A proof-of-concept study of sequential treatment with the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat following BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAFV600mutated melanoma.

PURPOSE: Development of resistance limits the clinical benefit of BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAFi/MEKi) in BRAFV600 mutated melanoma. It has been shown that short-term treatment (14 days) with vorinostat was able to initiate apoptosis of the resistant tumor cells. We aimed to assess the anti-tumor activity of sequential treatment with vorinostat following BRAFi/MEKi in patients with BRAFV600 melanoma who progressed after initial response to BRAFi/MEKi. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with BRAFi/MEKi resistant BRAFV600 melanoma were treated with vorinostat 360 mg QD for 14 days followed by BRAFi/MEKi. The primary endpoint was an objective response rate of progressive lesions of at least 30% according to RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, pharmacokinetics of vorinostat and translational molecular analyses using ctDNA and tumor biopsies. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with progressive BRAFi/MEKi resistant BRAFV600 mutated melanoma received treatment with vorinostat. Twenty-two patients were evaluable for response. The ORR was 9% (one complete response for 31.2 months and one partial response for 14.9 months. Median PFS and OS were 1.4 and 5.4 months, respectively. Common adverse events were fatigue (23%) and nausea (19%). ctDNA analysis showed emerging secondary mutations in NRAS and MEK in eight patients at time of BRAFi/MEKi resistance. Elimination of these mutations by vorinostat treatment was observed in three patients. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent treatment with vorinostat in patients with resistant BRAFV600mutated melanoma is well tolerated. Although the primary endpoint of this study was not met, durable anti-tumor responses were observed in a minority of patients (9%).

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene variants for predicting grade 4-5 fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity: FUSAFE individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is the main known cause of life-threatening fluoropyrimidine (FP)-induced toxicities. We conducted a meta-analysis on individual patient data to assess the contribution of deleterious DPYD variants *2A/D949V/*13/HapB3 (recommended by EMA) and clinical factors, for predicting G4-5 toxicity. METHODS: Study eligibility criteria included recruitment of Caucasian patients without DPD-based FP-dose adjustment. Main endpoint was 12-week haematological or digestive G4-5 toxicity. The value of DPYD variants *2A/p.D949V/*13 merged, HapB3, and MIR27A rs895819 was evaluated using multivariable logistic models (AUC). RESULTS: Among 25 eligible studies, complete clinical variables and primary endpoint were available in 15 studies (8733 patients). Twelve-week G4-5 toxicity prevalence was 7.3% (641 events). The clinical model included age, sex, body mass index, schedule of FP-administration, concomitant anticancer drugs. Adding *2A/p.D949V/*13 variants (at least one allele, prevalence 2.2%, OR 9.5 [95%CI 6.7-13.5]) significantly improved the model (p < 0.0001). The addition of HapB3 (prevalence 4.0%, 98.6% heterozygous), in spite of significant association with toxicity (OR 1.8 [95%CI 1.2-2.7]), did not improve the model. MIR27A rs895819 was not associated with toxicity, irrespective of DPYD variants. CONCLUSIONS: FUSAFE meta-analysis highlights the major relevance of DPYD *2A/p.D949V/*13 combined with clinical variables to identify patients at risk of very severe FP-related toxicity.

A Nomogram to Predict Severe Toxicity in DPYD Wild-Type Patients Treated With Capecitabine-Based Anticancer Regimens.

DPYD-guided dosing has improved the safety of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in recent years. However, severe toxicity remains in ~ 23% of patients not carrying DPYD variant alleles treated with capecitabine. Therefore, we developed a predictive model based on patient-related and treatment-related factors aimed at estimating the risk of developing severe capecitabine-related toxicity. The nomogram was developed using data from two large clinical trials (NCT00838370 and NCT02324452). Patients with cancer carrying a DPYD variant allele (DPYD*2A, c.1236G>A, c.2846A>T, and c.1679T>G) were excluded. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression using predetermined predictors based on previous findings, including age, sex, body surface area, type of treatment regimen, and creatinine levels were used to develop the nomogram. The developed model was internally validated using bootstrap resampling and cross-validation. This model was not externally or clinically validated. A total of 2,147 DPYD wild-type patients with cancer treated with capecitabine-based chemotherapy regimens were included of which complete data of 1,745 patients were available and used for the development of the nomogram. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression showed that age, sex, and type of treatment regimen were strong predictors of severe capecitabine-related toxicity in DPYD wild-type patients. Internal validation demonstrated a concordance index of 0.68 which indicates a good discriminative ability for prediction of severe capecitabine-related toxicity. The developed nomogram includes readily available parameters and may be a helpful tool for clinicians to assess the risk of developing severe capecitabine-related toxicity in patients without known risk DPYD variant alleles treated with capecitabine-based anticancer regimens.

Survival of Patients With Cancer With DPYD Variant Alleles and Dose-Individualized Fluoropyrimidine Therapy-A Matched-Pair Analysis.

PURPOSE: DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing improves patient safety in carriers of DPYD variant alleles. However, the impact on treatment outcome in these patients is largely unknown. Therefore, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between DPYD variant carriers treated with a reduced dose and DPYD wild-type controls receiving a full fluoropyrimidine dose in a retrospective matched-pair survival analysis. METHODS: Data from a prospective multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02324452) in which DPYD variant carriers received a 25% (c.1236G>A and c.2846A>T) or 50% (DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G) reduced dose and data from DPYD variant carriers treated with a similarly reduced dose of fluoropyrimidines identified during routine clinical care were obtained. Each DPYD variant carrier was matched to three DPYD wild-type controls treated with a standard dose. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 156 DPYD variant carriers and 775 DPYD wild-type controls were available for analysis. Sixty-one c.1236G>A, 25 DPYD*2A, 13 c.2846A>T, and-when pooled-93 DPYD variant carriers could each be matched to three unique DPYD wild-type controls. For pooled DPYD variant carriers, PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.51; P = .053) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.51; P = .698) were not negatively affected by DPYD-guided dose individualization. In the subgroup analyses, a shorter PFS (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.86; P = .007) was found in c.1236G>A variant carriers, whereas no differences were found for DPYD*2A and c.2846A>T carriers. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory analysis, DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing does not negatively affect PFS and OS in pooled DPYD variant carriers. Close monitoring with early dose modifications based on toxicity is recommended, especially for c.1236G>A carriers receiving a reduced starting dose.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAFV600E-mutated rare cancers: the phase 2 ROAR trial.

BRAFV600E alterations are prevalent across multiple tumors. Here we present final efficacy and safety results of a phase 2 basket trial of dabrafenib (BRAF kinase inhibitor) plus trametinib (MEK inhibitor) in eight cohorts of patients with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced rare cancers: anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (n = 36), biliary tract cancer (n = 43), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 1), adenocarcinoma of the small intestine (n = 3), low-grade glioma (n = 13), high-grade glioma (n = 45), hairy cell leukemia (n = 55) and multiple myeloma (n = 19). The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed overall response rate in these cohorts was 56%, 53%, 0%, 67%, 54%, 33%, 89% and 50%, respectively. Secondary endpoints were median duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Median DoR was 14.4 months, 8.9 months, not reached, 7.7 months, not reached, 31.2 months, not reached and 11.1 months, respectively. Median PFS was 6.7 months, 9.0 months, not reached, not evaluable, 9.5 months, 5.5 months, not evaluable and 6.3 months, respectively. Median OS was 14.5 months, 13.5 months, not reached, 21.8 months, not evaluable, 17.6 months, not evaluable and 33.9 months, respectively. The most frequent (≥20% of patients) treatment-related adverse events were pyrexia (40.8%), fatigue (25.7%), chills (25.7%), nausea (23.8%) and rash (20.4%). The encouraging tumor-agnostic activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib suggests that this could be a promising treatment approach for some patients with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced rare cancers. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02034110 .

First-in-human phase I study of the OX40 agonist GSK3174998 with or without pembrolizumab in patients with selected advanced solid tumors (ENGAGE-1).

BACKGROUND: The phase I first-in-human study ENGAGE-1 evaluated the humanized IgG1 OX40 agonistic monoclonal antibody GSK3174998 alone (Part 1 (P1)) or in combination with pembrolizumab (Part 2 (P2)) in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: GSK3174998 (0.003-10 mg/kg) ± pembrolizumab (200 mg) was administered intravenously every 3 weeks using a continuous reassessment method for dose escalation. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability; secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity. RESULTS: 138 patients were enrolled (45 (P1) and 96 (P2, including 3 crossovers)). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 51% (P1) and 64% (P2) of patients, fatigue being the most common (11% and 24%, respectively). No dose-toxicity relationship was observed, and maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. Dose-limiting toxicities (P2) included Grade 3 (G3) pleural effusion and G1 myocarditis with G3 increased troponin. GSK3174998 ≥0.3 mg/kg demonstrated pharmacokinetic linearity and >80% receptor occupancy on circulating T cells; 0.3 mg/kg was selected for further evaluation. Limited clinical activity was observed for GSK3174998 (P1: disease control rate (DCR) ≥24 weeks 9%) and was not greater than that expected for pembrolizumab alone (P2: overall response rate 8%, DCR ≥24 weeks 28%). Multiplexed immunofluorescence data from paired biopsies suggested that increased infiltration of natural killer (NK)/natural killer T (NKT) cells and decreased regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment may contribute to clinical responses: CD16+CD56-CD134+ NK /NKT cells and CD3+CD4+FOXP3+CD134+ Tregs exhibited the largest magnitude of change on treatment, whereas CD3+CD8+granzyme B+PD-1+CD134+ cytotoxic T cells were the least variable. Tumor gene expression profiling revealed an upregulation of inflammatory responses, T-cell proliferation, and NK cell function on treatment with some inflammatory cytokines upregulated in peripheral blood. However, target engagement, evidenced by pharmacologic activity in peripheral blood and tumor tissue, did not correlate with clinical efficacy. The low number of responses precluded identifying a robust biomarker signature predictive of response. CONCLUSIONS: GSK3174998±pembrolizumab was well tolerated over the dose range tested and demonstrated target engagement. Limited clinical activity does not support further development of GSK3174998±pembrolizumab in advanced cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02528357.

A Single-arm Phase II Study Combining NLG207, a Nanoparticle Camptothecin, with Enzalutamide in Advanced Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Post-Enzalutamide.

BACKGROUND: Despite the clinical efficacy of enzalutamide monotherapy in patients with advanced prostate cancer, therapeutic resistance and disease progression are inevitable. We proposed a study to evaluate NLG207, a nanoparticle-drug conjugate (NDC) of the potent topoisomerase I inhibitor camptothecin, in combination with enzalutamide, in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following progression on enzalutamide. METHODS: This was a single-arm, optimal two-stage, phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of NLG207 in combination with enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC who received prior enzalutamide. A lead-in dose escalation evaluated the recommended phase 2 dose of NLG207 in combination with enzalutamide. Patients received NLG207 via IV infusion every 2 weeks and enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily. RESULTS: Between March 2019 and June 2021, four patients were accrued to the lead-in dose escalation. Two of the four patients were evaluable and both experienced DLTs at the NLG207 12 mg/m2 dose level; one DLT was related to a dose delay for noninfective cystitis and myelosuppression, the other a grade 3 noninfective cystitis. Further evaluation of NLG207 in combination with enzalutamide was halted and the study was ultimately terminated. PSA declines from baseline were observed in two patients. CONCLUSION: NLG207 12 mg/m2 in combination with enzalutamide was not well tolerated in patients with mCRPC following several lines of the standard of care therapy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03531827.

Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Phenotyping Using Pretreatment Uracil: A Note of Caution Based on a Large Prospective Clinical Study.

In clinical practice, 25-30% of the patients treated with fluoropyrimidines experience severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. Extensively clinically validated DPYD genotyping tests are available to identify patients at risk of severe toxicity due to decreased activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the rate limiting enzyme in fluoropyrimidine metabolism. In April 2020, the European Medicines Agency recommended that, as an alternative for DPYD genotype-based testing for DPD deficiency, also phenotype testing based on pretreatment plasma uracil levels is a suitable method to identify patients with DPD deficiency. Although the evidence for genotype-directed dosing of fluoropyrimidines is substantial, the level of evidence supporting plasma uracil levels to predict DPD activity in clinical practice is limited. Notwithstanding this, uracil-based phenotyping is now used in clinical practice in various countries in Europe. We aimed to determine the value of pretreatment uracil levels in predicting DPD deficiency and severe treatment-related toxicity. To this end, we determined pretreatment uracil levels in 955 patients with cancer, and assessed the correlation with DPD activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity. We identified substantial issues concerning the use of pretreatment uracil in clinical practice, including large between-center study differences in measured pretreatment uracil levels, most likely as a result of pre-analytical factors. Importantly, we were not able to correlate pretreatment uracil levels with DPD activity nor were uracil levels predictive of severe treatment-related toxicity. We urge that robust clinical validation should first be performed before pretreatment plasma uracil levels are used in clinical practice as part of a dosing strategy for fluoropyrimidines.

A Phase I, First-in-Human Study of GSK2849330, an Anti-HER3 Monoclonal Antibody, in HER3-Expressing Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: GSK2849330, an anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody that blocks HER3/Neuregulin 1 (NRG1) signaling in cancer cells, is engineered for enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and complement-dependent cytotoxicity. This phase I, first-in-human, open-label study assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and preliminary activity of GSK2849330 in patients with HER3-expressing advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with various tumor types were prospectively selected for HER3 expression by immunohistochemistry; a subset was also screened for NRG1 mRNA expression. In the dose-escalation phase, patients received GSK2849330 1.4-30 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or 3 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg weekly, intravenously (IV). In the dose-expansion phase, patients received 30 mg/kg GSK2849330 IV weekly. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients with HER3-expressing cancers, of whom two expressed NRG1, received GSK2849330 (dose escalation: n = 18, dose expansion: n = 11). GSK2849330 was well tolerated. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The highest dose, of 30 mg/kg weekly, expected to provide full target engagement, was selected for dose expansion. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were mostly grade 1 or 2. The most common AEs were diarrhea (66%), fatigue (62%), and decreased appetite (31%). Dose-proportional plasma exposures were achieved, with evidence of HER3 inhibition in paired tissue biopsies. Of 29 patients, only 1 confirmed partial response, lasting 19 months, was noted in a patient with CD74-NRG1-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). CONCLUSION: GSK2849330 demonstrated a favorable safety profile, dose-proportional PK, and evidence of target engagement, but limited antitumor activity in HER3-expressing cancers. The exceptional response seen in a patient with CD74-NRG1-rearranged NSCLC suggests further exploration in NRG1-fusion-positive cancers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This first-in-human study confirms that GSK2849330 is well tolerated. Importantly, across a variety of HER3-expressing advanced tumors, prospective selection by HER3/NRG1 expression alone was insufficient to identify patients who could benefit from treatment with this antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity- and complement-dependent cytotoxicity-enhanced anti-HER3 antibody. The only confirmed durable response achieved was in a patient with CD74-NRG1-rearranged lung cancer. This highlights the potential utility of screening for NRG1 fusions prospectively across tumor types to enrich potential responders to anti-HER3 agents in ongoing trials.

Transtympanic Sodium Thiosulfate for Prevention of Cisplatin-Induced Ototoxicity: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine safety, feasibility, and preliminary activity of transtympanic injection of sodium thiosulfate (STS) against cisplatin-induced hearing loss (CIHL).DESIGN Randomized controlled trial.SETTING Tertiary cancer hospital.PATIENTS Adults to be treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥ 75 mg/m2).INTERVENTION Selected by randomization, 0.1 M STS gel on one side and placebo gel on the other side was transtympanically applied to the middle ear 3 hours before cisplatin administration. After amendment, the placebo ear was left untreated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was safety and feasibility. Secondary outcomes included pharmacokinetic analysis of systemic cisplatin and preliminary activity of STS. Clinically relevant CIHL was defined as a ≥ 10 dB threshold shift at pure-tone average 8-10-12.5 kHz (PTA8-12.5). Response to STS was defined as a threshold shift at PTA8-12.5 in the STS-treated ear of ≥ 10 dB smaller than the untreated ear. RESULTS: Twelve patients were treated. Average CIHL at PTA8-12.5 was 12.7 dB in untreated ears and 8.8 dB SPL in STS-treated ears (p = 0.403). Four patients did not develop CIHL. Four out of eight patients with CIHL responded to STS: CIHL at PTA8-12.5 in STS-treated ears was 18.4 dB less compared to untreated ears (p = 0.068). Grade 1 adverse events were reported. Pharmacokinetic results were available for 11 patients. CONCLUSION: Transtympanic application of STS was safe and feasible. Based on our pharmacokinetic analysis, we postulate that transtympanic STS does not interfere with the systemically available cisplatin. Our results provide a preliminary proof of concept for transtympanic application of STS in preventing CIHL and warrants further evaluation on a larger scale.

A Phase I dose-escalation study of two cycles carboplatin-olaparib followed by olaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced cancer.

Preclinical studies have shown synergistic effects when combining PARP1/2 inhibitors and platinum drugs in BRCA1/2 mutated cancer cell models. After a formulation change of olaparib from capsules to tablets, we initiated a dose finding study of olaparib tablets bidaily (BID) continuously with carboplatin to prepare comparative studies in this patient group. Patients were included in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation schedule: olaparib 25 mg BID and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 3 mg*min/mL d1/d22, olaparib 25 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL d1/d22, followed by increasing dose-levels of olaparib from 50 mg BID, 75 mg BID, to 100 mg BID with carboplatin at AUC 4 mg*min/mL d1/d22. After two cycles, patients continued olaparib 300 mg BID as monotherapy. Primary objective was to assess the maximum tolerable dose (MTD). Twenty-four patients with a confirmed diagnosis of advanced cancer were included. Most common adverse events were nausea (46%), fatigue (33%) and platelet count decrease (33%). Dose-level 3 (olaparib 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL; n = 6) was defined as MTD. Fourteen out of 24 patients (56%) had a partial response as best response (RECIST 1.1). Systemic exposure of the olaparib tablet formulation appeared comparable to the previous capsule formulation with olaparib tablet AUC0-12 of 16.3 µg/mL*h at MTD. Polymers of ADP-ribose levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were reduced by 98.7% ± 0.14% at Day 8 compared to Day 1 for dose-level 3. Olaparib tablets 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL for two cycles preceding olaparib monotherapy 300 mg is a feasible and tolerable treatment schedule for patients with advanced cancer.

Phase I Study of Afatinib and Selumetinib in Patients with KRAS-Mutated Colorectal, Non-Small Cell Lung, and Pancreatic Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: Afatinib and selumetinib can be combined in continuous and intermittent dosing schedules, albeit at lower doses than approved for monotherapy. Maximum tolerated dose for continuous and intermittent schedules is afatinib 20 mg once daily and selumetinib 25 mg b.i.d. Because the anticancer activity was limited, further development of this combination is not recommended until better biomarkers for response and resistance are defined. BACKGROUND: Antitumor effects of MEK inhibitors are limited in KRAS-mutated tumors because of feedback activation of upstream epidermal growth factor receptors, which reactivates the MAPK and the phosphoinositide 3-kinase-AKT pathway. Therefore, this phase I trial was initiated with the pan-HER inhibitor afatinib plus the MEK inhibitor selumetinib in patients with KRAS mutant, PIK3CA wild-type tumors. METHODS: Afatinib and selumetinib were administered according to a 3+3 design in continuous and intermittent schedules. The primary objective was safety, and the secondary objective was clinical efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled with colorectal cancer (n = 19), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 6), and pancreatic cancer (n = 1). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in six patients, including grade 3 diarrhea, dehydration, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, and mucositis. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was 20 mg afatinib once daily (QD) and 25 mg selumetinib b.i.d. (21 days on/7 days off) for continuous afatinib dosing and for intermittent dosing with both drugs 5 days on/2 days off. Efficacy was limited with disease stabilization for 221 days in a patient with NSCLC as best response. CONCLUSION: Afatinib and selumetinib can be combined in continuous and intermittent schedules in patients with KRAS mutant tumors. Although target engagement was observed, the clinical efficacy was limited.

Phase I and Pharmacologic Study of Olaparib in Combination with High-dose Radiotherapy with and without Concurrent Cisplatin for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To identify an MTD of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, in combination with loco-regional radiotherapy with/without cisplatin for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Olaparib dose was escalated in two groups: radiotherapy (66 Gy/24 fractions in 2.75 Gy/fraction) with and without daily cisplatin (6 mg/m2), using time-to-event continual reassessment method with a 1-year dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period. The highest dose level with a DLT probability <15% was defined as MTD. Poly ADP-ribose (PAR) inhibition and radiation-induced PAR-ribosylation (PARylation) were determined in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients with loco-regional or oligometastatic disease (39%) were treated: 11 at olaparib 25 mg twice daily and 17 at 25 mg once daily. The lowest dose level with cisplatin was above the MTD due to hematologic and late esophageal DLT. The MTD without cisplatin was olaparib 25 mg once daily. At a latency of 1-2.8 years, severe pulmonary adverse events (AE) were observed in 5 patients across all dose levels, resulting in 18% grade 5 pulmonary AEs. Exploratory analyses indicate an association with the radiation dose to the lungs. At the MTD, olaparib reduced PAR levels by more than 95% and abolished radiation-induced PARylation. Median follow-up of survivors was 4.1 years. Two-year loco-regional control was 84%, median overall survival in patients with locally advanced NSCLC was 28 months. CONCLUSIONS: Combined mildly hypofractionated radiotherapy and low-dose daily cisplatin and olaparib was not tolerable due to esophageal and hematologic toxicity. Severe pulmonary toxicity was observed as well, even without cisplatin. More conformal radiotherapy schedules with improved pulmonary and esophageal sparing should be explored.

A first-in-man phase 1 study of the DNA-dependent protein kinase inhibitor peposertib (formerly M3814) in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: This open-label, phase 1 trial (NCT02316197) aimed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of peposertib (formerly M3814), a DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK) inhibitor in patients with advanced solid tumours. Secondary/exploratory objectives included safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles and clinical activity. METHODS: Adult patients with advanced solid tumours received peposertib 100-200 mg once daily or 150-400 mg twice daily (BID) in 21-day cycles. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included (median age 66 years, 61% male). One dose-limiting toxicity, consisting of mainly gastrointestinal, non-serious adverse events (AEs) and long recovery duration, was reported at 300 mg BID. The most common peposertib-related AEs were nausea, vomiting, fatigue and pyrexia. The most common peposertib-related Grade 3 AEs were maculopapular rash and nausea. Peposertib was quickly absorbed systemically (median Tmax 1.1-2.5 h). The p-DNA-PK/t-DNA-PK ratio decreased consistently in peripheral blood mononuclear cells 3-6 h after doses ≥100 mg. The best overall response was stable disease (12 patients), lasting for ≥12 weeks in seven patients. CONCLUSIONS: Peposertib was well-tolerated and demonstrated modest efficacy in unselected tumours. The MTD was not reached; the RP2D was declared as 400 mg BID. Further studies, mainly with peposertib/chemo-radiation, are ongoing. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02316197.

Selective Oral MEK1/2 Inhibitor Pimasertib in Metastatic Melanoma: Antitumor Activity in a Phase I, Dose-Escalation Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pimasertib is a selective, potent mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the efficacy, safety, and pharmacodynamics of pimasertib at pharmacologically active doses in a cohort of patients with locally advanced/metastatic melanoma from a first-in-human study of pimasertib. METHODS: This was a phase I, open-label, two-part, dose-escalation study. Part 1 was conducted in patients with solid tumors and identified the maximum tolerated dose, while Part 2 was restricted to patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma. Endpoints included safety, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity. We present data for patients with melanoma only from both parts of the study. RESULTS: In total, 93 patients with melanoma received pimasertib, 89 of whom received pharmacologically active doses (28-255 mg/day) across four dose regimens in the two parts of the study. The objective response rate was 12.4% (11/89): complete response (n = 1) and partial response (PR; n = 10). Six patients responded for > 24 weeks. Nine of the 11 responders had tumors with B-Raf Proto-Oncogene, Serine/Threonine Kinase (BRAF; n = 6) and/or NRAS Proto-Oncogene, GTPase (NRAS; n = 3) mutations. Forty-six patients had stable disease (SD). In patients with ocular melanoma (n = 13), best overall response was PR (n = 1), SD (n = 11), and disease progression (n = 1). Phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (pERK) levels were substantially reduced within 2 h of treatment and inhibition was sustained with continuous twice-daily dosing. Treatment-related, recurrent, grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in eight patients, including diarrhea, and skin and ocular events. CONCLUSION: Results from this phase I study indicate that pimasertib has clinical activity in patients with locally advanced/metastatic melanoma, particularly BRAF- and NRAS-mutated tumors, at clinically relevant doses associated with pERK inhibition in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00982865.

Selective Oral MEK1/2 Inhibitor Pimasertib: A Phase I Trial in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: The Ras/Raf/mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK) signaling cascade is frequently constitutively activated in human cancers. Pimasertib is a selective and potent adenosine triphosphate non-competitive MEK1/2 inhibitor. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to describe the results of a phase I, first-in-human, dose-escalation trial of pimasertib that investigated the maximum tolerated dose, recommended phase II dose, and safety, as well as other endpoints. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four dosing schedules of pimasertib (once daily [qd], 5 days on, 2 days off; qd, 15 days on, 6 days off; continuous qd; continuous twice daily [bid]) were evaluated in patients with advanced solid tumors. Each treatment cycle lasted 21 days. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) evaluated during cycle 1, and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives included safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity. RESULTS: Overall, 180 patients received pimasertib (dose range 1-255 mg/day). DLTs were mainly observed at doses ≥ 120 mg/day and included skin rash/acneiform dermatitis and ocular events, such as serous retinal detachment. The most common drug-related adverse events were consistent with class effects, including diarrhea, skin disorders, ocular disorders, asthenia/fatigue, and peripheral edema. The median time to maximum pimasertib concentration was 1.5 h across dosing schedules, and the apparent terminal half-life was 5 h across qd dosing schedules. Pimasertib decreased ERK phosphorylation within 2 h of administration, which was maintained for up to 8 h at higher doses and prolonged with bid dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the safety profile and efficacy signals, a continuous bid regimen was the preferred dosing schedule and the RP2D was defined as 60 mg bid. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00982865.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated biliary tract cancer (ROAR): a phase 2, open-label, single-arm, multicentre basket trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective treatments for patients with cholangiocarcinoma after progression on gemcitabine-based chemotherapy are urgently needed. Mutations in the BRAF gene have been found in 5% of biliary tract tumours. The combination of dabrafenib and trametinib has shown activity in several BRAFV600E-mutated cancers. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated biliary tract cancer. METHODS: This study is part of an ongoing, phase 2, open-label, single-arm, multicentre, Rare Oncology Agnostic Research (ROAR) basket trial in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated rare cancers. Patients were eligible for the biliary tract cancer cohort if they were aged 18 years or older, had BRAFV600E-mutated, unresectable, metastatic, locally advanced, or recurrent biliary tract cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had received previous systemic treatment. All patients were treated with oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and oral trametinib 2 mg once daily until disease progression or intolerance of treatment. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate, which was determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat evaluable population, which comprised all enrolled patients regardless of receiving treatment who were evaluable (ie, had progression, began a new anticancer treatment, withdrew consent, died, had stable disease for 6 weeks or longer, or had two or more post-baseline assessments). The ROAR trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02034110. These results are based on an interim analysis; the study is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between March 12, 2014, and July 18, 2018, 43 patients with BRAFV600E-mutated biliary tract cancer were enrolled to the study and were evaluable. Median follow-up was 10 months (IQR 6-15). An investigator-assessed overall response was achieved by 22 (51%, 95% CI 36-67) of 43 patients. An independent reviewer-assessed overall response was achieved by 20 (47%, 95% CI 31-62) of 43 patients. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse event was increased γ-glutamyltransferase in five (12%) patients. 17 (40%) patients had serious adverse events and nine (21%) had treatment-related serious adverse events, the most frequent of which was pyrexia (eight [19%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Dabrafenib plus trametinib combination treatment showed promising activity in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated biliary tract cancer, with a manageable safety profile. Routine testing for BRAFV600E mutations should be considered in patients with biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis.

No relation between docetaxel administration route and high-grade diarrhea incidence.

Oral administration of docetaxel in combination with the CYP3A4 inhibitor ritonavir is used in clinical trials to improve oral bioavailability of docetaxel. Diarrhea was the most commonly observed and dose-limiting toxicity. This study combined preclinical and clinical data and investigated incidence, severity and cause of oral docetaxel-induced diarrhea. In this study, incidence and severity of diarrhea in patients were compared to exposure to orally administered docetaxel. Intestinal toxicity after oral or intraperitoneal administration of docetaxel was further explored in mice lacking Cyp3a and mice lacking both Cyp3a and P-glycoprotein. In patients, severity of diarrhea increased significantly with an increase in AUC and Cmax (P = .035 and P = .025, respectively), but not with an increase in the orally administered dose (P = .11). Furthermore, incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea after oral docetaxel administration was similar as reported after intravenous docetaxel administration. Intestinal toxicity in mice was only observed at high systemic exposure to docetaxel and was similar after oral and intraperitoneal administration of docetaxel. In conclusion, our data show that the onset of severe diarrhea after oral administration of docetaxel in humans is similar after oral and intravenous administration of docetaxel and is caused by the concentration of docetaxel in the systemic blood circulation. Mouse experiments confirmed that intestinal toxicity is caused by a high systemic exposure and not by local intestinal exposure. Severe diarrhea in patients after oral docetaxel is reversible and is not related to the route of administration of docetaxel.

Breakthrough therapy-designated oncology drugs: are they rightfully criticized?

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has four expedited programs, including the breakthrough therapy designation (BTD). Recently, this program has been criticized. In this feature, we determine whether BTD oncology drugs were truly a breakthrough, based on the outcome of a validated instrument to measure clinical benefit. We find that only a few drugs were likely a breakthrough, indicating that the success rate of the BTD program is somewhat low. Despite this, we believe that programs for fast drug approval do have a place in the current regulatory practice and that the necessary efforts for their improvement should be further explored, especially considering the remaining unmet medical need for patients with cancer.