Lillian L Siu

University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Are you Lillian L Siu?

Claim your profile

Publications (267)1896.82 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In cancer cells, the nuclear-cytoplasmic transport machinery is frequently disrupted, resulting in mislocalization and loss of function for many key regulatory proteins. In this review, the mechanisms by which tumor cells co-opt the nuclear transport machinery to facilitate carcinogenesis, cell survival, drug resistance, and tumor progression will be elucidated, with a particular focus on the role of the nuclear-cytoplasmic export protein. The recent development of a new generation of selective inhibitors of nuclear export (XPO1 antagonists) and how these novel anticancer drugs may bring us closer to the implementation of this therapeutic strategy in the clinic will be discussed.
    Cancer Discovery 04/2014; · 15.93 Impact Factor
  • Philippe L Bedard, Lillian L Siu
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 04/2014; · 17.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose The pan-Class I PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120) has shown activity in a range of preclinical cancer models. This first-in-man study was initiated to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of buparlisib (100 mg/day) and to assess safety and preliminary efficacy. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors (N = 83) enrolled in a Phase I dose-escalation and -expansion study of single-agent buparlisib. Patients in the dose-expansion arm (n = 43) had tumor samples with PIK3CA and/or PTEN alterations. Results The most common cancers were colorectal (n = 31) and breast cancer (n = 21). Median number of prior antineoplastic regimens was four (range: 1-12). Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) included asthenia (12.0 %) and performance status decrease (9.6 %). Treatment-related AEs (all grades) included decreased appetite, diarrhea, nausea (each in 33 % of patients), hyperglycemia (31 %) and rash (29 %). One confirmed partial response (PR; triple-negative breast cancer) and three unconfirmed PRs (parotid gland carcinoma, epithelioid hemangiothelioma, ER + breast cancer) were reported. Tumor molecular status did not predict clinical benefit in the full study cohort, or among the colorectal or breast cancer subpopulations. Pharmacodynamic biomarkers ((18)F-FDG-PET, C-peptide, pS6) demonstrated dose-dependent changes; however, tumor heterogeneity precluded a clear correlation with clinical benefit. Conclusion Buparlisib was well tolerated up to the 100 mg/day dose and showed preliminary activity in patients with advanced cancers. Future studies in more homogeneous patient populations will evaluate buparlisib in combination with other agents and further investigate the use of predictive biomarkers.
    Investigational New Drugs 03/2014; · 3.50 Impact Factor
  • Anna Spreafico, Eitan Amir, Lillian L Siu
    Annals of Oncology 02/2014; · 6.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inhibition of AKT with MK-2206 has demonstrated synergism with anticancer agents. This phase 1 study assessed the MTD, DLTs, PK, and efficacy of MK-2206 in combination with cytotoxic and targeted therapies. Advanced solid tumor patients received oral MK-2206 45 or 60 mg (QOD) with either carboplatin (AUC 6.0) and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 (arm 1), docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (arm 2), or erlotinib 100 or 150 mg daily (arm 3); alternative schedules of MK-2206 135-200 mg QW or 90-250 mg Q3W were also tested. MTD of MK-2206 (N = 72) was 45 mg QOD or 200 mg Q3W (arm 1); MAD was 200 mg Q3W (arm 2) and 135 mg QW (arm 3). DLTs included skin rash (arms 1, 3), febrile neutropenia (QOD, arms 1, 2), tinnitus (Q3W, arm 2), and stomatitis (QOD, arm 3). Common drug-related toxicities included fatigue (68%), nausea (49%), and rash (47%). Two patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (arm 1; Q3W) demonstrated a complete and partial response (PR); additional PRs were observed in patients (1 each) with melanoma, endometrial, neuroendocrine prostate, NSCLC, and cervical cancers. Six patients had stable disease >=6 months. MK-2206 plus carboplatin and paclitaxel, docetaxel, or erlotinib was well-tolerated, with early evidence of antitumor activity.Trial registration: NCT00848718.
    Journal of Hematology & Oncology 01/2014; 7(1):1. · 4.93 Impact Factor
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Traditional dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition, which uses grade (G) 3–4 toxicity data from cycle 1 (C1) only, may not be appropriate for molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) of prolonged administration, for which late or lower grade toxicities also deserve attention. Patients and methods In collaboration with pharmaceutical companies and academia, an European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-led initiative, Dose-Limiting Toxicity and Toxicity Assessment Recommendation Group for Early Trials of Targeted therapies (DLT-TARGETT), collected data from completed phase 1 trials evaluating MTAs as monotherapy. All toxicities at least possibly related to the study drugs that occurred during C1–6, their type, grade (CTCAEv3.0), and duration as well as patients’ relative dose-intensity (RDI), were recorded. Results The 54 eligible trials enrolled 2084 evaluable adult patients with solid tumours between 1999 and 2013, and evaluated small molecules (40), antibodies (seven), recombinant peptides (five) and antisense oligodeoxynucleotides (two). A maximum tolerated dose was set in 43 trials. Fifteen percent of the patients received <75% of the intended RDI in C1, but only 9.1% of them presented protocol-defined DLTs. After C1, 16–19% of patients received <75% of the intended RDI. A similar proportion of G ⩾ 3 toxicities was recorded in C1 and after C1 (936 and 1087 toxicities, respectively), with the first G ⩾ 3 toxicity occurring after C1 in 18.6% of patients. Conclusion Although protocol-defined DLT period is traditionally limited to C1, almost 20% of patients present significant reductions in RDI at any time in phase 1 trials of MTAs. Recommended phase 2 dose assessment should incorporate all available information from any cycle (notably lower grade toxicities leading to such RDI decrease), and be based on achieving >75% RDI.
    European Journal of Cancer. 01/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) (sequential therapy) has been evaluated in the treatment of locoregionally-advanced squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN), with docetaxel, cisplatin (P) and 5-flurouracil (F) shown to be superior to PF doublet. Nab-paclitaxel (A) is a novel albumin-bound paclitaxel with a superior therapeutic index to docetaxel. Methods A phase I trial [Clinical identifier NCT00731380] to assess the safety and efficacy of nab-paclitaxel + cisplatin + 5-fluorouracil (APF) as induction chemotherapy for three cycles, followed by concurrent carboplatin (area-under-curve (AUC) 1.5 weekly) with radiation therapy (RT) (70 Gy/35 fractions), was conducted using a 3+3 design in patients with previously untreated LA-SCCHN. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included: standard haematologic and non-haematologic toxicities, treatment delays, inability to complete ⩾95% of RT and skin/mucosal toxicity related to RT assessed from day 1 of treatment to 8 weeks after completion of CRT. Results 17 patients with oropharyngeal cancer were enrolled in three dose levels, with 15 patients evaluable for DLT. The median age was 54 years (range, 44–65 years), 14 patients were male, and 11 patients’ tumours were p16 positive and four negative. Grade 3/4 adverse events during APF (%total number of cycles) were hyponatraemia (14%) neutropenia (10%), lymphopaenia (4%) and thrombocytopenia (2%) during 49 evaluable APF cycles. Febrile neutropenia occurred during one cycle of treatment. Conclusion The recommended phase 2 dose of APF is nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, cisplatin 75 mg/mg2 day 1 and 5-fluorouracil 1000 mg/m2/day × 96 h days 1–4, every 3 weeks, for three cycles prior to CRT.
    European Journal of Cancer. 01/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Anti-EGFR antibody, cetuximab, improves overall survival (OS) in K-ras wild-type chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer. Epidermal growth factor receptor ligand epiregulin (EREG) gene expression may further predict cetuximab benefit.Methods:Tumour samples from a phase III clinical trial of cetuximab plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC alone (CO.17) were analysed for EREG mRNA gene expression. Predictive effects of high vs low EREG on OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were examined for treatment-biomarker interaction.Results:Both EREG and K-ras status were ascertained in 385 (193 cetuximab, 192 BSC) tumour samples. Within the high EREG and K-ras wild-type status ('co-biomarker')-positive group (n=139, 36%), median PFS was 5.4 vs 1.9 months (hazard ratio (HR) 0.31; P<0.0001), and median OS was 9.8 vs 5.1 months (HR 0.43; P<0.001) for cetuximab vs BSC, respectively. In the rest (n=246, 64%), PFS (HR 0.82; P=0.12) and OS (HR 0.90; P=0.45) were not significantly different. Test for treatment interaction showed a larger cetuximab effect on OS (HR 0.52; P=0.007) and PFS (HR 0.49; P=0.001) in the co-biomarker-positive group.Conclusion:In pre-treated K-ras wild-type status colorectal cancer, patients with high EREG gene expression appear to benefit more from cetuximab therapy compared with low expression. Epiregulin as a selective biomarker requires further evaluation.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 12 December 2013; doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.753
    British Journal of Cancer 12/2013; · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the use and objectives of expansion cohorts in phase I cancer trials and to explore trial characteristics associated with their use. We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE, limiting studies to single-agent phase I trials recruiting adults and published after 2006. Eligibility assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Data were assessed descriptively, and associations were tested by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. We identified 611 unique phase I cancer trials, of which 149 (24%) included an expansion cohort. The trials were significantly more likely to use an expansion cohort if they were published more recently, were multicenter, or evaluated a noncytotoxic agent. Objectives of the expansion cohort were reported in 74% of trials. In these trials, safety (80%), efficacy (45%), pharmacokinetics (28%), pharmacodynamics (23%), and patient enrichment (14%) were cited as objectives. Among expansion cohorts with safety objectives, the recommended phase II dose was modified in 13% and new toxicities were described in 54% of trials. Among trials aimed at assessing efficacy, only 11% demonstrated antitumor activity assessed by response criteria that was not previously observed during dose escalation. The utilization of expansion cohorts has increased with time. Safety and efficacy are common objectives, but 26% fail to report explicit aims. Expansion cohorts may provide useful supplementary data for phase I trials, particularly with regard to toxicity and definition of recommended dose for phase II studies.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 10/2013; · 17.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The CO.20 trial randomized patients with K-RAS wild-type, chemotherapy-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer to receive cetuximab (CET) plus brivanib alaninate (BRIV) or CET plus placebo (CET/placebo). Quality of life (QoL) was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks until disease progression. Predefined coprimary QoL endpoints were time to deterioration (first worsening from baseline of ≥ 10 points) on the Physical Function (PF) and Global (GHS) scales. Of 750 randomized patients, 721 (358 of whom received CET/BRIV) were assessable for QoL. QoL compliance and baseline PF and GHS scores did not differ by treatment arm. The median time to deterioration was 1.6 months versus 1.1 months for GHS (P = .02) and 5.6 months versus 1.7 months for PF (P < .0001) favoring CET/placebo. Secondary analysis favored CET/placebo for QOL response on the PF, Cognitive Function, Fatigue, Nausea, Appetite, and Diarrhea scales. A greater percentage of patients on the CET/BRIV arm had PF worsening at 6 weeks (31% vs 17%). Clinical adverse events of ≥ grade 3 were more common with CET/BRIV than with CET/placebo, including fatigue (25% vs 11%), hypertension, rash, diarrhea, abdominal pain, dehydration, and anorexia. Compared with CET/placebo, the combination of CET/BRIV worsened time to QoL deterioration for patients with K-RAS wild-type, chemotherapy-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer on the PF and GHS scales of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30. This result may be due to higher rates of fatigue and gastrointestinal adverse events. Cancer 2013. © 2013 American Cancer Society.
    Cancer 10/2013; · 5.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent therapeutic advances in oncology have been driven by the identification of tumour genotype variations between patients, called interpatient heterogeneity, that predict the response of patients to targeted treatments. Subpopulations of cancer cells with unique genomes in the same patient may exist across different geographical regions of a tumour or evolve over time, called intratumour heterogeneity. Sequencing technologies can be used to characterize intratumour heterogeneity at diagnosis, monitor clonal dynamics during treatment and identify the emergence of clinical resistance during disease progression. Genetic interpatient and intratumour heterogeneity can pose challenges for the design of clinical trials that use these data.
    Nature 09/2013; 501(7467):355-64. · 42.35 Impact Factor
  • Cancer Research 08/2013; 73(8 Supplement):4647-4647. · 9.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:The Notch signalling pathway has been implicated in tumour initiation, progression, angiogenesis and development of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeting, providing a rationale for the combination of RO4929097, a γ-secretase inhibitor, and cediranib, a VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor.Methods:Patients received escalating doses of RO4929097 (on a 3 days-on and 4 days-off schedule) in combination with cediranib (once daily). Cycle 1 was 42 days long with RO4929097 given alone for the first 3 weeks followed by the co-administration of both RO4929097 and cediranib starting from day 22. Cycle 2 and onwards were 21 days long. Soluble markers of angiogenesis were measured in plasma samples. Archival tumour specimens were assessed for expression of three different components of Notch signalling pathway and genotyping.Results:In total, 20 patients were treated in three dose levels (DLs). The recommended phase II dose was defined as 20 mg for RO4929097 on 3 days-on and 4 days-off schedule and 30 mg daily for cediranib. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhoea, hypertension, fatigue and nausea. Eleven patients had a best response of stable disease and one patient achieved partial response. We did not detect any correlation between tested biomarkers of angiogenesis or the Notch pathway and treatment effect. There was no correlation between mutational status and time to treatment failure.Conclusion:RO4929097 in combination with cediranib is generally well tolerated at the DLs tested. Preliminary evidence of antitumour efficacy with prolonged disease stabilisation in some patients with progressive malignancies warrants further clinical investigation of this treatment strategy.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 18 July 2013; doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.380
    British Journal of Cancer 07/2013; · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background To determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and assess the safety, pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics of RO4929097in combination with temsirolimus. Methods Escalating doses of RO4929097 and temsirolimus were administered at three dose levels. Patients received once daily oral RO4929097 on a 3 days on/4 days off schedule every week, and weekly intravenous temsirolimus. Blood samples were collected for PK analysis. Archival tissue specimens were collected for Notch pathway biomarker analysis and genotyping of frequent oncogenic mutations. Results Seventeen patients with refractory advanced solid tumors were enrolled in three dose levels (DLs): DL1 (RO4929097 10 mg; Temsirolimus 25 mg), DL2 (RO4929097 20 mg; Temsirolimus 25 mg), and DL3 (RO4929097 20 mg; Temsirolimus 37.5 mg). The most common toxicities related to the study drug combination included: fatigue (82 %; grade 3 6 %), mucositis, (71 %; grade 3 6 %), neutropenia (59 %; grade 3 12 %), anemia (59 %; grade 3 0 %), and hypertriglyceridemia (59 %; grade 3 0 %). Two dose-limiting toxicities, grade 3 rash and grade 3 mucositis, were observed in the same patient in the first dose level prompting dose expansion. Eleven patients (73 %) had stable disease as their best response. Co-administration of RO4929097 was associated with increased clearance and reduced exposure to temsirolimus, suggestive of drug-drug interaction via CYP3A4 induction. No correlation between the expression of Notch pathway biomarkers or genotype and time to progression was noted. Conclusions RO4929097 can be safely combined with temsirolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors. The RP2D was established at 20 mg of RO4929097 combined with 37.5 mg of temsirolimus.
    Investigational New Drugs 07/2013; · 3.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Developments in genomics, including next-generation sequencing technologies, are expected to enable a more personalized approach to clinical care, with improved risk stratification and treatment selection. In oncology, personalized medicine is particularly advanced and increasingly used to identify oncogenic variants in tumor tissue that predict responsiveness to specific drugs. Yet, the translational research needed to validate these technologies will be conducted in patients with late-stage cancer and is expected to produce results of variable clinical significance and incidentally identify genetic risks. To explore the experiential context in which much of personalized cancer care will be developed and evaluated, we conducted a qualitative interview study alongside a pilot feasibility study of targeted DNA sequencing of metastatic tumor biopsies in adult patients with advanced solid malignancies. We recruited 29/73 patients and 14/17 physicians; transcripts from semi-structured interviews were analyzed for thematic patterns using an interpretive descriptive approach. Patient hopes of benefit from research participation were enhanced by the promise of novel and targeted treatment but challenged by non-findings or by limited access to relevant trials. Family obligations informed a willingness to receive genetic information, which was perceived as burdensome given disease stage or as inconsequential given faced challenges. Physicians were optimistic about long-term potential but conservative about immediate benefits and mindful of elevated patient expectations; consent and counseling processes were expected to mitigate challenges from incidental findings. These findings suggest the need for information and decision tools to support physicians in communicating realistic prospects of benefit, and for cautious approaches to the generation of incidental genetic information.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 17 July 2013; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.158.
    European journal of human genetics: EJHG 07/2013; · 3.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSEThe antiepidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody cetuximab has improved survival in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal cancer. The addition of brivanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and fibroblast growth factor receptor, to cetuximab has shown encouraging early clinical activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with combination chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cetuximab 400 mg/m(2) intravenous loading dose followed by weekly maintenance of 250 mg/m(2) plus either brivanib 800 mg orally daily (arm A) or placebo (arm B). The primary end point was overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 750 patients were randomly assigned (376 in arm A and 374 in arm B). Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 8.8 months in arm A and 8.1 months in arm B (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.03; P = .12). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.0 months in arm A and 3.4 months in arm B (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.84; P < .001). Partial responses observed (13.6% v 7.2%; P = .004) were higher in arm A. Incidence of any grade ≥ 3 adverse events was 78% in arm A and 53% in arm B. Fewer patients received ≥ 90% dose-intensity of both cetuximab (57% v 83%) and brivanib/placebo (48% v 87%) in arm A versus arm B, respectively. CONCLUSION Despite positive effects on PFS and objective response, cetuximab plus brivanib increased toxicity and did not significantly improve OS in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal cancer.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 05/2013; · 17.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose To establish the recommended phase II dose of the oral γ-secretase inhibitor RO4929097 (RO) in combination with gemcitabine; secondary objectives include the evaluation of safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, biomarkers of Notch signaling and preliminary anti-tumor activity. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in cohorts of escalating RO dose levels (DLs). Tested RO DLs were 20 mg, 30 mg, 45 mg and 90 mg. RO was administered orally, once daily on days 1-3, 8-10, 15-17, 22-24. Gemcitabine was administered at 1,000 mg/m(2) on d1, 8, and 15 in 28 d cycles. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed by CTCAE v4. Serial plasma was collected for RO (total and unbound) and gemcitabine pharmacokinetic analysis. Biomarkers of Notch signaling were assessed by immunohistochemistry in archival tissue. Antitumor activity was evaluated (RECIST 1.1). Results A total of 18 patients were enrolled to establish the recommended phase II dose. Of these, 3 patients received 20 mg RO, 7 patients received 30 mg RO, 6 patients received 45 mg RO and 2 patients received 90 mg RO. DLTs were grade 3 transaminitis (30 mg RO), grade 3 transaminitis and maculopapular rash (45 mg RO), and grade 3 transaminitis and failure to receive 75 % of planned RO doses secondary to prolonged neutropenia (90 mg); all were reversible. The maximum tolerated dose was exceeded at 90 mg RO. Pharmacokinetic analysis of both total and free RO confirmed the presence of autoinduction at 45 and 90 mg. Median levels of Notch3 staining were higher in individuals who received fewer than 4 cycles (p = 0.029). Circulating angiogenic factor levels did not correlate with time to progression or ≥ grade 3 adverse events. Best response (RECIST 1.1) was partial response (nasopharyngeal cancer) and stable disease > 4 months was observed in 3 patients (pancreas, tracheal, and breast primary cancers). Conclusions RO and gemcitabine can be safely combined. The recommended phase II dose of RO was 30 mg in combination with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2). Although RO exposure was limited by the presence of autoinduction, RO levels achieved exceeded the area under the concentration-time curve for 0-24 h (AUC0-24) predicted for efficacy in preclinical models using daily dosing. Evidence of clinical antitumor activity and prolonged stable disease were identified.
    Investigational New Drugs 05/2013; 32(2). · 3.50 Impact Factor
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • Lillian L Siu
    Clinical advances in hematology & oncology: H&O 05/2013; 11(5):312-3.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Using sequencing information to guide clinical decision-making requires coordination of a diverse set of people and activities. In clinical genomics, the process typically includes sample acquisition, template preparation, genome data generation, analysis to identify and confirm variant alleles, interpretation of clinical significance, and reporting to clinicians. We describe a software application developed within a clinical genomics study, to support this entire process. The software application tracks patients, samples, genomic results, decisions and reports across the cohort, monitors progress and sends reminders, and works alongside an electronic data capture system for the trial's clinical and genomic data. It incorporates systems to read, store, analyze and consolidate sequencing results from multiple technologies, and provides a curated knowledge base of tumor mutation frequency (from the COSMIC database) annotated with clinical significance and drug sensitivity to generate reports for clinicians. By supporting the entire process, the application provides deep support for clinical decision making, enabling the generation of relevant guidance in reports for verification by an expert panel prior to forwarding to the treating physician.
    Genomics 04/2013; · 2.79 Impact Factor
  • Stefan Sleijfer, Jan Bogaerts, Lillian L Siu
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The incorporation of molecular profiling into routine clinical practice has already been adopted in some tumor types, such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer and KRAS genotyping in colorectal cancer, providing a guide to treatment selection that is not afforded by histopathologic diagnosis alone. It is inevitable that over time, with rapid advances in scientific knowledge, bioinformatics, and technology to identify oncogenic drivers, molecular profiling will complement histopathologic data to influence management decisions. Emerging technologies such as multiplexed somatic mutation genotyping and massive parallel genomic sequencing have become increasingly feasible at point-of-care locations to classify cancers into molecular subsets. Because these molecular subsets may differ substantially between each other in terms of sensitivity or resistance to systemic agents, there is consensus that clinical trials should be more stratified for or be performed only in such molecularly defined subsets. This approach, however, poses challenges for clinical trial designs because smaller numbers of patients would be eligible for such trials, while the number of novel anticancer drugs warranting further clinical exploration is rapidly increasing. This article provides an overview of the emerging methodologic challenges in the cancer genome era and offers some potential solutions for transforming clinical trial designs so they can identify new active anticancer regimens in molecularly defined subgroups as efficiently as possible.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 04/2013; · 17.88 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

7k Citations
1,896.82 Total Impact Points


  • 2002–2014
    • University Health Network
      • • Princess Margaret Hospital
      • • Department of Medical Oncology
      Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    • Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM)
      Montréal, Quebec, Canada
  • 1998–2014
    • The Princess Margaret Hospital
      Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 1997–2014
    • University of Toronto
      • • Department of Medical Biophysics
      • • Department of Medicine
      • • Department of Radiation Oncology
      Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 2013
    • SickKids
      Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 2012
    • Sarah Cannon Research Institute
      Nashville, Tennessee, United States
    • University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
      • Endocrine Neoplasia and Hormonal Disorders
      Houston, TX, United States
  • 2011
    • Vancouver Prostate Centre
      Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • 2010
    • Princess Margaret Hospital, Hong Kong
      Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  • 2009
    • Credit Valley Hospital
      Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
    • Harvard Medical School
      Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • 2005
    • Hamilton Health Sciences
      Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • 2003–2005
    • National Cancer Institute (USA)
      Maryland, United States
  • 2000–2005
    • Ontario Institute for Cancer Research
      Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 2004
    • Hôpital Notre-Dame
      Montréal, Quebec, Canada
  • 2001
    • BC Cancer Agency
      Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • 2000–2001
    • University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
      • Cancer Therapy & Research Center
      San Antonio, TX, United States