Therapeutic Role of Synthetic Lethality in ARID1A-Deficient Malignancies.

AT-rich interaction domain 1A (ARID1A), a mammalian switch/sucrose nonfermenting complex subunit, modulates several cellular processes by regulating chromatin accessibility. It is encoded by ARID1A, an immunosuppressive gene frequently disrupted in a many tumors, affecting the proliferation, migration, and invasion of cancer cells. Targeting molecular pathways and epigenetic regulation associated with ARID1A loss, such as inhibiting the PI3K/AKT pathway or modulating Wnt/ß-catenin signaling, may help suppress tumor growth and progression. Developing epigenetic drugs like histone deacetylase or DNA methyltransferase inhibitors could restore normal chromatin structure and function in cells with ARID1A loss. As ARID1A deficiency correlates with enhanced tumor mutability, microsatellite instability, high tumor mutation burden, increased programmed death-ligand 1 expression, and T-lymphocyte infiltration, ARID1A-deficient cells can be a potential therapeutic target for immune checkpoint inhibitors that warrants further exploration. In this review, we discuss the role of ARID1A in carcinogenesis, its crosstalk with other signaling pathways, and strategies to make ARID1A-deficient cells a potential therapeutic target for patients with cancer.

Phase I study of sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228/MLN0128) in combination with ziv-aflibercept in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Sapanisertib is a potent ATP-competitive, dual inhibitor of mTORC1/2. Ziv-aflibercept is a recombinant fusion protein comprising human VEGF receptor extracellular domains fused to human immunoglobulin G1. HIF-1α inhibition in combination with anti-angiogenic therapy is a promising anti-tumor strategy. This Phase 1 dose-escalation/expansion study assessed safety/ tolerability of sapanisertib in combination with ziv-aflibercept in advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Fifty-five patients with heavily pre-treated advanced metastatic solid tumors resistant or refractory to standard treatment received treatment on a range of dose levels. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were enrolled and treated across a range of dose levels. Forty were female (73%), median age was 62 (range: 21-79), and ECOG PS was 0 (9, 16%) or 1 (46, 84%). Most common tumor types included ovarian (8), colorectal (8), sarcoma (8), breast (3), cervical (4), and endometrial (4). Median number of prior lines of therapy was 4 (range 2-11). Sapanisertib 4 mg orally 3 days on and 4 days off plus 3 mg/kg ziv-aflibercept IV every 2 weeks on a 28-day cycle was defined as the maximum tolerated dose. Most frequent treatment-related grade ≥2 adverse events included hypertension, fatigue, anorexia, hypertriglyceridemia, diarrhea, nausea, mucositis, and serum lipase increase. There were no grade 5 events. In patients with evaluable disease (n = 50), 37 patients (74%) achieved stable disease (SD) as best response, two patients (4%) achieved a confirmed partial response (PR); disease control rate (DCR) (CR + SD + PR) was 78%. CONCLUSION: The combination of sapanisertib and ziv-aflibercept was generally tolerable and demonstrated anti-tumor activity in heavily pre-treated patients with advanced malignancies.

First-In-Human Phase I Study of Tinengotinib (TT-00420), a Multiple Kinase Inhibitor, as a Single Agent in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This first-in-human phase I dose-escalation study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of tinengotinib (TT-00420), a multi-kinase inhibitor targeting fibroblast growth factor receptors 1-3 (FGFRs 1-3), Janus kinase 1/2, vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, and Aurora A/B, in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received tinengotinib orally daily in 28-day cycles. Dose escalation was guided by Bayesian modeling using escalation with overdose control. The primary objective was to assess dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and dose recommended for dose expansion (DRDE). Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics and efficacy. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were enrolled (dose escalation, n = 40; dose expansion, n = 8). MTD was not reached; DRDE was 12 mg daily. DLTs were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (8 mg, n = 1) and hypertension (15 mg, n = 2). The most common treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (50.0%). In 43 response-evaluable patients, 13 (30.2%) achieved partial response (PR; n = 7) or stable disease (SD) ≥ 24 weeks (n = 6), including 4/11 (36.4%) with FGFR2 mutations/fusions and cholangiocarcinoma (PR n = 3; SD ≥ 24 weeks n = 1), 3/3 (100.0%) with hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer (PR n = 2; SD ≥ 24 weeks n = 1), 2/5 (40.0%) with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC; PR n = 1; SD ≥ 24 weeks n = 1), and 1/1 (100.0%) with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC; PR). Four of 12 patients (33.3%; HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer, TNBC, prostate cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma) treated at DRDE had PRs. Tinengotinib's half-life was 28-34 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Tinengotinib was well tolerated with favorable pharmacokinetic characteristics. Preliminary findings indicated potential clinical benefit in FGFR inhibitor-refractory cholangiocarcinoma, HER2-negative breast cancer (including TNBC), and CRPC. Continued evaluation of tinengotinib is warranted in phase II trials.

Phase 1/2 trial of avelumab combined with utomilumab (4-1BB agonist), PF-04518600 (OX40 agonist), or radiotherapy in patients with advanced gynecologic malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint blockade has shown mixed results in advanced/recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Efficacy may be improved through costimulation with OX40 and 4-1BB agonists. The authors sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of avelumab combined with utomilumab (a 4-1BB agonist), PF-04518600 (an OX40 agonist), and radiotherapy in patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: The primary end point in this six-arm, phase 1/2 trial was safety of the combination regimens. Secondary end points included the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, the disease control rate (DCR), the duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Forty patients were included (35% with cervical cancer, 30% with endometrial cancer, and 35% with ovarian cancer). Most patients (n = 33; 83%) were enrolled in arms A-C (no radiation). Among 35 patients who were evaluable for efficacy, the ORR was 2.9%, and the DCR was 37.1%, with a median duration of stable disease of 5.4 months (interquartile range, 4.1-7.3 months). Patients with cervical cancer in arm A (avelumab and utomilumab; n = 9 evaluable patients) achieved an ORR of 11% and a DCR of 78%. The median progression-free survival was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.5 months), and overall survival was 9.4 months (95% CI, 5.6-11.9 months). No dose-limiting toxicities or grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this trial highlight that, in heavily pretreated patients with gynecologic cancer, even multidrug regimens targeting multiple immunologic pathways, although safe, did not produce significant responses. A DCR of 78% in patients with cervical cancer who received avelumab and utomilumab indicates that further research on this combination in select patients may be warranted.

Phase I Study of mTORC1/2 Inhibitor Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) in Combination with Metformin in Patients with mTOR/AKT/PI3K Pathway Alterations and Advanced Solid Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) is a potent, selective ATP-competitive, dual inhibitor of mTORC1/2. Metformin is thought to inhibit the mTOR pathway through upstream activation of 5'-AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) suggesting combination therapy may enhance antitumor activity of sapanisertib. We report preliminary safety, tolerability, and efficacy from the dose-escalation study of sapanisertib in combination with metformin in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with advanced metastatic solid tumors resistant or refractory to standard treatment, with and without mTOR/AKT/PI3K pathway alterations, received sapanisertib 3 or 4 mg daily together with metformin once to three times daily (500-1,500 mg). All patients underwent 14-day titration period for metformin in cycle 1. Tumor measurements were performed following cycle 2 and subsequently every 8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled across four cohorts (3 mg/500 mg; 3 mg/1,000 mg, 4 mg/1,000 mg; 4 mg/1,500 mg). 19 were female (63%), median age was 57 (range: 30-77), all were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1. Tumor types included sarcoma (6), breast (4), ovarian (4), head and neck (3), colorectal (2), lung (2), renal cell (2), endometrial (2), gastroesophageal junction (1), prostate (1), stomach (1), urachus (1), and cervical cancer (1). Median number of prior lines of therapy was 4. Most common genomic alterations included PIK3CA (27%), PTEN (17%), AKT1/2 (10%), mTOR (10%). Of 30 patients evaluable for response, 4 patients achieved partial response (PR); 15 patients achieved stable disease (SD) as best response. Disease control rate (PR+SD) was 63%. Of the responders in PR, 3 of 4 patients had documented PTEN mutations (3/5 patients enrolled with PTEN mutations had PR); 2 of 4 of patients in PR had comutations (patient with leiomyosarcoma had both PTEN and TSC; patient with breast cancer had both PTEN and STK11); 1 of 4 patients in PR had AKT and mTOR mutation; tumor types included leiomyosarcoma (n = 2), breast (n = 1), and endometrial cancer (n = 1). Most common treatment-emergent adverse events included nausea, anorexia, diarrhea, and rash. Grade (G) 3-5 treatment-related adverse events included hyperglycemia (4/30; 13%), fatigue (2/30; 7%), hypertriglyceridemia (1/30; 3%), rash (2/20; 7%), diarrhea (2/30; 7%), creatinine increase (1/30; 3%), acidosis (1/30; 3%). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were reported in the 3 mg/500 mg cohort. One of 6 patient had DLT in the 3 mg/1,000 mg cohort (G3 diarrhea) and 2 of 11 patients had DLTs in the 4 mg/1,500 mg cohort (G3 fatigue, G3 rash). 4 mg/1,000 mg was defined as the MTD. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of mTORC1/2 inhibitor sapanisertib in combination with metformin was generally tolerable, with antitumor activity observed in patients with advanced malignancies harboring PTEN mutations and AKT/mTOR pathway alterations. SIGNIFICANCE: Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) is a potent, selective ATP-competitive, next-generation dual inhibitor of mTORC1/2. Metformin is thought to inhibit the mTOR pathway through upstream activation of AMPK suggesting combination therapy may enhance antitumor activity of sapanisertib. This dose-escalation study of sapanisertib and metformin in advanced solid tumors and mTOR/AKT/PI3K pathway alterations, demonstrates safety, tolerability, and early clinical activity in advanced malignancies harboring PTEN mutations and AKT/mTOR pathway alterations.Clinical trial information: NCT03017833.

T-cell receptor beta variable gene polymorphism predicts immune-related adverse events during checkpoint blockade immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized cancer treatment. However, they are associated with a unique spectrum of side effects, called immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which can cause significant morbidity and quickly progress to severe or life-threatening events if not treated promptly. Identifying predictive biomarkers for irAEs before immunotherapy initiation is therefore a critical area of research. Polymorphisms within the T-cell receptor beta (TCRB) variable (TRBV) gene have been implicated in autoimmune disease and may be mechanistically linked to irAEs. However, the repetitive nature of the TCRB locus and incomplete genome assembly has hampered the evaluation of TRBV polymorphisms in the past. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a novel method for long-amplicon next generation sequencing of rearranged TCRB chains from peripheral blood total RNA to evaluate the link between TRBV polymorphisms and irAEs in patients treated with immunotherapy for cancer. We employed multiplex PCR to create amplicons spanning the three beta chain complementarity-determining regions (CDR) regions to enable detection of polymorphism within the germline-encoded framework and CDR1 and CDR2 regions in addition to CDR3 profiling. Resultant amplicons were sequenced via the Ion Torrent and TRBV allele profiles constructed for each individual was correlated with irAE annotations to identify haplotypes associated with severe irAEs (≥ grade 3). RESULTS: Our study included 81 patients who had irAEs when treated with immunotherapy for cancer. By using principal component analysis of the 81 TRBV allele profiles followed by k-means clustering, we identified six major TRBV haplotypes. Strikingly, we found that one-third of this cohort possessed a TRBV allele haplotype that appeared to be protective against severe irAEs. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that long-amplicon TCRB repertoire sequencing can potentially identify TRBV haplotype groups that correlate with the risk of severe irAEs. Germline-encoded TRBV polymorphisms may serve as a predictive biomarker of severe irAEs.

A Phase Ib Study Assessing the Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of the First-in-Class Wee1 Inhibitor Adavosertib (AZD1775) as Monotherapy in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Adavosertib (AZD1775) is a first-in-class, selective, small-molecule inhibitor of Wee1. OBJECTIVE: The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of adavosertib monotherapy were evaluated in patients with various solid-tumor types and molecular profiles. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had the following: confirmed diagnosis of ovarian cancer (OC), triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), or small-cell lung cancer (SCLC); previous treatment for metastatic/recurrent disease; and measurable disease. Patients were grouped into six matched cohorts based on tumor type and presence/absence of biomarkers and received oral adavosertib 175 mg twice a day on days 1-3 and 8-10 of a 21-day treatment cycle. RESULTS: Eighty patients received treatment in the expansion phase; median total treatment duration was 2.4 months. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (56.3%), nausea (42.5%), fatigue (36.3%), vomiting (18.8%), and decreased appetite (12.5%). Treatment-related grade ≥ 3 AEs and serious AEs were reported in 32.5% and 10.0% of patients, respectively. AEs led to dose interruptions in 22.5%, reductions in 11.3%, and discontinuations in 16.3% of patients. One patient died following serious AEs of deep vein thrombosis (treatment related) and respiratory failure (not treatment related). Objective response rate, disease control rate, and progression-free survival were as follows: 6.3%, 68.8%, 4.5 months (OC BRCA wild type); 3.3%, 76.7%, 3.9 months (OC BRCA mutation); 0%, 69.2%, 3.1 months (TNBC biomarker [CCNE1/MYC/MYCL1/MYCN] non-amplified [NA]); 0%, 50%, 2 months (TNBC biomarker amplified); 8.3%, 33.3%, 1.3 months (SCLC biomarker NA); and 0%, 33.3%, 1.2 months (SCLC biomarker amplified). CONCLUSION: Adavosertib monotherapy was tolerated and demonstrated some antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02482311; registered June 2015.

Adavosertib Enhances Antitumor Activity of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in HER2-Expressing Cancers.

PURPOSE: Cyclin E (CCNE1) has been proposed as a biomarker of sensitivity to adavosertib, a Wee1 kinase inhibitor, and a mechanism of resistance to HER2-targeted therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Copy number and genomic sequencing data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and MD Anderson Cancer Center databases were analyzed to assess ERBB2 and CCNE1 expression. Molecular characteristics of tumors and patient-derived xenografts (PDX) were assessed by next-generation sequencing, whole-exome sequencing, fluorescent in situ hybridization, and IHC. In vitro, CCNE1 was overexpressed or knocked down in HER2+ cell lines to evaluate drug combination efficacy. In vivo, NSG mice bearing PDXs were subjected to combinatorial therapy with various treatment regimens, followed by tumor growth assessment. Pharmacodynamic markers in PDXs were characterized by IHC and reverse-phase protein array. RESULTS: Among several ERBB2-amplified cancers, CCNE1 co-amplification was identified (gastric 37%, endometroid 43%, and ovarian serous adenocarcinoma 41%). We hypothesized that adavosertib may enhance activity of HER2 antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd). In vitro, sensitivity to T-DXd was decreased by cyclin E overexpression and increased by knockdown, and adavosertib was synergistic with topoisomerase I inhibitor DXd. In vivo, the T-DXd + adavosertib combination significantly increased γH2AX and antitumor activity in HER2 low, cyclin E amplified gastroesophageal cancer PDX models and prolonged event-free survival (EFS) in a HER2-overexpressing gastroesophageal cancer model. T-DXd + adavosertib treatment also increased EFS in other HER2-expressing tumor types, including a T-DXd-treated colon cancer model. CONCLUSIONS: We provide rationale for combining T-DXd with adavosertib in HER2-expressing cancers, especially with co-occuring CCNE1 amplifications. See related commentary by Rolfo et al., p. 4317.

A phase I trial of the pan-ERBB inhibitor neratinib combined with the MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with advanced cancer with EGFR mutation/amplification, HER2 mutation/amplification, HER3/4 mutation or KRAS mutation.

PURPOSE: Aberrant alterations of ERBB receptor tyrosine kinases lead to tumorigenesis. Single agent therapy targeting EGFR or HER2 has shown clinical successes, but drug resistance often develops due to aberrant or compensatory mechanisms. Herein, we sought to determine the feasibility and safety of neratinib and trametinib in patients with EGFR mutation/amplification, HER2 mutation/amplification, HER3/4 mutation and KRAS mutation. METHODS: Patients with actionable somatic mutations or amplifications in ERBB genes or actionable KRAS mutations were enrolled to receive neratinib and trametinib in this phase I dose escalation trial. The primary endpoint was determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetic analysis and preliminary anti-tumor efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled with a median age of 50.5 years and a median of 3 lines of prior therapy. Grade 3 treatment-related toxicities included: diarrhea (25%), vomiting (10%), nausea (5%), fatigue (5%) and malaise (5%). The MTD was dose level (DL) minus 1 (neratinib 160 mg daily with trametinib 1 mg, 5 days on and 2 days off) given 2 DLTs of grade 3 diarrhea in DL1 (neratinib 160 mg daily with trametinib 1 mg daily). The treatment-related toxicities of DL1 included: diarrhea (100%), nausea (55.6%) and rash (55.6%). Pharmacokinetic data showed trametinib clearance was significantly reduced leading to high drug exposures of trametinib. Two patients achieved stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months. CONCLUSION: Neratinib and trametinib combination was toxic and had limited clinical efficacy. This may be due to suboptimal drug dosing given drug-drug interactions. TRIAL REGISTRATION ID: NCT03065387.

A Phase I Trial of Bevacizumab and Temsirolimus in Combination With Valproic Acid in Advanced Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical models suggest synergy between anti-angiogenesis therapy, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and histone deacetylase inhibitors to promote anticancer activity. METHODS: This phase I study enrolled 47 patients between April 2012 and 2018 and determined safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) when combining bevacizumab, temsirolimus, and valproic acid in patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: Median age of enrolled patients was 56 years. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 lines of prior therapy. Forty-five patients (95.7%) experienced one or more treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Grade 3 TRAEs were lymphopenia (14.9%), thrombocytopenia (8.5%), and mucositis (6.4%). Grade 4 TRAEs included lymphopenia (2.1%) and CNS cerebrovascular ischemia (2.1%). Six patients developed DLTs across 10 dose levels with grade 3 infection, rash, mucositis, bowel perforation, elevated lipase, and grade 4 cerebrovascular ischemia. The MTD was dose level 9 (bevacizumab 5 mg/kg days 1 and 15 intravenously (IV) plus temsirolimus 25 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 IV and valproic acid 5 mg/kg on days 1-7 and 15-21 per orally (PO)). Objective response rate (ORR) was 7.9% with confirmed partial response (PRs) in 3 patients (one each in parotid gland, ovarian, and vaginal cancers). Stable disease (SD) ≥+6 months was seen in 5 patients (13.1%). Clinical benefit state (CBR: PR + SD ≥+6 months) was 21%. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with bevacizumab, temsirolimus, and valproic acid was feasible, but there were numerous toxicities, which will require careful management for future clinical development (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01552434).

Phase I study of sapanisertib with carboplatin and paclitaxel in mTOR pathway altered solid malignancies.

Pre-clinically, the mTORC1/2 inhibitor sapanisertib restored sensitivity to platinums and enhanced paclitaxel-induced cancer cell killing. NCT03430882 enrolled patients with mTOR pathway aberrant tumors to receive sapanisertib, carboplatin and paclitaxel. Primary objective was safety and secondary objectives were clinical response and survival. One patient had a dose-limiting toxicity at dose level 4. There were no unanticipated toxicities. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events included anemia (21%), neutropenia (21%), thrombocytopenia (10.5%), and transaminitis (5%). Of 17 patients evaluable for response, 2 and 11 patients achieved partial response and stable disease, respectively. Responders included a patient with unclassified renal cell carcinoma harboring EWSR1-POU5F1 fusion and a patient with castrate resistant prostate cancer harboring PTEN loss. Median progression free survival was 3.84 months. Sapanisertib in combination with carboplatin plus paclitaxel demonstrated a manageable safety profile, with preliminary antitumor activity observed in advanced malignancies harboring mTOR pathway alterations.

Impact of Biomarker-Matched Therapies on Outcomes in Patients with Sarcoma Enrolled in Early-Phase Clinical Trials (SAMBA 101).

PURPOSE: Developing new therapeutics for any of the more than 100 sarcoma subtypes presents a challenge. After progression from standard therapies, patients with sarcoma may be referred for enrollment in early-phase trials. This study aimed to investigate whether enrollment in biomarker-matched early-phase clinical trials leads to better outcomes for patients with advanced sarcoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this retrospective analysis, investigational treatment characteristics and longitudinal survival outcomes were analyzed in patients with biopsy-confirmed sarcoma enrolled in early-phase trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center from May 2006 to July 2021. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-seven patients were included [405 soft tissue, 122 bone, 60 gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST); median of three prior lines of therapy]. Most common subtypes were leiomyosarcoma (17.2%), liposarcoma (14.0%), and GIST (10.2%). Molecular testing was available for 511 patients (87.1%); 221 patients (37.6%) were treated in matched trials. Overall response rate was 13.1% matched compared with 4.9% in unmatched (P < 0.001); the clinical benefit rate at 6 months was 43.9% vs. 19.9% (P < 0.001). Progression-free survival was longer for patients in matched trials (median, 5.5 vs. 2.4 months; P < 0.001), and overall survival was also superior for patients in matched trials (median, 21.5 vs. 12.3 months; P < 0.001). The benefit of enrollment in matched trials was maintained when patients with GIST were excluded from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Enrollment in biomarker-matched early-phase trials is associated with improved outcomes in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic sarcoma. Molecular testing of tumors from patients with advanced sarcoma and enrollment in matched trials is a reasonable therapeutic strategy.

BRAF v600E-mutant cancers treated with vemurafenib alone or in combination with everolimus, sorafenib, or crizotinib or with paclitaxel and carboplatin (VEM-PLUS) study.

Combined BRAF + MEK inhibition is FDA approved for BRAF V600E-mutant solid tumors except for colorectal cancer. However, beyond MAPK mediated resistance several other mechanisms of resistance such as activation of CRAF, ARAF, MET, P13K/AKT/mTOR pathway exist among other complex pathways. In the VEM-PLUS study, we performed a pooled analysis of four phase one studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of vemurafenib monotherapy and vemurafenib combined with targeted therapies (sorafenib, crizotinib, or everolimus) or carboplatin plus paclitaxel in advanced solid tumors harboring BRAF V600 mutations. When vemurafenib monotherapy was compared with the combination regimens, no significant differences in OS or PFS durations were noted, except for inferior OS in the vemurafenib and paclitaxel and carboplatin trial (P = 0.011; HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.22-4.7) and in crossover patients (P = 0.0025; HR, 2.089; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4). Patients naïve to prior BRAF inhibitors had statistically significantly improved OS at 12.6 months compared to 10.4 months in the BRAF therapy refractory group (P = 0.024; HR, 1.69; 95% CI 1.07-2.68). The median PFS was statistically significant between both groups, with 7 months in the BRAF therapy naïve group compared to 4.7 months in the BRAF therapy refractory group (P = 0.016; HR, 1.80; 95% CI 1.11-2.91). The confirmed ORR in the vemurafenib monotherapy trial (28%) was higher than that in the combination trials. Our findings suggest that, compared with vemurafenib monotherapy, combinations of vemurafenib with cytotoxic chemotherapy or with RAF- or mTOR-targeting agents do not significantly extend the OS or PFS of patients who have solid tumors with BRAF V600E mutations. Gaining a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms of BRAF inhibitor resistance, balancing toxicity and efficacy with novel trial designs are warranted.

Predictors of Oncologic Outcome in Patients Receiving Phase I Investigational Therapy for Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer.

Introduction: We aimed to identify clinical, pathologic, and treatment factors that are predictive of response and survival in patients with cervical cancer referred to phase I clinical trials. Methods: Patients with cervical cancer who received at least one dose of a phase I investigational agent at our institution between 2014 and 2022 were included. The log-rank test was used to analyze differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and multivariable regression analysis was performed. Results: We included 65 patients with a median age of 41 years (range, 20-74), 3 prior therapies (range, 1-7), and 67.7% squamous carcinoma. The rate of distant metastasis at trial entry was 84.6%. The most common molecular alterations included PIK3CA (46.5%), PD-L1+ (46.2%), EPH (30.0%), and CREBBP (23.1%); 23.1% had received a prior checkpoint inhibitor. Phase I trials were for immunotherapy (58.5%) or targeted therapy (41.5%). The rate of biomarker matching was 21.5%. For all patients, median PFS was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.2) and OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.0-10.6). Factors at study entry associated with worse survival were presence of bone metastasis (PFS 1.6 vs 4.4 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; p = 0.001; OS 3.8 vs 10.0 months: HR, 3.9; p < 0.0001) and absolute lymphocyte count below 1000/µL (PFS 1.8 vs 5.2 months: HR, 2.9; p = 0.0004; OS 7.0 vs 10.6 months: HR, 3.2; p = 0.0009). Factors associated only with worse OS were absolute neutrophil count above 4700/µL, hemoglobin below 10.5 g/dL, and smoking status. Grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events were seen in 16.9% of cases. Conclusion: Bone metastasis and absolute lymphocyte count below normal range at phase I study entry portend poor survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

Complex I inhibitor of oxidative phosphorylation in advanced solid tumors and acute myeloid leukemia: phase I trials.

Although targeting oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) is a rational anticancer strategy, clinical benefit with OXPHOS inhibitors has yet to be achieved. Here we advanced IACS-010759, a highly potent and selective small-molecule complex I inhibitor, into two dose-escalation phase I trials in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (NCT02882321, n = 17) and advanced solid tumors (NCT03291938, n = 23). The primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of IACS-010759. The PK, PD, and preliminary antitumor activities of IACS-010759 in patients were also evaluated as secondary endpoints in both clinical trials. IACS-010759 had a narrow therapeutic index with emergent dose-limiting toxicities, including elevated blood lactate and neurotoxicity, which obstructed efforts to maintain target exposure. Consequently no RP2D was established, only modest target inhibition and limited antitumor activity were observed at tolerated doses, and both trials were discontinued. Reverse translational studies in mice demonstrated that IACS-010759 induced behavioral and physiological changes indicative of peripheral neuropathy, which were minimized with the coadministration of a histone deacetylase 6 inhibitor. Additional studies are needed to elucidate the association between OXPHOS inhibition and neurotoxicity, and caution is warranted in the continued development of complex I inhibitors as antitumor agents.

Selinexor in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with metastatic solid tumors: Results of an open label, single-center, multi-arm phase 1b study with expansion phase in ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Selinexor is a first-in-class, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound which blocks Exportin-1 (XPO1). Our objective was to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of selinexor and weekly paclitaxel. METHODS: This was an open label, single-center, multi-arm phase 1b study utilizing a "3 + 3" design and a "basket-type" expansion in recurrent solid tumors. Selinexor (60 mg or 80 mg twice weekly orally) and weekly paclitaxel (80 mg IV 2 week on, 1 week off) were one of 13 parallel arms. Efficacy was evaluated using RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: All 35 patients treated were evaluable for toxicity and 31 (88%) were evaluable for response. Patient diagnoses included platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian (n = 28), breast (n = 4), prostate (n = 2), and cervical (n = 1) cancer. Patients had a median of four prior therapies (range 1-10), and 47% had a prior taxane in the recurrent setting. There were no DLTs and 60 mg was chosen as the RP2D due to long-term tolerability. Ninety-seven percent of patients had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and the most common grade ≥ 3 TEAE were neutropenia (46%), anemia (31%), and nausea (21%). Among 24 evaluable patients with ovarian cancer, response rate was 17%, CBR was 58%, and median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI 3.7, not reached (NR)). CONCLUSIONS: Oral selinexor in combination with weekly paclitaxel demonstrated promising clinical activity with manageable toxicity. This combination should be considered for further exploration in a randomized study, especially in ovarian malignancies.

Examining Stripes on a Herd of Zebras: Impact of Genomic Matching for Ultrarare Sarcomas in Phase 1 Clinical Trials (SAMBA 102).

PURPOSE: Recently, the Connective Tissue Oncology Society published consensus guidelines for recognizing ultrarare sarcomas (URS), defined as sarcomas with an incidence ≤1 per 1,000,000. We assessed the outcomes of 56 patients with soft tissue, and 21 with bone sarcomas, enrolled in Phase 1 trials. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this Sarcoma-Matched Biomarker Analysis (SAMBA-102 study), we reviewed records from patients on Phase 1 trials at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 2013 and June 2021. RESULTS: Among 587 sarcomas, 106 (18.1%) were classified as URS. Fifty (47%) were male, and the median age was 44.3 years (range, 19-82). The most common subtypes were alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS), chordoma, dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma, and sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma. Compared with common sarcomas, median OS was similar 16.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.6-17.5] versus 16.1 (95% CI, 8.2-24.0) in URS (P = 0.359). Objective response to treatment was higher in URS 13.2% (n = 14/106) compared with common sarcomas 6.9% (n = 33/481; P = 0.029). Median OS for those treated on matched trials was 27.3 months (95% CI, 1.9-52.7) compared with 13.4 months (95% CI, 6.3-20.6) for those not treated on matched trials (P = 0.291). Eight of 33 (24%) molecularly matched treatments resulted in an objective response, whereas 6 of 73 unmatched treatments (8.2%) resulted in an objective response (P = 0.024). Clinical benefit rate was 36.4% (12/33) in matched trials versus 26.0% (19/73) in unmatched trials (P = 0.279). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the benefit of genomic selection in Phase 1 trials to help identify molecular subsets likely to benefit from targeted therapy.

Multicenter Phase II Trial of the WEE1 Inhibitor Adavosertib in Refractory Solid Tumors Harboring CCNE1 Amplification.

PURPOSE: Preclinical cancer models harboring CCNE1 amplification were more sensitive to adavosertib treatment, a WEE1 kinase inhibitor, than models without amplification. Thus, we conducted this phase II study to assess the antitumor activity of adavosertib in patients with CCNE1-amplified, advanced refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with measurable disease and refractory solid tumors harboring CCNE1 amplification, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and adequate organ function were studied. Patients received 300 mg of adavosertib once daily on days 1 through 5 and 8 through 12 of a 21-day cycle. The trial followed Bayesian optimal phase II design. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled. The median follow-up duration was 9.9 months. Eight patients had partial responses (PRs), and three had stable disease (SD) ≥ 6 months, with an ORR of 27% (95% CI, 12 to 46), a SD ≥ 6 months/PR rate of 37% (95% CI, 20 to 56), a median progression-free survival duration of 4.1 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 6.4), and a median overall survival duration of 9.9 months (95% CI, 4.8 to 15). Fourteen patients with epithelial ovarian cancer showed an ORR of 36% (95% CI, 13 to 65) and SD ≥ 6 months/PR of 57% (95% CI, 29 to 82), a median progression-free survival duration of 6.3 months (95% CI, 2.4 to 10.2), and a median overall survival duration of 14.9 months (95% CI, 8.9 to 20.9). Common treatment-related toxicities were GI, hematologic toxicities, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: Adavosertib monotherapy demonstrates a manageable toxicity profile and promising clinical activity in refractory solid tumors harboring CCNE1 amplification, especially in epithelial ovarian cancer. Further study of adavosertib, alone or in combination with other therapeutic agents, in CCNE1-amplified epithelial ovarian cancer is warranted.

Challenges and opportunities associated with the MD Anderson IMPACT2 randomized study in precision oncology.

We investigated the challenges of conducting IMPACT2, an ongoing randomized study that evaluates molecular testing and targeted therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02152254). Patients with metastatic cancer underwent tumor profiling and were randomized between the two arms when eligibility criteria were met (Part A). In Part B, patients who declined randomization could choose the study arm. In Part A, 69 (21.8%) of 317 patients were randomized; 78.2% were not randomized because of non-targetable alterations (39.8%), unavailability of clinical trial (21.8%), other reasons (12.6%), or availability of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs for the indication (4.1%). In Part B, 32 (20.4%) of 157 patients were offered randomization; 16 accepted and 16 selected their treatment arm; 79.0% were not randomized (patient's/physician's choice, 29.3%; treatment selection prior to genomic reports, 16.6%; worsening performance status/death, 12.7%; unavailability of clinical trials, 6.4%; other, 6.4%; non-targetable alterations, 5.7%; or availability of FDA-approved drugs for the indication, 1.9%). In conclusion, although randomized controlled trials have been considered the gold standard for drug development, the execution of randomized trials in precision oncology in the advanced metastatic setting is complicated. We encountered various challenges conducting the IMPACT2 study, a large precision oncology trial in patients with diverse solid tumor types. The adaptive design of IMPACT2 enables patient randomization despite the continual FDA approval of targeted therapies, the evolving tumor biomarker landscape, and the plethora of investigational drugs. Outcomes for randomized patients are awaited.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Recurrent Microsatellite-Stable Endometrial Cancer in Early-Phase Immunotherapy Clinical Trials.

Recurrent microsatellite stable (MSS) endometrial cancer has poor response to conventional therapy and limited efficacy with immune checkpoint monotherapy. We conducted a retrospective study of recurrent MSS endometrial cancer patients enrolled in immunotherapy-based clinical trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. Patients were evaluated for radiologic response using RECIST 1.1 criteria, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Thirty-five patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: 8 with monotherapy, 17 with immunotherapy (IO) in combination with another IO-only, and 10 with IO in combination with non-IO therapy. Among those treated with combination IO plus non-IO therapy, one had a partial response but 50% had clinical benefit. Patients who received combination IO plus non-IO therapy had improved PFS compared to those who received monotherapy (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.97; p = 0.037) or combination IO-only therapy (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.90; p = 0.028) and had improved OS when compared to monotherapy after adjusting for prior lines of therapy (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.95; p = 0.036). The potential beneficial clinical outcomes of combination IO plus non-IO therapy in MSS endometrial cancer should be validated in a larger study.