Maud Kamal

Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA): a multicentre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND Molecularly targeted agents have been reported to have anti-tumour activity for patients whose tumours harbour the matching molecular alteration. These results have led to increased off-label use of molecularly targeted agents on the basis of identified molecular alterations. We assessed the efficacy of several molecularly targeted agents marketed in France, which were chosen on the basis of tumour molecular profiling but used outside their indications, in patients with advanced cancer for whom standard-of-care therapy had failed. METHODS The open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 SHIVA trial was done at eight French academic centres. We included adult patients with any kind of metastatic solid tumour refractory to standard of care, provided they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, disease that was accessible for a biopsy or resection of a metastatic site, and at least one measurable lesion. The molecular profile of each patients tumour was established with a mandatory biopsy of a metastatic tumour and large-scale genomic testing. We only included patients for whom a molecular alteration was identified within one of three molecular pathways (hormone receptor, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, RAF/MEK), which could be matched to one of ten regimens including 11 available molecularly targeted agents (erlotinib, lapatinib plus trastuzumab, sorafenib, imatinib, dasatinib, vemurafenib, everolimus, abiraterone, letrozole, tamoxifen). We randomly assigned these patients (1:1) to receive a matched molecularly targeted agent (experimental group) or treatment at physicians choice (control group) by central block randomisation (blocks of size six). Randomisation was done centrally with a web-based response system and was stratified according to the Royal Marsden Hospital prognostic score (0 or 1 vs 2 or 3) and the altered molecular pathway. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. Treatments in both groups were given in accordance with the approved product information and standard practice protocols at each institution and were continued until evidence of disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, which was not assessed by independent central review. We assessed safety in any patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01771458. FINDINGS Between Oct 4, 2012, and July 11, 2014, we screened 741 patients with any tumour type. 293 (40%) patients had at least one molecular alteration matching one of the 10 available regimens. At the time of data cutoff, Jan 20, 2015, 195 (26%) patients had been randomly assigned, with 99 in the experimental group and 96 in the control group. All patients in the experimental group started treatment, as did 92 in the control group. Two patients in the control group received a molecularly targeted agent: both were included in their assigned group for efficacy analyses, the patient who received an agent that was allowed in the experimental group was included in the experimental group for the purposes of safety analyses, while the other patient, who received a molecularly targeted agent and chemotherapy, was kept in the control group for safety analyses. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 5·8-11·6) in the experimental group and 11·3 months (8·1-11·6) in the control group at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Median progression-free survival was 2·3 months (95% CI 1·7-3·8) in the experimental group versus 2·0 months (1·8-2·1) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·88, 95% CI 0·65-1·19, p=0·41). In the safety population, 43 (43%) of 100 patients treated with a molecularly targeted agent and 32 (35%) of 91 patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy had grade 3-4 adverse events (p=0·30). INTERPRETATION The use of molecularly targeted agents outside their indications does not improve progression-free survival compared with treatment at physicians choice in heavily pretreated patients with cancer. Off-label use of molecularly targeted agents should be discouraged, but enrolment in clinical trials should be encouraged to assess predictive biomarkers of efficacy.

Circulating tumor DNA as a non-invasive substitute to metastasis biopsy for tumor genotyping and personalized medicine in a prospective trial across all tumor types

Cell‐free tumor DNA (ctDNA) has the potential to enable non‐invasive diagnostic tests for personalized medicine in providing similar molecular information as that derived from invasive tumor biopsies. The histology‐independent phase II SHIVA trial matches patients with targeted therapeutics based on previous screening of multiple somatic mutations using metastatic biopsies. To evaluate the utility of ctDNA in this trial, as an ancillary study we performed de novo detection of somatic mutations using plasma DNA compared to metastasis biopsies in 34 patients covering 18 different tumor types, scanning 46 genes and more than 6800 COSMIC mutations with a multiplexed next‐generation sequencing panel. In 27 patients, 28 of 29 mutations identified in metastasis biopsies (97%) were detected in matched ctDNA. Among these 27 patients, one additional mutation was found in ctDNA only. In the seven other patients, mutation detection from metastasis biopsy failed due to inadequate biopsy material, but was successful in all plasma DNA samples providing three more potential actionable mutations. These results suggest that ctDNA analysis is a potential alternative and/or replacement to analyses using costly, harmful and lengthy tissue biopsies of metastasis, irrespective of cancer type and metastatic site, for multiplexed mutation detection in selecting personalized therapies based on the patients tumor genetic content.

Randomised proof-of-concept phase II trial comparing targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling vs conventional therapy in patients with refractory cancer: results of the feasibility part of the SHIVA trial

Background:The SHIVA trial is a multicentric randomised proof-of-concept phase II trial comparing molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling vs conventional therapy in patients with any type of refractory cancer. Results of the feasibility study on the first 100 enrolled patients are presented.Methods:Adult patients with any type of metastatic cancer who failed standard therapy were eligible for the study. The molecular profile was performed on a mandatory biopsy, and included mutations and gene copy number alteration analyses using high-throughput technologies, as well as the determination of oestrogen, progesterone, and androgen receptors by immunohistochemistry (IHC).Results:Biopsy was safely performed in 95 of the first 100 included patients. Median time between the biopsy and the therapeutic decision taken during a weekly molecular biology board was 26 days. Mutations, gene copy number alterations, and IHC analyses were successful in 63 (66%), 65 (68%), and 87 (92%) patients, respectively. A druggable molecular abnormality was present in 38 patients (40%).Conclusions:The establishment of a comprehensive tumour molecular profile was safe, feasible, and compatible with clinical practice in refractory cancer patients.

Mutational Profile of Metastatic Breast Cancers: A Retrospective Analysis.

Background Major advances have been achieved in the characterization of early breast cancer (eBC) genomic profiles. Metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is associated with poor outcomes, yet limited information is available on the genomic profile of this disease. This study aims to decipher mutational profiles of mBC using next-generation sequencing. Methods and Findings Whole-exome sequencing was performed on 216 tumor–blood pairs from mBC patients who underwent a biopsy in the context of the SAFIR01, SAFIR02, SHIVA, or Molecular Screening for Cancer Treatment Optimization (MOSCATO) prospective trials. Mutational profiles from 772 primary breast tumors from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) were used as a reference for comparing primary and mBC mutational profiles. Twelve genes (TP53, PIK3CA, GATA3, ESR1, MAP3K1, CDH1, AKT1, MAP2K4, RB1, PTEN, CBFB, and CDKN2A) were identified as significantly mutated in mBC (false discovery rate [FDR] < 0.1). Eight genes (ESR1, FSIP2, FRAS1, OSBPL3, EDC4, PALB2, IGFN1, and AGRN) were more frequently mutated in mBC as compared to eBC (FDR < 0.01). ESR1 was identified both as a driver and as a metastatic gene (n = 22, odds ratio = 29, 95% CI [9–155], p = 1.2e-12) and also presented with focal amplification (n = 9) for a total of 31 mBCs with either ESR1 mutation or amplification, including 27 hormone receptor positive (HR+) and HER2 negative (HER2−) mBCs (19%). HR+/HER2− mBC presented a high prevalence of mutations on genes located on the mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway (TSC1 and TSC2) as compared to HR+/HER2− eBC (respectively 6% and 0.7%, p = 0.0004). Other actionable genes were more frequently mutated in HR+ mBC, including ERBB4 (n = 8), NOTCH3 (n = 7), and ALK (n = 7). Analysis of mutational signatures revealed a significant increase in APOBEC-mediated mutagenesis in HR+/HER2− metastatic tumors as compared to primary TCGA samples (p < 2e-16). The main limitations of this study include the absence of bone metastases and the size of the cohort, which might not have allowed the identification of rare mutations and their effect on survival. Conclusions This work reports the results of the analysis of the first large-scale study on mutation profiles of mBC. This study revealed genomic alterations and mutational signatures involved in the resistance to therapies, including actionable mutations.

Designs and challenges for personalized medicine studies in oncology: focus on the SHIVA trial

Personalized medicine is defined by the National Cancer Institute as “a form of medicine that uses information about a person’s genes, proteins, and environment to prevent, diagnose, and treat disease.” In oncology, the term “personalized medicine” arose with the emergence of molecularly targeted agents. The prescription of approved molecularly targeted agents to cancer patients currently relies on the primary tumor location and histological subtype. Predictive biomarkers of efficacy of these modern agents have been exclusively validated in specific tumor types. A major concern today is to determine whether the prescription of molecularly targeted therapies based on tumor molecular abnormalities, independently of primary tumor location and histology, would improve the outcome of cancer patients. This new paradigm requires prospective validation before being implemented in clinical practice. In this paper, we will first review different designs, including observational cohorts, as well as nonrandomized and randomized clinical trials, that have been recently proposed to evaluate the relevance of this approach, and further discuss their advantages and drawbacks. The design of the SHIVA trial, a randomized proof-of-concept phase II trial comparing therapy based on tumor molecular profiling versus conventional therapy in patients with refractory cancer will be detailed. Finally, we will discuss the multiple challenges associated with the implementation of personalized medicine in oncology, as well as perspectives for the future.

Bioinformatics for precision medicine in oncology: principles and application to the SHIVA clinical trial

Precision medicine (PM) requires the delivery of individually adapted medical care based on the genetic characteristics of each patient and his/her tumor. The last decade witnessed the development of high-throughput technologies such as microarrays and next-generation sequencing which paved the way to PM in the field of oncology. While the cost of these technologies decreases, we are facing an exponential increase in the amount of data produced. Our ability to use this information in daily practice relies strongly on the availability of an efficient bioinformatics system that assists in the translation of knowledge from the bench towards molecular targeting and diagnosis. Clinical trials and routine diagnoses constitute different approaches, both requiring a strong bioinformatics environment capable of (i) warranting the integration and the traceability of data, (ii) ensuring the correct processing and analyses of genomic data, and (iii) applying well-defined and reproducible procedures for workflow management and decision-making. To address the issues, a seamless information system was developed at Institut Curie which facilitates the data integration and tracks in real-time the processing of individual samples. Moreover, computational pipelines were developed to identify reliably genomic alterations and mutations from the molecular profiles of each patient. After a rigorous quality control, a meaningful report is delivered to the clinicians and biologists for the therapeutic decision. The complete bioinformatics environment and the key points of its implementation are presented in the context of the SHIVA clinical trial, a multicentric randomized phase II trial comparing targeted therapy based on tumor molecular profiling versus conventional therapy in patients with refractory cancer. The numerous challenges faced in practice during the setting up and the conduct of this trial are discussed as an illustration of PM application.

Impaired PRC2 activity promotes transcriptional instability and favors breast tumorigenesis

Alterations of chromatin modifiers are frequent in cancer, but their functional consequences often remain unclear. Focusing on the Polycomb protein EZH2 that deposits the H3K27me3 (trimethylation of Lys27 of histone H3) mark, we showed that its high expression in solid tumors is a consequence, not a cause, of tumorigenesis. In mouse and human models, EZH2 is dispensable for prostate cancer development and restrains breast tumorigenesis. High EZH2 expression in tumors results from a tight coupling to proliferation to ensure H3K27me3 homeostasis. However, this process malfunctions in breast cancer. Low EZH2 expression relative to proliferation and mutations in Polycomb genes actually indicate poor prognosis and occur in metastases. We show that while altered EZH2 activity consistently modulates a subset of its target genes, it promotes a wider transcriptional instability. Importantly, transcriptional changes that are consequences of EZH2 loss are predominantly irreversible. Our study provides an unexpected understanding of EZH2s contribution to solid tumors with important therapeutic implications.

PIK3CA Pathway Mutations Predictive of Poor Response Following Standard Radiochemotherapy ± Cetuximab in Cervical Cancer Patients

Purpose: EGFR is frequently overexpressed in cervical cancer, suggesting EGFR blockade as a promising treatment approach. Cetuximab, an anti EGFR antibody, used conjointly with radiochemotherapy, was feasible in first-line treatment of cervix carcinoma limited to the pelvis. Experimental Design: This randomized phase II trial enrolled 78 FIGO stage IB2–IIIB cervical cancer patients to either cisplatin-based radiochemotherapy alone (arm B, n = 38) or conjointly with a 6-week course of weekly cetuximab (arm A, n = 40). Brachytherapy was given to the pelvic mass. Primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) at 2 years. EGFR expression and targeted sequencing were performed in 54 of 78 patients. Results: Cetuximab over a 6-week period did not improve DFS at 24 months. At 31 months median follow-up, DFS was not significantly different (P = 0.18). Complete response at 4 to 6 months was strongly predictive for excellent DFS (log-rank test; P < 0.001). PIK3CA, KRAS, and STK11 mutations were observed in 22%, 4%, and 2% of patients, respectively. No tumor with a PI3K pathway mutation showed complete response (0/8 in arm A and 0/6 in arm B), whereas 14 of 52 (27%) tumors without mutations did (P = 0.021). PI3K pathway-mutated tumors showed a trend toward poorer DFS (P = 0.06) following cetuximab (8/22) as compared with those following standard treatment only (6/18). Conclusions: Similar to patients with head and neck cancer, patients with cervical cancer showed no gain in DFS at 2 years following a combined treatment of cetuximab with radiochemotherapy. Although treatment tolerance and compliance were satisfactory, it remains to be demonstrated whether maintenance therapy with cetuximab could be beneficial in selected patient groups. Clin Cancer Res; 21(11); 2530–7. ©2015 AACR.

Feasibility and clinical integration of molecular profiling for target identification in pediatric solid tumors.

The role of tumor molecular profiling in directing targeted therapy utilization remains to be defined for pediatric tumors. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a sequencing and molecular biology tumor board (MBB) program, and its clinical impact on children with solid tumors.

Designs of preoperative biomarkers trials in oncology: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND The identification of predictive and pharmacodynamics (PD) biomarkers of efficacy of anticancer-targeted therapies is not always straightforward. To address this problem, preoperative trials have been set up. The present study aimed at evaluating how these trials are designed. DESIGN We retrieved all preoperative oncology trials, defined as preoperative trials having a PD end point. RESULTS Only 56 trials met our selection criteria. Of these, 27 trials (48%) were randomized. Forty-nine trials (88%) evaluated at least a noncytotoxic agent. In 37 trials (66%), a single agent was administered. The most prevalent tumor type was breast cancer (59%). Median duration of accrual was 28 months (range: 9-98). In these trials, there was a mean of two patients included per month (range: 0-7). The date of surgery was fixed before study entry in 35 trials (62%), while surgery was set up after preoperative therapy in the remaining 21 trials (38%). In the former trials, median duration of preoperative therapy was 17 days (range: 1-112), whereas in the latter trials it ranged from 4 to 29 weeks. The primary end point was a PD end point in 26 of the 45 trials (58%) in which it was mentioned. One percent of patients could not undergo surgery as per protocol due to an adverse event. Statistically significant predictive and PD biomarkers were identified in 17 (30%) and 27 trials (48%), respectively. CONCLUSION Preoperative biomarkers trials are infrequent but safe and feasible. These trials often permit the identification of predictive and PD biomarkers.