Abraham Anderson

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.).

Unlike chemotherapy, which acts directly on the tumor, cancer immunotherapies exert their effects on the immune system and demonstrate new kinetics that involve building a cellular immune response, followed by changes in tumor burden or patient survival. Thus, adequate design and evaluation of some immunotherapy clinical trials require a new development paradigm that includes reconsideration of established endpoints. Between 2004 and 2009, several initiatives facilitated by the Cancer Immunotherapy Consortium of the Cancer Research Institute and partner organizations systematically evaluated an immunotherapy-focused clinical development paradigm and created the principles for redefining trial endpoints. On this basis, a body of clinical and laboratory data was generated that supports three novel endpoint recommendations. First, cellular immune response assays generate highly variable results. Assay harmonization in multicenter trials may minimize variability and help to establish cellular immune response as a reproducible biomarker, thus allowing investigation of its relationship with clinical outcomes. Second, immunotherapy may induce novel patterns of antitumor response not captured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or World Health Organization criteria. New immune-related response criteria were defined to more comprehensively capture all response patterns. Third, delayed separation of Kaplan-Meier curves in randomized immunotherapy trials can affect results. Altered statistical models describing hazard ratios as a function of time and recognizing differences before and after separation of curves may allow improved planning of phase III trials. These recommendations may improve our tools for cancer immunotherapy trials and may offer a more realistic and useful model for clinical investigation.

KRAS inhibitors demonstrate clinical efficacy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC); however, resistance is common. Among patients with KRASG12C-mutant PDAC treated with adagrasib or sotorasib, mutations in PIK3CA and KRAS, and amplifications of KRASG12C, MYC, MET, EGFR, and CDK6 emerged at acquired resistance. In PDAC cell lines and organoid models treated with the KRASG12D inhibitor MRTX1133, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling associate with resistance to therapy. MRTX1133 treatment of the KrasLSL-G12D/+; Trp53LSL-R172H/+; p48-Cre (KPC) mouse model yielded deep tumor regressions, but drug resistance ultimately emerged, accompanied by amplifications of Kras, Yap1, Myc, Cdk6, and Abcb1a/b, and co-evolution of drug-resistant transcriptional programs. Moreover, in KPC and PDX models, mesenchymal and basal-like cell states displayed increased response to KRAS inhibition compared to the classical state. Combination treatment with KRASG12D inhibition and chemotherapy significantly improved tumor control in PDAC mouse models. Collectively, these data elucidate co-evolving resistance mechanisms to KRAS inhibition and support multiple combination therapy strategies. Significance: Acquired resistance may limit the impact of KRAS inhibition in patients with PDAC. Using clinical samples and multiple preclinical models, we define heterogeneous genetic and non-genetic mechanisms of resistance to KRAS inhibition that may guide combination therapy approaches to improve the efficacy and durability of these promising therapies for patients. See related commentary by Marasco and Misale, p. 2018.