Institute Bergonie Cancer Center

Bordeaux, France

Institute Bergonie Cancer Center

Bordeaux, France

Time filter

Source Type

Hyman D.M.,Sloan Kettering Cancer Center | Puzanov I.,Vanderbilt University | Subbiah V.,University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center | Faris J.E.,Massachusetts General Hospital | And 19 more authors.
New England Journal of Medicine | Year: 2015

BACKGROUND BRAF V600 mutations occur in various nonmelanoma cancers. We undertook a histology-independent phase 2 "basket" study of vemurafenib in BRAF V600 mutation- positive nonmelanoma cancers. METHODS We enrolled patients in six prespecified cancer cohorts; patients with all other tumor types were enrolled in a seventh cohort. A total of 122 patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive cancer were treated, including 27 patients with colorectal cancer who received vemurafenib and cetuximab. The primary end point was the response rate; secondary end points included progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS In the cohort with non-small-cell lung cancer, the response rate was 42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20 to 67) and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 10.8). In the cohort with Erdheim-Chester disease or Langerhans'-cell histiocytosis, the response rate was 43% (95% CI, 18 to 71); the median treatment duration was 5.9 months (range, 0.6 to 18.6), and no patients had disease progression during therapy. There were anecdotal responses among patients with pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, anaplastic thyroid cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, salivary-duct cancer, ovarian cancer, and clear-cell sarcoma and among patients with colorectal cancer who received vemurafenib and cetuximab. Safety was similar to that in prior studies of vemurafenib for melanoma. CONCLUSIONS BRAF V600 appears to be a targetable oncogene in some, but not all, nonmelanoma cancers. Preliminary vemurafenib activity was observed in non-small-cell lung cancer and in Erdheim-Chester disease and Langerhans'-cell histiocytosis. The histologic context is an important determinant of response in BRAF V600-mutated cancers. Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society.


Bonnefoi H.,Institute Bergonie Cancer Center | Bonnefoi H.,University of Bordeaux Segalen | Zaman K.,University of Lausanne | Debled M.,Institute Bergonie Cancer Center | And 10 more authors.
European Journal of Cancer | Year: 2013

Background: Lapatinib is an effective anti-HER2 therapy in advanced breast cancer and docetaxel is one of the most active agents in breast cancer. Combining these agents in pre-treated patients with metastatic disease had previously proved challenging, so the primary objective of this study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in treatment-naive patients, by identifying acute dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) during cycle 1 in the first part of a phases 1-2 neoadjuvant European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial. Patients and methods: Patients with large operable or locally-advanced HER2 positive breast cancer were treated with continuous lapatinib, and docetaxel every 21 days for 4 cycles. Dose levels (DLs) were: 1000/75, 1250/75, 1000/85, 1250/85, 1000/100 and 1250/100 (mg/day)/(mg/m2). Results: Twenty-one patients were included. Two DLTs occurred at dose level 5 (1000/100); one grade 4 neutropenia ≥7 days and one febrile neutropenia. A further 3 patients were therefore treated at the same dose with prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), and 3 patients at dose level 6. No further DLTs were observed. Conclusions: Our recommended dose for phase II is lapatinib 1000 mg/day and docetaxel 100 mg/m2 with G-CSF in HER2 positive non-metastatic breast cancer. The dose of lapatinib should have been 1250 mg/day but we were mindful of the high rate of treatment discontinuation in GeparQuinto with lapatinib 1250 mg/day combined with docetaxel. No grade 3-4 diarrhoea was observed. Pharmacodynamics analysis suggests that concomitant medications altering P-glycoprotein activity (in addition to lapatinib) can modify toxicity, including non-haematological toxicities. This needs verification in larger trials, where it may contribute to understanding the sources of variability in clinical toxicity and treatment discontinuation. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


Le Loarer F.,Sloan Kettering Cancer Center | Le Loarer F.,Institute Bergonie Cancer Center | Zhang L.,Sloan Kettering Cancer Center | Fletcher C.D.,Brigham and Women's Hospital | And 10 more authors.
Genes Chromosomes and Cancer | Year: 2014

Epithelioid sarcomas (ES) are mesenchymal neoplasms subclassified into distal and proximal subtypes based on their distinct clinical presentations and histologic features. Consistent loss of SMARCB1 nuclear expression has been considered as the hallmark abnormality for both subtypes, a feature shared with atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor of infancy (ATRT). While virtually all ATRTs harbor underlying SMARCB1 somatic or germline alterations, mechanisms of SMARCB1 inactivation in ES are less well defined. To further define mechanisms of SMARCB1 inactivation a detailed molecular analysis was performed on 40 ES (25 proximal and 15 distal ES, with classic morphology and negative SMARCB1 expression) for their genomic status of SMARCB1 and related genes encoding the SWI/SNF subunits (PBRM1, BRG1, BRM, SMARCC1/2 and ARID1A) by FISH using custom BAC probes. An additional control group was included spanning a variety of 41 soft tissue neoplasms with either rhabdoid/epithelioid features or selected histotypes previously shown to lack SMARCB1 by IHC. Furthermore, 12 ES were studied by array CGH (aCGH) and an independent TMA containing 50 additional ES cases was screened for Aurora Kinase A (AURKA) and cyclin D1 immunoexpression. Homozygous SMARCB1 deletions were found by FISH in 36/40 ES (21/25 proximal-type). One of the distal-type ES displayed homozygous SMARCB1 deletion in the tumor cells, along with a heterozygous deletion within normal tissue, finding confirmed by array CGH. None of the proximal ES lacking homozygous SMARCB1 deletions displayed alterations in other SWI/SNF subunits gene members. Among controls, only the SMARCB1-immunonegative myoepithelial carcinomas displayed SMARCB1 homozygous deletions in 3/5 cases, while no gene specific abnormalities were seen among all other histologic subtypes of sarcomas tested regardless of the SMARCB1 protein status. There was no consistent pattern of AURKA and Cyclin D1 expression. The array CGH was successful in 9/12 ES, confirming the SMARCB1 and other SWI/SNF genes copy numbers detected by FISH. Our study confirms the shared pathogenesis of proximal and distal ES, showing consistent SMARCB1 homozygous deletions. Additionally we report the first ES case associated with a SMARCB1 constitutional deletion, establishing a previously undocumented link with ATRT. Alternative mechanisms of SMARCB1 inactivation in SMARCB1-disomic ES remain to be identified, but appear unrelated to large genomic abnormalities in other SWI/SNF subunits. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


3586 Background: LV5-FU2 + CPT-11 or oxaliplatin (OHP) are standard therapies in first line MCRC. This phase II trial evaluates an experimental regimen of CPT-11 + oxaliplatin, without 5FU.First line MCRC evaluable patients (pts) were randomized to receive, every two weeks, either: Arm A = OHP 85 mg/m80 pts were included between 09/2002 and 04/2005, 40 in IRINOX (arm A), 20 each in FOLFIRI and FOLFOX (arm B). Pts characteristics (A:B): M/F = 27/13:29/11; median age (range): 63 (41-76):61 (47-75); PS (0/1/2): 16/21/3:16/22/2; median number of cycles (range): 8.0 (1-16):12 (1-26). Safety data: no toxic death. IRINOX (318 cycles): NCI G3-4 neutropenia, 43.6% (pts), 14.7% (cycles); G3-4 neurotoxicity, 17.9% (pts), 5.0% (cycles); G3-4 diarrhea, 33.3% (pts), 5.3% (cycles). FOLFIRI (238 cycles) and FOLFOX (186 cycles): G3-4 neutropenia, 40% (pts) and 23.8% (pts) respectively (8.8% and 7.6% of cycles); G3-4 neurotoxicity, 0% and 14.3% (pts), 0% and 2.7% (cycles); G3-4 diarrhea 15% and 0% (pts), 2.1% and 0% (cycles). Median relative dose-intensity was 0.86 (0.57-1.0) for CPT-11, 0.86 (0.57 -1.0) for OHP in the IRINOX arm. We observed 21 PR in the IRINOX arm, 19 PR and 2 CR in the 2 control arms, for an ORR = 52.5%, 90% CI (38-66). Median follow-up: 17 months, median PFS for IRINOX: 8.4 months.The combination of CPT-11 and OHP (IRINOX) at these doses, every 2 weeks, appears safe and active in first line MCRC. [Table: see text].

Loading Institute Bergonie Cancer Center collaborators
Loading Institute Bergonie Cancer Center collaborators