During the past decade, cancer stem cells (CSCs) have been increasingly identified in many malignancies. Although the origin and plasticity of these cells remain controversial, tumour heterogeneity and the presence of small populations of cells with stem-like characteristics is established in most malignancies. CSCs display many features of embryonic or tissue stem cells, and typically demonstrate persistent activation of one or more highly conserved signal transduction pathways involved in development and tissue homeostasis, including the Notch, Hedgehog (HH), and Wnt pathways. CSCs generally have slow growth rates and are resistant to chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Thus, new treatment strategies targeting these pathways to control stem-cell replication, survival and differentiation are under development. Herein, we provide an update on the latest advances in the clinical development of such approaches, and discuss strategies for overcoming CSC-associated primary or acquired resistance to cancer treatment. Given the crosstalk between the different embryonic developmental signalling pathways, as well as other pathways, designing clinical trials that target CSCs with rational combinations of agents to inhibit possible compensatory escape mechanisms could be of particular importance. We also share our views on the future directions for targeting CSCs to advance the clinical development of these classes of agents.

Tumor relapse and metastasis remain major obstacles for improving overall cancer survival, which may be due at least in part to the existence of cancer stem cells (CSCs). CSCs are characterized by tumorigenic properties and the ability to self-renew, form differentiated progeny, and develop resistance to therapy. CSCs use many of the same signaling pathways that are found in normal stem cells, such as Wnt, Notch, and Hedgehog (Hh). The origin of CSCs is not fully understood, but data suggest that they originate from normal stem or progenitor cells, or possibly other cancer cells. Therapeutic targeting of both CSCs and bulk tumor populations may provide a strategy to suppress tumor regrowth. Development of agents that target critical steps in the Wnt, Notch, and Hh pathways will be complicated by signaling cross-talk. The role that embryonic signaling pathways play in the function of CSCs, the development of new anti-CSC therapeutic agents, and the complexity of potential CSC signaling cross-talk are described in this Review.

Background Olaparib is an oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an oral anti-angiogenic with activity against VEGFR-1, 2, and 3. Both agents have antitumor activity in women with recurrent ovarian cancer, and the combination of these agents was active and had manageable toxicities in a Phase 1 trial. We asked whether the combination of cediranib and olaparib could improve progression-free survival compared to olaparib monotherapy in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Methods We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 2 study to evaluate the activity of olaparib monotherapy compared with combination cediranib and olaparib in women with ovarian cancer with measurable platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous or endometrioid disease or those with deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutations (gBRCAm). Patients were randomized using permuted blocks within stratum defined by gBRCA status and prior anti-angiogenic therapy to receive olaparib capsules 400mg twice daily or the combination at the recommended phase 2 dose of cediranib 30mg daily and olaparib capsules 200mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) analyzed under intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01116648. The Phase 2 portion of the trial reported here is no longer accruing patients. Findings Forty-six of 90 randomized patients received olaparib alone, and 44 received cediranib/olaparib. Median PFS was significantly longer with cediranib/olaparib (17.7 vs. 9.0 mos, HR 0.42; p = 0.005). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common with cediranib/olaparib, including fatigue (12 vs. 5), diarrhea (10 vs. 0), and hypertension (18 vs. 0). Subset analysis within stratum defined by BRCA1/2 status demonstrated activity of cediranib/olaparib in both gBRCAm and gBRCAwt/u (wild-type/unknown) patients. Significant improvement in PFS occurred in gBRCAwt/u women receiving cediranib/olaparib (16.5 vs. 5.7 mos, p = 0.008) with a smaller trend towards increased PFS in gBRCAm patients (19.4 vs. 16.5 mos, p = 0.16). Interpretation The combination of cediranib and olaparib significantly extended PFS by 8.7 months compared to olaparib alone in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. The activity observed with this oral combinaton in both gBRCAmt and gBRCAwt/u patients is encouraging and should be further explored as a potential alternative to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Given the side effect profile, such explorations should include assessments on quality of life and patient-reported outcomes to understand the effects of an ongoing oral regimen to that of intermittent chemotherapy.

Significance This study demonstrates that antiangiogenic therapy increases tumor blood perfusion in a subset of newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients, and that it is these patients who survive longer when this expensive and potentially toxic therapy is combined with standard radiation and chemotherapy. This study provides fresh insights into the selection of glioblastoma patients most likely to benefit from antiangiogenic treatments.

Hsp90 inhibitors may circumvent the characteristic genetic plasticity that has allowed cancer cells to eventually evade the toxic effects of most molecularly targeted agents. The mechanism-based use of Hsp90 inhibitors, both alone and in combination with other drugs, should augment the treatment of multiple forms of cancer.

Hypertension is a mechanism-based toxic effect of drugs that inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor signaling pathway (VSP). Substantial evidence exists for managing hypertension as a chronic condition, but there are few prospectively collected data on managing acute hypertension caused by VSP inhibitors. The Investigational Drug Steering Committee of the National Cancer Institute convened an interdisciplinary cardiovascular toxicities expert panel to evaluate this problem, to make recommendations to the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program on further study, and to structure an approach for safe management by treating physicians. The panel reviewed: the published literature on blood pressure (BP), hypertension, and specific VSP inhibitors; abstracts from major meetings; shared experience with the development of VSP inhibitors; and established principles of hypertension care. The panel generated a consensus report including the recommendations on clinical concerns summarized here. To support the greatest possible number of patients to receive VSP inhibitors safely and effectively, the panel had four recommendations: 1) conduct and document a formal risk assessment for potential cardiovascular complications, 2) recognize that preexisting hypertension will be common in cancer patients and should be identified and addressed before initiation of VSP inhibitor therapy, 3) actively monitor BP throughout treatment with more frequent assessments during the first cycle of treatment, and 4) manage BP with a goal of less than 140/90 mmHg for most patients (and to lower, prespecified goals in patients with specific preexisting cardiovascular risk factors). Proper agent selection, dosing, and scheduling of follow-up should enable maintaining VSP inhibition while avoiding the complications associated with excessive or prolonged elevation in BP.

Future progress in improving cancer therapy can be expedited by better prioritization of new treatments for phase III evaluation. Historically, phase II trials have been key components in the prioritization process. There has been a long-standing interest in using phase II trials with randomization against a standard-treatment control arm or an additional experimental arm to provide greater assurance than afforded by comparison to historic controls that the new agent or regimen is promising and warrants further evaluation. Relevant trial designs that have been developed and utilized include phase II selection designs, randomized phase II designs that include a reference standard-treatment control arm, and phase II/III designs. We present our own explorations into the possibilities of developing "phase II screening trials," in which preliminary and nondefinitive randomized comparisons of experimental regimens to standard treatments are made (preferably using an intermediate end point) by carefully adjusting the false-positive error rates (alpha or type I error) and false-negative error rates (beta or type II error), so that the targeted treatment benefit may be appropriate while the sample size remains restricted. If the ability to conduct a definitive phase III trial can be protected, and if investigators feel that by judicious choice of false-positive probability and false-negative probability and magnitude of targeted treatment effect they can appropriately balance the conflicting demands of screening out useless regimens versus reliably detecting useful ones, the phase II screening trial design may be appropriate to apply.

VEGFR inhibitors are in broad use for the treatment of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma and in development in a number of other oncology indications, including colorectal cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, thyroid malignancies, ovarian cancer, breast cancer and sarcomas. This Review outlines the structure-activity relationships of the 44 VEGFR inhibitors currently in development. An overview of the pharmacokinetic profile of each molecule and its stage in development is provided. Phase III clinical trials being conducted for licensing of these agents for specific indications and phase III developmental efficacy trials are described in detailed tables that include the disease studied, trial design including combination therapy, study end points, and projected or final accrual. The relative frequency of on-target and off-target adverse events observed in 3,060 patients is described for a subset of agents in development in clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. No interagent comparisons were undertaken and no data from pharmaceutical pharmacovigilance databases were used. The on-target effects seem to be mechanistically based and predicted by VEGFR inhibition. Small-molecule inhibitors of angiogenesis are active in a wide variety of malignancies and fill a unique niche for cancer therapeutics.