Assessment of structural chromosomal instability phenotypes as biomarkers of carboplatin response in triple negative breast cancer: the TNT trial.

BACKGROUND: In the TNT trial of triple negative breast cancer (NCT00532727), germline BRCA1/2 mutations were present in 28% of carboplatin responders. We assessed quantitative measures of structural chromosomal instability (CIN) to identify a wider patient subgroup within TNT with preferential benefit from carboplatin over docetaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Copy number aberrations (CNAs) were established from 135 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary carcinomas using Illumina OmniExpress SNP-arrays. Seven published [allelic imbalanced CNA (AiCNA); allelic balanced CNA (AbCNA); copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity (CnLOH); number of telomeric allelic imbalances (NtAI); BRCA1-like status; percentage of genome altered (PGA); homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) scores] and two novel [Shannon diversity index (SI); high-level amplifications (HLAMP)] CIN-measurements were derived. HLAMP was defined based on the presence of at least one of the top 5% amplified cytobands located on 1q, 8q and 10p. Continuous CIN-measurements were divided into tertiles. All nine CIN-measurements were used to analyse objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Patients with tumours without HLAMP had a numerically higher ORR and significantly longer PFS in the carboplatin (C) than in the docetaxel (D) arm [56% (C) versus 29% (D), PHLAMP,quiet = 0.085; PFS 6.1 months (C) versus 4.1 months (D), Pinteraction/HLAMP = 0.047]. In the carboplatin arm, patients with tumours showing intermediate telomeric NtAI and AiCNA had higher ORR [54% (C) versus 20% (D), PNtAI,intermediate = 0.03; 62% (C) versus 33% (D), PAiCNA,intermediate = 0.076]. Patients with high AiCNA and PGA had shorter PFS in the carboplatin arm [3.4 months (high) versus 5.7 months (low/intermediate); and 3.8 months (high) versus 5.6 months (low/intermediate), respectively; Pinteraction/AiCNA = 0.027, Padj.interaction/AiCNA = 0.125 and Pinteraction/PGA = 0.053, Padj.interaction/PGA = 0.176], whilst no difference was observed in the docetaxel arm. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with tumours lacking HLAMP and demonstrating intermediate CIN-measurements formed a subgroup benefitting from carboplatin relative to docetaxel treatment within the TNT trial. This suggests a complex and paradoxical relationship between the extent of genomic instability in primary tumours and treatment response in the metastatic setting.

A phase I dose-escalation study of enzalutamide in combination with the AKT inhibitor AZD5363 (capivasertib) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway through loss of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) occurs in approximately 50% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Recent evidence suggests that combined inhibition of the androgen receptor (AR) and AKT may be beneficial in mCRPC with PTEN loss. PATIENTS AND METHODS: mCRPC patients who previously failed abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, received escalating doses of AZD5363 (capivasertib) starting at 320 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) given 4 days on and 3 days off, in combination with enzalutamide 160 mg daily. The co-primary endpoints were safety/tolerability and determining the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase II dose; pharmacokinetics, antitumour activity, and exploratory biomarker analysis were also evaluated. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were enrolled, 15 received study treatment and 13 were assessable for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Patients were treated at 320, 400, and 480 mg b.i.d. dose levels of capivasertib. The recommended phase II dose identified for capivasertib was 400 mg b.i.d. with 1/6 patients experiencing a DLT (maculopapular rash) at this level. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were hyperglycemia (26.7%) and rash (20%). Concomitant administration of enzalutamide significantly decreased plasma exposure of capivasertib, though this did not appear to impact pharmacodynamics. Three patients met the criteria for response (defined as prostate-specific antigen decline ≥50%, circulating tumour cell conversion, and/or radiological response). Responses were seen in patients with PTEN loss or activating mutations in AKT, low or absent AR-V7 expression, as well as those with an increase in phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (pERK) in post-exposure samples. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of capivasertib and enzalutamide is tolerable and has antitumour activity, with all responding patients harbouring aberrations in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02525068.

Vistusertib (dual m-TORC1/2 inhibitor) in combination with paclitaxel in patients with high-grade serous ovarian and squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: We have previously shown that raised p-S6K levels correlate with resistance to chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. We hypothesised that inhibiting p-S6K signalling with the dual m-TORC1/2 inhibitor in patients receiving weekly paclitaxel could improve outcomes in such patients. Patients and methods: In dose escalation, weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) was given 6/7 weeks in combination with two intermittent schedules of vistusertib (dosing starting on the day of paclitaxel): schedule A, vistusertib dosed bd for 3 consecutive days per week (3/7 days) and schedule B, vistusertib dosed bd for 2 consecutive days per week (2/7 days). After establishing a recommended phase II dose (RP2D), expansion cohorts in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) and squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) were explored in 25 and 40 patients, respectively. Results: The dose-escalation arms comprised 22 patients with advanced solid tumours. The dose-limiting toxicities were fatigue and mucositis in schedule A and rash in schedule B. On the basis of toxicity and pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluations, the RP2D was established as 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel with 50 mg vistusertib bd 3/7 days for 6/7 weeks. In the HGSOC expansion, RECIST and GCIG CA125 response rates were 13/25 (52%) and 16/25 (64%), respectively, with median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.8 months (95% CI: 3.28-18.54). The RP2D was not well tolerated in the SqNSCLC expansion, but toxicities were manageable after the daily vistusertib dose was reduced to 25 mg bd for the following 23 patients. The RECIST response rate in this group was 8/23 (35%), and the mPFS was 5.8 months (95% CI: 2.76-21.25). Discussion: In this phase I trial, we report a highly active and well-tolerated combination of vistusertib, administered as an intermittent schedule with weekly paclitaxel, in patients with HGSOC and SqNSCLC. Clinical trial registration: ClinicialTrials.gov identifier: CNCT02193633.

Effects of manipulated palatability on appetite depend on restraint and disinhibition scores from the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: The present study evaluated the effects of dietary restraint on short-term appetite in response to manipulated palatability. DESIGN: The effects of palatability on appetite during a lunchtime meal were assessed by contrasting intake of a bland and palatable version of a simple food (within subject). To test how responses to palatability varied with restraint, these meals consumed by women were classified according to restraint (R) and disinhibition (D) scores from the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ) as high R/high D (HR-HD), high R/low D (HR-LD), low R/high D (LR-HD) and low R/low D (LR-LD). SUBJECTS: A total of 40 normal-weight women subdivided into four groups based on TFEQ scores. MEASUREMENTS: The overall intake, appetite and hedonic ratings before, during and after the meal. RESULTS: All groups ate similar amounts of the bland food, but the LR-HD group ate significantly more of the palatable version than the other groups, whereas HR-LD did not increase intake in response to palatability. Hunger increased on tasting the palatable food in all but the HR-LD group, and this group ended both meals more hungry/less full than the others. CONCLUSION: Women classified as HR-LD were unresponsive to manipulated palatability, whereas those classified as LR-HD were over-responsive. These findings imply that some individuals are prone to over-respond to palatability and so are at greater risk of developing obesity, whereas others are able to resist the effects of palatability and so successfully self-restrict their food intake. Implications for obesity are discussed.