Guadecitabine vs TC in relapsed/refractory AML after intensive chemotherapy: a randomized phase 3 ASTRAL-2 trial.

ABSTRACT: Guadecitabine is a novel hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to deamination by cytidine deaminase. Patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) were randomly assigned to guadecitabine or a preselected treatment choice (TC) of high-intensity chemotherapy, low-intensity treatment with HMAs or low-dose cytarabine, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). A total of 302 patients were randomly assigned to guadecitabine (n = 148) or TC (n = 154). Preselected TCs were low-intensity treatment (n = 233 [77%; mainly HMAs]), high-intensity chemotherapy (n = 63 [21%]), and BSC (n = 6 [2%]). The median OS were 6.4 and 5.4 months for guadecitabine and TC, respectively (hazard ratio 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.14]; log-rank P = .33). Survival benefit for guadecitabine was suggested in several prospective subgroups, including age <65 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1, refractory AML, and lower peripheral blood blasts ≤30%. Complete response (CR) + CR with partial hematologic recovery rates were 17% for guadecitabine vs 8% for TC (P < .01); CR+CR with incomplete count recovery rates were 27% for guadecitabine vs 14% for TC (P < .01). Safety was comparable for the 2 arms, but guadecitabine had a higher rate of grade ≥3 neutropenia (32% vs 17%; P < .01). This study did not demonstrate an OS benefit for guadecitabine. Clinical response rates were higher for guadecitabine, with comparable safety to TC. There was an OS benefit for guadecitabine in several prespecified subgroups. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02920008.

Oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (ASCERTAIN): a registrational, randomised, crossover, pharmacokinetics, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The DNA methyltransferase inhibitors azacitidine and decitabine for individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are available in parenteral form. Oral therapy with similar exposure for these diseases would offer potential treatment benefits. We aimed to compare the safety and pharmacokinetics of oral decitabine plus the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine. METHODS: We did a registrational, multicentre, open-label, crossover, phase 3 trial of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and individuals with acute myeloid leukaemia, enrolled as separate cohorts; results for only participants with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are reported here. In 37 academic and community-based clinics in Canada and the USA, we enrolled individuals aged 18 years or older who were candidates to receive intravenous decitabine, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 5 days of oral decitabine-cedazuridine (one tablet once daily containing 35 mg decitabine and 100 mg cedazuridine as a fixed-dose combination) or intravenous decitabine (20 mg/m2 per day by continuous 1-h intravenous infusion) in a 28-day treatment cycle, followed by 5 days of the other formulation in the next treatment cycle. Thereafter, all participants received oral decitabine-cedazuridine from the third cycle on until treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was total decitabine exposure over 5 days with oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for cycles 1 and 2, measured as area under the curve in participants who received the full treatment dose in cycles 1 and 2 and had decitabine daily AUC0-24 for both oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine (ie, paired cycles). On completion of the study, all patients were rolled over to a maintenance study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03306264. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2018, and June 7, 2021, 173 individuals were screened, 138 (80%) participants were randomly assigned to a treatment sequence, and 133 (96%) participants (87 [65%] men and 46 [35%] women; 121 [91%] White, four [3%] Black or African-American, three [2%] Asian, and five [4%] not reported) received treatment. Median follow-up was 966 days (IQR 917-1050). Primary endpoint of total exposure of oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine was 98·93% (90% CI 92·66-105·60), indicating equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure on the basis of area under the curve. The safety profiles of oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine were similar. The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or worse were thrombocytopenia (81 [61%] of 133 participants), neutropenia (76 [57%] participants), and anaemia (67 [50%] participants). The incidence of serious adverse events in cycles 1-2 was 31% (40 of 130 participants) with oral decitabine-cedazuridine and 18% (24 of 132 participants) with intravenous decitabine. There were five treatment-related deaths; two deemed related to oral therapy (sepsis and pneumonia) and three to intravenous treatment (septic shock [n=2] and pneumonia [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Oral decitabine-cedazuridine was pharmacologically and pharmacodynamically equivalent to intravenous decitabine. The results support use of oral decitabine-cedazuridine as a safe and effective alternative to intravenous decitabine for treatment of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals.

Clinical impact of the genomic landscape and leukemogenic trajectories in non-intensively treated elderly acute myeloid leukemia patients.

To characterize the genomic landscape and leukemogenic pathways of older, newly diagnosed, non-intensively treated patients with AML and to study the clinical implications, comprehensive genetics analyses were performed including targeted DNA sequencing of 263 genes in 604 patients treated in a prospective Phase III clinical trial. Leukemic trajectories were delineated using oncogenetic tree modeling and hierarchical clustering, and prognostic groups were derived from multivariable Cox regression models. Clonal hematopoiesis-related genes (ASXL1, TET2, SRSF2, DNMT3A) were most frequently mutated. The oncogenetic modeling algorithm produced a tree with five branches with ASXL1, DDX41, DNMT3A, TET2, and TP53 emanating from the root suggesting leukemia-initiating events which gave rise to further subbranches with distinct subclones. Unsupervised clustering mirrored the genetic groups identified by the tree model. Multivariable analysis identified FLT3 internal tandem duplications (ITD), SRSF2, and TP53 mutations as poor prognostic factors, while DDX41 mutations exerted an exceptionally favorable effect. Subsequent backwards elimination based on the Akaike information criterion delineated three genetic risk groups: DDX41 mutations (favorable-risk), DDX41wildtype/FLT3-ITDneg/TP53wildtype (intermediate-risk), and FLT3-ITD or TP53 mutations (high-risk). Our data identified distinct trajectories of leukemia development in older AML patients and provide a basis for a clinically meaningful genetic outcome stratification for patients receiving less intensive therapies.

Erlotinib and Onalespib Lactate Focused on EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): A California Cancer Consortium Phase I/II Trial (NCI 9878).

BACKGROUND: Onalespib is a novel heat shock protein 90 inhibitor (HSP90i). Previous preclinical and clinical studies with HSP90i have demonstrated activity in EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study sought to determine the safety and tolerability of onalespib plus erlotinib in EGFR-mutant NSCLC and to evaluate the preliminary efficacy of the combination in epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 insertion (EGFRex20ins) NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Standard 3+3 dose escalation was followed by a phase II expansion in EGFRex20ins. The phase II component targeted a response rate of 25% versus a background rate of 5%. Prospective next-generation sequencing (NGS) of 70 cancer-related genes, including EGFR, via plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was performed. Toxicity was graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4, and response was determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1. RESULTS: Eleven patients were treated (nine dose escalation, two dose expansion). Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred in dose level (DL) 0 and zero in DL -1 (minus). In 10 EGFRex20ins patients, no responses were observed, median progression-free survival was 5.4 months (95% confidence interval, 0.9-5.7), and the disease control rate (DCR) was 40% (median, 3.5 months). EGFRex20ins was detected in nine of 10 ctDNA samples at baseline; on-treatment ctDNA clearance was not observed. Grade 3 diarrhea was the predominant toxicity in 45% of patients. The recommended phase II dose is DL -1 (minus): erlotinib 150 mg orally every morning and onalespib 120 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days. CONCLUSION: Overlapping toxicities of erlotinib and onalespib, mainly diarrhea, limited the tolerability of this combination, and limited clinical activity was observed, so the trial was closed early. Plasma EGFRex20ins ctDNA was detected in the majority of patients; failure to clear ctDNA was consistent with lack of tumor response (NCT02535338).

Methylomic Signatures of High Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer.

High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) harbours aberrant epigenetic features, including DNA methylation. In this study we delineate pathways and networks altered by DNA methylation and associated with HGSOC initiation and progression to a platinum-resistant state. By including tumours from patients who had been treated with the hypomethylating agent (HMA) guadecitabine, we also addressed the role of HMAs in treatment of HGSOC. Tumours from patients with primary (platinum-naïve) HGSOC (n = 20) were compared to patients with recurrent platinum-resistant HGSOC and enrolled in a recently completed clinical trial (NCT01696032). Human ovarian surface epithelial cells (HOSE; n = 5 samples) served as normal controls. Genome-wide methylation profiles were determined. DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) expression levels were examined by immunohistochemistry and correlated with clinical outcomes. Cancer-related and tumorigenesis networks were enriched among differentially methylated genes (DMGs) in primary OC vs. HOSE. When comparing platinum-resistant and primary tumours, 452 CpG island (CGI)-containing gene promoters acquired DNA methylation; of those loci, decreased (P < 0.01) methylation after HMA treatment was observed in 42% (n = 189 CGI). Stem cell pluripotency and cytokine networks were enriched in recurrent platinum-resistant OC tumours, while drug metabolism and transport-related networks were downregulated in tumours from HMA-treated patients compared to HOSE. Lower DNMT1 and 3B protein levels in pre-treatment tumours were associated with improved progression-free survival. The findings provide important insight into the DNA methylation landscape of HGSOC tumorigenesis, platinum resistance and epigenetic resensitization. Epigenetic reprogramming plays an important role in HGSOC aetiology and contributes to clinical outcomes.

Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in patients with intermediate or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: phase 2 results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Guadecitabine is a next-generation hypomethylating agent whose active metabolite decitabine has a longer in-vivo exposure time than intravenous decitabine. More effective hypomethylating agents are needed for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes. In the present study, we aimed to compare the activity and safety of two doses of guadecitabine in hypomethylating agent treatment-naive or relapsed or refractory patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. METHODS: This phase 2 part of the phase 1/2, randomised, open-label study enrolled patients aged 18 years or older from 14 North American medical centres with International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-1-risk, intermediate-2-risk, or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. They were either hypomethylating agent treatment-naive or had relapsed or refractory disease after previous hypomethylating agent treatment as determined by the investigators' judgment. Eligible patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer algorithm for dynamic randomisation to subcutaneous guadecitabine 60 or 90 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of a 28-day treatment cycle. Treatment was stratified by previous treatment with hypomethylating agents and neither patients nor investigators were masked. The primary endpoint was overall response (a composite of complete response, partial response, marrow complete response, and haematological improvement) assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01261312. FINDINGS: Between July 9, 2012, and April 7, 2014, 105 patients were enrolled: 55 (52%) were allocated to guadecitabine 60 mg/m2 (28 patients were treatment-naive and 27 had relapsed or refractory disease after previous hypomethylating agent treatment) and 50 (48%) patients to 90 mg/m2 (23 patients were treatment-naive and 27 had relapsed or refractory disease). Three (3%) patients of 105 did not receive study treatment and were excluded from analyses. Median follow-up was 3·2 years (IQR 2·8-3·5). The proportion of patients achieving an overall response did not significantly differ between dose groups (21 of 53 [40%, 95% CI 27-54] with 60 mg/m2 and 27 of 49 [55%, 95% CI 40-69] with 90 mg/m2; p=0·16). 25 of 49 (51%, 95% CI 36-66) patients who were treatment-naive and 23 of 53 (43%, 30-58) patients with relapsed or refractory disease achieved an overall response. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups, regardless of relationship to treatment, were thrombocytopenia (22 [41%] of 53 patients in the 60 mg/m2 group and 28 [57%] of 49 in the 90 mg/m2 group), neutropaenia (21 [40%] and 25 [51%]), anaemia (25 [47%] and 24 [49%]), febrile neutropaenia (17 [32%] and 21 [43%]), and pneumonia (13 [25%] and 15 [31%]). Seven (7%) of 102 patients died due to adverse events (three with 90 mg/m2 and four with 60 mg/m2), and all except one were in the relapsed or refractory cohort. Two deaths were deemed treatment related (septic shock with 60 mg/m2; pneumonia with 90 mg/m2). INTERPRETATION: Guadecitabine was clinically active with acceptable tolerability in patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Responses and overall survival in the relapsed or refractory cohort offer the potential of a new therapeutic option for patients for whom currently available hypomethylating agents are not successful. We therefore recommend guadecitabine at a dose of 60 mg/m2 on a 5-day schedule for these patients. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals and Stand Up To Cancer.

Genomic and Epigenomic Signatures in Ovarian Cancer Associated with Resensitization to Platinum Drugs.

DNA methylation aberrations have been implicated in acquired resistance to platinum drugs in ovarian cancer. In this study, we elucidated an epigenetic signature associated with platinum drug resensitization that may offer utility in predicting the outcomes of patients who are coadministered a DNA methyltransferase inhibitor. The ovarian cancer specimens we analyzed were derived from a recent clinical trial that compared the responses of patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer who received carboplatin plus the DNA methyltransferase inhibitor guadecitabine or a standard-of-care chemotherapy regimen selected by the treating physician. Tumor biopsies or malignant ascites were collected from patients before treatment (day 1, cycle 1) or after treatment (after 2 cycles) for epigenomic and transcriptomic profiling using the Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip (HM450). We defined 94 gene promoters that were hypomethylated significantly by guadecitabine, with 1,659 genes differentially expressed in pretreatment versus posttreatment tumors. Pathway analysis revealed that the experimental regimen significantly altered immune reactivation and DNA repair pathways. Progression-free survival correlated with baseline expression levels of 1,155 genes involved in 25 networks. In functional investigations in ovarian cancer cells, engineered upregulation of certain signature genes silenced by promoter methylation (DOK2, miR-193a, and others) restored platinum drug sensitivity. Overall, our findings illuminate how inhibiting DNA methylation can sensitize ovarian cancer cells to platinum drugs, in large part by altering gene expression patterns related to DNA repair and immune activation, with implications for improving the personalized care and survival outcomes of ovarian cancer patients.Significance: Epigenomic targeting may improve therapeutic outcomes in platinum-resistant and recurrent ovarian cancer in part by effects on DNA repair and antitumor immune responses. Cancer Res; 78(3); 631-44. ©2017 AACR.

Phase II trial of single-agent foretinib (GSK1363089) in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: Foretinib is a small-molecule, oral multikinase inhibitor primarily targeting the mesenchymal epithelial transition (MET) factor receptor, and the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the single-agent activity and tolerability of foretinib in patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). METHODS: An open-label, single-arm, multicenter trial employing a Simon 2-stage design was conducted with a total of 41 patients planned for the study. One or more responses in the first 14 patients were required in order to progress to the second stage. Foretinib was administered as 240 mg orally for 5 consecutive days of a 14-day treatment cycle (5/9 schedule) to patients with recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were enrolled. The study did not meet criteria for continuing to the second stage. A maximum of 30 cycles were administered (median = 4.0). Fifty percent of patients (7/14) showed stable disease (SD), 43% of patients (6/14) experienced tumor shrinkage and two patients had prolonged disease stabilization for ≥13 months. The most common adverse events were fatigue, constipation and hypertension, which were manageable with additional medication or adjustments to the dosing schedule. CONCLUSION: Foretinib 240 mg on a 5/9 schedule was generally well tolerated. SD was the best-observed outcome, with minor tumor shrinkage detected in nearly half of all patients. The efficacy results, prolonged disease stabilization and tolerable side-effect profile, support further investigation, possibly in combination with other targeted agents or cytotoxic chemotherapy for SCCHN.