Netrin-1 blockade inhibits tumour growth and EMT features in endometrial cancer.

Netrin-1 is upregulated in cancers as a protumoural mechanism1. Here we describe netrin-1 upregulation in a majority of human endometrial carcinomas (ECs) and demonstrate that netrin-1 blockade, using an anti-netrin-1 antibody (NP137), is effective in reduction of tumour progression in an EC mouse model. We next examined the efficacy of NP137, as a first-in-class single agent, in a Phase I trial comprising 14 patients with advanced EC. As best response we observed 8 stable disease (8 out of 14, 57.1%) and 1 objective response as RECIST v.1.1 (partial response, 1 out of 14 (7.1%), 51.16% reduction in target lesions at 6 weeks and up to 54.65% reduction during the following 6 months). To evaluate the NP137 mechanism of action, mouse tumour gene profiling was performed, and we observed, in addition to cell death induction, that NP137 inhibited epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT). By performing bulk RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), spatial transcriptomics and single-cell RNA-seq on paired pre- and on-treatment biopsies from patients with EC from the NP137 trial, we noted a net reduction in tumour EMT. This was associated with changes in immune infiltrate and increased interactions between cancer cells and the tumour microenvironment. Given the importance of EMT in resistance to current standards of care2, we show in the EC mouse model that a combination of NP137 with carboplatin-paclitaxel outperformed carboplatin-paclitaxel alone. Our results identify netrin-1 blockade as a clinical strategy triggering both tumour debulking and EMT inhibition, thus potentially alleviating resistance to standard treatments.

Pembrolizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus placebo plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-412): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite multimodal therapy, 5-year overall survival for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is about 50%. We assessed the addition of pembrolizumab to concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced HNSCC. METHODS: In the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 KEYNOTE-412 trial, participants with newly diagnosed, high-risk, unresected locally advanced HNSCC from 130 medical centres globally were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab (200 mg) plus chemoradiotherapy or placebo plus chemoradiotherapy. Randomisation was done using an interactive response technology system and was stratified by investigator's choice of radiotherapy regimen, tumour site and p16 status, and disease stage, with participants randomly assigned in blocks of four per stratum. Participants, investigators, and sponsor personnel were masked to treatment assignments. Local pharmacists were aware of assignments to support treatment preparation. Pembrolizumab and placebo were administered intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 doses (one before chemoradiotherapy, two during chemoradiotherapy, 14 as maintenance therapy). Chemoradiotherapy included cisplatin (100 mg/m2) administered intravenously once every 3 weeks for two or three doses and accelerated or standard fractionation radiotherapy (70 Gy delivered in 35 fractions). The primary endpoint was event-free survival analysed in all randomly assigned participants. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03040999, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between April 19, 2017, and May 2, 2019, 804 participants were randomly assigned to the pembrolizumab group (n=402) or the placebo group (n=402). 660 (82%) of 804 participants were male, 144 (18%) were female, and 622 (77%) were White. Median study follow-up was 47·7 months (IQR 42·1-52·3). Median event-free survival was not reached (95% CI 44·7 months-not reached) in the pembrolizumab group and 46·6 months (27·5-not reached) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·83 [95% CI 0·68-1·03]; log-rank p=0·043 [significance threshold, p≤0·024]). 367 (92%) of 398 participants treated in the pembrolizumab group and 352 (88%) of 398 participants treated in the placebo group had grade 3 or worse adverse events. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (108 [27%] of 398 participants in the pembrolizumab group vs 100 [25%] of 398 participants in the placebo group), stomatitis (80 [20%] vs 69 [17%]), anaemia (80 [20%] vs 61 [15%]), dysphagia (76 [19%] vs 62 [16%]), and decreased lymphocyte count (76 [19%] vs 81 [20%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 245 (62%) participants in the pembrolizumab group versus 197 (49%) participants in the placebo group, most commonly pneumonia (43 [11%] vs 25 [6%]), acute kidney injury (33 [8%] vs 30 [8%]), and febrile neutropenia (24 [6%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related adverse events led to death in four (1%) participants in the pembrolizumab group (one participant each from aspiration pneumonia, end-stage renal disease, pneumonia, and sclerosing cholangitis) and six (2%) participants in the placebo group (three participants from pharyngeal haemorrhage and one participant each from mouth haemorrhage, post-procedural haemorrhage, and sepsis). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy did not significantly improve event-free survival compared with chemoradiotherapy alone in a molecularly unselected, locally advanced HNSCC population. No new safety signals were seen. Locally advanced HNSCC remains a challenging disease that requires better treatment approaches. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Modernizing the assessment and reporting of adverse events in oncology clinical trials using complementary statistical approaches: a case study of the MOTIVATE trial.

The reporting of adverse events (AEs) is fundamental to characterize safety profiles of novel therapeutic drug classes, however, conventional analysis strategies are suboptimal tools for this task. We therefore attempted to contribute to the modernization of AE analysis by encompassing the dimension of time, the duration and the recurrent nature of AEs induced by these extended treatment durations. This paper presents and highlights the benefits of alternative approaches to modernize AE analysis based on the MOTIVATE prospective study modeling immune-related AEs (irAEs) in patients with solid tumors (regardless of the primary site) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor irrespective of disease stage. The probability of presenting an irAE over time was estimated using the prevalence function. The time-to-onset (TTO) and the mean number of recurrent irAEs were also assessed. Among the 147 patients analyzed, 39.7% had a melanoma, 37.7% a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 74.8% were treated for metastatic disease. Despite a higher proportion of melanoma patients presenting at least one irAE, the prevalence of irAEs was lower in melanoma than in NSCLC patients over time. TTO analysis showed that irAEs occurred earlier in NSCLC patients whereas melanoma patients experienced more recurrent irAEs over the long-term. The prevalence function of non-metastatic and metastatic patients revealed different long-term toxicity profiles. These alternative methodologies capture different toxicity patterns (time-to-onset, recurrent, acute episodic or long-term moderate AEs) and provide a more consistent safety assessment for new therapeutics, thereby assisting clinicians and health authorities in their therapeutic decision-making processes.

Phase Ib/II Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Binimetinib (MEK162) Plus Panitumumab for Mutant or Wild-Type RAS Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Activating RAS gene mutations occur in approximately 55% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and are associated with poorer clinical outcomes due to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) blockade resistance. Combined EGFR and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibition may extend response to EGFR inhibition and overcome acquired resistance. This phase Ib/II dose escalation trial evaluated the safety and activity of dual inhibition with binimetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor) and panitumumab (EGFR inhibitor [EGFRi]) in patients with RAS mutant or BRAF wild type (WT)/RAS WT mCRC. METHODS: Phase Ib dose escalation started with binimetinib 45 mg twice daily plus panitumumab 6 mg/kg administered every 2 weeks. In the phase II study, patients with measurable mCRC were enrolled into 4 groups based on previous anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy and RAS mutational status. RESULTS: No patients in the phase Ib portion (n = 10) had a response; 70% of patients had stable disease. In the phase II portion (n = 43), overall response rate (ORR, confirmed) was 2.3% with one partial response in the RAS WT group, DCR was 30.2%, and median progression-free survival was 1.8 months (95%CI, 1.6-3.3). All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event, with the most common being diarrhea (71.7%), vomiting (52.8%), nausea (50.9%), fatigue (49.1%), dermatitis acneiform (43.4%), and rash (41.5%). Most patients required treatment interruption or dose reduction due to difficulties tolerating treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of binimetinib and panitumumab had substantial toxicity and limited clinical activity for patients with mutant or WT RAS mCRC, independent of EGFRi treatment history (Trial registration: NCT01927341).

Lurbinectedin in patients with pretreated endometrial cancer: results from a phase 2 basket clinical trial and exploratory translational study.

Second-line treatment of endometrial cancer is an unmet medical need. Lurbinectedin showed promising antitumor activity in a phase I study in combination with doxorubicin in advanced endometrial cancer. This phase 2 Basket trial evaluated lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in a cohort of 73 patients with pretreated endometrial cancer. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety and an exploratory translational study. Confirmed complete (CR) and partial response (PR) was reported in two and six patients, respectively (ORR = 11.3%; 95%CI, 5.0-21.0%). Median DoR was 9.2 months (95%CI, 3.4-18.0 months), median PFS was 2.6 months (95%CI, 1.4-4.0 months) and median OS was 9.3 months (95%CI, 6.1-12.8 months). Molecular subtypes showed differences in PFS rate at 6 months (p53abn 23.7% vs. "No Specific Molecular Profile" [NSMP] 42.9%) and median OS (p53abn 6.6 months vs. NSMP 16.1 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events (mostly grade 1/2) were fatigue (54.8% of patients), nausea (50.7%), vomiting (26.0%) decreased appetite (17.8%). and constipation, (19.2%). The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (43.8%; grade 4, 19.2%; febrile neutropenia, 4.1%). In conclusion, considering the exploratory aim of this trial and the hints of antitumor activity observed together with a predictable and manageable safety profile, further biomarker-based development of lurbinectedin is recommended in this indication in combination with other agents. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02454972.

A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IO) has become a standard of care for treating various types of metastatic cancers and has significantly improved clinical outcome. With the exception of metastatic melanoma in complete response for which treatment can be stopped at 6 months, these treatments are currently administered until either disease progression for some IO, 2 years for others, or unacceptable toxicity. However, a growing number of studies are reporting maintenance of response despite discontinuation of therapy. There is currently no evidence of a dose effect of IO in pharmacokinetic studies. Maintaining efficacy despite a reduction in treatment intensity by decreasing the frequency of administration in patients with highly selected metastatic cancer, is the hypothesis evaluated in the MOIO study. METHOD/DESIGN: This non-inferiority, randomized phase III study aims to compare the standard regimen to a 3 monthly regimen of variousIO drugs in adult patients with metastatic cancer in partial (PR) or complete response (CR) after 6 months of standard IO dosing (except melanoma in CR). This is a French national study conducted in 36 centers. The main objective is to demonstrate that the efficacy of a three-monthly administration is not unacceptably less efficacious than a standard administration. Secondary objectives are cost-effectiveness, quality of life (QOL), anxiety, fear of relapse, response rate, overall survival and toxicity. After 6 months of standard IO, patients with partial or complete response will be randomized 1:1 between standard IO or a reduced intensity dose of IO, administered every 3 months. The randomization will be stratified on therapy line,, tumor type, IO type and response status. The primary endpoint is the hazard ratio of progression-free survival. With a planned study duration of 6 years, including 36 months enrolment time, 646 patients are planned to demonstrate with a statistical level of evidence of 5% that the reduced IO regimen is non-inferior to the standard IO regimen, with a relative non-inferiority margin set at 1.3. DISCUSSION: Should the hypothesis of non-inferiority with an IO reduced dose intensity be validated, alternate scheduling could preserve efficacy while being cost-effective and allowing a reduction of the toxicity, with an increase in patient's QOL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05078047.

Cetuximab, docetaxel, and cisplatin versus platinum, fluorouracil, and cetuximab as first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (GORTEC 2014-01 TPExtreme): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from a phase 2 trial of the TPEx chemotherapy regimen (docetaxel-platinum-cetuximab) showed promising results, with a median overall survival of 14·0 months in first-line recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the TPEx regimen with the standard of care EXTREME regimen (platinum-fluorouracil-cetuximab) in this setting. METHODS: This was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial, done in 68 centres (cancer centres, university and general hospitals, and private clinics) in France, Spain, and Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic HNSCC unsuitable for curative treatment; had at least one measurable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or less. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using the TenAlea website by investigators or delegated clinical research associates to the TPEx regimen or the EXTREME regimen, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, previous cetuximab treatment, and country. The TPEx regimen consisted of docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2, both intravenously on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (intravenously 400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly subsequently). Four cycles were repeated every 21 days with systematic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support at each cycle. In case of disease control after four cycles, intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 was continued every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The EXTREME regimen consisted of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m2 on day 1-4, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly subsequently) all delivered intravenously. Six cycles were delivered every 21 days followed by weekly 250 mg/m2 cetuximab as maintenance therapy in case of disease control. G-CSF support was not mandatory per the protocol in the EXTREME regimen. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of chemotherapy or cetuximab. Enrolment is closed and this is the final analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02268695. FINDINGS: Between Oct 10, 2014, and Nov 29, 2017, 541 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment regimens (271 to TPEx, 270 to EXTREME). Two patients in the TPEx group had major deviations in consent forms and were not included in the final analysis. Median follow-up was 34·4 months (IQR 26·6-44·8) in the TPEx group and 30·2 months (25·5-45·3) in the EXTREME group. At data cutoff, 209 patients had died in the TPEx group and 218 had died in the EXTREME group. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 14·5 months [95% CI 12·5-15·7] in the TPEx group and 13·4 months [12·2-15·4] in the EXTREME group; hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·08]; p=0·23). 214 (81%) of 263 patients in the TPEx group versus 246 (93%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group had grade 3 or worse adverse events during chemotherapy (p<0·0001). In the TPEx group, 118 (45%) of 263 patients had at least one serious adverse event versus 143 (54%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group. 16 patients in the TPEx group and 21 in the EXTREME group died in association with adverse events, including seven patients in each group who had fatal infections (including febrile neutropenia). Eight deaths in the TPEx group and 11 deaths in the EXTREME group were assessed as treatment related, most frequently sepsis or septic shock (four in each treatment group). INTERPRETATION: Although the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant improvement in overall survival with TPEx versus EXTREME, the TPEx regimen had a favourable safety profile. The TPEx regimen could provide an alternative to standard of care with the EXTREME regimen in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, especially for those who might not be good candidates for up-front pembrolizumab treatment. FUNDING: Merck Santé and Chugai Pharma.

Improving patient selection for immuno-oncology phase 1 trials: External validation of six prognostic scores in a French Cancer Center.

We compared the performance of six prognostic scores (Royal Marsden Hospital, MDACC: MD Anderson Clinical Center and MDACC + NLR: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, MD Anderson - immune checkpoint inhibitors (MDA-ICI), GRIm: Gustave Roussy Immune Score and LIPI: Lung Immune Prognostic Index) in predicting overall survival (OS) in phase I trial patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Medical records of patients with advanced solid tumors enrolled in ICI phase I trials between 2015 and 2018 at Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse-Oncopole were reviewed. The performance of prognostic scores on OS was compared using different criteria. A total of 259 patients were included. Median age was 63 years (range: 18-83). Main primary cancers were melanoma (19%), head and neck (16%), lung (13%) and bladder (10%). With a median follow-up of 15 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = [11.6;17.5]), median OS was 12.5 months (95% CI = [10.3;16.0]). All scores were associated with OS. The MDACC, LIPI and GRIm scores performed better than the others. Concordance of risk group assignment between the scoring systems was poor. According to our results, the MDACC, GRIm and LIPI scores better suited to ICI phase I settings. Adequate scoring would allow better patient selection in early ICI trials, especially during the critical period of dose escalation, and in proof-of-concept expansion cohorts.

Olaparib and durvalumab in patients with germline BRCA-mutated metastatic breast cancer (MEDIOLA): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1/2, basket study.

BACKGROUND: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors combined with immunotherapy have shown antitumour activity in preclinical studies. We aimed to assess the safety and activity of olaparib in combination with the PD-L1-inhibitor, durvalumab, in patients with germline BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: The MEDIOLA trial is a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2, basket trial of durvalumab and olaparib in solid tumours. Patients were enrolled into four initial cohorts: germline BRCA-mutated, metastatic breast cancer; germline BRCA-mutated, metastatic ovarian cancer; metastatic gastric cancer; and relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Here, we report on the cohort of patients with breast cancer. Patients who were aged 18 years or older (or aged 19 years or older in South Korea) with germline BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated or both and histologically confirmed, progressive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer were enrolled from 14 health centres in the UK, the USA, Israel, France, Switzerland, and South Korea. Patients should not have received more than two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Patients received 300 mg olaparib in tablet form orally twice daily for 4 weeks and thereafter a combination of olaparib 300 mg twice daily and durvalumab 1·5 g via intravenous infusion every 4 weeks until disease progression. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, and 12-week disease control rate. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, and activity analyses were done in the full-analysis set (patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and were not excluded from the study). Recruitment has completed and the study is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02734004. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2016, and May 2, 2017, 34 patients were enrolled and received both study drugs and were included in the safety analysis. 11 (32%) patients experienced grade 3 or worse adverse events, of which the most common were anaemia (four [12%]), neutropenia (three [9%]), and pancreatitis (two [6%]). Three (9%) patients discontinued due to adverse events and four (12%) patients experienced a total of six serious adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. 24 (80%; 90% CI 64·3-90·9) of 30 patients eligible for activity analysis had disease control at 12 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Combination of olaparib and durvalumab showed promising antitumour activity and safety similar to that previously observed in olaparib and durvalumab monotherapy studies. Further research in a randomised setting is needed to determine predictors of therapeutic benefit and whether addition of durvalumab improves long-term clinical outcomes compared with olaparib monotherapy. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Association of tumour mutational burden with outcomes in patients with advanced solid tumours treated with pembrolizumab: prospective biomarker analysis of the multicohort, open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study.

BACKGROUND: Tumour mutational burden (TMB) has been retrospectively correlated with response to immune checkpoint blockade. We prospectively explored the association of high tissue TMB (tTMB-high) with outcomes in ten tumour-type-specific cohorts from the phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study, which assessed the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab in patients with selected, previously treated, advanced solid tumours. METHODS: In the multi-cohort, open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study, patients were enrolled from 81 academic facilities and community-based institutions across 21 countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced (ie, unresectable or metastatic, or both) incurable solid tumour (eligible tumour types were anal, biliary, cervical, endometrial, mesothelioma, neuroendocrine, salivary, small-cell lung, thyroid, and vulvar), progression on or intolerance to one or more lines of standard therapy, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1) assessed by independent central radiological review, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, life expectancy of at least 3 months, adequate organ function, and a tumour sample for biomarker analysis. Participants were given pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Tissue TMB (tTMB) was assessed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour samples using the FoundationOne CDx assay (Foundation Medicine, Cambridge, MA, USA). The prespecified definition of tTMB-high status was at least 10 mutations per megabase. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an objective response (complete or partial response) as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1) by independent central review. This prespecified analysis assessed the association between antitumour activity and tTMB in treated patients with evaluable tTMB data. Efficacy was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab, had evaluable tTMB data, and were enrolled at least 26 weeks before data cutoff (June 27, 2019), and safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab and had tTMB-high status. KEYNOTE-158 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02628067, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2016, and June 25, 2019, 1073 patients were enrolled. 1066 participants were treated as of data cutoff (June 27, 2019), of whom 805 (76%) were evaluable for TMB, and 105 (13%) of 805 had tTMB-high status and were assessed for safety. 1050 (98%) of 1066 patients enrolled by at least 26 weeks before data cutoff, of whom 790 (75%) were evaluable for TMB and included in efficacy analyses. 102 (13%) of these 790 patients had tTMB-high status (≥10 mutations per megabase), and 688 (87%) patients had non-tTMB-high status (<10 mutations per megabase). Median study follow-up was 37·1 months (IQR 35·0-38·3). Objective responses were observed in 30 (29%; 95% CI 21-39) of 102 patients in the tTMB-high group and 43 (6%; 5-8) of 688 in the non-tTMB-high group. 11 (10%) of 105 patients had treatment-related serious adverse events. 16 (15%) participants had a grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event, of which colitis was the only such adverse event that occurred in more than one patient (n=2). One patient had fatal pneumonia that was assessed by the investigator to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: tTMB-high status identifies a subgroup of patients who could have a robust tumour response to pembrolizumab monotherapy. tTMB could be a novel and useful predictive biomarker for response to pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated recurrent or metastatic advanced solid tumours. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Debio 1143 and high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy in high-risk locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a double-blind, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Debio 1143 is an orally available antagonist of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins with the potential to enhance the antitumour activity of cisplatin and radiotherapy. The radiosensitising effect of Debio 1143 is mediated through caspase activation and TNF, IFNγ, CD8 T cell-dependent pathways. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Debio 1143 in combination with standard chemoradiotherapy in patients with high-risk locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: This double-blind, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 study by the French Head and Neck Radiotherapy Oncology Group (GORTEC) was run at 19 hospitals in France and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years with locoregionally advanced, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (characterised as non-metastatic, measurable stage III, IVa, or IVb [limited to T ≥2, N0-3, and M0] disease), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, a history of heavy tobacco smoking (>10 pack-years) with no previous or current treatment for invasive head and neck cancer, and no previous treatment with inhibitor of apoptosis protein antagonists. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral Debio 1143 (200 mg per day on days 1-14 of 21-day cycles, for three cycles) or oral placebo (20 mg/mL, administered at the same dosing schedule) using a stochastic minimisation technique according to node involvement and primary tumour site, and HPV-16 status in patients with an oropharyngeal primary tumour site. All patients received standard high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with locoregional control 18 months after chemoradiotherapy, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (primary analysis), and repeated in the per-protocol population. Responses were assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02022098, and is still active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 25, 2016, and April 24, 2017, 48 patients were randomly assigned to the Debio 1143 group and 48 to the placebo group (one patient in the placebo group did not receive the study drug and was not included in the safety analysis). Median duration of follow-up was 25·0 months (IQR 19·6-29·4) in the Debio 1143 group and 24·2 months (6·6-26·8) in the placebo group. Locoregional control 18 months after chemoradiotherapy was achieved in 26 (54%; 95% CI 39-69) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group versus 16 (33%; 20-48) of 48 patients in the placebo group (odds ratio 2·69 [95% CI 1·13-6·42], p=0·026). Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 41 (85%) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group and in 41 (87%) of 47 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were dysphagia (in 24 [50%] patients in the Debio 1143 group vs ten [21%] in the placebo group), mucositis (in 15 [31%] vs ten [21%]), and anaemia (in 17 [35%] vs 11 [23%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded in 30 (63%) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group and 28 (60%) of 47 in the placebo group. In the placebo group, two (4%) deaths were due to adverse events (one multiple organ failure and one asphyxia; neither was considered to be related to treatment). No deaths due to adverse events occurred in the Debio 1143 group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first treatment regimen to achieve superior efficacy in this disease setting against a high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy comparator in a randomised trial. These findings suggest that inhibition of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins is a novel and promising approach in this poor prognostic population and warrant confirmation in a phase 3 study with the aim of expanding the therapeutic options for these patients. FUNDING: Debiopharm.

Lurbinectedin as second-line treatment for patients with small-cell lung cancer: a single-arm, open-label, phase 2 basket trial.

BACKGROUND: Few options exist for treatment of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of first-line therapy. Lurbinectedin is a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. In this phase 2 study, we evaluated the acti and safety of lurbinectedin in patients with SCLC after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this single-arm, open-label, phase 2 basket trial, we recruited patients from 26 hospitals in six European countries and the USA. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with a pathologically proven diagnosis of SCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, measurable disease as per Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, absence of brain metastasis, adequate organ function, and pre-treated with only one previous chemotherapy-containing line of treatment (minimum 3 weeks before study initiation) were eligible. Treatment consisted of 3·2 mg/m2 lurbinectedin administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an overall response (complete or partial response) as assessed by the investigators according to RECIST 1.1. All treated patients were analysed for activity and safety. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02454972. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2015, and Jan 15, 2019, 105 patients were enrolled and treated with lurbinectedin. Median follow-up was 17·1 months (IQR 6·5-25·3). Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 patients (35·2%; 95% CI 26·2-45·2). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (irrespective of causality) were haematological abnormalities-namely, anaemia (in nine [9%] patients), leucopenia (30 [29%]), neutropenia (48 [46%]), and thrombocytopenia (seven [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 11 (10%) patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (five [5%] patients for each). No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Lurbinectedin was active as second-line therapy for SCLC in terms of overall response and had an acceptable and manageable safety profile. Lurbinectedin could represent a potential new treatment for patients with SCLC, who have few options especially in the event of a relapse, and is being investigated in combination with doxorubicin as second-line therapy in a randomised phase 3 trial. FUNDING: Pharma Mar.

Phase 1 study of the immunotoxin LMB-100 in patients with mesothelioma and other solid tumors expressing mesothelin.

BACKGROUND: LMB-100 is an antibody-toxin conjugate with an antimesothelin Fab linked to a 24-kilodalton portion of Pseudomonas exotoxin A with mutations that decrease immunogenicity. The objective of the current first-in-human phase 1 study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety in patients with advanced solid tumors expressing mesothelin. METHODS: Cohorts of 1 to 7 patients received intravenous LMB-100 at 7 dose levels from 40 µg/kg to 250 µg/kg intravenously on days 1, 3, and 5 of a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: Of the 25 patients accrued, 17 had mesothelioma, 3 each had ovarian or pancreatic cancer, and 2 patients had gastric cancer. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 2 of 4 patients treated at a dose of 250 µg/kg (capillary leak syndrome) and in 3 of 7 patients treated at a dose of 170 µg/kg (creatinine increase). The MTD of LMB-100 was 140 µg/kg. Of the 10 patients with mesothelioma who were treated at doses of 170 µg/kg or 140 µg/kg, 8 had stable disease and 2 developed progressive disease. Peak LMB-100 plasma concentrations were dose-dependent during cycle 1. The development of antidrug antibodies decreased LMB-100 blood levels in 8 of 21 patients (38%) who received cycle 2 and 9 of 11 patients (81.8%) who received cycle 3. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD for single-agent LMB-100 was found to be 140 µg/kg given on a schedule of every other day for 3 doses every 3 weeks. Although less immunogenic than the first-generation antimesothelin immunotoxin SS1P, the majority of patients developed antidrug antibodies after 2 cycles, indicating that LMB-100 has limited antitumor efficacy as a single agent. Phase 2 studies of LMB-100 plus pembrolizumab currently are ongoing for patients with mesothelioma and lung cancer. LAY SUMMARY: Mesothelin, a cell surface antigen, is an attractive target for cancer therapy given its limited expression in normal human tissues and high expression in many human cancers. LMB-100 is a recombinant antimesothelin immunotoxin consisting of a humanized antimesothelin antibody fragment fused to a truncated Pseudomonas exotoxin A. In the current study, the authors determined the safety, maximum tolerated dose, and pharmacokinetics of LMB-100, as well as the generation of antidrug antibodies. Ongoing phase 2 clinical trials are evaluating the combination of LMB-100 plus pembrolizumab in patients with treatment-refractory mesothelioma and non-small cell lung cancer.

A Phase 1 dose-escalation study to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of AsiDNA, a first-in-class DNA repair inhibitor, administered intravenously in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: AsiDNA, a first-in-class oligonucleotide-mimicking double-stranded DNA breaks, acts as a decoy agonist to DNA damage response in tumour cells. It also activates DNA-dependent protein kinase and poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase enzymes that induce phosphorylation of H2AX and protein PARylation. METHODS: The aim of this Phase 1 study was to determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of AsiDNA administered daily for 3 days in the first week then weekly thereafter. Twenty-two patients with advanced solid tumours were enrolled in 5 dose levels: 200, 400, 600, 900, and 1300 mg, using a 3 + 3 design. RESULTS: The MTD was not reached. IV AsiDNA was safe. Two DLTs (grade 4 and grade 3 hepatic enzymes increased at 900 and 1300 mg), and two related SAE at 900 mg (grade 3 hypotension and grade 4 hepatic enzymes increased) were reported. AsiDNA PK increased proportionally with dose. A robust activation of DNA-PK by a significant posttreatment increase of γH2AX was evidenced in tumour biopsies. CONCLUSION: The dose of 600 mg was identified as the optimal dose for further clinical development. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration (NCT number): NCT03579628.

Modernizing adverse events analysis in oncology clinical trials using alternative approaches: rationale and design of the MOTIVATE trial.

In oncology clinical research, the analysis and reporting of adverse events is of major interest. A consistent depiction of the safety profile of a new treatment is as crucial in establishing how to use it as its antitumor activity. The advent of new therapeutics has led to major changes in the management of patients and targeted therapies or immune checkpoint inhibitors are administered continuously for months or even years. However, the classical methods of adverse events analysis are no longer adequate to properly assess their safety profile. Indeed, the worst grade method and time-to-event analysis cannot capture the duration or the evolution of adverse events induced by extended treatment durations. Many authors have highlighted this issue and argue that the analysis of safety data from clinical trials should be modernized by considering the dimension of time and the recurrent nature of adverse events. This paper aims to illustrate the limitations of current methods and discusses the value of alternative approaches such as the prevalence function, Q-TWiST, the ToxT and the recurrent event approaches. The rationale and design of the MOTIVATE trial, which aims to model the evolution of toxicities over time using the prevalence function in patients treated by immunotherapy, is also presented ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03447483; Date of registration: 27 February 2018).

A phase 1b study of the MET inhibitor capmatinib combined with cetuximab in patients with MET-positive colorectal cancer who had progressed following anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody treatment.

Background Overcoming resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in patients with KRAS wildtype (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) could help meet the needs of patients with limited treatment options. Methods In this phase 1b study, patients with N/KRAS WT, MET-positive mCRC who had progressed following anti-EGFR mAb treatment received escalating oral doses of capmatinib (150, 300, and 400 mg) twice daily plus weekly intravenous cetuximab (at the approved dose). The primary objective was to establish a recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of capmatinib in combination with cetuximab. Safety, preliminary activity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were also explored. Results Thirteen patients were enrolled. No patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity at investigated doses; the RDE was established as capmatinib 400 mg twice daily plus cetuximab. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs) suspected to be related to the study treatment. Five patients (38.5%) reported study-drug-related AEs of grade 3/4 in severity. No patients achieved a complete or partial response according to RECIST v1.1; however, tumor shrinkage of 29-44% was observed in 4 patients. Conclusions Capmatinib plus cetuximab was well tolerated. Preliminary signs of activity were observed. Further investigation is warranted to obtain efficacy data and refine predictive biomarkers of response. Clinical trial registration NCT02205398.

Improving communication between the general practitioner and the oncologist: a key role in coordinating care for patients suffering from cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from cancers are increasingly numerous in general practice consultations. The General Practitioner (GP) should be at the heart of the management of patients. Several studies have examined the perceptions of GPs confronted with the patient suffering from cancer and the relationships of GPs with oncologists, but few studies have focused on the patients' perspective. We studied the three-way relationship between the oncologist, the GP, and the patient, from the patient's point of view. METHODS: A questionnaire validated by a group consisting of GPs, oncologists, nurses, an epidemiologist and quality analyst, was administered over a three-week period to patients suffering from cancer receiving chemotherapy in a day hospital. RESULTS: The analysis was based on 403 questionnaires. Patients had confidence in the GP's knowledge of oncology in 88% of cases; 49% consulted their GP for pain, 15% for cancer-related advice, and 44% in emergencies. Perceived good GP/oncologist communication led patients to turn increasingly to their GP for cancer-related consultations (RR = 1.14; p = 0.01) and gave patients confidence in the GP's ability to manage cancer-related problems (RR = 1.30; p < 0.01). Mention by the oncologist of the GP's role increased the consultations for complications (RR = 1.82; p < 0.01) as well as recourse to the GP in an emergency (RR = 1.35; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients suffering from cancer considered that the GP was competent, but did not often consult their GP for cancer-related problems. There is a discrepancy between patients' beliefs and their behaviour. When the oncologist spoke to patients of the GP's role, patients had recourse to their GP more often. Systematically integrating a GP consultation to conclude cancer diagnosis disclosure, could improve management and care coordination.

Circulating Tumor Cells as a Prognostic Factor in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: The CIRCUTEC Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: This prospective multicenter study evaluated the prognostic value of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in relapsing nonoperable or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (rHNSCC) treated by chemotherapy and cetuximab. METHODS: In 65 patients suitable for analyses, peripheral blood was taken at day 0 (D0) D7, and D21 of treatment for CTC detection by CellSearch®, EPISPOT, and flow cytometry (FCM). Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: At D0, CTCs were detected with EPISPOT, CellSearch, and FCM in 69% (45/65), 21% (12/58), and 11% (7/61) of patients, respectively. In the patients tested with all 3 methods, EPISPOT identified 92% (36/39), 92% (35/38), and 90% (25/28) of all positive samples at D0, D7, and D21, respectively. Median PFS time was significantly lower in (a) patients with increasing or stable CTC counts (36/54) from D0 to D7 with EPISPOTEGFR (3.9 vs 6.2 months; 95% CI, 5.0-6.9; P = 0.0103) and (b) patients with ≥1 CTC detected with EPISPOT or CellSearch® (37/51) (P = 0.0311), EPISPOT or FCM (38/54) (P = 0.0480), and CellSearch or FCM (11/51) (P = 0.0005) at D7. CONCLUSIONS: CTCs can be detected before and during chemotherapy in patients with rHNSCC. D0-D7 CTC kinetics evaluated with EPISPOTEGFR are associated with the response to treatment. This study indicates that CTCs can be used as a real-time liquid biopsy to monitor the early response to chemotherapy in rHNSCC. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02119559.

First-in-human phase I study of the microtubule inhibitor plocabulin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background Plocabulin (PM060184) is a novel marine-derived microtubule inhibitor that acts as an antitumor agent. This first-in-human study evaluated dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and phase II recommended dose (RD) of plocabulin given as a 10-min infusion on Day (D) 1, D8 and D15 every four weeks. Patients and methods Forty-four patients with advanced solid tumors received plocabulin following an accelerated titration design. Results Plocabulin was escalated from 1.3 mg/m2 to 14.5 mg/m2, which was defined as the MTD. No RD was confirmed, because frequent dose delays and omissions resulted in low relative dose intensity (66%) at the 12.0 mg/m2 expansion cohort. The main DLT was grade 3 peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN); other DLTs were grade 4 tumor lysis syndrome, grade 4 cardiac failure and grade 3 myalgia. Toxicities were mainly mild to moderate, and included abdominal pain, myalgia, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. Myelosuppression was transient and manageable. Plocabulin had a half-life of ~4 h and a wide diffusion to peripheral tissues. Antitumor response was observed in cervix carcinoma and heavily pretreated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients, and disease stabilization (≥3 months) in patients with colorectal, thymic, gastrointestinal stromal and breast tumors, among others. The clinical benefit rate was 33%. Conclusion The main DLT of plocabulin was PSN, as anticipated for a tubulin-binding agent. Since encouraging antitumor activity was observed, efforts to improve toxicity and to find the RD were planned in other trials evaluating D1&D8 and D1-D3 plus D15-D17 schedules.

Phase I dose-escalation study of F14512, a polyamine-vectorized topoisomerase II inhibitor, in patients with platinum-refractory or resistant ovarian cancer.

Purpose To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of F14512, a topoisomerase II inhibitor designed to target cancer cells through the polyamine transport system, (three-hour daily infusion given for 3 consecutive days every 3 weeks) in platinum-refractory or resistant ovarian cancer. Other objectives were safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), PK/pharmacodynamics relationship, and efficacy. Methods This was an open-label, dose-escalation, multicenter phase I study. Results Eleven patients were enrolled and were treated at dose levels (DLs) of 10 and 5 mg/m2/day. All patients received the 3 injections per cycle as per study protocol (median, 1 cycle (Ferlay et al. Int J Cancer 136:E359-386, 2015; Siegel et al. CA Cancer J Clin 65:5-29, 2015; Oronsky et al. Med Oncol 34:103, 2017; Barret et al. Cancer Res 68:9845-9853, 2008; Ballot et al. Apoptosis 17:364-376, 2012; Brel et al. Biochem Pharmacol 82:1843-1852, 2011; Gentry et al. Biochemistry 50:3240-3249, 2011; Kruczynski et al. Investig New Drugs 29:9-21, 2011; Chelouah et al. PLoS One 6:e23597, 2011)) with no dose reductions. At DL 10 mg/m2/day, 6 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported (3/4 evaluable patients: 2 grade 3 febrile neutropenia, 1 grade 4 neutropenia lasting at least 7 days, 1 grade 3 nausea, 1 decreased appetite, and 1 grade 3 asthenia). At dose 5 mg/m2/day, 2 DLTs were reported (2/6 treated patients: 2 grade 3 febrile neutropenia). Both DLs were defined as MTD. Stable disease was reported as best overall response in 2 (40%) patients having both received 9 cycles, one at each DL. 90.9% of patients experienced grade 4 neutropenia, but for only one (9.1%) it was reported as a serious adverse event. Conclusion Although there was some encouraging efficacy signal, grade 4 neutropenia led to complications and it was decided to stop the study. A DL below 5 mg/m2/day was not tested as this would not allow reaching the minimum serum concentration needed for the pharmacological activity of the drug.