Phase I/II trial of pimasertib plus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

The selective MEK1/2 inhibitor pimasertib has shown anti-tumour activity in a pancreatic tumour model. This phase I/II, two-part trial was conducted in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPaCa) (NCT01016483). In the phase I part, oral pimasertib was given once daily discontinuously (5 days on/2 days off treatment) or twice daily continuously (n = 53) combined with weekly gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2 ) in 28-day cycles to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of pimasertib. In the phase II part, patients were randomised to pimasertib (RP2D) or placebo plus weekly gemcitabine (n = 88) to investigate progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. The RP2D was determined to be 60 mg BID. PFS and OS outcomes did not indicate any treatment benefit for pimasertib over placebo in combination with gemcitabine (median PFS 3.7 and 2.8 months, respectively, HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.58-1.42: median OS 7.3 vs. 7.6 months, respectively). KRAS status did not influence PFS or OS. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 91.1% and 85.7% for pimasertib/gemcitabine and placebo/gemcitabine respectively, but there was a higher incidence of ocular events with pimasertib/gemcitabine (28.9% vs. 4.8% for placebo/gemcitabine). In conclusion, no clinical benefit was observed with first-line pimasertib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with mPaCa.

Molecular biomarkers in non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study.

BACKGROUND: Findings from the phase 3 FLEX study showed that the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and vinorelbine significantly improved overall survival, compared with cisplatin and vinorelbine alone, in the first-line treatment of EGFR-expressing, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated whether candidate biomarkers were predictive for the efficacy of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in this setting. METHODS: Genomic DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumour tissue of patients enrolled in the FLEX study was screened for KRAS codon 12 and 13 and EGFR kinase domain mutations with PCR-based assays. In FFPE tissue sections, EGFR copy number was assessed by dual-colour fluorescence in-situ hybridisation and PTEN expression by immunohistochemistry. Treatment outcome was investigated according to biomarker status in all available samples from patients in the intention-to-treat population. The primary endpoint in the FLEX study was overall survival. The FLEX study, which is ongoing but not recruiting participants, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. FINDINGS: KRAS mutations were detected in 75 of 395 (19%) tumours and activating EGFR mutations in 64 of 436 (15%). EGFR copy number was scored as increased in 102 of 279 (37%) tumours and PTEN expression as negative in 107 of 303 (35%). Comparisons of treatment outcome between the two groups (chemotherapy plus cetuximab vs chemotherapy alone) according to biomarker status provided no indication that these biomarkers were of predictive value. Activating EGFR mutations were identified as indicators of good prognosis, with patients in both treatment groups whose tumours carried such mutations having improved survival compared with those whose tumours did not (chemotherapy plus cetuximab: median 17·5 months [95% CI 11·7-23·4] vs 8·5 months [7·1-10·8], hazard ratio [HR] 0·52 [0·32-0·84], p=0·0063; chemotherapy alone: 23·8 months [15·2-not reached] vs 10·0 months [8·7-11·0], HR 0·35 [0·21-0·59], p<0·0001). Expression of PTEN seemed to be a potential indicator of good prognosis, with patients whose tumours expressed PTEN having improved survival compared with those whose tumours did not, although this finding was not significant (chemotherapy plus cetuximab: median 11·4 months [8·6-13·6] vs 6·8 months [5·9-12·7], HR 0·80 [0·55-1·16], p=0·24; chemotherapy alone: 11·0 months [9·2-12·6] vs 9·3 months [7·6-11·9], HR 0·77 [0·54-1·10], p=0·16). INTERPRETATION: The efficacy of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC seems to be independent of each of the biomarkers assessed. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

Designing phase I oncology dose escalation using dose-exposure-toxicity models as a complementary approach to model-based dose-toxicity models.

One of the objectives of oncology phase I dose-escalation studies has been to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Although MTD is no longer set as the dose for further development in contemporary oncology drug development, MTD determination is still important for informing the therapeutic index. Bayesian adaptive model-based designs are becoming mainstream in oncology first-in-human trials. Herein, we illustrate via simulations the use of systemic exposure in Bayesian adaptive dose-toxicity models to estimate MTD. We extend traditional dose-toxicity models to incorporate pharmacokinetic exposure, which provides information on exposure-toxicity relationships. We pursue dose escalation until the maximum tolerated exposure (corresponding to the MTD) is reached. By leveraging pharmacokinetics, dose escalation considers exposure and interindividual variability on a continuous rather than discrete domain, offering additional information for dose-escalation decisions. To demonstrate this, we generated 1000 simulations (starting dose of 1/25th the reference dose and six dose levels) for several different scenarios. Both rule-based and model-based designs were compared using metrics of potential safety, accuracy, and reliability. The mean results over simulations and different toxicity scenarios showed that model-based designs were better than rule-based methods and that exposure-toxicity model-based methods have the potential to valuably complement dose-toxicity model-based methods. Exposure-toxicity model-based methods had decreased underdose risk accompanied by a relatively smaller increase in overdose risk, resulting in improved net reliability. MTD estimation accuracy was compromised when exposure variability was large, emphasizing the importance of appropriate control of pharmacokinetic variability in phase I dose-escalation studies.

Platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab in head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab is effective in platinum-resistant recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. We investigated the efficacy of cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: We randomly assigned 220 of 442 eligible patients with untreated recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck to receive cisplatin (at a dose of 100 mg per square meter of body-surface area on day 1) or carboplatin (at an area under the curve of 5 mg per milliliter per minute, as a 1-hour intravenous infusion on day 1) plus fluorouracil (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter per day for 4 days) every 3 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles and 222 patients to receive the same chemotherapy plus cetuximab (at a dose of 400 mg per square meter initially, as a 2-hour intravenous infusion, then 250 mg per square meter, as a 1-hour intravenous infusion per week) for a maximum of 6 cycles. Patients with stable disease who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab continued to receive cetuximab until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: Adding cetuximab to platinum-based chemotherapy with fluorouracil (platinum-fluorouracil) significantly prolonged the median overall survival from 7.4 months in the chemotherapy-alone group to 10.1 months in the group that received chemotherapy plus cetuximab (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.99; P=0.04). The addition of cetuximab prolonged the median progression-free survival time from 3.3 to 5.6 months (hazard ratio for progression, 0.54; P<0.001) and increased the response rate from 20% to 36% (P<0.001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the chemotherapy-alone and cetuximab groups were anemia (19% and 13%, respectively), neutropenia (23% and 22%), and thrombocytopenia (11% in both groups). Sepsis occurred in 9 patients in the cetuximab group and in 1 patient in the chemotherapy-alone group (P=0.02). Of 219 patients receiving cetuximab, 9% had grade 3 skin reactions and 3% had grade 3 or 4 infusion-related reactions. There were no cetuximab-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with platinum-based chemotherapy plus fluorouracil alone, cetuximab plus platinum-fluorouracil chemotherapy improved overall survival when given as first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00122460.)

Selective Oral MEK1/2 Inhibitor Pimasertib in Metastatic Melanoma: Antitumor Activity in a Phase I, Dose-Escalation Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pimasertib is a selective, potent mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the efficacy, safety, and pharmacodynamics of pimasertib at pharmacologically active doses in a cohort of patients with locally advanced/metastatic melanoma from a first-in-human study of pimasertib. METHODS: This was a phase I, open-label, two-part, dose-escalation study. Part 1 was conducted in patients with solid tumors and identified the maximum tolerated dose, while Part 2 was restricted to patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma. Endpoints included safety, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity. We present data for patients with melanoma only from both parts of the study. RESULTS: In total, 93 patients with melanoma received pimasertib, 89 of whom received pharmacologically active doses (28-255 mg/day) across four dose regimens in the two parts of the study. The objective response rate was 12.4% (11/89): complete response (n = 1) and partial response (PR; n = 10). Six patients responded for > 24 weeks. Nine of the 11 responders had tumors with B-Raf Proto-Oncogene, Serine/Threonine Kinase (BRAF; n = 6) and/or NRAS Proto-Oncogene, GTPase (NRAS; n = 3) mutations. Forty-six patients had stable disease (SD). In patients with ocular melanoma (n = 13), best overall response was PR (n = 1), SD (n = 11), and disease progression (n = 1). Phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (pERK) levels were substantially reduced within 2 h of treatment and inhibition was sustained with continuous twice-daily dosing. Treatment-related, recurrent, grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in eight patients, including diarrhea, and skin and ocular events. CONCLUSION: Results from this phase I study indicate that pimasertib has clinical activity in patients with locally advanced/metastatic melanoma, particularly BRAF- and NRAS-mutated tumors, at clinically relevant doses associated with pERK inhibition in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00982865.

Immunogenicity and safety of a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MSB11455 versus the reference pegfilgrastim Neulasta® in healthy subjects: A randomized, double-blind trial.

MSB11455 is a proposed biosimilar to the currently licensed reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta® ). This study was designed primarily to compare the immunogenicity of MSB11455 and Neulasta® . As secondary objectives, the safety and tolerability of MSB11455 and Neulasta® were also compared. Healthy adult subjects were randomized to either MSB11455 or Neulasta® , stratified by antipolyethylene glycol (PEG) antibody status at screening and study site. Subjects received a single subcutaneous dose of MSB11455 or Neulasta® (both 6 mg/0.6 mL) on day 1 of each of two study periods (same product in both periods), separated by a washout of 28-35 days. Immunogenicity samples were taken predose and up to day 84 post-first dose. Noninferiority was confirmed if the upper limit of the exact one-sided adjusted 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in antidrug antibody (ADA)-positive rates was < 10%. Safety was assessed throughout the study. Overall, 336 subjects were randomized and treated (N = 168 in each group). Noninferiority of MSB11455 over Neulasta® was demonstrated for immunogenicity; the difference in confirmed treatment-induced ADA-positive rate between MSB11455 and Neulasta® was -0.6% (upper limit of the exact one-sided adjusted 95% CI: 6.25%). ADAs were mostly directed against the PEG moiety of pegfilgrastim. No filgrastim-specific neutralizing antibodies were detected in either treatment group. Safety and tolerability were as expected for pegfilgrastim, and comparable between treatments. This study supports and strengthens the available evidence for the biosimilarity of MSB11455 to Neulasta® .

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of a Proposed Pegfilgrastim Biosimilar MSB11455 Versus the Reference Pegfilgrastim Neulasta in Healthy Subjects: A Randomized, Double-blind Trial.

PURPOSE: MSB11455 is a proposed biosimilar to the reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®). This pivotal equivalence study (NCT03251248) assessed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of MSB11455 to the reference product. METHODS: This 2-way, 2-sequence, group-sequential, crossover study was conducted in healthy subjects. Subjects received a single subcutaneous dose of MSB11455 or the reference product (both 6 mg/0.6 mL) on Day 1 of each study period. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (absolute neutrophil count; ANC) samples were taken predose and up to day 16 post-dose. Non-compartmental parameters were calculated. Immunogenicity samples were taken pre-dose and up to day 84 after the first dose. Safety was assessed throughout the study. FINDINGS: A total of 292 subjects were randomized to therapy and treated; 244 received both treatments. For all primary pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters, 90% repeated confidence intervals of geometric means ratio of MSB11455 to the reference product were within the pre-defined equivalence range (80.00%-125.00%) for AUC0-∞ (96.59-112.82); AUC0-last (97.29-113.96), Cmax (97.13-114.99), maximum observed effect on ANC (98.74-102.39), and area under the effect-time curve from time zero to time to last quantifiable concentration (97.30-100.23). Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were comparable between treatments. No filgrastim-specific neutralizing antibodies were detected with either treatment sequence. IMPLICATIONS: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of MSB11455 and the reference product was shown, with comparable immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability between treatments. The study supports the biosimilarity of MSB11455 to the reference product. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03251248.

Pimasertib Versus Dacarbazine in Patients With Unresectable NRAS-Mutated Cutaneous Melanoma: Phase II, Randomized, Controlled Trial with Crossover.

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of pimasertib (MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor) versus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with untreated NRAS-mutated melanoma. Phase II, multicenter, open-label trial. Patients with unresectable, stage IIIc/IVM1 NRAS-mutated cutaneous melanoma were randomized 2:1 to pimasertib (60 mg; oral twice-daily) or DTIC (1000 mg/m2; intravenously) on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Patients progressing on DTIC could crossover to pimasertib. Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL), and safety. Overall, 194 patients were randomized (pimasertib n = 130, DTIC n = 64), and 191 received treatment (pimasertib n = 130, DTIC n = 61). PFS was significantly improved with pimasertib versus DTIC (median 13 versus 7 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.83; p = 0.0022). ORR was improved with pimasertib (odds ratio 2.24, 95% CI 1.00-4.98; p = 0.0453). OS was similar between treatments (median 9 versus 11 months, respectively; HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61-1.30); 64% of patients receiving DTIC crossed over to pimasertib. Serious adverse events (AEs) were more frequent for pimasertib (57%) than DTIC (20%). The most common treatment-emergent AEs were diarrhea (82%) and blood creatine phosphokinase (CPK) increase (68%) for pimasertib, and nausea (41%) and fatigue (38%) for DTIC. Most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were CPK increase (34%) for pimasertib and neutropenia (15%) for DTIC. Mean QoL scores (baseline and last assessment) were similar between treatments. Pimasertib has activity in NRAS-mutated cutaneous melanoma and a safety profile consistent with known toxicities of MEK inhibitors. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01693068.

Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who failed to respond to platinum-based therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the epidermal growth factor receptor-directed monoclonal antibody cetuximab administered as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) who experience disease progression on platinum therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An open-label multicenter study in which patients with disease progression on two to six cycles of platinum therapy received single-agent cetuximab (initial dose 400 mg/m2 followed by subsequent weekly doses of 250 mg/m2) for > or = 6 weeks (single-agent phase). Patients who experienced disease progression could receive salvage therapy with cetuximab plus platinum (combination-therapy phase). From June 2001 to December 2002, 103 patients were enrolled and treated with cetuximab, 53 of whom subsequently received combination therapy. RESULTS: In the single-agent phase, response rate was 13%, disease control rate (complete response/partial response/stable disease) was 46%, and median time to progression (TTP) was 70 days. During the combination-therapy phase, the objective response rate was zero, disease control rate was 26%, and TTP was 50 days. Median overall survival was 178 days. Treatment was well tolerated. The most common cetuximab-related adverse events in the single-agent phase were skin reactions, particularly rash (49% of patients, mainly grade 1 or 2). There was one treatment-related death due to an infusion-related reaction. CONCLUSION: Single-agent cetuximab was active and generally well tolerated in the treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN that progressed on platinum therapy. Response was comparable to that seen with cetuximab plus platinum combination regimens in the same setting.

Phase I/II study of cetuximab in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin and fluorouracil in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

PURPOSE: This was an open, randomized, multicenter, phase I/II study to investigate the safety and tolerability of cetuximab in the first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment comprised cetuximab (initial dose 400 mg/m2 with subsequent weekly doses of 250 mg/m2) in combination with 3-week cycles of either cisplatin (100 mg/m2) or carboplatin (area under the curve, 5), each in combination with a 5-day infusion of fluorouracil (FU) at escalating doses of 600, 800, and 1,000 mg/m2/d. The study was divided into two phases: A, the first two cycles (6 weeks) focusing on the safety and tolerability of combination therapy; and B, the remaining time for those benefiting from therapy until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were enrolled onto the study. The incidence of dose-limiting toxicities in phase A was acceptable. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events in both groups were leucopenia (38%), asthenia (25%), vomiting (14%), and thrombocytopenia (15%), which are consistent with the known safety profiles of cetuximab, cisplatin/carboplatin, and FU. The overall response rate among patients was 36%, with no clear trend toward an increased efficacy at the highest dose of FU, and no impact of the concomitant chemotherapy regimens on cetuximab pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSION: The combination of cetuximab, cisplatin/carboplatin, and FU was reasonably well tolerated and active in recurrent/metastatic SCCHN, and merits additional investigation. An FU dose of 1,000 mg/m2/d in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin can be recommended for additional studies.

Quimioterapia basada en platino más cetuximab en el cáncer de cabeza y cuello / Platinum plus cetubimab based quimiotherapy in head and neck cancer

Antecedentes: Cetuximab resulta efectivo en el carcinoma metastático o recurrente de células escamosas de cabeza y cuello, resistente al platino. Se investigó la eficacia de cetuximab más quimioterapia basada en platino como tratamiento de primera línea en pacientes con carcinoma metastático o recurrente de células escamosas de cabeza y cuello. Métodos: Se asignaron al azar 220 pacientes de 442 pacientes elegibles con carcinoma metastático o recurrente de células escamosas de cabeza y cuello sin tratamiento, para recibir cisplatino (a una dosis de 100mg por metro cuadrado de área de superficie corporal el día 1) o carboplatino (en un área por debajo de la curva de 5mg por mililitro por minuto, como infusión intravenosa de 1 hora el día 1) más fluorouracilo (a una dosis de 1000mg por metro cuadrado por día, durante 4 días) cada 3 semanas, por un máximo de 6 ciclos, y 222 pacientes para recibir la misma quimioterapia más cetuximab (a una dosis de 400mg por metro cuadrado en forma inicial, como infusión intravenosa de 2 horas, luego 250mg por metro cuadrado, como infusión intravenosa de 1 hora por semana) durante un máximo de 6 ciclos. Los pacientes con enfermedad estable que recibieron quimioterapia más cetuximab continuaron recibiendo cetuximab hasta la progresión de la enfermedad o hasta la aparición de efectos tóxicos inaceptables, lo que ocurriera primero. Resultados: El agregado de cetuximab a la quimioterapia basada en platino con fluorouracilo (platino-fluorouracilo) prolongó de manera significativa la mediana de la supervivencia global, de 7.4 meses en el grupo de quimioterapia sola a 10.1 meses en el grupo que recibía quimioterapia más cetuximab (índice de riesgo para muerte = 0.80; intervalo de confianza 95%: 0.64-0.99; p = 0.04). El agregado de cetuximab prolongó la mediana del tiempo de supervivencia libre de progresión de 3.3 meses a 5.6 meses (índice de riesgo para la progresión = 0.54; p < 0.001) y aumentó la tasa de respuesta de 20% a 36% (p < 0.001).