Ezabenlimab (BI 754091), an anti-PD-1 antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Ezabenlimab (BI 754091) is a humanised monoclonal antibody targeting programmed cell death protein-1. We report results from open-label, dose-escalation/expansion, Phase I trials that evaluated the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics and antitumour activity of ezabenlimab at the recommended Phase II dose in patients with selected advanced solid tumours. STUDY DESIGN: Study 1381.1 (NCT02952248) was conducted in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. Study 1381.4 (NCT03433898) was conducted in Japan. Study 1381.3 (NCT03780725) was conducted in the Netherlands. The primary endpoints were: number of patients experiencing dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in the first cycle (dose escalation parts), number of patients with DLTs during the entire treatment period and objective response (dose expansion part of Study 1381.1). RESULTS: Overall, 117 patients received ezabenlimab intravenously every 3 weeks (80 mg, n = 3; 240 mg, n = 111; 400 mg, n = 3). No DLTs were observed and the MTD was not reached. Fifty-eight patients (52.3%) had grade ≥ 3 adverse events, most commonly anaemia (10.8%) and fatigue (2.7%). In 111 assessed patients treated with ezabenlimab 240 mg, disease control rate was 56.8% and objective response rate was 16.2%. Three patients had complete response; at data cut-off (November 2021) one remained in response and was still receiving ongoing treatment (duration of response [DoR]: 906 days). Partial responses occurred across several tumour types; DoR ranged from 67 to 757 days. CONCLUSIONS: Ezabenlimab was well tolerated and associated with durable antitumour activity in multiple solid tumours, comparable to other immune checkpoint inhibitors in similar patient populations and treatment settings.

Beyond traditional therapies: clinical significance of complex molecular profiling in patients with advanced solid tumours-results from a Turkish multi-centre study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this multi-centre, real-world study was to examine the potential influence of comprehensive molecular profiling on the development of treatment decisions or adjustments for patients with advanced solid malignancies. We then evaluated the impact of these informed choices on patient treatment outcomes. METHODS: The study encompassed 234 adult patients (mean age: 52.7 ± 14.3 years, 54.7% women) who were diagnosed with solid tumours at 21 different medical centres in Turkey. Remarkably, 67.9% of the patients exhibited metastasis at the time of diagnosis. We utilized an OncoDNA (Gosselies, Belgium) platform (OncoDEEP) integrating next-generation sequencing with additional tests to harvest complex molecular profiling data. The results were analyzed in relation with two specific outcomes: (i) the impact on therapeutic decisions, including formulation or modifications, and (ii) associated treatment response. RESULTS: Out of the 228 patients with final molecular profiling results, 118 (50.4%) had their treatment modified, whilst the remaining 110 (47.0%) did not. The response rates were comparable, with 3.9 versus 3.4% for complete response, 13.6 versus 29.3% for partial response, 66.9 versus 51.7% for progressive disease and 15.5 versus 15.5% for stable disease for treatments informed and not informed by complex molecular profiling, respectively (P = 0.16). CONCLUSION: Our real-world findings highlight the significant impact of complex molecular profiling on the treatment decisions made by oncologists for a substantial portion of patients with advanced solid tumours. Regrettably, no significant advantage was detected in terms of treatment response or disease control rates.

Subgroup analyses in randomized phase III trials of systemic treatments in patients with advanced solid tumours: a systematic review of trials published between 2017 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: Subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials are very common in oncology; nevertheless, the methodological approach has not been systematically evaluated. The present analysis was conducted with the aim of describing the prevalence and methodological characteristics of the subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search using PubMed was carried out to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials conducted in adult patients affected by locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours, published between 2017 and 2020. RESULTS: Overall, 253 publications were identified. Subgroup analyses were reported in 217 (86%) publications. A statistically significant association of presence of subgroup analysis with study sponsor was observed: subgroup analyses were reported in 157 (94%) for-profit trials compared with 60 (70%) non-profit trials (P < 0.001). Description of the methodology of subgroup analysis was completely lacking in 82 trials (38%), only cited without methodological details in 100 trials (46%) and fully described in 35 trials (16%). Forest plot of subgroup analyses for the primary endpoint was available in 195 publications (77%). Among publications with reported forest plots, the median number of subgroups for primary endpoint was 19 (range 6-78). Out of the 217 publications with subgroup analyses, authors discuss the heterogeneity of treatment effect among different subgroups in 173 publications (80%), although a formal test for interaction for subgroup analysis of primary endpoint was reported for at least one variable only in 60 publications (28%). Correction for multiplicity was explicitly carried out only in nine trials (4%). CONCLUSIONS: The very high prevalence of subgroup analyses in published papers, together with their methodological weaknesses, makes advisable an adequate education about their correct presentation and correct reading. More attention about proper planning and conduction of subgroup analysis should be paid not only by readers, but also by authors, journal editors and reviewers.

Combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy in advanced solid tumours: A review.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), especially anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD1) and anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), has changed practices in oncology, becoming a new standard of care in first or subsequent lines for several cancer subtypes. Recent data have highlighted the ability of standard chemotherapy to enhance immunogenicity and/or to break immunoresistance of the tumour and its microenvironment, leading to a rationale for the use of ICIs in combination with the standard chemotherapy regimen to improve efficacy of cancer treatment. Here, we propose to review randomised clinical trials evaluating concomitant administration of ICIs and chemotherapy, to assess clinical efficacy and safety profiles in advanced solid tumours. Association of these two modes of action on treatments has shown improved overall survival and better objective response rates than standard chemotherapy, especially in first-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and for PD1/PD-L1 enriched tumours, highlighting a potential synergistic effect of this treatment combination in certain tumour types. However, improved survival results with the use of anti-PD-L1 avelumab as a maintenance schedule for bladder cancer raises the question of the most appropriate approach between sequential and concomitant administration of chemoimmunotherapy. To date, no trials have compared in a head-to-head protocol the administration of concomitant chemoimmunotherapy with chemotherapy, used for tumour debulking, followed by administration of ICIs. Regarding the tolerance profile, no new safety signals were found with the combination tested to date. Interestingly, recent results have shown an improved Progression Free survival 2 (PFS2) (defined as the progression after the next line of therapy) in head-and-neck cancers or NSCLC after a first-line pembrolizumab-chemotherapy combination, suggesting a potential long-lasting effect of ICIs when used in combination in the first-line setting.

A randomized phase II trial evaluating the addition of low dose, short course sunitinib to docetaxel in advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that low-dose, short-course sunitinib prior to neoadjuvant doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) normalised tumour vasculature and improved perfusion, but resulted in neutropenia and delayed subsequent cycles in breast cancer patients. This study combined sunitinib with docetaxel, which has an earlier neutrophil nadir than AC. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid cancers were randomized 1:1 to 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2, with or without sunitinib 12.5 mg daily for 7 days prior to docetaxel, stratified by primary tumour site. Primary endpoints were objective-response (ORR:CR + PR) and clinical-benefit rate (CBR:CR + PR + SD); secondary endpoints were toxicity and progression-free-survival (PFS). RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients from 2 study sites; 33 received docetaxel-sunitinib and 35 docetaxel alone, with 33 breast, 25 lung and 10 patients with other cancers. There was no difference in ORR (30.3% vs 28.6%, p = 0.432, odds-ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.38-3.18); CBR was lower in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (48.5% vs 71.4%, p = 0.027 OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-1.01). Median PFS was shorter in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (2.9 vs 4.9 months, hazard-ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% CI 1.15-3.48, p = 0.014) overall, as well as in breast (4.2 vs 5.6 months, p = 0.048) and other cancers (2.0 vs 5.3 months, p = 0.009), but not in lung cancers (2.9 vs 4.1 months, p = 0.597). Median OS was similar in both arms overall (9.9 vs 10.5 months, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51-1.67, p = 0.789), and in the breast (18.9 vs 25.8 months, p = 0.354), lung (7.0 vs 6.7 months, p = 0.970) and other cancers (4.5 vs 8.8 months, p = 0.449) subgroups. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were lower with docetaxel-sunitinib (18.2% vs 34.3%, p = 0.132), attributed to greater discretionary use of prophylactic G-CSF (90.9% vs 63.0%, p = 0.024). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities were similar (12.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.792). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel was well-tolerated but did not improve outcomes. The possible negative impact in metastatic breast cancer patients is contrary to results of adding sunitinib to neoadjuvant AC. These negative results suggest that the intermittent administration of sunitinib in the current dose and schedule with docetaxel in advanced solid tumours, particularly breast cancers, is not beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered ( NCT01803503 ) prospectively on clinicaltrials.gov on 4th March 2013.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of olaparib in patients with advanced solid tumours and mild or moderate hepatic impairment.

AIMS: Olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, is partially hepatically cleared. We investigated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of olaparib in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment to provide dosing recommendations. METHODS: This Phase I open-label study assessed the PK, safety and tolerability of single doses of olaparib 300-mg tablets in patients with advanced solid tumours. Patients had normal hepatic function (NHF), or mild (MiHI; Child-Pugh class A) or moderate (MoHI; Child-Pugh class B) hepatic impairment. Blood was collected for PK assessments for 96 hours. Patients could continue taking olaparib 300 mg twice daily for long-term safety assessment. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received ≥1 dose of olaparib and 30 were included in the PK assessment. Patients with MiHI had an area under the curve geometric least-squares mean (GLSmean) ratio of 1.15 (90% confidence interval 0.72, 1.83) and a GLSmean maximum plasma concentration ratio of 1.13 (0.82, 1.56) vs those with NHF. In patients with MoHI, GLSmean ratio for area under the curve was 1.08 (0.66, 1.74) and for maximum plasma concentration was 0.87 (0.63, 1.22) vs those with NHF. For patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, no new safety signals were detected. CONCLUSION: Patients with MiHI or MoHI had no clinically significant changes in exposure to olaparib compared with patients with NHF. The safety profile of olaparib did not differ from a clinically relevant extent between cohorts. No olaparib tablet or capsule dose reductions are required for patients with MiHI or MoHI.

Clinical outcomes of adolescents and young adults with advanced solid tumours participating in phase I trials.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with advanced solid tumours are often considered for phase I clinical trials with novel agents. The outcome of AYAs in these trials have not been described before. AIM: To study the outcome of AYA patients in phase I clinical trials. METHODS: Clinical trial data of AYAs (defined as aged 15-39 years at diagnosis) treated at the Drug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, between 2002 and 2016, were analysed. RESULTS: From a prospectively maintained database of 2631 patients treated in phase I trials, 219 AYA patients (8%) were identified. Major tumour types included gynaecological cancer (25%) and sarcoma (18%). Twenty-five (11%) had a known hereditary cancer syndrome (most commonly BRCA). Molecular characterisation of tumours (n = 45) identified mutations most commonly in TP53 (33%), PI3KCA (18%) and KRAS (9%). Therapeutic targets of trials included DNA damage repair (16%), phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) (16%) and angiogenesis (16%). Grade 3/4 toxicities were experienced in 26% of patients. Of the 214 evaluable patients, objective response rate was 12%, with clinical benefit rate at 6 months of 22%. Median overall survival (OS) was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval: 6.3-9.5), and 2-year OS was 11%. Of patients with responses, 36% were matched to phase I trials based on germline or somatic genetic aberrations. CONCLUSION: We describe the outcome of the largest cohort of AYA patients treated in phase I trials. A subgroup of these patients demonstrates benefit, with several durable responses beyond 2 years. A sizeable proportion of AYA patients have cancer syndromes, significant family history or somatic molecular aberrancies which may influence novel therapeutic treatment options.

A first-in-human phase I study of SAR125844, a selective MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumours with MET amplification.

PURPOSE: Dysregulated MET signalling is implicated in oncogenesis. The safety and preliminary efficacy of a highly selective MET kinase inhibitor (SAR125844) was investigated in patients with advanced solid tumours and MET dysregulation. METHODS: This was a phase I dose-escalation (3 + 3 design [50-740 mg/m2]) and dose-expansion study. In the dose escalation, patients had high total MET (t-MET) expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or MET amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. In the dose expansion, patients had MET amplification (including a subset of patients with non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC]) or phosphorylated-MET (p-MET) expression (IHC). Objectives were determination of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of once-weekly intravenous SAR125844 based on dose-limiting toxicities; safety and pharmacokinetic profile; preliminary efficacy of SAR125844 MTD in the expansion cohort. RESULTS: In total, 72 patients were enrolled: dose escalation, N = 33; dose expansion, N = 39; 570 mg/m2 was established as the MTD. Most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were asthenia/fatigue (58.3%), nausea (31.9%), and abdominal pain, constipation, and dyspnea (27.8% for each); 58.3% of patients reported grade 3 AEs (19.4% were treatment related). Of the 29 evaluable patients with MET amplification treated at 570 mg/m2, five achieved a partial response, including four of 22 with NSCLC; 17 patients had stable disease. No response was observed in patients with high p-MET solid tumours. There was no correlation between tumour response and t-MET status or MET gene copy number. CONCLUSION: The MTD of once-weekly SAR125844 was 570 mg/m2; SAR125844 was well tolerated, with significant antitumour activity in patients with MET-amplified NSCLC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01391533.