https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/259112/PMC5378224.pdf

3rd ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 3)

https://repub.eur.nl/pub/129868/Repub_129868.pdf

Recommendations for the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for patients with metastatic cancers: a report from the ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group.

High-throughput genomic analyses may improve outcomes in patients with advanced cancers. MOSCATO 01 is a prospective clinical trial evaluating the clinical benefit of this approach. Nucleic acids were extracted from fresh-frozen tumor biopsies and analyzed by array comparative genomic hybridization, next-generation sequencing, and RNA sequencing. The primary objective was to evaluate clinical benefit as measured by the percentage of patients presenting progression-free survival (PFS) on matched therapy (PFS2) 1.3-fold longer than the PFS on prior therapy (PFS1). A total of 1,035 adult patients were included, and a biopsy was performed in 948. An actionable molecular alteration was identified in 411 of 843 patients with a molecular portrait. A total of 199 patients were treated with a targeted therapy matched to a genomic alteration. The PFS2/PFS1 ratio was >1.3 in 33% of the patients (63/193). Objective responses were observed in 22 of 194 patients (11%; 95% CI, 7%-17%), and median overall survival was 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.5-14.3 months).Significance: This study suggests that high-throughput genomics could improve outcomes in a subset of patients with hard-to-treat cancers. Although these results are encouraging, only 7% of the successfully screened patients benefited from this approach. Randomized trials are needed to validate this hypothesis and to quantify the magnitude of benefit. Expanding drug access could increase the percentage of patients who benefit. Cancer Discov; 7(6); 586-95. ©2017 AACR.See related commentary by Schram and Hyman, p. 552This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 539.

https://cancerdiscovery.aacrjournals.org/content/candisc/early/2017/03/26/2159-8290.CD-16-1396.full.pdf

High-throughput genomics and clinical outcome in hard-to-treat advanced cancers: Results of the MOSCATO 01 trial

Current Challenges in Cancer Treatment.

Glioblastomas are the most common form of malignant primary brain tumor and an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In recent years there have been important advances in understanding the molecular pathogenesis and biology of these tumors, but this has not translated into significantly improved outcomes for patients. In this consensus review from the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), the current management of isocitrate dehydrogenase wildtype (IDHwt) glioblastomas will be discussed. In addition, novel therapies such as targeted molecular therapies, agents targeting DNA damage response and metabolism, immunotherapies, and viral therapies will be reviewed, as well as the current challenges and future directions for research.

/pdf/glioblastoma-in-adults-a-society-for-neuro-oncology-sno-and-401m4809du.pdf

Glioblastoma in adults: a Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and European Society of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) consensus review on current management and future directions

Summary Background Molecularly targeted agents have been reported to have anti-tumour activity for patients whose tumours harbour the matching molecular alteration. These results have led to increased off-label use of molecularly targeted agents on the basis of identified molecular alterations. We assessed the efficacy of several molecularly targeted agents marketed in France, which were chosen on the basis of tumour molecular profiling but used outside their indications, in patients with advanced cancer for whom standard-of-care therapy had failed. Methods The open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 SHIVA trial was done at eight French academic centres. We included adult patients with any kind of metastatic solid tumour refractory to standard of care, provided they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, disease that was accessible for a biopsy or resection of a metastatic site, and at least one measurable lesion. The molecular profile of each patient's tumour was established with a mandatory biopsy of a metastatic tumour and large-scale genomic testing. We only included patients for whom a molecular alteration was identified within one of three molecular pathways (hormone receptor, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, RAF/MEK), which could be matched to one of ten regimens including 11 available molecularly targeted agents (erlotinib, lapatinib plus trastuzumab, sorafenib, imatinib, dasatinib, vemurafenib, everolimus, abiraterone, letrozole, tamoxifen). We randomly assigned these patients (1:1) to receive a matched molecularly targeted agent (experimental group) or treatment at physician's choice (control group) by central block randomisation (blocks of size six). Randomisation was done centrally with a web-based response system and was stratified according to the Royal Marsden Hospital prognostic score (0 or 1 vs 2 or 3) and the altered molecular pathway. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. Treatments in both groups were given in accordance with the approved product information and standard practice protocols at each institution and were continued until evidence of disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, which was not assessed by independent central review. We assessed safety in any patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01771458. Findings Between Oct 4, 2012, and July 11, 2014, we screened 741 patients with any tumour type. 293 (40%) patients had at least one molecular alteration matching one of the 10 available regimens. At the time of data cutoff, Jan 20, 2015, 195 (26%) patients had been randomly assigned, with 99 in the experimental group and 96 in the control group. All patients in the experimental group started treatment, as did 92 in the control group. Two patients in the control group received a molecularly targeted agent: both were included in their assigned group for efficacy analyses, the patient who received an agent that was allowed in the experimental group was included in the experimental group for the purposes of safety analyses, while the other patient, who received a molecularly targeted agent and chemotherapy, was kept in the control group for safety analyses. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 5·8–11·6) in the experimental group and 11·3 months (8·1–11·6) in the control group at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Median progression-free survival was 2·3 months (95% CI 1·7–3·8) in the experimental group versus 2·0 months (1·8–2·1) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·88, 95% CI 0·65–1·19, p=0·41). In the safety population, 43 (43%) of 100 patients treated with a molecularly targeted agent and 32 (35%) of 91 patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy had grade 3–4 adverse events (p=0·30). Interpretation The use of molecularly targeted agents outside their indications does not improve progression-free survival compared with treatment at physician's choice in heavily pretreated patients with cancer. Off-label use of molecularly targeted agents should be discouraged, but enrolment in clinical trials should be encouraged to assess predictive biomarkers of efficacy. Funding Institut Curie.

https://thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470-2045(15)00188-6.pdf

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

Ol vier Trédan

Papers

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