FDA Approval Summary: Olaparib Monotherapy or in Combination with Bevacizumab for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

On December 19, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to olaparib monotherapy for first-line maintenance treatment of BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) advanced ovarian cancer and, on May 8, 2020, expanded the indication of olaparib to include its use in combination with bevacizumab for first-line maintenance treatment of homologous recombination deficient (HRD)-positive advanced ovarian cancer. Both these approvals were based on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Approval for olaparib monotherapy was based on the SOLO-1 trial, comparing the efficacy of olaparib versus placebo in patients with BRCAm advanced ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after surgical cytoreduction and first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Two companion diagnostic (CDx) tests were approved with this indication: BRACAnalysis CDx, for germline BRCA1/2 alterations, and FoundationOne CDx, for BRCA1/2 alterations in tissue specimens. Approval for olaparib in combination with bevacizumab was based on the results of the PAOLA-1 trial that compared olaparib with bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Myriad myChoice CDx was designated as a companion diagnostic device for use of olaparib plus bevacizumab combination for ovarian cancer associated with HRD-positive status. Both trials demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival and favorable benefit-risk profiles for the indicated populations. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting the approval of olaparib as monotherapy and in combination with bevacizumab for maintenance therapy in this setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These approvals represent the first poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, approved in first-line maintenance treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer after cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy. In patients with BRCA-mutated tumors, olaparib monotherapy demonstrated a 70% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with placebo, and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab demonstrated a 67% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death compared with bevacizumab alone in homologous recombination deficient-positive tumors. These approvals represent a major advance for the treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer who are in complete or partial response after their initial platinum-based chemotherapy.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab plus Lenvatinib for Endometrial Carcinoma, a Collaborative International Review under Project Orbis.

On September 17, 2019, FDA granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib for the treatment of patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma that is not microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) and who have disease progression following prior systemic therapy but are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. The submission and review of this application was conducted through an FDA Oncology Center of Excellence initiative named Project Orbis whereby the FDA, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, and Health Canada were able to simultaneously review and collaborate, rendering simultaneous approval decisions in all countries. Accelerated approval of the pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib combination was based on a single-arm trial of 94 patients, with previously treated metastatic endometrial cancer whose tumors were not MSI-H/dMMR. Efficacy was demonstrated on the basis of an objective response rate of 38.3% (95% confidence interval, 28.5%-48.9%) with 10 complete responses (10.6%) accompanied by supportive durations of response. Trials to confirm clinical benefit of this combination are ongoing. Here, we summarize the benefit-risk analysis supporting accelerated approval of the pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib combination and describe the methodology for the first Project Orbis review.

Phase I/II Trial of Vandetanib and Bortezomib in Adults with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Medullary Thyroid Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: Vandetanib at a dose of 300 mg orally every day plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 could be administered safely.Assessing outcomes in 17 patients with medullary thyroid cancer, investigators considered the combination to be more difficult to administer than single-agent vandetanib and that achieving better outcomes was unlikely. Consequently, a planned phase II study was terminated early. BACKGROUND: The proto-oncogene RET (REarranged during Transfection) has a critical role in the pathogenesis of medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Vandetanib (V), a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of MTC, is thought to inhibit RET in MTC. Supported by preclinical studies demonstrating that bortezomib (B) administration lowered RET mRNA and protein levels, we conducted a phase I study in advanced solid tumors of vandetanib in combination with bortezomib. The goal was to establish an RP2D (recommended phase II dose) for the combination of vandetanib plus bortezomib, a regimen envisioned as a dual strategy for targeting RET in MTC. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were treated with escalating doses of bortezomib or vandetanib to assess the safety and tolerability of daily oral vandetanib and intravenous (IV) bortezomib administered on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a 28-day cycle. Intrapatient dose escalation was allowed. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled and received escalating mg/m2 bortezomib and mg vandetanib (number of patients) at initial doses of 1 and 100 (3), 1.3 and 100 (6), 1.3 and 200 (6), and 1.3 and 300 (7), respectively. Patients received a median of four cycles of bortezomib/vandetanib (range: 1-10), with 13 patients escalating to 1.3/200 and 10 to 1.3/300. G3 toxicities occurring in more than one patient included hypertension (24%), fatigue (19%), thrombocytopenia (10%), diarrhea (10%), and arthralgia (10%). There were no drug-related G4/5 toxicities. There was one dose-limiting toxicity, G3 thrombocytopenia, at bortezomib/vandetanib doses of 1.3/200 in cycle 2 that resolved without intervention. Four patients with a diagnosis of MTC (27%) had a partial response (PR). CONCLUSION: The MTD of the combination was established as bortezomib, 1.3 mg/m2 IV days 1, 4, 8, and 11 with vandetanib 300 mg p.o. daily. RECIST responses were observed in patients with a diagnosis of MTC.

A population pharmacokinetic/toxicity model for the reduction of platelets during a 48-h continuous intravenous infusion of the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat.

PURPOSE: Belinostat is a second-generation histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDI) predominantly metabolized by UGT1A1-mediated glucuronidation. Two common polymorphisms (UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1*60) were previously associated with impaired drug clearance and thrombocytopenia risk, likely from increased drug exposure. This latter phenomenon has been observed with other HDIs such as abexinostat, panobinostat, romidepsin, and vorinostat. It was the intention of this brief report to expand a population pharmacokinetic (PPK) model to include a pharmacodynamic (PD) model describing the change in platelet levels in patients with cancer administered belinostat as a 48-h continuous intravenous infusion, along with cisplatin and etoposide. METHODS: The PPK/PD model developed here introduced an additional rate constant to a commonly used mechanistic myelosuppression model to better describe the maturation of megakaryocytes into platelets before degradation and a feedback mechanism. The model employed a proportional error model to describe the observed circulating platelet data. RESULTS: Several covariates were explored, including sex, body weight, UGT1A1 genotype status, liver, and kidney function, but none significantly improved the model. Platelet levels rebounded to baseline within 21 days, before the next cycle of therapy. Simulations predicted that higher belinostat drug exposure does cause lower thrombocyte nadirs compared to lower belinostat levels. However, platelet levels rebound by the start of the next belinostat cycle. CONCLUSIONS: This model suggests a q3week schedule allows for sufficient platelet recovery before the next belinostat infusion is optimal.

Continued Tumor Reduction of Metastatic Pheochromocytoma/Paraganglioma Harboring Succinate Dehydrogenase Subunit B Mutations with Cyclical Chemotherapy.

Patients harboring germline mutations in the succinate dehydrogenase complex subunit B (SDHB) gene present with pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PPGL) that are more likely malignant and clinically aggressive. The combination chemotherapy cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and dacarbazine (CVD) was retrospectively evaluated in patients with SDHB-associated metastatic PPGL.Query Twelve metastatic PPGL patients harboring SDHB mutations/polymorphisms with undetectable SDHB immunostaining were treated with CVD. CVD therapy consisted of 750 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide with 1.4 mg/m2 vincristine on day 1 and 600 mg/m2 dacarbazine on days 1 and 2, every 21-28 days. Treatment outcome was determined by RECIST criteria as well as determination of response duration and progression-free and overall survivals. A median of 20.5 cycles (range 4-41) was administered. All patients had tumor reduction (12-100% by RECIST). Complete response was seen in two patients, while partial response was observed in 8. The median number of cycles to response was 5.5. Median duration of response was 478 days, with progression-free and overall survivals of 930 and 1190 days, respectively. Serial [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography imaging demonstrated continued incremental reduction in maximal standardized uptake values (SUVmax) values in 26/30 lesions. During treatment administration, the median SUV decreased from > 25 to < 6, indicating the efficacy of chemotherapy over a prolonged period of time. Prolonged therapy results in continued incremental tumor reduction, and is consistent with persistent drug sensitivity. CVD chemotherapy is recommended to be considered part of the initial management in patients with metastatic SDHB-related PPGL.

Phase I trial of belinostat with cisplatin and etoposide in advanced solid tumors, with a focus on neuroendocrine and small cell cancers of the lung.

The standard-of-care for advanced small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is chemotherapy with cisplatin+etoposide (C+E). Most patients have chemosensitive disease at the outset, but disease frequently relapses and limits survival. Efforts to improve therapeutic outcomes in SCLC and other neuroendocrine cancers have focused on epigenetic agents, including the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of the combination of belinostat (B) with C+E. Belinostat was administered as a 48-h continuous intravenous infusion on days 1-2; cisplatin was administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion on day 2; and etoposide was administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion on days 2, 3, and 4. Twenty-eight patients were recruited in this single-center study. The maximum tolerated dose was belinostat 500 mg/m/24 h, cisplatin 60 mg/m, and etoposide 80 mg/m. The combination was safe, although some patients were more susceptible to adverse events. Hematologic toxicities were most commonly observed. Objective responses were observed in 11 (39%) of 28 patients and seven (47%) of 15 patients with neuroendocrine tumors (including SCLC). Patients carrying more than three copies of variant UGT1A1 (*28 and *60) had higher serum levels of belinostat because of slower clearance. DNA damage peaked at 36 h after the initiation of belinostat, as did global lysine acetylation, but returned to baseline 12 h after the end of infusion. The combination of B+C+E is safe and active in SCLC and other neuroendocrine cancers. Future phase II studies should consider genotyping patients for UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1*60 and to identify patients at an increased risk of adverse events.

Patients with melanoma treated with an anti-PD-1 antibody beyond RECIST progression: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients who receive immunotherapeutic drugs might develop an atypical response pattern, wherein they initially meet conventional response criteria for progressive disease but later have decreases in tumour burden. Such responses warrant further investigation into the potential benefits and risks for patients who continue immunotherapy beyond disease progression defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. METHODS: For this pooled analysis, we included all submissions of trial reports and data to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of marketing applications for anti-programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) antibodies (alone or in combination) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma that allowed for continuation of the antibody beyond RECIST-defined progression in the anti-PD-1 group and were approved by FDA before Jan 1, 2017. To investigate the effect of treatment beyond progression in patients with metastatic melanoma and to better characterise which of these patients would benefit from extended treatment, we pooled individual patient data from patients who received at least one dose of an anti-PD-1 antibody in the included trials. We included any patient receiving the anti-PD-1 antibody after their RECIST-defined progression date in the treatment beyond progression cohort and analysed them descriptively at baseline and at time of progression versus the cohort not receiving treatment beyond progression. We analysed the target lesion response after progression in patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort relative to progressive disease and baseline target lesion burden. We defined a treatment beyond progression response as a decrease in target lesion tumour burden (sum of the reference diameters) of at least 30% from the burden at the time of RECIST-defined progression that did not require confirmation at a subsequent assessment. We also compared individual timepoint responses, overall survival, and adverse events in the treatment beyond progression versus no treatment beyond progression cohorts. FINDINGS: Among the eight multicentre clinical trials meeting this study's inclusion criteria, we pooled the data from 2624 patients receiving immunotherapy. 1361 (52%) had progressive disease, of whom 692 (51%) received continued anti-PD-1 antibody treatment beyond RECIST-defined progression and 669 (49%) did not. 95 (19%) of 500 patients in the treatment beyond progresssion cohort with evaluable assessments had a 30% or more decrease in tumour burden, when considering burden at RECIST-defined progression as the reference point, representing 14% of the 692 patients treated beyond progression and 4% of all 2624 patients treated with immunotherapy. Median overall survival in patients with RECIST-defined progressive disease given anti-PD-1 antibody was longer in the treatment beyond progression cohort (24·4 months, 95% CI 21·2-26·3) than in the cohort of patients who did not receive treatment beyond progression (11·2 months, 10·1-12·9). 362 (54%) of 669 patients in the no treatment beyond progression cohort had a serious adverse event up to 90 days after treatment discontinuation compared with 295 (43%) of 692 patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort. Immune-related adverse events that occurred up to 90 days from discontinuation were similar between the treatment beyond progression cohort (78 [11%] of 692 patients) and the no treatment beyond progression cohort (106 [16%] of 669). INTERPRETATION: Continuation of treatment beyond progression in the product labelling of these immunotherapies has not been recommended because the clinical benefit remains to be proven. Treatment beyond progression with anti-PD-1 antibody therapy might be appropriate for selected patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, identified by specific criteria at the time of progression, based on the potential for late responses in the setting of the known toxicity profile. FUNDING: None.

FDA Approval Summary: Rucaparib for the Treatment of Patients with Deleterious BRCA Mutation-Associated Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

On December 19, 2016, the FDA granted accelerated approval to rucaparib (RUBRACA; Clovis Oncology, Inc.) for the treatment of patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated advanced ovarian cancer who have been treated with two or more chemotherapies. The FDA also approved the FoundationFocus CDx BRCA test (Foundation Medicine, Inc.), the first next-generation sequencing-based companion diagnostic, for identifying patients with advanced ovarian cancer eligible for treatment with rucaparib based on detection of deleterious BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations in tumor tissue. Rucaparib's approval was based primarily on efficacy data from 106 patients with BRCA mutation-associated ovarian cancer who had prior treatment with two or more chemotherapies and safety data from 377 patients with ovarian cancer treated with rucaparib 600 mg orally twice daily on two open-label, single-arm trials. Investigator-assessed objective response rate was 54% [57/106; 95% confidence interval (CI), 44-64], and median duration of response was 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.6-11.7). The approved companion diagnostic verified tumor BRCA mutation status retrospectively in 96% (64/67) of patients. Common adverse reactions (≥20%) to rucaparib were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, anemia, abdominal pain, dysgeusia, constipation, decreased appetite, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, and dyspnea. This article summarizes the FDA review and data supporting rucaparib's accelerated approval. Clin Cancer Res; 23(23); 7165-70. ©2017 AACRSee related commentary by Kohn et al., p. 7155.

A Phase II Multi-Center Study of Bevacizumab in Combination with Ixabepilone in Subjects with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: Accrual to renal cell carcinoma trials remains a challenge despite the lack of prolonged response to the available treatments.The observation of three responses among the 30 patients with median progression-free survival and overall survival of 8.3 and 15 months, respectively, indicates the combination has some activity, but it is not sufficient for further development. BACKGROUND: Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains suboptimal. Preclinical data have previously shown that ixabepilone, a microtubule-stabilizing agent approved for the treatment of breast cancer, is active in taxane-sensitive and -resistant cells. In this single-arm phase II trial, we investigated a combination of ixabepilone plus bevacizumab in patients with refractory mRCC. METHODS: We enrolled 30 patients with histologically confirmed mRCC, clear cell subtype, who had not been previously treated with ixabepilone or bevacizumab but had received at least one prior U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The treatment regimen consisted of 6 mg/m2 ixabepilone per day for 5 days and 15 mg/kg bevacizumab every 21 days. After 6 cycles, the treatment interval could be extended to every 28 days. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the toxicity of the combination. RESULTS: The median number of prior therapies was two (range per patient one to five). Patients received a median of 8 cycles of ixabepilone plus bevacizumab (range 2-54). The median follow-up was 36.4 months (range 23.5-96.5). Nineteen patients (63.3%) had stable disease as a best response. Three patients (10%) had a partial response. The median PFS was 8.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9-10.6) and the median OS was 15.0 months (95% CI, 11.3-28.8). The total number of cycle for safety evaluation was 289. Grade 3/4 adverse events (>5% incidence) included lymphopenia (16.7%), hypertension (6.7%), and leukopenia (6.7%). CONCLUSION: The combination of ixabepilone and bevacizumab was well tolerated, with modest activity in second - or later-line mRCC, but it is not recommended as a therapy without further clinical development. Alternative combinations with these agents could be explored in future studies.

Regulatory considerations on endpoints in ovarian cancer drug development.

Ovarian cancer remains a disease entity that is responsible for considerable morbidity and mortality among women worldwide. Modern drug research pipelines and accelerated drug development timelines applied to other disease entities have begun to make an impact on treatment options for patients with advanced ovarian cancer, as exemplified by the recent accelerated approval of 2 agents for this disease as the forerunners of a growing number of registrational trials. Regulatory flexibility for this serious and life-threatening condition spurs the consideration of intermediate endpoints for regulatory trial design, including potential applications in the development of newer therapeutic classes such as targeted therapies and immunotherapies for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Cancer 2017;123:2604-8. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Adrenocortical Cancer: A Molecularly Complex Disease Where Surgery Matters.

The development of new therapies has lagged behind for rare cancers without defined therapeutic targets. Adrenocortical cancer is no exception. Mitotane, an older agent considered "adrenolytic," is used both to control symptoms in advanced disease and as adjuvant therapy after surgical resection. Molecular characterization of adrenocortical cancer has deepened our understanding of this genetically complex disease while identifying subgroups whose importance remains to be determined. Unfortunately, such studies have yet to demonstrate a therapeutic target for drug development, and to date, no targeted therapy has achieved meaningful outcomes. Consequently, first-line therapy for metastatic disease remains a combination regimen of etoposide, doxorubicin, and cisplatinum established in a randomized clinical trial. In addition to evaluating recent studies in adrenocortical cancer, we raise one critical clinical issue-the risk of peritoneal dissemination following laparoscopic resection of adrenocortical cancer. In a retrospective case series of 267 patients referred to the NCI for the treatment of recurrent or advanced adrenocortical cancer, we found extensive peritoneal dissemination in 25 of the 45 patients (55.6%) who had undergone laparoscopic resection, compared with only 7 of the 222 patients (3%) who had undergone an open resection (P < 0.0001). Although this has been debated in the literature, our data argue for an end to laparoscopic resection of adrenocortical cancers to avoid peritoneal dissemination, a complication of laparoscopy that is uniformly fatal. Clin Cancer Res; 22(20); 4989-5000. ©2016 AACR SEE ALL ARTICLES IN THIS CCR FOCUS SECTION, "ENDOCRINE CANCERS REVISING PARADIGMS".

UGT1A1 genotype-dependent dose adjustment of belinostat in patients with advanced cancers using population pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation.

Belinostat is a second-generation zinc-binding histone deacetylase inhibitor that is approved for peripheral T-cell lymphoma and is currently being studied in small cell lung cancer and other advanced carcinomas as a 48-hour continuous intravenous infusion. Belinostat is predominantly metabolized by UGT1A1, which is polymorphic. Preliminary analyses revealed a difference in belinostat clearance based on UGT1A1 genotype. A 2-compartment population pharmacokinetic (PK) model was developed and validated that incorporated the UGT1A1 genotype, albumin, and creatinine clearance on the clearance parameter; body weight was a significant covariate on volume. Simulated doses of 600 and 400 mg/m(2) /24 h given to patients considered extensive or impaired metabolizers, respectively, provided equivalent AUCs. This model and subsequent simulations supported additional PK/toxicity and pharmacogenomics/toxicity analyses to suggest a UGT1A1 genotype-based dose adjustment to normalize belinostat exposure and allow for more tolerable therapy. In addition, global protein lysine acetylation was modeled with PK and demonstrated a reversible belinostat exposure/response relationship, consistent with previous reports.

Effects of UGT1A1 genotype on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxicities of belinostat administered by 48-hour continuous infusion in patients with cancer.

The histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat is eliminated through glucuronidation by UGT1A1. Polymorphisms that reduce UGT1A1 function could result in increased belinostat exposure and toxicities. We wanted to determine which single-nucleotide polymorphisms alter belinostat exposure and toxicity. In a phase 1 trial (belinostat over 48 hours in combination with cisplatin and etoposide), belinostat (400, 500, 600, or 800 mg/m(2) /24 h, 48-hour continuous infusion) was administered to patients with cancer in combination with cisplatin and etoposide (n = 25). Patients were genotyped for UGT1A1 variants associated with reduced function: UGT1A1*6, UGT1A1*28, and UGT1A1*60. End points were associations between UGT1A1 genotype and belinostat pharmacokinetics (PK), toxicities, and global protein lysine acetylation (AcK). Belinostat AUC was increased (P = .003), and t1/2 increased (P = .0009) in UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1*60 carriers who received more than 400 mg/m(2) /24 h. The incidence of grades 3-4 thrombocytopenia (P = .0081) was associated with UGT1A1 polymorphisms. The US Food and Drug Administration-approved package insert recommends dose adjustment of belinostat for UGT1A1*28. However, our data suggest dose adjustment is also necessary for UGT1A1*60. UGT1A1 polymorphisms were associated with increased systemic belinostat exposure, increased AcK, and increased incidence of toxicities, particularly at doses > 400 mg/m(2) /24 h.

Advancing Clinical Trials to Streamline Drug Development.

The last decade in oncology has been marked by the identification of numerous new potential cancer targets and even more agents designed to inhibit them. The matrix of new targets, new agents, and the companion diagnostics required to identify the right patient for the right drug has created a major challenge for the clinical trial process. This has been compounded by the addition of new immunomodulators targeting the host immune system rather than the tumor. Recognizing the need for new approaches, industry, investigators, and regulators have responded to this challenge. New clinical trial designs are being evaluated to incorporate the genomic sequence data being obtained almost routinely after cancer diagnosis. New dose-finding approaches are being proposed to identify the maximum effective dose rather than the maximum tolerated dose. The FDA is involved in the drug approval process from points early in development and has accepted registration quality data from expansion cohorts in support of drug approval. Despite progress on several fronts, many challenges remain, including the lack of predictability of preclinical data for clinical results and phase II data for phase III results, an infrastructure that can be an obstacle to clinical trial development and implementation, and the increasing use of contracted clinical research organizations that limit a fit-for-purpose approach to clinical trial execution. Perhaps most challenging and important of all are the difficulties with clinical trial accrual that can prevent study completion. Both the innovations and the challenges highlight the important role of process in progress in clinical oncology.

Expansion Cohorts in First-in-Human Solid Tumor Oncology Trials.

In 1962, the passage of the Kefauver-Harris Amendment to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act required that sponsors seeking approval of new drugs demonstrate the drug's efficacy, in addition to its safety, through a formal process that includes "adequate and well-controlled" clinical trials as the basis to support claims of effectiveness. As a result of this amendment, FDA formalized in regulation the definitions of various phases of clinical investigations (i.e., phase I, phase II, and phase III). The clinical drug development paradigm for anticancer drugs intended to support marketing approval has historically followed this "phased" approach with sequential, stand-alone trials, with an increasing number of patients exposed to an investigational drug with each trial in order to fulfill the objectives of that particular stage in development. Increasingly, it is the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products' experience that commercial sponsors of solid tumor oncology drug development programs are amending ongoing phase I trials to add expansion cohorts designed to evaluate study objectives typical of later-phase trials. For investigational anticancer drugs that demonstrate preliminary clinical evidence of substantial antitumor activity early in clinical testing, use of expansion cohorts as a component of the solid tumor oncology drug development pathway, with appropriate measures to mitigate the risks of this approach, may fit in well with the goals and concepts described by FDA's expedited programs for serious conditions.

Phase II Clinical Trial of Ixabepilone in Metastatic Cervical Carcinoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: Accrual to cervical cancer studies remains a puzzling challenge given the lack of options and the dismal prognosis of this disease. The majority of patients referred for a trial such as this have very advanced disease that is difficult to manage.The observation of 4 partial responses among the 41 patients indicates that ixabepilone has some activity but not sufficient for further development without greater understanding of mechanisms of sensitivity and resistance. BACKGROUND: Ixabepilone is a microtubule-stabilizing agent approved for metastatic breast cancer. Preclinical data have shown that ixabepilone is active in taxane-sensitive and -resistant cells. Metastatic cervical carcinoma (mCC) has a poor prognosis and no established second-line therapies. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of ixabepilone in previously treated mCC. METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed mCC and at least one prior cisplatin-containing regimen were treated with ixabepilone [6 mg/m(2) per day for 5 days] every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Secondary endpoints were response rate, rate of tumor growth, overall survival (OS), and safety. Levels of glu-terminated and acetylated tubulin, markers of microtubule stabilization, and surrogates for target engagement were assessed by Western blot. RESULTS: In total, 41 patients were enrolled; 34 had tumors with primarily squamous histology. The median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-6). Four patients (9.7%) had a partial response. Median PFS in months was 2.3 for all, 3.84 for taxane-naïve, and 2.03 for taxane-pretreated patients (p = .13). Consistent with this, we found statistically similar (p = 1) rates of growth in taxane-naive patients (0.0035 per day) and taxane pretreated patients (0.0053 per day). Median OS was 5.84 months. G1/2 toxicities included vomiting (43%), sensory neuropathy (21%), and fatigue (60%). Bowel fistulas were observed in 7% of patients. Glu and acetylated tubulin were assessed in tumor samples from 11 patients during the first cycle of treatment. Although there was clear evidence of "target engagement" and microtubule stabilization in all tumors, a correlation between the extent of tubulin stabilization and response to therapy could not be demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Ixabepilone was well tolerated but showed very modest activity in second- or later-line mCC and cannot be recommended as a therapy. Target engagement was demonstrated but was not correlated with responses, suggesting that other factors mediate drug sensitivity. New strategies are needed for refractory mCC.

A phase i study of DMS612, a novel bifunctional alkylating agent.

PURPOSE: DMS612 is a dimethane sulfonate analog with bifunctional alkylating activity and preferential cytotoxicity to human renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the NCI-60 cell panel. This first-in-human phase I study aimed to determine dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of DMS612 administered by 10-minute intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of an every-28-day schedule. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced solid malignancies were eligible. Enrollment followed a 3+3 design. PKs of DMS612 and metabolites were assessed by mass spectroscopy and PD by γ-H2AX immunofluorescence. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients, including those with colorectal (11), RCC (4), cervical (2), and urothelial (1) cancers, were enrolled. Six dose levels were studied, from 1.5 mg/m(2) to 12 mg/m(2). DLTs of grade 4 neutropenia and prolonged grade 3 thrombocytopenia were observed at 12 mg/m(2). The MTD was determined to be 9 mg/m(2) with a single DLT of grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 1 of 12 patients. Two patients had a confirmed partial response at the 9 mg/m(2) dose level, in renal (1) and cervical (1) cancer. DMS612 was rapidly converted into active metabolites. γ-H2AX immunofluorescence revealed dose-dependent DNA damage in both peripheral blood lymphocytes and scalp hairs. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of DMS12 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days was 9 mg/m(2). DMS612 appears to be an alkylating agent with unique tissue specificities. Dose-dependent PD signals and two partial responses at the MTD support further evaluation of DMS612 in phase II trials.

The VEGF inhibitor axitinib has limited effectiveness as a therapy for adrenocortical cancer.

CONTEXT: Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignancy with a poor prognosis in need of more effective treatment options. Published evidence indicates many ACCs express the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), suggesting inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor signaling could potentially impact tumor growth. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the antitumor efficacy of axitinib (AG-013736), a potent, selective inhibitor of VEGFR1, -2, and -3. DESIGN: This was a phase II, open-label trial using a two-stage design. PATIENTS: Thirteen patients with metastatic ACC previously treated with at least one chemotherapy regimen with or without mitotane participated in the study. INTERVENTION: Starting axitinib dose was 5 mg orally twice daily. Dose escalations were permitted if the administered dose was tolerable. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled. Dose escalation was possible in seven patients, but the majority could not tolerate a dose higher than the starting 5 mg, twice-daily dose for prolonged periods of time. All patients experienced known grade 1/2 toxicities, and 10 of 13 patients had at least one grade 3/4 adverse event. No patient tumor could be scored as a Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response, although the growth rate on therapy compared with that prior to starting axitinib was reduced in 4 of the 13 patients. The median progression-free survival was 5.48 months, and the median overall survival was longer than 13.7 months. CONCLUSION: Axitinib has limited effectiveness in ACC. Together with 48 patients previously reported who received either sorafenib or sunitinib, a total of 61 ACC patients have now been treated with a VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor without an objective Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response. Future trials in ACC should look to other targets for possible active agents.

Targeting the epigenome in lung cancer: expanding approaches to epigenetic therapy.

Epigenetic aberrations offer dynamic and reversible targets for cancer therapy; increasingly, alteration via overexpression, mutation, or rearrangement is found in genes that control the epigenome. Such alterations suggest a fundamental role in carcinogenesis. Here, we consider three epigenetic mechanisms: DNA methylation, histone tail modification and non-coding, microRNA regulation. Evidence for each of these in lung cancer origin or progression has been gathered, along with evidence that epigenetic alterations might be useful in early detection. DNA hypermethylation of tumor suppressor promoters has been observed, along with global hypomethylation and hypoacetylation, suggesting an important role for tumor suppressor gene silencing. These features have been linked as prognostic markers with poor outcome in lung cancer. Several lines of evidence have also suggested a role for miRNA in carcinogenesis and in outcome. Cigarette smoke downregulates miR-487b, which targets both RAS and MYC; RAS is also a target of miR-let-7, again downregulated in lung cancer. Together the evidence implicates epigenetic aberration in lung cancer and suggests that targeting these aberrations should be carefully explored. To date, DNA methyltransferase and histone deacetylase inhibitors have had minimal clinical activity. Explanations include the possibility that the agents are not sufficiently potent to invoke epigenetic reversion to a more normal state; that insufficient time elapses in most clinical trials to observe true epigenetic reversion; and that doses often used may provoke off-target effects such as DNA damage that prevent epigenetic reversion. Combinations of epigenetic therapies may address those problems. When epigenetic agents are used in combination with chemotherapy or targeted therapy it is hoped that downstream biological effects will provoke synergistic cytotoxicity. This review evaluates the challenges of exploiting the epigenome in the treatment of lung cancer.