Targeting SWI/SNF ATPases in enhancer-addicted prostate cancer.

The switch/sucrose non-fermentable (SWI/SNF) complex has a crucial role in chromatin remodelling1 and is altered in over 20% of cancers2,3. Here we developed a proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) degrader of the SWI/SNF ATPase subunits, SMARCA2 and SMARCA4, called AU-15330. Androgen receptor (AR)+ forkhead box A1 (FOXA1)+ prostate cancer cells are exquisitely sensitive to dual SMARCA2 and SMARCA4 degradation relative to normal and other cancer cell lines. SWI/SNF ATPase degradation rapidly compacts cis-regulatory elements bound by transcription factors that drive prostate cancer cell proliferation, namely AR, FOXA1, ERG and MYC, which dislodges them from chromatin, disables their core enhancer circuitry, and abolishes the downstream oncogenic gene programs. SWI/SNF ATPase degradation also disrupts super-enhancer and promoter looping interactions that wire supra-physiologic expression of the AR, FOXA1 and MYC oncogenes themselves. AU-15330 induces potent inhibition of tumour growth in xenograft models of prostate cancer and synergizes with the AR antagonist enzalutamide, even inducing disease remission in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) models without toxicity. Thus, impeding SWI/SNF-mediated enhancer accessibility represents a promising therapeutic approach for enhancer-addicted cancers.

Development of an orally bioavailable mSWI/SNF ATPase degrader and acquired mechanisms of resistance in prostate cancer.

Mammalian switch/sucrose nonfermentable (mSWI/SNF) ATPase degraders have been shown to be effective in enhancer-driven cancers by functioning to impede oncogenic transcription factor chromatin accessibility. Here, we developed AU-24118, an orally bioavailable proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) degrader of mSWI/SNF ATPases (SMARCA2 and SMARCA4) and PBRM1. AU-24118 demonstrated tumor regression in a model of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) which was further enhanced with combination enzalutamide treatment, a standard of care androgen receptor (AR) antagonist used in CRPC patients. Importantly, AU-24118 exhibited favorable pharmacokinetic profiles in preclinical analyses in mice and rats, and further toxicity testing in mice showed a favorable safety profile. As acquired resistance is common with targeted cancer therapeutics, experiments were designed to explore potential mechanisms of resistance that may arise with long-term mSWI/SNF ATPase PROTAC treatment. Prostate cancer cell lines exposed to long-term treatment with high doses of a mSWI/SNF ATPase degrader developed SMARCA4 bromodomain mutations and ABCB1 (ATP binding cassette subfamily B member 1) overexpression as acquired mechanisms of resistance. Intriguingly, while SMARCA4 mutations provided specific resistance to mSWI/SNF degraders, ABCB1 overexpression provided broader resistance to other potent PROTAC degraders targeting bromodomain-containing protein 4 and AR. The ABCB1 inhibitor, zosuquidar, reversed resistance to all three PROTAC degraders tested. Combined, these findings position mSWI/SNF degraders for clinical translation for patients with enhancer-driven cancers and define strategies to overcome resistance mechanisms that may arise.

Adjuvant everolimus after surgery for renal cell carcinoma (EVEREST): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing resection of renal cell carcinoma are at risk of disease relapse. We evaluated the effectiveness of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus administered after surgery. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults with histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma who had undergone a full surgical resection and were at intermediate-high or very high risk of recurrence at 398 academic and community institution centres in the USA. After nephrectomy, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central web-based application using a dynamic balancing algorithm to receive 10 mg oral everolimus daily or placebo for 54 weeks. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. Efficacy analyses included all eligible, randomly assigned patients; safety analysis included all patients who received treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01120249 and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2011, and Sept 15, 2016, a total of 1545 patients were randomly assigned to receive everolimus (n=775) or placebo (n=770), of whom 755 assigned to everolimus and 744 assigned to placebo were eligible for inclusion in the efficacy analysis. With a median follow-up of 76 months (IQR 61-92), recurrence-free survival was longer with everolimus than with placebo (5-year recurrence-free survival 67% [95% CI 63-70] vs 63% [60-67]; stratified log-rank p=0·050; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·00; p=0·051) but did not meet the prespecified p value for statistical significance of 0·044. Recurrence-free survival was longer with everolimus than with placebo in the very-high-risk group (HR 0·79, 95% CI 0·65-0·97; p=0·022) but not in the intermediate-high-risk group (0·99, 0·73-1·35; p=0·96). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 343 (46%) of 740 patients who received everolimus and 79 (11%) of 723 who received placebo. INTERPRETATION: Postoperative everolimus did not improve recurrence-free survival compared with placebo among patients with renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy. These results do not support the adjuvant use of everolimus for renal cell carcinoma after surgery. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, National Clinical Trials Network, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and The Hope Foundation.

A Phase 1B open-label study of gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents for patients with advanced solid tumours and triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1b study (B2151002) evaluated the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor gedatolisib (PF-05212384) in combination with other anti-tumour agents in advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients with various malignancies were administered gedatolisib (90‒310 mg intravenously every week [QW]) plus docetaxel (arm A) or cisplatin (arm B) (each 75 mg/m2 intravenously Q3W) or dacomitinib (30 or 45 mg/day orally). The safety and tolerability of combination therapies were assessed during dose escalation; objective response (OR) and safety were assessed during dose expansion. RESULTS: Of 110 patients enrolled, 107 received gedatolisib combination treatment. Seven of 70 (10.0%) evaluable patients had dose-limiting toxicities; the most common was grade 3 oral mucositis (n = 3). Based upon reprioritisation of the sponsor's portfolio, dose expansion focused on arm B, gedatolisib (180 mg QW) plus cisplatin in patients (N = 22) with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). OR (95% CI) was achieved in four of ten patients in first-line (overall response rate 40.0% [12.2-73.8%]) and four of 12 in second/third-line (33.3% [9.9-65.1%]) settings. One patient in each TNBC arm (10%, first-line; 8.3%, second/third-line) achieved a complete response. CONCLUSIONS: Gedatolisib combination therapy showed an acceptable tolerability profile, with clinical activity at the recommended Phase 2 dose in patients with TNBC. CLINICAL TRIAL: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01920061.

A Phase 2 Trial of Nab-paclitaxel in Combination With Anti-PD1 Therapy in Advanced Urothelial Cancer.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and nab-paclitaxel have each shown efficacy in platinum-refractory advanced urothelial cancer. We conducted a single-arm phase 2 trial of the combination of nab-paclitaxel and pembrolizumab in platinum-refractory or cisplatin-ineligible advanced urothelial cancer (NCT03240016). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had RECIST 1.1 measurable and cisplatin-ineligible or platinum-refractory advanced urothelial cancer. Patients received nab-paclitaxel at starting dose of 125 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 and pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously on day 1 in 21-day cycles until progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. Nab-paclitaxel was permitted to be discontinued after 6 cycles. The nab-paclitaxel starting dose was reduced to 100 mg/m2 after planned interim analysis. Primary end point was overall response rate by RECIST 1.1. Secondary end points included safety/toxicity, duration of response, progression-free survival), and overall survival. RESULTS: Between February 2018 and April 2021, 36 response-evaluable patients were enrolled. There was an equal split of platinum-refractory and cisplatin-ineligible patients. Confirmed overall response rate was 50.0% (18/36) including 3 complete and 15 partial responses; 31/36 patients experienced some tumor shrinkage. At a median follow-up of 19.7 months, median duration of response was 4.4 months (95% CI: 4.0-8.6), median progression-free survival 6.8 months (95% CI: 4.4-not reached), and median overall survival 18.2 months (95% CI: 10.6-not reached). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 21/36 patients including fatigue (n=6) and anemia (n=4). Ten patients had immune-mediated adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of nab-paclitaxel and pembrolizumab exhibited promising activity in advanced urothelial cancer and warrants further study in this population. After reduction in nab-paclitaxel starting dose, no unanticipated or unexpected toxicities emerged.

Radiogenomic Associations Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: An Exploratory Study.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigates how quantitative texture analysis can be used to non-invasively identify novel radiogenomic correlations with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) biomarkers. METHODS: The Cancer Genome Atlas-Kidney Renal Clear Cell Carcinoma open-source database was used to identify 190 sets of patient genomic data that had corresponding multiphase contrast-enhanced CT images in The Cancer Imaging Archive. 2,824 radiomic features spanning fifteen texture families were extracted from CT images using a custom-built MATLAB software package. Robust radiomic features with strong inter-scanner reproducibility were selected. Random forest, AdaBoost, and elastic net machine learning (ML) algorithms evaluated the ability of the selected radiomic features to predict the presence of 12 clinically relevant molecular biomarkers identified from the literature. ML analysis was repeated with cases stratified by stage (I/II vs. III/IV) and grade (1/2 vs. 3/4). 10-fold cross validation was used to evaluate model performance. RESULTS: Before stratification by tumor grade and stage, radiomics predicted the presence of several biomarkers with weak discrimination (AUC 0.60-0.68). Once stratified, radiomics predicted KDM5C, SETD2, PBRM1, and mTOR mutation status with acceptable to excellent predictive discrimination (AUC ranges from 0.70 to 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Radiomic texture analysis can potentially identify a variety of clinically relevant biomarkers in patients with ccRCC and may have a prognostic implication.

Cabozantinib in combination with atezolizumab in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from an expansion cohort of a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial (COSMIC-021).

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have few treatment options after novel hormonal therapy (eg, abiraterone or enzalutamide). We aimed to evaluate cabozantinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with immunomodulatory properties, in combination with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: COSMIC-021 is an ongoing, multicentre, open-label, phase 1b study with a dose-escalation stage followed by tumour-specific expansion stages. Expansion cohort 6 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was enrolled at 42 cancer research centres in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with radiographic soft tissue progression following treatment with either enzalutamide or abiraterone, or both; measurable soft tissue disease per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1; and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day and intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg once every 3 weeks. Study treatment continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. All enrolled patients were assessed for efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint was objective response rate per RECIST version 1.1 as assessed by the investigator. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03170960. FINDINGS: Between April 24, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020, 132 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment. At data cutoff (Feb 19, 2021), median duration of follow-up was 15·2 months (IQR 9·6-21·7). Objective response rate was 23% (95% CI 17-32; 31 of 132 patients), with three (2%) confirmed complete responses and 28 (21%) confirmed partial responses. 72 (55%) of 132 patients had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, with the most common being pulmonary embolism (11 [8%] patients), diarrhoea (nine [7%]), fatigue (nine [7%]), and hypertension (nine [7%]). There was one grade 5 treatment-related adverse event (dehydration). 74 (56%) of 132 patients had serious adverse events of any causality. 28 (21%) of 132 patients had treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of either study drug. INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab showed promising antitumour activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after novel hormonal therapy with an acceptable safety profile, supporting further evaluation of this combination. FUNDING: Exelixis.

A comparison of sunitinib with cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of advanced papillary renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: MET (also known as hepatocyte growth factor receptor) signalling is a key driver of papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). Given that no optimal therapy for metastatic PRCC exists, we aimed to compare an existing standard of care, sunitinib, with the MET kinase inhibitors cabozantinib, crizotinib, and savolitinib for treatment of patients with PRCC. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial done in 65 centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic PRCC who had received up to one previous therapy (excluding vascular endothelial growth factor-directed and MET-directed agents). Patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib, or savolitinib, with stratification by receipt of previous therapy and PRCC subtype. All drug doses were administered orally: sunitinib 50 mg, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off (dose reductions to 37·5 mg and 25 mg allowed); cabozantinib 60 mg daily (reductions to 40 mg and 20 mg allowed); crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (reductions to 200 mg twice daily and 250 mg once daily allowed); and savolitinib 600 mg daily (reductions to 400 mg and 200 mg allowed). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Analyses were done in an intention-to-treat population, with patients who did not receive protocol therapy excluded from safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02761057. FINDINGS: Between April 5, 2016, and Dec 15, 2019, 152 patients were randomly assigned to one of four study groups. Five patients were identified as ineligible post-randomisation and were excluded from these analyses, resulting in 147 eligible patients. Assignment to the savolitinib (29 patients) and crizotinib (28 patients) groups was halted after a prespecified futility analysis; planned accrual was completed for both sunitinib (46 patients) and cabozantinib (44 patients) groups. PFS was longer in patients in the cabozantinib group (median 9·0 months, 95% CI 6-12) than in the sunitinib group (5·6 months, 3-7; hazard ratio for progression or death 0·60, 0·37-0·97, one-sided p=0·019). Response rate for cabozantinib was 23% versus 4% for sunitinib (two-sided p=0·010). Savolitinib and crizotinib did not improve PFS compared with sunitinib. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 31 (69%) of 45 patients receiving sunitinib, 32 (74%) of 43 receiving cabozantinib, ten (37%) of 27 receiving crizotinib, and 11 (39%) of 28 receiving savolitinib; one grade 5 thromboembolic event was recorded in the cabozantinib group. INTERPRETATION: Cabozantinib treatment resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sunitinib in patients with metastatic PRCC. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute.

Phase Ia dose escalation study of OBP-801, a cyclic depsipeptide class I histone deacetylase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background Dysregulation of histone deacetylases (HDACs) is common in cancer and is critical to the development and progression of the majority of tumors. This first-in-human Phase Ia study assessed the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of OBP-801, a cyclic depsipeptide class I HDAC inhibitor. Methods Adult patients with advanced solid tumors were treated in 3 dose cohorts (1.0 mg/m2, 2.0 mg/m2 or 2.8 mg/m2) of OBP-801 that was administered via intravenous infusion weekly. Initially, an accelerated titration design was used that was followed by a 3 + 3 dose escalation strategy. Primary objective was assessment of safety. Secondary objectives included determination of PK and objective response rate. Results Seventeen patients were enrolled, of which 8 patients were evaluable for efficacy. Drug-related ≥ Grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events included abdominal pain, anemia, fatigue, gamma glutamyl-transferase increase, hypertriglyceridemia and vomiting. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed in the 1.0 mg/m2 cohort. The PK data showed that OBP-801 and its active metabolite OBP-801-SH exposure increased proportionally and more than proportionally, respectively. No accumulation of either agent was noticed after repeat administration. Best response was stable disease (37.5%), with one patient each in the three cohorts. Conclusion Further investigations of the OBP-801 1.0 mg/m2 dose will be needed to better understand the efficacy of the agent, either alone or in combination. Trial registration: NCT02414516 (ClinicalTrials.gov) registered on April 10, 2015.

Phase 1 study to evaluate the effects of rifampin on pharmacokinetics of pevonedistat, a NEDD8-activating enzyme inhibitor in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Pevonedistat (TAK-924/MLN4924) is an investigational small molecule inhibitor of the NEDD8-activating enzyme that has demonstrated clinical activity across solid tumors and hematological malignancies. Here we report the results of a phase 1 study evaluating the effect of rifampin, a strong CYP3A inducer, on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of pevonedistat in patients with advanced solid tumors (NCT03486314). Patients received a single 50 mg/m2 pevonedistat dose via a 1-h infusion on Days 1 (in the absence of rifampin) and 10 (in the presence of rifampin), and daily oral dosing of rifampin 600 mg on Days 3-11. Twenty patients were enrolled and were evaluable for PK and safety. Following a single dose of pevonedistat at 50 mg/m2, the mean terminal half-life of pevonedistat was 5.7 and 7.4 h in the presence and in the absence of rifampin, respectively. The geometric mean AUC0-inf of pevonedistat in the presence of rifampin was 79% of that without rifampin (90% CI: 69.2%-90.2%). The geometric mean Cmax of pevonedistat in the presence of rifampin was similar to that in the absence of rifampin (96.2%; 90% CI: 79.2%-117%). Coadministration of pevonedistat with rifampin, a strong metabolic enzyme inducer, did not result in clinically meaningful decreases in systemic exposures of pevonedistat. The study results support the recommendation that no pevonedistat dose adjustment is needed for patients receiving concomitant CYP3A inducers. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03486314.

A phase 1 study to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, and anti-tumor activity of the androgen receptor n-terminal domain inhibitor epi-506 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: EPI-506 is the first of a new class of drugs targeting the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the androgen receptor (AR), potentially overcoming known resistance mechanisms to androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) among men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: Patients with mCRPC who had progressed on prior ARPI were enrolled in this phase 1 open-label, adaptive 3 + 3 dose escalation study. The primary outcome was safety and tolerability of oral EPI-506. Secondary objectives included determination of the maximal tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetic profile, and antitumor efficacy. RESULTS: 28 mCRPC patients were enrolled into 7 dose cohorts of EPI-506 ranging from 80-3600 mg given once daily and 1800 mg given twice daily. Six DLTs occurred in 4 patients; Grade 4 elevated amylase; Grade 3 abdominal pain; Grade 3 elevated ALT and Grade 3 elevated AST; Grade 2 nausea and Grade 1 vomiting which resulted in study drug intake of < 75% of the expected dose during the DLT assessment period. The most common drug-related adverse events included diarrhea, nausea and fatigue. Six patients had a PSA decline not meeting PSA response criteria. The study was terminated prior to reaching the MTD due to poor oral bioavailability. CONCLUSIONS: This phase 1 trial established the safety of EPI-506 and provides proof of concept for targeting the AR NTD. Next generation compounds with improved bioavailability and potency are in clinical development.

Discrepancies between genitourinary cancer patients' and clinicians' characterization of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes have been used to assess treatment effectiveness and actively engage patients in their disease management. This study was designed to describe the patient-reported performance status (PS) and the provider-reported PS. METHODS: Patients with metastatic genitourinary cancers were recruited from a single cancer center before the initiation of a new line of treatment. PS (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG]), quality of life (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-General), and distress (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety and Depression) were self-reported by patients. Clinical data (eg, age, sex, diagnosis, and physician-reported ECOG PS) were extracted from medical records. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the association between PS, quality of life, and psychological symptoms. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five patients were enrolled (76.6% male, 70.3% White, 81.4% married, and 76.6% well educated). The median age was 67 years; 66.9% were diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma, 20.0% were diagnosed with urothelial carcinoma, and 13.1% were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Clinicians more frequently classified patients' ECOG PS as 0 in comparison with the patients themselves (92.4% vs 64.1%; P = .001). Higher clinician-reported ECOG PS was associated with poorer physical and functional well-being and higher rates of depression (P < .01), whereas higher patient-reported ECOG PS was associated with worse psychosocial outcomes (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies were noted between the patient- and provider-reported ECOG PS, with clinicians overestimating the ECOG PS in comparison with the patients themselves. This study's findings suggest that patients incorporate their social and emotional well-being into their PS score in addition to their physical well-being. This information is not immediately accessible to most clinicians from just a standard patient interview and likely accounts for the overestimation of the patients' ECOG PS by the clinicians.

Active surveillance of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from a prospective observational study (MaRCC).

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow-growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient-related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2-sample rank-sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess survival. RESULTS: Of 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25-44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST. CONCLUSIONS: AS occurs frequently (32%) in real-world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.

Genetic risk assessment for hereditary renal cell carcinoma: Clinical consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Although renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is believed to have a strong hereditary component, there is a paucity of published guidelines for genetic risk assessment. A panel of experts was convened to gauge current opinions. METHODS: A North American multidisciplinary panel with expertise in hereditary RCC, including urologists, medical oncologists, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, and patient advocates, was convened. Before the summit, a modified Delphi methodology was used to generate, review, and curate a set of consensus questions regarding RCC genetic risk assessment. Uniform consensus was defined as ≥85% agreement on particular questions. RESULTS: Thirty-three panelists, including urologists (n = 13), medical oncologists (n = 12), genetic counselors and clinical geneticists (n = 6), and patient advocates (n = 2), reviewed 53 curated consensus questions. Uniform consensus was achieved on 30 statements in specific areas that addressed for whom, what, when, and how genetic testing should be performed. Topics of consensus included the family history criteria, which should trigger further assessment, the need for risk assessment in those with bilateral or multifocal disease and/or specific histology, the utility of multigene panel testing, and acceptance of clinician-based counseling and testing by those who have experience with hereditary RCC. CONCLUSIONS: In the first ever consensus panel on RCC genetic risk assessment, 30 consensus statements were reached. Areas that require further research and discussion were also identified, with a second future meeting planned. This consensus statement may provide further guidance for clinicians when considering RCC genetic risk assessment. LAY SUMMARY: The contribution of germline genetics to the development of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has long been recognized. However, there is a paucity of guidelines to define how and when genetic risk assessment should be performed for patients with known or suspected hereditary RCC. Without guidelines, clinicians struggle to define who requires further evaluation, when risk assessment or testing should be done, which genes should be considered, and how counseling and/or testing should be performed. To this end, a multidisciplinary panel of national experts was convened to gauge current opinion on genetic risk assessment in RCC and to enumerate a set of recommendations to guide clinicians when evaluating individuals with suspected hereditary kidney cancer.

A Phase 1 study of RO6870810, a novel bromodomain and extra-terminal protein inhibitor, in patients with NUT carcinoma, other solid tumours, or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Bromodomain and extra-terminal (BET) proteins are epigenetic readers that can drive carcinogenesis and therapy resistance. RO6870810 is a novel, small-molecule BET inhibitor. METHODS: We conducted a Phase 1 study of RO6870810 administered subcutaneously for 21 or 14 days of 28- or 21-day cycles, respectively, in patients with the nuclear protein of the testis carcinoma (NC), other solid tumours, or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with MYC deregulation. RESULTS: Fatigue (42%), decreased appetite (35%) and injection-site erythema (35%) were the most common treatment-related adverse events. Pharmacokinetic parameters demonstrated linearity over the dose range tested and support once-daily dosing. Pharmacodynamic assessments demonstrated sustained decreases in CD11b levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Objective response rates were 25% (2/8), 2% (1/47) and 11% (2/19) for patients with NC, other solid tumours and DLBCL, respectively. Responding tumours had evidence of deregulated MYC expression. CONCLUSIONS: This trial establishes the safety, favourable pharmacokinetics, evidence of target engagement and preliminary single-agent activity of RO6870810. Responses in patients with NC, other solid tumours and DLBCL provide proof-of-principle for BET inhibition in MYC-driven cancers. The results support further exploration of RO6870810 as monotherapy and in combinations. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01987362.

Phase 1 study of single-agent WNT974, a first-in-class Porcupine inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1 study assessed the safety and efficacy of the Porcupine inhibitor, WNT974, in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients (n = 94) received oral WNT974 at doses of 5-30 mg once-daily, plus additional dosing schedules. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated dose was not established; the recommended dose for expansion was 10 mg once-daily. Dysgeusia was the most common adverse event (50% of patients), likely resulting from on-target Wnt pathway inhibition. No responses were seen by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1; 16% of patients had stable disease (median duration 19.9 weeks). AXIN2 expression by RT-PCR was reduced in 94% of paired skin biopsies (n = 52) and 74% of paired tumour biopsies (n = 35), confirming inhibition of the Wnt pathway. In an exploratory analysis, an inverse association was observed between AXIN2 change and immune signature change in paired tumour samples (n = 8). CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent WNT974 treatment was generally well tolerated. Biomarker analyses suggest that WNT974 may influence immune cell recruitment to tumours, and may enhance checkpoint inhibitor activity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01351103.

Clinical Activity and Safety of Cediranib and Olaparib Combination in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma without BRCA Mutation.

LESSONS LEARNED: Cediranib and olaparib combination did not result in clinically meaningful activity in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma without known BRCA mutation. BACKGROUND: Cediranib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, suppresses expression of BRCA1/2 and RAD51 inducing homologous recombination DNA repair deficiency (HRD) in several cancer cell lines and xenograft models [1]. Olaparib provides a clinical benefit in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) with germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmt) [2]. We hypothesized that cediranib induces HRD in the absence of gBRCAmt and synergizes with olaparib, resulting in an objective response in patients with mPDAC. METHODS: Patients with mPDAC with at least one prior systemic chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients with known gBRCAmt were excluded. Patients took cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib 200 mg twice daily, orally. The primary endpoint was objective response (OR) rate. RESULTS: Nineteen patients received the study drugs. Seven patients came off treatment before the first restaging scan: six because of clinical progression and one because of an adverse event. No OR was observed. Six patients had stable disease (SD) as a best overall response. The median duration of SD was 3.1 months. The median overall survival was 3.4 months. Common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, hypertension, and diarrhea. CONCLUSION: Cediranib and olaparib combination did not result in clinically meaningful activity in patients with mPDAC without gBRCAmt.

Efficacy of Platinum Rechallenge in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma After Previous Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for Metastatic Disease.

BACKGROUND: Fit patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) receive first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy (fPBC) as standard of care and may receive additional later-line chemotherapy after progression. Our study compares outcomes with subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy (sPBC) versus subsequent non-platinum-based chemotherapy (sNPBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from 27 international centers in the Retrospective International Study of Cancers of the Urothelium (RISC) who received fPBC for mUC and at least two cycles of subsequent chemotherapy were included in this study. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients received sPBC and 161 received sNPBC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except patients who received sPBC had higher baseline hemoglobin, higher disease control rate with fPBC, and longer time since fPBC. OS was superior in the sPBC group (median 7.9 vs 5.5 months) in a model adjusting for comorbidity burden, performance status, liver metastases, number of fPBC cycles received, best response to fPBC, and time since fPBC (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.98; p = .035). There was no difference in PFS. More patients in the sPBC group achieved disease control than in the sNPBC group (57.4% vs 44.8%; p = .041). Factors associated with achieving disease control in the sPBC group but not the sNPBC group included longer time since fPBC, achieving disease control with fPBC, and absence of liver metastases. CONCLUSION: After receiving fPBC for mUC, patients who received sPBC had better OS and disease control. This may help inform the choice of subsequent chemotherapy in patients with mUC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with progressive metastatic urothelial carcinoma after first-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy may now receive immuno-oncology agents, erdafitinib, enfortumab vedotin, or sacituzumab govitecan-hziy; however, those ineligible for these later-line therapies or who progress after receiving them may be considered for subsequent chemotherapy. In this retrospective study of 296 patients, survival outcomes and disease control rates were better in those receiving subsequent platinum-based rechallenge compared with non-platinum-based chemotherapy, suggesting that patients should receive platinum rechallenge if clinically able. Disease control with platinum rechallenge was more likely with prior first-line platinum having achieved disease control, longer time since first-line platinum, and absence of liver metastases.

The effect of sonidegib (LDE225) on the pharmacokinetics of bupropion and warfarin in patients with advanced solid tumours.

AIMS: We evaluated the potential effect of sonidegib at an oral dose of 800 mg once daily (QD) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the probe drugs warfarin (CYP2C9) and bupropion (CYP2B6). METHODS: This was a multicentre, open-label study to evaluate the effect of sonidegib on the PK of the probe drugs warfarin and bupropion in patients with advanced solid tumours. Cohort 1 patients received a single warfarin 15-mg dose on Day 1 of the run-in period and on Cycle 2 Day 22 (C2D22) of sonidegib administration. Cohort 2 patients received a single bupropion 75-mg dose on Day 1 of run-in period and on C2D22 of sonidegib administration. Sonidegib 800 mg QD oral dosing began on Cycle 1 Day 1 of a 28-day cycle after the run-in period in both cohorts. RESULTS: The geometric means ratios [90% confidence interval] for (S)-warfarin with and without sonidegib were: area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUCinf ) 1.15 [1.07, 1.24] and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) 0.88 [0.81, 0.97]; and for (R)-warfarin were: AUCinf 1.10 [0.98, 1.24] and Cmax 0.93 [0.87, 1.0]. The geometric means ratios [90% confidence interval] of bupropion with and without sonidegib were: AUCinf 1.10 [0.99, 1.23] and Cmax 1.16 [0.95, 1.42]. Sonidegib 800 mg had a safety profile that was similar to that of lower dose sonidegib 200 mg and was unaffected by single doses of the probe drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Sonidegib dosed orally at 800 mg QD (higher than the Food and Drug Administration-approved dose) did not impact the PK or pharmacodynamics of warfarin (CYP2C9 probe substrate) or the PK of bupropion (CYP2B6 probe substrate).