Metabolomics, an omic science in systems biology, is the global quantitative assessment of endogenous metabolites within a biological system. Either individually or grouped as a metabolomic profile, detection of metabolites is carried out in cells, tissues, or biofluids by either nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy or mass spectrometry.There is potential for the metabolome to have a multitude of uses in oncology, including the early detection and diagnosis of cancer and as both a predictive and pharmacodynamic marker of drug effect. Despite this, there is lack of knowledge in the oncology community regarding metabolomics and confusion about its methodologic processes, technical challenges, and clinical applications. Metabolomics, when used as a translational research tool, can provide a link between the laboratory and clinic, particularly because metabolic and molecular imaging technologies, such as positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging, enable the discrimination of metabolic markers noninvasively in vivo. Here, we review the current and potential applications of metabolomics, focusing on its use as a biomarker for cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic evaluation. History and DefinitionsThe omic sciences of systems biology ( Fig. 1), including genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics, have been in existence for decades, whereas much attention has been focused on their development and application in the last several years. Metabolomics is an analytic tool used in conjunction with pattern recognition approaches and bioinformatics to detect metabolites and follow their changes in biofluids or tissue (1 -3). Precise numbers of human metabolites is unknown, with estimates ranging from the thousands to tens of thousands. Metabolomics is a term that encompasses several types of analyses, including (a) metabolic fingerprinting, which measures a subset of the whole profile with little differentiation or quantitation of metabolites (4); (b) metabolic profiling, the quantitative study of a group of metabolites, known or unknown, within or associated with a particular metabolic pathway (5, 6); and (c) target isotope-based analysis, which focuses on a particular segment of the metabolome by analyzing only a few selected metabolites that comprise a specific biochemical pathway (7).Metabolomics allows for a global assessment of a cellular state within the context of the immediate environment, taking into account genetic regulation, altered kinetic activity of enzymes, and changes in metabolic reactions (2,8,9). Thus, compared with genomics or proteomics, metabolomics reflects changes in phenotype and therefore function. The omic sciences are, however, complementary as ''upstream'' changes in genes and proteins are measured ''downstream'' as changes in cellular metabolism (2, 7). The converse, however, is that metabolomics is also a terminal view of the biological system, not allowing for representation of the genes and proteins that are increased or decreas...

PURPOSE To evaluate the safety, maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics (PKs), pharmacodynamics, and preliminary anticancer activity of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B), a fully human immunoglobulin G(1) monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-2. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced solid malignancies were treated once weekly with escalating doses of ramucirumab. Blood was sampled for PK studies throughout treatment. The effects of ramucirumab on circulating vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A), soluble VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2, tumor perfusion, and vascularity using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging were assessed. Results Thirty-seven patients were treated with 2 to 16 mg/kg of ramucirumab. After one patient each developed dose-limiting hypertension and deep venous thrombosis at 16 mg/kg, the next lower dose (13 mg/kg) was considered the MTD. Nausea, vomiting, headache, fatigue, and proteinuria were also noted. Four (15%) of 27 patients with measurable disease had a partial response (PR), and 11 (30%) of 37 patients had either a PR or stable disease lasting at least 6 months. PKs were characterized by dose-dependent elimination and nonlinear exposure consistent with saturable clearance. Mean trough concentrations exceeded biologically relevant target levels throughout treatment at all dose levels. Serum VEGF-A increased 1.5 to 3.5 times above pretreatment values and remained in this range throughout treatment at all dose levels. Tumor perfusion and vascularity decreased in 69% of evaluable patients. CONCLUSION Objective antitumor activity and antiangiogenic effects were observed over a wide range of dose levels, suggesting that ramucirumab may have a favorable therapeutic index in treating malignancies amenable to VEGFR-2 inhibition.

Purpose: Gemcitabine monotherapy is the standard palliative chemotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Gemcitabine requires plasma membrane nucleoside transporter proteins to efficiently enter cells and exert it cytotoxicity. In vitro studies have demonstrated that deficiency of human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1), the most widely abundant and distributed nucleoside transporter in human cells, confers resistance to gemcitabine toxicity, but the distribution and abundance of nucleoside transporters in normal and malignant pancreatic tissue is unknown.Experimental Design: We studied tumor blocks from normal pancreas and 21 Alberta patients with gemcitabinetreated pancreatic cancer. Immunohistochemistry on the formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues was performed with specific hENT1 and human Concentrative Nucleoside Transporter 3 monoclonal antibodies and scored by a pathologist blinded to clinical outcomes.Results: hENT1 was detected in normal Langerhan cells and lymphocytes but not in normal glandular elements. Patients in whom all adenocarcinoma cells had detectable hENT1 had significantly longer median survivals from gemcitabine initiation than those for whom hENT1 was absent in a proportion (10 to 100%) of adenocarcinoma cells (median survival, 13 versus 4 months, P ‫؍‬ 0.01). Immunohistochemistry for human Concentrative Nucleoside Transporter 3 revealed moderate to high-intensity staining in all adenocarcinoma tissue samples.Conclusions: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma with uniformly detectable hENT1 immunostaining have a significantly longer survival after gemcitabine chemotherapy than tumors without detectable hENT1. Immunohistochemistry for hENT1 shows promise as a molecular predictive assay to appropriately select patients for palliative gemcitabine chemotherapy but requires formal validation in prospective, randomized trials.

Purpose Combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown enhanced antitumor activity compared with monotherapy in tumor types such as melanoma. The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in combination, and nivolumab plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Safety and efficacy results from the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arms of the study are presented. Patients and Methods Patients with mRCC received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (N3I1), nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N1I3), or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (N3I3) every 3 weeks for four doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or toxicity. End points included safety (primary), objective response rate, and overall survival (OS). Results All patients in the N3I3 arm (n = 6) were censored at the time of analysis as a result of dose-limiting toxicity or other reasons. Forty-seven patients were treated in both the N3I1 and the N1I3 arm, and baseline patient characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38.3% and 61.7% of the patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 40.4% in both arms, with ongoing responses in 42.1% and 36.8% of patients in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. The 2-year OS was 67.3% and 69.6% in the N3I1 and N1I3 arms, respectively. Conclusion Nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy demonstrated manageable safety, notable antitumor activity, and durable responses with promising OS in patients with mRCC.

No abstract

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00680901.

BackgroundCombination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs has shown encouraging preliminary antitumor activity across various tumor types including advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). The open-label, parallel-cohort, dose-escalation, phase I CheckMate 016 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors or ipilimumab. Long-term outcomes from this study for the combination of nivolumab plus sunitinib or pazopanib in aRCC are presented.MethodsPatients with aRCC received nivolumab plus either sunitinib (50 mg/day, 4 weeks on/2 weeks off; N + S) or pazopanib (800 mg/day; N + P) until progression/unacceptable toxicity. The nivolumab starting dose was 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, with planned escalation to 5 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; antitumor activity was a secondary endpoint.ResultsArm N + S enrolled 33 patients, 19 of whom were treatment-naïve; this arm advanced to the expansion phase. Median follow-up was 50.0 months. Patients experienced high frequencies of adverse events (AEs) including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (82%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (39%). Investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) was 55% (18/33) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.7 months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached.Arm N + P enrolled 20 patients, all had ≥1 prior systemic therapy; this arm was closed due to dose-limiting toxicities and did not proceed to expansion. Median follow-up was 27.1 months. Patients treated with N + P experienced high frequencies of AEs including treatment-related AEs (100%), grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (70%), and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation (25%). Investigator-assessed ORR was 45% (9/20) and median PFS was 7.2 months. Median OS was 27.9 months.ConclusionsThe addition of standard doses of sunitinib or pazopanib to nivolumab resulted in a high incidence of high-grade toxicities limiting future development of either combination regimen. While there was no adverse impact on response and the OS outcome was notable, the findings suggest that the success of combination regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs may be dependent on careful selection of the antiangiogenic component and dose.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01472081. Registered 16 November 2011.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-018-0420-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose Preclinical evidence suggests dichloroacetate (DCA) can reverse the Warburg effect and inhibit growth in cancer models. This phase 1 study was undertaken to assess the safety, recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of oral DCA in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods Twenty-four patients with advanced solid malignancies were enrolled using a standard 3 + 3 protocol at a starting dose of 6.25 mg/kg twice daily (BID). Treatment on 28 days cycles was continued until progression, toxicity, or consent withdrawal. PK samples were collected on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of subsequent cycles. PET imaging ((18) F-FDG uptake) was investigated as a potential biomarker of response. Results Twenty-three evaluable patients were treated with DCA at two doses: 6.25 mg/kg and 12.5 mg/kg BID (median of 2 cycles each). No DLTs occurred in the 6.25 mg/kg BID cohort so the dose was escalated. Three of seven patients had DLTs (fatigue, vomiting, diarrhea) at 12.5 mg/kg BID. Thirteen additional patients were treated at 6.25 mg/kg BID. Most toxicities were grade 1-2 with the most common being fatigue, neuropathy and nausea. No responses were observed and eight patients had stable disease. The DCA PK profile in cancer patients was consistent with previously published data. There was high variability in PK values and neuropathy among patients. Progressive increase in DCA trough levels and a trend towards decreased (18) F-FDG uptake with length of DCA therapy was observed. Conclusions The RP2D of oral DCA is 6.25 mg/kg BID. Toxicities will require careful monitoring in future trials.