Preclinical Efficacy of the Antibody-Drug Conjugate CLDN6-23-ADC for the Treatment of CLDN6-Positive Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Claudin-6 (CLDN6) is expressed at elevated levels in multiple human cancers including ovarian and endometrial malignancies, with little or no detectable expression in normal adult tissue. This expression profile makes CLDN6 an ideal target for development of a potential therapeutic antibody-drug conjugate (ADC). This study describes the generation and preclinical characterization of CLDN6-23-ADC, an ADC consisting of a humanized anti-CLDN6 monoclonal antibody coupled to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) via a cleavable linker. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A fully humanized anti-CLDN6 antibody was conjugated to MMAE resulting in the potential therapeutic ADC, CLDN6-23-ADC. The antitumor efficacy of CLDN6-23-ADC was assessed for antitumor efficacy in CLDN6-positive (CLDN6+) and -negative (CLDN6-) xenografts and patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models of human cancers. RESULTS: CLDN6-23-ADC selectively binds to CLDN6, versus other CLDN family members, inhibits the proliferation of CLDN6+ cancer cells in vitro, and is rapidly internalized in CLDN6+ cells. Robust tumor regressions were observed in multiple CLDN6+ xenograft models and tumor inhibition led to markedly enhanced survival of CLDN6+ PDX tumors following treatment with CLDN6-23-ADC. IHC assessment of cancer tissue microarrays demonstrate elevated levels of CLDN6 in 29% of ovarian epithelial carcinomas. Approximately 45% of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas and 11% of endometrial carcinomas are positive for the target. CONCLUSIONS: We report the development of a novel ADC, CLDN6-23-ADC, that selectively targets CLDN6, a potential onco-fetal-antigen which is highly expressed in ovarian and endometrial cancers. CLDN6-23-ADC exhibits robust tumor regressions in mouse models of human ovarian and endometrial cancers and is currently undergoing phase I study.

Impact of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) amplification on the prognosis of breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Various aberrations in the fibroblast growth factor receptor genes FGFR1, FGFR2, and FGFR3 are found in different cancers, including breast cancer (BC). This study analyzed the impact of FGFR amplification on the BC prognosis. METHODS: The study included 894 BC patients. The amplification rates of FGFR1, FGFR2, and FGFR3 were evaluated on tissue microarrays using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Associations between these parameters and prognosis were analyzed using multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: FGFR1 FISH was assessable in 503 samples, FGFR2 FISH in 447, and FGFR3 FISH in 562. The FGFR1 amplification rate was 6.6% (n = 33). Increased FGFR2 copy numbers were seen in 0.9% (n = 4); only one patient had FGFR3 amplification (0.2%). Most patients with FGFR1 amplification had luminal B-like tumors (69.7%, n = 23); only 32.6% (n = 153) of patients without FGFR1 amplification had luminal B-like BC. Other patient and tumor characteristics appeared similar between these two groups. Observed outcome differences between BC patients with and without FGFR1 amplification did not achieve statistical significance; however, there was a trend toward poorer distant metastasis-free survival in BC patients with FGFR1 amplification (HR = 2.08; 95% CI 0.98 to 4.39, P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: FGFR1 amplification occurs most frequently in patients with luminal B-like BC. The study showed a nonsignificant correlation with the prognosis, probably due to the small sample size. Further research is therefore needed to address the role of FGFR1 amplifications in early BC patients. FGFR2 and FGFR3 amplifications are rare in patients with primary BC.

Role for polo-like kinase 4 in mediation of cytokinesis.

The mitotic protein polo-like kinase 4 (PLK4) plays a critical role in centrosome duplication for cell division. By using immunofluorescence, we confirm that PLK4 is localized to centrosomes. In addition, we find that phospho-PLK4 (pPLK4) is cleaved and distributed to kinetochores (metaphase and anaphase), spindle midzone/cleavage furrow (anaphase and telophase), and midbody (cytokinesis) during cell division in immortalized epithelial cells as well as breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer cells. The distribution of pPLK4 midzone/cleavage furrow and midbody positions pPLK4 to play a functional role in cytokinesis. Indeed, we found that inhibition of PLK4 kinase activity with a small-molecule inhibitor, CFI-400945, prevents translocation to the spindle midzone/cleavage furrow and prevents cellular abscission, leading to the generation of cells with polyploidy, increased numbers of duplicated centrosomes, and vulnerability to anaphase or mitotic catastrophe. The regulatory role of PLK4 in cytokinesis makes it a potential target for therapeutic intervention in appropriately selected cancers.

Comparison of central laboratory assessments of ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 by IHC/FISH and the corresponding mRNAs (ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67) by RT-qPCR on an automated, broadly deployed diagnostic platform.

PURPOSE: The methods (IHC/FISH) typically used to assess ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 in FFPE specimens from breast cancer patients are difficult to set up, perform, and standardize for use in low and middle-income countries. Use of an automated diagnostic platform (GeneXpert®) and assay (Xpert® Breast Cancer STRAT4) that employs RT-qPCR to quantitate ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67 mRNAs from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues facilitates analyses in less than 3 h. This study compares breast cancer biomarker analyses using an RT-qPCR-based platform with analyses using standard IHC and FISH for assessment of the same biomarkers. METHODS: FFPE tissue sections from 523 patients were sent to a College of American Pathologists-certified central reference laboratory to evaluate concordance between IHC/FISH and STRAT4 using the laboratory's standard of care methods. A subset of 155 FFPE specimens was tested for concordance with STRAT4 using different IHC antibodies and scoring methods. RESULTS: Concordance between STRAT4 and IHC was 97.8% for ESR1, 90.4% for PGR, 93.3% for ERBB2 (IHC/FISH for HER2), and 78.6% for MKi67. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.99, 0.95, 0.99, and 0.85 were generated for ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, and MKi67, respectively. Minor variabilities were observed depending on the IHC antibody comparator used. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of breast cancer biomarker status by STRAT4 was highly concordant with central IHC/FISH in this blinded, retrospectively analyzed collection of samples. STRAT4 may provide a means to cost-effectively generate standardized diagnostic results for breast cancer patients in low- and middle-income countries.

Randomized phase II study of fulvestrant and erlotinib compared with erlotinib alone in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This open-label, randomized phase II trial evaluated antitumor efficacy of an antiestrogen, fulvestrant, in combination with human epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, erlotinib, in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC, ECOG 0-2, previous chemotherapy unless patient refusal, and no prior EGFR-directed therapy were randomized 2:1 to erlotinib 150 mg oral daily plus 500 mg intramuscular fulvestrant on day 1, 15, 29 and every 28 days thereafter or erlotinib alone 150 mg oral daily. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 106 randomized patients, 100 received at least one dose of study drug. ORR was 16.4% (11 of 67 patients) for the combination versus 12.1% (4 of 33 patients) for erlotinib (p = 0.77). PFS median 3.5 versus 1.9 months [HR = 0.86, 95% CI (0.52-1.43), p = 0.29] and OS median 9.5 versus 5.8 months [HR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.57-1.48), p = 0.74] numerically favored the combination. In an unplanned subset analysis, among EGFR wild type patients (n = 51), but not EGFR mutant patients (n = 17), median PFS was 3.5 versus 1.7 months [HR = 0.35, 95% CI (0.14-0.86), p = 0.02] and OS was 6.2 versus 5.2 months [HR = 0.72, 95% CI (0.35-1.48), p = 0.37] for combined therapy versus erlotinib, respectively. Notably, EGFR WT patients were more likely to be hormone receptor-positive (either estrogen receptor α- and/or progesterone receptor-positive) compared to EGFR mutant patients (50% versus 9.1%, respectively) (p = 0.03). Treatment was well tolerated with predominant grade 1-2 dermatologic and gastrointestinal adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Addition of fulvestrant to erlotinib was well tolerated, with increased activity noted among EGFR wild type patients compared to erlotinib alone, albeit in an unplanned subset analysis.