Bromodomain and extra-terminal inhibitors-A consensus prioritisation after the Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of epigenetic modifiers in children-ACCELERATE.

Based on biology and pre-clinical data, bromodomain and extra-terminal (BET) inhibitors have at least three potential roles in paediatric malignancies: NUT (nuclear protein in testis) carcinomas, MYC/MYCN-driven cancers and fusion-driven malignancies. However, there are now at least 10 BET inhibitors in development, with a limited relevant paediatric population in which to evaluate these medicinal products. Therefore, a meeting was convened with the specific aim to develop a consensus among relevant biopharmaceutical companies, academic researchers, as well as patient and family advocates, about the development of BET inhibitors, including prioritisation and their specific roles in children. Although BET inhibitors have been in clinical trials in adults since 2012, the first-in-child study (BMS-986158) only opened in 2019. In the future, when there is strong mechanistic rationale or pre-clinical activity of a class of medicinal product in paediatrics, early clinical evaluation with embedded correlative studies of a member of the class should be prioritised and rapidly executed in paediatric populations. There is a strong mechanistic and biological rationale to evaluate BET inhibitors in paediatrics, underpinned by substantial, but not universal, pre-clinical data. However, most pan-BET inhibitors have been challenging to administer in adults, since monotherapy results in only modest anti-tumour activity and provides a narrow therapeutic index due to thrombocytopenia. It was concluded that it is neither scientifically justified nor feasible to undertake simultaneously early clinical trials in paediatrics of all pan-BET inhibitors. However, there is a clinical need for global access to BET inhibitors for patients with NUT carcinoma, a very rare malignancy driven by bromodomain fusions, with proof of concept of clinical benefit in a subset of patients treated with BET inhibitors. Development and regulatory pathway in this indication should include children and adolescents as well as adults. Beyond NUT carcinoma, it was proposed that further clinical development of other pan-BET inhibitors in children should await the results of the first paediatric clinical trial of BMS-986158, unless there is compelling rationale based on the specific agent of interest. BDII-selective inhibitors, central nervous system-penetrant BET inhibitors (e.g. CC-90010), and those dual-targeting BET/p300 bromodomain are of particular interest and warrant further pre-clinical investigation. This meeting emphasised the value of a coordinated and integrated strategy to drug development in paediatric oncology. A multi-stakeholder approach with multiple companies developing a consensus with academic investigators early in the development of a class of compounds, and then engaging regulatory agencies would improve efficiency, productivity, conserve resources and maximise potential benefit for children with cancer.

Irinotecan-temozolomide with temsirolimus or dinutuximab in children with refractory or relapsed neuroblastoma (COG ANBL1221): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes for children with relapsed and refractory neuroblastoma are dismal. The combination of irinotecan and temozolomide has activity in these patients, and its acceptable toxicity profile makes it an excellent backbone for study of new agents. We aimed to test the addition of temsirolimus or dinutuximab to irinotecan-temozolomide in patients with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma. METHODS: For this open-label, randomised, phase 2 selection design trial of the Children's Oncology Group (COG; ANBL1221), patients had to have histological verification of neuroblastoma or ganglioneuroblastoma at diagnosis or have tumour cells in bone marrow with increased urinary catecholamine concentrations at diagnosis. Patients of any age were eligible at first designation of relapse or progression, or first designation of refractory disease, provided organ function requirements were met. Patients previously treated for refractory or relapsed disease were ineligible. Computer-based randomisation with sequence generation defined by permuted block randomisation (block size two) was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) to irinotecan and temozolomide plus either temsirolimus or dinutuximab, stratified by disease category, previous exposure to anti-GD2 antibody therapy, and tumour MYCN amplification status. Patients in both groups received oral temozolomide (100 mg/m2 per dose) and intravenous irinotecan (50 mg/m2 per dose) on days 1-5 of 21-day cycles. Patients in the temsirolimus group also received intravenous temsirolimus (35 mg/m2 per dose) on days 1 and 8, whereas those in the dinutuximab group received intravenous dinutuximab (17·5 mg/m2 per day or 25 mg/m2 per day) on days 2-5 plus granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (250 µg/m2 per dose) subcutaneously on days 6-12. Patients were given up to a maximum of 17 cycles of treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an objective (complete or partial) response by central review after six cycles of treatment, analysed by intention to treat. Patients, families, and those administering treatment were aware of group assignment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01767194, and follow-up of the initial cohort is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 22, 2013, and March 23, 2015, 36 patients from 27 COG member institutions were enrolled on this groupwide study. One patient was ineligible (alanine aminotransferase concentration was above the required range). Of the remaining 35 patients, 18 were randomly assigned to irinotecan-temozolomide-temsirolimus and 17 to irinotecan-temozolomide-dinutuximab. Median follow-up was 1·26 years (IQR 0·68-1·61) among all eligible participants. Of the 18 patients assigned to irinotecan-temozolomide-temsirolimus, one patient (6%; 95% CI 0·0-16·1) achieved a partial response. Of the 17 patients assigned to irinotecan-temozolomide-dinutuximab, nine (53%; 95% CI 29·2-76·7) had objective responses, including four partial responses and five complete responses. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the temsirolimus group were neutropenia (eight [44%] of 18 patients), anaemia (six [33%]), thrombocytopenia (five [28%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (five [28%]), and hypokalaemia (four [22%]). One of the 17 patients assigned to the dinutuximab group refused treatment after randomisation; the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the remaining 16 patients evaluable for safety were pain (seven [44%] of 16), hypokalaemia (six [38%]), neutropenia (four [25%]), thrombocytopenia (four [25%]), anaemia (four [25%]), fever and infection (four [25%]), and hypoxia (four [25%]); one patient had grade 4 hypoxia related to therapy that met protocol-defined criteria for unacceptable toxicity. No deaths attributed to protocol therapy occurred. INTERPRETATION: Irinotecan-temozolomide-dinutuximab met protocol-defined criteria for selection as the combination meriting further study whereas irinotecan-temozolomide-temsirolimus did not. Irinotecan-temozolomide-dinutuximab shows notable anti-tumour activity in patients with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma. Further evaluation of biomarkers in a larger cohort of patients might identify those most likely to respond to this chemoimmunotherapeutic regimen. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.