Translational predictive biomarker analysis of the phase 1b sorafenib and bevacizumab study expansion cohort

A review of harmonization strategies for quantitative PET

PET can reveal in vivo biological processes at the molecular level. PET-derived quantitative values have been used as a surrogate marker for clinical decision-making in numerous clinical studies and trials. However, quantitative values in PET are variable depending on technical, biological, and physical factors. The variability may have a significant impact on a study outcome. Appropriate scanner calibration and quality control, standardization of imaging protocols, and any necessary harmonization strategies are essential to make use of PET as a biomarker with low bias and variability. This review summarizes benefits, limitations, and remaining challenges for harmonization of quantitative PET, including whole-body PET in oncology, brain PET in neurology, PET/MR, and non-¹⁸F PET imaging. This review is expected to facilitate harmonization of quantitative PET and to promote the contribution of PET-derived biomarkers to research and development in medicine.

Immunohistochemical Evaluation of PARP and Caspase-3 as Prognostic Markers in Prostate Carcinomas

Prostate cancer is the second most common neoplasm among men, with a high mortality rate in advanced stages. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) plays an important role in repair to DNA damage, being associated with resistance to tumor cell death. Conversely, Caspase-3 is a crucial mediator of programmed cell death, being highly expressed in apoptotic cells. The aim of the present study was to characterize the expression of PARP and Caspase-3 by immunohistochemistry in patients with advanced prostate cancer. PARP and Caspase-3 were independently correlated to patients' evolution, in accordance with the classification of prognostic groups. The increase in PARP expression was positively correlated with tumor patients with poor prognosis (P < 0.0001). In contrast, a decrease in Caspase-3 expression was identified in patients with poor prognosis, when compared with prostate cancer patients with good prognosis (P = 0.0007). Numerically, 92.3% of patients previously classified with poor prognosis showed higher PARP expression, while 93.75% of patients previously classified with good prognosis showed higher levels of Caspase-3. We conclude that PARP and Caspase-3 are potential prognostic markers for prostate cancer patients with different prognosis.

Phase I/Ib study of olaparib and carboplatin in heavily pretreated recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer at low genetic risk

Purpose: To investigate maximum tolerated dose (MTD), activity and predictive biomarkers of olaparib with carboplatin in BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt) high grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) patients. Methods: A 3+3 dose escalation study examined olaparib capsules (400 mg twice daily [BID], days 1-7) with carboplatin (AUC3-5 on day 1) every 21 days for 8 cycles, followed by olaparib 400 mg BID maintenance. Blood and tumor biopsy samples were collected pre- and on-treatment in the expansion cohort for PAR levels and proteomic endpoints. Results: 30 patients (median 7 prior regimens [2-12], 63% (19/30) platinum-resistant) were enrolled. Dose-limiting toxicity was thrombocytopenia/neutropenia, and infection with carboplatin AUC5 (2/6 patients). MTD was olaparib 400 mg BID + carboplatin AUC4. Grade 3/4 adverse events (>10%) included neutropenia (23%), thrombocytopenia (20%), and anemia (13%). Five of 25 (20%) evaluable patients had partial response (PR; median 4.5 months [3.3-9.5]). Clinical benefit rate (PR + stable disease ≥4 months) was 64% (16/25). A greater decrease in tissue PAR levels was seen in the clinical benefit group versus no benefit (median normalized linear change -1.84 [-3.39- -0.28] vs 0.51 [-0.27- 1.29], p = 0.001) and a DNA repair score by proteomics did not correlate with response. Conclusions: The olaparib and carboplatin combination is tolerable and has clinical benefit in subsets of heavily pretreated BRCAwt HGSOC, independent of platinum sensitivity.

Phase I/Ib study of olaparib and carboplatin in women with triple negative breast cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the safety, activity, and potential biomarkers of response to olaparib and carboplatin combination in sporadic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Metastatic or recurrent TNBC patients with no germline BRCA mutation or with BRCAPro scores <10% and a negative family history were eligible. A 3+3 dose escalation tested olaparib capsules (400mg bid, days1-7) with carboplatin AUC3-5 on day1 or 2 every 21 days, ≤ 8 cycles, with olaparib 400mg bid maintenance. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were collected for polymorphisms and PAR levels, and paired tumor biopsies (pre-/post-cycle 1) for proteomics and apoptosis endpoints.

RESULTS

28 women were treated (median 5 prior regimens [0-12]). Dose-limiting toxicity was thrombocytopenia, and symptomatic hyponatremia with carboplatin AUC5. The maximum tolerated dose was olaparib 400mg bid+carboplatin AUC4. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events included neutropenia (36%), thrombocytopenia (11%), and anemia (11%). Responses included 1 complete response (CR; 69⁺months) and 5/27 partial responses (19%; median 4months [4-7]), for a response rate of 22%. Biomarker findings did not correlate with response. The long-term CR patient with prior negative BRCA testing was found to have deletion of BRCA1 exons1-2.

CONCLUSIONS

The olaparib/carboplatin combination is tolerable and has modest activity in sporadic TNBC patients. Further evaluation of predictive biomarkers to identify those with BRCA wild type who had response is warranted.

Integrating Pharmacoproteomics into Early-Phase Clinical Development: State-of-the-Art, Challenges, and Recommendations

Pharmacoproteomics is the study of disease-modifying and toxicity parameters associated with therapeutic drug administration, using analysis of quantitative and temporal changes to specific, predetermined, and select proteins, or to the proteome as a whole. Pharmacoproteomics is a rapidly evolving field, with progress in analytic technologies enabling processing of complex interactions of large number of unique proteins and effective use in clinical trials. Nevertheless, our analysis of clinicaltrials.gov and PubMed shows that the application of proteomics in early-phase clinical development is minimal and limited to few therapeutic areas, with oncology predominating. We review the history, technologies, current usage, challenges, and potential for future use, and conclude with recommendations for integration of pharmacoproteomic in early-phase drug development.

CECs and IL-8 Have Prognostic and Predictive Utility in Patients with Recurrent Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer: Biomarker Correlates from the Randomized Phase-2 Trial of Olaparib and Cediranib Compared with Olaparib in Recurrent Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Olaparib (O), a polyADPribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, and cediranib (C), a VEGF receptor (VEGFR)1-3 inhibitor together had greater activity than O alone in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (OvCa). The objective of this study is to identify potential lead biomarker candidates for response to O + C in the setting of a multi-institutional phase II study of O with and without C in recurrent platinum-sensitive OvCa.

METHODS

A self-selected group of patients participated in a prospectively planned exploratory biomarker substudy of the randomized phase II study of O versus O + C. Whole blood for peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) and plasma isolation was collected prior to and on day 3 of treatment. Quantitation of circulating endothelial cells (CEC), IL-6, IL-8, VEGF, and soluble VEGFR-2 plasma concentrations, and polyADPribose (PAR) incorporation were performed. Single nucleotide polymorphism analysis of XRCC1 280H, R194W, and Q399R was done. Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) was performed at baseline and day 3 of treatment. Parameter changes were compared between the two arms using an exact Wilcoxon rank sum test. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to examine survival outcome.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients elected to participate in the translational substudy, seven patients on O and six patients on O + C. Patients on O + C had a greater decrease in IL-8 concentration and larger CEC fold increase compared with those on O alone (p = 0.026, p = 0.032). The fold increase in CEC on day 3 was associated with duration of progression-free survival (PFS) (R (2) = 0.77, 95% CI 0.55-0.97, p < 0.001). IL-8 post-pretreatment changes correlate with PFS (p = 0.028). XRCC1 DNA polymorphisms were not related to PFS. All patients had reduction in PAR incorporation, and all except one had reduction in vascular flow on DCE-MRI.

CONCLUSION

Our exploratory correlative studies indicate that CEC and IL-8 changes may be predictive for response to O + C and prognostic in recurrent platinum-sensitive OvCa, requiring prospective validation.

Phase I/Ib study of olaparib and carboplatin in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation-associated breast or ovarian cancer with biomarker analyses

BACKGROUND

Olaparib has single-agent activity against breast/ovarian cancer (BrCa/OvCa) in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers (gBRCAm). We hypothesized addition of olaparib to carboplatin can be administered safely and yield preliminary clinical activity.

METHODS

Eligible patients had measurable or evaluable disease, gBRCAm, and good end-organ function. A 3 + 3 dose escalation tested daily oral capsule olaparib (100 or 200mg every 12 hours; dose level1 or 2) with carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) on day 8 (AUC3 day 8), then every 21 days. For dose levels 3 to 6, patients were given olaparib days 1 to 7 at 200 and 400 mg every 12 hours, with carboplatin AUC3 to 5 on day 1 or 2 every 21 days; a maximum of eight combination cycles were permitted, after which daily maintenance of olaparib 400mg every12 hours continued until progression. Dose-limiting toxicity was defined in the first two cycles. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were collected for polymorphism analysis and polyADP-ribose incorporation. Paired tumor biopsies (before/after cycle 1) were obtained for biomarker proteomics and apoptosis endpoints.

RESULTS

Forty-five women (37 OvCa/8 BrCa) were treated. Dose-limiting toxicity was not reached on the intermittent schedule. Expansion proceeded with olaparib 400mg every 12 hours on days 1 to 7/carboplatin AUC5. Grade 3/4 adverse events included neutropenia (42.2%), thrombocytopenia (20.0%), and anemia (15.6%). Responses included 1 complete response (1 BrCa; 23 months) and 21 partial responses (50.0%; 15 OvCa; 6 BrCa; median = 16 [4 to >45] in OvCa and 10 [6 to >40] months in BrCa). Proteomic analysis suggests high pretreatment pS209-eIF4E and FOXO3a correlated with duration of response (two-sided P < .001; Pearson's R (2) = 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Olaparib capsules 400mg every 12 hours on days 1 to 7/carboplatin AUC5 is safe and has activity in gBRCAm BrCa/OvCa patients. Exploratory translational studies indicate pretreatment tissue FOXO3a expression may be predictive for response to therapy, requiring prospective validation.

Towards defining biomarkers indicating resistances to targeted therapies

An impressive, but often short objective response was obtained in many tumor patients treated with different targeted therapies, but most of the patients develop resistances against these drugs. So far, a number of distinct mechanisms leading to intrinsic as well as acquired resistances have been identified in tumors of distinct origin. These can arise from genetic alterations, like mutations, truncations, and amplifications or due to deregulated expression of various proteins and signal transduction pathways, but also from cellular heterogeneity within tumors after an initial response. Therefore, biomarkers are urgently needed for cancer prognosis and personalized cancer medicine. The application of "ome"-based technologies including cancer (epi)genomics, next generation sequencing, cDNA microarrays and proteomics might led to the predictive or prognostic stratification of patients to categorize resistance mechanisms and to postulate combinations of treatment strategies. This review discusses the implementation of proteome-based analysis to identify markers of pathway (in)activation in tumors and the resistance mechanisms, which represent major clinical problems as a tool to optimize individually tailored therapies based on targeted drugs. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Biomarkers: A Proteomic Challenge.

Shotgun-proteomics-based clinical testing for diagnosis and classification of amyloidosis

Shotgun proteomics technology has matured in the research laboratories and is poised to enter clinical laboratories. However, the road to this transition is sprinkled with major technical unknowns such as long-term stability of the platform, reproducibility of the technology and clinical utility over traditional antibody-based platforms. Further, regulatory bodies that oversee the clinical laboratory operations are unfamiliar with this new technology. As a result, diagnostic laboratories have avoided using shotgun proteomics for routine diagnostics. In this perspectives article, we describe the clinical implementation of a shotgun proteomics assay for amyloid subtyping, with a special emphasis on standardizing the platform for better quality control and earning clinical acceptance. This assay is the first shotgun proteomics assay to receive regulatory approval for patient diagnosis. The blueprint of this assay can be utilized to develop novel proteomics assays for detecting numerous other disease pathologies.