A Phase I Study of ASTX660, an Antagonist of Inhibitors of Apoptosis Proteins, in Adults with Advanced Cancers or Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: This first-in-human, phase I study evaluated ASTX660, an oral, small-molecule antagonist of cellular/X-linked inhibitors of apoptosis proteins in patients with advanced solid tumors or lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ASTX660 was administered orally once daily on a 7-day-on/7-day-off schedule in a 28-day cycle. Dose escalation followed a standard 3+3 design to determine the MTD and recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Dose expansion was conducted at the RP2D. RESULTS: Forty-five patients received ASTX660 (range 15-270 mg/day). Dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 increased lipase with or without increased amylase occurred in 3 patients at 270 mg/day and 1 patient at 210 mg/day. The MTD was determined to be 210 mg/day and the RP2D 180 mg/day. Common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue (33%), vomiting (31%), and nausea (27%). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 7 patients, most commonly anemia (13%), increased lipase (11%), and lymphopenia (9%). ASTX660 was rapidly absorbed, with maximum concentration achieved at approximately 0.5-1.0 hour. An approximately 2-fold accumulation in AUC exposures was observed on day 7 versus 1. ASTX660 suppressed cellular inhibitor of apoptosis protein-1 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, which was maintained into the second cycle beyond the off-therapy week at the 180-mg/day RP2D and above. Clinical activity was seen in a patient with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. CONCLUSIONS: ASTX660 demonstrated a manageable safety profile and exhibited evidence of pharmacodynamic and preliminary clinical activity at the 180-mg/day RP2D. The phase II part of the study is ongoing.

Genomic and epigenomic predictors of response to guadecitabine in relapsed/refractory acute myelogenous leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Guadecitabine is a novel DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) inhibitor with improved pharmacokinetics and clinical activity in a subset of patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (r/r AML), but identification of this subset remains difficult. METHODS: To search for biomarkers of response, we measured genome-wide DNA methylation, mutations of 54 genes, and expression of a panel of 7 genes in pre-treatment samples from 128 patients treated at therapeutic doses in a phase I/II study. RESULTS: Response rate to guadecitabine was 17% (2 complete remission (CR), 3 CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi), or CR with incomplete platelets recovery (CRp)) in the phase I component and 23% (14 CR, 9 CRi/CRp) in phase II. There were no strong mutation or methylation predictors of response. Gene expression clustering defined a subset of patients (~ 20%) that had (i) high DNMT3B and low CDKN2B, CTCF, and CDA expression; (ii) enrichment for KRAS/NRAS mutations; (iii) frequent CpG island hypermethylation; (iv) low long interspersed nuclear element 1 (LINE-1) hypomethylation after treatment; and (v) resistance to guadecitabine in both phase I (response rate 0% vs. 33%, p = 0.07) and phase II components of the study (response rate 5% vs. 30%, p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identified peripheral blood (PB) blasts and hemoglobin as predictors of response and cytogenetics, gene expression, RAS mutations, and hemoglobin as predictors of survival. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of patients (~ 20%) with r/r AML is unlikely to benefit from guadecitabine as a single agent. In the remaining 80%, guadecitabine is a viable option with a median survival of 8 months and a 2-year survival rate of 21%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01261312 .

A Phase I Clinical Trial of Guadecitabine and Carboplatin in Platinum-Resistant, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: Clinical, Pharmacokinetic, and Pharmacodynamic Analyses.

Purpose: Epigenetic changes are implicated in acquired resistance to platinum. Guadecitabine is a next-generation hypomethylating agent (HMA). Here, we report the clinical results, along with pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic analyses of the phase I study of guadecitabine and carboplatin in patients with recurrent, platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal carcinoma (PPC), or fallopian tube cancer (FTC).Experimental Design: Guadecitabine was administered once daily on days 1 to 5 followed by carboplatin i.v. on day 8 of a 28-day cycle. Patients had either measurable or detectable disease. Safety assessments used CTCAE v4.Results: Twenty patients were enrolled and treated. Median age was 56 years (38-72 years). The median number of prior regimens was 7 (1-14). In the first cohort (N = 6), the starting doses were guadecitabine 45 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC5. Four patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT; neutropenia and thrombocytopenia), leading to dose deescalation of guadecitabine to 30 mg/m2 and of carboplatin to AUC4. No DLTs were observed in the subsequent 14 patients. Grade ≥3 adverse events ≥10% were neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, nausea, vomiting, ascites, constipation, hypokalemia, pulmonary embolism, small-intestinal obstruction, and thrombocytopenia. Three patients had a partial response (PR), and 6 patients had stable disease (SD) >3 months, for an overall response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit rate of 15% and 45%, respectively. LINE-1 demethylation in PBMCs and promoter demethylation/gene reexpression in paired tumor biopsies/ascites were recorded.Conclusions: Guadecitabine and carboplatin were tolerated and induced clinical responses in a heavily pretreated platinum-resistant ovarian cancer population, supporting a subsequent randomized phase II trial. Clin Cancer Res; 24(10); 2285-93. ©2018 AACR.

Simultaneous Modeling of Biomarker and Toxicity Response Predicted Optimal Regimen of Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in Myeloid Malignancies.

Guadecitabine (SGI-110) is a novel next-generation hypomethylating agent (HMA) administered as s.c. injection with extended decitabine exposure. Dose/exposure-response analyses of longitudinal measures of long interspersed nucleotide element-1 (LINE-1) methylation and absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) pooled from 79 and 369 patients in 2 phase I/II trials, respectively, were performed to assist, through modeling and simulation, the selection of dosing regimens for phase III. Simulation of ANC predicted a decrease after a 5-day regimen of 60 mg/m2 with partial recovery before the next cycle, whereas the nadir of 90 mg/m2 on the same schedule was below 100/µl. ANC following a 60 mg/m2 10-day regimen was predicted to be suppressed below 100/µl as long as treatment continued without recovery. The developed models provided useful tools to assist simultaneous evaluation of the relative dynamics of the two effects (DNA demethylation and the effect on ANC).

Verteporfin therapy of subfoveal minimally classic choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: 2-year results of a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment effect and safety of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin using a standard (SF) or reduced (RF) light fluence rate with that of placebo therapy in patients with subfoveal minimally classic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) with age-related macular degeneration. DESIGN: Phase 2, multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Nineteen ophthalmology practices in North America and Europe. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with initial best-corrected visual acuity of at least 20/250 and a lesion size of no greater than 6 Macular Photocoagulation Study (MPS) disc areas. METHODS: We randomly assigned 117 patients (1:1:1) to verteporfin infusion (6 mg/m(2)) and light application with an RF rate (300 mW/cm(2)) for 83 seconds (light dose of 25 J/cm(2)) or an SF rate (600 mW/cm(2)) for 83 seconds (light dose of 50 J/cm(2)) or to placebo infusion with RF or SF. Treatment was repeated every 3 months if the treating physician noted fluorescein leakage from CNV on angiography. Patients in whom a predominantly classic lesion developed could receive open-label standard verteporfin treatment. Best-corrected visual acuity was measured every 3 months, and angiographic changes were assessed by the Photograph Reading Center through the 3-month examination unless an ocular adverse event or conversion to a predominantly classic lesion was identified by an investigator. Safety was assessed throughout the study. All outcomes were on an intent-to-treat basis. RESULTS: One hundred three (88%) of 117 patients completed the 24-month examination. Twelve (30%) of 40 patients assigned to placebo received open-label standard verteporfin treatment after confirmation of presence of predominantly classic CNV. At month 12, a loss of at least 3 lines of visual acuity occurred in 5 (14%) of 36 eyes assigned to RF and 10 (28%) of 36 eyes assigned to SF, compared with 18 (47%) of 38 eyes assigned to placebo (RF, P = .002; SF, P = .08; RF + SF, P = .004). At month 24, this loss occurred in 9 (26%) of 34 eyes assigned to RF and 17 (53%) of 32 assigned to SF, compared with 23 (62%) of 37 eyes assigned to placebo (RF, P = .003; SF, P = .45; RF + SF, P = .03). Progression to predominantly classic CNV by 24 months was more common in the placebo group (11 [28%] of 39 patients compared with 2 [5%] of 38 in the RF group [P = .007] and 1 [3%] of 37 in the SF group [P = .002]). No unexpected ocular or systemic adverse events were identified. Treatment-related, usually transient visual disturbances were 13% with SF, 10% with placebo, and 5% with RF. CONCLUSIONS: Verteporfin therapy safely reduced the risks of losing at least 15 letters (> or =3 lines) of visual acuity and progression to predominantly classic CNV for at least 2 years in individuals with subfoveal minimally classic lesions due to age-related macular degeneration measuring 6 MPS disc areas or less. Based on the overall evidence available on verteporfin therapy for these lesions, the VIM Study Group would consider recommending verteporfin therapy for relatively small minimally classic lesions similar to those enrolled in the VIM Trial.

Photodynamic therapy of multiple nonmelanoma skin cancers with verteporfin and red light-emitting diodes: two-year results evaluating tumor response and cosmetic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Efficient treatment of patients with multiple synchronous nonmelanoma skin cancers represents a therapeutic challenge. OBJECTIVE: To study the safety and efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin and red light in the treatment of multiple nonmelanoma skin cancers. DESIGN: Open-label, randomized, multicenter, dose-ranging phase 2 study conducted at 4 North American university-based dermatology clinics. PATIENTS: Fifty-four patients with 421 multiple nonmelanoma skin cancers including superficial and nodular basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in situ (Bowen disease). METHODS: A single intravenous infusion of 14 mg/m(2) of verteporfin followed 1 to 3 hours later by exposure of tumors to 60, 120, or 180 J/cm(2) of red light (688 +/- 10 nm) from a light-emitting diode panel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pathologic response of treated sites was assessed at 6 months. Clinical and cosmetic responses were assessed and graded at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after verteporfin PDT, with optional follow-up visits at 12, 18, and 24 months. RESULTS: The histopathologic response, defined as absence of tumor on biopsy specimens 6 months after verteporfin PDT, ranged from 69% at 60 J/cm(2) to 93% at 180 J/cm(2). At 24 months of follow-up (276 tumors in 31 patients), the clinical complete response rate ranged from 51% at 60 J/cm(2) to 95% at 180 J/cm(2). No significant systemic adverse events were observed; most events occurred at the treated tumor sites and included events such as pain. Overall, 65% (95% confidence interval, 58%-71%) of tumors were judged to have good to excellent cosmesis at 24 months. CONCLUSION: A single course of verteporfin PDT showed treatment benefit for patients with multiple nonmelanoma skin cancers.

Effect of lesion size, visual acuity, and lesion composition on visual acuity change with and without verteporfin therapy for choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration: TAP and VIP report no. 1.

PURPOSE: To determine whether differences in baseline lesion size and visual acuity might explain differing results found in three different lesion compositions (predominantly classic, minimally classic, and occult with no classic) among three placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials evaluating photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (Visudyne, Novartis AG), also termed verteporfin therapy, in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Exploratory analyses were conducted in patients with predominantly classic or minimally classic lesions at enrollment in the Treatment of AMD with Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Investigation and in AMD patients with occult with no classic CNV in the Verteporfin In Photodynamic Therapy (VIP) Trial. Baseline characteristics of patients among these three lesion compositions were compared. In addition, multiple linear regression modeling was used to explore the effect of baseline lesion size, visual acuity, and lesion composition on mean change in visual acuity from baseline to 24 months. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean size of predominantly classic lesions (3.4 disk areas) was smaller than that of minimally classic (4.7 disk areas) and occult with no classic lesions (4.3 disk areas). In the multiple linear regression model of individual lesion compositions, there was a significant treatment-by-lesion-size interaction for minimally classic and occult with no classic lesions, but not for predominantly classic lesions. Interaction between treatment and baseline visual acuity was not significant for any lesion composition. Small verteporfin-treated lesions lost less vision than large verteporfin-treated lesions in each lesion composition. In the multiple linear regression model that included all lesion compositions, lesion size was a more significant predictive factor for the magnitude of treatment benefit than either lesion composition or visual acuity. Smaller (4.0 disk areas or less) minimally classic and occult with no classic lesions had similar visual acuity outcomes to those observed in predominantly classic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Based on exploratory analyses, lesion size in the TAP Investigation and VIP Trial was an important predictor of the magnitude of treatment benefit with verteporfin therapy in occult with no classic and minimally classic lesion compositions. In patients with AMD, treating smaller rather than larger neovascular lesions, regardless of lesion composition, likely will result in a better level of visual acuity.

Verteporfin therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: meta-analysis of 2-year safety results in three randomized clinical trials: Treatment Of Age-Related Macular Degeneration With Photodynamic Therapy and Verteporfin In Photodynamic Therapy Study Report no. 4.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the detailed safety profile of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) caused by age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) from the combined analysis of three multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized 24-month clinical trials of similar design (TAP Investigation Studies A and B and the VIP ARMD Trial), and to clarify the adverse reaction information in the current verteporfin product prescription information approved in the United States. METHODS: Nine hundred forty-eight patients were randomly assigned to verteporfin or placebo. Treatment was administered as described in previous reports. All general entry criteria were similar, so systemic safety results were combined for this analysis. Entry criteria for CNV lesion composition and visual acuity in the two TAP Investigation trials was different from those used in the VIP ARMD trial, so ocular safety results for the treated eye were not combined. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who experienced at least one ocular or nonocular adverse event, regardless of relationship to therapy, was similar between the verteporfin and placebo groups (92.3 and 89.1%, respectively, P = 0.114). The overall incidence of study eye adverse events was not significantly different between verteporfin and placebo. The only clinically relevant ocular adverse events reported with higher incidence after verteporfin compared with placebo were visual disturbances (22.1 versus 15.5% in TAP [P = 0.054] and 41.7 and 22.8% in VIP [P < 0.001]). Acute severe visual acuity decrease (defined as a visual acuity letter score decrease of at least 20, equivalent to at least four-line decrease, within 7 days of therapy) occurred in 3 patients treated with verteporfin in the TAP Investigation (0.7%) and 11 in the VIP ARMD trial (4.9%). Systemic adverse events with increased incidence after verteporfin compared with placebo, most of which were transient and mild or moderate, were injection site reactions (13.1 versus 5.6%; P < 0.001), photosensitivity reactions (2.4 versus 0.3%; P = 0.016), and infusion-related back pain (2.4 versus 0%; P = 0.004). No clinically relevant difference was observed between the verteporfin and placebo groups in any other adverse event. CONCLUSION: In 948 ARMD patients, verteporfin therapy had an overall safety profile similar to that for placebo, with a few exceptions. Visual disturbances, including acute severe visual acuity decrease, did not affect the net vision outcome benefits associated with treatment that has been reported previously. This detailed safety profile of verteporfin therapy clarifies the adverse reaction information in the current verteporfin product prescription information.