Clinical activity of CC-90011, an oral, potent, and reversible LSD1 inhibitor, in advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: CC-90011 is an oral, potent, selective, reversible inhibitor of lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) that was well tolerated, with encouraging activity in patients who had advanced solid tumors or relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma. The authors present long-term safety and efficacy and novel pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data from the first-in-human study of CC-90011. METHODS: CC-90011-ST-001 (ClincalTrials.gov identifier NCT02875223; Eudract number 2015-005243-13) is a phase 1, multicenter study in which patients received CC-90011 once per week in 28-day cycles. The objectives were to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose, and/or recommended phase 2 dose (primary) and to evaluate preliminary efficacy and pharmacokinetics (secondary). RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were enrolled, including 50 in the dose-escalation arm and 19 in the dose-expansion arm. Thrombocytopenia was the most common treatment-related adverse event and was successfully managed with dose modifications. Clinical activity with prolonged, durable responses were observed, particularly in patients who had neuroendocrine neoplasms. In the dose-escalation arm, one patient with relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma achieved a complete response (ongoing in cycle 58). In the dose-expansion arm, three patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms had stable disease after nine or more cycles, including one patient who was in cycle 46 of ongoing treatment. CC-90011 decreased levels of secreted neuroendocrine peptides chromogranin A, progastrin-releasing peptide, and RNA expression of the blood pharmacodynamic marker monocyte-to-macrophage differentiation-associated. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of CC-90011 suggested that its reversible mechanism of action may provide an advantage over other irreversible LSD1 inhibitors. The favorable tolerability profile, clinical activity, durable responses, and once-per-week dosing support further exploration of CC-90011 as monotherapy and in combination with other treatments for patients with advanced solid tumors and other malignancies.

Drug-induced colitis on BRAF and MEK inhibitors for BRAF V600E-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a case report.

INTRODUCTION: The combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors has deeply changed the treatment of BRAF V600-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients. These agents demonstrated high antitumor activity as well as safe and manageable toxicity profile. Hypertension, pyrexia and increased liver enzymes are the most common adverse events. Gastrointestinal toxicities are rare, and mainly consist of mild grade vomiting and diarrhea. CASE REPORT: We report the case of 70-year-old man affected by BRAF V600-mutant NSCLC with bilateral lung and bone metastases. First-line treatment with encorafenib (450 mg once daily) and binimetinib (45 mg twice daily) was administered within a clinical trial. At the first radiological assessment, computed tomography (CT) scan showed a partial response and signs of intestinal inflammation were reported. The investigational treatment was timely withheld. The subsequent colonoscopy demonstrated the presence of ulcerative lesions at the caecal tract, and the histological diagnosis suggested a drug-induced colitis. No specific treatment was given as the patient did not report abdominal disturbances. Forty-five days after treatment interruption a new CT scan showed the resolution of bowel inflammation and investigational treatment was resumed at the same doses. The patient is still alive and free of toxicity recurrence after 11 months from treatment initiation. Conclusion. Severe gastrointestinal toxicities are uncommon with BRAF and MEK inhibitors, although cases of colitis and intestinal perforation have already been reported in literature. The pathogenesis seems to be related to the MAPK pathway inhibition performed by MEK inhibitors. These adverse events should be accounted given the potential to evolve into life-threatening conditions.

The Complex Management of Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer in the COVID-19 Era: Drug Interactions, Thromboembolic Risk, and Proarrhythmia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiotoxicity by anticancer agents has emerged as a multifaceted issue and is expected to affect both mortality and morbidity. This review summarizes clinical challenges in the management of oncological patients requiring anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation (AF) also considering the current outbreak of the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, since this infection can add challenges to the management of both conditions. Specifically, the aims are manyfold: (1) describe the evolving use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in AF patients with cancer; (2) critically appraise the risk of clinically important drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between DOACs and oral targeted anticancer agents; (3) address expected DDIs between DOACs and candidate anti-COVID drugs, with implications on management of the underlying thrombotic risk; and (4) characterize the proarrhythmic liability in cardio-oncology in the setting of COVID-19, focusing on QT prolongation. RECENT FINDINGS: AF in cardio-oncology poses diagnostic and management challenges, also due to the number of anticancer drugs recently associated with AF onset/worsening. Oral targeted drugs can potentially interact with DOACs, with increased bleeding risk mainly due to pharmacokinetic DDIs. Moreover, the vast majority of oral anticancer agents cause QT prolongation with direct and indirect mechanisms, potentially resulting in the occurrence of torsade de pointes, especially in susceptible patients with COVID-19 receiving additional drugs with QT liability. Oncologists and cardiologists must be aware of the increased bleeding risk and arrhythmic susceptibility of patients with AF and cancer due to DDIs. High-risk individuals with COVID-19 should be prioritized to target preventive strategies, including optimal antithrombotic management, medication review, and stringent monitoring.

Expression of pERK and VEGFR-2 in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and resistance to sorafenib treatment.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The study aimed to evaluate the tissue expression of molecules involved in intracellular signalling pathways as predictors of response to sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We considered 77 patients enrolled into three prospective trials of sorafenib treatment for whom pretreatment tumour tissue was available. The tissue expression of ß-catenin, glutamine synthetase (GS), phosphorylated extracellular signal regulated kinase (pERK), phosphorylated v-akt murine thymoma viral oncogene homolog (pAKT) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) was analysed by immunostaining. Stains were scored semiquantitatively and compared with a reference group of 56 untreated HCCs. RESULTS: Overall, the expression of antigens was comparable between treated and untreated patients. Shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were associated with increased pERK staining (≥ 2+ scores) (PFS: 75th percentile 4.4 vs 8.4 months; P = 0.01; OS: 75th percentile 7.0 vs 15.0 months; P = 0.005) and VEGFR-2 staining (≥ 2+ scores) (PFS: 75th percentile 3.8 vs 7.0 months; P = 0.039; OS: 75th percentile 6.3 vs 15.0 months; P = 0.004). At multivariate analysis, both pERK and VEGFR-2 staining maintained an independent effect on OS (HR 2.09; 95% CI, 1.13-3.86, P = 0.019 and HR 2.28; 95% CI, 1.13-4.61, P = 0.021 respectively). No effect was observed for the other tested biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated tissue expression of pERK and VEGFR-2 was predictive of poor outcome in advanced HCC treated with sorafenib.

Tivantinib for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Tivantinib (ARQ 197), a selective oral inhibitor of MET, has shown promising antitumour activity in hepatocellular carcinoma as monotherapy and in combination with sorafenib. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of tivantinib for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this completed, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who had progressed on or were unable to tolerate first-line systemic therapy. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive tivantinib (360 mg twice-daily) or placebo until disease progression. The tivantinib dose was amended to 240 mg twice-daily because of high incidence of treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse neutropenia. Randomisation was done centrally by an interactive voice-response system, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was time to progression, according to independent radiological review in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed tumour samples for MET expression with immunohistochemistry (high expression was regarded as ≥2+ in ≥50% of tumour cells). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00988741. FINDINGS: 71 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivantinib (38 at 360 mg twice-daily and 33 at 240 mg twice-daily); 36 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo. At the time of analysis, 46 (65%) patients in the tivantinib group and 26 (72%) of those in the placebo group had progressive disease. Time to progression was longer for patients treated with tivantinib (1·6 months [95% CI 1·4-2·8]) than placebo (1·4 months [1·4-1·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·64, 90% CI 0·43-0·94; p=0·04). For patients with MET-high tumours, median time to progression was longer with tivantinib than for those on placebo (2·7 months [95% CI 1·4-8·5] for 22 MET-high patients on tivantinib vs 1·4 months [1·4-1·6] for 15 MET-high patients on placebo; HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·19-0·97; p=0·03). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the tivantinib group were neutropenia (ten patients [14%] vs none in the placebo group) and anaemia (eight [11%] vs none in the placebo group). Eight patients (21%) in the tivantinib 360 mg group had grade 3 or worse neutropenia compared with two (6%) patients in the 240 mg group. Four deaths related to tivantinib occurred from severe neutropenia. 24 (34%) patients in the tivantinib group and 14 (39%) patients in the placebo group had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Tivantinib could provide an option for second-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and well-compensated liver cirrhosis, particularly for patients with MET-high tumours. Confirmation in a phase 3 trial is needed, with a starting dose of tivantinib 240 mg twice-daily. FUNDING: ArQule, Daiichi Sankyo (Daiichi Sankyo Group).

Pain outcomes in patients with advanced breast cancer and bone metastases: results from a randomized, double-blind study of denosumab and zoledronic acid.

BACKGROUND: In this study, the authors evaluated the effect of denosumab versus zoledronic acid (ZA) on pain in patients with advanced breast cancer and bone metastases. METHODS: The prevention of pain, reduction in pain interference with daily life activities, and the proportion of patients requiring strong opioid analgesics were assessed in a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy phase 3 study comparing denosumab with ZA for preventing skeletal-related events in 2046 patients who had breast cancer and bone metastases. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at baseline and monthly thereafter. RESULTS: Fewer patients who received denosumab reported a clinically meaningful worsening of pain severity (≥2-point increase) from baseline compared with patients who received ZA, and a trend was observed toward delayed time to pain worsening with denosumab versus ZA (denosumab, 8.5 months; ZA, 7.4 months; P = .08). In patients who had no/mild pain at baseline, a 4-month delay in progression to moderate/severe pain was observed with denosumab compared with ZA (9.7 months vs 5.8 months; P = .002). Denosumab delayed the time to increased pain interference by approximately 1 month compared with ZA (denosumab, 16.0 months; ZA, 14.9 months; P = .09). The time to pain improvement (P = .72) and the time to decreased pain interference (P = .92) were similar between the groups. Fewer denosumab-treated patients reported increased analgesic use from no/low use at baseline to strong opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab demonstrated improved pain prevention and comparable pain palliation compared with ZA. In addition, fewer denosumab-treated patients shifted to strong opioid analgesic use.

A phase II randomized dose escalation trial of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib has proven survival benefits in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The viability of continuing sorafenib at a higher dosage in patients who experienced radiologic disease progression was investigated. METHODS: Patients who experienced disease progression while on sorafenib 400 mg twice daily were randomized to sorafenib 600 mg twice daily (n = 49) or best supportive care (n = 52). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Time to progression, overall survival, and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: The study did not meet its primary end point. The difference in PFS between the sorafenib arm (3.91 months) and the best supportive care arm (2.69 months) did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.086). Adverse events were mainly grade 1-2 and similar across both groups. In the sorafenib arm, the most frequent events were diarrhea (80%), weight loss (75%), fatigue (67%), hand-foot-skin reaction (49%), abdominal pain (37%), and stomatitis (26%). CONCLUSIONS: Escalated-dose sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC who progressed while on sorafenib, failed to provide any clinical benefit. Second-line treatment still remains an open issue to be explored in appropriate clinical trials.

Phase I Study of Lysine-Specific Demethylase 1 Inhibitor, CC-90011, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors and Relapsed/Refractory Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1) is implicated in multiple tumor types, and its expression in cancer stem cells is associated with chemoresistance. CC-90011 is a potent, selective, and reversible oral LSD1 inhibitor. We examined CC-90011 in advanced solid tumors and relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: CC-90011-ST-001 (NCT02875223; 2015-005243-13) is a phase I, multicenter, first-in-human dose-escalation study. Nine dose levels of CC-90011 (1.25-120 mg) given once per week were explored. Primary objectives were to determine safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and/or recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives were to evaluate preliminary efficacy and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled, 49 with solid tumors (27 neuroendocrine tumors/carcinomas) and 1 with R/R NHL. Median age was 61 years (range, 22-75). Patients received a median of three (range, 1-9) prior anticancer regimens. The RP2D was 60 mg once per week; the nontolerated dose (NTD) and MTD were 120 mg once per week and 80 mg once per week, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities were thrombocytopenia (20%; an on-target effect unassociated with clinically significant bleeding), neutropenia (8%; in the context of thrombocytopenia at the highest doses), and fatigue (2%). The patient with R/R NHL had a complete response, currently ongoing in cycle 34, and 8 patients with neuroendocrine tumors/carcinomas had stable disease ≥6 months, including bronchial neuroendocrine tumors, kidney tumor, and paraganglioma. CONCLUSIONS: CC-90011 is well tolerated, with the RP2D established as 60 mg once per week. The MTD and NTD were determined to be 80 mg once per week and 120 mg once per week, respectively. Further evaluation of CC-90011 is warranted.

Evolution of cystic airspaces lung lesions on immune checkpoint inhibition in non-small cell lung cancer.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can be associated with pulmonary cystic airspaces (pCAs). pCAs are radiologically classified into four types based on whether the nodule or mass extrudes the wall of the pCAs. In most cases, response evaluation of these lesions by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) V.1.1 is challenging. Based on the observation of a case of morphological evolution of pCAs associated with NSCLC in a patient receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), we reviewed retrospectively imaging scans of 92 consecutive advanced patients with NSCLC treated at our institution. Overall, three cases of pCAs associated with NSCLC obtained a remarkable change following ICI. Of note, these changes were not always seen in the context of a clear radiological objective response. The morphological changes observed may reflect a novel pattern of response to immunotherapy agents that clinicians should be aware of. This pattern of response, not reported before, warrants further investigation and, if confirmed, we believe that it should be considered in future version of immune RECIST.

Nivolumab Monotherapy and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Recurrent Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CheckMate 032 Randomized Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab monotherapy is approved in the United States for third-line or later metastatic small cell lung cancer based on pooled data from nonrandomized and randomized cohorts of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 trial of nivolumab ± ipilimumab (CheckMate 032; NCT01928394). We report updated results, including long-term overall survival (OS), from the randomized cohort. METHODS: Patients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression after one to two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 3:2 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Overall, 147 patients received nivolumab and 96 nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Minimum follow-up for ORR/progression-free survival/safety was 11.9 months (nivolumab) and 11.2 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). ORR increased with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (21.9% versus 11.6% with nivolumab; odds ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-4.26; p = 0.03). For long-term OS, minimum follow-up was 29.0 months (nivolumab) versus 28.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab); median (95% confidence interval) OS was 5.7 (3.8-7.6) versus 4.7 months (3.1-8.3). Twenty-four-month OS rates were 17.9% (nivolumab) and 16.9% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 12.9% (nivolumab) versus 37.5% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and treatment-related deaths were n =1 versus n = 3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas ORR (primary endpoint) was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab, OS was similar between groups. In each group, OS remained encouraging with long-term follow-up. Toxicities were more common with combination therapy versus nivolumab monotherapy.

A Phase 1 Study of mTORC1/2 Inhibitor BI 860585 as a Single Agent or with Exemestane or Paclitaxel in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

This phase 1 trial (NCT01938846) determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the mTOR serine/threonine kinase inhibitor, BI 860585, as monotherapy and with exemestane or paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors. This 3+3 dose-escalation study assessed BI 860585 monotherapy (5-300 mg/day; Arm A), BI 860585 (40-220 mg/day; Arm B) with 25 mg/day exemestane, and BI 860585 (80-220 mg/day; Arm C) with 60-80 mg/m2/week paclitaxel, in 28-day cycles. Primary endpoints were the number of patients with dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in cycle 1 and the MTD. Forty-one, 25, and 24 patients were treated (Arms A, B, and C). DLTs were observed in four (rash (n = 2), elevated alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase, diarrhea), four (rash (n = 3), stomatitis, and increased gamma-glutamyl transferase), and two (diarrhea, increased blood creatine phosphokinase) patients in cycle 1. The BI 860585 MTD was 220 mg/day (Arm A) and 160 mg/day (Arms B and C). Nine patients achieved an objective response (Arm B: Four partial responses (PRs); Arm C: Four PRs; one complete response). The disease control rate was 20%, 28%, and 58% (Arms A, B, and C). The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were hyperglycemia (54%) and diarrhea (39%) (Arm A); diarrhea (40%) and stomatitis (40%) (Arm B); fatigue (58%) and diarrhea (58%) (Arm C). The MTD was determined in all arms. Antitumor activity was observed with BI 860585 monotherapy and in combination with exemestane or paclitaxel.

Phase II multicenter, uncontrolled trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

This trial was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with metastatic breast cancer. In this multinational, open-label phase II study, patients with metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after at least one prior chemotherapy regimen were continuously treated with oral sorafenib, 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was overall best response; a secondary endpoint was percentage of patients with stable disease for greater than or equal to 16 weeks. Biomarker analysis were also performed. Of the 56 patients enrolled into the study, 54 were treated with at least one dose of sorafenib. Partial response was observed in one patient (2%) and stable disease in 20 patients (37%); no complete responses were observed. Disease stabilization for greater than or equal to 16 weeks was seen in 12 patients (22%); stabilization for greater than or equal to 6 months in seven patients (13%). The most common drug-related grade 3 adverse events were rash/desquamation (6%), hand-foot skin reaction (4%), and fatigue (4%). Baseline vascular endothelial growth factor levels, levels of soluble epidermal growth factor receptor during treatment and both baseline and changes in soluble human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 levels correlated significantly with clinical outcomes. Although the primary endpoint of overall response rate showed minimal improvement on sorafenib 400 mg twice-daily treatment, the rate of disease stabilization was encouraging in patients treated with one or more lines of chemotherapy. The treatment had a clinically manageable toxicity profile. Further investigation of single-agent sorafenib in this patient population is not recommended; however, studies investigating combinations of sorafenib with chemotherapeutic agents are warranted and ongoing.

A first-in-human phase I study of SAR125844, a selective MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumours with MET amplification.

PURPOSE: Dysregulated MET signalling is implicated in oncogenesis. The safety and preliminary efficacy of a highly selective MET kinase inhibitor (SAR125844) was investigated in patients with advanced solid tumours and MET dysregulation. METHODS: This was a phase I dose-escalation (3 + 3 design [50-740 mg/m2]) and dose-expansion study. In the dose escalation, patients had high total MET (t-MET) expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or MET amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. In the dose expansion, patients had MET amplification (including a subset of patients with non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC]) or phosphorylated-MET (p-MET) expression (IHC). Objectives were determination of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of once-weekly intravenous SAR125844 based on dose-limiting toxicities; safety and pharmacokinetic profile; preliminary efficacy of SAR125844 MTD in the expansion cohort. RESULTS: In total, 72 patients were enrolled: dose escalation, N = 33; dose expansion, N = 39; 570 mg/m2 was established as the MTD. Most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were asthenia/fatigue (58.3%), nausea (31.9%), and abdominal pain, constipation, and dyspnea (27.8% for each); 58.3% of patients reported grade 3 AEs (19.4% were treatment related). Of the 29 evaluable patients with MET amplification treated at 570 mg/m2, five achieved a partial response, including four of 22 with NSCLC; 17 patients had stable disease. No response was observed in patients with high p-MET solid tumours. There was no correlation between tumour response and t-MET status or MET gene copy number. CONCLUSION: The MTD of once-weekly SAR125844 was 570 mg/m2; SAR125844 was well tolerated, with significant antitumour activity in patients with MET-amplified NSCLC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01391533.

Tumor and circulating biomarkers in patients with second-line hepatocellular carcinoma from the randomized phase II study with tivantinib.

ARQ 197-215 was a randomized placebo-controlled phase II study testing the MET inhibitor tivantinib in second-line hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. It identified tumor MET as a key biomarker in HCC.Aim of this research was to study the prognostic and predictive value of tumor (MET, the receptor tyrosine kinase encoded by the homonymous MNNG-HOS transforming gene) and circulating (MET, hepatocyte growth factor [HGF], alpha-fetoprotein [AFP], vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF]) biomarkers in second-line HCC. Tumor MET-High status was centrally assessed by immunohistochemistry. Circulating biomarkers were centrally analyzed on serum samples collected at baseline and every 4-8 weeks, using medians as cut-off to determine High/Low status. Tumor MET, tested in 77 patients, was more frequently High after (82%) versus before (40%) sorafenib. A significant interaction (p = 0.04) between tivantinib and baseline tumor MET in terms of survival was observed. Baseline circulating MET and HGF (102 patients) High status correlated with shorter survival (HR 0.61, p = 0.03, and HR 0.60, p = 0.02, respectively), while the association between AFP (104 patients) or VEGF (103 patients) status and survival was non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor MET levels were higher in patients treated with sorafenib. Circulating biomarkers such as MET and HGF may be prognostic in second-line HCC. These results need to be confirmed in larger randomized clinical trials.

Hepatic artery administration of docetaxel in liver metastases from breast carcinoma: a feasibility study.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Taxanes are largely metabolized and almost exclusively excreted in the feces by the liver through the biliary pathway, thus providing a rationale for investigating the activity of their hepatic artery delivery in case of liver metastases. STUDY DESIGN: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of administering docetaxel via the hepatic artery in advanced breast cancer patients in whom the liver was the only or the predominant site of metastatic involvement. The dose was increased cycle by cycle in a prospective manner. RESULTS: Ten eligible patients were enrolled. The median administered dose in the last cycle was 65 mg/m2 (range, 40-100 mg/m2). The treatment was generally well tolerated, and only one patient stopped after two cycles because of toxicity. Four of the 9 eligible patients with assessable liver tumors achieved an objective response. After a median follow-up of 41 months, 4 of the 10 eligible (and 11 treated) patients were alive with a median overall survival of 46 months. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of docetaxel via the hepatic artery is feasible. The highly interesting response and survival results observed in this limited series of patients warrant further studies.

Tivantinib, a new option for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma? The experience of Italian centers.

In the last decades the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has undergone significant changes following the introduction of novel therapies such as sorafenib, which have improved patient survival. Nevertheless, HCC is still the third most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide. The evidence-based therapy for advanced HCC that is unsuitable for locoregional treatment is limited to sorafenib, with no second-line option available. This article focuses on the development of the MET inhibitor tivantinib in HCC as a promising treatment option for patients who failed sorafenib. A randomized, placebo-controlled phase II study showed activity of tivantinib in patients with high MET expression. Based on these results, the METIV-HCC phase III study in second-line treatment for MET-high patients was initiated to demonstrate the survival advantage of tivantinib compared to placebo.

Design and development of new combinations of the CMF agents with taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) in advanced breast cancer: a feasibility study.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: We previously designed and tested combinations made up of the CMF agents, two at a time by rotation, and of doxorubicin or epirubicin. The present study was aimed to similarly test new combinations made up of the CMF agents, two at a time by rotation, and paclitaxel or docetaxel. METHODS: The doses of each taxane were escalated with the objective of reaching at least a single dose level of 90 mg/m2 of paclitaxel and 45 mg/m2 of docetaxel on days 1 and 8 of each four-week cycle. Thirty-two patients with advanced breast carcinoma were randomized to receive increasing doses of paclitaxel (45, 65, 80, 90 and 100 mg/m2) or docetaxel (30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 mg/m2) together with the CMF agents at the same dose as that used in the conventional regimen. Each dose level was administered to a triplet of patients. No direct comparison of the two taxanes was made. RESULTS: The fourth dose level was reached for paclitaxel and docetaxel. The most important toxicities were grade 4 neutropenia and grade 1-2 nausea/vomiting and stomatitis. The objective response rate, assessed only after the third cycle at any dose level, was 31% (95% CI, 15-47%). CONCLUSIONS: The combinations of the CMF agents (two at a time in rotation) with paclitaxel (90 mg/m2) or docetaxel (45 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8 of each four-week cycle are feasible and lead to definite signs of therapeutic activity, and the side effects are generally mild. Further studies are therefore warranted.

Pertuzumab monotherapy after trastuzumab-based treatment and subsequent reintroduction of trastuzumab: activity and tolerability in patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab resulted in a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 50% in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -positive breast cancer whose disease progressed during prior trastuzumab-based therapy. To define whether this previously observed encouraging activity was a result of the combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab or of pertuzumab alone, we recruited a third cohort of patients who received pertuzumab without trastuzumab. We then investigated the impact of reintroducing trastuzumab to patients whose disease progressed on pertuzumab monotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with HER2-positive breast cancer whose disease progressed during prior trastuzumab-based therapy received pertuzumab (840 mg loading dose, then 420 mg every 3 weeks) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Seventeen patients with disease progression continued to receive pertuzumab (at the same dose), with the addition of trastuzumab (4 mg/kg loading dose and then 2 mg/kg weekly or 8 mg/kg loading dose and then 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks). RESULTS: All 29 patients enrolled for pertuzumab monotherapy experienced disease progression. The objective response rate (ORR) and CBR were 3.4% and 10.3%, respectively, during pertuzumab monotherapy. With the addition of trastuzumab, the ORR and CBR were 17.6% and 41.2%, respectively. Progression-free survival was longer with combination therapy than pertuzumab monotherapy (17.4 v 7.1 weeks, respectively). Treatment was well tolerated with minimal cardiac dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Although pertuzumab has some activity in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer that progressed during therapy with trastuzumab, the combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab seems to be more active than monotherapy.