Purpose: In hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2− metastatic breast cancer (MBC), it is imperative to identify patients who respond poorly to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) and to discover therapeutic targets to reverse this resistance. Non-luminal breast cancer subtype and high levels of CCNE1 are candidate biomarkers in this setting, but further validation is needed. Experimental Design: We performed mRNA gene expression profiling and correlation with progression-free survival (PFS) on 455 tumor samples included in the phase III PEARL study, which assigned patients with HR+/HER2− MBC to receive palbociclib+endocrine therapy (ET) versus capecitabine. Estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2− breast cancer cell lines were used to generate and characterize resistance to palbociclib+ET. Results: Non-luminal subtype was more prevalent in metastatic (14%) than in primary tumor samples (4%). Patients with non-luminal tumors had median PFS of 2.4 months with palbociclib+ET and 9.3 months with capecitabine; HR 4.16, adjusted P value < 0.0001. Tumors with high CCNE1 expression (above median) also had worse median PFS with palbociclib+ET (6.2 months) than with capecitabine (9.3 months); HR 1.55, adjusted P value = 0.0036. In patients refractory to palbociclib+ET (PFS in the lower quartile), we found higher levels of Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1). In an independent data set (PALOMA3), tumors with high PLK1 show worse median PFS than those with low PLK1 expression under palbociclib+ET treatment. In ER+/HER2− cell line models, we show that PLK1 inhibition reverses resistance to palbociclib+ET. Conclusions: We confirm the association of non-luminal subtype and CCNE1 with resistance to CDK4/6i+ET in HR+ MBC. High levels of PLK1 mRNA identify patients with poor response to palbociclib, suggesting PLK1 could also play a role in the setting of resistance to CDK4/6i.

Background: Approximately 15% of adult GIST patients harbor tumors that are wild-type for KIT and PDGFRα genes (KP-wtGIST). These tumors usually have SDH deficiencies, exhibit a more indolent behavior and are resistant to imatinib. Underlying oncogenic mechanisms in KP-wtGIST include overexpression of HIF1α high IGFR signaling through the MAPK pathway or BRAF activating mutation, among others. As regorafenib inhibits these signaling pathways, it was hypothesized that it could be more active as upfront therapy in advanced KP-wtGIST. Methods: Adult patients with advanced KP-wtGIST after central confirmation by NGS, naïve of systemic treatment for advanced disease, were included in this international phase II trial. Eligible patients received regorafenib 160 mg per day for 21 days every 28 days. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR), according to RECIST 1.1 at 12 weeks by central radiological assessment. Results: From May 2016 to October 2020, 30 patients were identified as KP-wtGIST by Sanger sequencing and 16 were confirmed by central molecular screening with NGS. Finally, 15 were enrolled and received regorafenib. The study was prematurely closed due to the low accrual worsened by COVID outbreak. The DCR at 12 weeks was 86.7% by central assessment. A subset of 60% experienced some tumor shrinkage, with partial responses and stabilization observed in 13% and 87% respectively, by central assessment. SDH-deficient GIST showed better clinical outcome than other KP-wtGIST. Conclusions: Regorafenib activity in KP-wtGIST compares favorably with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, especially in the SDH-deficient GIST subset and it should be taken into consideration as upfront therapy of advanced KP-wtGIST. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02638766.

Background: Because of their specific and biologically relevant cargo, urine extracellular vesicles (EVs) constitute a valuable source of potential non-invasive biomarkers that could support the clinical decision-making to improve the management of prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Different EV isolation methods differ in terms of complexity and yield, conditioning, as consequence, the analytical result. Methods: The aim of this study was to compare three different isolation methods for urine EVs: ultracentrifugation (UC), size exclusion chromatography (SEC), and a commercial kit (Exolute® Urine Kit). Urine samples were collected from 6 PCa patients and 4 healthy donors. After filtered through 0.22 µm filters, urine was divided in 3 equal volumes to perform EVs isolation with each of the three approaches. Isolated EVs were characterized by spectrophotometric protein quantification, nanoparticle tracking analysis, transmission electron microscopy, AlphaScreen Technology, and whole miRNA Transcriptome. Results: Our results showed that UC and SEC provided better results in terms of EVs yield and purity than Exolute®, non-significant differences were observed in terms of EV-size. Interestingly, luminescent AlphaScreen assay demonstrated a significant enrichment of CD9 and CD63 positive microvesicles in SEC and UC methods compared with Exolute®. This heterogeneity was also demonstrated in terms of miRNA content indicating that the best correlation was observed between UC and SEC. Conclusions: Our study highlights the importance of standardizing the urine EV isolation methods to guaranty the analytical reproducibility necessary for their implementation in a clinical setting.

The purpose of this study is to clinically validate a series of circulating miRNAs that distinguish between the 4 most prevalent tumor types (lung cancer (LC); breast cancer (BC); colorectal cancer (CRC); and prostate cancer (PCa)) and healthy donors (HDs). A total of 18 miRNAs and 3 housekeeping miRNA genes were evaluated by qRT-PCR on RNA extracted from serum of cancer patients, 44 LC, 45 BC, 27 CRC, and 40 PCa, and on 45 HDs. The cancer detection performance of the miRNA expression levels was evaluated by studying the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves at univariate and multivariate levels. miR-21 was significantly overexpressed in all cancer types compared with HDs, with accuracy of 67.5% (p = 0.001) for all 4 tumor types and of 80.8% (p < 0.0001) when PCa cases were removed from the analysis. For each tumor type, a panel of miRNAs was defined that provided cancer-detection accuracies of 91%, 94%, 89%, and 77%, respectively. In conclusion, we have described a series of circulating miRNAs that define different tumor types with a very high diagnostic performance. These panels of miRNAs would constitute the basis of different approaches of cancer-detection systems for which clinical utility should be validated in prospective cohorts.

Approximately 5 to 10% of all cancers are caused by inherited germline mutations, many of which are associated with different Hereditary Cancer Syndromes (HCS). In the context of the Program of Hereditary Cancer of the Valencia Community, individuals belonging to specific HCS and their families receive genetic counselling and genetic testing according to internationally established guidelines. The current diagnostic approach is based on sequencing a few high-risk genes related to each HCS; however, this method is time-consuming, expensive and does not achieve a confirmatory genetic diagnosis in many cases. This study aims to test the level of improvement offered by a Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) gene-panel compared to the standard approach in a diagnostic reference laboratory setting. A multi-gene NGS panel was used to test a total of 91 probands, previously classified as non-informative by analysing the high-risk genes defined in our guidelines. Nineteen deleterious mutations were detected in 16% of patients, some mutations were found in already-tested high-risk genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH2) and others in non-prevalent genes (RAD51D, PALB2, ATM, TP53, MUTYH, BRIP1). Overall, our findings reclassify several index cases into different HCS, and change the mutational status of 14 cases from non-informative to gene mutation carriers. In conclusion, we highlight the necessity of incorporating validated multi-gene NGS panels into the HCSs diagnostic routine to increase the performance of genetic diagnosis.

We hypothesized that the combination of olaparib and lurbinectedin maximizes DNA damage, thus increasing its efficacy. The POLA phase 1 trial established the recommended phase 2 dose of lurbinectedin as being 1.5 mg (day 1) and that of olaparib as being 250 mg/12 h (days 1–5) for a 21-day cycle. In phase 2, we explore the efficacy of the combination in terms of clinical response and its correlation with mutations in the HRR genes and the genomic instability (GI) parameters. Results: A total of 73 patients with high-grade ovarian (n = 46), endometrial (n = 26), and triple-negative breast cancer (n = 1) were treated with lurbinectedin and olaparib. Most patients (62%) received ≥3 lines of prior therapy. The overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 9.6% and 72.6%, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.54 months (95% CI 3.0–5.2). Twelve (16.4%) patients were considered long-term responders (LTR), with a median PFS of 13.3 months. No clinical benefit was observed for cases with HRR gene mutation. In ovarian LTRs, although a direct association with GI and a total loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events was observed, the association did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.055). Globally, the total number of LOHs might be associated with the ORR (p =0.074). The most common grade 3–4 toxicities were anemia and thrombocytopenia, in 6 (8.2%) and 3 (4.1%) patients, respectively. Conclusion: The POLA study provides evidence that the administration of lurbinectedin and olaparib is feasible and tolerable, with a DCR of 72.6%. Different GI parameters showed associations with better responses.