A Pilot, Exploratory, Randomized, Phase II Safety Study Evaluating Tumor Cell Mobilization and Apheresis Product Contamination in Patients Treated with Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Alone or Plus Plerixafor.

Because of the potential risk of tumor cell mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), it is crucial to evaluate any potential effect of plerixafor treatment in the presence of G-CSF on multiple myeloma (MM) cell mobilization. This was an open-label, multicenter, randomized, exploratory, safety study (NCT01753453) that investigated the extent of MM cell mobilization after treatment with G-CSF + plerixafor in patients who were deemed poor mobilizers of hematopoietic stem cells. The primary efficacy outcome was the number of MM cells in peripheral blood and apheresis product after G-CSF + plerixafor treatment versus G-CSF alone. Key secondary efficacy outcomes included overall survival and disease status up to 2 years after the first G-CSF dose. Twenty patients were randomized and received at least 1 dose of study treatment. There were no patients with MM cells in peripheral blood up to day 8 G-CSF administration in either treatment group. Up to day 8 no patient in the G-CSF + plerixafor arm and only 1 patient in the G-CSF arm mobilized at least 4.5 × 105 MM cells in the apheresis product. Nine of 10 patients from each treatment arm proceeded to transplantation. MM cells were detected in 5 patients from each treatment arm before and after transplantation. Adverse events observed in the G-CSF + plerixafor arm were consistent with the known safety profile of plerixafor. No MM cells were detected in peripheral blood of either treatment group up to day 8 of mobilization. Only 1 patient in the G-CSF alone group mobilized at least 4.5 × 105 MM tumor cells in apheresis product up to day 8. However, 50% of patients in both treatment arms had detectable amounts of MM cells in their peripheral blood pre- and post-transplantation. There were no new safety concerns with plerixafor.

AMEERA-1 phase 1/2 study of amcenestrant, SAR439859, in postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

AMEERA-1 is a Phase 1/2 open-label single-arm study evaluating once-daily (QD) amcenestrant, an orally bioavailable selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader, in postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (NCT03284957), who were mostly heavily pretreated (including targeted therapies and fulvestrant). In the dose escalation phase (Part A: n = 16), patients received amcenestrant 20-600 mg QD. Based on absence of dose-limiting toxicities, paired functional 18F-fluoroestradiol positron emission tomography, and pharmacokinetics, 400 mg QD was selected as recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for the dose expansion phase (Part B: n = 49). No Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events or clinically significant cardiac/eye toxicities were reported. The Part B primary endpoint, confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 3/45 at the interim analysis and 5/46 (10.9%) at the final analysis. The overall clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 13/46 (28.3%). CBRs among patients with baseline wild-type and mutated ESR1 were 9/26 (34.6%) and 4/19 (21.1%), respectively. Paired tumor biopsy and cell-free DNA analyses revealed ER inhibition and degradation, and a reduction in detectable ESR1 mutations, including Y537S. In conclusion, amcenestrant at RP2D of 400 mg QD for monotherapy is well-tolerated with no dose-limiting toxicities, and demonstrates preliminary antitumor activity irrespective of baseline ESR1 mutation status.

Safety and Effectiveness of Aflibercept + Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan (FOLFIRI) for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) in Current Clinical Practice: OZONE Study.

For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that have failed a first-line oxaliplatin-based regimen, the preferred treatment option is an irinotecan-based regimen. This prospective, observational, noncomparative, post-authorization safety study (OZONE) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of aflibercept plus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in patients with mCRC treated in daily practice after failure of an oxaliplatin-based regimen. Patients were grouped by age, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, race, number, and type of prior anticancer therapy. Of 766 treated patients enrolled, 59.5% were male, 94.8% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, all received previous chemotherapy (97.8% including oxaliplatin), and 58.6% had prior exposure to bevacizumab. At least one grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was reported in 68.3% of patients. Neutropenia, hypertension, diarrhea, and asthenia were the most frequently occurring grade ≥ 3 TEAEs. Antivascular endothelial growth factor class events were infrequent. Subgroup analyses did not reveal major differences in the safety profile according to age, renal and hepatic status, race, or prior anticancer therapy. For the total population, median overall survival was 12.5 months, median progression-free survival was 6.1 months, and overall response rate was 16.3%. Aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI is a safe and efficacious regimen administered in current clinical practice to patients with mCRC previously treated with oxaliplatin. The study results, conducted in real-world clinical practice with a less selected patient population, are aligned with the VELOUR (NCT00561470) trial and no new safety issues were identified.

Results from a multicenter, noninterventional registry study for multiple myeloma patients who received stem cell mobilization regimens with and without plerixafor.

Plerixafor plus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) enhances the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) for collection and subsequent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). This international, multicenter, noninterventional registry study (NCT01362972), evaluated long-term outcomes for MM patients who received plerixafor versus other mobilization regimens. The comparisons were: G-CSF + plerixafor (G-CSF + P) versus G-CSF-; G-CSF + P versus G-CSF + chemotherapy (G-CSF + C); and G-CSF + P + C versus G-CSF + C. Propensity score matching was used to balance groups. Primary outcome measures were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) after transplantation. After propensity matching, 77 versus 41 patients in the G-CSF + P versus G-CSF cohorts, 129 versus 129 in the G-CSF + P versus G-CSF + C cohorts, and 117 versus 117 in the G-CSF + P + C versus G-CSF + C cohorts were matched, respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in a smaller sample size and imbalances were not completely overcome. For both PFS and OS, the upper limits of the hazard ratio 95% confidence intervals exceeded prespecified boundaries; noninferiority was not demonstrated. CIR rates were higher in the plerixafor cohorts. G-CSF + P remains an option for the mobilization of HSCs in poor mobilizers with MM with no substantial differences in PFS, OS, and CIR in comparison with other regimens.

Analysis of data collected in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) Registry on a cohort of lymphoma patients receiving plerixafor.

Plerixafor + granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is administered to patients with lymphoma who are poor mobilizers of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in Europe. This international, multicenter, non-interventional registry study (NCT01362972) evaluated long-term follow-up of patients with lymphoma who received plerixafor for HSC mobilization versus other mobilization methods. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance baseline characteristics between comparison groups. The following mobilization regimens were compared: G-CSF + plerixafor (G + P) versus G-CSF alone; G + P versus G-CSF + chemotherapy (G + C); and G-CSF + plerixafor + chemotherapy (G + P + C) versus G + C. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR). Overall, 313/3749 (8.3%) eligible patients were mobilized with plerixafor-containing regimens. After propensity score matching, 70 versus 36 patients were matched in the G + P versus G-CSF alone cohort, 124 versus 124 in the G + P versus G + C cohort, and 130 versus 130 in the G + P + C versus G + C cohort. For both PFS and OS, the upper bound of confidence interval for the hazard ratio was >1.3 for all comparisons, implying that non-inferiority was not demonstrated. No major differences in PFS, OS, and CIR were observed between the plerixafor and comparison groups.