A phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled study of chemo-immunotherapy combination using motolimod with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in recurrent or persistent ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group partners study.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in women with recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma to evaluate the efficacy and safety of motolimod-a Toll-like receptor 8 (TLR8) agonist that stimulates robust innate immune responses-combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), a chemotherapeutic that induces immunogenic cell death. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma were randomized 1 : 1 to receive PLD in combination with blinded motolimod or placebo. Randomization was stratified by platinum-free interval (≤6 versus >6-12 months) and Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) performance status (0 versus 1). Treatment cycles were repeated every 28 days until disease progression. RESULTS: The addition of motolimod to PLD did not significantly improve overall survival (OS; log rank one-sided P = 0.923, HR = 1.22) or progression-free survival (PFS; log rank one-sided P = 0.943, HR = 1.21). The combination was well tolerated, with no synergistic or unexpected serious toxicity. Most patients experienced adverse events of fatigue, anemia, nausea, decreased white blood cells, and constipation. In pre-specified subgroup analyses, motolimod-treated patients who experienced injection site reactions (ISR) had a lower risk of death compared with those who did not experience ISR. Additionally, pre-treatment in vitro responses of immune biomarkers to TLR8 stimulation predicted OS outcomes in patients receiving motolimod on study. Immune score (tumor infiltrating lymphocytes; TIL), TLR8 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, mutational status in BRCA and other DNA repair genes, and autoantibody biomarkers did not correlate with OS or PFS. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of motolimod to PLD did not improve clinical outcomes compared with placebo. However, subset analyses identified statistically significant differences in the OS of motolimod-treated patients on the basis of ISR and in vitro immune responses. Collectively, these data may provide important clues for identifying patients for treatment with immunomodulatory agents in novel combinations and/or delivery approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT 01666444.

A phase I trial of paclitaxel, cisplatin, and veliparib in the treatment of persistent or recurrent carcinoma of the cervix: an NRG Oncology Study (NCT#01281852).

Background: Preclinical studies demonstrate poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition augments apoptotic response and sensitizes cervical cancer cells to the effects of cisplatin. Given the use of cisplatin and paclitaxel as first-line treatment for persistent or recurrent cervical cancer, we aimed to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the PARP inhibitor veliparib when added to chemotherapy. Patients and methods: Women with persistent or recurrent cervical carcinoma not amenable to curative therapy were enrolled. Patients had to have received concurrent chemotherapy and radiation as well as possible consolidation chemotherapy; have adequate organ function. The trial utilized a standard 3 + 3 phase I dose escalation with patients receiving paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on day 1, cisplatin 50 mg/m2 on day 2, and escalating doses of veliparib ranging from 50 to 400 mg orally two times daily on days 1-7. Cycles occurred every 21 days until progression. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed at first cycle. Fanconi anemia complementation group D2 (FANCD2) foci was evaluated in tissue specimens as a biomarker of response. Results: Thirty-four patients received treatment. DLTs (n = 1) were a grade 4 dyspnea, a grade 3 neutropenia lasting ≥3 weeks, and febrile neutropenia. At 400 mg dose level (DL), one of the six patients had a DLT, so the MTD was not reached. Across DLs, the objective response rate (RR) for 29 patients with measurable disease was 34% [95% confidence interval (CI), 20%-53%]; at 400 mg DL, the RR was 60% (n = 3/5; 95% CI, 23%-88%). Median progression-free survival was 6.2 months (95% CI, 2.9-10.1), and overall survival was 14.5 months (95% CI, 8.2-19.4). FANCD2 foci was negative or heterogeneous in 31% of patients and present in 69%. Objective RR were not associated with FANCD2 foci (P = 0.53). Conclusions: Combining veliparib with paclitaxel and cisplatin as first-line treatment for persistent or recurrent cervical cancer patients is safe and feasible. Clinical trial information: NCT01281852.

A phase II evaluation of motesanib (AMG 706) in the treatment of persistent or recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinomas: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

OBJECTIVES: Vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) and their receptors have a critical role in stimulating the growth of ovarian cancer cells. Motesanib is a small molecule inhibitor of multiple receptor tyrosine kinases including VEGF receptors 1-3, as well as c-KIT and platelet-derived growth factor which are related to the VEGF family. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two eligible patients with recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal carcinoma were treated with an oral daily dose of 125 mg of motesanib. Peripheral blood was analyzed for circulating tumor cells (CTC) and circulating endothelial cells/circulating endothelial progenitors (CEC/CEP), VEGF levels and cell-free circulating DNA (cfDNA). RESULTS: The study was abruptly halted after four patients developed posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome. One patient had a partial response and seven patients had stable disease at the time they were removed from study treatment. Twelve of the 22 patients (50%) had indeterminate responses at trial closure. Early closure without clinical efficacy data precludes meaningful correlative studies. CONCLUSIONS: The serious central nervous system toxicity observed in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer precluded full examination of this agent in this population. There were no clear cut explanations for the high incidence of this known class effect in the study population compared with patients with other cancers.