Sophie Postel-Vinay

Dr. Sophie Postel-Vinay


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
30 September 2019 in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DMDaphné Morel
Daphné Morel
DJDaniel Jeffery
Daniel Jeffery
SASandrine Aspeslagh
Sandrine Aspeslagh
GAGenevieve Almouzni
Genevieve Almouzni
SPSophie Postel-Vinay
Sophie Postel-Vinay

10 August 2021 in Nature Reviews Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RCRoman M. Chabanon
Roman M. Chabanon
MRMathieu Rouanne
Mathieu Rouanne
CLChristopher J. Lord
Christopher J. Lord
JSJean-Charles Soria
Jean-Charles Soria
PPPhilippe Pasero
Philippe Pasero
SPSophie Postel-Vinay
Sophie Postel-Vinay

31 August 2016 in Clinical Cancer Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RCRoman M. Chabanon
Roman M. Chabanon
MPMarion Pedrero
Marion Pedrero
CLCéline Lefebvre
Céline Lefebvre
AMAurélien Marabelle
Aurélien Marabelle
JSJean-Charles Soria
Jean-Charles Soria
SPSophie Postel-Vinay
Sophie Postel-Vinay
Immunotherapy is currently transforming cancer treatment. Notably, immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) have shown unprecedented therapeutic successes in numerous tumor types, including cancers that were traditionally considered as nonimmunogenic. However, a significant proportion of patients do not respond to these therapies. Thus, early selection of the most sensitive patients is key, and the development of predictive companion biomarkers constitutes one of the biggest challenges of ICB development. Recent publications have suggested that the tumor genomic landscape, mutational load, and tumor-specific neoantigens are potential determinants of the response to ICB and can influence patients' outcomes upon immunotherapy. Furthermore, defects in the DNA repair machinery have consistently been associated with improved survival and durable clinical benefit from ICB. Thus, closely reflecting the DNA damage repair capacity of tumor cells and their intrinsic genomic instability, the mutational load and its associated tumor-specific neoantigens appear as key predictive paths to anticipate potential clinical benefits of ICB. In the era of next-generation sequencing, while more and more patients are getting the full molecular portrait of their tumor, it is crucial to optimally exploit sequencing data for the benefit of patients. Therefore, sequencing technologies, analytic tools, and relevant criteria for mutational load and neoantigens prediction should be homogenized and combined in more integrative pipelines to fully optimize the measurement of such parameters, so that these biomarkers can ultimately reach the analytic validity and reproducibility required for a clinical implementation. Clin Cancer Res; 22(17); 4309–21. ©2016 AACR.

22 July 2021 in Clinical Cancer Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TYTimothy A. Yap
Timothy A. Yap
MKMatthew G. Krebs
Matthew G. Krebs
SPSophie Postel-Vinay
Sophie Postel-Vinay
AEAnthony El-Khouiery
Anthony El-Khouiery
JSJean-Charles Soria
Jean-Charles Soria
SHSimon J. Hollingsworth
Simon J. Hollingsworth
Purpose: This study reports the safety, tolerability, MTD, recommended phase II dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile, and preliminary antitumor activity of ceralasertib combined with carboplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors. It also examined exploratory predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients (n = 36) received a fixed dose of carboplatin (AUC5) with escalating doses of ceralasertib (20 mg twice daily to 60 mg once daily) in 21-day cycles. Sequential and concurrent combination dosing schedules were assessed. Results: Two ceralasertib MTD dose schedules, 20 mg twice daily on days 4–13 and 40 mg once daily on days 1–2, were tolerated with carboplatin AUC5; the latter was declared the RP2D. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥3) were anemia (39%), thrombocytopenia (36%), and neutropenia (25%). Dose-limiting toxicities of grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 2; including one grade 4 platelet count decreased) and a combination of grade 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 3 patients. Ceralasertib was quickly absorbed (tmax ∼1 hour), with a terminal plasma half-life of 8–11 hours. Upregulation of pRAD50, indicative of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) activation, was observed in tumor biopsies during ceralasertib treatment. Two patients with absent or low ATM or SLFN11 protein expression achieved confirmed RECIST v1.1 partial responses. Eighteen of 34 (53%) response-evaluable patients had RECIST v1.1 stable disease. Conclusions: The RP2D for ceralasertib plus carboplatin was established as ceralasertib 40 mg once daily on days 1–2 administered with carboplatin AUC5 every 3 weeks, with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies confirming pharmacodynamic modulation and preliminary evidence of antitumor activity observed.

23 April 2021 in Cancer Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RCRoman M. Chabanon
Roman M. Chabanon
DMDaphné Morel
Daphné Morel
TEThomas Eychenne
Thomas Eychenne
LCLéo Colmet-Daage
Léo Colmet-Daage
IBIlirjana Bajrami
Ilirjana Bajrami
SPSophie Postel-Vinay
Sophie Postel-Vinay
Inactivation of Polybromo 1 (PBRM1), a specific subunit of the PBAF chromatin remodeling complex, occurs frequently in cancer, including 40% of clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCC). To identify novel therapeutic approaches to targeting PBRM1-defective cancers, we used a series of orthogonal functional genomic screens that identified PARP and ATR inhibitors as being synthetic lethal with PBRM1 deficiency. The PBRM1/PARP inhibitor synthetic lethality was recapitulated using several clinical PARP inhibitors in a series of in vitro model systems and in vivo in a xenograft model of ccRCC. In the absence of exogenous DNA damage, PBRM1-defective cells exhibited elevated levels of replication stress, micronuclei, and R-loops. PARP inhibitor exposure exacerbated these phenotypes. Quantitative mass spectrometry revealed that multiple R-loop processing factors were downregulated in PBRM1-defective tumor cells. Exogenous expression of the R-loop resolution enzyme RNase H1 reversed the sensitivity of PBRM1-deficient cells to PARP inhibitors, suggesting that excessive levels of R-loops could be a cause of this synthetic lethality. PARP and ATR inhibitors also induced cyclic GMP-AMP synthase/stimulator of interferon genes (cGAS/STING) innate immune signaling in PBRM1-defective tumor cells. Overall, these findings provide the preclinical basis for using PARP inhibitors in PBRM1-defective cancers. Significance: This study demonstrates that PARP and ATR inhibitors are synthetic lethal with the loss of PBRM1, a PBAF-specific subunit, thus providing the rationale for assessing these inhibitors in patients with PBRM1-defective cancer.