Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA): a multicentre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial (original) (raw)
Related papers
Acta Oncologica
Background: In precision cancer medicine, the challenge is to prioritize DNA driver events, account for resistance markers, and procure sufficient information for treatment that maintains patient safety. The MetAction project, exploring how tumor molecular vulnerabilities predict therapy response, first established the required workflow for DNA sequencing and data interpretation (2014-2015). Here, we employed it to identify molecularly matched therapy and recorded outcome in end-stage cancer (2016-2019). Material and methods: Metastatic tissue from 26 patients (16 colorectal cancer cases) was sequenced by the Oncomine assay. The study tumor boards interpreted called variants with respect to sensitivity or resistance to matched therapy and recommended single-agent or combination treatment if considered tolerable. The primary endpoint was the rate of progression-free survival 1.3-fold longer than for the most recent systemic therapy. The objective response rate and overall survival were secondary endpoints. Results: Both common and rare actionable alterations were identified. Thirteen patients were found eligible for therapy following review of tumor sensitivity and resistance variants and patient tolerability. The interventions were inhibitors of ALK/ROS1-, BRAF-, EGFR-, FGFR-, mTOR-, PARP-, or PD-1-mediated signaling for 2-3 cases each. Among 10 patients who received treatment until radiologic evaluation, 6 (46% of the eligible cases) met the primary endpoint. Four colorectal cancer patients (15% of the total study cohort) had objective response. The only serious adverse event was a transient colitis, which appeared in 1 of the 2 patients given PD-1 inhibitor with complete response. Apart from those two, overall survival was similar for patients who did and did not receive study treatment. Conclusions: The systematic MetAction approach may point forward to a refined framework for how to interpret the complexity of sensitivity versus resistance and patient safety that resides in tumor sequence data, for the possibly improved outcome of precision cancer medicine in future studies.
Tumor control versus adverse events with targeted anticancer therapies
Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2012
The advent of targeted anticancer therapies over the past few decades has reinvigorated the field of cancer therapeutics, with the promise of increased cancer cure rates accompanied by decreased toxicity. But, has that promise been fulfilled? The short answer is definitely 'no', both because of disappointing tumor responses and unexpectedly high toxicity, as well as the extremely high financial cost of these agents. However, failing to completely fulfill initial promise does not mean that targeted therapies should be abandoned. Increased progression-free survival might ultimately lead to increased overall survival, and targeted therapies have changed the course of cancers such as breast, lung and renal. Therefore, we would argue that despite some disappointments, targeted therapies have a vital role in future cancer treatment. This Review will discuss the positives and negatives of targeted agents, and propose a way to optimize their use and development to ensure proper pers...
Personalized Medicine in a Phase I Clinical Trials Program: The MD Anderson Cancer Center Initiative
Clinical Cancer Research, 2012
Purpose: We initiated a personalized medicine program in the context of early clinical trials, using targeted agents matched with tumor molecular aberrations. Herein, we report our observations. Patient and Methods: Patients with advanced cancer were treated in the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy. Molecular analysis was conducted in the MD Anderson Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory. Patients whose tumors had an aberration were treated with matched targeted therapy, when available. Treatment assignment was not randomized. The clinical outcomes of patients with molecular aberrations treated with matched targeted therapy were compared with those of consecutive patients who were not treated with matched targeted therapy.
Cancer Targeted Therapy Strategy: The Pathologist's Perspectives
Current cancer drug targets, 2017
The effectiveness of new personalized treatment procedures in oncology is based on the fact that a certain tumor exhibits specific molecular features. More in detail, neoplastic tissues of patients should display a specific biomarker, most often a specific genetic alteration and/or under/overexpression of a definite protein, that could be the target of its respective drug. Immunohistochemical and molecular analyses, which usuallyinclude examination of nucleic acids from either tissues or fluids, are common tests to define the status of a tumor. This review focuses on the pathologist's role in carefully controlling pre- analytic procedures and standard operating procedures that are a crucial prerequisite to reach reliable and reproducible results. Six paradigmatic applications of targeted therapy, for which pathological diagnosis plays a fundamental role, are summarized. Traditional and next-generation sequencing are also addressed from the pathologist's perspective. It is fi...
Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2008
Purpose To identify the characteristics of phase II studies that predict for subsequent “positive” phase III trials (those that reached the proposed primary end points of study or those wherein the study drug was superior to the standard regimen investigating targeted agents in advanced tumors. Methods We identified all phase III clinical trials of targeted therapies against advanced cancers published from 1985 to 2005. Characteristics of the preceding phase II studies were reviewed to identify predictive factors for success of the subsequent phase III trial. Data were analyzed using the χ2 test and logistic regression models. Results Of 351 phase II studies, 167 (47.6%) subsequent phase III trials were positive and 184 (52.4%) negative. Phase II studies from multiple rather than single institutions were more likely to precede a successful trial (60.4% v 39.4%; P < .001). Positive phase II results were more likely to lead to a successful phase III trial (50.8% v 22.5%; P = .003)....