A phase 1/2 study of rigosertib in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and MDS progressed to acute myeloid leukemia.

This Phase 1/2, dose-escalating study of rigosertib enrolled 22 patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) (n=9) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n=13) who had relapsed or were refractory to standard therapy and for whom no second-line therapies were approved. Patients received 3- to 7-day continuous intravenous infusions of rigosertib, an inhibitor of Ras-effector pathways that interacts with the Ras-binding domains, common to several signaling proteins including Raf and PI3 kinase. Rigosertib was administered at doses of 650-1700mg/m2/day in 14-day cycles. Initial dose escalation followed a Fibonacci scheme, followed by recommended phase 2 dose confirmation in an expanded cohort. Rigosertib was well tolerated for up to 23 cycles, with no treatment-related deaths and 18% of patients with related serious adverse events (AEs). Common AEs were fatigue, diarrhea, pyrexia, dyspnea, insomnia, and anemia. Rigosertib exhibited biologic activity, with reduction or stabilization of bone marrow blasts and improved peripheral blood counts in a subset of patients. Ten of 19 evaluable patients (53%) demonstrated bone marrow/peripheral blood responses (n=4 MDS, n=1 AML) or stable disease (n=3 MDS, n=2 AML). Median survival was 15.7 and 2.0 months for responders and non-responders, respectively. Additional studies of rigosertib are ongoing in higher-risk MDS (NCT00854646).

The Incidence and Health Care Resource Burden of the Myelodysplastic Syndromes in Patients in Whom First-Line Hypomethylating Agents Fail.

BACKGROUND: Although hypomethylating agents (HMAs) are effective and approved therapies for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), many patients do not benefit from treatment, and nearly all ultimately stop responding to HMAs. The incidence and cost burden of HMA failure are unknown yet needed to appreciate the magnitude and significance of such failure. METHODS: We analyzed a de-identified dataset of over 5 million individuals with private health insurance in the U.S. to estimate MDS incidence, prevalence, and treatments. Based on MDS provider interviews, a conceptual model of MDS patient management was constructed to create a new, claims-relevant and drug development-relevant definition of HMA treatment failure. This algorithm was used to define resource encumbrance of MDS patients in whom HMA treatment failed. RESULTS: We estimated an MDS incidence rate of ∼70 cases per 100,000 enrollees per year and a prevalence of 155 cases per 100,000 enrollees. The proportion of MDS patients receiving HMA treatment was low (∼3%), and treatment was typically initiated within 1 year of the first MDS claim. Notably, HMA-treated individuals were older and had more comorbidities than the overall MDS cohort. Total health care costs of managing MDS patients after HMA failure were high (∼$77,000 during the first 6 months) and were driven primarily by non-pharmacy costs. CONCLUSION: This study quantifies for the first time the burden of significant unmet need in caring for MDS patients following HMA treatment failure. The Oncologist 2017;22:379-385Implications for Practice: U.S.-based treatment patterns among MDS patients demonstrate the significant clinical, financial, and health care burden associated with HMA failure and call for active therapies for this patient population.

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes after failure of first-line hypomethylating agent therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate optimal salvage therapy in high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes patients who have failed a first-line hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy, given that treatment choice is challenging. METHODS: Using published literature and expert opinion, we developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of current treatments for patients who failed first-line HMA therapy. The model predicted costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainty in model inputs. RESULTS: Supportive care was the least expensive option ($65,704/patient) with the shortest survival (0.48 years). Low- and high-intensity chemotherapies and hematopoietic cell transplantation increased survival and costs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $108,808, 306,103 and 318,163/life year, respectively. Switching HMA was more costly and less efficacious than another treatment option, namely low-intensity chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Subsequent treatments in myelodysplastic syndrome patients who failed first-line HMA significantly increase costs, while only providing marginal clinical benefit and substantially increasing treatment-related morbidities. Additional treatment options would benefit resource allocation, clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.

Multinational, double-blind, phase III study of prednisone and either satraplatin or placebo in patients with castrate-refractory prostate cancer progressing after prior chemotherapy: the SPARC trial.

PURPOSE: This multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial assessed the efficacy and tolerability of the oral platinum analog satraplatin in patients with metastatic castrate-refractory prostate cancer (CRPC) experiencing progression after one prior chemotherapy regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine hundred fifty patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive oral satraplatin (n = 635) 80 mg/m(2) on days 1 to 5 of a 35-day cycle and prednisone 5 mg twice daily or placebo (n = 315) and prednisone 5 mg twice daily. Primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). The secondary end point was time to pain progression (TPP). RESULTS: A 33% reduction (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.77; P < .001) was observed in the risk of progression or death with satraplatin versus placebo. This effect was maintained irrespective of prior docetaxel treatment. No difference in OS was seen between the satraplatin and placebo arms (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.15; P = .80). Compared with placebo, satraplatin significantly reduced TPP (HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.79; P < .001). Satraplatin was generally well tolerated, although myelosuppression and GI disorders occurred more frequently with satraplatin. CONCLUSION: Oral satraplatin delayed progression of disease and pain in patients with metastatic CRPC experiencing progression after initial chemotherapy but did not provide a significant OS benefit. Satraplatin was generally well tolerated. These results suggest activity for satraplatin in patients with CRPC who experience progression after initial chemotherapy.

Satraplatin, an oral platinum, administered on a five-day every-five-week schedule: a pharmacokinetic and food effect study.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to assess the pharmacokinetic behavior of satraplatin under fasted and fed conditions, and its safety and preliminary antitumor activity in adults with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Satraplatin was administered orally at 80 mg/m(2) once daily with prophylactic antiemetics for 5 consecutive days every 5 weeks. Patients were randomized to receive day 1 and day 5 doses of satraplatin in either the fed or fasted state, the order being reversed for cycle 2. Pharmacokinetic sampling was done during the first two cycles. For all subsequent cycles, patients received satraplatin in the fasted state. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were treated with 60 total cycles of satraplatin. There was no dose-limiting toxicity during cycle 1. Severe hematologic toxicity was rare and the hematologic nadir occurred during week 4. Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were grade 1/2. No significant cardiac, renal, hepatic, or neurologic toxicity was observed. The hypothesis that food decreased ultrafiltrate platinum bioavailability could not be rejected, as the lower limit of the 90% confidence intervals for peak plasma concentration and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours were 56.14% and 73.53%, respectively, both below the 80% bioequivalence acceptance criterion. One partial response (hormone refractory prostate cancer) and four durable stable diseases (breast, ovarian, parotid, and hormone refractory prostate cancer) were confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: There is an effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of satraplatin, the clinical significance of which is unclear. It is recommended that satraplatin be administered in the fasting state. This 5-week interval schedule of satraplatin was well tolerated in heavily pretreated patients.