PURPOSE: This phase I/II study evaluated tremelimumab (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 monoclonal antibody) and durvalumab (antiprogrammed death ligand-1 monoclonal antibody) as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including a novel regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02519348 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HCC who had progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomly assigned to receive T300 + D (tremelimumab 300 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg [one dose each during the first cycle] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), durvalumab monotherapy (1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), tremelimumab monotherapy (750 mg once every 4 weeks [seven doses] and then once every 12 weeks), or T75 + D (tremelimumab 75 mg once every 4 weeks plus durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks [four doses] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks). Safety was the primary end point. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 and overall survival; exploratory end points included circulating lymphocyte profiles. RESULTS: A total of 332 patients were enrolled (T300 + D, n = 75; durvalumab, n = 104; tremelimumab, n = 69; and T75 + D, n = 84). Tolerability was acceptable across arms, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in 37.8%, 20.8%, 43.5%, and 24.4%, respectively. Confirmed ORRs (95% CI) were 24.0% (14.9 to 35.3), 10.6% (5.4 to 18.1), 7.2% (2.4 to 16.1), and 9.5% (4.2 to 17.9), respectively. An early expansion of CD8+ lymphocytes was associated with response across arms, with highest proliferating CD8+ lymphocyte levels occurring in the T300 + D arm. The median (95% CI) overall survival was 18.7 (10.8 to 27.3), 13.6 (8.7 to 17.6), 15.1 (11.3 to 20.5), and 11.3 (8.4 to 15.0) months in the T300 + D, durvalumab, tremelimumab, and T75 + D arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: All regimens were found to be tolerable and clinically active; however, the T300 + D regimen demonstrated the most encouraging benefit-risk profile. The unique pharmacodynamic activity and association with ORR of the T300 + D regimen further support its continued evaluation in HCC.

Advanced cholangiocarcinoma continues to harbor a difficult prognosis and therapeutic options have been limited. During the course of a clinical trial of whole genomic sequencing seeking druggable targets, we examined six patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma. Integrated genome-wide and whole transcriptome sequence analyses were performed on tumors from six patients with advanced, sporadic intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (SIC) to identify potential therapeutically actionable events. Among the somatic events captured in our analysis, we uncovered two novel therapeutically relevant genomic contexts that when acted upon, resulted in preliminary evidence of anti-tumor activity. Genome-wide structural analysis of sequence data revealed recurrent translocation events involving the FGFR2 locus in three of six assessed patients. These observations and supporting evidence triggered the use of FGFR inhibitors in these patients. In one example, preliminary anti-tumor activity of pazopanib (in vitro FGFR2 IC₅₀≈350 nM) was noted in a patient with an FGFR2-TACC3 fusion. After progression on pazopanib, the same patient also had stable disease on ponatinib, a pan-FGFR inhibitor (in vitro, FGFR2 IC₅₀≈8 nM). In an independent non-FGFR2 translocation patient, exome and transcriptome analysis revealed an allele specific somatic nonsense mutation (E384X) in ERRFI1, a direct negative regulator of EGFR activation. Rapid and robust disease regression was noted in this ERRFI1 inactivated tumor when treated with erlotinib, an EGFR kinase inhibitor. FGFR2 fusions and ERRFI mutations may represent novel targets in sporadic intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and trials should be characterized in larger cohorts of patients with these aberrations. Cholangiocarcinoma is a cancer that affects the bile ducts. Unfortunately, many patients diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma have disease that cannot be treated with surgery or has spread to other parts of the body, thus severely limiting treatment options. New advances in drug treatment have enabled treatment of these cancers with “targeted therapy” that exploits an error in the normal functioning of a tumor cell, compared to other cells in the body, thus allowing only tumor cells to be killed by the drug. We sought to identify changes in the genetic material of cholangiocarcinoma patient tumors in order to identify potential errors in cellular functioning by utilizing cutting edge genetic sequencing technology. We identified three patient tumors possessing an FGFR2 gene that was aberrantly fused to another gene. Two of these patients were able to receive targeted therapy for FGFR2 with resulting tumor shrinkage. A fourth tumor contained an error in a gene that controls a very important cellular mechanism in cancer, termed epidermal growth factor pathway (EGFR). This patient received therapy targeting this mechanism and also demonstrated response to treatment. Thus, we have been able to utilize cutting edge technology with targeted drug treatment to personalize medical treatment for cancer in cholangiocarcinoma patients.

PURPOSE: An ASCO provisional clinical opinion offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This provisional clinical opinion addresses the appropriate use of tumor genomic testing in patients with metastatic or advanced solid tumors.CLINICAL CONTEXT: An increasing number of therapies are approved to treat cancers harboring specific genomic biomarkers. However, there is a lack of clarity as to when tumor genomic sequencing should be ordered, what type of assays should be performed, and how to interpret the results for treatment selection.PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION: Patients with metastatic or advanced cancer should undergo genomic sequencing in a certified laboratory if the presence of one or more specific genomic alterations has regulatory approval as biomarkers to guide the use of or exclusion from certain treatments for their disease. Multigene panel–based assays should be used if more than one biomarker-linked therapy is approved for the patient's disease. Site-agnostic approvals for any cancer with a high tumor mutation burden, mismatch repair deficiency, or neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase ( NTRK) fusions provide a rationale for genomic testing for all solid tumors. Multigene testing may also assist in treatment selection by identifying additional targets when there are few or no genotype-based therapy approvals for the patient's disease. For treatment planning, the clinician should consider the functional impact of the targeted alteration and expected efficacy of genomic biomarker–linked options relative to other approved or investigational treatments. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/assays-and-predictive-markers-guidelines .

Purpose: TH-302 is an investigational hypoxia-activated prodrug that releases the DNA alkylator bromo-isophosphoramide mustard in hypoxic settings. This phase II study (NCT01144455) evaluated gemcitabine plus TH-302 in patients with previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²), gemcitabine plus TH-302 240 mg/m² (G+T240), or gemcitabine plus TH-302 340 mg/m² (G+T340). Randomized crossover after progression on gemcitabine was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), tumor response, CA 19-9 response, and safety. Results: Two hundred fourteen patients (77% with metastatic disease) were enrolled between June 2010 and July 2011. PFS was significantly longer with gemcitabine plus TH-302 (pooled combination arms) compared with gemcitabine alone (median PFS, 5.6 v 3.6 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87; P = .005; median PFS for metastatic disease, 5.1 v 3.4 months, respectively). Median PFS times for G+T240 and G+T340 were 5.6 and 6.0 months, respectively. Tumor response was 12%, 17%, and 26% in the gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 arms, respectively (G+T340 v gemcitabine, P = .04). CA 19-9 decrease was greater with G+T340 versus gemcitabine (−5,398 v −549 U/mL, respectively; P = .008). Median OS times for gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 were 6.9, 8.7, and 9.2 months, respectively (P = not significant). The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, nausea, and peripheral edema (frequencies similar across arms). Skin and mucosal toxicities (2% grade 3) and myelosuppression (55% grade 3 or 4) were the most common TH-302–related AEs but were not associated with treatment discontinuation. Conclusion: PFS, tumor response, and CA 19-9 response were significantly improved with G+TH-302. G+T340 is being investigated further in the phase III MAESTRO study (NCT01746979).

We observe previously unknown interactions between clinically important adenovirus vector capsids, platelet factor 4, and CAR.

Fibroblast Growth Factor receptor (FGFR) pathway aberrations have been implicated in approximately 7% of the malignancies. As our knowledge of FGFR aberrations in cancer continues to evolve, FGFR inhibitors emerged as potential targeted therapeutic agents. The promising results of pemigatinib and infigratinib in advanced unresectable cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangement, and erdafitinib in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with FGFR2 and FGFR3 genetic aberrations, lead to their accelerated approval by the United States (USA) FDA. Along with these agents, many phase II/III clinical trials are currently evaluating the use of derazantinib, infigratinib, and futibatinib either alone or in combination with immunotherapy. Despite the encouraging results seen with FGFR inhibitors, resistance mechanisms and side effect profile may limit their clinical utility. A better understanding of the unique FGFR-inhibitor-related toxicities would invariably help us in the prevention and effective management of FGFR-inhibitor-induced adverse events thereby enhancing their clinical benefit. Herein, we summarized the physiology of FGF/FGFR signaling and briefly discussed the possible mechanisms that could lead to FGFR inhibitor resistance and side effects. In addition, we proposed treatment guidelines for the management of FGFR-inhibitor-associated toxicities. This work would invariably help practicing oncologists to effectively manage the unique toxicities of FGFR inhibitors.