Next-generation sequencing has enabled patient selection for targeted drugs, some of which have shown remarkable efficacy in cancers that have the cognate molecular signatures. Intriguingly, rapidly emerging data indicate that altered genes representing oncogenic drivers can also be found in sporadic non-malignant conditions, some of which have negligible and/or low potential for transformation to cancer. For instance, activating KRAS mutations are discerned in endometriosis and in brain arteriovenous malformations, inactivating TP53 tumor suppressor mutations in rheumatoid arthritis synovium, and AKT, MAPK, and AMPK pathway gene alterations in the brains of Alzheimer's disease patients. Furthermore, these types of alterations may also characterize hereditary conditions that result in diverse disabilities and that are associated with a range of lifetime susceptibility to the development of cancer, varying from near universal to no elevated risk. Very recently, the repurposing of targeted cancer drugs for non-malignant conditions that are associated with these genomic alterations has yielded therapeutic successes. For instance, the phenotypic manifestations of CLOVES syndrome, which is characterized by tissue overgrowth and complex vascular anomalies that result from the activation of PIK3CA mutations, can be ameliorated by the PIK3CA inhibitor alpelisib, which was developed and approved for breast cancer. In this review, we discuss the profound implications of finding molecular alterations in non-malignant conditions that are indistinguishable from those driving cancers, with respect to our understanding of the genomic basis of medicine, the potential confounding effects in early cancer detection that relies on sensitive blood tests for oncogenic mutations, and the possibility of reverse repurposing drugs that are used in oncology in order to ameliorate non-malignant illnesses and/or to prevent the emergence of cancer.

There are currently seven approved immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of various cancers. These drugs are associated with profound, durable responses in a subset of patients with advanced cancers. Unfortunately, in addition to individuals whose tumors show resistance, there is a minority subgroup treated with ICIs who demonstrate a paradoxical acceleration in the rate of growth or their tumors-hyperprogressive disease. Hyperprogressive disease is associated with significantly worse outcomes in these patients. This phenomenon, though still a matter of dispute, has been recognized by multiple groups of investigators across the globe and in diverse types of cancers. There are not yet consensus standardized criteria for defining hyperprogressive disease, but most commonly time to treatment failure less than 2 months and an increase in pace of progression of at least twofold between pre-immunotherapy and on-treatment imaging has been used. In some patients, the change in rate of progression can be especially dramatic-up to 35- to 40-fold. MDM2 amplification and EGFR mutations have been suggested as genomic correlates of increased risk of hyperprogression, but these correlates require validation. The underlying mechanism for hyperprogression is not known but warrants urgent investigation.

For many years, oncology phase I trials have been referred to as 'toxicity trials' and have been believed to have low clinical utility other than that of establishing the adverse event profile of novel therapeutic agents. The traditional distinction of clinical trials into three phases has been challenged in the past few years by the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapies into the routine management of patients with cancer. This transformation has especially affected early phase trials, leading to the current situation in which response rates are increasingly reported from phase I trials. In this Perspectives, we highlight key elements of phase I trials and discuss how each one of them contributes to a new paradigm whereby preliminary measurements of the clinical benefit from a novel treatment can be obtained in current phase I trials, which can therefore be considered to have a therapeutic intent.

Patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection have a high risk of developing virally-mediated cancers. These tumors have several features that could make them vulnerable to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) including, but not limited to, increased expression of the CTLA-4 and PD-1 checkpoints on their CD4+ T cells. Even so, HIV-positive patients are generally excluded from immunotherapy cancer clinical trials due to safety concerns. Hence, only case series have been published regarding HIV-positive patients with cancer who received ICIs, but these reports of individuals with a variety of malignancies demonstrate that ICIs have significant activity, exceeding a 65% objective response rate in Kaposi sarcoma. Furthermore, high-grade immune toxicities occurred in fewer than 10% of treated patients. The existing data suggest that the underlying biologic mechanisms that mediate development of cancer in HIV-infected patients should render them susceptible to ICI treatment. Preliminary, albeit limited, clinical experience indicates that checkpoint blockade is both safe and efficacious in this setting. Additional clinical trials that include HIV-positive patients with cancer are urgently needed.

Despite progress, 2-year pancreatic cancer survival remains dismal. We evaluated a biomarker-driven, combination/N-of-one strategy in 18 patients (advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer) (from Molecular Tumor Board). Targeted agents administered/patient = 2.5 (median) (range, 1-4); first-line therapy (N = 5); second line, (N = 13). Comparing patients (high versus low degrees of matching) (matching score ≥50% versus <50%; reflecting number of alterations matched to targeted agents divided by number of pathogenic alterations), survival was significantly longer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.078-0.76, P = 0.016); clinical benefit rates (CBR) (stable disease ≥6 months/partial/complete response) trended higher (45.5 vs 0.0%, P = 0.10); progression-free survival, HR, 95% CI, 0.36 (0.12-1.10) (p = 0.075). First versus ≥2nd-line therapy had higher CBRs (80.0 vs 7.7%, P = 0.008). No grade 3-4 toxicities occurred. The longest responder achieved partial remission (17.5 months) by co-targeting MEK and CDK4/6 alterations (chemotherapy-free). Therefore, genomically matched targeted agent combinations were active in these advanced pancreatic cancers. Larger prospective trials are warranted.

BACKGROUNDAlthough CDK4/6 inhibitors are an established treatment for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancers, their benefit in other malignancies remains limited.METHODSWe investigated factors associated with clinical outcomes from CDK4/6 inhibitor-based therapy among patients with G1/S phase cell-cycle alterations (CDK4/6 amplifications, CCND1/2/3 amplifications, or CDKN2A/B alterations).RESULTSOverall, 2457 patients with diverse solid tumors that underwent clinical-grade, next-generation sequencing (182-465 genes) and therapy outcome of (non-breast cancer) patients treated with matched CDK4/6 inhibitors were analyzed. G1/S phase cell-cycle alterations occurred in 20.6% (507 of 2457) of patients; 99% of those patients (n = 501) harbored ≥1 characterized co-alteration (median, 4; range, 0-24). In 40 patients with G1/S phase cell-cycle alterations given CDK4/6 inhibitors as part of their regimen, significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS) was observed when CDK4/6 inhibitor-based therapies matched a larger proportion of tumor alterations, often because CDK4/6 inhibitors were administered together with other drugs that were matched to genomic co-alterations, hence achieving a high matching score (high vs. low [≥50% vs. <50%] matching score, PFS, 6.2 vs. 2.0 months, P < 0.001 [n = 40] [multivariate]) and higher rate of stable disease ≥6 months or an objective response (57% vs. 21%, P = 0.048).CONCLUSIONIn summary, in cell-cycle-altered cancers, matched CDK4/6 inhibitors, as part of an individualized regimen targeting a majority of genomic alterations, was independently associated with longer PFS.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT02478931.FUNDINGJoan and Irwin Jacobs Fund, National Cancer Institute (P30 CA023100, R01 CA226803), and the FDA (R01 FD006334).

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can identify novel cancer targets. However, interpreting the molecular findings and accessing drugs/clinical trials is challenging. Furthermore, many tumors show resistance to monotherapies. To implement a precision strategy, we initiated a multidisciplinary (basic/translational/clinical investigators, bioinformaticians, geneticists, and physicians from multiple specialties) molecular tumor board (MTB), which included a project manager to facilitate obtaining clinical-grade biomarkers (blood/tissue NGS, specific immunohistochemistry/RNA expression including for immune-biomarkers, per physician discretion) and medication-acquisition specialists/clinical trial coordinators/navigators to assist with medication access. The MTB comprehensively reviewed patient characteristics to develop N-of-One treatments implemented by the treating physician's direction under the auspices of a master protocol. Overall, 265/429 therapy-evaluable patients (62%) were matched to ≥1 recommended drug. Eighty-six patients (20%) matched to all drugs recommended by MTB, including combinatorial approaches, while 38% received physician's choice regimen, generally with unmatched approach/low degree of matching. Our results show that patients who receive MTB-recommended regimens (versus physician choice) have significantly longer progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and are better matched to therapy. High (≥50%) versus low (<50%) Matching Score therapy (roughly reflecting therapy matched to ≥50% versus <50% of alterations) independently correlates with longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.80; P < 0.001) and OS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90; P = 0.007) and higher stable disease ≥6 months/partial/complete remission rate (52.1% versus 30.4% P < 0.001) (all multivariate). In conclusion, patients who receive MTB-based therapy are better matched to their genomic alterations, and the degree of matching is an independent predictor of improved oncologic outcomes including survival.