Olaparib for childhood tumors harboring defects in DNA damage repair genes: arm H of the NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH trial

BACKGROUND

The National Cancer Institute-Children's Oncology Group Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) precision oncology platform trial enrolled children aged 1-21 years with treatment-refractory solid tumors and predefined actionable genetic alterations. Patients with tumors harboring alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes were assigned to receive olaparib.

METHODS

Tumor and blood samples were submitted for centralized molecular testing. Tumor and germline sequencing were conducted in parallel. Olaparib was given twice daily for 28-day cycles starting at a dose 30% lower than the adult recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The primary endpoint was the objective response.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients matched (1.5% of those screened) based on the presence of a deleterious gene alteration in BRCA1/2, RAD51C/D, or ATM detected by tumor sequencing without germline subtraction or analysis of loss of heterozygosity (LOH). Eleven (61%) harbored a germline mutation, with only one exhibiting LOH. Six patients enrolled and received the olaparib starting dose of 135 mg/m2/dose. Two participants were fully evaluable; 4 were inevaluable because <85% of the prescribed dose was administered during cycle 1. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or responses. Minimal hematologic toxicity was observed.

CONCLUSION

Most DDR gene alterations detected in Pediatric MATCH were germline, monoallelic, and unlikely to confer homologous recombination deficiency predicting sensitivity to olaparib monotherapy. The study closed due to poor accrual.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT03233204. IRB approved: initial July 24, 2017.

From biology to personalized medicine: Recent knowledge in osteosarcoma

High-grade osteosarcoma is the most common paediatric bone cancer. More than one third of patients relapse and die of osteosarcoma using current chemotherapeutic and surgical strategies. To improve outcomes in osteosarcoma, two crucial challenges need to be tackled: 1-the identification of hard-to-treat disease, ideally from diagnosis; 2- choosing the best combined or novel therapies to eradicate tumor cells which are resistant to current therapies leading to disease dissemination and metastasize as well as their favorable microenvironment. Genetic chaos, tumor complexity and heterogeneity render this task difficult. The development of new technologies like next generation sequencing has led to an improvement in osteosarcoma oncogenesis knownledge. This review summarizes recent biological and therapeutical advances in osteosarcoma, as well as the challenges that must be overcome in order to develop personalized medicine and new therapeutic strategies and ultimately improve patient survival.

Progress in precision therapy in pediatric oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The fields of precision medicine and cancer genomics in pediatric oncology are rapidly evolving. Novel diagnostic tools are critical in refining cancer diagnoses, stratifying patient risk, and informing treatment decisions. This review is timely and relevant as it discusses advantages and drawbacks of common molecular profiling techniques and highlights novel platforms, which may address select limitations. We discuss recent publications demonstrating utility of large-scale molecular profiling and feasibility and logistics of matching targeted therapies to patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

We describe the increased accessibility of next-generation sequencing, complementary profiling methods, and strategies to guide treatment decisions. We describe curation and sharing of large genomic datasets and novel mechanisms to obtain matched targeted therapies. Importantly, we discuss relevant publications in distinct disease domains that support indications for evidence-based precision therapy. Lastly, we introduce the incremental analyses that can be obtained via whole-genome and transcriptome sequencing.

SUMMARY

Here we highlight high-yield clinical scenarios of precision medicine approaches and identify the ongoing challenges including universally defining clinical actionability, optimizing trial design to account for molecular heterogeneity while acknowledging limitations in patient accrual, expanding access to molecularly targeted therapies, and validating new tools and technology to aid in precision medicine therapeutic approaches.

Insight into the interplay between mitochondria-regulated cell death and energetic metabolism in osteosarcoma

Osteosarcoma (OS) is a pediatric malignant bone tumor that predominantly affects adolescent and young adults. It has high risk for relapse and over the last four decades no improvement of prognosis was achieved. It is therefore crucial to identify new drug candidates for OS treatment to combat drug resistance, limit relapse, and stop metastatic spread. Two acquired hallmarks of cancer cells, mitochondria-related regulated cell death (RCD) and metabolism are intimately connected. Both have been shown to be dysregulated in OS, making them attractive targets for novel treatment. Promising OS treatment strategies focus on promoting RCD by targeting key molecular actors in metabolic reprogramming. The exact interplay in OS, however, has not been systematically analyzed. We therefore review these aspects by synthesizing current knowledge in apoptosis, ferroptosis, necroptosis, pyroptosis, and autophagy in OS. Additionally, we outline an overview of mitochondrial function and metabolic profiles in different preclinical OS models. Finally, we discuss the mechanism of action of two novel molecule combinations currently investigated in active clinical trials: metformin and the combination of ADI-PEG20, Docetaxel and Gemcitabine.

Navigating the Regulatory Landscape to Develop Pediatric Oncology Drugs: Expert Opinion Recommendations

Regulatory changes have been enacted in the United States (US) and European Union (EU) to encourage the development of new treatments for pediatric cancer. Here, we review some of the factors that have hampered the development of pediatric cancer treatments and provide a comparison of the US and EU regulations implemented to address this clinical need. We then provide some recommendations for each stage of the oncology drug development pathway to help researchers maximize their chance of successful drug development while complying with regulations. A key recommendation is the engagement of key stakeholders such as regulatory authorities, pediatric oncologists, academic researchers, patient advocacy groups, and a Pediatric Expert Group early in the drug development process. During drug target selection, sponsors are encouraged to consult the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the FDA target list, in addition to relevant US and European consortia that have been established to characterize and prioritize oncology drug targets. Sponsors also need to carefully consider the resourcing requirements for preclinical testing, which include ensuring appropriate access to the most relevant databases, clinical samples, and preclinical models (cell lines and animal models). During clinical development, sponsors can account for the pharmacodynamic (PD)/pharmacokinetic (PK) considerations specific to a pediatric population by developing pediatric formulations, selecting suitable PD endpoints, and employing sparse PK sampling or modeling/simulation of drug exposures where appropriate. Additional clinical considerations include the specific design of the clinical trial, the potential inclusion of children in adult trials, and the value of cooperative group trials.

ACCELERATE and European Medicines Agency Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of checkpoint inhibitors for use in combination therapy in paediatric patients

The third multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forum organised by ACCELERATE and the European Medicines Agency focused on immune checkpoint inhibitors for use in combination therapy in children and adolescents. As immune checkpoint inhibitors, both as monotherapy and in combinations have shown impressive success in some adult malignancies and early phase trials in children of single agent checkpoint inhibitors have now been completed, it seemed an appropriate time to consider opportunities for paediatric studies of checkpoint inhibitors used in combination. Among paediatric patients, early clinical studies of checkpoint inhibitors used as monotherapy have demonstrated a high rate of activity, including complete responses, in Hodgkin lymphoma and hypermutant paediatric tumours. Activity has been very limited, however, in more common malignancies of childhood and adolescence. Furthermore, apart from tumour mutational burden, no other predictive biomarker for monotherapy activity in paediatric tumours has been identified. Based on these observations, there is collective agreement that there is no scientific rationale for children to be enrolled in new monotherapy trials of additional checkpoint inhibitors with the same mechanism of action of agents already studied (e.g. anti-PD1, anti-PDL1 anti-CTLA-4) unless additional scientific knowledge supporting a different approach becomes available. This shared perspective, based on scientific evidence and supported by paediatric oncology cooperative groups, should inform companies on whether a paediatric development plan is justified. This could then be proposed to regulators through the available regulatory tools. Generally, an academic-industry consensus on the scientific merits of a proposal before submission of a paediatric investigational plan would be of great benefit to determine which studies have the highest probability of generating new insights. There is already a rationale for the evaluation of combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with other agents in paediatric Hodgkin lymphoma and hypermutated tumours in view of the activity shown as single agents. In paediatric tumours where no single agent activity has been observed in multiple clinical trials of anti-PD1, anti-PDL1 and anti-CTLA-4 agents as monotherapy, combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with other treatment modalities should be explored when a scientific rationale indicates that they could be efficacious in paediatric cancers and not because these combinations are being evaluated in adults. Immunotherapy in the form of engineered proteins (e.g. monoclonal antibodies and T cell engaging agents) and cellular products (e.g. CAR T cells) has great therapeutic potential for benefit in paediatric cancer. The major challenge for developing checkpoint inhibitors for paediatric cancers is the lack of neoantigens (based on mutations) and corresponding antigen-specific T cells. Progress critically depends on understanding the immune macroenvironment and microenvironment and the ability of the adaptive immune system to recognise paediatric cancers in the absence of high neoantigen burden. Future clinical studies of checkpoint inhibitors in children need to build upon strong biological hypotheses that take into account the distinctive immunobiology of childhood cancers in comparison to that of checkpoint inhibitor responsive adult cancers.