Objective response rate and progression-free survival as surrogates for overall survival treatment effect: A meta-analysis across diverse tumour groups and contemporary therapies.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival (OS) results from randomized control trials (RCT) provide the strongest evidence for efficacy of anti-cancer treatments but can take a considerable amount of time to mature. Progression free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) are used as an early surrogate of OS treatment effect however their validity remains unclear. Our study aims to comprehensively evaluate ORR and PFS as surrogates for OS treatment effect across tumor groups and treatment types. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Phase 3 RCTs in solid malignancies that reported OS/PFS and ORR published between 1st of January 2010 and 30th of June 2022 were evaluated. The relationship of surrogate endpoints and OS treatment effect was assessed via weighted linear regression. The coefficient of determination (R2) quantified the fit of the regression model. RESULTS: 675 phase 3 RCT comprising of 350 112 patients were analysed. ORR (R2 of 0.10) and PFS (R2 of 0.38) were poor surrogate markers of OS treatment effect. The strength of surrogacy differed within treatment and tumour groups. PFS had the highest R2 for chemotherapy (0.56) and lowest for targeted therapy (0.40). PFS had the highest level of surrogacy for melanoma (R2 = 0.72) and pancreatic cancer (R2 = 0.70) compared to other tumour groups. Importantly ORR and PFS were also poorly correlated to each other (R2 = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: ORR and PFS were poor trial-level surrogate markers of OS. The surrogacy performance of ORR and PFS differed by treatment and malignancy sub-type.

Phase 1b study to assess the safety, tolerability, and clinical activity of pamiparib in combination with temozolomide in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Pamiparib is a potent, selective, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase 1/2 inhibitor that demonstrates synthetic lethality in cells with breast cancer susceptibility gene mutations or other homologous recombination deficiency. This two-stage phase 1b study (NCT03150810) assessed pamiparib in combination with temozolomide (TMZ) in adult patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced and metastatic solid tumors. METHODS: Oral pamiparib 60 mg was administered twice daily. During the dose-escalation stage, increasing doses of TMZ (40-120 mg once daily pulsed or 20-40 mg once daily continuous) were administered to determine the recommended dose to be administered in the dose-expansion stage. The primary objectives were to determine safety and tolerability, maximum tolerated/administered dose, recommended phase 2 dose and schedule, and antitumor activity of pamiparib in combination with TMZ. Pharmacokinetics of pamiparib and TMZ and biomarkers were also assessed. RESULTS: Across stages, 139 patients were treated (dose escalation, n = 66; dose expansion, n = 73). The maximum tolerated dose of TMZ, which was administered during dose expansion, was 7-day pulsed 60 mg once daily. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were anemia (dose escalation, 56.1%; dose expansion, 63.0%), nausea (dose escalation, 54.5%; dose expansion, 49.3%), and fatigue (dose escalation, 48.5%; dose expansion, 47.9%). In the dose-escalation stage, four patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (three neutropenia and one neutrophil count decreased). No TEAEs considered to be related to study drug treatment resulted in death. Antitumor activity was modest, indicated by confirmed overall response rate (dose escalation, 13.8%; dose expansion, 11.6%), median progression-free survival (3.7 and 2.8 months), and median overall survival (10.5 and 9.2 months). Administration of combination therapy did not notably impact pamiparib or TMZ pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS: Pamiparib in combination with TMZ had a manageable safety profile. Further investigation of the efficacy of this combination in tumor types with specific DNA damage repair deficiencies is warranted.

Trends in phase 1 oncology clinical trials across Australia; Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov 2012-2022.

BACKGROUND: Phase 1 oncology trials provide access to new therapies and may improve cancer outcomes. Phase 1 trials conducted in the Asian-Pacific region are increasing at a faster rate than the global trend. This study aimed to describe the changing landscape of phase 1 oncology trials in Australia in the last decade. METHODS: This cross-sectional study reviewed phase 1 oncology trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov conducted in Australia. Phase 1 trials were included for analysis if they enrolled adults with solid organ malignancies, used at least one systemic agent, and were first registered between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022. The number of trials, site locations, sponsor type, and drug class were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Over the 10-year period, ClinicalTrials.gov included 493 phase 1 clinical trials across 71 Australian sites. Most sites were in metropolitan locations; in Melbourne, trials were concentrated within selected sites, while in Sydney, trials were spread across a larger number of sites. The number of phase 1 trials per annum increased from 18 in 2012 to 75 in 2022. Since 2020, emerging biopharmaceutical companies have become the predominant sponsor type, a trend that is also seen globally. While most trial sponsors were North American (42%), there was increasing representation from Asian sponsors over the 10-year period (6% in 2012 to 39% in 2022). Immunomodulatory (45%) and targeted approaches (44%) accounted for most drug classes used alone or in combination. CONCLUSIONS: There are an increasing number of phase 1 trials conducted within Australia. Sponsors of phase 1 trials are increasingly from Asian countries and are more likely to be emerging biopharmaceutical companies.

Clinical Impact of Comprehensive Molecular Profiling in Adolescents and Young Adults with Sarcoma.

Sarcomas are a heterogenous group of tumours that commonly carry poor prognosis with limited therapeutic options. Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with sarcoma are a unique and understudied patient population that have only achieved modest survival gains compared to other groups. We present our institutional experience of AYAs with sarcoma who underwent comprehensive molecular profiling (CMP) via either large-panel targeted DNA sequencing or whole genome and transcriptome sequencing and evaluated the feasibility and clinical impact of this approach. Genomic variants detected were determined to be clinically relevant and actionable following evaluation by the Molecular Tumour Board. Clinicians provided feedback regarding the utility of testing three months after reporting. Twenty-five patients who were recruited for CMP are included in this analysis. The median time from consent to final molecular report was 45 days (interquartile range: 37-57). Potentially actionable variants were detected for 14 patients (56%), and new treatment recommendations were identified for 12 patients (48%). Pathogenic germline variants were identified in three patients (12%), and one patient had a change in diagnosis. The implementation of CMP for AYAs with sarcoma is clinically valuable, feasible, and should be increasingly integrated into routine clinical practice as technologies and turnaround times continue to improve.