Circulating KRAS G12D but not G12V is associated with survival in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

While high circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) levels are associated with poor survival for multiple cancers, variant-specific differences in the association of ctDNA levels and survival have not been examined. Here we investigate KRAS ctDNA (ctKRAS) variant-specific associations with overall and progression-free survival (OS/PFS) in first-line metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) for patients receiving chemoimmunotherapy ("PRINCE", NCT03214250), and an independent cohort receiving standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy. For PRINCE, higher baseline plasma levels are associated with worse OS for ctKRAS G12D (log-rank p = 0.0010) but not G12V (p = 0.7101), even with adjustment for clinical covariates. Early, on-therapy clearance of G12D (p = 0.0002), but not G12V (p = 0.4058), strongly associates with OS for PRINCE. Similar results are obtained for the SOC cohort, and for PFS in both cohorts. These results suggest ctKRAS G12D but not G12V as a promising prognostic biomarker for mPDAC and that G12D clearance could also serve as an early biomarker of response.

A plain language summary of the PHAROS study: the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib for people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the results of a study called PHAROS. This study looked at combination treatment with encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®). This combination of medicines was studied in people with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer. Metastatic means that the cancer has spread to other parts of the body. All people in this study had a type of NSCLC that has a change in a gene called BRAF termed a BRAF V600E mutation. A gene is a part of the DNA that has instructions for making things that your body needs to work, and the BRAF V600E mutation contributes to the growth of the lung cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this study, 98 people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC were treated with the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib (called encorafenib plus binimetinib in this summary). Before starting the study, 59 people had not received any treatment for their metastatic NSCLC, and 39 people had received previous anticancer treatment. At the time of this analysis, 44 (75%) out of 59 people who did not receive any treatment before taking encorafenib plus binimetinib had their tumors shrink or disappear. Eighteen (46%) out of 39 people who had received treatment before starting encorafenib plus binimetinib also had their tumors shrink or disappear. The most common side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, and vomiting. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results support the use of encorafenib plus binimetinib combination treatment as a new treatment option in people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. The side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this study were similar to the side effects seen with encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a type of skin cancer called metastatic melanoma.

Phase II, Open-Label Study of Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib in Patients With BRAFV600-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The combination of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) plus binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) has demonstrated clinical efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with BRAFV600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this ongoing, open-label, single-arm, phase II study, patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC received oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by independent radiology review (IRR). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, time to response, and safety. RESULTS: At data cutoff, 98 patients (59 treatment-naïve and 39 previously treated) with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC received encorafenib plus binimetinib. Median duration of treatment was 9.2 months with encorafenib and 8.4 months with binimetinib. ORR by IRR was 75% (95% CI, 62 to 85) in treatment-naïve and 46% (95% CI, 30 to 63) in previously treated patients; median DOR was not estimable (NE; 95% CI, 23.1 to NE) and 16.7 months (95% CI, 7.4 to NE), respectively. DCR after 24 weeks was 64% in treatment-naïve and 41% in previously treated patients. Median PFS was NE (95% CI, 15.7 to NE) in treatment-naïve and 9.3 months (95% CI, 6.2 to NE) in previously treated patients. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (50%), diarrhea (43%), and fatigue (32%). TRAEs led to dose reductions in 24 (24%) and permanent discontinuation of encorafenib plus binimetinib in 15 (15%) patients. One grade 5 TRAE of intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Interactive visualization of the data presented in this article is available at the PHAROS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/pharos/). CONCLUSION: For patients with treatment-naïve and previously treated BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC, encorafenib plus binimetinib showed a meaningful clinical benefit with a safety profile consistent with that observed in the approved indication in melanoma.

Encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: phase II PHAROS study design.

BRAFV600 oncogenic driver mutations occur in 1-2% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) and have been shown to be a clinically relevant target. Preclinical/clinical evidence support the efficacy and safety of BRAF and MEK inhibitor combinations in patients with NSCLC with these mutations. We describe the design of PHAROS, an ongoing, open-label, single-arm, phase II trial evaluating the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib plus the MEK inhibitor binimetinib in patients with metastatic BRAFV600-mutant NSCLC, as first- or second-line treatment. The primary end point is objective response rate, based on independent radiologic review (per RECIST v1.1); secondary objectives evaluated additional efficacy end points and safety. Results from PHAROS will describe the antitumor activity/safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with metastatic BRAFV600-mutant NSCLC.

Plain language summary Some people with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have changes in a gene called BRAF (known as 'gene mutations'). One common BRAF mutation is called 'V600'. Combinations of medicines that block proteins encoded by mutant BRAF and another gene called MEK can shrink tumors and slow their progression. We describe the design of PHAROS, a clinical trial investigating encorafenib (mutant BRAF inhibitor) combined with binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) in people with BRAF^V600-mutant NSCLC that had spread to other parts of the body ('metastatic disease'). People are monitored for side effects and to see if their tumor shrunk. PHAROS includes people treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib as their first treatment for metastatic disease, and people whose cancer progressed after previous anticancer therapy. Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03915951) and EudraCT (2019-000417-37).

A phase I dose escalation trial of nab-paclitaxel and fixed dose radiation in patients with unresectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer typically have poor outcomes, with a median survival of approximately 16 months. Novel methods to improve outcomes are needed. Nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane) has shown efficacy in pancreatic cancer and is FDA-approved for metastatic disease in combination with gemcitabine. Nab-paclitaxel is also a promising radiosensitizer based on laboratory studies, but it has never been clinically tested with definitive radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma. METHODS: We performed a phase 1 study using a 3 + 3 dose escalation strategy to determine the safety and tolerability of dose-escalated nab-paclitaxel with fractionated radiotherapy for patients with unresectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Following induction chemotherapy with two cycles of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine, patients were treated with weekly nab-paclitaxel and daily radiotherapy to a dose of 52.5 Gy in 25 fractions. Final dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) determination was performed at day 65 after the start of radiotherapy. RESULTS: Nine patients received nab-paclitaxel at a dose level of either 100 mg/m2 (n = 3) or 125 mg/m2 (n = 6). There were no observed grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicities. One DLT (grade 3 neuropathy) was observed in a patient who received 125 mg/m2 of nab-paclitaxel. Other grade 3 toxicities included fatigue (11%), anemia (11%) and neutropenia (11%). No grade 4 toxicities were observed. Following chemoradiotherapy, four patients (borderline resectable, n = 2 and unresectable, n = 2) underwent surgical resection, all with negative margins and with significant treatment effect with limited tumor viability. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of fractionated radiation and weekly full dose nab-paclitaxel was safe and well-tolerated.

Activity of the oral mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase inhibitor trametinib in RAS-mutant relapsed or refractory myeloid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: RAS/RAF/mitogen-activated protein kinase activation is common in myeloid malignancies. Trametinib, a mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1 (MEK1)/MEK2 inhibitor with activity against multiple myeloid cell lines at low nanomolar concentrations, was evaluated for safety and clinical activity in patients with relapsed/refractory leukemias. METHODS: This phase 1/2 study accrued patients with any relapsed/refractory leukemia in phase 1. In phase 2, this study accrued patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) with NRAS or KRAS mutations (cohort 1); patients with AML, MDS, or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) with a RAS wild-type mutation or an unknown mutation status (cohort 2); and patients with CMML with an NRAS or KRAS mutation (cohorts 3). RESULTS: The most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash, nausea, and increased alanine aminotransferase levels. The phase 2 recommended dose for Trametinib was 2 mg orally daily. The overall response rates were 20%, 3%, and 27% for cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and this indicated preferential activity among RAS-mutated myeloid malignancies. Repeated cycles of trametinib were well tolerated with manageable or reversible toxicities; these results were similar to those of other trametinib studies. CONCLUSIONS: The selective, single-agent activity of trametinib against RAS-mutated myeloid malignancies validates its therapeutic potential. Combination strategies based on a better understanding of the hierarchical role of mutations and signaling in myeloid malignancies are likely to improve the response rate and duration. Cancer 2016;122:1871-9. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Postoperative Adjuvant Lapatinib and Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Maintenance Lapatinib Monotherapy in High-Risk Patients With Resected Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

PURPOSE: This multicenter phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lapatinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor/ErbB2 inhibitor, administered concomitantly with chemoradiotherapy and as maintenance monotherapy in patients with high-risk surgically treated squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage II to IVA SCCHN, with a surgical margin ≤ 5 mm and/or extracapsular extension, were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy (66 Gy total radiation dose and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) per day administered on days 1, 22, and 43) plus placebo or lapatinib (1,500 mg per day) before and during chemoradiotherapy, followed by 12 months of maintenance monotherapy. RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled (lapatinib, n = 346; placebo, n = 342). With a median follow-up time of 35.3 months, the study ended early because of the apparent plateauing of disease-free survival (DFS) events. Median DFS assessed by an independent review committee was 53.6 months and not reached for lapatinib and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.43). Investigator-assessed results confirmed the independent review committee assessment. No significant differences in DFS by human papillomavirus status or overall survival were observed between treatment arms. Similar numbers of patients in both treatment arms experienced adverse events (AEs), with more patients in the lapatinib arm than the placebo arm experiencing serious AEs (48% v 40%, respectively). The most commonly observed treatment-related AEs were diarrhea and rash, both predominantly in the lapatinib arm. CONCLUSION: Addition of lapatinib to chemoradiotherapy and its use as long-term maintenance therapy does not offer any efficacy benefits and had additional toxicity compared with placebo in patients with surgically treated high-risk SCCHN.

Efficacy and safety of casopitant mesylate, a neurokinin 1 (NK1)-receptor antagonist, in prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a clinical management problem after treatment with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We therefore designed and carried out a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess whether a three-drug antiemetic regimen of ondansetron, dexamethasone, and the neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist casopitant mesylate was able to prevent acute and delayed CINV events in patients naive to chemotherapy with a malignant solid tumour who were scheduled to receive cisplatin-based HEC regimens. METHODS: The study was done between Nov 6, 2006, and Oct 9, 2007, in 77 participating centres in 22 countries. All 810 patients enrolled in the trial received dexamethasone and ondansetron. Patients were randomly assigned to also receive placebo (n=269), single oral dose of casopitant mesylate (150 mg oral, n=271), or 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate (90 mg intravenous on day 1 plus 50 mg oral on days 2 and 3, n=270). Randomisation was done using a central telephone system at the study level, because some centres were expected to recruit only a few patients during the study period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (no vomiting, retching, or use of rescue medications) in the first 120 h after receiving HEC. Efficacy analysis was done on the modified intention-to-treat population (n=800), which included all patients who received placebo or study drug and HEC (n=265 control, n=266 single-dose oral casopitant mesylate, n=269 3-day intravenous and oral casopitant mesylate). Safety was reported in 802 patients who received either placebo or study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00431236. FINDINGS: Significantly more patients in each casopitant group achieved complete response in cycle 1 of HEC treatment than did those in the control group (175 [66%] patients in the control group, 228 [86%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group [p<0.0001 vs control], and 214 [80%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group (p=0.0004 vs control]). This improvement was sustained over multiple cycles of HEC. Adverse events occurred in 205 (77%) patients in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group and 203 (75%) patients in the 3-day intravenous and oral casopitant mesylate group compared with 194 (73%) of patients in the control group. The most common serious adverse events were neutropenia (n=5 [3%] in the control group, n=3 [1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=11 [4%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group), febrile neutropenia (n=1 [<1%] in the control group, n=4 [1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=6 [2%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group), and dehydration (n=4 [2%] in the control group, n=2 [<1%] in the single-dose oral casopitant mesylate group, and n=1 [<1%] in the 3-day intravenous plus oral casopitant mesylate group). INTERPRETATION: A three-drug regimen including a single oral dose or 3-day intravenous plus oral regimen of casopitant mesylate plus dexamethasone and ondansetron significantly reduced CINV events in patients receiving HEC compared with a two-drug regimen of dexamethasone and ondansetron. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Adjuvant therapy with the monoclonal antibody Edrecolomab plus fluorouracil-based therapy does not improve overall survival of patients with stage III colon cancer.

PURPOSE: Edrecolomab (ED) is a murine monoclonal antibody targeting the EpCam antigen. This phase III randomized multicenter trial investigated the benefit of adding ED to fluorouracil (FU) based therapy in patients with stage III colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage III colon cancer were randomly assigned to one of two treatments after curative surgery. Patients in arm 1 received five infusions of ED together with FU-based chemotherapy; patients in arm 2 received FU-based chemotherapy alone. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred thirty-nine patients were randomly assigned; results were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Patient characteristics were well-balanced across treatment arms. Five-year follow-up has been completed. Patients randomly assigned to ED plus FU-based therapy showed a 5-year survival rate of 69.6% while for patients receiving FU-based therapy, the rate was 68.2%. The hazard ratio for death with ED plus FU-based therapy compared to FU-based therapy was 0.896 (95% CI, 0.752 to 1.068), which was not statistically significant (P = .220). The adverse effect profiles of the two treatment arms were similar, with the main adverse effects being diarrhea, abdominal pain, and nausea. Anaphylaxis occurred in fewer than 1% of patients receiving ED. CONCLUSION: For patients with stage III colon cancer, the addition of ED to FU-based therapy had no statistically significant effect on OS.

Topotecan therapy in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer and poor performance status.

PURPOSE: Topotecan is generally well tolerated and active in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and poor performance status (PS). In this study, we investigated whether treatment with topotecan is associated with improvement in PS as measured by the rate of conversion from PS 2 to PS 0/1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from 7 clinical trials (N = 795) investigating topotecan in patients with relapsed SCLC was performed. All patients received topotecan 1.25-1.5 mg/m2 daily on days 1-5 of a 21-day cycle. Demographics were similar for patients with PS 2 and PS 0/1. A total of 152 patients with PS 2 at baseline received 502 cycles (median, 2 cycles; range, 1-14 cycles) of therapy, and 32 (21%) experienced PS improvement to PS 0/1 that lasted for > or = 2 cycles. RESULTS: Overall, 50% of patients who experienced PS conversion also exhibited an objective antitumor response, compared with 8% of patients with PS 2 who had no improvement in PS and achieved a response. Similarly, median overall survival was longer for patients with PS improvement (37 weeks; 95% confidence interval, 29.6-49.4 weeks) compared with patients with PS 2 who had a response but no PS improvement (10.4 weeks; 95% confidence interval, 8.7-13.6 weeks). A substantial proportion of patients with PS 2 and relapsed SCLC experienced PS improvement during topotecan treatment. These patients had a substantially longer median survival and a higher response rate compared with the overall trial population. CONCLUSION: Improvement in PS appears to be a good indicator of benefit from topotecan therapy.

Open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase III study comparing oral topotecan/cisplatin versus etoposide/cisplatin as treatment for chemotherapy-naive patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III study compared oral topotecan/intravenous cisplatin (TC) with intravenous (IV) etoposide/cisplatin (PE) in patients with untreated extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 784 patients were randomly assigned to either oral topotecan 1.7 mg/m2/d x 5 with IV cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 5 (n = 389) or IV etoposide 100 mg/m2/d x 3 with IV cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 395) every 21 days. RESULTS: Overall survival (primary end point) was similar between groups (P = .48; median: TC, 39.3 weeks v PE, 40.3 weeks). One-year survival was 31% (95% CI, 27% to 36%) in both groups and the difference of -0.03 (95% CI, -6.53 to 6.47) met the predefined criteria of < or = 10% absolute difference for noninferiority of TC relative to PE. Response rates were similar between groups (TC, 63% v PE, 69%). Time to progression was slightly but statistically longer with PE (log-rank P = .02; median: TC, 24.1 weeks v PE, 25.1 weeks). The regimens were similarly tolerable. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred more frequently with PE (84% v 59%), whereas grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently with TC (38% v 21% and 38% v 23%, respectively). Lung Cancer Symptom Scale scores were statistically better with PE, but the differences were small and of debatable clinical significance. CONCLUSION: Oral topotecan with cisplatin provides similar efficacy and tolerability to the standard (etoposide with cisplatin) in untreated ED-SCLC and may provide greater patient convenience compared with intravenous etoposide and cisplatin.

A pilot study of edrecolomab (Panorex, 17-1A antibody) and capecitabine in patients with advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma.

Edrecolomab (Panorex) is a monoclonal antibody directed against the 17-1A antigen located on the cell surfaces of carcinomas. Clinical activity has been seen in colon and breast cancer. This trial investigated the feasibility of combining edrecolomab with the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine (Xeloda). Patients received a loading dose of edrecolomab 500 mg intravenously (i.v.) on day--14, followed 2 weeks later by 100 mg i.v. every 28 days (day 1). Capecitabine was administered to single-patient cohorts at escalating doses of 1500, 2000, and 2500 mg/m2/day in two equally divided doses for 14 of 21 days, beginning on day 1. Additional patients were enrolled at the 2500 mg/m2/day dose level to better define the toxicities of combination therapy. Toxicity assessment was the primary endpoint. Twenty seven patients with advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma were enrolled on this study: 20 were evaluable for toxicity and 18 for response. The most common toxicities were elevated liver enzymes, diarrhea, and hand-foot syndrome. In cycle 1, grade 3 hand-foot syndrome was seen in two patients, and grade 3 diarrhea in one patient. Grade 2 toxicities included diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, anemia, leukopenia, and transaminitis. Cumulative hand-foot syndrome was observed in four patients treated beyond two cycles. Three patients had edrecolomab infusion reactions during the course of treatment. One complete response and two partial responses were seen. Nine patients had disease stabilization lasting a median of 17.5 weeks (range 14.5-28+). Edrecolomab and capecitabine may be safely given in combination to patients with advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma. Clinical activity is seen in this heavily pretreated patient population.