GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)  (4)
Material
Publisher
  • American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)  (4)
Language
Years
Subjects(RVK)
  • 1
    In: Cancer Research, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 73, No. 24_Supplement ( 2013-12-15), p. P2-16-23-P2-16-23
    Abstract: Background: Hsp90 is a molecular chaperone protein required for the stabilization and activation of many proteins, referred to as Hsp90 ‘clients’, such as HER2, HIF1-a, EGFR, ER, PI3K, AKT, P53 and VEGFR. The drug candidate, ganetespib is a novel triazolone inhibitor of Hsp90, with over 700 patients treated to date. Ganetespib has shown activity in preclinical models of HER2+, ER+/PR+ and TNBC. Early clinical trials documented ganetespib single agent activity in heavily pretreated HER2+ and TNBC patients. Ganetespib has been well tolerated in clinical trials with a favorable safety profile. This efficacy-screening study is designed to provide further evidence of ganetespib activity and identify potentially predictive biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer (BC). Methods: The ENCHANT-1 Trial is an international, first-line 2-cohort Phase 2 study in BC patients: Cohort A, HER2 amplified (n = 35), and Cohort B, TNBC (n = 35). Patients who present with previously untreated metastatic disease are eligible for treatment with ganetespib at 150 mg/m2 twice weekly on 3 out of 4 wks, for a total of up to 12 wks. Primary endpoint: ORR assessed using RECIST1.1 criteria. Key secondary endpoints include metabolic response as assessed by PET/CT at wk 3 utilizing modified EORTC criteria. Disease progression (PD) at wk 3 by PET imaging indicates discontinuation of study therapy, and is performed to quickly offer patients with metabolic PD a standard of care treatment. The study is designed as Simon 2-stage requiring at least one OR in 15 patients for the respective cohort to expand to 35 patients. A Steering Committee is established to oversee the overall study and review the interim results. Results: The study was initiated in 23 centers globally. At the time of submission, a total of 17 patients had been enrolled; TNBC (n = 15) and HER2 (n = 2). Here we report the interim analysis in the TNBC cohort. The median age was 54 years (range 30 -77) with ECOG PS 0 (n = 7/15). Most patients (n = 9) presented with de novo metastatic disease. 5 patients were not evaluable for PET assessment (3 had not yet reached wk 3 and 2 withdrawn before wk 3 for clinical progression), and 9 patients were not evaluable for objective response at wk 6 (3 withdrawn before or at wk 3 for clinical progression and 6 had not yet reached wk 6 evaluation). In the 10 patients with evaluable PET imaging, 9 patients achieved metabolic (m) response (2 mPR, 4 mSD with dominant tumor shrinkage and 3 SD) and one patient with mPD. In the 6 patients evaluable for OR at wk 6, one patient achieved PR, 2 SD and 3 PD. Treatment with ganetespib was well tolerated; the most common AEs were mild or moderate diarrhea (8/15, 53%), fatigue (5/15, 33%), decreased appetite (4/15, 27%), insomnia (4/15, 27%), and nausea (4/15, 27%). Conclusion: Ganetespib single agent was generally well tolerated and showed anti-tumor activity TNBC patients as early as 3 weeks following treatment. PET seems to be a good tool to screen antitumor activity of new agents in early settings rather that in heavily pretreated patients. The TNBC cohort has met the protocol criteria for proceeding to stage 2. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-16-23.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0008-5472 , 1538-7445
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
    Publication Date: 2013
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2036785-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1432-1
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 410466-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Cancer Research, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 79, No. 4_Supplement ( 2019-02-15), p. PD5-02-PD5-02
    Abstract: Background: PARP inhibitor (PARPi) monotherapy has previously demonstrated clinical activity only in patients with a germline BRCA mutation (BRCAmut), while single-agent anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) therapy has achieved response rates of only 5–20% in advanced triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). In preclinical studies, PARP inhibition enhanced anti-tumor immunity, increased infiltration of proliferating CD8+ T cells, and synergized with anti-PD-1 agents in BRCA wildtype (wt) tumors. TOPACIO is a fully enrolled, phase I/II trial of niraparib + pembrolizumab (pembro) in advanced TNBC. This combination achieved 28% objective response rate (ORR) and 50% disease control rate (DCR) in evaluable patients. Although activity was highest in patients with BRCAmut (ORR=60%; DCR=80%), durable clinical benefit was also observed in patients without BRCA mutations. In this study, we conducted exploratory biomarker analyses to evaluate their potential correlation with durable clinical benefit (any complete response [CR] or partial response [PR] regardless of duration or stable disease [SD] for ≥16 weeks) beyond BRCA mutations. Method: ORR was assessed by RECIST v1.1. Duration of disease control (DDC) was defined as time from first dose of study treatment to radiologic disease progression or death. Tumor mutational status of homologous recombination repair (HRR) and other DNA damage repair (DDR) pathway genes was determined using an NGS panel. Immunoprofiling was conducted using NanoString IO360 panel complimented with 30 DNA repair spike-ins. Tumor immune micro-environment was characterized using multiplex immuno-fluorescence (CycIF). PD-L1 status was determined using the Agilent/DAKO 22C3 IHC clinical trial assay. Results: Of 46 evaluable patients, 20 achieved durable clinical benefit (any CR/PR or SD≥16 weeks) with niraparib + pembro combination, of which 8 were tumor BRCA wild type (wt), and 1 was BRCA unknown. Of the 9 BRCAwt/unknown patients, 5 had deleterious mutations in HRR/DDR pathway genes, whereas the remaining 4 had no mutations (HRR/DDR wt). Mutations that were associated with response include CHEK1 (CR; DDC=10.3 mos), ATR (CR; DDC=6.4 mos), PALB2 (PR; DDC=3.5 mos), BLM (SD; DDC=8.1 mos), and NBN/RAD51C (SD; DDC=3.7 mos). Of 4 patients that had no identified mutations (HRR/DDR wt), 1 patient had CR; DDC=10.3 mos, and the remaining 3 patients had SD with DDC ranging from ∼4-8 mos. Of note, all 4 HRR/DDR wt patients were also PD-L1-negative. Table:Durable clinical benefit in BRCAwt/unknown patientsHRR/DRR MutationsPD-L1 StatusBest ResponseDDC (Months)CHEK1+CR10.3†ATR+CR6.4PALB2*UnknownPR3.5BLM-SD8.1NBN/RAD51C+SD3.7None-CR10.3†None-SD8.2None-SD4.2None-SD3.9*BRCA status unknown; †Treatment is ongoing. Conclusion: Patients with mutations beyond BRCA achieved durable clinical benefit with niraparib + pembro treatment; five of these patients had DDC & gt;6 mos. Mutations in genes that are associated with the HRR/DDR pathway appear to confer sensitivity to niraparib + anti-PD1. Additional translational analyses, including immunoprofiling and CycIF, will be presented. Funding: TESARO, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA sponsored the study. Citation Format: Vinayak S, Tolaney SM, Schwartzberg L, Mita M, McCann G, Tan AR, Wahner Hendrickson A, Forero A, Anders C, Wulf G, Dillon P, Lynce F, Zarwan C, Erban J, Färkkilä A, Zhou Y, Buerstatte N, Graham JR, Arora S, Dezube B, Telli ML. Durability of clinical benefit with niraparib + pembrolizumab in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer beyond BRCA: (TOPACIO/Keynote-162) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD5-02.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0008-5472 , 1538-7445
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
    Publication Date: 2019
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2036785-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1432-1
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 410466-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) ; 2018
    In:  Cancer Research Vol. 78, No. 4_Supplement ( 2018-02-15), p. P4-13-06-P4-13-06
    In: Cancer Research, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 78, No. 4_Supplement ( 2018-02-15), p. P4-13-06-P4-13-06
    Abstract: Purpose Breast conservation has become the mainstay of surgical management for early stage breast cancer. Large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery (LVOS) uses reconstructive mastopexy and breast reduction techniques to allow for larger oncologic resections while providing good aesthetic outcomes in a single operation. Oncoplastic surgery publications have recently increased by 220%, demonstrating the increasing popularity of this surgical technique, 2 and many of these studies have demonstrated excellent oncologic outcomes.4 To date, however, no study has used the most recent SSO/ASBrS/ASTRO surgical margin recommendations to assess oncoplastic surgery. 4 Recent SSO/ASBrS/ASTRO guidelines established no ink on tumor as an adequate margin for invasive breast cancer and at least 2mm as adequate margins for ductal carcinoma in situ. The purpose of this study was to investigate the surgical margin rates of LVOS using the new SSO/ASBrS/ASTRO guidelines. We presumed that under the newer, stricter guidelines, LVOS would have a higher positive margin rate than reported in the past literature. Methods: Our study consisted of two parts. First, a literature review to assess margin rates before the introduction of SSO/ASBrS/ASTRO guidelines was done using PRISMA guidelines with an international Pubmed search and reviewed by two blinded authors. The search included keywords such as “oncoplastic breast surgery,” “lumpectomy,” “partial mastectomy,” and “positive margins associated with breast surgery.” All articles either pertained to LVOS, standard lumpectomy (SL) or both. The inclusion criteria for our study included histology discrepancy, and new guideline margin status. From this, we determined the published positive margin for SL and LVOS. Second, we analyzed all LVOS performed at our institution since the adoption of the new SSO/ASBrS/ASTRO margin guidelines and compared these margin rates to the literature review outcomes using Z tests. Results: Our study consisted of 1702 patients. There were 847 patients in LVOS group and 855 patients in the SL group. Of the 45 papers evaluated, 34 were not included due to exclusion criteria (missing: new margin guidelines, histology, or margin status). The pre-guideline positive margin rate for LVOS was lower than with SL (12.51% vs. 20.4%, P-value & lt;0.001). Of the 50 LVOS operations done at our institution since adoption of the SSO/ASBrS/ASTRO margin guidelines, no statistical difference in the positive margin rates was noted when compared to the literature rates (10% vs. 12.67% respectively, P-value 0.5796). Positive margin rates for LVOS at our institution were lower than SL margin rates reported in the literature (P-value 0.0358). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that even with the stricter margin SSO/ASBrS/ASTRO guidelines, LVOS still has a low positive margin rate comparable to pre-guideline literature reports. LVOS continues to have a significantly lower positive margin rate than SL. This is the first study to report margin rates for LVOS after the adoption of the SSO/ASBrS/ASTRO guidelines, and confirms the importance of LVOS in providing optimal oncologic outcomes for patient with large locally advanced breast cancer. Citation Format: Jonczyk MM, Patel K, Graham R, Naber S, Erban J, Chen L, Chatterjee A. Does large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery still offer an advantage of a low positive margin rate using the new SSO/ASBrS/ASTRO margin guidelines? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-13-06.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0008-5472 , 1538-7445
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2036785-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1432-1
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 410466-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Clinical Cancer Research, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), Vol. 27, No. 20 ( 2021-10-15), p. 5482-5491
    Abstract: To investigate the activity of niraparib in patients with germline-mutated BRCA1/2 (gBRCAm) advanced breast cancer. Patients and Methods: BRAVO was a randomized, open-label phase III trial. Eligible patients had gBRCAm and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer previously treated with ≤2 prior lines of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer or had relapsed within 12 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, and were randomized 2:1 between niraparib and physician's choice chemotherapy (PC; monotherapy with eribulin, capecitabine, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine). Patients with hormone receptor–positive tumors had to have received ≥1 line of endocrine therapy and progressed during this treatment in the metastatic setting or relapsed within 1 year of (neo)adjuvant treatment. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), PFS by local assessment (local-PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: After the pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was halted on the basis of futility, noting a high degree of discordance between local and central PFS assessment in the PC arm that resulted in informative censoring. At the final analysis (median follow-up, 19.9 months), median centrally assessed PFS was 4.1 months in the niraparib arm (n = 141) versus 3.1 months in the PC arm [n = 74; hazard ratio (HR), 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65–1.44; P = 0.86]. HRs for OS and local-PFS were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.63–1.42) and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46–0.93), respectively. ORR was 35% (95% CI, 26–45) with niraparib and 31% (95% CI, 19–46) in the PC arm. Conclusions: Informative censoring in the control arm prevented accurate assessment of the trial hypothesis, although there was clear evidence of niraparib's activity in this patient population.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1078-0432 , 1557-3265
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1225457-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2036787-9
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...