Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) alterations (activating mutations, amplifications, and fusions/rearrangements) occur in ~3.3% of cancers.ALKfusions/rearrangements are discerned in >50% of inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors (IMTs) and anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs), but only in ~0.2% of other cancers outside of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a rate that may be below the viability threshold of even large-scale treatment trials. Five ALK inhibitors –alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinb, crizotinib, and lorlatinib—are FDA approved forALK-aberrant NSCLCs, and crizotinib is also approved forALK-aberrant IMTs and ALCL, including in children. Herein, we review the pharmacologic tractability ofALKalterations, focusing beyond NSCLC. Importantly, the hallmark of approved indications is the presence ofALKfusions/rearrangements, and response rates of ~50–85%. Moreover, there are numerous reports of ALK inhibitor activity in multiple solid and hematologic tumors (e.g., histiocytosis, leiomyosarcoma, lymphoma, myeloma, and colorectal, neuroendocrine, ovarian, pancreatic, renal, and thyroid cancer) bearingALKfusions/rearrangements. Many reports used crizotinib or alectinib, but each of the approved ALK inhibitors have shown activity. ALK inhibitor activity is also seen in neuroblastoma, which bearALKmutations (rather than fusions/rearrangements), but response rates are lower (~10–20%). Current data suggests that ALK inhibitors have tissue-agnostic activity in neoplasms bearingALKfusions/rearrangements.

The recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the dabrafenib/trametinib combination as a tissue-agnostic treatment for solid tumors with BRAF V600E mutation is the result of more than 20 years of extensive research into BRAF mutations in human cancer, the underlying biological mechanisms that drive BRAF-mediated tumor growth, and the clinical testing and refinement of selective RAF and MEK kinase inhibitors. Such approval marks a significant achievement in the field of oncology and represents a major step forward in our ability to treat cancer. Early evidence supported the use of dabrafenib/trametinib combination in melanoma, non–small-cell lung cancer, and anaplastic thyroid cancer. Furthermore, data from basket trials have demonstrated consistently good response rates in various tumors, including biliary tract cancer, low-grade glioma, high-grade glioma, hairy cell leukemia, and multiple other malignancies, which has been the basis for FDA approval of a tissue-agnostic indication in adult and pediatric patients with BRAF V600E–positive solid tumors. From a clinical standpoint, our review delves into the efficacy of the dabrafenib/trametinib combination for BRAF V600E–positive tumors: examining the underlying rationale for its use, evaluating the latest evidence on its potential benefits, and discussing the possible associated adverse effects and strategies to minimize their impact. Additionally, we explore potential resistance mechanisms and future landscape of BRAF-targeted therapies.

Tumor‐agnostic therapies represent a paradigm shift in oncology by altering the traditional means of characterizing tumors based on their origin or location. Instead, they zero in on specific genetic anomalies responsible for fueling malignant growth. The watershed moment for tumor‐agnostic therapies arrived in 2017, with the US Food and Drug Administration's historic approval of pembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor. This milestone marked the marriage of genomics and immunology fields, as an immunotherapeutic agent gained approval based on genomic biomarkers, specifically, microsatellite instability‐high or mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR). Subsequently, the approval of NTRK inhibitors, designed to combat NTRK gene fusions prevalent in various tumor types, including pediatric cancers and adult solid tumors, further underscored the potential of tumor‐agnostic therapies. The US Food and Drug Administration approvals of targeted therapies ( BRAF V600E, RET fusion), immunotherapies (tumor mutational burden ≥10 mutations per megabase, dMMR) and an antibody‐drug conjugate (Her2‐positive–immunohistochemistry 3+ expression) with pan‐cancer efficacy have continued, offering newfound hope to patients grappling with advanced solid tumors that harbor particular biomarkers. In this comprehensive review, the authors delve into the expansive landscape of tissue‐agnostic targets and drugs, shedding light on the rationale underpinning this approach, the hurdles it faces, presently approved therapies, voices from the patient advocacy perspective, and the tantalizing prospects on the horizon. This is a welcome advance in oncology that transcends the boundaries of histology and location to provide personalized options.

Telaglenastat (CB-839) is a glutaminase 1 inhibitor that targets the dysregulation in glutamine metabolism in cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment. Preclinical data suggested that the combination of telaglenastat with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies can lead to enhanced immune response against cancer. We designed a phase I/II trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of telaglenastat combined with nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. Dose escalation was carried out using a 3 + 3 design with two dose levels for telaglenastat (600 mg and 800 mg twice daily). Nivolumab was given at a fixed dose of 240 mg by intravenous infusion on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle in all patients. Expansion in phase II was planned using Simon's two-stage design in disease- and prior therapy-specific cohorts. We included a total of 118 patients across different cohorts. The most frequently reported adverse events were fatigue (42.4%; n = 50), nausea (39%; n = 46), and photophobia (32.2%; n = 38). In the response-assessable analysis set (including 107 patients in dose expansion and recommended phase II dose of dose escalation), the overall response rate (ORR) was 8.4% (n = 9). The ORR was 24% in 25 patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) who were checkpoint inhibitor-naïve, 5.9% in 17 patients with ccRCC after nivolumab, 0% in 9 patients with ccRCC after other prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1, 5.4% in 37 patients with melanoma after anti-PD-1/PD-L1, and 0% in 19 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer after anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Telaglenastat in combination with nivolumab was generally well tolerated. The combination did not show a pattern of efficacy across different study cohorts.

Biomarker-driven cancer therapy has revolutionized precision oncology. With a better understanding of tumor biology, tissue-agnostic targets have been characterized and explored, which ultimately led to therapeutics with pan-cancer efficacy. To date, five molecular biomarkers have obtained FDA tissue-agnostic approval for targeted therapies and immunotherapies. Those include BRAFV600E mutations, RET fusions, NTRK fusions, high tumor mutation burden (TMB), and deficient mismatch repair/high microsatellite instability (dMMR/MSI-High). Herein, we have used data from AACR project GENIE to explore the clinico-genomic landscape of these alterations. AACR GENIE is a publicly accessible registry of genomic data from multiple collaborating cancer centers. Current database (version 13.0) includes sequencing data of 168,423 samples collected from patients with different cancers. We were able to identify BRAFV600E, RET fusions, NTRK fusions, and high TMB in 2.9%, 1.6%, 1.5%, and 15.2% of pan-cancer samples, respectively. In this article, we describe the distribution of those tissue-agnostic targets among different cancer types. In addition, we summarize the current prospect on the biology of these alterations and evidence on approved drugs, including pembrolizumab, dostarilmab, larotrectinib, entrectinib, selpercatinib, and dabrafenib/trametinib combination.

PURPOSE: The response to cancer therapies is typically assessed with radiologic imaging 6-10 weeks after treatment initiation. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), however, has a short half-life, and dynamic changes in ctDNA quantity may allow for earlier assessment of the therapeutic response. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors referred to the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center were invited to participate in a liquid biopsy protocol for which serial blood samples were collected before, during, and after systemic therapy. We isolated ctDNA from serially collected plasma samples at baseline, mid-treatment, and first restaging. Genomically informed droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) was performed, and ctDNA quantities were reported as aggregate variant allele frequencies for all detected molecular aberrations. RESULTS: We included 204 patients receiving 260 systemic therapies. The ctDNA detection rate was higher in progressors (patients with progressive disease) compared with nonprogressors (patients with stable disease, partial responses, or complete responses) at all time points ( P < .009). Moreover, ctDNA detection was associated with a shorter median time-to-treatment failure ( P ≤ .001). Positive delta and slope values for changes in ctDNA quantity were more frequent in progressors ( P ≤ .03 and P < .001, respectively) and were associated with a shorter median time-to-treatment failure ( P ≤ .014 and P < .001, respectively). Increasing ctDNA quantity was predictive of clinical and/or radiologic progressive disease in 73% of patients (median lead time, 23 days). CONCLUSION: Detection of ctDNA and early dynamic changes in its quantity can predict the clinical outcomes of systemic therapies in patients with advanced solid tumors.