Quantitative evaluation of lesion response heterogeneity for superior prognostication of clinical outcome.

PURPOSE: Standardized reporting of treatment response in oncology patients has traditionally relied on methods like RECIST, PERCIST and Deauville score. These endpoints assess only a few lesions, potentially overlooking the response heterogeneity of all disease. This study hypothesizes that comprehensive spatial-temporal evaluation of all individual lesions is necessary for superior prognostication of clinical outcome. METHODS: [18F]FDG PET/CT scans from 241 patients (127 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 114 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)) were retrospectively obtained at baseline and either during chemotherapy or post-chemoradiotherapy. An automated TRAQinform IQ software (AIQ Solutions) analyzed the images, performing quantification of change in regions of interest suspicious of cancer (lesion-ROI). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) models were trained to predict overall survival (OS) with varied sets of quantitative features and lesion-ROI, compared by bootstrapping with C-index and t-tests. The best-fit model was compared to automated versions of previously established methods like RECIST, PERCIST and Deauville score. RESULTS: Multivariable CoxPH models demonstrated superior prognostic power when trained with features quantifying response heterogeneity in all individual lesion-ROI in DLBCL (C-index = 0.84, p < 0.001) and NSCLC (C-index = 0.71, p < 0.001). Prognostic power significantly deteriorated (p < 0.001) when using subsets of lesion-ROI (C-index = 0.78 and 0.67 for DLBCL and NSCLC, respectively) or excluding response heterogeneity (C-index = 0.67 and 0.70). RECIST, PERCIST, and Deauville score could not significantly associate with OS (C-index < 0.65 and p > 0.1), performing significantly worse than the multivariable models (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative evaluation of response heterogeneity of all individual lesions is necessary for the superior prognostication of clinical outcome.

Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. METHODS: The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. FINDINGS: We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55-85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9-11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (-1%, 95% CI -15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, -10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). INTERPRETATION: The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Prostate Cancer UK.

Association between baseline body mass index and survival in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: ECOG-ACRIN CHAARTED E3805.

BACKGROUND: E3805 (CHAARTED) is a phase 3 trial demonstrating improved survival for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) randomized to treatment with docetaxel (D) and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone. We assessed the association of baseline body mass index (BMI) and metformin exposure with quality of life (QOL) and prostate cancer outcomes including survival in patients enrolled in the CHAARTED study. METHODS: We performed a posthoc exploratory analysis of the CHAARTED trial of men with mHSPC randomized to treatment with ADT with or without D between 2006 and 2012. Cox proportional hazards models and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to evaluate the association between BMI with QOL and prostate cancer outcomes and between metformin exposure and survival. RESULTS: In 788 of 790 enrolled patients with prospectively recorded baseline BMI and metformin exposure status, lower BMI was not associated with survival, but was associated with high volume disease (p < 0.0001) and poorer baseline QOL on functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate (p = 0.008). Only 68 patients had prevalent metformin exposure at baseline in the CHAARTED trial. Four groups were identified: ADT + D + metformin (n = 39); ADT + D (n = 357); ADT + metformin (n = 29); and ADT alone (n = 363). Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between groups. In this small exploratory multivariable analysis, metformin exposure was not associated with survival (hazard ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.63, p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: There was no link between baseline BMI and survival, but lower baseline BMI was associated with features of greater cancer burden and poorer QOL.

Phase II, Multicenter, Randomized Trial of Docetaxel plus Prednisone with or Without Cediranib in Men with Chemotherapy-Naive Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: The negative results are consistent with the negative results of large phase III trials in which docetaxel plus antiangiogenic agents were used in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).The negative data underscore that, despite a sound biological rationale and supportive early-phase clinical results, adding antiangiogenic agents to docetaxel for mCRPC is a great challenge. BACKGROUND: Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling abrogates tumor-induced angiogenesis to constrain tumor growth, and can be exploited therapeutically by using cediranib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGF receptor signaling. Our preliminary phase I trial data showed that adding cediranib to docetaxel plus prednisone (DP) was safe and feasible, with early evidence for efficacy in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: This multicenter phase II trial assessed whether adding cediranib to DP improves efficacy of DP in patients with mCRPC. Chemotherapy-naive patients with mCRPC were randomly assigned to receive either docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks) with prednisone (5 mg twice daily) plus cediranib (30 mg once daily; the DP+C arm) or DP only (the DP arm). The primary endpoint was to compare 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate between the two arms. Secondary endpoints included 6-month overall survival (OS), objective tumor and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates, biomarkers, and adverse events. RESULTS: The 6-month PFS rate in a total of 58 patients was only numerically higher in the DP+C arm (61%) compared with the DP arm (57%). Similarly, the 6-month OS rate, objective tumor and PSA response rates, and biomarkers were not significantly different between the two arms. Increased baseline levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), however, were significantly associated with increased risk of progression. Neutropenia was the only grade 4 toxicity (38% in the DP+C arm vs. 18% in the DP arm). CONCLUSION: Combining cediranib with docetaxel + prednisone failed to demonstrate superior efficacy, compared with docetaxel + prednisone, and added toxicity. Our data do not support pursuing the combination further in patients with mCRPC.

Chemohormonal Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the backbone of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer since the 1940s. We assessed whether concomitant treatment with ADT plus docetaxel would result in longer overall survival than that with ADT alone. METHODS: We assigned men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer to receive either ADT plus docetaxel (at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks for six cycles) or ADT alone. The primary objective was to test the hypothesis that the median overall survival would be 33.3% longer among patients receiving docetaxel added to ADT early during therapy than among patients receiving ADT alone. RESULTS: A total of 790 patients (median age, 63 years) underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 28.9 months, the median overall survival was 13.6 months longer with ADT plus docetaxel (combination therapy) than with ADT alone (57.6 months vs. 44.0 months; hazard ratio for death in the combination group, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001). The median time to biochemical, symptomatic, or radiographic progression was 20.2 months in the combination group, as compared with 11.7 months in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.72; P<0.001). The rate of a prostate-specific antigen level of less than 0.2 ng per milliliter at 12 months was 27.7% in the combination group versus 16.8% in the ADT-alone group (P<0.001). In the combination group, the rate of grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia was 6.2%, the rate of grade 3 or 4 infection with neutropenia was 2.3%, and the rate of grade 3 sensory neuropathy and of grade 3 motor neuropathy was 0.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Six cycles of docetaxel at the beginning of ADT for metastatic prostate cancer resulted in significantly longer overall survival than that with ADT alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00309985.).

Phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of tivantinib in men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Background Tivantinib is a non-ATP competitive inhibitor of c-MET receptor tyrosine kinase that may have additional cytotoxic mechanisms including tubulin inhibition. Prostate cancer demonstrates higher c-MET expression as the disease progresses to more advanced stages and to a castration resistant state. Methods 80 patients (pts) with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC were assigned (2:1) to either tivantinib 360 mg PO BID or placebo (P). The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Results Of the 80 pts. enrolled, 78 (52 tivantinib, 26 P) received treatment and were evaluable. Median follow up is 8.9 months (range: 2.3 to 19.6 months). Patients treated with tivantinib had significantly better PFS vs. those treated with placebo (medians: 5.5 mo vs 3.7 mo, respectively; HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.90; p = 0.02). Grade 3 febrile neutropenia was seen in 1 patient on tivantinib while grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was recorded in 1 patient each on tivantinib and placebo. Grade 3 sinus bradycardia was recorded in two men on the tivantinib arm. Conclusions Tivantinib has mild toxicity and improved PFS in men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC.

Assessment of adherence and relative dose intensity with oral chemotherapy in oncology clinical trials at an academic medical center.

Background/Aims Oral chemotherapy is increasingly utilized leaving the patient responsible for self-administering an often complex regimen where adverse effects are common. Non-adherence and reduced relative dose intensity are both associated with poorer outcomes in the community setting but are rarely reported in clinical trials. The purpose of this study is to quantify adherence and relative dose intensity in oncology clinical trials and to determine patient and study related factors that influence adherence and relative dose intensity. Methods Patients were identified from non-industry-funded clinical trials conducted between 1 January 2009 and 31 March 2013 at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center. Data were extracted from primary research records. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling was performed using SAS 9.4. Results A total of 17 clinical trials and 266 subjects were included. Mean adherence was greater than 97% for the first eight cycles. Mean relative dose intensity was less than 90% for the first cycle and declined over time. Male gender, a performance status of 1 or 2, metastatic disease, and traveling more than 90 miles to reach the cancer center were associated with higher relative dose intensity. Conclusions Patients with cancer enrolled in clinical trials are highly adherent but unlikely to achieve protocol specified relative dose intensity. Given that determining the phase II dose is the primary endpoint of phase I trials, incorporating relative dose intensity into this determination should be considered.

Combination of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat with bevacizumab in patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre, single-arm phase I/II clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Class II histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors induce hypoxia-inducible factor-1 and -2α degradation and have antitumour effects in combination with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors. In this study, we tested the safety and efficacy of the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat and the VEGF blocker bevacizumab in metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) patients previously treated with different drugs including sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, interleukin-2, interferon, and temsirolimus. METHODS: Patients with up to two prior regimens were eligible for treatment, consisting of vorinostat 200 mg orally two times daily × 2 weeks, and bevacizumab 15 mg kg-1 intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary end points were safety and tolerability, and the proportion of patients with 6 months of progression-free survival (PFS). Correlative studies included immunohistochemistry, FDG PET/CT scans, and serum analyses for chemokines and microRNAs. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled, with 33 evaluable for toxicity and efficacy. Eighteen patients had 1 prior treatment, 13 patients had 2 prior treatments, and 2 patients were treatment naïve. Two patients experienced grade 4 thrombocytopenia and three patients had grade 3 thromboembolic events during the course of exposure. We observed six objective responses (18%), including one complete response and five partial responses. The proportion of patients with PFS at 6 months was 48%. The median PFS and overall survival were 5.7 months (confidence interval (CI): 4.1-11.0) and 13.9 months (CI: 9.8-20.7), respectively. Correlative studies showed that modulation of specific chemokines and microRNAs were associated with clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of vorinostat with bevacizumab as described is relatively well tolerated. Response rate and median PFS suggest clinical activity for this combination strategy in previously treated ccRCC.

A phase I study of tivantinib in combination with temsirolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background A wide variety of human cancers exhibit dysregulated c-Met activity that has implications in oncogenesis. Phosphorylation of c-Met results in activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. Combined blockade of c-Met and mTOR pathways has shown efficacy in preclinical studies. Tivantinib is a c-Met inhibitor and temsirolimus is a selective mTOR inhibitor. We aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), adverse events (AEs), clinical activity and pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of the combination. Methods This open-label phase I study used a 3 + 3 dose escalation design. Patients (pts) were treated with escalating doses of tivantinib (120-360 mg tablets orally twice daily) and temsirolimus (20 mg IV weekly) followed by dose expansion at the MTD. Separate cohorts were planned for extensive (normal) and poor tivantinib metabolizers based on CYP2C19 genotypes. Cycles were 28 days besides cycle 1 that was 35 days to allow for PK analysis. Results Twenty-nine pts. [median age 58 (range 28-77)] were enrolled (21 in dose escalation and 8 in dose expansion). All were extensive CYP2C19 metabolizers. The most common types of cancer were colorectal, ovarian and non-small cell lung. Sixteen out of 21 and 6 out of 8 pts. were evaluable for DLT evaluation per protocol in the dose escalation and dose expansion phases, respectively. Pts remained on study for a median of 71 days (range 18-296). The MTD and RP2D was tivantinib 240 mg twice daily and temsirolimus 20 mg weekly. DLTs included grade (gr) 4 neutropenia (2 pts.; 1 with gr 3 febrile neutropenia), gr 3 abdominal pain (1 pt) and gr 2 mucositis resulting in inadequate drug delivery. The most common treatment related AEs grade ≥ 2 included: anemia (gr 2 in 9 pts., gr 3 in 3 pts), fatigue (gr 2 in 10 pts), anorexia (gr 2 in 9 pts), hypoalbuminemia (gr 2 in 6 pts., gr 3 in 2 pts), hypophosphatemia (gr 2 in 2 pts., gr 3 in 5 pts) and nausea (gr 2 in 6 pts., gr 3 in 1 pt). One pt. with ovarian cancer had a confirmed partial response and remained on study for 10 months, a second patient with ovarian cancer had stable disease and remained on study for 6 months and a third pt. with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue had stable disease and remained on study for 7 months. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that there is no interaction in the plasma concentrations between tivantinib and temsirolimus. Conclusions The combination of tivantinib with temsirolimus appears to be well tolerated with evidence of clinical activity.

ImmunoPET Imaging of CTLA-4 Expression in Mouse Models of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) is expressed on the surface of activated T cells and some tumor cells, and is the target of the clinically approved monoclonal antibody ipilimumab. In this study, we investigate specific binding of radiolabeled ipilimumab to CTLA-4 expressed by human non-small cell lung cancer cells in vivo using positron emission tomography (PET). Ipilimumab was radiolabeled with 64Cu (t1/2 = 12.7 h) through the use of the chelator 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-1,4,7,10-tetraacetic acid (DOTA) to formulate 64Cu-DOTA-ipilimumab. CTLA-4 expression in three non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell lines (A549, H460, and H358) was verified and quantified by Western blot and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). A receptor binding assay was utilized to monitor the binding and internalization of 64Cu-DOTA-ipilimumab in the NSCLC cell lines. Next, the biodistribution of 64Cu-DOTA-ipilimumab was mapped by longitudinal PET imaging up to 48 h after injection. Ex vivo biodistribution and histological studies were employed to verify PET results. By in vitro analysis, CTLA-4 was found to be expressed on all three NSCLC cell lines with A549 and H358 showing the highest and lowest level of expression, respectively. PET imaging and quantification verified these findings as the tracer accumulated highest in the A549 tumor model (9.80 ± 0.22%ID/g at 48 h after injection; n = 4), followed by H460 and H358 tumors with uptakes of 9.37 ± 0.26%ID/g and 7.43 ± 0.05%ID/g, respectively (n = 4). The specificity of the tracer was verified by injecting excess ipilimumab in A549 tumor-bearing mice, which decreased tracer uptake to 6.90 ± 0.51%ID/g at 48 after injection (n = 4). Ex vivo analysis following the last imaging session also corroborated these findings. 64Cu-DOTA-ipilimumab showed enhanced and persistent accumulation in CTLA-4-expressing tissues, which will enable researchers further insight into CTLA-4 targeted therapies in the future.

Utilization and evaluation of noncore chemotherapy regimens within an academic medical center.

Uniformity of evidence-based chemotherapy prescribing using approved, standard, or "core" regimens provides systems-based safety. Noncore chemotherapy regimens are non-standard-of-care regimens requested by physicians on a patient-by-patient basis. Chemotherapy Council, a Pharmacy & Therapeutics subcommittee, assesses all requests and determines approval status based upon submitted evidence and patient-specific factors. This study's purpose is to describe noncore chemotherapy regimens utilization, efficacy, and clinical outcomes in patients receiving noncore chemotherapy regimens. This retrospective chart review includes a two-stage utilization and outcomes evaluation of patients receiving noncore chemotherapy regimens. Stage I, a demographics and utilization assessment of patients receiving noncore chemotherapy regimens, has data collection including patient age, sex, performance score, malignancy, and noncore chemotherapy regimen use justification. Stage II assesses noncore chemotherapy regimen-related, patient-specific outcomes of breast cancer noncore chemotherapy regimen patients. Breast cancer patients were evaluated on regimen and clinical outcomes including disease stage, regimen duration, discontinuation reason, subsequent chemotherapy, survival, and time from noncore chemotherapy regimen until death. Within stage I, 307 patient-specific noncore chemotherapy regimen requests were submitted. The most commonly submitted rationale was modification of a core regimen (33%), followed by patient-specific factors (29%) and salvage therapy (22%). For stage II, 29 breast cancer patients received a noncore chemotherapy regimen and most (54%) received a modified core regimen. The vast majority of noncore chemotherapy regimen discontinuation was due to either regimen completion (42%) or disease progression (42%). Nonelective hospitalizations (35%) and mortality (30%) were found during the median 13.3 months of follow up. Noncore chemotherapy regimen use provides regimen tailoring for patients who are candidates for further therapy, but nonelective hospitalizations, end-of-life chemotherapy, and mortality warrant further investigation to improve patient outcomes.

Intermittent versus continuous androgen deprivation in prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Castration resistance occurs in most patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who are receiving androgen-deprivation therapy. Replacing androgens before progression of the disease is hypothesized to prolong androgen dependence. METHODS: Men with newly diagnosed, metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, a performance status of 0 to 2, and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 5 ng per milliliter or higher received a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue and an antiandrogen agent for 7 months. We then randomly assigned patients in whom the PSA level fell to 4 ng per milliliter or lower to continuous or intermittent androgen deprivation, with patients stratified according to prior or no prior hormonal therapy, performance status, and extent of disease (minimal or extensive). The coprimary objectives were to assess whether intermittent therapy was noninferior to continuous therapy with respect to survival, with a one-sided test with an upper boundary of the hazard ratio of 1.20, and whether quality of life differed between the groups 3 months after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 3040 patients were enrolled, of whom 1535 were included in the analysis: 765 randomly assigned to continuous androgen deprivation and 770 assigned to intermittent androgen deprivation. The median follow-up period was 9.8 years. Median survival was 5.8 years in the continuous-therapy group and 5.1 years in the intermittent-therapy group (hazard ratio for death with intermittent therapy, 1.10; 90% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.23). Intermittent therapy was associated with better erectile function and mental health (P<0.001 and P=0.003, respectively) at month 3 but not thereafter. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of treatment-related high-grade adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings were statistically inconclusive. In patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, the confidence interval for survival exceeded the upper boundary for noninferiority, suggesting that we cannot rule out a 20% greater risk of death with intermittent therapy than with continuous therapy, but too few events occurred to rule out significant inferiority of intermittent therapy. Intermittent therapy resulted in small improvements in quality of life. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002651.).

A multicenter phase 1/2a dose-escalation study of the antioxidant moiety of vitamin E 2,2,5,7,8-pentamethyl-6-chromanol (APC-100) in men with advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: A phase 1/2a dose escalation study of APC-100 (2,2,5,7,8-Pentamethyl-6-chromanol) was conducted to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase 2 dose, toxicities and efficacy in men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). METHODS: This open label phase 1/2a study utilizes a time-to-event reassessment method (TITE-CRM) design. Patients in cohorts of 3 were treated with escalating doses of APC-100 (900 mg-2400 mg) orally once daily continuously. Cycles were 28 days. RESULTS: Twenty patients with CRPC were enrolled in the dose escalation cohort. One possible DLT (elevated ALT) was seen at dose level 1. No other DLTs were seen and no dose reductions were required. Most frequent AEs included nausea (grade 1 in 6 patients) and elevated transaminases (grade 1-3 in 5 patients). After enrolment of 20 patients the MTD was not reached, however the maximal feasible dose was exceeded due to the number of capsules ingested. Five of the 20 patients had stable disease as their best response. The median progression free survival (PFS) for the cohort was 2.8 months (range 1-8). CONCLUSIONS: APC-100 is a novel agent with dual mechanism of action functioning both as potent antioxidant as well as antiandrogen. No detectable APC-100 was found in the plasma at dose level 5 (2100 mg) and it was felt that maximal feasibility was nearly reached. APC-100 is being reformulated as a tablet to allow further dose escalation. Once a recommended phase 2 dose is established, future studies in prostate cancer chemoprevention should be conducted.

A phase II trial of ganetespib, a heat shock protein 90 Hsp90) inhibitor, in patients with docetaxel-pretreated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)-a prostate cancer clinical trials consortium (PCCTC) study.

INTRODUCTION: Heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) has been studied as a therapeutic target in many cancers. In preclinical trials, the Hsp90 ATPase inhibitor ganetespib demonstrated potent inhibition of solid tumor growth, with superior potency than prior Hsp90 inhibitors. Given the promising preclinical outcome and favorable pharmacologic properties of ganetespib, we conducted a phase II trial of single-agent ganetespib in patients with metastatic, castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The primary objective of the study was to determine the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. METHODS: Patients with mCRPC who had been previously treated with docetaxel were enrolled after meeting eligibility criteria. All patients received ganetespib at 200 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28 days (one cycle). Subjects who tolerated therapy were continued on ganetespib until disease progression. Considering that Hsp90 acetylation may confer insensitivity to Hsp90 inhibitors and maspin inhibits protein deacetylation, maspin-associated molecular markers were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were recruited into the trial; most were Caucasian, had performance status 1, had received prior docetaxel, and were heavily pretreated. Of the 17 patients who were treated, none attained 6-month PFS. Only 2 patients achieved PFS > 4 months. The median PFS was 1.9 months. As per the study design, the trial was terminated after the interim analysis. The most frequent types of Grade 3 toxicity were dehydration, diarrhea, and fatigue. Molecular markers provided little additional insight regarding drug activity. CONCLUSIONS: Ganetespib demonstrated minimal clinical activity in men with mCRPC. The true 6-month PFS rate was, at most, 0.20. Possible reasons for this include selection of a heavily pretreated patient population and lack of agent potency in patients with mCRPC.

A phase I study of selumetinib (AZD6244/ARRY-142866), a MEK1/2 inhibitor, in combination with cetuximab in refractory solid tumors and KRAS mutant colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutations are clinically important predictors of resistance to EGFR-directed therapies in colorectal cancer (CRC). Oncogenic activation of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling cascade mediates proliferation independent of growth factor signaling. We hypothesized that targeting MEK with selumetinib could overcome resistance to cetuximab in KRAS mutant CRC. METHODS: A phase I study (NCT01287130) was undertaken to determine the tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profiles of the combination of selumetinib and cetuximab, with an expanded cohort in KRAS-mutant CRC. RESULTS: 15 patients were treated in the dose escalation cohort and 18 patients were treated in the expansion cohort. Two dose-limiting toxicities were observed. One grade 3 acneiform rash and one grade 4 hypomagnesemia occurred. The most common grade 1 and 2 adverse events included rash, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue. The maximum tolerated dose was established at selumetinib 75 mg p.o. BID and cetuximab 250 mg/m(2) weekly following a 400 mg/m(2) load. Best clinical response in the dose escalation group included 1 unconfirmed partial response in a patient with CRC and stable disease (SD) in 5 patients (1 squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil, 1 non-small cell lung cancer, and 3 CRC), and in the KRAS-mutant CRC dose expansion cohort, of the 14 patients who were evaluable for response, 5 patients had SD and 9 patients had progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of selumetinib and cetuximab is safe and well tolerated. Minimal anti-tumor activity was observed in KRAS-mutant refractory metastatic CRC. Further investigations might be warranted in other cancer subtypes.

A multicenter phase 1 study of γ -secretase inhibitor RO4929097 in combination with capecitabine in refractory solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: RO4929097 is an oral inhibitor of γ -secretase that results in Notch signaling inhibition. Prior work has demonstrated that Notch signaling inhibition enhances chemotherapy sensitivity of cancer cells. This phase I study was conducted to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities and efficacy of RO4929097 and capecitabine in advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with refractory solid tumors received capecitabine at a fixed dose of 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily with escalating doses of RO4929097 on a 21-day cycle in a 3 + 3 design. Capecitabine was administered for 14 days and the RO49029097 once daily, 3 days per week, both for a 21 day cycle. RESULTS: Thirty patients were treated on six dose levels (20 to 150 mg). The maximally tolerated dose was not reached. One dose limiting toxicity was observed at each level 3 through 6 (hypophosphatemia, fatigue, and nausea/vomiting). Three confirmed partial responses were observed: two patients with fluoropyrimide-refractory colon cancer and one patient with cervical cancer. Autoinduction of RO4929097 was demonstrated with increasing dose levels and duration. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended phase 2 dose is capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice daily on days 1 through 14 with RO4929097 20 mg orally once daily on days 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 with a 21 day cycle. Clinical benefit was observed in cervical and colon cancer. Autoinduction of RO4929097 was seen both with increasing cycle number and increasing dose. Plasma concentrations of RO4929097 were above those needed for Notch inhibition.

Phase 1/2 study of orteronel (TAK-700), an investigational 17,20-lyase inhibitor, with docetaxel-prednisone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel-prednisone (DP) is an approved therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Orteronel (TAK-700) is an investigational, selective, non-steroidal inhibitor of 17,20-lyase, a key enzyme in androgenic hormone production. This phase 1/2 study evaluated orteronel plus DP in mCRPC patients. METHODS: Adult men with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥5 ng/mL, and serum testosterone <50 ng/dL received oral orteronel 200 or 400 mg twice-daily (BID) in phase 1 to determine the recommended dose for phase 2, plus intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks, and oral prednisone 5 mg BID. Phase 2 objectives included safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy. RESULTS: In phase 1 (n = 6, orteronel 200 mg; n = 8, orteronel 400 mg), there was one dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 febrile neutropenia at 400 mg BID. This dose was evaluated further in phase 2 (n = 23). After 4 cycles, 68, 59, and 23% of patients achieved ≥30, ≥50, and ≥90% PSA reductions, respectively; median best PSA response was -77%. Seven of 10 (70%) RECIST-evaluable patients achieved objective partial responses. Median time to PSA progression and radiographic disease progression was 6.7 and 12.9 months, respectively. Dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfate (DHEA-S) and testosterone levels were rapidly and durably reduced. Common adverse events were fatigue (78%), alopecia (61%), diarrhea (48%), nausea (43%), dysgeusia (39%), and neutropenia (39%). Orteronel and docetaxel pharmacokinetics were similar alone and in combination. CONCLUSIONS: Orteronel plus DP was tolerable, with substantial reductions in PSA, DHEA-S, and testosterone levels, and evidence for measurable disease responses.

A Phase 1, Multi-Center, Open-Label, Dose-Escalation Study of 131I-CLR1404 in Subjects with Relapsed or Refractory Advanced Solid Malignancies.

This study explores the imaging and therapeutic properties of a novel radiopharmaceutical, (131)I-CLR1404. Phase 1a data demonstrated safety and tumor localization by SPECT-CT. This 1b study assessed safety, imaging characteristics, and possible antineoplastic properties and provided further proof-of-concept of phospholipid ether analogues' retention within tumors. A total of 10 patients received (131)I-CLR1404 in an adaptive dose-escalation design. Imaging characteristics were consistent with prior studies, showing tumor uptake in primary tumors and metastases. At doses of 31.25 mCi/m(2) and greater, DLTs were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. Disease-specific studies are underway to identify cancers most likely to benefit from (131)I-CLR1404 monotherapy.

A phase I study to determine the maximum tolerated dose and safety of oral LR-103 (1α,24(S)Dihydroxyvitamin D2) in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose and safety of LR-103, a Vitamin D analogue, in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: In Step A, patients received oral LR-103 once daily in 14-day cycles with intra-patient dose escalation per accelerated dose escalation design. Dose limiting toxicity for Step A was defined as ≥grade 2 hypercalcemia and/or >grade 2 other toxicities. Starting dose was 5 µg/day. Step B used a 3+3 design starting at Step A maximum tolerated dose with 28-day cycles. Dose limiting toxicity was defined as ≥grade 3 hypercalcemia or any grade 3 or 4 non-hematologic toxicity, except hypercalciuria. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled; eight were treated in Step A. At dose level 3 (15 µg/day), two patients had dose limiting toxicity. One had grade 4 hyperuricemia. The other had grade 4 GGT plus grade 3 alkaline phosphatase, fatigue and urinary tract infection (UTI). Dose level 2 (10 µg/day) was the maximum tolerated dose for Step A and was starting dose for Step B. The dose was escalated to dose level 5 (30 µg/day) with a patient experiencing grade 3 dose limiting toxicity of hypercalcemia. The study was discontinued before reaching the maximum tolerated dose due to sponsor decision. Modest increases in serum osteocalcin and calcium and decrease in parathyroid hormone were noted. Best response was stable disease; four patients were on therapy for six months or longer. CONCLUSION: Step A dose limiting toxicities limited accelerated dose escalation. The maximum tolerated dose of LR-103 was not reached prior to study termination and this agent is no longer being developed.

A phase I study of AT-101 with cisplatin and etoposide in patients with advanced solid tumors with an expanded cohort in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: A phase I, dose-escalation study of AT-101 with cisplatin and etoposide was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), safety and pharmacokinetics in patients with advanced solid tumors, with an expanded cohort in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) to assess preliminary activity. METHODS: In the dose escalation portion, increasing doses of AT-101 were administered orally BID on days 1-3 along with cisplatin on day 1 and etoposide on days 1-3 of a 21 day cycle. At the RP2D, an additional 7 patients with untreated ES-SCLC were enrolled. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled in the dose-escalation cohort, and 7 patients with ES-SCLC were enrolled in the expanded cohort. The MTD/RP2D was established at AT-101 40 mg BID days 1-3 with cisplatin 60 mg/m2 and etoposide 120 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21 day cycle with pegfilgrastim support. Two DLTs of neutropenic fever were seen at dose level 1. After the addition of pegfilgrastim, no additional DLTs were observed. Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities included: diarrhea, increased AST, neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, hyponatremia, myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism. No apparent PK interactions were observed between the agents. Preliminary activity was observed with PRs in patients with ES-SCLC, high-grade neuroendocrine tumor, esophageal cancer and NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: AT-101 with cisplatin and etoposide is well tolerated with growth factor support. Anti-tumor activity was observed in a variety of cancers including ES-SCLC, supporting further investigation with BH-3 mimetics in combination with standard chemotherapy for ES-SCLC.