A Phase 1 study of gefitinib combined with durvalumab in EGFR TKI-naive patients with EGFR mutation-positive locally advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) induce cytolysis and release of tumour proteins, which can stimulate antigen-specific T cells. The safety and efficacy of durvalumab and gefitinib in combination for TKI-naive patients with advanced EGFRm NSCLC was evaluated. METHODS: This Phase 1 open-label, multicentre trial (NCT02088112) was conducted in 56 patients with NSCLC. Dose expansion permitted TKI-naive patients, primarily with activating L858R or Ex19del EGFRm. Arms 1 + 1a received concurrent therapy; Arm 2 received 4 weeks of gefitinib induction followed by concurrent therapy. RESULTS: From dose escalation, the recommended dose of durvalumab was 10 mg/kg Q2W with 250 mg QD gefitinib. Pharmacokinetics were as expected, consistent with inhibition of soluble PD-L1 and no treatment-emergent immunogenicity. In dose expansion, 35% of patients had elevated liver enzymes leading to drug discontinuation. In Arms 1 + 1a, objective response rate was 63.3% (95% CI: 43.9-80.1), median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.1 months (95% CI: 5.5-15.2) and median response duration was 9.2 months (95% CI: 3.7-14.0). CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab and gefitinib in combination had higher toxicity than either agent alone. No significant increase in PFS was detected compared with historical controls. Therefore, concurrent PD-L1 inhibitors with gefitinib should be generally avoided in TKI-naive patients with EGFRm NSCLC.

Osimertinib in Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib is an oral, third-generation, irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI-sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. We compared osimertinib with standard EGFR-TKIs in patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or L858R) advanced NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or a standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.57; P<0.001). The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 80% with osimertinib and 76% with standard EGFR-TKIs (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.90; P=0.24). The median duration of response was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 22.0) with osimertinib versus 8.5 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 9.8) with standard EGFR-TKIs. Data on overall survival were immature at the interim analysis (25% maturity). The survival rate at 18 months was 83% (95% CI, 78 to 87) with osimertinib and 71% (95% CI, 65 to 76) with standard EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P=0.007 [nonsignificant in the interim analysis]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were less frequent with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (34% vs. 45%). CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib showed efficacy superior to that of standard EGFR-TKIs in the first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC, with a similar safety profile and lower rates of serious adverse events. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02296125 .).

Osimertinib or Platinum-Pemetrexed in EGFR T790M-Positive Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that is selective for both EGFR-TKI sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. The efficacy of osimertinib as compared with platinum-based therapy plus pemetrexed in such patients is unknown. METHODS: In this randomized, international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned 419 patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, in a 2:1 ratio to receive either oral osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg per square meter of body-surface area) plus either carboplatin (target area under the curve, 5 [AUC5]) or cisplatin (75 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles; maintenance pemetrexed was allowed. In all the patients, disease had progressed during receipt of first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; hazard ratio; 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). The objective response rate was significantly better with osimertinib (71%; 95% CI, 65 to 76) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (31%; 95% CI, 24 to 40) (odds ratio for objective response, 5.39; 95% CI, 3.47 to 8.48; P<0.001). Among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system (CNS), the median duration of progression-free survival was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.49). The proportion of patients with adverse events of grade 3 or higher was lower with osimertinib (23%) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (47%). CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib had significantly greater efficacy than platinum therapy plus pemetrexed in patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (including those with CNS metastases) in whom disease had progressed during first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; AURA3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02151981 .).

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of cediranib, a potent VEGF signalling inhibitor, in cancer patients with hepatic impairment.

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling plays a key role in tumour angiogenesis. Cediranib (AZD2171) is a small-molecule VEGF signalling inhibitor with potent activity against all three VEGF receptors. In this phase I, open-label, parallel-group study, adults with advanced solid tumours received a single 45 mg dose of cediranib, followed by 30 mg continuous once-daily oral dosing for 21 days after a 7-day washout period (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00621725). The primary objective was to compare the single-dose pharmacokinetics (PK) of cediranib in patients with different levels of hepatic impairment classified according to the bilirubin level. Safety, tolerability, multiple-dose PK and PK stratified according to the Child-Pugh criteria were also assessed. Thirty patients received cediranib: 18 with normal-mild hepatic impairment and 12 with moderate hepatic impairment. Single-dose PK parameters were similar between the group with normal-mild hepatic impairment and the group with moderate hepatic impairment [ratio of geometric least square means: area under the curve (AUC) 1.12, 90% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.61; Cmax 0.95, 90% CI 0.69-1.31]. Hepatic impairment did not influence PK results in multiple dosing. After continuous once-daily dosing, the geometric least square means ratio was 0.72 (90% CI 0.51-1.03) for AUCSS and 0.67 (90% CI 0.47-0.94) for CSS,max. Similar results were obtained when patients were classified for hepatic impairment according to the Child-Pugh criteria. There was no clear difference in the incidence or the severity of adverse events between hepatic impairment groups. Moderate hepatic impairment does not appear to affect the PK profile or the tolerability of cediranib. Dose adjustments are not necessary in this patient population.

Phase I open-label study of cediranib, an oral inhibitor of VEGF signalling, in combination with the oral Src inhibitor saracatinib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

UNLABELLED: Combining different targeted anticancer agents may improve clinical outcomes. This Phase I study investigated cediranib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor signalling in combination with saracatinib, an oral Src inhibitor. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability. Secondary assessments included pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours received cediranib 20, 30 or 45 mg/day for 7 days followed by daily treatment with cediranib at the same dose plus saracatinib 175 mg/day. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients received cediranib (20 mg, n = 6; 30 mg, n = 6; 45 mg, n = 27 [n = 20 in cohort expansion]) plus saracatinib. In the cediranib 45 mg cohort, 59% of patients required dose reduction/pause compared with 33% in each of the other two cohorts. There was one dose-limiting toxicity (hypertension; 45 mg cohort). The most common adverse events were hypertension (67%), diarrhoea (62%), dysphonia (46%) and fatigue (39%). There was no evidence of a clinically significant effect of saracatinib on cediranib pharmacokinetics and vice versa. 22/35 evaluable patients had a best response of stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: All cediranib doses were tolerated; however, in patients with advanced solid tumours, for combination with saracatinib 175 mg/day, cediranib 20 or 30 mg/day was more sustainable than 45 mg/day.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development in mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway inhibitors: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

As the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signalling pathway is activated in many paediatric cancers, it is an important therapeutic target. Currently, a range of targeted MAPK pathway inhibitors are being developed in adults. However, MAPK signals through many cascades and feedback loops and perturbing the MAPK pathway may have substantial influence on other pathways as well as normal development. In view of these issues, the ninth Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on MAPK inhibitors. Development of MAPK pathway inhibitors to date has been predominantly driven by adult indications such as malignant melanoma. However, these inhibitors may also target unmet needs in paediatric low-grade gliomas, high-grade gliomas, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, juvenile myelomonocytic leukaemia and several other paediatric conditions. Although MAPK inhibitors have demonstrated activity in paediatric cancer, the response rates and duration of responses needs improvement and better documentation. The rapid development and evaluation of combination approaches, based on a deep understanding of biology, is required to optimise responses and to avoid paradoxical tumour growth and other unintended consequences including severe toxicity. Better inhibitors with higher central nervous systempenetration for primary brain tumours and cancers with a propensity for central nervous system metastases need to be studied to determine if they are more effective than agents currently being used, and the optimum duration of therapy with MAPK inhibition needs to be determined. Systematic and coordinated clinical investigations to inform future treatment strategies with MAPK inhibitors, rather than use outside of clinical trials, are needed to fully assess the risks and benefits of these single agents and combination strategies in both front-line and in the refractory/relapse settings. Platform trials could address the investigation of multiple similar products and combinations. Accelerating the introduction of MAPK inhibitors into front-line paediatric studies is a priority, as is ensuring that these studies generate data appropriate for scientific and regulatory purposes. Early discussions with regulators are crucial, particularly if external controls are considered as randomised control trials in small patient populations can be challenging. Functional end-points specific to the populations in which they are studied, such as visual acuity, motor and neuro psychological function are important, as these outcomes are often more reflective of benefit for lower grade tumours (such as paediatric low-grade glioma and plexiform neurofibroma) and should be included in initial study designs for paediatric low-grade glioma. Early prospective discussions and agreements with regulators are necessary. Long-term follow-up of patients receiving MAPK inhibitors is crucial in view of their prolonged administration and the important involvement of this pathway in normal development. Further rational development, with a detailed understanding of biology of this class of products, is crucial to ensure they provide optimal benefit while minimising toxicity to children and adolescents with cancer.

A multicenter, phase I, pharmacokinetic study of osimertinib in cancer patients with normal renal function or severe renal impairment.

Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible, oral epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that potently and selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI sensitizing and EGFR T790M and has demonstrated efficacy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) central nervous system metastases. In this phase I study, we assessed the effects of normal renal function (NRF) and severe renal impairment (SRI) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of osimertinib in patients with solid tumors. Part A: patients with NRF (creatinine clearance [CrCL] ≥90 mL/min), and SRI, (CrCL <30 mL/min), received a single 80-mg oral dose of osimertinib and standard PK measures were assessed. Part B: patients with SRI were treated for 3 months to obtain safety data, if deemed clinically appropriate. The geometric mean osimertinib plasma concentrations were higher in patients with SRI (n = 7) vs NRF (n = 8) and were highly variable. Osimertinib exposure based on Cmax and area under the plasma concentration-time curve, was 1.19-fold (90% CI: 0.6, 2.0) and 1.85-fold (90% CI: 0.9, 3.6), respectively, higher for patients with SRI vs patients with NRF, with no clear correlation between CrCL and exposure. No new safety signals were identified after 12 weeks of osimertinib 80 mg continuous dosing. PK parameters pooled across this study and other phase I, II, and III osimertinib clinical studies (exploratory population PK analysis), showed minimal correlation between CrCL and total clearance. In conclusion, no dose adjustment is required for osimertinib for patients with SRI.

ADAURA: Phase III, Double-blind, Randomized Study of Osimertinib Versus Placebo in EGFR Mutation-positive Early-stage NSCLC After Complete Surgical Resection.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, the role of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer after complete surgical tumor resection remains under investigation. We present the rationale and study design for the ADAURA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02511106) trial, a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Study entry will be limited to adults aged ≥ 18 years (and in Japan and Taiwan, age ≥ 20 years) with primary nonsquamous stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer with central confirmation of an EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive osimertinib 80 mg once daily or placebo once daily until disease recurrence, a treatment discontinuation criterion is met, or patients achieve the maximum treatment duration of 3 years. The primary endpoint of this study is disease-free survival. Secondary endpoints include the disease-free survival rate at 2, 3, and 5 years, overall survival, overall survival rate at 5 years, and safety and tolerability. Health-related quality of life and pharmacokinetics will also be evaluated. The exploratory objectives include assessment of osimertinib efficacy in patients with a confirmed baseline T790M mutation status and postrecurrence outcomes, health resource use, and a comparison of plasma-derived circulating tumor DNA EGFR mutation status at baseline and at disease recurrence. RESULTS: Study enrollment began in August 2015, and results are expected in the third quarter of 2021 (depending on the actual event rate).

The DISCOVERY PENTA study: a DIrect Statin COmparison of LDL-C Value--an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin therapY compared with atorvastatin.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines emphasize the need to achieve recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with coronary heart disease (CHD). However, many patients with hypercholesterolemia fail to achieve LDL-C goals on treatment. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin for enabling patients to achieve National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) LDL-C goals. Secondary objectives were European LDL-C goal achievement, changes in the lipid profile, and safety. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 12-week, multicenter, multinational, randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 10 mg with atorvastatin 10 mg in statin-naïve and switched patients with primary hypercholesterolemia from Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Portugal, and Venezuela. RESULTS: A total of 1124 patients with similar baseline characteristics were randomized to the two treatment groups. After 12 weeks of treatment, a significantly greater percentage of patients receiving rosuvastatin 10 mg compared with atorvastatin 10 mg achieved NCEP ATP III LDL-C goals (71.2% vs 61.4%, p < 0.001), 1998 European LDL-C goals (73.5% vs 59.2%, p < 0.001) and 2003 European LDL-C goals (58.9% vs 44.6%, p < 0.001). Rosuvastatin treatment was associated with significant reductions in LDL-C and total cholesterol (TC) and, in statin-naïve patients, a significant increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) compared with atorvastatin treatment. Both treatments were well tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events. Clinically significant elevations in creatinine, creatine kinase or hepatic transaminases were low and similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin 10 mg is significantly more effective at achieving NCEP ATP III and European LDL-C goals, lowering LDL-C and TC in both naïve and switched patients and increasing HDL-C in naïve patients than atorvastatin 10mg, with a similar safety and tolerability profile. This study also provides evidence regarding the comparative effects of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in Latin American and Portuguese populations.

Phase II study of cediranib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors or soft-tissue sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Cediranib is a potent VEGF signaling inhibitor with activity against all three VEGF receptors and KIT. This phase II study evaluated the antitumor activity of cediranib in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) resistant/intolerant to imatinib, or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas (STS; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00385203). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients received cediranib 45 mg/day. Primary objective was to determine the antitumor activity of cediranib according to changes in 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography ((18)FDG-PET) tumor uptake in patients with GIST using maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax). Secondary objectives included objective tumor response and tolerability in patients with GIST/STS. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 36 enrolled patients were treated (GIST n = 24; STS n = 10). At day 29, five patients had confirmed decreases in SUVmax (≥10% from day 8) and two had confirmed partial metabolic responses (≥25% decrease), but arithmetic mean percentage changes in SUVmax, averaged across the cohort, were not significant at day 8 [6.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 19.95-33.54) or day 29 (4.6%; 95% CI, 8.05-17.34). Eleven patients with GIST achieved a best objective tumor response of stable disease; eight achieved stable disease ≥16 weeks. In patients with STS, four of six with alveolar soft-part sarcoma (ASPS) achieved confirmed and durable partial responses. The commonest adverse events were diarrhea (85%), fatigue (74%), and hypertension (68%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients progressing on imatinib/sunitinib, cediranib 45 mg/day demonstrated evidence of activity by (18)FDG-PET, but did not reduce average SUVmax. Evidence of antitumor activity was seen in ASPS.

A phase 1 trial and pharmacokinetic study of cediranib, an orally bioavailable pan-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, in children and adolescents with refractory solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To determine the toxicity profile, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of cediranib administered orally, once daily, continuously in children and adolescents with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Children and adolescents with refractory solid tumors, excluding primary brain tumors, were eligible. DLT at the starting dose of 12 mg/m(2)/d resulted in de-escalation to 8 mg/m(2)/d and subsequent re-escalation to 12 and 17 mg/m(2)/d. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies were performed during cycle 1. Response was evaluated using WHO criteria. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (median age, 15 years; range, 8 to 18 years) were evaluable for toxicity. DLTs (grade 3 nausea, vomiting, fatigue in one; hypertension and prolonged corrected QT interval in another) occurred in patients initially enrolled at 12 mg/m(2)/d. Subsequently, 8 mg/m(2)/d was well tolerated in three patients. An additional seven patients were enrolled at 12 mg/m(2)/d; one had DLT (grade 3 diarrhea). At 17 mg/m(2)/d, two of four patients had DLTs (grade 3 nausea; intolerable grade 2 fatigue). Non-dose-limiting toxicities included left ventricular dysfunction, elevated thyroid stimulating hormone, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, weight loss, and headache. The MTD of cediranib was 12 mg/m(2)/d (adult fixed dose equivalent, 20 mg). At 12 mg/m(2)/d, the median area under the plasma concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC(0-∞)) was 900 ng·h/mL, which is similar to adults receiving 20 mg. Objective responses were observed in patients with Ewing sarcoma, synovial sarcoma, and osteosarcoma. CONCLUSION: The recommended monotherapy dose of cediranib for children with extracranial solid tumors is 12 mg/m(2)/d administered orally, once daily, continuously. A phase II study is in development.

Concomitant use of statins and CYP3A4 inhibitors in administrative claims and electronic medical records databases.

BACKGROUND: Patients may experience increased risk of adverse drug interactions when statins are administered concomitantly with cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: To determine patient numbers in routine clinical practice with concomitant exposure to CYP3A4-metabolized statins and CYP3A4 inhibitors and highlight potential risk for adverse drug interaction. METHODS: Exposure to prescription medications over 1 year (2005-2006) was evaluated from patient records: US PharMetrics Integrated Patient-Centric administrative claims database and the US General Electric Medical System (GEMS) database. Rates of concomitant prescribing of statins with CYP3A4 inhibitors (listed in United States of America product labels and all identified potential inhibitors) were examined in the cohort overall, in those aged ≥65 years, and in those receiving higher doses of statins. RESULTS: Overall, 951,166 patient records were included (PharMetrics n = 650,825; GEMS, n = 300,341). Of these, 792,081 (83%) patients used a CYP3A4-metabolized statin as opposed to a non-CYP3A4-metabolized statin (17%). Findings from both databases were consistent. Overall, 25-30% of patients given a CYP3A4-metabolized statin were concomitantly exposed to a CYP3A4 inhibitor, including approximately 9% concomitantly exposed to a labeled inhibitor, findings consistent with those in patients aged ≥65 years, and patients on higher doses of statins. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians frequently co-prescribe CYP3A4-metabolized statins with CYP3A4 inhibitors. Physician education regarding the impact of these inhibitors on the metabolism of lovastatin, simvastatin, and atrovastatin is needed. Further studies are also needed to determine whether concomitant administration of a non-CYP3A4-metabolized statin (such as fluvastatin, pravastatin, or rosuvastatin) with a CYP3A4 inhibitor, may reduce adverse event rates in routine clinical practice.