T

Tifenn L’Haridon

Roche (France)

Publishes on PARP inhibition in cancer therapy, BRCA gene mutations in cancer, Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment. 45 papers and 534 citations.

45Publications
534Total Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

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

Top publicationsby citations

Validation of the Clinical Use of GIScar, an Academic-developed Genomic Instability Score Predicting Sensitivity to Maintenance Olaparib for Ovarian Cancer
Raphaël Leman, Etienne Müller, Angélina Legros et al.|Clinical Cancer Research|2023
Cited by 25Open Access

PURPOSE: The optimal application of maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy for ovarian cancer requires accessible, robust, and rapid testing of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). However, in many countries, access to HRD testing is problematic and the failure rate is high. We developed an academic HRD test to support treatment decision-making. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Genomic Instability Scar (GIScar) was developed through targeted sequencing of a 127-gene panel to determine HRD status. GIScar was trained from a noninterventional study with 250 prospectively collected ovarian tumor samples. GIScar was validated on 469 DNA tumor samples from the PAOLA-1 trial evaluating maintenance olaparib for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, and its predictive value was compared with Myriad Genetics MyChoice (MGMC). RESULTS: GIScar showed significant correlation with MGMC HRD classification (kappa statistics: 0.780). From PAOLA-1 samples, more HRD-positive tumors were identified by GIScar (258) than MGMC (242), with a lower proportion of inconclusive results (1% vs. 9%, respectively). The HRs for progression-free survival (PFS) with olaparib versus placebo were 0.45 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.62] in GIScar-identified HRD-positive BRCA-mutated tumors, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31-0.80) in HRD-positive BRCA-wild-type tumors, and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.74-1.40) in HRD-negative tumors. Tumors identified as HRD positive by GIScar but HRD negative by MGMC had better PFS with olaparib (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.07-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: GIScar is a valuable diagnostic tool, reliably detecting HRD and predicting sensitivity to olaparib for ovarian cancer. GIScar showed high analytic concordance with MGMC test and fewer inconclusive results. GIScar is easily implemented into diagnostic laboratories with a rapid turnaround.

TAXOMET: A French prospective multicenter randomized controlled phase II study comparing docetaxel plus metformin versus docetaxel plus placebo in mCRPC.
Marc Pujalte‐Martin, Delphine Borchiellini, Julien Viotti et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|2019
Cited by 9

5004 Background: Docetaxel (DOCE) is a standard of care in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Several retrospective cohort studies suggest a decrease in PC incidence and mortality with metformin (MET). MET has also demonstrated anti-tumor activity in PC preclinical models, with increase apoptosis when added to DOCE. The addition of MET could enhance DOCE efficacy in mCRPC patients (pts). Methods: TAXOMET is a phase II prospective multicentric randomized controlled trial. Non-diabetic mCRPC pts were assigned 1:1 to receive DOCE 75mg/m2 every 21 days + prednisone (P) 5 mg twice a day and either MET 850mg twice a day (arm A) or placebo (arm B), up to 10 cycles. The primary end point was PSA response rate (≥50% decrease). Main secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR, according to RECIST v1.1), clinical and biological progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity and quality of life (QoL). Comparisons between arm A and B were performed using Chi² test for qualitative data and Log-rank test for survival data. Results: From January 2013 to December 2015, 99 pts were randomized (50 pts in arm A and 49 pts in arm B) in 10 french centers, and 95 pts were evaluable. No difference was observed between arm A and arm B in PSA-response rate (72% in both arms), ORR (28% in both arms), clinical or biological mPFS (7.3 months vs 5.8 months p = 0.848) and mOS (24.2 months (95CI: 17.2 – 33.7) vs 19.7 months (95CI: 14.8 – 36.8), p = 0.53), respectively. There was no difference between arms in adverse events, except a trend for diarrhea to be more common with MET (70% in arm A vs 50% in arm B, p = 0.072), but few grade 3-4 events. There was no difference in QoL according to QLQ-C30 score between the two arms during the treatment period. Conclusions: This is the first prospective randomized controlled trial to evaluate the combination of MET with DOCE+P in mCRPC. The addition of MET has no meaningful clinical benefit in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT01796028.