Background Off‐label drug prescribing is common in pediatric clinical medicine, though the extent and impact of this practice in pediatric oncology has not yet been characterized. Methods We completed a retrospective single‐institution cohort study evaluating prevalence, characteristics, and clinical outcomes of off‐label prescribing of 108 FDA‐approved targeted anticancer drugs in patients < 30 years old treated for cancer from 2007 to 2017. Dosing strategies were adjusted for body size and compared to FDA‐approved adult dosing regimen. A composite toxicity endpoint was defined as a patient having unplanned clinic visits, emergency department visits, or unplanned hospital admissions that were at least possibly related to the off‐label treatment. Results The overall prevalence of off‐label use of targeted therapies was 9.2% (n = 374 patients). The prevalence increased significantly over the study period (P < .0001). Patients treated off‐label were more likely to have neuro‐oncology diagnoses compared to patients not treated off‐label (46% vs 29%; P < .0001). Of the 108 potential agents, 38 (35%) were used by at least one patient. The median starting dose was below the FDA‐approved normalized dose for 44.4% of agents. Fifteen percent of patients had a complete response while receiving off‐label therapy, 38% experienced toxicity as defined, and 13% discontinued off‐label therapy due to toxicity. Conclusions In this real‐world evaluation of prescribing at a large pediatric cancer center, off‐label prescribing of FDA‐approved targeted therapies was common, increasing in prevalence, encompassed a broad sample of targeted agents, and was tolerable. Clinicians commonly start dosing below the equivalent FDA‐approved dose.

No abstract

No abstract

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors, but there are currently no known biomarkers to predict treatment benefit. Blood TMB (bTMB) estimation via circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) profiling can provide a convenient means to estimate HCC TMB. Here we provide the first landscape of bTMB in advanced HCC using a commercially available next-generation sequencing assay, show that it is approximately three times as high as matched tissue TMB, and show that bTMB correlates with NAFLD cirrhosis etiology and the presence of genomic alterations in HTERT and TP53. These results lay the foundation for subsequent studies evaluating bTMB as an immune therapy predictive biomarker in HCC.

Background and Aims: Immunotherapies have altered the treatment paradigm in HCC. Surrogate and modified endpoints are used to assess early success in clinical studies and guide clinical practice. We sought to determine whether surrogate endpoints and modifications to the conventional criteria for tumor response (RECIST), including modified RECIST (mRECIST) and immune-modified RECIST (imRECIST), are valid measures to predict overall survival (OS) in HCC treated with immunotherapies. Approach and Results: We performed an individual-level post hoc analysis of patients treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab in the IMbrave150 trial (N = 279) and a cross-sectional analysis of a multicenter real-world patient cohort treated with immunotherapy (N = 328). Landmark analyses showed that objective response rates by RECIST were associated with greater OS including among Child-Pugh A and B patients and among patients treated with immunotherapies in the first- or second-line setting (IMbrave150: HR 0.24, 95% CI, 0.17–0.33; RW: HR 0.25, 95% CI, 0.15–0.43). Objective response rates by mRECIST or imRECIST were not associated with the greater predictive power of OS benefit (mRECIST: HR 0.30, 95% CI, 0.22–0.42; imRECIST: HR 0.36, 95% CI, 0.30–0.51). Progression-free survival determined by RECIST was only moderately correlated with OS, and this association was not improved using mRECIST or imRECIST. Conclusions: Our results clarify the utility of surrogate and modified endpoints in HCC treated with immunotherapies and support the use of RECIST objective response rates as an appropriate signal-finding measure for the evaluation of emerging treatments. Contrary to their intended purpose, mRECIST and imRECIST did not provide meaningful improvements in predicting OS benefits.

<p>Figure S1. Survival Characteristics by Response</p>

<p>Table S1. PFS and OS based on Clinical Characteristics</p>

<p>Figure S1. Survival Characteristics by Response</p>