonstrated independent and additive prognostic effects of phenotypic MYC/BCL2 and microenvironment biomarkers and genetic subtyping in DLBCL prognostication, important for improving DLBCL classification and identifying prognostic determinants and therapeutic targets.

Background: We hypothesized that the Effective radiation Dose to the Immune Cells (EDIC) in circulating blood is a significant factor for the treatment outcome in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: This is a secondary study of a phase III trial, NRG/RTOG 0617, in patients with stage III NSCLC treated with radiation-based treatment. The EDIC was computed as equivalent uniform dose to the entire blood based on radiation doses to all blood-containing organs, with consideration of blood flow and fractionation effect. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and local progression-free survival (LPFS). The EDIC–survival relationship was analyzed with consideration of clinical significant factors. Results: A total of 456 patients were eligible. The median EDIC values were 5.6 Gy (range, 2.1–12.2 Gy) and 6.3 Gy (2.1–11.6 Gy) for the low- and high-dose groups, respectively. The EDIC was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.12, p = 0.005) and LPFS (HR = 1.09, p = 0.02) but PFS (HR = 1.05, p = 0.17) after adjustment for tumor dose, gross tumor volume and other factors. OS decreased with an increasing EDIC in a non-linear pattern: the two-year OS decreased first with a slope of 8%/Gy when the EDIC < 6 Gy, remained relatively unchanged when the EDIC was 6–8 Gy, and followed by a further reduction with a slope of 12%/Gy when the EDIC > 8 Gy. Conclusions: The EDIC is a significant independent risk factor for poor OS and LPFS in RTOG 0617 patients with stage III NSCLC, suggesting that radiation dose to circulating immune cells is critical for tumor control. Organ at risk for the immune system should be considered during RT plan.

AbstractPurposeDue to the employment of quadratic programming using soft constraints to implement dose volume constraints and the “trial‐and‐error” procedure needed to achieve a clinically acceptable plan, conventional dose volume constraints (upper limit) are not adequately effective in controlling small and isolated hot spots in the dose/linear energy transfer (LET) distribution. Such hot spots can lead to adverse events. In order to mitigate the risk of brain necrosis, one of the most clinically significant adverse events in patients receiving intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for base of skull (BOS) cancer, we propose per‐voxel constraints to minimize hot spots in LET‐guided robust optimization.Methods and materialsTen BOS cancer patients treated with IMPT were carefully selected by meeting one of the following conditions: (1) diagnosis of brain necrosis during follow‐up; and (2) considered high risk for brain necrosis by not meeting dose constraints to the brain. An optimizing structure (BrainOPT) and an evaluating structure (BrainROI) that both contained the aforementioned hot dose regions in the brain were generated for optimization and evaluation, respectively. Two plans were generated for every patient: one using conventional dose‐only robust optimization, the other using LET‐guided robust optimization. The impact of LET was integrated into the optimization via a term of extra biological dose (xBD). A novel optimization tool of per‐voxel constraints to control small and isolated hot spots in either the dose, LET, or combined (dose/LET) distribution was developed and used to minimize dose/LET hot spots of the selected structures. Indices from dose‐volume histogram (DVH) and xBD dose‐volume histogram (xBDVH) were used in the plan evaluation. A newly developed tool of the dose‐LET‐volume histogram (DLVH) was also adopted to illustrate the underlying mechanism. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used for statistical comparison of the DVH and xBDVH indices between the conventional dose‐only and the LET‐guided robustly optimized plans.ResultsPer‐voxel constraints effectively and efficiently minimized dose hot spots in both dose‐only and LET‐guided robust optimization and LET hot spots in LET‐guided robust optimization. Compared to the conventional dose‐only robust optimization, the LET‐guided robust optimization could generate plans with statistically lower xBD hot spots in BrainROI (VxBD,50 Gy[RBE], p = 0.009; VxBD,60 Gy[RBE], p = 0.025; xBD1cc, p = 0.017; xBD2cc, p = 0.022) with comparable dose coverage, dose hot spots in the target, and dose hot spots in BrainROI. DLVH analysis indicated that LET‐guided robust optimization could either reduce LET at the same dose level or redistribute high LET from high dose regions to low dose regions.ConclusionPer‐voxel constraint is a powerful tool to minimize dose/LET hot spots in IMPT. The LET‐guided robustly optimized plans outperformed the conventional dose‐only robustly optimized plans in terms of xBD hot spots control.

Abstract Introduction: Multiple studies have demonstrated that diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) can be divided into subgroups based on their biology. However, these biological subgroups overlap clinically. While R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) remains the standard of care for treating patients with DLBCL, predicting which patients will not benefit from such therapy is important so that alternative therapy or clinical trials can be considered. Most of the studies stratifying patients select biomarkers first, then explore how these biomarkers can stratify patients based on outcome. We explored the potential of using machine learning to first group patients with DLBCL based on survival, then isolating the biomarkers necessary for predicting these survival subgroups. Methods: RNA was extracted from tissue paraffin blocks from 379 R-CHOP treated patients with de novo DLBCL, and from 247 patients with extranodal DLBCL. A targeted hybrid capture RNA panel of 1408 genes was used for next generation sequencing (NGS). Sequencing was performed using an Illumina NextSeq 550 System platform. Ten million reads per sample in a single run were required, and the read length was 2 × 150 bp. An expression profile was generated from the sequencing coverage profile of each individual sample using Cufflinks. A machine learning system was developed to classify patients into four groups based on their overall survival. This machine learning approach based on Naïve Bayesian algorithm was also used to discover the relevant subset of genes with which to classify patients into each of the four survival groups. To eliminate the underflow problem commonly associated with the standard Naïve Bayesian classifiers, we applied Geometric Mean Naïve Bayesian (GMNB) as the classifier to predict the survival group for each patient. Results: Using machine learning, patients were first divided into two groups: short survival (S) and long survival (L). To refine this model, we used the same approach and divided the patients in each group into two subgroups, generating four groups: long survival in the long group (LL), short survival in the long group (LS), long survival in the short group (SL), and short survival in the short group (SS). The hazard ratio for this model was 0.174 (confidence interval: 0.120-0.251), and P-value &lt;0.0001. After defining these four groups, a machine learning algorithm was used to discover the biomarkers from the expression data of the 1408 genes from NGS data. To reduce the effects of noise and avoid overfitting, we employed a 12-step cross validation to obtain a robust measure. For an individual gene, a generalized Naïve Bayesian classifier was constructed on the training of one of the 12 subsets and tested on the other 11 testing subsets. This allowed us to limit the prediction process to 60 genes for each separation step. Using the selected biomarkers, we classified the patients in the original set (379 patients) into LL, LS, SL, and SS groups and then evaluated the survival pattern of these groups. As shown in Fig. 1A, the selected biomarkers predicted survival as expected in the overall survival groups prior to biomarker selection. For additional validation of the system, we used the selected biomarkers to classify a completely new set of 247 samples of patients with extranodal DLBCL. As shown in Fig. 1B, these selected biomarkers successfully predicted the overall survival in this group of patients with an HR of 0.530 (confidence interval: 0.234-1.197, P=0.005). This classification correlated with cell of origin classification, TP53 mutation status, MYC expression, and IRF4 expression. However, in a multivariate analysis, only TP53 mutation was independent in predicting prognosis (P=0.005) and age (below or over 60) (P=0.01) along with the survival grouping (P&lt;0.000001). Conclusions: Using a novel machine learning approach with the expression levels of 180 genes, we developed a model that can reliably stratify patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP into four survival subgroups. This model can be used to identify patients who may not respond well to R-CHOP to be considered for alternative therapy and clinical trials. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Hsi: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Ferreri: Ospedale San Raffaele srl: Patents & Royalties; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Hutchison Medipharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PletixaPharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; x Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adienne: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Piris: Millenium/Takeda, EUSA, Jansen, NanoString, Kyowa Kirin, Gilead and Celgene.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Winter: BMS: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Actinium Pharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Agios: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Gilead: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Epizyme: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Ariad/Takeda: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Husband: Consultancy, Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Karyopharm (Curio Science): Honoraria.