Institut Bergonié

International audience

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

Abstract Somatic mutations in cancer genomes are caused by multiple mutational processes, each of which generates a characteristic mutational signature 1 . Here, as part of the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium 2 of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we characterized mutational signatures using 84,729,690 somatic mutations from 4,645 whole-genome and 19,184 exome sequences that encompass most types of cancer. We identified 49 single-base-substitution, 11 doublet-base-substitution, 4 clustered-base-substitution and 17 small insertion-and-deletion signatures. The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses 3–15 , enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated—but distinct—DNA damage, repair and/or replication mechanisms. By estimating the contribution of each signature to the mutational catalogues of individual cancer genomes, we revealed associations of signatures to exogenous or endogenous exposures, as well as to defective DNA-maintenance processes. However, many signatures are of unknown cause. This analysis provides a systematic perspective on the repertoire of mutational processes that contribute to the development of human cancer.

Abstract Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale 1–3 . Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4–5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter 4 ; identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation 5,6 ; analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution 7 ; describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity 8,9 ; and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes 8,10–18 .

BACKGROUND: Most women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer have a relapse within 3 years after standard treatment with surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. The benefit of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in relapsed disease has been well established, but the benefit of olaparib as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed disease is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III or IV) high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, or fallopian-tube cancer (or a combination thereof) with a mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or both ( BRCA1/2) who had a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. The patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 391 patients who underwent randomization, 260 were assigned to receive olaparib and 131 to receive placebo. A total of 388 patients had a centrally confirmed germline BRCA1/2 mutation, and 2 patients had a centrally confirmed somatic BRCA1/2 mutation. After a median follow-up of 41 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 70% lower with olaparib than with placebo (Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from disease progression and from death at 3 years, 60% vs. 27%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). Adverse events were consistent with the known toxic effects of olaparib. CONCLUSIONS: The use of maintenance therapy with olaparib provided a substantial benefit with regard to progression-free survival among women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation, with a 70% lower risk of disease progression or death with olaparib than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck; SOLO1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844986 .).

A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multi-disciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.

Soft-tissue sarcomas represent a heterogeneous group of cancer, with more than 50 histological subtypes1,2. The clinical presentation of patients with different subtypes is often atypical, and responses to therapies such as immune checkpoint blockade vary widely3,4. To explain this clinical variability, here we study gene expression profiles in 608 tumours across subtypes of soft-tissue sarcoma. We establish an immune-based classification on the basis of the composition of the tumour microenvironment and identify five distinct phenotypes: immune-low (A and B), immune-high (D and E), and highly vascularized (C) groups. In situ analysis of an independent validation cohort shows that class E was characterized by the presence of tertiary lymphoid structures that contain T cells and follicular dendritic cells and are particularly rich in B cells. B cells are the strongest prognostic factor even in the context of high or low CD8+ T cells and cytotoxic contents. The class-E group demonstrated improved survival and a high response rate to PD1 blockade with pembrolizumab in a phase 2 clinical trial. Together, this work confirms the immune subtypes in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma, and unravels the potential of B-cell-rich tertiary lymphoid structures to guide clinical decision-making and treatments, which could have broader applications in other diseases. Immune profiling of the tumour microenvironment of soft-tissue sarcoma identifies a group of patients with high levels of B-cell infiltration and tertiary lymphoid structures that have improved survival and a high response rate to immune checkpoint blockade therapy.

BACKGROUND: p.G12C-mutated advanced solid tumors in a phase 1 study, and particularly promising anticancer activity was observed in a subgroup of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: p.G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC previously treated with standard therapies. The primary end point was objective response (complete or partial response) according to independent central review. Key secondary end points included duration of response, disease control (defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease), progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Exploratory biomarkers were evaluated for their association with response to sotorasib therapy. RESULTS: . CONCLUSIONS: p.G12C-mutated NSCLC. (Funded by Amgen and the National Institutes of Health; CodeBreaK100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03600883.).

BACKGROUND: BRAF V600 mutations occur in various nonmelanoma cancers. We undertook a histology-independent phase 2 "basket" study of vemurafenib in BRAF V600 mutation-positive nonmelanoma cancers. METHODS: We enrolled patients in six prespecified cancer cohorts; patients with all other tumor types were enrolled in a seventh cohort. A total of 122 patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive cancer were treated, including 27 patients with colorectal cancer who received vemurafenib and cetuximab. The primary end point was the response rate; secondary end points included progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: In the cohort with non-small-cell lung cancer, the response rate was 42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20 to 67) and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 10.8). In the cohort with Erdheim-Chester disease or Langerhans'-cell histiocytosis, the response rate was 43% (95% CI, 18 to 71); the median treatment duration was 5.9 months (range, 0.6 to 18.6), and no patients had disease progression during therapy. There were anecdotal responses among patients with pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, anaplastic thyroid cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, salivary-duct cancer, ovarian cancer, and clear-cell sarcoma and among patients with colorectal cancer who received vemurafenib and cetuximab. Safety was similar to that in prior studies of vemurafenib for melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF V600 appears to be a targetable oncogene in some, but not all, nonmelanoma cancers. Preliminary vemurafenib activity was observed in non-small-cell lung cancer and in Erdheim-Chester disease and Langerhans'-cell histiocytosis. The histologic context is an important determinant of response in BRAF V600-mutated cancers. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01524978.).

BACKGROUND: Nilotinib has been shown to be a more potent inhibitor of BCR-ABL than imatinib. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nilotinib, as compared with imatinib, in patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in the chronic phase. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label, multicenter study, we assigned 846 patients with chronic-phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nilotinib (at a dose of either 300 mg or 400 mg twice daily) or imatinib (at a dose of 400 mg once daily). The primary end point was the rate of major molecular response at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, the rates of major molecular response for nilotinib (44% for the 300-mg dose and 43% for the 400-mg dose) were nearly twice that for imatinib (22%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The rates of complete cytogenetic response by 12 months were significantly higher for nilotinib (80% for the 300-mg dose and 78% for the 400-mg dose) than for imatinib (65%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Patients receiving either the 300-mg dose or the 400-mg dose of nilotinib twice daily had a significant improvement in the time to progression to the accelerated phase or blast crisis, as compared with those receiving imatinib (P=0.01 and P=0.004, respectively). No patient with progression to the accelerated phase or blast crisis had a major molecular response. Gastrointestinal and fluid-retention events were more frequent among patients receiving imatinib, whereas dermatologic events and headache were more frequent in those receiving nilotinib. Discontinuations due to aminotransferase and bilirubin elevations were low in all three study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nilotinib at a dose of either 300 mg or 400 mg twice daily was superior to imatinib in patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00471497.)

The therapeutic landscape of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has profoundly changed over the past 7 years. Most patients with chronic phase (CP) now have a normal life expectancy. Another goal is achieving a stable deep molecular response (DMR) and discontinuing medication for treatment-free remission (TFR). The European LeukemiaNet convened an expert panel to critically evaluate and update the evidence to achieve these goals since its previous recommendations. First-line treatment is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI; imatinib brand or generic, dasatinib, nilotinib, and bosutinib are available first-line). Generic imatinib is the cost-effective initial treatment in CP. Various contraindications and side-effects of all TKIs should be considered. Patient risk status at diagnosis should be assessed with the new EUTOS long-term survival (ELTS)-score. Monitoring of response should be done by quantitative polymerase chain reaction whenever possible. A change of treatment is recommended when intolerance cannot be ameliorated or when molecular milestones are not reached. Greater than 10% BCR-ABL1 at 3 months indicates treatment failure when confirmed. Allogeneic transplantation continues to be a therapeutic option particularly for advanced phase CML. TKI treatment should be withheld during pregnancy. Treatment discontinuation may be considered in patients with durable DMR with the goal of achieving TFR.

The pathological features of 155 adult patients with soft-tissue sarcomas were studied retrospectively, in an attempt to set up a grading system for these tumors. As the first step, seven histological criteria (tumor differentiation, cellularity, importance of nuclear atypia, presence of malignant giant cells, mitosis count, pattern of tumor necrosis and presence of vascular emboli) were evaluated in a monofactorial analysis. Five of these (tumor differentiation, cellularity, mitosis count, tumor necrosis, and vascular emboli) were correlated with the advent of metastases and with survival. A multivariate analysis, using a Cox model, selected a minimal set of three factors (tumor differentiation, mitosis count, and tumor necrosis) the combination of which was necessary and sufficient to retain all the prognostic information. A grading system was elaborated, which turned out to be correlated with the advent of metastasis and with patients' survival. A second multivariate analysis introducing clinical prognostic features showed that the histological grade was the most important prognostic factor for soft-tissue sarcomas. Thus, this grading system appears to be highly interesting because of its prognostic value and the facility of its elaboration. However, its reproducibility should be tested.

Abstract Cancer develops through a process of somatic evolution 1,2 . Sequencing data from a single biopsy represent a snapshot of this process that can reveal the timing of specific genomic aberrations and the changing influence of mutational processes 3 . Here, by whole-genome sequencing analysis of 2,658 cancers as part of the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) 4 , we reconstruct the life history and evolution of mutational processes and driver mutation sequences of 38 types of cancer. Early oncogenesis is characterized by mutations in a constrained set of driver genes, and specific copy number gains, such as trisomy 7 in glioblastoma and isochromosome 17q in medulloblastoma. The mutational spectrum changes significantly throughout tumour evolution in 40% of samples. A nearly fourfold diversification of driver genes and increased genomic instability are features of later stages. Copy number alterations often occur in mitotic crises, and lead to simultaneous gains of chromosomal segments. Timing analyses suggest that driver mutations often precede diagnosis by many years, if not decades. Together, these results determine the evolutionary trajectories of cancer, and highlight opportunities for early cancer detection.

PURPOSE: KEYNOTE-158 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02628067) is a phase II basket study investigating the antitumor activity and safety of pembrolizumab in multiple cancer types. We present interim results from patients with previously treated advanced cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for 2 years or until progression, intolerable toxicity, or physician or patient decision. Tumor imaging was performed every 9 weeks for the first 12 months and every 12 weeks thereafter. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR), assessed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1) by independent central radiologic review. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were treated. Median age was 46.0 years (range, 24 to 75 years), and 65.3% of patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1. Eighty-two patients (83.7%) had programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors (combined positive score ≥ 1), 77 having previously received one or more lines of chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. Median follow-up was 10.2 months (range, 0.6 to 22.7 months). ORR was 12.2% (95% CI, 6.5% to 20.4%), with three complete and nine partial responses. All 12 responses were in patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, for an ORR of 14.6% (95% CI, 7.8% to 24.2%); 14.3% (95% CI, 7.4% to 24.1%) of these responses were in those who had received one or more lines of chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. Median duration of response was not reached (range, ≥ 3.7 to ≥ 18.6 months). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 65.3% of patients, and the most common were hypothyroidism (10.2%), decreased appetite (9.2%), and fatigue (9.2%). Treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events occurred in 12.2% of patients. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated durable antitumor activity and manageable safety in patients with advanced cervical cancer. On the basis of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval of pembrolizumab for patients with advanced PD-L1-positive cervical cancer who experienced progression during or after chemotherapy.

Abstract A key mutational process in cancer is structural variation, in which rearrangements delete, amplify or reorder genomic segments that range in size from kilobases to whole chromosomes 1–7 . Here we develop methods to group, classify and describe somatic structural variants, using data from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), which aggregated whole-genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types 8 . Sixteen signatures of structural variation emerged. Deletions have a multimodal size distribution, assort unevenly across tumour types and patients, are enriched in late-replicating regions and correlate with inversions. Tandem duplications also have a multimodal size distribution, but are enriched in early-replicating regions—as are unbalanced translocations. Replication-based mechanisms of rearrangement generate varied chromosomal structures with low-level copy-number gains and frequent inverted rearrangements. One prominent structure consists of 2–7 templates copied from distinct regions of the genome strung together within one locus. Such cycles of templated insertions correlate with tandem duplications, and—in liver cancer—frequently activate the telomerase gene TERT . A wide variety of rearrangement processes are active in cancer, which generate complex configurations of the genome upon which selection can act.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human interleukin-2 (aldesleukin) and recombinant human interferon alfa can induce notable tumor regression in a limited number of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to determine the effect of each cytokine independently and in combination, and to identify patients who are best suited for this treatment. METHODS: Four hundred twenty-five patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma were randomly assigned to receive either a continuous intravenous infusion of interleukin-2, subcutaneous injections of interferon alfa-2a, or both. The main outcome measure was the response rate; secondary outcomes were the rates of event-free and overall survival. Predictive factors for response and rapid progression were identified by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Response rates were 6.5 percent, 7.5 percent, and 18.6 percent (P<0.01) for the groups receiving interleukin-2, interferon alfa-2a, and interleukin-2 plus interferon alfa-2a, respectively. At one year, the event-free survival rates were 15 percent, 12 percent, and 20 percent, respectively (P=0.01). There was no significant difference in overall survival among the three groups. Toxic effects of therapy were more common in patients receiving interleukin-2 than in those receiving interferon alfa-2a. Response to treatment was associated with having metastasis to a single organ and with receiving the combined treatment. The probability of rapid progression of disease was at least 70 percent for patients with at least two metastatic sites, liver metastases, and a period of less than one year between the diagnosis of the primary tumor and the appearance of metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Cytokines are active in a few patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. The higher response rate and longer event-free survival obtained with a combination of cytokines must be balanced against the toxicity of such treatment.

IMPORTANCE: Derived neutrophils/(leukocytes minus neutrophils) ratio (dNLR) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level have been correlated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) outcomes in patients with melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether pretreatment dNLR and LDH are associated with resistance to ICIs in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter retrospective study with a test (n = 161) and a validation set (n = 305) treated with programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors in 8 European centers, and a control cohort (n = 162) treated with chemotherapy only. Complete blood cell counts, LDH, and albumin levels were measured before ICI treatment. A lung immune prognostic index (LIPI) based on dNLR greater than 3 and LDH greater than upper limit of normal (ULN) was developed, characterizing 3 groups (good, 0 factors; intermediate, 1 factor; poor, 2 factors). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and disease control rate (DCR). RESULTS: In the pooled ICI cohort (N = 466), 301 patients (65%) were male, 422 (90%) were current or former smokers, and 401 (87%) had performance status of 1 or less; median age at diagnosis was 62 (range, 29-86) years; 270 (58%) had adenocarcinoma and 159 (34%) had squamous histologic subtype. Among 129 patients with PD-L1 data, 96 (74%) had PD-L1 of at least 1% by immunohistochemical analysis, and 33 (26%) had negative results. In the test cohort, median PFS and OS were 3 (95% CI, 2-4) and 10 (95% CI, 8-13) months, respectively. A dNLR greater than 3 and LDH greater than ULN were independently associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.22; 95% CI, 1.23-4.01 and HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.32-4.76, respectively). Median OS for poor, intermediate, and good LIPI was 3 months (95% CI, 1 month to not reached [NR]), 10 months (95% CI, 8 months to NR), and 34 months (95% CI, 17 months to NR), respectively, and median PFS was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.7-4.0), 3.7 (95% CI, 3.0-4.8), and 6.3 (95% CI, 5.0-8.0) months (both P < .001). Disease control rate was also correlated with dNLR greater than 3 and LDH greater than ULN. Results were reproducible in the ICI validation cohort for OS, PFS, and DCR, but were nonsignificant in the chemotherapy cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Pretreatment LIPI, combining dNLR greater than 3 and LDH greater than ULN, was correlated with worse outcomes for ICI, but not for chemotherapy, suggesting that LIPI can serve as a potentially useful tool when selecting ICI treatment, raising the hypothesis that the LIPI might be useful for identifying patients unlikely to benefit from treatment with an ICI.

BACKGROUND: There is no community standard for the treatment of glioblastoma in patients 70 years of age or older. We conducted a randomized trial that compared radiotherapy and supportive care with supportive care alone in such patients. METHODS: Patients 70 years of age or older with a newly diagnosed anaplastic astrocytoma or glioblastoma and a Karnofsky performance score of 70 or higher were randomly assigned to receive supportive care only or supportive care plus radiotherapy (focal radiation in daily fractions of 1.8 Gy given 5 days per week, for a total dose of 50 Gy). The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival, tolerance of radiotherapy, health-related quality of life, and cognition. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 85 patients from 10 centers to receive either radiotherapy and supportive care or supportive care alone. The trial was discontinued at the first interim analysis, which showed that with a preset boundary of efficacy, radiotherapy and supportive care were superior to supportive care alone. A final analysis was carried out for the 81 patients with glioblastoma (median age, 73 years; range, 70 to 85). At a median follow-up of 21 weeks, the median survival for the 39 patients who received radiotherapy plus supportive care was 29.1 weeks, as compared with 16.9 weeks for the 42 patients who received supportive care alone. The hazard ratio for death in the radiotherapy group was 0.47 (95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.76; P=0.002). There were no severe adverse events related to radiotherapy. The results of quality-of-life and cognitive evaluations over time did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy results in a modest improvement in survival, without reducing the quality of life or cognition, in elderly patients with glioblastoma. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00430911 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

BACKGROUND: -altered thyroid cancers, the efficacy and safety of selective RET inhibition are unknown. METHODS: fusion-positive thyroid cancer, in a phase 1-2 trial of selpercatinib. The primary end point was an objective response (a complete or partial response), as determined by an independent review committee. Secondary end points included the duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety. RESULTS: fusion-positive thyroid cancer, the percentage who had a response was 79% (95% CI, 54 to 94), and 1-year progression-free survival was 64% (95% CI, 37 to 82). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were hypertension (in 21% of the patients), increased alanine aminotransferase level (in 11%), increased aspartate aminotransferase level (in 9%), hyponatremia (in 8%), and diarrhea (in 6%). Of all 531 patients treated, 12 (2%) discontinued selpercatinib owing to drug-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 1-2 trial, selpercatinib showed durable efficacy with mainly low-grade toxic effects in patients with medullary thyroid cancer with and without previous vandetanib or cabozantinib treatment. (Funded by Loxo Oncology and others; LIBRETTO-001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03157128.).

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that olaparib led to significantly longer imaging-based progression-free survival than the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had qualifying alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent. The results of the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported. METHODS: , and cohort B included 142 patients with at least one alteration in any of the other 12 prespecified genes. Crossover to olaparib was allowed after imaging-based disease progression for patients who met certain criteria. Overall survival in cohort A, a key secondary end point, was analyzed with the use of an alpha-controlled, stratified log-rank test at a data maturity of approximately 60%. The primary and other key secondary end points were reported previously. RESULTS: The median duration of overall survival in cohort A was 19.1 months with olaparib and 14.7 months with control therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.97; P = 0.02). In cohort B, the median duration of overall survival was 14.1 months with olaparib and 11.5 months with control therapy. In the overall population (cohorts A and B), the corresponding durations were 17.3 months and 14.0 months. Overall, 86 of 131 patients (66%) in the control group crossed over to receive olaparib (56 of 83 patients [67%] in cohort A). A sensitivity analysis that adjusted for crossover to olaparib showed hazard ratios for death of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.91) in cohort A, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.11 to 5.98) in cohort B, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.29 to 1.06) in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent, those who were initially assigned to receive olaparib had a significantly longer duration of overall survival than those who were assigned to receive enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy, despite substantial crossover from control therapy to olaparib. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp and Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.).