Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 4, 2026

Testing Targeted Therapies in Cancer using Structural DNA Alteration Analysis and Patient-Derived Xenografts
Published on: July 25, 2020
Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer
Christophe Le Tourneau1, Jean-Pierre Delord2, Anthony Gonçalves3
1Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris & Saint-Cloud, France; EA7285: Risques cliniques et sécurité en santé des femmes et en santé périnatale, Versailles Saint-Quentin-en Yvelines University, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.
Background:
Molecularly targeted agents have been reported to have anti-tumour activity for patients whose tumours harbour the matching molecular alteration. These results have led to increased off-label use of molecularly targeted agents on the basis of identified molecular alterations. We assessed the efficacy of several molecularly targeted agents marketed in France, which were chosen on the basis of tumour molecular profiling but used outside their indications, in patients with advanced cancer for whom standard-of-care therapy had failed.
Methods:
The open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 SHIVA trial was done at eight French academic centres. We included adult patients with any kind of metastatic solid tumour refractory to standard of care, provided they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, disease that was accessible for a biopsy or resection of a metastatic site, and at least one measurable lesion. The molecular profile of each patient's tumour was established with a mandatory biopsy of a metastatic tumour and large-scale genomic testing. We only included patients for whom a molecular alteration was identified within one of three molecular pathways (hormone receptor, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, RAF/MEK), which could be matched to one of ten regimens including 11 available molecularly targeted agents (erlotinib, lapatinib plus trastuzumab, sorafenib, imatinib, dasatinib, vemurafenib, everolimus, abiraterone, letrozole, tamoxifen). We randomly assigned these patients (1:1) to receive a matched molecularly targeted agent (experimental group) or treatment at physician's choice (control group) by central block randomisation (blocks of size six). Randomisation was done centrally with a web-based response system and was stratified according to the Royal Marsden Hospital prognostic score (0 or 1 vs 2 or 3) and the altered molecular pathway. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. Treatments in both groups were given in accordance with the approved product information and standard practice protocols at each institution and were continued until evidence of disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, which was not assessed by independent central review. We assessed safety in any patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01771458.
Findings:
Between Oct 4, 2012, and July 11, 2014, we screened 741 patients with any tumour type. 293 (40%) patients had at least one molecular alteration matching one of the 10 available regimens. At the time of data cutoff, Jan 20, 2015, 195 (26%) patients had been randomly assigned, with 99 in the experimental group and 96 in the control group. All patients in the experimental group started treatment, as did 92 in the control group. Two patients in the control group received a molecularly targeted agent: both were included in their assigned group for efficacy analyses, the patient who received an agent that was allowed in the experimental group was included in the experimental group for the purposes of safety analyses, while the other patient, who received a molecularly targeted agent and chemotherapy, was kept in the control group for safety analyses. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 5·8-11·6) in the experimental group and 11·3 months (8·1-11·6) in the control group at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Median progression-free survival was 2·3 months (95% CI 1·7-3·8) in the experimental group versus 2·0 months (1·8-2·1) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·88, 95% CI 0·65-1·19, p=0·41). In the safety population, 43 (43%) of 100 patients treated with a molecularly targeted agent and 32 (35%) of 91 patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy had grade 3-4 adverse events (p=0·30).
Interpretation:
The use of molecularly targeted agents outside their indications does not improve progression-free survival compared with treatment at physician's choice in heavily pretreated patients with cancer. Off-label use of molecularly targeted agents should be discouraged, but enrolment in clinical trials should be encouraged to assess predictive biomarkers of efficacy.
Insights
Off-label use of molecularly targeted agents did not improve progression-free survival in advanced cancer patients. Enrolling in clinical trials is recommended to identify predictive biomarkers for targeted cancer therapies.
Area of Science:
- Oncology
- Genomics
- Pharmacology
Background:
- Molecularly targeted agents show anti-tumour activity in patients with matching molecular alterations.
- This has led to increased off-label use of these agents based on tumour molecular profiling.
- The SHIVA trial assessed the efficacy of off-label molecularly targeted agents in advanced cancer patients.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the efficacy of molecularly targeted agents used off-label based on tumour molecular profiling.
- To compare progression-free survival (PFS) between patients receiving matched molecularly targeted agents and those receiving physician's choice treatment.
- To assess the safety of off-label molecularly targeted agent use.
Main Methods:
- An open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial (SHIVA) was conducted across eight French academic centres.
- Adult patients with refractory metastatic solid tumours and identified molecular alterations in specific pathways were enrolled.
- Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a matched molecularly targeted agent or physician's choice treatment until disease progression.
Main Results:
- Of 741 screened patients, 195 were randomly assigned (99 experimental, 96 control).
- Median progression-free survival was 2.3 months in the experimental group versus 2.0 months in the control group (HR 0.88, p=0.41).
- Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 43% of patients receiving molecularly targeted agents and 35% receiving chemotherapy (p=0.30).
Conclusions:
- Off-label use of molecularly targeted agents, guided by tumour molecular profiling, did not improve progression-free survival compared to physician's choice treatment.
- The study suggests discouraging off-label use of these agents outside of clinical trials.
- Enrolment in clinical trials is encouraged to identify predictive biomarkers for targeted cancer therapies.
More Related Videos
07:59Author Spotlight: Advancements in Molecular Biomarker Testing for Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Published on: September 8, 2023
09:37Defining Gene Functions in Tumorigenesis by Ex vivo Ablation of Floxed Alleles in Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumor Cells
Published on: August 25, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against...
Targeted Cancer Therapies
Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
The combination of the drug acetazolamide and sulforaphane is a good example of combination therapy to treat cancer. The cells in the interior of a large tumor often die due to the hypoxic and...
Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
Tumor Immunotherapy
Pharmacogenetics of Drug Targets: β₂-Adrenergic Receptors, Apo E, Thymidylate Synthase