Synergistic effect of adavosertib and fimepinostat on acute myeloid leukemia cells by enhancing the induction of DNA damage.

In recent years, a number of novel pharmaceutical agents have received approval for the management of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, there is still ample opportunity for enhancing efficacy. The Wee1 inhibitor adavosertib (ADA) shows promise for the treatment of AML. Based on the effect of drugs on DNA damage, we conducted a combination study involving ADA and fimepinostat (CUDC-907), a dual inhibitor of PI3K and histone deacetylase (HDAC). We observed that the combination of CUDC-907 and ADA exhibited a synergistic effect in enhancing the antileukemic activity in both AML cell lines and primary patient samples, demonstrating through flow cytometry analysis and MTT assay, respectively. Additionally, our study revealed that CUDC-907 has the ability to augment ADA-induced DNA damage, as determined by the measurement of γH2AX levels and the implementation of the alkaline comet assay. Through the utilization of western blotting analyses, targeted inhibitors, and ectopic overexpression, we propose that the downregulation of Wee1, CHK1, RNR, and c-Myc are the potential mechanisms. Our data support the development of ADA in combination with CUDC-907 for the treatment of AML.

Pediatric phase 2 trial of a WEE1 inhibitor, adavosertib (AZD1775), and irinotecan for relapsed neuroblastoma, medulloblastoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of the WEE1 kinase by adavosertib (AZD1775) potentiates replicative stress from genomic instability or chemotherapy. This study reports the pediatric solid tumor phase 2 results of the ADVL1312 trial combining irinotecan and adavosertib. METHODS: Pediatric patients with recurrent neuroblastoma (part B), medulloblastoma/central nervous system embryonal tumors (part C), or rhabdomyosarcoma (part D) were treated with irinotecan and adavosertib orally for 5 days every 21 days. The combination was considered effective if there were at least three of 20 responses in parts B and D or six of 19 responses in part C. Tumor tissue was analyzed for alternative lengthening of telomeres and ATRX. Patient's prior tumor genomic analyses were provided. RESULTS: The 20 patients with neuroblastoma (part B) had a median of three prior regimens and 95% had a history of prior irinotecan. There were three objective responses (9, 11, and 18 cycles) meeting the protocol defined efficacy end point. Two of the three patients with objective responses had tumors with alternative lengthening of telomeres. One patient with pineoblastoma had a partial response (11 cycles), but parts C and D did not meet the protocol defined efficacy end point. The combination was well tolerated and there were no dose limiting toxicities at cycle 1 or beyond in any parts of ADVL1312 at the recommended phase 2 dose. CONCLUSION: This is first phase 2 clinical trial of adavosertib in pediatrics and the first with irinotecan. The combination may be of sufficient activity to consider further study of adavosertib in neuroblastoma.

A phase Ib study of adavosertib, a selective Wee1 inhibitor, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

Adavosertib selectively inhibits Wee1, which regulates intra-S and G2/M cell-cycle checkpoints. This study investigated dosing schedules for adavosertib monotherapy, determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) in patients with advanced solid tumors.Patients received oral adavosertib qd or bid on a 5/9 schedule (5 days on treatment, 9 days off) in 14-day cycles, or qd on one of two 5/2 schedules (weekly, or for 2 of 3 weeks) in 21-day cycles. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic analyses were performed.Sixty-two patients (female, 64.5%; median age, 61.5 years; most common primary tumors: lung [24.2%], ovary [21.0%]) received treatment (qd schedules, n = 50; bid schedules, n = 12) for 1.8 months (median). Median time to maximum adavosertib concentration was 2.2-4.1 h; mean half-life was 5-12 h. Adverse events (AEs) caused dose reductions, interruptions and discontinuations in 17 (27.4%), 25 (40.3%) and 4 (6.5%) patients, respectively. Most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were anemia, neutropenia (each n = 9, 14.5%) and diarrhea (n = 8, 12.9%). Seven (11.3%) patients experienced 10 treatment-related serious AEs (pneumonia n = 2 [3.2%], dehydration n = 2 [3.2%], anemia n = 1 [1.6%], febrile neutropenia n = 1 [1.6%], and thrombocytopenia n = 1 [1.6%]). Overall objective response rate was 3.4% (2/58); disease control rate was 48.4% (30/62); median progression-free survival was 2.7 months.MTDs were 125 mg (bid 5/9) and 300 mg (qd 5/9 and 5/2 for 2 of 3 weeks); RP2D was 300 mg (qd 5/2 for 2 of 3 weeks). The safety profile was manageable, acceptable, and generally concordant with the known safety profile.

Patient self-reporting of tolerability using PRO-CTCAE in a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial comparing gemcitabine in combination with adavosertib or placebo in patients with platinum resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial assessed gemcitabine in combination with the wee1 inhibitor adavosertib or placebo in platinum resistant or refractory high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), demonstrating improved progression free and overall survival favouring the adavosertib/gemcitabine arm. An exploratory objective of the study included the PRO-CTCAE assessment, to capture self-reporting of frequency, severity and/or interference of symptomatic adverse events (syAEs). METHODS: PRO-CTCAE items at baseline, days 1 and 15 of each cycle and off treatment, were completed in two centres, with the objective of characterizing syAEs in the first three months of therapy. The maximum post-baseline score proportion for each syAE was tabulated per patient. The 12-week area under the curve (AUC12w) as a measure of syAE over-time and incremental AUC12w (iAUC12w) for adjustment to baseline syAEs. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were approached for PRO-CTCAE surveys and 55 were evaluable. Among patients with HGSOC, 28 received gemcitabine/adavosertib (arm A) and 19 gemcitabine/placebo (arm B). Survey completion rates were high. The proportion of participants with positive (≥1) PRO-CTCAE scores was higher for difficulty swallowing with gemcitabine/adavosertib (arm A 35.7% vs arm B 5.3%, p = 0.02). The high score (≥3) syAEs showed more frequent diarrhea with gemcitabine/adavosertib (arm A 25% vs arm B 0%, p = 0.03). The proportions of worsening syAEs over time were higher in patients receiving gemcitabine/adavosertib for difficulty swallowing (arm A 35.7% vs arm B 5.3%; p = 0.03) and fatigue severity (arm A 71.43% vs arm B 42.1%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The longitudinal assessment of patient self-reported tolerability showed greater difficulty swallowing and fatigue severity in patients receiving gemcitabine/adavosertib, compared to gemcitabine/placebo. PRO-CTCAE provides complementary and objective assessment of drug tolerability from a patient's perspective.

Phase 1 trial of adavosertib (AZD1775) in combination with concurrent radiation and cisplatin for intermediate-risk and high-risk head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Adavosertib (AZD1775) is an inhibitor of the Wee1 kinase. The authors conducted a phase 1b trial to evaluate the safety of adavosertib in combination with definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed, intermediate-risk/high-risk, locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS: Twelve patients with intermediate-risk/high-risk HNSCC were enrolled, including those with p16-negative tumors of the oropharynx, p16-positive tumors of the oropharynx with ≥10 tobacco pack-years, and tumors of the larynx/hypopharynx regardless of p16 status. All patients were treated with an 8-week course of concurrent intensity-modulated radiotherapy at 70 grays (Gy) (2 Gy daily in weeks 1-7), cisplatin 30 mg/m2 weekly (in weeks 1-7), and adavosertib (twice daily on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of weeks 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8). The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose and the recommended phase 2 dose of adavosertib given concurrently with radiation and cisplatin. Secondary objectives were to determine the 12-week objective response rate and progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: Three patients (25%) experienced a dose-limiting toxicity, including febrile neutropenia (n = 2) and grade 4 thromboembolism (n = 1). Two dose-limiting toxicities occurred with adavosertib at 150 mg. The median follow-up was 14.7 months. The 12-week posttreatment objective response rate determined by positron emission tomography/computed tomography was 100%. The 1-year progression-free and overall survival rates were both 90%. The maximum tolerated dose of adavosertib was 100 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Adavosertib 100 mg (twice daily on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of weeks 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8), in combination with 70 Gy of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and cisplatin 30 mg/m2 , is the recommended phase 2 dose for patients with HNSCC.

WEE1 Inhibitor: Clinical Development.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: WEE1 inhibitor has been shown to potential chemotherapy or radiotherapy sensitivity in preclinical models, particularly in p53-mutated or deficient cancer cells although not exclusively. Here, we review the clinical development of WEE1 inhibitor in combination with chemotherapy or radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy as well as its combination with different novel agents. RECENT FINDINGS: Although several clinical trials have shown that WEE1 inhibitor can be safely combined with different chemotherapy agents as well as radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy, its clinical development has been hampered by the higher rate of grade 3 toxicities when added to standard treatments. A few clinical trials had also been conducted to test WEE1 inhibitor using TP53 mutation as a predictive biomarker. However, TP53 mutation has not been shown to be the most reliable predictive biomarker and the benefit of adding WEE1 inhibitor to chemotherapy has been modest, even in TP53 biomarker-driven studies. There are ongoing clinical trials testing WEE1 inhibitor with novel agents such as ATR and PAPR inhibitors as well as anti-PDL1 immunotherapy, which may better define the role of WEE1 inhibitor in the future if any of the novel treatment combination will show superior anti-tumor efficacy with a good safety profile compared to monotherapy and/or standard treatment.

Biomarker-driven phase 2 umbrella trial study for patients with recurrent small cell lung cancer failing platinum-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: A high percentage of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) cases harbor cell cycle-related gene mutations and RICTOR amplification. Based on underlying somatic mutations, the authors have conducted a phase 2 biomarker-driven, multiarm umbrella study. METHODS: The SCLC Umbrella Korea StudiES (SUKSES) is an adaptive platform trial that undergoes continual modification according to the observed outcomes. This study included 286 patients with SCLC who failed platinum therapy and who had known genomic profiles based on a predesigned screening trial. Patients with MYC amplification or CDKN2A and TP53 co-alterations were allocated to adavosertib (SUKSES protocol C [SUKSES-C]; 7 patients) and those with RICTOR amplification were allocated to vistusertib (SUKSES-D; 4 patients). Alternatively, patients who were without any predefined biomarkers were assigned to a non-biomarker-selected arm: adavosertib (SUKSES-N1; 21 patients) or AZD2811NP (SUKSES-N3; 15 patients). RESULTS: Patients in the SUKSES-C and SUKSES-N1 arms demonstrated no objective response. Three patients presented with stable disease (SD) in SUKSES-C and 6 patients in SUKSES-N1. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.3 months (95% confidence interval, 0.9 months to not available) for SUKSES-C and 1.2 months (95% CI, 1.1-1.4 months) for SUKSES-N1. Patients in the SUKSES-D arm demonstrated no objective response and no SD, with a PFS of 1.2 months (95% CI, 1.0 months to not available). The SUKSES-N3 arm had 5 patients with SD and a PFS of 1.6 months (95% CI, 0.9-1.7 months), without an objective response. Grade≥3 adverse events (graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.03]) were observed as follows: 3.2% in the SUKSES-C and SUKSES-N1 arms and 50.0% in the SUKSES-D arm. Target-related neutropenia (grade≥3) was observed in approximately 60.0% of patients in the AZD2811NP arm using the current dosing schedule. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first biomarker-driven umbrella study conducted in patients with recurrent SCLC. Although the current study demonstrated the limited clinical efficacy of monotherapy, novel biomarker approaches using other cell cycle inhibitor(s) or combinations warrant further investigation.

Pharmacological Inhibition of WEE1 Potentiates the Antitumoral Effect of the dl922-947 Oncolytic Virus in Malignant Mesothelioma Cell Lines.

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a very aggressive asbestos-related cancer, for which no therapy proves to be effective. We have recently shown that the oncolytic adenovirus dl922-947 had antitumor effects in MM cell lines and murine xenografts. Previous studies demonstrated that dl922-947-induced host cell cycle checkpoint deregulation and consequent DNA lesions associated with the virus efficacy. However, the cellular DNA damage response (DDR) can counteract this virus action. Therefore, we assessed whether AZD1775, an inhibitor of the G2/M DNA damage checkpoint kinase WEE1, could enhance MM cell sensitivity to dl922-947. Through cell viability assays, we found that AZD1775 synergized with dl922-947 selectively in MM cell lines and increased dl922-947-induced cell death, which showed hallmarks of apoptosis (annexinV-positivity, caspase-dependency, BCL-XL decrease, chromatin condensation). Predictably, dl922-947 and/or AZD1775 activated the DDR, as indicated by increased levels of three main DDR players: phosphorylated histone H2AX (γ-H2AX), phospho-replication protein A (RPA)32, phospho-checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1). Dl922-947 also increased inactive Tyr-15-phosphorylated cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (CDK1), a key WEE1 substrate, which is indicative of G2/M checkpoint activation. This increase in phospho-CDK1 was effectively suppressed by AZD1775, thus suggesting that this compound could, indeed, abrogate the dl922-947-induced DNA damage checkpoint in MM cells. Overall, our data suggest that the dl922-947-AZD1775 combination could be a feasible strategy against MM.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of adavosertib in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors: A phase I, open-label study.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the safety, pharmacokinetic profile, and antitumor activity of adavosertib monotherapy in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center, open-label, phase I study with two consecutive cohorts (250 mg and 200 mg cohorts). Patients received adavosertib at 250 mg or 200 mg, orally once daily for 5 days on and 2 days off for Weeks 1 and 2 of a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities (Grade 3 febrile neutropenia) occurred in 2/6 patients in the 250 mg cohort. None of the three patients in the 200 mg cohort developed dose-limiting toxicities. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event was nausea (250 mg: 83.3 %; 200 mg: 100.0 %). Median time to peak drug concentration was 4.03 and 2.08 h after the first dose and 2.82 and 1.90 h after multiple dosing in the 250 and 200 mg cohorts, respectively; respective mean terminal elimination half-lives were 7.36 and 7.30 h (first dose) and 10.55 and 8.88 h (multiple dosing). Systemic exposure increased in a slightly more than dose-proportional manner. No RECIST v1.1 response was observed. Disease control rate was 0 % and 33.3 % in the 250 and 200 mg cohorts, respectively. One patient (33.3 %) in the 200 mg cohort showed a best overall response of stable disease at ≥ 8 weeks; the rest showed progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Adavosertib 200 mg once daily was well tolerated in this patient population and no safety concerns were raised. Exposure increased in a slightly more than dose-proportional manner and limited antitumor activity was shown. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04462952.

Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Adavosertib (AZD1775) in Patients with Solid Tumors.

Adavosertib (AZD1775) is a potent small-molecule inhibitor of Wee1 kinase. This analysis utilized pharmacokinetic data from 8 Phase I/II studies of adavosertib to characterize the population pharmacokinetics of adavosertib in patients (n = 538) with solid tumors and evaluate the impact of covariates on exposure. A nonlinear mixed-effects modeling approach was employed to estimate population and individual parameters from the clinical trial data. The model for time dependency of apparent clearance (CL) was developed in a stepwise manner and the final model validated by visual predictive checks (VPCs). Using an adavosertib dose of 300 mg once daily on a 5 days on/2 days off dosing schedule given 2 weeks out of a 3-week cycle, simulation analyses evaluated the impact of covariates on the following exposure metrics at steady state: maximum concentration during a 21-day cycle, area under the curve (AUC) during a 21-day cycle, AUC during the second week of a treatment cycle, and AUC on day 12 of a treatment cycle. The final model was a linear 2-compartment model with lag time into the dosing compartment and first-order absorption into the central compartment, time-varying CL, and random effects on all model parameters. VPCs and steady-state observations confirmed that the final model satisfied all the requirements for reliable simulation of randomly sampled Phase I and II populations with different covariate characteristics. Simulation-based analyses revealed that body weight, renal impairment status, and race were key factors determining the variability of drug-exposure metrics.

Enhancing oncogenic signaling to kill cancer cells.

Cancer-targeted therapies that inhibit oncogenic signaling often lead to resistance and recurrence. In a recent study, Dias et al. propose activating oncogenic pathways and inducing replication stress, resulting in cell death and tumor-suppressive mechanisms in colorectal cancer (CRC). This approach could spark a new wave of target discovery, and drug development and repurposing against cancer.

Adavosertib and beyond: Biomarkers, drug combination and toxicity of WEE1 inhibitors.

WEE1 kinase is renowned as an S-G2 checkpoint inhibitor activated by ATR-CHK1 in response to replication stress. WEE1 inhibition enhances replication stress and effectively circumvents checkpoints into mitosis, which triggers significant genetic impairs and culminates in cell death. This approach has been validated clinically for its promising anti-tumor efficacy across various cancer types, notably in cases of ovarian cancers. Nonetheless, the initial stage of clinical trials has shown that the first-in-human WEE1 inhibitor adavosertib is limited by dose-limiting adverse events. As a result, recent efforts have been made to explore predictive biomarkers and smart combination schedules to alleviate adverse effects. In this review, we focused on the exploration of therapeutic biomarkers, as well as schedules of combination utilizing WEE1 inhibitors and canonical anticancer drugs, according to the latest preclinical and clinical studies, indicating that the optimal application of WEE1 inhibitors will likely be as part of dose-reducing combination and be tailored to specific patient populations.

WEE Family Kinase Inhibitors Combined with Sorafenib Can Selectively Inhibit HCC Cell Proliferation.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is currently the first choice for the treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but its therapeutic effect is still limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine whether WEE family kinase inhibitors can enhance the anticancer effect of sorafenib. METHODS: We analyzed the expression levels of PKMYT1 kinase and WEE1 kinase in HCC, studied the inhibitory effect of PKMYT1 kinase inhibitor RP-6306, WEE1 kinase inhibitor adavosertib combined with sorafenib on the proliferation of HCC cells, and detected the effect of drug combination on CDK1 phosphorylation. RESULTS: We found that PKMYT1 and WEE1 were upregulated in HCC and were detrimental to patient survival. Cell experiments showed that both RP-6306 and adavosertib (1-100 µM) inhibited the proliferation of HCC cell lines in a dose-dependent manner alone, and the combination of the two drugs had a synergistic effect. In HCC cell lines, sorafenib combined with RP-6306 or adavosertib showed a synergistic antiproliferation effect and less toxicity to normal cells. Sorafenib combined with RP-6306 and adavosertib further inhibited the proliferation of HCC cells and caused complete dephosphorylation of CDK1. CONCLUSION: Taken together, our findings provide experimental evidence for the future use of sorafenib in combination with RP-6306 or adavosertib for the treatment of HCC.

Targeting WEE1 Kinase in Gynecological Malignancies.

WEE1 kinase is involved in the G2/M cell cycle checkpoint control and DNA damage repair. A functional G2/M checkpoint is crucial for DNA repair in cancer cells with p53 mutations since they lack a functional G1/S checkpoint. Targeted inhibition of WEE1 kinase may cause tumor cell apoptosis, primarily, in the p53-deficient tumor, via bypassing the G2/M checkpoint without properly repairing DNA damage, resulting in genome instability and chromosomal deletion. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the biological role of WEE1 kinase and the potential of WEE1 inhibitor (WEE1i) for treating gynecological malignancies. We conducted a thorough literature search from 2001 to September 2023 in prominent databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane, utilizing appropriate keywords of WEE1i and gynecologic oncology. WEE1i has been shown to inhibit tumor activity and enhance the sensitivity of chemotherapy or radiotherapy in preclinical models, particularly in p53-mutated gynecologic cancer models, although not exclusively. Recently, WEE1i alone or combined with genotoxic agents has confirmed its efficacy and safety in Phase I/II gynecological malignancies clinical trials. Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that other inhibitors of DNA damage pathways show synthetic lethality with WEE1i, and WEE1 modulates therapeutic immune responses, providing a rationale for the combination of WEE1i and immune checkpoint blockade. In this review, we summarize the biological function of WEE1 kinase, development of WEE1i, and outline the preclinical and clinical data available on the investigation of WEE1i for treating gynecologic malignancies.

G2 checkpoint targeting via Wee1 inhibition radiosensitizes EGFRvIII-positive glioblastoma cells.

BACKGROUND: The gene of the Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is one of the most frequently altered genes in glioblastoma (GBM), with deletions of exons 2-7 (EGFRvIII) being amongst the most common genomic mutations. EGFRvIII is heterogeneously expressed in GBM. We already showed that EGFRvIII expression has an impact on chemosensitivity, replication stress, and the DNA damage response. Wee1 kinase is a major regulator of the DNA damage induced G2 checkpoint. It is highly expressed in GBM and its overexpression is associated with poor prognosis. Since Wee1 inhibition can lead to radiosensitization of EGFRvIII-negative (EGFRvIII-) GBM cells, we asked, if Wee1 inhibition is sufficient to radiosensitize also EGFRvIII-positive (EGFRvIII+) GBM cells. METHODS: We used the clinically relevant Wee1 inhibitor adavosertib and two pairs of isogenetic GBM cell lines with and without endogenous EGFRvIII expression exhibiting different TP53 status. Moreover, human GBM samples displaying heterogenous EGFRvIII expression were analyzed. Expression of Wee1 was assessed by Western blot and respectively immunohistochemistry. The impact of Wee1 inhibition in combination with irradiation on cell cycle and cell survival was analyzed by flow cytometry and colony formation assay. RESULTS: Analysis of GBM cells and patient samples revealed a higher expression of Wee1 in EGFRvIII+ cells compared to their EGFRvIII- counterparts. Downregulation of EGFRvIII expression by siRNA resulted in a strong decrease in Wee1 expression. Wee1 inhibition efficiently abrogated radiation-induced G2-arrest and caused radiosensitization, without obvious differences between EGFRvIII- and EGFRvIII+ GBM cells. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the inhibition of Wee1 is an effective targeting approach for the radiosensitization of both EGFRvIII- and EGFRvIII+ GBM cells and may therefore represent a promising new therapeutic option to increase response to radiotherapy.

Adavosertib (AZD1775) does not prolong the QTc interval in patients with advanced solid tumors: a phase I open-label study.

PURPOSE: Adavosertib is a small-molecule, ATP-competitive inhibitor of Wee1 kinase. Molecularly targeted oncology agents have the potential to increase the risk of cardiovascular events, including prolongation of QT interval and associated cardiac arrhythmias. This study investigated the effect of adavosertib on the QTc interval in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years of age with advanced solid tumors for which no standard therapy existed. Patients received adavosertib 225 mg twice daily on days 1-2 at 12-h intervals and once on day 3. Patients underwent digital 12-lead electrocardiogram and pharmacokinetic assessments pre-administration and time-matched assessments during the drug administration period. The relationship between maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax) and baseline-adjusted corrected QT interval by Fridericia (QTcF) was estimated using a prespecified linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients received adavosertib. Concentration-QT modeling of ΔQTcF and the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval corresponding to the geometric mean of Cmax observed on days 1 and 3 were below the threshold for regulatory concern (not > 10 ms). No significant relationship between ΔQTcF (vs baseline) and adavosertib concentration was identified (P = 0.27). Pharmacokinetics and the adverse event (AE) profile were consistent with previous studies at this dose. Eleven (52.4%) patients experienced 17 treatment-related AEs in total, including diarrhea and nausea (both reported in six [28.6%] patients), vomiting (reported in two [9.5%] patients), anemia, decreased appetite, and constipation (all reported in one [4.8%] patient). CONCLUSION: Adavosertib does not have a clinically important effect on QTc prolongation. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT03333824.

Phase 1 study of belinostat and adavosertib in patients with relapsed or refractory myeloid malignancies.

PURPOSE: Belinostat is an intravenous histone deacetylase inhibitor with approval for T-cell lymphomas. Adavosertib is a first in class oral Wee1 inhibitor. Preclinical studies of the combination demonstrated synergy in various human acute myeloid leukemia (AML) lines as well as AML xenograft mouse models. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This was a phase 1 dose-escalation study of belinostat and adavosertib in patients with relapsed/refractory AML and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Patients received both drugs on days 1-5 and 8-12 of a 21-day cycle. Safety and toxicity were monitored throughout the study. Plasma levels of both drugs were measured for pharmacokinetic analysis. Response was determined by standard criteria including bone marrow biopsy. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled and treated at 4 dose levels. A grade 4 cytokine release syndrome at dose level 4 (adavosertib 225 mg/day; belinostat 1000 mg/m2) qualified as a dose-limiting toxicity event. The most common non-hematologic treatment-related adverse events were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dysgeusia, and fatigue. No responses were seen. The study was terminated prior to maximum tolerated dose/recommended phase 2 dose determination. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of belinostat and adavosertib at the tested dose levels was feasible but without efficacy signals in the relapsed/refractory MDS/AML population.

Phase I study to assess the effect of adavosertib (AZD1775) on the pharmacokinetics of substrates of CYP1A2, CYP2C19, and CYP3A in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Adavosertib may alter exposure to substrates of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) family of enzymes. This study assessed its effect on the pharmacokinetics of a cocktail of probe substrates for CYP3A (midazolam), CYP2C19 (omeprazole), and CYP1A2 (caffeine). METHODS: Period 1: patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors received 'cocktail': caffeine 200 mg, omeprazole 20 mg, and midazolam 2 mg (single dose); period 2: after 7- to 14-day washout, patients received adavosertib 225 mg twice daily on days 1-3 (five doses), with cocktail on day 3. After cocktail alone or in combination with adavosertib administration, 24-h pharmacokinetic sampling occurred for probe substrates and their respective metabolites paraxanthine, 5-hydroxyomeprazole (5-HO), and 1'-hydroxymidazolam (1'-HM). Safety was assessed throughout. RESULTS: Of 33 patients (median age 60.0 years, range 41-83) receiving cocktail, 30 received adavosertib. Adavosertib co-administration increased caffeine, omeprazole, and midazolam exposure by 49%, 80%, and 55% (AUC0-12), respectively; AUC0-t increased by 61%, 98%, and 55%. Maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax) increased by 4%, 46%, and 39%. Adavosertib co-administration increased 5-HO and 1'-HM exposure by 43% and 54% (AUC0-12) and 49% and 58% (AUC0-t), respectively; paraxanthine exposure was unchanged. Adavosertib co-administration decreased Cmax for paraxanthine and 5-HO by 19% and 7%; Cmax increased by 33% for 1'-HM. After receiving adavosertib, 19 (63%) patients had treatment-related adverse events (six [20%] grade ≥ 3). CONCLUSION: Adavosertib (225 mg bid) is a weak inhibitor of CYP1A2, CYP2C19, and CYP3A. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT03333824.

Clinical development of WEE1 inhibitors in gynecological cancers: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The anti-tumor activity of WEE1 inhibitors (WEE1i) in gynecological malignancies has recently been demonstrated in clinical trials and its rationale is based on biological/molecular features of gynecological cancers. With this systematic review, we aim to outline the clinical development and current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these targeted agents in in this patient group. METHODS: Systematic literature review of trials including patients with gynecological cancers treated with a WEE1i. The primary objective was to summarize the efficacy of WEE1i in gynecological malignancies regarding objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives included toxicity profile, Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, drug-drug interactions and exploratory objectives such as biomarkers for response. RESULTS: 26 records were included for data extraction. Almost all trials used the first-in-class WEE1i adavosertib; one conference abstract reported about Zn-c3. The majority of the trials included diverse solid tumors (n = 16). Six records reported efficacy results of WEE1i in gynecological malignancies (n = 6). Objective response rates of adavosertib monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy ranged between 23% and 43% in these trials. Median PFS ranged from 3.0 to 9.9 months. The most common adverse events were bone marrow suppression, gastrointestinal toxicities and fatigue. Mainly alterations in cell cycle regulator genes TP53 and CCNE1 were potential predictors of response. CONCLUSION: This report summarizes encouraging clinical development of WEE1i in gynecological cancers and considers its application in future studies. Biomarker-driven patient selection might be essential to increase the response rates.

Wee1 kinase inhibitor adavosertib with radiation in newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: A Children's Oncology Group phase I consortium study.

Background: Children with diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPG) have a dismal prognosis. Adavosertib (AZD1775) is an orally available, blood-brain barrier penetrant, Wee1 kinase inhibitor. Preclinical efficacy against DIPG is heightened by radiation induced replication stress. Methods: Using a rolling six design, 7 adavosertib dose levels (DLs) (50 mg/m2 alternating weeks, 50 mg/m2 alternating with weeks of every other day, 50 mg/m2, then 95, 130, 160, 200 mg/m2) were assessed. Adavosertib was only given on days of cranial radiation therapy (CRT).The duration of CRT (54 Gy over 30 fractions; 6 weeks) constituted the dose limiting toxicity (DLT) period. Endpoints included tolerability, pharmacokinetics, overall survival (OS) and peripheral blood γH2AX levels as a marker of DNA damage. Results: A total of 46 eligible patients with newly diagnosed DIPG [median (range) age 6 (3-21) years; 52% female] were enrolled. The recommend phase 2 dose (RP2D) of adavosertib was 200 mg/m2/d during days of CRT. Dose limiting toxicity included ALT elevation (n = 1, DL4) and neutropenia (n = 1, DL7). The mean Tmax, T1/2 and Clp on Day 1 were 2 h, 4.4 h, and 45.2 L/hr/m2, respectively. Modest accumulation of adavosertib was observed comparing day 5 versus day 1 AUC0-8h (accumulation ratio = 1.6). OS was 11.1 months (95% CI: 9.4, 12.5) and did not differ from historical control. Conclusion: Adavosertib in combination with CRT is well tolerated in children with newly diagnosed DIPG, however, compared to historical controls, did not improve OS. These results can inform future trial design in children with high-risk cancer.