A phase Ib dose-escalation study of the MEK inhibitor trametinib in combination with the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor GSK2126458 in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Introduction This Phase Ib trial investigated the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase 2 dose for the pan-PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, GSK2126458 (GSK458), and trametinib combination when administered to patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors received escalating doses of GSK458 (once or twice daily, and continuous or intermittent) and trametinib following a zone-based 3 + 3 design to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Assessments included monitoring for adverse events and response, and evaluating pharmacokinetic (PK) measures. Archival tissue and circulating free DNA samples were collected to assess biomarkers of response in the PI3K and RAS pathways. Results 57 patients were enrolled onto the continuous dosing cohort and 12 patients onto an intermittent BID dosing cohort. Two MTDs were established for the continuous daily dosing: 2 mg of GSK458 with 1.0 mg of trametinib or 1.0 mg of GSK458 with 1.5 mg of trametinib; no MTD was determined in the intermittent dosing cohort. The most frequent adverse events were rash (74 %) and diarrhea (61 %). Dose interruptions due to adverse events occurred in 42 % of patients. No significant PK interaction was observed. One patient achieved partial response and 12 patients had stable disease >16 weeks. Mutations in RAS/RAF/PI3K were detected in 70 % of patients, but no pattern emerged between response and mutational status. Conclusion GSK458 plus trametinib is poorly tolerated, due to skin and GI-related toxicities. Responses were minimal, despite enrichment for PI3K/RAS pathway driven tumors, which may be due to overlapping toxicities precluding sufficient dose exposure.

A phase II study of retifanlimab, a humanized anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, in patients with solid tumors (POD1UM-203).

BACKGROUND: POD1UM-203, an open-label, multicenter, phase II study, evaluated retifanlimab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) in patients with selected solid tumors where immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies have previously shown efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (≥18 years) had measurable disease and included unresectable or metastatic melanoma, treatment-naive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score ≥50%), cisplatin-ineligible locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) with PD-L1 expression (combined positive score ≥10%), or treatment-naive locally advanced/metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Retifanlimab 500 mg was administered intravenously every 4 weeks as a 30-min infusion. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate. RESULTS: Overall, 121 patients (35 melanoma, 23 NSCLC, 29 UC, 34 RCC) were enrolled and treated. The overall response rate [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 40.0% (23.9-57.9) in the melanoma cohort, 34.8% (16.4-57.3) in the NSCLC cohort, 37.9% (20.7-57.7) in the UC cohort, and 23.5% (10.7-41.2) in the RCC cohort. Median duration of response was 11.5 months (95% CI 2.2-not reached) in the UC cohort, and was not reached in the other cohorts. Retifanlimab safety was consistent with previous experience for PD-(L)1 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Retifanlimab demonstrated durable antitumor activity in patients with melanoma, NSCLC, UC, or RCC. The efficacy and safety of retifanlimab were as expected for a PD-(L)1 inhibitor. These data support further study of retifanlimab in solid tumors.

A phase II study of retifanlimab (INCMGA00012) in patients with squamous carcinoma of the anal canal who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy (POD1UM-202).

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced or metastatic squamous carcinoma of the anal canal (SCAC) has poor prognosis following platinum-based chemotherapy. Retifanlimab (INCMGA00012), a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting programmed death protein-1 (PD-1), demonstrated clinical activity across a range of solid tumors in clinical trials. We present results from POD1UM-202 (NCT03597295), an open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II study evaluating retifanlimab in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic SCAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age had measurable disease and had progressed following, or were ineligible for, platinum-based therapy. Retifanlimab 500 mg was administered intravenously every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) by independent central review. Secondary endpoints were duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 94 patients were enrolled. At a median follow-up of 7.1 months (range, 0.9-19.4 months), ORR was 13.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.6% to 22.5%], with one complete response (1.1%) and 12 partial responses (12.8%). Responses were observed regardless of human immunodeficiency virus or human papillomavirus status, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, or liver metastases. Stable disease was observed in 33 patients (35.1%) for a DCR of 48.9% (95% CI 38.5% to 59.5%). Median DOR was 9.5 months (range, 5.6 months-not estimable). Median (95% CI) PFS and OS were 2.3 (1.9-3.6) and 10.1 (7.9-not estimable) months, respectively. Retifanlimab safety in this population was consistent with previous experience for the PD-(L)1 inhibitor class. CONCLUSIONS: Retifanlimab demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity, and an acceptable safety profile in patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic SCAC who have progressed on or are intolerant to platinum-based chemotherapy.

Phase I trial of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and cisplatin in combination.

The ongoing evaluation of combination chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and cisplatin in several tumors prompted a phase I clinical trial of cisplatin with 5-FU modulated by leucovorin. A total of 26 patients were treated with varying doses of 5-FU by continuous i.v. infusion for 5 days; 200 mg/m2 leucovorin was given by daily bolus injection for 5 days; and 20 mg/m2 cisplatin was infused over 2 h on each day of treatment. Courses were repeated every 21-28 days. The starting dose of 5-FU was 300 mg/m2. Poor-risk patients (extensive prior radiation, performance status of 2 or worse) did not tolerate the initial dose; the maximum tolerated dose of 5-FU in this group was 200 mg/m2 daily. Good-risk patients tolerated 300 mg/m2, but a majority had excessive toxicity at higher doses. The dose-limiting toxicity was gastrointestinal (mucositis/diarrhea) and/or myelosuppression; additional side effects included were nausea and vomiting (less than or equal to grade 2) and ataxia (one patient). Among 13 patients with colorectal cancer, 4 partial responses were observed. The marked reduction in the tolerable dose of 5-FU occasioned by the addition of modulating doses of leucovorin is noteworthy. The responses observed support further investigation of this regimen in phase II trials.

Randomised phase II study of siltuximab (CNTO 328), an anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibody, in combination with mitoxantrone/prednisone versus mitoxantrone/prednisone alone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: This open-label phase II trial assessed mitoxantrone/prednisone (M/P) with and without siltuximab (CNTO 328), an anti-interleukin-6 chimeric monoclonal antibody, for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who received prior docetaxel-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Part 1 assessed the safety of biweekly siltuximab 6 mg/kg plus M 12 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks and P. Part 2 assessed efficacy and safety of siltuximab plus M/P versus M/P alone. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Progression was defined as progressive disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), or ≥ 3 new skeletal lesions with clinical deterioration or without deterioration confirmed by repeated bone scan. Rising prostate-specific antigen was not considered progression. RESULTS: Siltuximab plus M/P was well tolerated in Part 1 (n=9). In Part 2, 48 and 49 patients received siltuximab plus M/P or M/P alone, respectively. Enrolment was prematurely terminated by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee since an apparent imbalance in patient baseline characteristics (favoring the M/P only arm) made it unlikely that the study could achieve its primary efficacy end-point. Median PFS was 97 days with siltuximab combination and 228 days with M/P alone (hazard ratio, 1.72; P=0.043). Use of a novel non-validated PFS definition may have contributed to this result. Abnormal laboratory assessments were more frequent with the combination. Infection and febrile neutropenia rates were similar between groups. Greater C-reactive protein suppression was achieved during siltuximab combination treatment compared with M/P alone (P=0.0003). CONCLUSION: While siltuximab plus M/P appeared well tolerated, improvement in outcomes was not demonstrated.

Accuracy of cancer-risk assessment in primary care practice.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians (PCPs) are expected to play a central role in assessing cancer risk. This study was designed to evaluate how accurately PCPs would triage individuals at increased risk for cancer when presented with clinical vignettes. METHODS: Surveys evaluated practice demographics, attitudes, and responses to clinical scenarios. Answers were compared with guidelines and graded for consistency with the risk assessment. RESULTS: PCPs were inaccurate in assessing risk (p < 0.0001) and inconsistent in recommending screening (p < 0.001). Older physicians were more consistent (p < 0.02). No attitudinal bias was identified. CONCLUSION: Continuing education of PCPs is important for cancer-risk assessment and management.

Feasibility of assessing quality in medical oncology practices.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to test the feasibility of conducting routine quality assessment within community medical oncology practices. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY: Eleven medical oncologists practicing within the Fox Chase Network were surveyed over an 8-month period, using a standardized 10-item checklist. Eight of the items (ie, board certification, continuing education, office procedure manual for chemotherapy, chemotherapy flow sheets, body surface area calculations, adherence to guidelines for follow-up of breast cancer, adjuvant hormones in women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, and patient satisfaction survey) were chosen because they measure structural and process variables particularly relevant to the high-volume clinical services seen in private practice oncology. The authors also calculated two rates (protocol accrual and neutropenic complications of chemotherapy) to test as putative indicators of quality. RESULTS: The authors found a high level of both physician interest in developing the audit measures and compliance with the survey process. Overall quality of care, as measured by structure and process variables, was excellent with negligible internal variability. Derived rates of protocol accrual (0.003-0.373; mean 0.11, SD 0.11) and neutropenic sepsis (0.004-0.014; mean 0.007, SD 0.004) show considerable variability, however, and are only minimally correlated (r= -.36). These are both potential indicators of quality that should be further evaluated. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The authors have demonstrated the feasibility of conducting quality assessment within private medical oncology practices and have identified two easily calculated rates that merit further study as potential indicators of quality.