A View on Drug Development for Cancer Prevention.

Despite some notable successes, there are still relatively few agents approved for cancer prevention. Here we review progress thus far in the development of medicines for cancer prevention, and we outline some key concepts that could further enable or accelerate drug development for cancer prevention in the future. These are summarized under six key themes: (i) unmet clinical need, (ii) patient identification, (iii) risk stratification, (iv) pharmacological intervention, (v) clinical trials, and (vi) health care policy. These concepts, if successfully realized, may help to increase the number of medicines available for cancer prevention. SIGNIFICANCE: The huge potential public health benefits of preventing cancer, combined with recent advances in the availability of novel early detection technologies and new treatment modalities, has caused us to revisit the opportunities and challenges associated with developing medicines to prevent cancer. Here we review progress in the field of developing medicines to prevent cancer to date, and we present a series of ideas that might help in the development of more medicines to prevent cancer in the future.

Durvalumab activity in previously treated patients who stopped durvalumab without disease progression.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on potential clinical benefit with anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) retreatment in patients who stop initial therapy for reasons other than disease progression or toxicity and develop disease progression while off treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NCT01693562 was a phase I/II study evaluating durvalumab monotherapy in advanced solid tumors. Patients benefiting from treatment were taken off durvalumab at 1 year per protocol and prospectively followed. At disease progression, they were eligible for durvalumab retreatment. Outcomes evaluated during retreatment included best overall response (BOR2), duration of response (DoR2), disease control rate (DCR2), and progression-free survival (PFS2). RESULTS: Of 980 patients enrolled and treated with durvalumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W) in the dose-expansion cohorts, 168 completed 1 year of initial durvalumab treatment with confirmed BOR1 of complete response in 20 (11.9%), partial response (PR) in 84 (50%), stable disease (SD) in 52 (31%), and disease progression in 12 (7.1%). All 168 patients stopped treatment and were eligible for retreatment at progression; 70 patients (41.7%) representing 14 primary tumor types were retreated and response evaluable. Confirmed BOR2 was PR in 8 patients (11.4%), SD in 42 (60.0%), disease progression in 16 (22.9%), and unevaluable in 4 (5.7%). Median DoR2 was 16.5 months. DCR2 ≥24 weeks (DCR2 24) was 47.1%. PFS2 rate at 12 months was 34.2%, and median PFS2 was 5.9 months. Median overall survival (OS2) was 23.8 months. Response rates, DCR2 24, and median DoR2 were generally greater in patients with high PD-L1 expression than those with low/negative expression. No new safety signals were observed during retreatment. CONCLUSION: Retreatment restored antitumor activity, resulting in high rates of durable disease control with an acceptable safety profile. This evidence supports retreatment of patients who stop anti-PD-L1 therapy for reasons other than progression or toxicity, and supports further investigation.

Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer (MONALEESA-7): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In MONALEESA-2, ribociclib plus letrozole showed improved progression-free survival compared with letrozole alone as first-line treatment for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. MONALEESA-7 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy in premenopausal women with advanced, HR-positive breast cancer. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done at 188 centres in 30 countries. Eligible patients were premenopausal women aged 18-59 years who had histologically or cytologically confirmed HR-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 criteria, or at least one predominantly lytic bone lesion; and had not received previous treatment with cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors. Endocrine therapy and chemotherapy in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting was permitted, as was up to one line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to receive oral ribociclib (600 mg/day on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule) or matching placebo with either oral tamoxifen (20 mg daily) or a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (letrozole 2·5 mg or anastrozole 1 mg, both oral, daily), all with goserelin (3·6 mg administered subcutaneously on day 1 of every 28-day cycle). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat, and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. MONALEESA-7 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02278120 and is ongoing, but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2014, and Aug 1, 2016, 672 patients were randomly assigned: 335 to the ribociclib group and 337 to the placebo group. Per investigator's assessment, median progression-free survival was 23·8 months (95% CI 19·2-not reached) in the ribociclib group compared with 13·0 months (11·0-16·4) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·55, 95% CI 0·44-0·69; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported in more than 10% of patients in either group were neutropenia (203 [61%] of 335 patients in the ribociclib group and 12 [4%] of 337 in the placebo group) and leucopenia (48 [14%] and four [1%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 60 (18%) of 335 patients in the ribociclib group and 39 (12%) of 337 in the placebo group, of which 15 (4%) and six (2%), respectively, were attributed to the study regimen. 12 (4%) of 335 patients in the ribociclib group and ten (3%) of 337 in the placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. No treatment-related deaths occurred. 11 deaths occurred (five [1%] in the ribociclib group and six [2%] in the placebo group) during or within 30 days after treatment, most of which were due to progression of the underlying breast cancer (three [1%] and six [2%]). The remaining two deaths in the ribociclib group were due to an intracranial haemorrhage in an anticoagulated patient, and a pre-existing wound haemorrhage in another patient. INTERPRETATION: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy improved progression-free survival compared with placebo plus endocrine therapy, and had a manageable safety profile in patients with premenopausal, HR-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. The combination could represent a new first-line treatment option for these patients. FUNDING: Novartis.

Ribociclib with letrozole vs letrozole alone in elderly patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in the randomized MONALEESA-2 trial.

PURPOSE: Determine the efficacy and safety of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole in elderly patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer. METHODS: 668 postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease were enrolled in the Phase III MONALEESA-2 trial (NCT01958021); 295 patients were aged ≥ 65 years. Patients were randomized to ribociclib (600 mg/day; 3-weeks-on/1-week-off) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day) or placebo plus letrozole until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was PFS, which was evaluated in elderly (≥ 65 years) and younger (< 65 years) patients. Secondary endpoints included response rates and safety. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus letrozole significantly improved PFS vs placebo plus letrozole in elderly (hazard ratio: 0.608; 95% CI 0.394-0.937) and younger patients (hazard ratio: 0.523; 95% CI 0.378-0.723). Overall response rates were numerically higher in the ribociclib vs placebo arm, regardless of age. Ribociclib plus letrozole was well tolerated in elderly patients, with the safety profile similar to the overall study population. Nausea, vomiting, alopecia, and diarrhea were > 10% more frequent in the ribociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole arm in both subgroups; most events were grade 1/2. In elderly patients, grade 1/2 anemia and fatigue were > 10% more frequent in the ribociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole arm and discontinuation rates were similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of ribociclib to letrozole is a valid therapeutic option for elderly patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer in the first-line setting.

Ribociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole alone in patients with de novo HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer in the randomized MONALEESA-2 trial.

PURPOSE: Determine the efficacy and safety of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole in patients with de novo advanced breast cancer. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with HR+ , HER2- advanced breast cancer and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease were enrolled in the Phase III MONALEESA-2 trial (NCT01958021). Patients were randomized to ribociclib (600 mg/day; 3 weeks-on/1 week-off) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day; continuous) or placebo plus letrozole until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival; predefined subgroup analysis evaluated progression-free survival in patients with de novo advanced breast cancer. Secondary endpoints included safety and overall response rate. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixty-eight patients were enrolled, of whom 227 patients (34%; ribociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole arm: n = 114 vs. n = 113) presented with de novo advanced breast cancer. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the ribociclib plus letrozole arm versus 16.4 months in the placebo plus letrozole arm in patients with de novo advanced breast cancer (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.75). The most common Grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia and leukopenia; incidence rates were similar to those observed in the full MONALEESA-2 population. Ribociclib dose interruptions and reductions in patients with de novo disease occurred at similar frequencies to the overall study population. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus letrozole improved progression-free survival vs placebo plus letrozole and was well tolerated in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- de novo advanced breast cancer.

Ribociclib Bioavailability Is Not Affected by Gastric pH Changes or Food Intake: In Silico and Clinical Evaluations.

Ribociclib (KISQALI), a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor approved for the first-line treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer with an aromatase inhibitor, is administered with no restrictions on concomitant gastric pH-elevating agents or food intake. The influence of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on ribociclib bioavailability was assessed using 1) biorelevant media solubility, 2) physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling, 3) noncompartmental analysis (NCA) of clinical trial data, and 4) population PK (PopPK) analysis. This multipronged approach indicated no effect of gastric pH changes on ribociclib PK and served as a platform for supporting ribociclib labeling language, stating no impact of gastric pH-altering agents on the absorption of ribociclib, without a dedicated drug-drug interaction trial. The bioequivalence of ribociclib exposure with or without a high-fat meal was demonstrated in a clinical trial. Lack of restrictions on ribociclib dosing may facilitate better patient compliance and therefore clinical benefit.

Ribociclib as First-Line Therapy for HR-Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) could potentially overcome or delay resistance to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer that is positive for hormone receptor (HR) and negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the selective CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib combined with letrozole for first-line treatment in 668 postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced disease. We randomly assigned the patients to receive either ribociclib (600 mg per day on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule) plus letrozole (2.5 mg per day) or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed on January 29, 2016, after 243 patients had disease progression or died. Prespecified criteria for superiority required a hazard ratio of 0.56 or less with P<1.29×10-5. RESULTS: The duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ribociclib group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P=3.29×10-6 for superiority). The median duration of follow-up was 15.3 months. After 18 months, the progression-free survival rate was 63.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.6 to 70.3) in the ribociclib group and 42.2% (95% CI, 34.8 to 49.5) in the placebo group. In patients with measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate was 52.7% and 37.1%, respectively (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in more than 10% of the patients in either group were neutropenia (59.3% in the ribociclib group vs. 0.9% in the placebo group) and leukopenia (21.0% vs. 0.6%); the rates of discontinuation because of adverse events were 7.5% and 2.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving initial systemic treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, the duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving ribociclib plus letrozole than among those receiving placebo plus letrozole, with a higher rate of myelosuppression in the ribociclib group. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01958021 .).

PI3K inhibitors as new cancer therapeutics: implications for clinical trial design.

The PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway is frequently activated in cancer. PI3K inhibitors, including the pan-PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120) and the PI3Kα-selective inhibitor alpelisib (BYL719), currently in clinical development by Novartis Oncology, may therefore be effective as anticancer agents. Early clinical studies with PI3K inhibitors have demonstrated preliminary antitumor activity and acceptable safety profiles. However, a number of unanswered questions regarding PI3K inhibition in cancer remain, including: what is the best approach for different tumor types, and which biomarkers will accurately identify the patient populations most likely to benefit from specific PI3K inhibitors? This review summarizes the strategies being employed by Novartis Oncology to help maximize the benefits of clinical studies with buparlisib and alpelisib, including stratification according to PI3K pathway activation status, selective enrollment/target enrichment (where patients with PI3K pathway-activated tumors are specifically recruited), nonselective enrollment with mandatory tissue collection, and enrollment of patients who have progressed on previous targeted agents, such as mTOR inhibitors or endocrine therapy. An overview of Novartis-sponsored and Novartis-supported trials that are utilizing these approaches in a range of cancer types, including breast cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, lymphoma, and glioblastoma multiforme, is also described.

Safety and efficacy of neratinib in combination with capecitabine in patients with metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Neratinib is a potent irreversible pan-tyrosine kinase inhibitor with antitumor activity and acceptable tolerability in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -positive breast cancer. A multinational, open-label, phase I/II trial was conducted to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of neratinib plus capecitabine in patients with solid tumors (part one) and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of neratinib plus capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (part two). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Part one was a 3 + 3 dose-escalation study in which patients with advanced solid tumors received oral neratinib once per day continuously plus capecitabine twice per day on days 1 to 14 of a 21-day cycle at predefined dose levels. In part two, patients with trastuzumab-pretreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer received neratinib plus capecitabine at the MTD. The primary end point in part two was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: In part one (n = 33), the combination of neratinib 240 mg per day plus capecitabine 1,500 mg/m(2) per day was defined as the MTD, which was further evaluated in part 2 (n = 72). The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhea (88%) and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (48%). In part two, the ORR was 64% (n = 39 of 61) in patients with no prior lapatinib exposure and 57% (n = 4 of 7) in patients previously treated with lapatinib. Median progression-free survival was 40.3 and 35.9 weeks, respectively. CONCLUSION: Neratinib in combination with capecitabine had a manageable toxicity profile and showed promising antitumor activity in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer pretreated with trastuzumab and lapatinib.

A phase two randomised trial of neratinib monotherapy versus lapatinib plus capecitabine combination therapy in patients with HER2+ advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of neratinib monotherapy were compared with that of lapatinib plus capecitabine in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive (HER2+), locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer and prior trastuzumab treatment. METHODS: Patients received neratinib 240 mg/d continuously (n=117) or lapatinib 1250 mg/d continuously plus capecitabine 2000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-14 of each 21-d cycle (n=116). The primary aim was to demonstrate non-inferiority of neratinib for progression-free survival (PFS). FINDINGS: The non-inferiority of neratinib was not demonstrated when compared with lapatinib plus capecitabine (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.60; non-inferiority margin, 1.15). Median PFS for neratinib was 4.5 months versus 6.8 months for lapatinib plus capecitabine and median overall survival was 19.7 months versus 23.6 months. Objective response rate (neratinib, 29% versus lapatinib plus capecitabine, 41%; P=0.067) and clinical benefit rate (44% versus 64%; P=0.003) were lower for the neratinib arm but consistent with previously reported results. In both treatment arms, diarrhoea was the most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event of any grade (neratinib, 85% versus lapatinib plus capecitabine, 68%; P=0.002) and of grade 3/4 (28% versus 10%; P<0.001), but was typically managed with concomitant anti-diarrhoeal medication and/or study treatment modification. Importantly, neratinib had no significant skin toxicity. INTERPRETATION: The results are considered as inconclusive since neither inferiority nor non-inferiority of treatment with neratinib versus lapatinib plus capecitabine could be demonstrated. The study confirmed relevant single-agent clinical activity and acceptable overall tolerability of neratinib in patients with recurrent HER2+ advanced breast cancer.

First line chemotherapy with gemcitabine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer elderly patients: a randomized phase II study of 3-week versus 4-week schedule.

PURPOSE: This randomized phase II multicenter trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of the 4-week versus 3-week schedules of gemcitabine monotherapy in previously untreated elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC, and age between 70 and 90 years, were randomized to receive gemcitabine dose of either 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, every 28 days (arm Q4W), or 1125 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, every 21 days (arm Q3W). RESULTS: From June 1999 to January 2001, 81 patients (42 on arm Q4W; 39 on arm Q3W) were included. The median age was 75 on both arms; most patients (82.7%) were male, and had a Karnofsky performance status of 80 or 90 (76.5%). For arms Q4W and Q3W, respectively, the median time to treatment failure was 83 days (95% CI, 69-98 days) versus 92 days (95% CI, 63-113), and the median survival was 154 days (95% CI, 108-227) versus 205 days (95% CI, 125-344). The objective response rate was higher on arm Q3W (28.2%) than on arm Q4W (14.3%). Total number of cycles administered was 132 on arm Q4W (median 3, range 1-10 cycles) and 169 on arm Q3W (median 4, range 1-9 cycles). Patients on arm Q4W and Q3W, respectively, received 100.1 and 99.8% of the planned weekly mean dose. The most common grade, three to four toxicities, was neutropenia (17.1% on arm Q4W versus 18.9% on arm Q3W) and thrombocytopenia (12.2% on arm Q4W versus 2.6% on arm Q3W). CONCLUSION: Although both 3- and 4-week gemcitabine regimens were safely and effectively administered in chemonaive elderly patients with advanced NSCLC, the 3-week schedule appears to be the more convenient for this population. Moreover, even if this is only a phase II study this 3-week schedule appears to be at least as efficient as the 4-week regimen.

A phase I study of irinotecan as a 3-week schedule in children with refractory or recurrent solid tumors.

PURPOSE: A phase I study was performed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and safety profile of irinotecan (CPT-11) administered as a single intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in children with recurrent or refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-one patients were enrolled, including 48 less heavily, and 33 heavily pretreated patients (cranial irradiation and/or high-dose chemotherapy). Children received CPT-11 as a 120-minute infusion at doses ranging from 200 to 720 mg/m2. The dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) on first cycle were determined in both cohorts. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two cycles and 81 cycles were administered in less heavily, and heavily pretreated patients, respectively. The primary DLT was delayed diarrhea in less heavily pretreated patients, and neutropenia in heavily pretreated patients. MTD was 600 mg/m2 in both cohorts. Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia occurred in 33% and 38% of cycles in less heavily, and heavily pretreated patients, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicities included nausea/vomiting (7% and 4% of cycles in less heavily, and heavily pretreated patients, respectively), asthenia (7% and 4% of cycles, respectively), and delayed diarrhea (6% and 2.5% of cycles, respectively). Four partial responses at 600 mg/m2 (high-grade glioma, neuroblastoma, medulloblastoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma) and 21 minor responses and stable diseases were observed. Pharmacokinetic analysis of CPT-11 and SN-38 was performed in 77 patients. The mean +/- standard deviation (SD) CPT-11 plasma clearance was 20.7 +/- 9.5 L/h/m2 (range, 5 to 54). The mean +/- SD SN-38 metabolic ratio was 1.5% +/- 1.1% (range, 0.15% to 5.55%). CONCLUSION: The recommended phase II dose of CPT-11 in a 3-week schedule is 600 mg/m2 in less heavily, and heavily pretreated children with solid tumors.