The National Lung Matrix Trial of personalized therapy in lung cancer.

The majority of targeted therapies for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are directed against oncogenic drivers that are more prevalent in patients with light exposure to tobacco smoke1-3. As this group represents around 20% of all patients with lung cancer, the discovery of stratified medicine options for tobacco-associated NSCLC is a high priority. Umbrella trials seek to streamline the investigation of genotype-based treatments by screening tumours for multiple genomic alterations and triaging patients to one of several genotype-matched therapeutic agents. Here we report the current outcomes of 19 drug-biomarker cohorts from the ongoing National Lung Matrix Trial, the largest umbrella trial in NSCLC. We use next-generation sequencing to match patients to appropriate targeted therapies on the basis of their tumour genotype. The Bayesian trial design enables outcome data from open cohorts that are still recruiting to be reported alongside data from closed cohorts. Of the 5,467 patients that were screened, 2,007 were molecularly eligible for entry into the trial, and 302 entered the trial to receive genotype-matched therapy-including 14 that re-registered to the trial for a sequential trial drug. Despite pre-clinical data supporting the drug-biomarker combinations, current evidence shows that a limited number of combinations demonstrate clinically relevant benefits, which remain concentrated in patients with lung cancers that are associated with minimal exposure to tobacco smoke.

Publisher Correction: The National Lung Matrix Trial of personalized therapy in lung cancer.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Monitoring immunE DysregulAtion foLLowing Immune checkpOint-inhibitioN (MEDALLION): protocol for an observational cancer immunotherapy cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are widely used in cancer treatment, with transformative impacts on survival. They nonetheless carry a significant risk of toxicity in the form of immune-related adverse events (IrAEs), which may be sustained and life-altering. IrAEs may require high-dose and/or prolonged steroid use and represent a significant healthcare burden. They mimic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) but understanding of their pathogenesis is limited. The MEDALLION project aims to determine targetable mechanisms of immune dysregulation in IrAE development, employing an immune monitoring approach to determine changes in circulating and tissue resident cells of CPI recipients who do/do not develop them and assessing the contribution of the microbiome in parallel. METHODS: MEDALLION is a non-randomised longitudinal cohort study aiming to recruit 66 cancer patient recipients of anti-PD1/PD-L1, anti-CTLA-4 or combination therapy. Eligible participants include those with malignant melanoma in the adjuvant or metastatic setting, mesothelioma and non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) treated in the metastatic setting. Comprehensive clinical evaluation is carried out alongside blood, skin swab and stool sampling at the time of CPI initiation (baseline) and during subsequent routine hospital visits on 6 occasions over a 10-month follow-up period. It is conservatively anticipated that one third of enrolled patients will experience a "significant IrAE" (SirAE), defined according to pre-determined criteria specific to the affected tissue/organ system. Those developing such toxicity may optionally undergo a biopsy of affected tissue where appropriate, otherwise being managed according to standard of care. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells will be analysed using multi-parameter flow cytometry to investigate immune subsets, their activation status and cytokine profiles. Stool samples and skin swabs will undergo DNA extraction for 16 S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) sequencing and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) gene sequencing to determine bacterial and fungal microbiome diversity, respectively, including species associated with toxicity. Stored tissue biopsies will be available for in situ and single-cell transcriptomic evaluation. Analysis will focus on the identification of biological predictors and precursors of SirAEs. DISCUSSION: The pathogenesis of IrAEs will be assessed through the MEDALLION cohort, with the potential to develop tools for their prediction and/or strategies for targeted prevention or treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on 18/09/2023 in the ISRCTN registry (43,419,676).

Abemaciclib in patients with p16ink4A-deficient mesothelioma (MiST2): a single-arm, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Genetically stratified therapy for malignant mesothelioma is unavailable. Mesotheliomas frequently harbour loss of the chromosome 9p21.3 locus (CDKN2A-MTAP), which is associated with shorter overall survival due to loss of the tumour suppressor p16ink4A, an endogenous suppressor of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4 and CDK6. Genetic restoration of p16ink4A suppresses mesothelioma in preclinical models, underpinning the rationale for targeting CDK4 and CDK6 in p16ink4A-negative mesothelioma. We developed a multicentre, stratified, phase 2 trial to test this hypothesis. METHODS: The MiST2 study was a single-arm, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial done two UK centres. Patients older than 18 years with any histologically confirmed subtype of mesothelioma (pleural or peritoneal) with radiological progression after at least one course of platinum-based chemotherapy were molecularly screened by immunohistochemistry for p16ink4A. Patients with p16ink4A-negative mesothelioma were eligible for inclusion in the study. Patients were required to have measurable disease by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 for malignant mesothelioma, a predicted life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1. Patients received oral abemaciclib 200 mg twice daily, administered in 28-day cycles for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the disease control rate (patients with complete responses, partial responses, or stable disease) at 12 weeks. The null hypothesis could be rejected if at least 11 patients had disease control. The efficacy and safety populations were defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03654833, and is ongoing (but MiST2 is now closed). FINDINGS: Between Sept 31, 2019, and March 2, 2020, 27 eligible patients consented to molecular screening. The median follow-up was 18·4 weeks (IQR 6·7-23·9). One patient was excluded before treatment because of a serious adverse event before study drug allocation. 26 (100%) of 26 treated patients were p16ink4A deficient and received at least one dose of abemaciclib. Disease control at 12 weeks was reported in 14 (54%) of 26 patients (95% CI 36-71). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events (of any cause) occurred in eight (27%) of 26 patients (diarrhoea, dyspnoea, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, urinary tract infection, increased alanine aminotransferase, ascites, chest infection or suspected chest infection, neutropenic sepsis, alopecia, blood clot left calf, fall [broken neck and collar bone], haemoptysis, lower respiratory tract infection, and pulmonary embolism). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in three (12%) of 26 patients (diarrhoea, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, increased alanine aminotransferase, and pulmonary embolism). Serious adverse events occurred in six (23%) of 26 patients, leading to treatment discontinuation in one (4%) patient (diarrhoea, urinary tract infection, chest infection, neutropenic sepsis, fall [broken neck and collar bone], haemoptysis, lower respiratory tract infection, and pulmonary embolism). One patient had a serious adverse event related to abemaciclib (diarrhoea). One (4%) of 26 patients died from an adverse event (neutropenic sepsis). INTERPRETATION: This study met its primary endpoint, showing promising clinical activity of abemaciclib in patients with p16ink4A-negative mesothelioma who were previously treated with chemotherapy, and warrants its further investigation in a randomised study as a targeted stratified therapy. FUNDING: University of Leicester, Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation Partnership, and the Victor Dahdaleh Foundation.

Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with relapsed, mesothelin-positive malignant pleural mesothelioma (ARCS-M): a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few treatment options exist for second-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease overexpressing mesothelin who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomised, open-label study, done at 76 hospitals in 14 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic malignant pleural mesothelioma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Participants were prospectively screened for mesothelin overexpression (defined as 2+ or 3+ mesothelin membrane staining intensity on at least 30% of viable tumour cells by immunohistochemistry) and were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive voice and web response system provided by the sponsor, to receive intravenous anetumab ravtansine (6·5 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) or intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 once every week) until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to blinded central radiology review, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with safety assessed in all participants who received any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02610140, and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2015, and May 31, 2017, 589 patients were enrolled and 248 mesothelin-overexpressing patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups (166 patients were randomly assigned to receive anetumab ravtansine and 82 patients were randomly assigned to receive vinorelbine). 105 (63%) of 166 patients treated with anetumab ravtansine (median follow-up 4·0 months [IQR 1·4-5·5]) versus 43 (52%) of 82 patients treated with vinorelbine (3·9 months [1·4-5·4]) had disease progression or died (median progression-free survival 4·3 months [95% CI 4·1-5·2] vs 4·5 months [4·1-5·8]; hazard ratio 1·22 [0·85-1·74]; log-rank p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (one [1%] of 163 patients for anetumab ravtansine vs 28 [39%] of 72 patients for vinorelbine), pneumonia (seven [4%] vs five [7%]), neutrophil count decrease (two [1%] vs 12 [17%]), and dyspnoea (nine [6%] vs three [4%]). Serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12 (7%) patients treated with anetumab ravtansine and 11 (15%) patients treated with vinorelbine. Ten (6%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred with anetumab ravtansine: pneumonia (three [2%]), dyspnoea (two [1%]), sepsis (two [1%]), atrial fibrillation (one [1%]), physical deterioration (one [1%]), hepatic failure (one [1%]), mesothelioma (one [1%]), and renal failure (one [1%]; one patient had 3 events). One (1%) treatment-emergent death occurred in the vinorelbine group (pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Anetumab ravtansine showed a manageable safety profile and was not superior to vinorelbine. Further studies are needed to define active treatments in relapsed mesothelin-expressing malignant pleural mesothelioma. FUNDING: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.

Randomised controlled trial of intermittent vs continuous energy restriction during chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Excess adiposity at diagnosis and weight gain during chemotherapy is associated with tumour recurrence and chemotherapy toxicity. We assessed the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) vs continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight control and toxicity reduction during chemotherapy. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-two women were randomised to follow IER or CER throughout adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were weight and body fat change. Secondary endpoints included chemotherapy toxicity, cardiovascular risk markers, and correlative markers of metabolism, inflammation and oxidative stress. RESULTS: Primary analyses showed non-significant reductions in weight (-1.1 (-2.4 to +0.2) kg, p = 0.11) and body fat (-1.0 (-2.1 to +0.1) kg, p = 0.086) in IER compared with CER. Predefined secondary analyses adjusted for body water showed significantly greater reductions in weight (-1.4 (-2.5 to -0.2) kg, p = 0.024) and body fat (-1.1 (-2.1 to -0.2) kg, p = 0.046) in IER compared with CER. Incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities were comparable overall (IER 31.0 vs CER 36.5%, p = 0.45) with a trend to fewer grade 3/4 toxicities with IER (18%) vs CER (31%) during cycles 4-6 of primarily taxane therapy (p = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS: IER is feasible during chemotherapy. The potential efficacy for weight control and reducing toxicity needs to be tested in future larger trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN04156504.

The Clinical Frailty Scale can indicate prognosis and care requirements on discharge in oncology and haemato-oncology inpatients: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Routinely used performance status scales, assessing patients' suitability for cancer treatment, have limited ability to account for multimorbidity, frailty and cognition. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a suggested alternative, but research detailing its use in oncology is limited. This study aims to evaluate if CFS is associated with prognosis and care needs on discharge in oncology inpatients. METHODS: We evaluated a large, single-centre cohort study in this research. CFS was recorded for adult inpatients at a Regional Cancer Centre. The associations between CFS, age, tumour type, discharge destination and care requirements and survival were evaluated. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A total of 676 patients were included in the study. Levels of frailty were high (Median CFS 6, 81.8% scored ≥5) and CFS correlated with performance status (R = 0.13: P = 0.047). Patients who were frail (CFS ≥ 5) were less likely to be discharged home (62.9%) compared with those who were not classed as frail (86.1%) (OR 3.6 [95%CI 2.1 to 6.3]: P < 0.001). Higher CFS was significantly associated with poorer prognosis in all ages. Solid organ malignancy (hazard ratio [HR] 2.60 [95%CI 2.05-3.32]) and CFS (HR 1.43 [95%CI 1.29-1.59]; P < 0.001) were independently associated with poorer survival. This study demonstrated that CFS may help predict prognosis in adult oncology inpatients of any age. This may aid informed shared decision-making in this setting. Future work should establish if routine CFS measurement can aid the appropriate prescription of systemic therapy and enable early conversations about discharge planning.

Practical implications to contemplate when considering radical therapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

The type of patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) selected for concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) varies between and within countries, with higher-volume centres treating patients with more co-morbidities and higher-stage disease. However, in spite of these disease characteristics, these patients have improved overall survival, suggesting that there are additional approaches that should be optimised and potentially standardised. This paper aims to review the current knowledge and best practices surrounding treatment for patients eligible for cCRT. Initially, this includes timely acquisition of the full diagnostic workup for the multidisciplinary team to comprehensively assess a patient for treatment, as well as imaging scans, patient history, lung function and genetic tests. Such information can provide prognostic information on how a patient will tolerate their cCRT regimen, and to perhaps limit the use of additional supportive care, such as steroids, which could impact on further treatments, such as immunotherapy. Furthermore, knowledge of the safety profile of individual double-platinum chemotherapy regimens and the technological advances in radiotherapy could aid in optimising patients for cCRT treatment, improving its efficacy whilst minimising its toxicities. Finally, providing patients with preparatory and ongoing support with input from dieticians, palliative care professionals, respiratory and care-of-the-elderly physicians during treatment may also help in more effective treatment delivery, allowing patients to achieve the maximum potential from their treatments.

Immunotherapy in older patients with non-small cell lung cancer: Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology position paper.

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors against programmed cell death receptor (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand (PD-L1) has been implemented in the treatment pathway of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from locally advanced disease to the metastatic setting. This approach has resulted in improved survival and a more favourable toxicity profile when compared with chemotherapy. Following the successful introduction of single-agent immunotherapy, current clinical trials are focusing on combination treatments with chemotherapy or radiotherapy or even other immunotherapeutic agents. However, most of the data available from these trials are derived from, and therefore might be more applicable to younger and fitter patients rather than older and often frail lung cancer real-world patients. This article provides a detailed review of these immunotherapy agents with a focus on the data available regarding older NSCLC patients and makes recommendations to fill evidence gaps in this patient population.

Correction: A case of malignant hyperlactaemic acidosis appearing upon treatment with the mono-carboxylase transporter 1 inhibitor AZD3965.

Since the publication of this paper the authors noticed an error in the listed authors, where Alexandros Siskos was listed as Alexandros Sitkos. This has now been corrected.

A case of malignant hyperlactaemic acidosis appearing upon treatment with the mono-carboxylase transporter 1 inhibitor AZD3965.

A 47-year-old man with metastatic melanoma presented with refractory hyperlactaemic acidosis following the first dose of the mono-carboxylase transporter 1 inhibitor AZD3965 within a "first time in man" clinical trial. The mechanism of the agent and the temporal relationship suggested that this event was potentially drug related and recruitment was suspended. However, urinary metabolomics showed extensive abnormalities even prior to drug administration, leading to investigations for an underlying metabolic disorder. The lack of clinical symptoms from the elevated lactate and low blood glucose suggested a diagnosis of "hyper-Warburgism", where the high tumour burden was associated with extensive glucose uptake and lactate efflux from malignant cells, and the subsequent impact on blood biochemistry. This was supported by an FDG-PET scan showing extensive glucose uptake in numerous metastases and lack of uptake in the brain. A review of the literature showed 16 case reports of "hyper-Warburgism" in non-haematological malignancies, none of them with melanoma, with most associated with a poor outcome. The patient was treated symptomatically, but died 2 months later. The development of AZD3965 continues with the exclusion of patients with elevated plasma lactate at screening added to the protocol as a safety measure.Trial identification number ClinicalTrials.Gov. NCT01791595.

Phase 1/2a trial of intravenous BAL101553, a novel controller of the spindle assembly checkpoint, in advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: BAL101553 (lisavanbulin), the lysine prodrug of BAL27862 (avanbulin), exhibits broad anti-proliferative activity in human cancer models refractory to clinically relevant microtubule-targeting agents. METHODS: This two-part, open-label, phase 1/2a study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of 2-h infusion of BAL101553 in adults with advanced or recurrent solid tumours. The MTD was determined using a modified accelerated titration design in phase I. Patients received BAL101553 at the MTD and at lower doses in the phase 2a expansion to characterise safety and efficacy and to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). RESULTS: Seventy-three patients received BAL101553 at doses of 15-80 mg/m2 (phase 1, n = 24; phase 2a, n = 49). The MTD was 60 mg/m2; DLTs observed at doses ≥60 mg/m2 were reversible Grade 2-3 gait disturbance with Grade 2 peripheral sensory neuropathy. In phase 2a, asymptomatic myocardial injury was observed at doses ≥45 mg/m2. The RP2D for 2-h intravenous infusion was 30 mg/m2. The overall disease control rate was 26.3% in the efficacy population. CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D for 2-h infusion of BAL101553 was well tolerated. Dose-limiting neurological and myocardial side effects were consistent with the agent's vascular-disrupting properties. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2010-024237-23.

Are there socio-economic inequalities in utilization of predictive biomarker tests and biological and precision therapies for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Novel biological and precision therapies and their associated predictive biomarker tests offer opportunities for increased tumor response, reduced adverse effects, and improved survival. This systematic review determined if there are socio-economic inequalities in utilization of predictive biomarker tests and/or biological and precision cancer therapies. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycINFO were searched for peer-reviewed studies, published in English between January 1998 and December 2019. Observational studies reporting utilization data for predictive biomarker tests and/or cancer biological and precision therapies by a measure of socio-economic status (SES) were eligible. Data was extracted from eligible studies. A modified ISPOR checklist for retrospective database studies was used to assess study quality. Meta-analyses were undertaken using a random-effects model, with sub-group analyses by cancer site and drug class. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for each study. Pooled utilization ORs for low versus high socio-economic groups were calculated for test and therapy receipt. RESULTS: Among 10,722 citations screened, 62 papers (58 studies; 8 test utilization studies, 37 therapy utilization studies, 3 studies on testing and therapy, 10 studies without denominator populations or which only reported mean socio-economic status) met the inclusion criteria. Studies reported on 7 cancers, 5 predictive biomarkers tests, and 11 biological and precision therapies. Thirty-eight studies (including 1,036,125 patients) were eligible for inclusion in meta-analyses. Low socio-economic status was associated with modestly lower predictive biomarker test utilization (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.05; 10 studies) and significantly lower biological and precision therapy utilization (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.91; 30 studies). Associations with therapy utilization were stronger in lung cancer (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-1.00; 6 studies), than breast cancer (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78-1.10; 8 studies). The mean study quality score was 6.9/10. CONCLUSIONS: These novel results indicate that there are socio-economic inequalities in predictive biomarker tests and biological and precision therapy utilization. This requires further investigation to prevent differences in outcomes due to inequalities in treatment with biological and precision therapies.

A phase Ib dose-finding, pharmacokinetic study of the focal adhesion kinase inhibitor GSK2256098 and trametinib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Combined focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and MEK inhibition may provide greater anticancer effect than FAK monotherapy. METHODS: This dose-finding phase Ib study (adaptive 3 + 3 design) determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of trametinib and the FAK inhibitor GSK2256098 in combination. Eligible patients had mesothelioma or other solid tumours with probable mitogen activated protein kinase pathway activation. Adverse events (AEs), dose-limiting toxicities, disease progression and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics were analysed. RESULTS: Thirty-four subjects were enrolled. The GSK2256098/trametinib MTDs were 500 mg twice daily (BID)/0.375 mg once daily (QD) (high/low) and 250 mg BID/0.5 mg QD (low/high). The most common AEs were nausea, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, pruritus, fatigue and rash; none were grade 4. Systemic exposure to trametinib increased when co-administered with GSK2256098, versus trametinib monotherapy; GSK2256098 pharmacokinetics were unaffected by concomitant trametinib. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.8 weeks (95% CI: 6.1-24.1) in subjects with mesothelioma and was longer with Merlin-negative versus Merlin-positive tumours (15.0 vs 7.3 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Trametinib exposure increased when co-administered with GSK2256098, but not vice versa. Mesothelioma patients with loss of Merlin had longer PFS than subjects with wild-type, although support for efficacy with this combination was limited. Safety profiles were acceptable up to the MTD.

Phase 1 dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study of eribulin-liposomal formulation in patients with solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: This phase 1 study examined the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of eribulin-liposomal formulation (eribulin-LF) in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Eligible patients with ECOG PS 0-1 were treated with eribulin-LF either on day 1 every 21 days (Schedule 1), or on days 1 and 15 every 28 days (Schedule 2). Doses ranged from 1.0 to 3.5 mg/m2, with dose escalation in a 3 + 3 design. The dose-expansion phase evaluated eribulin-LF in select tumour types. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended dose/schedule of eribulin-LF. RESULTS: Totally, 58 patients were enroled (median age = 62 years). The MTD was 1.4 mg/m2 (Schedule 1) or 1.5 mg/m2 (Schedule 2), the latter dose selected for the dose-expansion phase. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLTs) in Schedule 1: hypophosphatemia and increased transaminase levels. DLTs in Schedule 2: stomatitis, increased alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. The pharmacokinetic profile of eribulin-LF showed a similar half-life to that of eribulin (~30 h), but with a 5-fold greater maximum serum concentration and a 40-fold greater area-under-the-curve. Eribulin-LF demonstrated clinical activity with approximately 10% of patients in both schedules achieving partial responses. CONCLUSIONS: Eribulin-LF was well tolerated with a favourable pharmacokinetic profile. Preliminary evidence of clinical activity in solid tumours was observed.

SELECT-3: a phase I study of selumetinib in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC in the first-line setting.

BACKGROUND: We investigated selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886), an oral, potent, and highly selective, allosteric MEK1/2 inhibitor, plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this Phase I, open-label study (NCT01809210), treatment-naïve patients received selumetinib (50, 75, 100 mg BID PO) plus standard doses of gemcitabine or pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin. Primary objectives were safety, tolerability, and determination of recommended Phase II doses. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients received treatment: selumetinib 50 or 75 mg plus gemcitabine/cisplatin (n=10); selumetinib 50 mg plus gemcitabine/carboplatin (n=9); selumetinib 50, 75 or 100 mg plus pemetrexed/carboplatin (n=21); selumetinib 75 mg plus pemetrexed/cisplatin (n=15). Most frequent adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting. Grade ⩾3 selumetinib-related AEs were reported in 30 (55%) patients. Dose-limiting toxicities (all n=1) were Grade 4 anaemia (selumetinib 75 mg plus gemcitabine/cisplatin), Grade 4 thrombocytopenia/epistaxis and Grade 4 thrombocytopenia (selumetinib 50 mg plus gemcitabine/carboplatin), Grade 4 febrile neutropenia (selumetinib 100 mg plus pemetrexed/carboplatin), and Grade 3 lethargy (selumetinib 75 mg plus pemetrexed/cisplatin). Partial responses were confirmed in 11 (20%) and unconfirmed in 9 (16%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Standard doses of pemetrexed/carboplatin or pemetrexed/cisplatin were tolerated with selumetinib 75 mg BID. The selumetinib plus gemcitabine-containing regimens were not tolerated.

Combining PARP Inhibitors and Androgen Receptor Signalling Inhibitors in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Quantitative Synthesis and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) are established treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with homologous recombination repair (HRR) deficiency after androgen receptor signalling inhibitor (ARSI) failure. New PARPi + ARSI combinations have been tested in all comers, although their clinical relevance in HRR-proficient tumours remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively synthesise evidence from randomised trials assessing the efficacy and safety of PARPi + ARSI combinations for first-line treatment of mCRPC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library databases up to February 28, 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PARPi + ARSI versus placebo + ARSI for first-line treatment of mCRPC were eligible. Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction and assessed the risk of bias, while a third reviewer evaluated the eligibility criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, three phase 3 RCTs were included in the systematic review: PROPEL, MAGNITUDE, and TALAPRO-2. A total of 2601 patients with mCRPC were enrolled. Two of these trials (PROPEL and TALAPRO-2) assessed the radiographic progression-free survival benefit of PARPi + ARSI for first-line treatment of mCRPC, independent of HRR status. The pooled hazard ratio was 0.62 (95% confidence interval 0.53-0.72). The pooled hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.98), indicating a 16% reduction in the risk of death among patients who received the combination. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this meta-analysis support the use of ARSI + PARPi combinations in biomarker-unselected mCRPC. However, such combinations might be less clinically relevant in HRR-proficient cancers, especially considering the change in treatment landscape for mCRPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at outcomes from trials testing combinations of two classes of drugs (PARP inhibitors and ARSI) in advanced prostate cancer. We found that these combinations seem to work regardless of gene mutations identified as biomarkers of response to PARP inhibitors when used on their own.

Histology independent drug development - Is this the future for cancer drugs?

The Cancer Drug Development Forum (CDDF)'s 'Histology independent drug development - is this the future for cancer drugs?' workshop was set up to explore the current landscape of histology independent drug development, review the current regulatory landscape and propose recommendations for improving the conduct of future trials. The first session considered lessons learnt from previous trials, including innovative solutions for reimbursement. The session explored why overall survival represents the most valuable endpoint, and the importance of duration of response, which can be captured with swimmer and spider plots. The second session on biomarker development and treatment optimisation considered current regulations for companion diagnostics, FDA guidance on histology independent drug development in oncology, and the need to establish cut-offs for the biomarker of tumour mutational burden to identify the patients most likely to benefit from PDL1 treatment. The third session reviewed novel trial designs, including basket, umbrella and platform trials, and statistical approaches of hierarchical modelling where homogeneity between study cohorts enables information to be borrowed between cohorts. The discussion highlighted the need to agree 'common assessment standards' to facilitate pooling of data across studies. In the fourth session, the sharing of data sets was recognised as a key step for improving equity of access to precision medicines across Europe. The session considered how the European Health Data Space (EHDS) could streamline access to medical records, emphasizing the importance of introducing greater accountability into the digital space. In conclusion the workshop proposed 11 recommendations to facilitate histology agnostic drug development.

A phase Ib study evaluating the recommended phase II dose, safety, tolerability, and efficacy of mivavotinib in combination with nivolumab in advanced solid tumors.

Mivavotinib (TAK-659/CB-659), a dual SYK/FLT3 inhibitor, reduced immunosuppressive immune cell populations and suppressed tumor growth in combination with anti-PD-1 therapy in cancer models. This dose-escalation/expansion study investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of mivavotinib plus nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients received oral mivavotinib 60-100 mg once-daily plus intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The dose-escalation phase evaluated the recommended phase II dose (RP2D; primary endpoint). The expansion phase evaluated overall response rate (primary end point) at the RP2D in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). During dose-escalation (n = 24), two dose-limiting toxicities (grade 4 lipase increased and grade 3 pyrexia) occurred in patients who received mivavotinib 80 mg and 100 mg, respectively. The determined RP2D was once-daily mivavotinib 80 mg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg. The expansion phase was terminated at ~50% enrollment (n = 17) after failing to meet an ad hoc efficacy futility threshold. Among all 41 patients, common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) included dyspnea (48.8%), aspartate aminotransferase increased, and pyrexia (46.3% each). Common grade ≥3 TEAEs were hypophosphatemia and anemia (26.8% each). Mivavotinib plasma exposure was generally dose-proportional (60-100 mg). One patient had a partial response. Mivavotinib 80 mg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg was well tolerated with no new safety signals beyond those of single-agent mivavotinib or nivolumab. Low response rates highlight the challenges of treating unresponsive tumor types, such as TNBC, with this combination and immunotherapies in general. TRIAL REGISTRATION ID: NCT02834247.

Canakinumab Versus Placebo in Combination With First-Line Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CANOPY-1 Trial.

PURPOSE: The addition of checkpoint inhibitors to first-line treatment has prolonged survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but prognosis remains poor, with new treatment options needed. Canakinumab, a human, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)-1ß antibody, has potential to enhance the activity of PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy (CT) by inhibiting protumor inflammation. METHODS: CANOPY-1 was a phase III, randomized, double-blind study comparing canakinumab (200 mg subcutaneously once every 3 weeks) versus placebo, both combined with pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) and platinum-based doublet CT, as first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 643 patients were randomly assigned to canakinumab (n = 320) or placebo (n = 323). With a median study follow-up of 6.5 months, the median PFS was 6.8 months with canakinumab versus 6.8 months with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.09; P = .102). With a median study follow-up of 21.2 months, the median OS was 20.8 months with canakinumab versus 20.2 months with placebo (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.10; P = .123). No unexpected safety signals were observed for canakinumab combination. Infection rates were comparable between treatment and control arms. A higher frequency of neutropenia and ALT increase (grade ≤2) were reported in the treatment arm. Higher baseline C-reactive protein and IL-6 levels were associated with shorter PFS and OS. Patients treated with canakinumab had clinically meaningful delays in deterioration of lung cancer symptoms, including chest pain and coughing per LC13 and dyspnea per LC13 and C30. CONCLUSION: The addition of canakinumab to first-line pembrolizumab and CT did not prolong PFS or OS in patients with NSCLC.