Biliary tract cancers (BTC), including cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer, are poor-prognosis and low-incidence cancers, although the incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is rising. A minority of patients present with resectable disease but relapse rates are high; benefit from adjuvant capecitabine chemotherapy has been demonstrated. Cisplatin/gemcitabine combination chemotherapy has emerged as the reference first-line treatment regimen; there is no standard second-line therapy. Selected patients may be suitable for liver-directed therapy (e.g., radioembolization or external beam radiation), pending confirmation of benefit in randomized studies. Initial trials targeting the epithelial growth factor receptor and angiogenesis pathways have failed to deliver new treatments. Emerging data from next-generation sequencing analyses have identified actionable mutations (e.g., FGFR fusion rearrangements and IDH1 and IDH2 mutations), with several targeted drugs entering clinical development with encouraging results. The role of systemic therapies, including targeted therapies and immunotherapy for BTC, is rapidly evolving and is the subject of this review. Significance: The authors address genetic drivers and molecular biology from a translational perspective, in an intent to offer a clear view of the recent past, present, and future of BTC. The review describes a state-of-the-art update of the current status and future directions of research and therapy in advanced BTC. Cancer Discov; 7(9); 943–62. ©2017 AACR.

Data on gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) G3 (well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NET G3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC)) are limited. We retrospectively study patients with NET G3 and NEC from eight European centers. Data examined included clinical and pathological characteristics at diagnosis, therapies and outcomes. Two hundred and four patients were analyzed (37 NET G3 and 167 NEC). Median age was 64 (21–89) years. Tumor origin included pancreas (32%) and colon-rectum (27%). The primary tumor was resected in 82 (40%) patients. Metastatic disease was evident at diagnosis in 88% (liver metastases: 67%). Median Ki-67 index was 70% (30% in NET G3 and 80% in NEC;P<0.001). Median overall survival (OS) for all patients was 23 (95% CI: 18–28) months and significantly higher in NET G3 (99 vs 17 months in NEC; HR=8.3;P<0.001). Platinum-etoposide first line chemotherapy was administered in 113 (68%) NEC and 12 (32%) NET G3 patients. Disease control rate and progression free survival (PFS) were significantly higher in NEC compared to NET G3 (P<0.05), whereas OS was significantly longer in NET G3 (P=0.003). Second- and third-line therapies (mainly FOLFIRI and FOLFOX) were given in 79 and 39 of NEC patients; median PFS and OS were 3.0 and 7.6 months respectively after second-line and 2.5 and 6.2 months after third-line chemotherapy. In conclusion, NET G3 and NEC are characterized by significant differences in Ki-67 index and outcomes. While platinum-based chemotherapy is effective in NEC, it seems to have limited value in NET G3.

Purpose: With the aim of improving patient selection for phase I trials, we previously performed a retrospective analysis of 212 phase I oncology patients where we were able to develop a prognostic score predicting overall survival (OS). This prospective study was performed to test the validity of the prognostic score. Patients and Methods: On the basis of our retrospective multivariate analysis, three factors were associated with poor survival (albumin < 35 g/L, lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] > upper limit of normal [ULN], and > two sites of metastases). We integrated these into a prognostic score ranging from 0 to 3 and analyzed this score in a prospectively selected cohort of 78 patients enrolled onto phase I trials. Results: All patients had progressive disease before study entry. The median age was 56 years (range, 18 to 79 years). After a median follow-up time of 27.3 weeks, patients with a prognostic score of 0 to 1 (n = 43) had superior OS (33.0 weeks; 95% CI, 24 to 42 weeks) compared with patients with a score of 2 to 3 (n = 35; 15.7 weeks; 95% CI, 11 to 21 weeks). Our multivariate analysis confirmed that our prognostic score was an independent marker for OS, with a hazard ratio of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.9; P = .036). Conclusion: This is the first prospective analysis confirming that a prognostic score based on objective markers, including albumin less than 35 g/L, LDH more than ULN, and more than two sites of metastasis, is a helpful tool in the process of patient selection for phase I trial entry.

Ovarian cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. Thus, new biomarkers predictive of response to the standard paclitaxel–carboplatin treatment are needed to improve chemotherapy strategies. MicroRNAs have the potential to modify drug outcomes. Based on this, we have demonstrated in this study that patients with a high expression of the miR-200 family show low levels of β-tubulin class III in ovarian carcinoma. In addition, we have established the clinical relevance of these microRNAs for ovarian cancer patients' treatment response and survival. In a well-characterized series of 72 ovarian carcinomas, the expressions of miR-141, miR-200a, miR-200b, miR-200c, and miR-429 were quantified by quantitative reverse transcription-PCR, and the protein content of β-tubulin isotypes I, II, and III was determined by immunohistochemistry. The relationship between these microRNAs, β-tubulin expression, response to paclitaxel-based treatment, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival was determined. While isotype I had constant high levels, protein expression of β-tubulins II and III was mutually exclusive. Low tumoral miR-200 expression was significantly associated with high β-tubulin III protein content (P values range, 0.047–2.0, P values 0.051, 0.054, and 0.079 for miR-200c, miR-141, and miR-429 respectively, multivariate analysis). In conclusion, miR-200 family members affect the final β-tubulin III protein content of ovarian carcinomas. Furthermore, these microRNAs might constitute the biomarkers of response to paclitaxel-based treatments and relapse/progression of advanced stage ovarian carcinoma patients.

Purpose: The hepatocyte growth factor/c-MET axis is implicated in tumor cell proliferation, survival, and angiogenesis. ARQ 197 is an oral, selective, non–adenosine triphosphate competitive c-MET inhibitor. A phase I trial of ARQ 197 was conducted to assess safety, tolerability, and target inhibition, including intratumoral c-MET signaling, apoptosis, and angiogenesis. Patients and Methods: Patients with solid tumors amenable to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies using serial biopsies, dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), and circulating endothelial cell (CEC) and circulating tumor cell (CTC) enumeration were enrolled. Results: Fifty-one patients received ARQ 197 at 100 to 400 mg twice per day. ARQ 197 was well tolerated, with the most common toxicities being grade 1 to 2 fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 fatigue (200 mg twice per day; n = 1); grade 3 mucositis, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and hypokalemia (400 mg twice per day; n = 1); and grade 3 to 4 febrile neutropenia (400 mg twice per day, n = 2; 360 mg twice per day, n = 1). The recommended phase II dose was 360 mg twice per day. ARQ 197 systemic exposure was dose dependent and supported twice per day oral dosing. ARQ 197 decreased phosphorylated c-MET, total c-MET, and phosphorylated focal adhesion kinase and increased terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase–mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate-biotin nick-end labeling (TUNEL) staining in tumor biopsies (n = 15). CECs decreased in 25 (58.1%) of 43 patients, but no significant changes in DCE-MRI parameters were observed after ARQ 197 treatment. Of 15 patients with detectable CTCs, eight (53.3%) had ≥ 30% decline in CTCs after treatment. Stable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), ≥ 4 months was observed in 14 patients, with minor regressions in gastric and Merkel cell cancers. Conclusion: ARQ 197 safely inhibited intratumoral c-MET signaling. Further clinical evaluation focusing on combination approaches, including an erlotinib combination in non–small-cell lung cancer, is ongoing.

Purpose: GSK461364 is an ATP-competitive inhibitor of polo-like kinase 1 (Plk1). A phase I study of two schedules of intravenous GSK461364 was conducted. Experimental Design: GSK461364 was administered in escalating doses to patients with solid malignancies by two schedules, either on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles (schedule A) or on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of 28-day cycles (schedule B). Assessments included pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, as well as marker expression studies in pretreatment tumor biopsies. Results: Forty patients received GSK461364: 23 patients in schedule A and 17 in schedule B. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) in schedule A at 300 mg (2 of 7 patients) and 225 mg (1 of 8 patients) cohorts included grade 4 neutropenia and/or grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia. In schedule B, DLTs of grade 4 pulmonary emboli and grade 4 neutropenia occurred at 7 or more days at 100 mg dose level. Venous thrombotic emboli (VTE) and myelosuppression were the most common grade 3–4, drug-related events. Pharmacokinetic data indicated that AUC (area under the curve) and C _max (maximum concentration) were proportional across doses, with a half-life of 9 to 13 hours. Pharmacodynamic studies in circulating tumor cells revealed an increase in phosphorylated histone H3 (pHH3) following drug administration. A best response of prolonged stable disease of more than 16 weeks occurred in 6 (15%) patients, including 4 esophageal cancer patients. Those with prolonged stable disease had greater expression of Ki-67, pHH3, and Plk1 in archived tumor biopsies. Conclusions: The final recommended phase II dose for GSK461364 was 225 mg administered intravenously in schedule A. Because of the high incidence (20%) of VTE, for further clinical evaluation, GSK461364 should involve coadministration of prophylactic anticoagulation. Clin Cancer Res; 17(10); 3420–30. ©2011 AACR.