No abstract

BACKGROUND.The purpose of this study was to investigate whether tumor‐infiltrating immune cells in biopsy specimens can be used to predict the clinical outcome of stage IV nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.METHOD.The authors performed an immunohistochemical study to identify and count the number of CD68+ macrophages, c‐kit+ mast cells, and CD8+ T cells in both cancer nests and cancer stroma in pretreatment biopsy specimens obtained from 199 patients with stage IV NSCLC treated by chemotherapy, and then analyzed for correlations between the number of immune cells and clinical outcome, including chemotherapy response and prognosis.RESULTS.There was no correlation between the number of immune cells in either cancer nests or stroma and chemotherapy response. Patients with more tumor‐infiltrating macrophages in cancer nests than in cancer stroma (macrophages, nests > stroma) had significantly better survival than nests < stroma cases median survival time (MST 440 days vs 199 days; P < .0001). Patients with more tumor‐infiltrating CD8+ T cells in cancer nests than in cancer stroma (CD8+ T cells: nests > stroma) showed significantly better survival than in nests < stroma cases (MST 388 days vs 256 days; P = .0070). The proportion of tumor‐infiltrating macrophages or CD8+ T cells between cancer nests and stroma became independent prognostic factors in the multivariate analysis. Neither the number of mast cells in nests nor in stroma correlated with the clinical outcome.CONCLUSIONS.Evaluation of the numbers of macrophages and CD8+ T cells in cancer nests and stroma are useful biomarkers for predicting the prognosis of stage IV NSCLC patients treated with chemotherapy, but could fail to predict chemotherapy response. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

IMPORTANCEPatients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) have a median overall survival of less than 2 years. In a phase 2 study, an overall survival benefit in this population was observed with the addition of olaratumab to doxorubicin over doxorubicin alone.OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy of doxorubicin plus olaratumab in patients with advanced/metastatic STS.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS ANNOUNCE was a confirmatory, phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial conducted at 110 sites in 25 countries from September 2015 to December 2018; the final date of follow-up was December 5, 2018. Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic STS, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1, and cardiac ejection fraction of 50% or greater.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive doxorubicin, 75 mg/m 2 (day 1), combined with olaratumab (n = 258), 20 mg/kg in cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg in subsequent cycles, or placebo (n = 251) on days 1 and 8 for up to 8 21-day cycles, followed by olaratumab/ placebo monotherapy.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Dual primary end points were overall survival with doxorubicin plus olaratumab vs doxorubicin plus placebo in total STS and leiomyosarcoma (LMS) populations. RESULTS Among the 509 patients randomized (mean age, 56.9 years; 58.2% women; 46.0% with LMS), all were included in the primary analysis and had a median length of follow-up of 31 months. No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed between the doxorubicin plus olaratumab group vs the doxorubicin plus placebo group in either population (total STS: hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.84-1.30], P = .69, median overall survival, 20.4 months vs 19.7 months; LMS: hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.69-1.31], P = .76, median overall survival, 21.6 months vs 21.9 months). Adverse events of grade 3 or greater reported in 15% or more of total patients with STS were neutropenia (46.3% vs 49.0%), leukopenia (23.3% vs 23.7%), and febrile neutropenia (17.5% vs 16.5%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this phase 3 clinical trial of patients with advanced STS, treatment with doxorubicin plus olaratumab vs doxorubicin plus placebo resulted in no significant difference in overall survival. The findings did not confirm the overall survival benefit observed in the phase 2 trial.

To define prognostic factors for breast cancer patients with brain metastases, compare their clinical courses and prognoses according to breast cancer subtypes, and analyze the causes of death in such patients. We retrospectively analyzed 1,466 patients diagnosed with brain metastases between April 1, 2001 and December 31, 2012, from 24 institutions of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. Overall, 1,256 patients with brain metastases were included. The median overall survival (OS) was 8.7 months (95 % confidence interval [CI] 7.8-9.6 months). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that patients diagnosed with brain metastasis within 6 months of metastatic breast cancer diagnoses, asymptomatic brain disease, or HER2-positive/estrogen receptor-positive tumors had increased OS. Median OS after the development of brain metastases was 9.3 months (95 % CI 7.2-11.3) for the luminal type, 16.5 months (95 % CI 11.9-21.1) for the luminal-HER2 type, 11.5 months (95 % CI 9.1-13.8) for the HER2 type, and 4.9 months (95 % CI 3.9-5.9) for the triple-negative type. Luminal-HER2 type patients had significantly longer OS than patients with the luminal type (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.50, P < 0.0001) and triple-negative type (HR = 1.97, P < 0.0001); no significant differences were noted compared to HER2-type patients (HR = 1.19, P = 0.117). The prognosis and clinical course of patients with brain metastasis from breast cancer before and after developing brain metastases vary according to subtype. Focusing on the subtypes of breast cancer can optimize the prevention, early detection, and improved treatment of brain metastases.

Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of malignancies with mesenchymal lineage differentiation. The discovery of neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions as tissue-agnostic oncogenic drivers has led to new personalized therapies for a subset of patients with sarcoma in the form of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors. NTRK gene rearrangements and fusion transcripts can be detected with different molecular pathology techniques, while TRK protein expression can be demonstrated with immunohistochemistry. The rarity and diagnostic complexity of NTRK gene fusions raise a number of questions and challenges for clinicians. To address these challenges, the World Sarcoma Network convened two meetings of expert adult oncologists and pathologists and subsequently developed this article to provide practical guidance on the management of patients with sarcoma harboring NTRK gene fusions. We propose a diagnostic strategy that considers disease stage and histologic and molecular subtypes to facilitate routine testing for TRK expression and subsequent testing for NTRK gene fusions.

A Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO)-hosted expert meeting was held in Japan on 27 October 2019, which comprised experts from the JSCO, the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the Taiwan Oncology Society (TOS). The purpose of the meeting was to focus on what we have learnt from both microsatellite instability (MSI)/ deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) biomarkers in predicting the efficacy of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1)/ programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immunotherapy, and the neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions in predicting the efficacy of inhibitors of the tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) proteins across a range of solid tumour types. The recent regulatory approvals of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab and the TRK inhibitors larotrectinib and entrectinib, based on specific tumour biomarkers rather than specific tumour type, have heralded a paradigm shift in cancer treatment approaches. The purpose of the meeting was to develop international expert consensus recommendations on the use of such tumour-agnostic treatments in patients with solid tumours. The aim was to generate a reference document for clinical practice, for pharmaceutical companies in the design of clinical trials, for ethics committees in the approval of clinical trial protocols and for regulatory authorities in relation to drug approvals, with a particular emphasis on diagnostic testing and patient selection.

Background The incidence of breast cancer among younger East Asian women has been increasing rapidly over recent decades. This international collaborative study systemically compared the differences in age-specific incidences and pathological characteristics of breast cancer in East Asian women and women of predominantly European ancestry. Methods We excerpted analytic data from six national cancer registries (979 675 cases) and eight hospitals (18 008 cases) in East Asian countries and/or regions and, for comparisons, from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database. Linear regression analyses of age-specific incidences of female breast cancer and logistic regression analyses of age-specific pathological characteristics of breast cancer were performed. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Unlike female colorectal cancer, the age-specific incidences of breast cancer among East Asian women aged 59 years and younger increased disproportionally over recent decades relative to rates in US contemporaries. For years 2010–2014, the estimated age-specific probability of estrogen receptor positivity increased with age in American patients, whereas that of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) declined with age. No similar trends were evident in East Asian patients; their probability of estrogen receptor positivity at age 40–49 years was statistically significantly higher (odd ratio [OR] = 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36 to 1.67, P &lt; .001) and of TNBC was statistically significantly lower (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.71 to 0.88, P &lt; .001), whereas the probability of ER positivity at age 50–59 years was statistically significantly lower (OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.828 to 0.95, P &lt; .001). Subgroup analyses of US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data showed similarly distinct patterns between East Asian American and white American patients. Conclusions Contrasting age-specific incidences and pathological characteristics of breast cancer between East Asian and American women, as well as between East Asian Americans and white Americans, suggests racial differences in the biology.

This phase I study in Japanese patients evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of palbociclib, a highly selective and reversible oral cyclin‐dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, as monotherapy for solid tumors (part 1) and combined with letrozole as first‐line treatment of postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor‐positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐negative advanced breast cancer (part 2). Part 1 evaluated palbociclib 100 and 125 mg once daily (3 weeks on/1 week off; n = 6 each group) to determine the maximum tolerated dose. Part 2 evaluated palbociclib maximum tolerated dose (125 mg) plus letrozole 2.5 mg (n = 6). The most common treatment‐related adverse event was neutropenia (all grades/grade 3/4): 100 mg, 83%/67%; 125 mg, 67%/33%; and palbociclib plus letrozole, 100%/83%. Heavier pretreatment with chemotherapy may have resulted in higher neutropenia rates observed with the 100‐mg dose. Palbociclib exposure was higher with 125 vs 100 mg (mean area under the plasma concentration–time curve over dosing interval [τ]: 1322 vs 547.5 ng·h/mL [single dose], 2838 vs 1276 ng·h/mL [multiple dose]; mean maximum plasma concentration: 104.1 vs 41.4 ng/mL [single dose], 185.5 vs 77.4 ng/mL [multiple dose]). Half‐life was 23–26 h. No drug–drug interactions between palbociclib and letrozole occurred. Four patients had stable disease (≥24 weeks in one patient with rectal cancer [100 mg] and one with esophageal cancer [125 mg]) in part 1; two patients had partial response and two had stable disease (both ≥24 weeks) in part 2. Palbociclib at the 125‐mg dose (schedule 3/1) was tolerated and is the recommended dose for monotherapy and letrozole combination therapy in Japanese patients. The trials are registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov: A5481010 and NCT01684215.