Efficacy and Safety of Avapritinib in Treating Unresectable or Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Phase I/II, Open-Label, Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Avapritinib is a type 1 kinase inhibitor designed to potently and selectively inhibit oncogenic KIT/PDGFRA mutants by targeting the kinase active conformation. This multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase I/II bridging study of NAVIGATOR in Chinese patients evaluated the safety and the antineoplastic activity of avapritinib in Chinese patients with unresectable/metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). METHODS: Phase I comprised dose escalation for safety and phase II dose determination. Phase II comprised dose expansion for safety/efficacy evaluations in patients with PDGFRA D842V mutations or patients having received at least 3 lines of therapy without PDGFRA D842V mutations. The primary endpoints were recommended phase II dose, safety, and Independent Radiology Review Committee (IRRC)-assessed objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities occurred (n = 10); the recommended phase II dose was avapritinib 300 mg once daily orally. Fifty-nine patients initially received avapritinib 300 mg. Common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were anemia, decreased white blood cell count, increased blood bilirubin levels, and decreased neutrophil count. In patients with PDGFRA D842V mutations, IRRC- and investigator-assessed ORRs were 75% and 79%, respectively; clinical benefit rates were both 86%. Median duration of response/progression-free survival were not reached. IRCC- and investigator-assessed ORRs in patients in the fourth- or later-line setting were 22% and 35%, respectively. Median progression-free survivals were 5.6 months for both. Overall survival data were immature and not calculated. CONCLUSION: Avapritinib was generally well tolerated and showed marked anti-tumor activity in Chinese patients with GIST bearing PDGFRA D842V mutations and notable efficacy as fourth- or later-line monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04254939).

Preferred Fourth-Line Pharmacotherapy for Resistant Hypertension: Are We There Yet?

Resistant hypertension (RH) is defined as blood pressure (BP) that remains above target levels despite adherence to at least three different antihypertensive medications, typically including a diuretic. Epidemiological studies estimate that RH is increasing in prevalence, and is associated with detrimental health outcomes. The pathophysiology underlying RH is complex, involving multiple, overlapping contributors including activation of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system and the sympathetic nervous system, volume overload, endothelial dysfunction, behavioural and lifestyle factors. Hypertension guidelines currently recommend specific pharmacotherapy for 1st, 2nd and 3rd-line treatment, however no specific fourth-line pharmacotherapy is provided for those with RH. Rather, five different antihypertensive drug classes are generally suggested as possible alternatives, including: mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, α1-adrenergic antagonists, α2-adrenergic agonists, ß-blockers, and peripheral vasodilators. Each of these drug classes vary in their efficacy, tolerability and safety profile. This review summarises the available data on each of these drug classes as a potential fourth-line drug and reveals a lack of robust clinical evidence for preferred use of most of these classes in the setting of RH. Moreover, there is a lack of direct comparative trials that could assist in identifying a preferred fourth-line pharmacologic approach and in providing evidence for hypertensive guidelines for adequate treatment of RH.

Effect of systemic therapies or best supportive care after disease progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Meet-Uro 19BEYOND study.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and cabozantinib are currently approved agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but there are no data available for patients progressing to both treatments. The aim of this study was to compare active therapeutic options and best supportive care (BSC) after progression to nivolumab and cabozantinib in mRCC. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we selected 50 patients from eight Italian centers. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of patients on active treatment versus BSC. Secondary endpoints were the progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The efficacy of active therapy was also investigated. RESULTS: After progression to both nivolumab and cabozantinib, 57.1% of patients were given active treatment (mainly everolimus and sorafenib) while 42.9% received BSC. The median OS was 13 months (95% CI: 4-NR) in actively treated patients and 3 months (95% CI: 2-4) in BSC patients (p = 0.001). Patients treated with sorafenib had better disease control than those treated with everolimus (stable disease: 71.4% vs. 16.7%, progression disease: 14.3% vs. 58.3%; p = 0.03), with no significant differences in PFS (5 and 3 months, 95% CI: 1-6 vs. 2-5; p = 0.6) and OS (12 and 4 months, 95% CI: 3-NR vs. 2-NR; p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: After treatment with both nivolumab and cabozantinib, the choice of a safe active systemic therapy offered better outcomes than BSC.

Chronic Myeloid Leukemia: Part II-Cost of Care Among Patients in Advanced Phases or Later Lines of Therapy in Chronic Phase in the United States from a Commercial Perspective.

Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the standard-of-care treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP). Despite advances in therapy, there remains a proportion of patients with CML-CP that are refractory/intolerant to TKIs, and these patients cycle through multiple lines of therapy. Moreover, even with TKIs, some patients progress to accelerated phase/blast crisis (AP/BC), which is associated with particularly poor clinical outcomes. Objectives: To describe real-world treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and costs of patients with CML-CP reaching later lines of therapy or progressing to AP/BC in the United States. Methods: Adult CML patients from administrative claims data (January 1, 2000-June 30, 2019) were classified by health state: on third-line (CML-CP On Treatment), on fourth or later lines (CML-CP Post-Discontinuation), or progressed to AP/BC (CML-AP/BC). Outcomes were assessed by health state. Results: There were 296 (4620 patient-months), 83 (1644 patient-months), and 949 (25 593 patient-months) patients classified in the CML-CP On Treatment, CML-CP Post-Discontinuation, and CML-AP/BC cohorts, respectively. Second-generation TKIs (nilotinib, dasatinib, and bosutinib) were most commonly used in the CML-CP On Treatment (69.1% of patient-months) and CML-CP Post-Discontinuation cohorts (59.1% of patient-months). Three-month outpatient incidence rates (IRs) were 7.6, 8.3, and 7.0 visits in the CML-CP On Treatment, CML-CP Post-Discontinuation, and CML-AP/BC cohort, respectively, with mean costs of $597 per service. Three-month inpatient IRs were 0.6, 0.7, and 1.4 days in the CML-CP On Treatment, CML-CP Post-Discontinuation, and CML-AP/BC cohort, respectively, with mean costs of $5892 per day. Mean hematopoietic stem cell transplantation cost was $352 333; mean 3-month terminal care cost was $107 013. Discussion: Cost of CML care is substantial among patients with CML reaching third-line, fourth or later lines, or progressing to AP/BC, suggesting that the disease is associated with a significant economic and clinical burden. From third-line to fourth or later lines, HRU was observed to increase, and the incidence of inpatient days was particularly high for those who progressed to AP/BC. Conclusion: In this study, patients with CML cycling through TKIs in later lines of therapy or progressing to AP/BC experienced substantial HRU and costs, suggesting unmet treatment needs.

Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in a Real-World Scenario: Probability of Receiving Second and Further Lines of Therapy and Description of Clinical Benefit.

BACKGROUND: The optimal therapeutic strategy for metastatic colorectal cancer patients is still a matter of debate. There are no prognostic variables indicating how many lines individual patients ought to receive, and whether later lines could be effective even when earlier ones were not. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from 420 consecutive patients with metastatic colorectal cancer at our institution, describing the proportion of patients who received second or later lines of therapy and the chance of a line of treatment being active when the previous line was not. For each line of treatment, we defined clinical benefit as the probability of not having had evidence of disease progression 6 months after the start of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Of the 373 patients with disease progression after first-line chemotherapy (1L), 277 received a second line (2L) (probability of being submitted to a 2L (P(2L)) = 74.3%): 143 (63.3%) of 226 received a 3L (P(3L)), and 56 (45.9%) of 122 were submitted to a 4L (P(4L)). Joint probabilities were: 2L 74.3%, 3L 47.0%, and 4L 21.6%. A total of 298 (71.5%) of 417 patients had a clinical benefit with 1L; 134 (48.6%) of 276 with 2L; 50 (35.2%) of 142 with 3L; and 12 (25.0%) of 48 with 4L. Taking all these data together, 31% of the patients who experienced early progression at 1L had the chance to have a clinical benefit with any further lines. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that of 4 patients submitted to a 1L, about 3 will receive a 2L, about 2 a 3L, and nearly 1 a 4L. Later lines could be beneficial even though earlier ones were not.

A randomized phase II trial of erlotinib vs. S-1 as a third- or fourth-line therapy for patients with wild-type EGFR non-small cell lung cancer (HOT1002).

PURPOSE: A high proportion of patients with wild-type EGFR non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive third-line therapy and beyond, with no prospective randomized trials addressing the issue. This study aimed to select the most suitable regimen as a third- or fourth-line therapy for wild-type EGFR NSCLC. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized phase II study in Japan included patients with recurrent or advanced NSCLC with wild-type or unknown EGFR, who progressed after two or three previous chemotherapies. The patients were randomly assigned to erlotinib (150 mg/day, days 1-21) or S-1 (80-120 mg/day, days 1-14) every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR). The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: From 2011 to 2016, 37 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib (E arm, n = 19) and S-1 (S arm, n = 18). This study was terminated prematurely because of poor patient accrual. DCR/ORR were 42.1%/15.8% in the E arm and 66.7%/16.7% in the S arm. Median PFS/OS were 1.6 months/8.0 months in the E arm and 3.3 months/12.2 months in the S arm. In both groups, the most commonly reported grade 3-4 toxicities were fatigue, anorexia, and nausea. One grade 5 pneumonitis occurred in the S arm. No significant difference was seen in QOL. CONCLUSIONS: S-1 as a third- or fourth-line therapy for wild-type EGFR NSCLC showed numerically better clinical outcomes than erlotinib. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NO: UMIN000005308.