W

William Nassib William

Fleury S.A. (Brazil)

Publishes on Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations, Head and Neck Cancer Studies, Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics. 74 papers and 1.4k citations.

74Publications
1.4kTotal Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.

Top publicationsby citations

Evolutionary Action Score of <i>TP53</i> Identifies High-Risk Mutations Associated with Decreased Survival and Increased Distant Metastases in Head and Neck Cancer
David M. Neskey, Abdullah A. Osman, Thomas J. Ow et al.|Cancer Research|2015
Cited by 159Open Access

Abstract TP53 is the most frequently altered gene in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, with mutations occurring in over two-thirds of cases, but the prognostic significance of these mutations remains elusive. In the current study, we evaluated a novel computational approach termed evolutionary action (EAp53) to stratify patients with tumors harboring TP53 mutations as high or low risk, and validated this system in both in vivo and in vitro models. Patients with high-risk TP53 mutations had the poorest survival outcomes and the shortest time to the development of distant metastases. Tumor cells expressing high-risk TP53 mutations were more invasive and tumorigenic and they exhibited a higher incidence of lung metastases. We also documented an association between the presence of high-risk mutations and decreased expression of TP53 target genes, highlighting key cellular pathways that are likely to be dysregulated by this subset of p53 mutations that confer particularly aggressive tumor behavior. Overall, our work validated EAp53 as a novel computational tool that may be useful in clinical prognosis of tumors harboring p53 mutations. Cancer Res; 75(7); 1527–36. ©2015 AACR.

Neoadjuvant nivolumab (N) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NI) for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Clinical and correlative results from the NEOSTAR study.
Tina Cascone, William Nassib William, Annikka Weissferdt et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|2019
Cited by 144

8504 Background: Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) induce major pathologic response (MPR) rates of 20 to 45% in resected NSCLCs. We report the results of NEOSTAR - a phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant N or NI for NSCLCs. Methods: Pts with stage I-IIIA (single N2) resectable NSCLC (AJCC 7 th ), PS 0-1, were randomized to N (3 mg/kg IV, D1, 15, 29) or N plus I (1 mg/kg IV, D1) followed by surgery (n = 44). Primary endpoint: MPR (≤10% viable tumor), hypothesized to be higher than MPR to induction chemotherapy historical controls. Tumor immune infiltrates and pre- &amp; post-ICI tumor PD-L1 % were assessed by flow cytometry &amp; IHC. Wilcoxon ranked sum test &amp; Fisher’s exact test were used for comparisons. Results: 44 pts were randomized, 23 N, 21 NI: mean age 66, 64% males, 18% never smokers, 59% adenocarcinomas, stages: IA 8 (18%), IB 15 (34%), IIA 7 (16%) IIB 5 (11%); IIIA 9 (20%). Only 3 pts received &lt; 3 doses due to TRAEs (7%). 34 pts had surgery post ICIs (7 not resected [7/41], 17%, [2 N, 5 NI], 3 pending). There were 10 MPRs in 41 pts overall (24%, 4 N, 6 NI), of which 6 were path CRs (15%, 2 N [9%], 4 NI [21%]). Among 34 resected pts, MPR rate was 29% (N 20%, NI 43%). Median % of viable tumor was lower post NI vs N (20% vs 65%, p = .097). ORR (RECIST v1.1) was 22% (8 PRs [5 N, 3 NI], 1 CR [NI]); 15% of pts had PD (3 N, 3 NI). The proportion of CR+PR in MPR+ was higher than in MPR- (6 [60%] vs 2 [7%], p &lt; .001). Surgical complications included 2 bronchopleural fistulas (BPFs) in N &amp; 8 air leaks (5 N, 3 NI). G3-G5 TRAEs included a death due to BPF post steroid-treated pneumonitis (G5, N); G3 pneumonia, hypoxia, hypermagnesemia (1 each, all N), G3 diarrhea (1 NI). CD3 + &amp; CD103 + tissue resident memory CD8 + TILs were higher in NI- vs N-treated tumors (CD3 + 81.2% vs 54.4%, p = .028; CD8 + 56.2% vs 38.3%, p = .069). Median pre-treatment tumor PD-L1 was higher in responders (MPR+, CR+PR) vs non-responders (80% vs 1%, p = .024), and the % of viable tumor was lower in tumors with PD-L1 &gt; 1% vs PD-L1 ≤1% (median 20% vs 80%, p = .046). Conclusions: Overall a 24% MPR rate to neoadjuvant ICIs was observed. NI induced a higher % of non-viable tumor and of tissue resident memory TILs vs N. Antitumor activity was associated with higher pre-treatment PD-L1 levels. Clinical trial information: NCT03158129.

Pilot Randomized Phase II Study of Celecoxib in Oral Premalignant Lesions
Cited by 112

PURPOSE: Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)-specific inhibition suppresses carcinogenesis in preclinical models and is a promising strategy for preventing oral cancer. In this pilot randomized phase II study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib in patients with oral premalignant lesions (OPL). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomly assigned to placebo (n=18), celecoxib 100 mg twice daily (n=17), or celecoxib 200 mg twice daily (n=15) for 12 weeks. Six additional patients received celecoxib (400 mg twice daily) in an unblinded extension of the study. Biopsies were obtained at baseline and week 12. All patients entering the study were required to have at least one histologically confirmed early (atypical hyperplasia, atypical hyperkeratosis, or mild dysplasia) or advanced (moderate to severe dysplasia) OPL. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (46 of 50 randomized and 3 of 6 open label) were evaluable for efficacy analyses. There were no statistically significant differences between the response rates of the randomly assigned arms: placebo, 33.3% (6 of 18); celecoxib 100 mg twice daily, 41.2% (7 of 17); and celecoxib 200 mg twice daily, 20.0% (3 of 15). Two patients responded on celecoxib 400 mg twice daily. Celecoxib was generally well tolerated. Patients with higher baseline COX-2 mRNA levels had an increased risk of disease progression within 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Celecoxib at 100 or 200 mg twice daily was ineffective in controlling OPLs in this randomized controlled trial. This result and cardiovascular toxicity results of other (large scale) randomized controlled trials of selective COX-2 inhibitors have discouraged the continued investigation of these agents in oral cancer chemoprevention. Better methods for identifying high-risk patients and more active interventions are needed for future oral cancer chemoprevention trials.