Background: In 2013, the French National Cancer Institute initiated the AcSé program to provide patients with secure access to targeted therapies outside of their marketed approvals. Efficacy and safety was then assessed using a two-stage Simon phase II trial design. When the study design was designed, crizotinib was approved only as monotherapy for adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase plus non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC).Patients and methods: Advanced NSCLC patients with c-MET 6 copies, c-MET-mutated, or ROS-1-translocated tumours were enrolled in one of the three cohorts. Patients were treated with crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. Efficacy was assessed using the objective response rate (ORR) after two cycles of crizotinib as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included disease control rate at four cycles, best ORR, progression-free survival, overall survival, and drug tolerance.Results: From August 2013 to March 2018, 5606 patients had their tumour tested for crizotinib targeted molecular alterations: 252 patients had c-MET 6 copies, 74 c-MET-mutation, and 78 ROS-1-translocated tumour. Finally, 25 patients in the c-MET 6 copies cohort, 28 in the c-MET-mutation cohort, and 37 in the ROS-1-translocation cohort were treated in the phase II trial. The ORR was 16% in the c-MET 6 copies cohort, 10.7% in the mutated, and 47.2% in the ROS-1 cohort. The best ORR during treatment was 32% in the c-MET-6 copies cohort, 36% in the c-MET-mutated, and 69.4% in the ROS-1-translocation cohort. Safety data were consistent with that previously reported.Conclusions: Crizotinib activity in patients with ROS1-translocated tumours was confirmed. In the c-MET-mutation and c-MET 6 copies cohorts, despite insufficient ORR after two cycles of crizotinib, there are signs of late response not sufficient to justify the development of crizotinib in this indication. The continued targeting of c-MET with innovative therapies appears justified.

Purpose: The limited knowledge on the molecular profile of patients with BRAF-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progress under BRAF-targeted therapies (BRAF-TT) has hampered the development of subsequent therapeutic strategies for these patients. Here, we evaluated the clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-targeted sequencing to identify canonical BRAF mutations and genomic alterations potentially related to resistance to BRAF-TT, in a large cohort of patients with BRAFmutant NSCLC.Experimental Design: This was a prospective study of 78 patients with advanced BRAF-mutant NSCLC, enrolled in 27 centers across France. Blood samples (n ¼ 208) were collected from BRAF-TT-naïve patients (n ¼ 47), patients nonprogressive under treatment (n ¼ 115), or patients at disease progression (PD) to BRAF-TT (24/46 on BRAF monotherapy and 22/46 on BRAF/ MEK combination therapy). ctDNA sequencing was performed using InVisionFirst-Lung. In silico structural modeling was used to predict the potential functional effect of the alterations found in ctDNA.Results: BRAF V600E ctDNA was detected in 74% of BRAF-TTnaïve patients, where alterations in genes related with the MAPK and PI3K pathways, signal transducers, and protein kinases were identified in 29% of the samples. ctDNA positivity at the first radiographic evaluation under treatment, as well as BRAF-mutant ctDNA positivity at PD were associated with poor survival. Potential drivers of resistance to either BRAF-TT monotherapy or BRAF/MEK combination were identified in 46% of patients and these included activating mutations in effectors of the MAPK and PI3K pathways, as well as alterations in U2AF1, IDH1, and CTNNB1.Conclusions: ctDNA sequencing is clinically relevant for the detection of BRAF-activating mutations and the identification of alterations potentially related to resistance to BRAF-TT in BRAFmutant NSCLC.

Missense mutations in the polymerase epsilon (POLE) gene have been reported to generate proofreading defects resulting in an ultramutated genome and sensitize tumors to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. However, many POLE mutated tumors do not respond to such treatment. To better understand the link between POLE mutation variants and response to immunotherapy, we. prospectively assessed the efficacy of nivolumab in a multicenter clinical trial in patients bearing advanced mismatch repair proficient POLE-mutated solid tumors. We found that only tumors harboring selective POLE pathogenic mutations in the DNA binding or catalytic site of the exonuclease domain presented high mutational burden with specific single base substitution signature, high T-cell infiltrates, and high response rate to anti-PD1 monotherapy. This study illustrates how specific DNA repair defects can sensitize to immunotherapy, POLE proofreading deficiency representing a novel tumor agnostic biomarker for response to PD-1 checkpoint blockade therapy.

No abstract

Patients with cancers of differing histologies that express certain biomarkers are likely to benefit from treatment with targeted therapies. However, targets can be present in malignancies other than those indicated by a drug's label, and as a result, affected patients will have no access to those potentially useful drugs. To tackle this issue, the French National Cancer Institute developed the AcSé Programme in 2013. This programme is designed to make treatment decisions or recommendations on the basis of the presence of relevant biomarkers for malignancies with no targeted therapies available and also aims to improve safety, and evaluate the efficacy of targeted drugs used outside of their approved indications. Patients across France have access to molecular testing in 28 molecular genetics centres and to targeted therapies within phase II trials provided no other trials exist in which they could reasonably be included. Trials include patients below the age of 18 if safe dosing data are available. As of January 2016, 183 French clinical sites and over 7,000 patients are participating in AcSé led trials. Proof of concept is being demonstrated through trials designed to investigate the effectiveness of crizotinib and vemurafenib in a wide variety of cancers.

Background Ameloblastomas are uncommon locally aggressive tumors of odontogenic epithelium that rarely metastasize. Currently, there is no standard of care for the metastatic forms. Several studies have shown that ameloblastomas frequently have a BRAF mutation. Case presentation We report a case of a 33-year-old Caucasian woman with ameloblastoma diagnosed 30 years ago who developed lung metastasis 19 years ago. Systemic oral treatment with vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, was initiated 28 months ago within the AcSé French basket clinical trial of vemurafenib. Conclusions The patient has shown a durable clinical, functional, and radiographic partial response with vemurafenib. These observations suggest the possibility of introducing neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant targeted therapy in locally advanced ameloblastoma to improve outcome. BRAF inhibition has proved to be an efficient strategy in patients with a BRAF-mutated ameloblastoma.

Small clinical trials are trials in which the number of patients does not enable the objective of the study to be appropriately met with the usual methodological rules. This situation is common in the case of rare diseases, in paediatrics, in certain cancer pathologies or when the number of patients exposed to the treatment needs to be limited. The principal methodological problems are initially identified, and the classical methods (controlled, randomised, double-blind trial using parallel groups, crossover trial, factorial design, trial performed with several measures repeated over time, add-on design, randomised withdrawal design or early-escape design) and more uncommon methods (sequential approaches, meta-analyses, the 'N of 1' method and other methods that facilitate decision making or modelling) are then discussed. Subsequently, recommendations are made to ensure that the results obtained are not a matter of chance, and to increase the level of proof. Keywords: small trials, statistical methods, level of proof Small clinical trials are trials conducted and analysed using patient numbers lower than is required to meet the aims of the study according to the more common methodological rules. This paper therefore does not concern the standard phase I and II trials where the number of patients included in the study, although quantitatively small, is methodologically adapted to the aims of the study. It concerns all trials that aim to establish the proof of whether any given effect, be it of efficacy or tolerance, is present. PHARMACOLOGIE CLINIQUEThis situation is often the case with rare diseases, in paediatrics or in cancer treatment, when the external limitations of patient availability do not enable the recruitment of patient numbers that meet the usual assessment criteria. It is also the case when the number of patients exposed to the investigational treatment methods needs to be limited, either because of constraints regarding the particular protection of individuals (children, pregnant women), or because of the toxicity of the product (cancer treatment), or even its lack of efficacy (placebo, weak doses). The methodological issue in 'proof of concept' studies, the results of which lead to the decision on whether or not to continue developing a molecule, although based on a different context, can be related to this field.The main issue surrounding these small trials is the level of proof provided by the results of these studies, which reflects the relevance of using non-standard methods.Conducting a small trial through necessity reveals various levels of difficulties, some of which are not entirely specific to small trials, but are increased because of the reduced patient numbers. These include the following:1. The risk of not reaching a conclusion, even though there is a real difference between the therapeutic regimens being compared, because of the great variability in random fluctuations. Only a quantitatively important effect is likely to be given prominence.2. The caution necessary when extr...

No abstract