Nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine have demonstrated a survival benefit over gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer (PDA). This study aimed to investigate the clinical, biological, and imaging effects of the regimen in patients with operable PDA. Patients with operable PDA received two cycles of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine before surgical resection. FDG-PET and CA19.9 tumour marker levels were used to measure clinical activity. Effects on tumour stroma were determined by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) elastography. The collagen content and architecture as well as density of cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) were determined in the resected surgical specimen and compared with a group of untreated and treated with conventional chemoradiation therapy controls. A co-clinical study in a mouse model of PDA was conducted to differentiate between the effects of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. A total of 16 patients were enrolled. Treatment resulted in significant antitumour effects with 50% of patients achieving a >75% decrease in circulating CA19.9 tumour marker and a response by FDG-PET. There was also a significant decrement in tumour stiffness as measured by EUS elastography. Seven of 12 patients who completed treatment and were operated had major pathological regressions. Analysis of residual tumours showed a marked disorganised collagen with a very low density of CAF, which was not observed in the untreated or conventionally treated control groups. The preclinical co-clinical study showed that these effects were specific of nab-paclitaxel and not gemcitabine. These data suggest that nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine decreases CAF content inducing a marked alteration in cancer stroma that results in tumour softening. This regimen should be studied in patients with operable PDA.

Purpose: MET exon 14 deletion (METex14 del) mutations represent a novel class of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) driver mutations. We evaluated glesatinib, a spectrum-selective MET inhibitor exhibiting a type II binding mode, in METex14 del–positive nonclinical models and NSCLC patients and assessed its ability to overcome resistance to type I MET inhibitors. Experimental Design: As most MET inhibitors in clinical development bind the active site with a type I binding mode, we investigated mechanisms of acquired resistance to each MET inhibitor class utilizing in vitro and in vivo models and in glesatinib clinical trials. Results: Glesatinib inhibited MET signaling, demonstrated marked regression of METex14 del-driven patient-derived xenografts, and demonstrated a durable RECIST partial response in a METex14 del mutation-positive patient enrolled on a glesatinib clinical trial. Prolonged treatment of nonclinical models with selected MET inhibitors resulted in differences in resistance kinetics and mutations within the MET activation loop (i.e., D1228N, Y1230C/H) that conferred resistance to type I MET inhibitors, but remained sensitive to glesatinib. In vivo models exhibiting METex14 del/A-loop double mutations and resistance to type I inhibitors exhibited a marked response to glesatinib. Finally, a METex14 del mutation-positive NSCLC patient who responded to crizotinib but later relapsed, demonstrated a mixed response to glesatinib including reduction in size of a MET Y1230H mutation-positive liver metastasis and concurrent loss of detection of this mutation in plasma DNA. Conclusions: Together, these data demonstrate that glesatinib exhibits a distinct mechanism of target inhibition and can overcome resistance to type I MET inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res; 1–12. ©2017 AACR.

Background: Current technology permits an unbiased massive analysis of somatic genetic alterations from tumor DNA as well as the generation of individualized mouse xenografts (Avatar models). This work aimed to evaluate our experience integrating these two strategies to personalize the treatment of patients with cancer. Methods: We performed whole-exome sequencing analysis of 25 patients with advanced solid tumors to identify putatively actionable tumor-specific genomic alterations. Avatar models were used as an in vivo platform to test proposed treatment strategies. Results: Successful exome sequencing analyses have been obtained for 23 patients. Tumor-specific mutations and copy-number variations were identified. All samples profiled contained relevant genomic alterations. Tumor was implanted to create an Avatar model from 14 patients and 10 succeeded. Occasionally, actionable alterations such as mutations in NF1, PI3KA, and DDR2 failed to provide any benefit when a targeted drug was tested in the Avatar and, accordingly, treatment of the patients with these drugs was not effective. To date, 13 patients have received a personalized treatment and 6 achieved durable partial remissions. Prior testing of candidate treatments in Avatar models correlated with clinical response and helped to select empirical treatments in some patients with no actionable mutations. Conclusion: The use of full genomic analysis for cancer care is encouraging but presents important challenges that will need to be solved for broad clinical application. Avatar models are a promising investigational platform for therapeutic decision making. While limitations still exist, this strategy should be further tested. Clin Cancer Res; 20(9); 2476–84. ©2014 AACR.

Interferon-independent MHC class I induction restores T cell immunity.

Purpose: nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine was superior to gemcitabine alone for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the phase III MPACT trial. This study evaluated the association of secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) levels with efficacy as an exploratory endpoint. Experimental Design: Patients with previously untreated MPC (N = 861) received nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine alone. Baseline SPARC level was measured in the tumor stroma and epithelia (archival biopsies) and plasma. Experiments were performed in pancreatic cancer mouse models in which SPARC was intact or deleted. Results: SPARC was measured in the tumor stroma of 256 patients (30%), the tumor epithelia of 301 patients (35%), and plasma of 343 patients (40%). Stroma-evaluable samples were from metastases (71%), from the pancreas (11%), or of unidentifiable origin (insufficient tissue to determine; 17%). For all patients, stromal SPARC level [high (n = 71) vs. low (n = 185)] was not associated with overall survival (OS; HR, 1.019; P = 0.903); multivariate analysis confirmed this lack of association. There was no association between stromal SPARC level and OS in either treatment arm. Neither tumor epithelial SPARC nor plasma SPARC was associated with OS. Results from a SPARC knockout mouse model treated with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine revealed no correlation between SPARC expression and tumor progression or treatment efficacy. Conclusions: SPARC levels were not associated with efficacy in patients with MPC. This exploratory analysis does not support making treatment decisions regarding nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine alone in MPC based on SPARC expression. Clin Cancer Res; 21(21); 4811–8. ©2015 AACR.