Phase I/II clinical trial of temsirolimus and lenalidomide in patients with relapsed and refractory lymphomas.

The PI3K/Akt/mTOR (PAM) axis is constitutively activated in multiple lymphoma subtypes and is a promising therapeutic target. The mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus (TEM) and the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide (LEN) have overlapping effects within the PAM axis with synergistic potential. This multicenter phase I/II study evaluated combination therapy with TEM/LEN in patients with relapsed and refractory lymphomas. Primary endpoints of the phase II study were rates of complete (CR) and overall response (ORR). There were 18 patients in the phase I dose-finding study, and TEM 25 mg weekly and LEN 20 mg on day 1 through day 21 every 28 days was established as the recommended phase II dose. An additional 93 patients were enrolled in the phase II component with three cohorts: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL, n=39), follicular lymphoma (FL, n=15), and an exploratory cohort of other lymphoma histologies with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) comprising the majority (n=39 total, n=20 with cHL). Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of four (range, 1-14) prior therapies and one-third with relapse following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT); patients with cHL had a median of six prior therapies. The FL cohort was closed prematurely due to slow accrual. ORR were 26% (13% CR) and 64% (18% CR) for the DLBCL and exploratory cohorts, respectively. ORR for cHL patients in the exploratory cohort, most of whom had relapsed after both brentuximab vedotin and ASCT, was 80% (35% CR). Eight cHL patients (40%) proceeded to allogeneic transplantation after TEM/LEN therapy. Grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events (AE) were common. Three grade 5 AE occurred. Combination therapy with TEM/LEN was feasible and demonstrated encouraging activity in heavily-pretreated lymphomas, particularly in relapsed/refractory cHL (clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT01076543).

A randomized phase 2 study of temsirolimus and cetuximab versus temsirolimus alone in recurrent/metastatic, cetuximab-resistant head and neck cancer: The MAESTRO study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cetuximab-resistant, recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have poor outcomes. This study hypothesized that dual blockade of mammalian target of rapamycin and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) would overcome cetuximab resistance on the basis of the role of phosphoinositide 3-kinase signaling in preclinical models of EGFR resistance. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized clinical study, patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC with documented progression on cetuximab (in any line in the recurrent/metastatic setting) received 25 mg of temsirolimus weekly plus cetuximab at 400/250 mg/m2 weekly (TC) or single-agent temsirolimus (T). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) in the TC arm versus the T arm. Response rates, overall survival, and toxicity were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomized to therapy with TC or T alone. There was no difference for the primary outcome of median PFS (TC arm, 3.5 months; T arm, 3.5 months). The response rate was 12.5% in the TC arm (5 responses, including 1 complete response [2.5%]) and 2.5% in the T arm (1 partial response; P = .10). Responses were clinically meaningful in the TC arm (range, 3.6-9.1 months) but not in the T-alone arm (1.9 months). Fatigue, electrolyte abnormalities, and leukopenia were the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events and occurred in less than 20% of patients in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet its primary endpoint of improvement in PFS. However, TC induced responses in cetuximab-refractory patients with good tolerability. The post hoc observation of activity in patients with acquired resistance (after prior benefit from cetuximab monotherapy) may warrant further investigation.

Dasatinib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase II trial of the University of Chicago Phase II Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) are limited after a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan; novel agents need to be explored in this setting. Dasatinib, an oral inhibitor of Src family kinases, inhibits proliferation in CRC cell lines and has antitumor activity in CRC xenograft models. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multi-center phase II trial of dasatinib in unresectable, previously-treated metastatic CRC patients. No more than 2 prior chemotherapy regimens were permitted, which must have contained a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 4 months. The Simon two-stage design required that at least 5 of the first 19 patients be progression-free at 4 months to expand to a second stage. RESULTS: Nineteen patients enrolled at 9 centers. The study was terminated after the first stage due to lack of efficacy. There were no objective responses; 1 patient (5%) had stable disease for 7.3 months. The PFS rate at 4 months was 5.3% (90% CI: 0.3, 22.6). Median PFS was 1.6 months (90% CI: 1.4, 1.8). Median overall survival was 5.1 months (90% CI: 2.4, 6.3). Grade 3/4 toxicities included fatigue in 16% of patients, and anemia, anorexia, nausea/vomiting and dyspnea in 11%. CONCLUSION: Dasatinib is inactive as a single agent in previously treated metastatic CRC patients.

Vandetanib versus gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a two-part, double-blind, randomized phase ii study.

PURPOSE: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling. In this two-part phase II study, the efficacy and safety of vandetanib was compared with that of gefitinib, an inhibitor of EGFR signaling. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 168) with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), after failure of first-line with or without second-line platinum-based chemotherapy, received once-daily vandetanib 300 mg (n = 83) or gefitinib 250 mg (n = 85) until disease progression or evidence of toxicity (part A). After a 4-week washout period, eligible patients had the option to switch to the alternative treatment (part B). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary efficacy assessment in part A, which was designed to have a higher than 75% power to detect a 33% prolongation of PFS at a one-sided significance level of .2. RESULTS: In part A, vandetanib prolonged PFS compared with gefitinib (hazard ratio = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.96; one-sided P = .013). Patients receiving vandetanib experienced adverse events that were manageable and generally consistent with inhibition of EGFR and VEGFR signaling, including diarrhea, rash, and hypertension. There were no unexpected safety findings with gefitinib. Overall survival, a secondary assessment, was not significantly different between patients initially randomly assigned to either vandetanib or gefitinib. CONCLUSION: The primary efficacy objective was achieved, with vandetanib demonstrating a significant prolongation of PFS versus gefitinib. Vandetanib 300 mg/d is currently being evaluated as a monotherapy in two randomized phase III studies in advanced NSCLC.