Patientderived Xenografts for Individualized Care in Advanced Sarcoma
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Original Article Patient-Derived Xenografts for Individualized Care in Advanced Sarcoma Justin Stebbing, MA, FRCP, FRCPath, PhD1; Keren Paz, PhD2; Gary K. Schwartz, MD3; Leonard H. Wexler, MD3; Robert Maki, MD, PhD4; Raphael E. Pollock, MD, PhD5; Ronnie Morris, MD2; Richard Cohen, MD6; Arjun Shankar, MD6; Glen Blackman, MBBS7; Victoria Harding, MD1; David Vasquez, MD2; Jonathan Krell, MD, PhD1; Daniel Ciznadija, PhD2; Amanda Katz, MD2; and David Sidransky, MD8 BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced, metastatic sarcoma have a poor prognosis, and the overall benefit from the few standard-of- care therapeutics available is small. The rarity of this tumor, combined with the wide range of subtypes, leads to difficulties in con- ducting clinical trials. The authors previously reported the outcome of patients with a variety of common solid tumors who received treatment with drug regimens that were first tested in patient-derived xenografts using a proprietary method (“TumorGrafts”). METHODS: Tumors resected from 29 patients with sarcoma were implanted into immunodeficient mice to identify drug targets and drugs for clinical use. The results of drug sensitivity testing in the TumorGrafts were used to personalize cancer treatment. RESULTS: Of 29 implanted tumors, 22 (76%) successfully engrafted, permitting the identification of treatment regimens for these patients. Although 6 patients died before the completion of TumorGraft testing, a correlation between TumorGraft results and clinical outcome was observed in 13 of 16 (81%) of the remaining individuals. No patients progressed during the TumorGraft-predicted therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The current data support the use of the personalized TumorGraft model as an investigational platform for therapeu- tic decision-making that can guide treatment for rare tumors such as sarcomas. A randomized phase 3 trial versus physician’s choice is warranted. Cancer 2014;000:000–000. VC 2014 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.. KEYWORDS: sarcoma, prediction, biomarker, response, chemotherapy, trial, mice, TumorGraft. INTRODUCTION Sarcomas represent a heterogeneous and diverse group of tumors; and, because of the rarity of each subtype, there is a lack of randomized data from which we can guide systemic, nonsurgical treatments.1 Gene expression profiling has led to significant advances in diagnosis and prognosis, and additional genetic studies have led to a better understanding of underlying chromo- somal translocations in sarcoma.2-6 However, with the exception of gastrointestinal stromal tumors and Kaposi sarcoma, therapeutic options are limited, because drugs that directly target the fusion oncoproteins produced are not available. Molec- ular pathways activated by these fusion oncogenes may still be targeted, and inhibitory agents have been developed.7-9 Because sarcomas are usually somatic genetic diseases and tumorigenesis depends on permissive microenvirno- ments,10 others have developed reliable mouse models that faithfully recapitulate the histopathologic, immunohisto- chemical, and transcriptional profile of human sarcomas, to the extent that 1 notable study appeared to identify the cell of origin for synovial sarcomas.11 Such models are valuable resources for studying tumor biology and are a strik- ing example of how understanding normal tissue in the context of cancer growth will be central to developing appro- priate therapies.12 These models are also more likely to be reliable indicators of in vivo tumor behavior and metastatic Corresponding author: Justin Stebbing, MA, FRCP, FRCPath, PhD, Imperial College=Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Center for Translational and Experimental Medicine, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, UK; Fax: (011) 44 2033111433; [email protected] 1Department of Oncology, Imperial College and Imperial Healthcare National Health Service Trust, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom; 2Department of Oncology, Champions Oncology, Baltimore, Maryland; 3Department of Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; 4Department of Oncology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York; 5Department of Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 6Department of Surgery, University College Hospitals, London, United Kingdom; 7Department of Radiotherapy, University College Hospitals, London, United Kingdom; 8Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland See related editorial on pages 000-000, this issue. The first 2 authors contributed equally to this work. We are grateful to the patients who participated in this study. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28696, Received: September 26, 2013; Revised: December 18, 2013; Accepted: January 2, 2014, Published online Month 00, 2014 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) Cancer Month 00, 2014 1 Original Article Figure 1. This is a schematic of the TumorGraft engraftment and testing process. A piece of the patient’s tumor is collected at the time of surgery and implanted into immunocompromised mice for the purpose of propagation. While the patient recovers from surgery and receives treatment with first-line therapies, the TumorGraft is expanded across more mice (generations P0-P3). These engrafted mice eventually are enrolled in a drug-screening test to determine optimal treatments (RX). Test results are pre- sented to the patient’s treating oncologist to help guide later stages of therapy. progression compared with cell line data, which only ods.16,17 The entire process, depicted in Figure 1A, partially mimic the genetic features of cancer.13,14 typically takes 3 to 6 months, and approximately 75% of Indeed, differences between cell lines and cancers can implanted tumors grow successfully in mice. Indeed, often reflect intratumor heterogeneity and adaptation unique banks of serially transplantable, orthotopic, through Darwinian selection.15 Nevertheless, although patient-derived TumorGrafts that retain that characteris- these models are more reliable indicators of in vivo tics of the original tumor have been established for a series growth, the rarity of sarcoma as well as patient diversity of breast cancers16 and colorectal cancers,17 along with makes identifying and testing targeted therapies difficult case reports in pancreatic, adenoid cystic, and other tumor and underscores the need to find real-time, personalized types,18-20 all of which were used to customize therapy. solutions for patients with sarcoma. Herein, we describe our experience with TumorGrafts in The use of tumor tissue engrafted into immune- 29 individuals who had advanced sarcoma, a disease for deficient mice, termed “TumorGrafts” (Champions On- which few treatment options are available. cology, Inc., Baltimore, Md), should overcome many of the aforementioned issues and allow a personalized MATERIALS AND METHODS approach to cancer therapy. This process preserves the TumorGraft Generation characteristics of the live tumor, creating a replica that Patients in the United States and Europe who were diag- appears identical to the tumor in the patient’s body, as nosed with advanced sarcoma had the opportunity to characterized by genetic, genomic, and biochemical meth- have their tumors engrafted for the generation of a 2 Cancer Month 00, 2014 Mouse Avatar in Sarcoma/Stebbing et al personalized TumorGraft. Patients who chose to partici- ment for 2 consecutive measurements over a 7-day pe- pate were charged a fee to enroll and signed an informed riod were considered to have a partial responder (PR). If consent document. The informed consent document fol- the PR persisted until study completion, then the per- lowed federal regulatory requirements and covered the use centage tumor regression (%TR) was determined using of the patient’s tumor for personalizing therapy, reporting the formula: %TR 5 (1 2 [Tf=Ti]) 3 100; and a mean of patient medical history, and use of tumor material for value was calculated for the entire treatment group. research purposes. A fresh specimen of the patient’s tumor Individual mice that lacked palpable tumors for 2 con- was removed by a surgeon at the time of resection or bi- secutive measurements over a 7-day period were consid- opsy and sent to a dedicated laboratory. Fragments of the ered to have a complete response (CR). All data tumor measuring approximately 4 mm3, containing both collected in this study were managed electronically and malignant cells and supportive stromal components, were stored on a redundant server system. %TGI and %TR implanted subcutaneously into the flanks of 6-week-old values were ranked according to their efficacy and were immunodeficient mice, as previously described (female provided to the treating physician, who selected an nu=nu athymic mice; Harlan Laboratories, Indianapolis, appropriate therapy in consultation with the patient. All Inc.).16-20 The mice (P1 generation) were maintained investigations were performed after approval by local under pathogen-free conditions and a 12-hour light=dark committees. cycle. When P1 tumors reached an approximate size of 1500 mm3, they were harvested, fragmented, and reim- RESULTS planted into additional mice (P2 generation)