Genomic landscape of patients in a phase II study of zanubrutinib in ibrutinib- and/or acalabrutinib-intolerant patients with B-cell malignancies.

Not available.

Zanubrutinib in patients with previously treated B-cell malignancies intolerant of previous Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the USA: a phase 2, open-label, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesised that zanubrutinib, a highly selective next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, would be a safe and active treatment for patients intolerant of ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or both. We aimed to assess whether zanubrutinib would prolong treatment duration by minimising treatment-related toxicities and discontinuations in patients with previously treated B-cell malignancies. METHODS: This ongoing, phase 2, multicentre, open-label, single-arm study was done in 20 centres in the USA. Patients aged 18 or older with previously treated B-cell malignancies (chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström macroglobulinaemia, or marginal zone lymphoma) who became intolerant of ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or both, were orally administered zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or 320 mg once daily per investigator. The primary endpoint was recurrence and change in severity of ibrutinib or acalabrutinib intolerance events based on investigator-assessed adverse events. Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed overall response rate; duration of response; disease control rate; and progression-free survival. Analyses included all patients who received any dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04116437. FINDINGS: Between Oct 14, 2019, and Sept 8, 2021, 67 patients (36 [54%] men and 31 [46%] women) who were intolerant of ibrutinib (n=57; cohort 1) or of acalabrutinib or acalabrutinib and ibrutinib (n=10; cohort 2) were enrolled. 63 (94%) patients were White, one (2%) had multiple ethnicities, and three (5%) had unreported or unknown ethnicity. Most intolerance events (81 [70%] of 115 for ibrutinib; 15 [83%] of 18 for acalabrutinib) did not recur with zanubrutinib. Of the recurring events, seven (21%) of 34 ibrutinib intolerance events and two (67%) of three acalabrutinib intolerance events recurred at the same severity with zanubrutinib; 27 (79%) ibrutinib intolerance events and one (33%) acalabrutinib intolerance event recurred at a lower severity with zanubrutinib. No events recurred at higher severity. No grade 4 intolerance events recurred. 64 (96%) of 67 patients had one or more adverse events with zanubrutinib; the most common adverse events were contusion (in 15 [22%] of 67 patients), fatigue (14 [21%]), myalgia (ten [15%]), arthralgia (nine [13%]), and diarrhoea (nine [13%]). Atrial fibrillation occurred in three (4%) patients (all grade 2). Eight (12%) of 67 patients had serious adverse events (anaemia, atrial fibrillation, bronchitis, COVID-19, COVID-19 pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, salmonella gastroenteritis, transfusion reaction, trigeminal nerve disorder, and urinary tract infection). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The median follow-up time was 12·0 months (IQR 8·2-15·6). Among the 64 efficacy-evaluable patients, disease control rate was 93·8% (60; 95% CI 84·8-98·3) and overall response rate was 64·1% (41; 95% CI 51·1-75·7). The median duration of response was not reached; the 12-month event-free duration of response rate was 95·0% (95% CI 69·5-99·3). Similarly, median progression-free survival was not reached; 18-month progression-free survival was 83·8% (95% CI 62·6-93·6). INTERPRETATION: Patients intolerant of previous BTK inhibitors have limited treatment options. These results suggest that zanubrutinib, a safe and viable treatment for patients with B-cell malignancies, might fill that unmet need for those who exhibit intolerance to ibrutinib or acalabrutinib. FUNDING: BeiGene.

Efficacy and safety following bosutinib dose reduction in patients with Philadelphia chromosome‒positive leukemias.

The recommended starting dose of bosutinib is 500 mg/day for chronic-phase (CP) or accelerated-/blast-phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) resistant/intolerant to prior therapy. However, some patients may require dose reductions to manage the occurrences of adverse events (AEs). Bosutinib efficacy and safety were evaluated following dose reductions in a phase I/II study of Ph+ patients with CP CML resistant/intolerant to imatinib or imatinib plus dasatinib and/or nilotinib, and those with accelerated-/blast-phase CML or acute lymphoblastic leukemia after at least imatinib treatment. In all, 570 patients with ≥4 years' follow-up were included in this analysis. Among 144 patients who dose-reduced to bosutinib 400 mg/day (without reduction to 300 mg/day), 22 (15 %) had complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) before and after reduction, 40 (28 %) initially achieved CCyR after reduction, and 4 (3 %) only had CCyR before reduction. Among 95 patients who dose-reduced to bosutinib 300 mg/day, 23 (24 %) had CCyR before and after reduction, 13 (14 %) initially achieved CCyR after reduction, and 3 (3 %) only had CCyR before reduction. Results were similar to matched controls who remained on 500 mg/day, indicating dose reductions had not substantially affected efficacy. The incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was lower after dose reductions, particularly for gastrointestinal events. The incidence of hematologic toxicities generally was similar before and after dose reduction. The management of AEs with bosutinib through dose reduction can lead to improved/maintained efficacy and better tolerability; still, approximately half of patients on treatment at year 4 maintained a dose of ≥500 mg/day. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00261846.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of bosutinib, dasatinib and nilotinib effect on survival and major cytogenetic response in treatment of second-line chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia.

Objective: In clinical trials of second-line therapies for chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML), to date, only single-arm trials have been conducted for the available tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments (bosutinib, dasatinib and nilotinib). These trials included heterogeneous patient populations in terms of disease and baseline characteristics. These hamper the use of standard network meta-analyses for indirect treatment comparison of relative efficacy. In this situation, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) in second-line CP-CML was performed. The aim was to compare the relative efficacies of bosutinib, dasatinib and nilotinib in second-line CP-CML patients.Methods: The MAIC was preceded by a systematic literature review that ensured inclusion of the underlying data for the analyses. The outcomes were measured in terms of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and major cytogenetic response (MCyR). The treatments were quantitatively compared based on Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) regressions, on restricted mean survival (RMST, when the proportionality assumption showed evidence of violation) and on odds ratios (for response measures).Results: Comparing with dasatinib, bosutinib resulted in HRs for PFS and OS of 0.63 (0.44-0.90, p < .05) and 0.82 (0.54-1.26, p = .37) respectively, and resulted in an OR for MCyR of 0.78 (0.53-1.16). Although the proportionality of hazards assumption was violated for PFS, the RMST analyses confirmed the findings of the Cox regression. When compared with nilotinib, bosutinib showed a significant HR of 0.54 (0.38-0.76, p < .01) in favor of bosutinib for PFS, a non-significant HR of 0.72 (0.46-1.13, p = .16) for OS and a non-significant OR of 0.98 (0.71-1.35) for MCyR.Conclusions: Bosutinib had a significantly greater PFS than both dasatinib and nilotinib. For OS, the findings were numerically in favor of bosutinib, but not statistically significant. For MCyR, the findings were numerically in favor of dasatinib and nilotinib, but not statistically significant.

Patient-reported outcomes in the phase 3 BFORE trial of bosutinib versus imatinib for newly diagnosed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 BFORE trial (NCT02130557), treatment with bosutinib resulted in a significantly higher major molecular response rate at 12 months versus imatinib in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population of patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP CML). Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was an exploratory objective. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed CP CML were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily bosutinib 400 mg or imatinib 400 mg as first-line therapy. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu) and EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires at baseline, every 3 months for the first 24 months of treatment, every 6 months thereafter, and at treatment completion. We report PRO results at month 12 in the mITT population (bosutinib: n = 246; imatinib: n = 241). RESULTS: Mean FACT-Leu combined and subscale scores were similar at baseline in the bosutinib and imatinib arms; at month 12, all scores demonstrated improvement or maintenance of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in both treatment arms. Repeated-measures mixed-effects models showed no significant difference between bosutinib and imatinib for any FACT-Leu score. Functional health status, as measured by EQ-5D, also demonstrated improvement or maintenance with bosutinib and imatinib at month 12. CONCLUSIONS: Similar improvements in PROs compared with baseline were seen after 12 months of treatment with first-line bosutinib or imatinib in the BFORE trial. Newly diagnosed patients with CP CML receiving bosutinib or imatinib can preserve or improve HRQoL during treatment, although clinical efficacy was superior with bosutinib.

Safety and efficacy of second-line bosutinib for chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia over a five-year period: final results of a phase I/II study.

Bosutinib is a Src/Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitor indicated for adults with newly-diagnosed Philadelphia positive chronic myeloid leukemia or with resistant/intolerant disease. We report the final results of a phase I/II study of second-line bosutinib in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia patients after imatinib failure (n=284). Median follow up and treatment durations were 54.8 (range 0.6-96.3) and 25.6 (0.2-96.3) months, respectively. At years 2 and 5, 54% and 40% of patients, respectively, remained on bosutinib. Cumulative major cytogenetic response and complete cytogenetic response rates (newly-attained or maintained from baseline) were 58% and 46%, respectively, by year 2 and 60% and 50% by year 5. Kaplan-Meier probability of maintaining major and complete cytogenetic response was 76% and 78%, respectively, at year 2 and 71% and 69% at year 5. Cumulative incidence of on-treatment disease progression/death was similar at years 5 (19%) and 2 (15%); Kaplan-Meier overall survival was 91% at year 2 and 84% at year 5. Of 169 patients who had discontinued bosutinib by year 5, 38 did so after year 2, most commonly for disease progression (n=11). Most adverse events initially occurred within two years. Overall, gastrointestinal events were the most common (diarrhea 86%, nausea 46%, vomiting 37%); the most common grade 3/4 toxicity was thrombocytopenia (25%). None of the 4 on-treatment deaths in years 3-5 were related to bosutinib. Bosutinib demonstrated durable efficacy and manageable toxicity through year 5 confirming its importance in the treatment of chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia patients resistant/intolerant to prior imatinib. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 00261846.

Pazopanib Maintenance Therapy in East Asian Women With Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Results From AGO-OVAR16 and an East Asian Study.

OBJECTIVE: The recent phase 3 trial AGO-OVAR16 demonstrated that pazopanib maintenance improved median progression-free survival in patients with ovarian cancer whose disease did not progress during first-line treatment. However, this improvement was not seen in the subset of East Asian patients. The current analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of pazopanib maintenance in East Asian patients from AGO-OVAR16 and a separate East Asian study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: East Asian patients from AGO-OVAR16 (n = 209) and the East Asian study (N = 145) were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg/d or placebo for up to 24 months. The primary end point for each study was progression-free survival by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) based on investigator assessment. Clinical and genetics data were analyzed separately by study or pooled according to separate predetermined statistical plans. RESULTS: Pazopanib maintenance had a detrimental effect on median progression-free survival versus placebo in East Asian patients from the combined studies (n = 354; 17.9 vs 21.5 months; hazard ratio, 1.114; 95% confidence interval, 0.818-1.518; P = 0.4928). Pazopanib maintenance showed a disadvantage in overall survival in East Asian patients from AGO-OVAR16 versus placebo (hazard ratio, 1.706; 95% confidence interval, 1.010-2.883; P = 0.0465); overall survival analysis was not performed in the East Asian study because of insufficient event numbers. Pazopanib-treated patients had a significantly higher incidence of grade 3 or higher hypertension (27%) and neutropenia (13%) versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment effect of maintenance pazopanib in East Asian patients seemed to differ from that in non-Asian patients. In study-specific and pooled analyses, none of the potential factors analyzed could satisfactorily explain the different efficacy results of pazopanib in East Asian patients.

Prospective Biomarker Analysis of the Randomized CHER-LOB Study Evaluating the Dual Anti-HER2 Treatment With Trastuzumab and Lapatinib Plus Chemotherapy as Neoadjuvant Therapy for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The CHER-LOB randomized phase II study showed that the combination of lapatinib and trastuzumab plus chemotherapy increases the pathologic complete remission (pCR) rate compared with chemotherapy plus either trastuzumab or lapatinib. A biomarker program was prospectively planned to identify potential predictors of sensitivity to different treatments and to evaluate treatment effect on tumor biomarkers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 121 breast cancer patients positive for human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab, lapatinib, or both trastuzumab and lapatinib. Pre- and post-treatment samples were centrally evaluated for HER2, p95-HER2, phosphorylated AKT (pAKT), phosphatase and tensin homolog, Ki67, apoptosis, and PIK3CA mutations. Fresh-frozen tissue samples were collected for genomic analyses. RESULTS: A mutation in PIK3CA exon 20 or 9 was documented in 20% of cases. Overall, the pCR rates were similar in PIK3CA wild-type and PIK3CA-mutated patients (33.3% vs. 22.7%; p = .323). For patients receiving trastuzumab plus lapatinib, the probability of pCR was higher in PIK3CA wild-type tumors (48.4% vs. 12.5%; p = .06). Ki67, pAKT, and apoptosis measured on the residual disease were significantly reduced from baseline. The degree of Ki67 inhibition was significantly higher in patients receiving the dual anti-HER2 blockade. The integrated analysis of gene expression and copy number data demonstrated that a 50-gene signature specifically predicted the lapatinib-induced pCR. CONCLUSION: PIK3CA mutations seem to identify patients who are less likely to benefit from dual anti-HER2 inhibition. p95-HER2 and markers of phosphoinositide 3-kinase pathway deregulation are not confirmed as markers of different sensitivity to trastuzumab or lapatinib. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: HER2 is currently the only validated marker to select breast cancer patients for anti-HER2 treatment; however, it is becoming evident that HER2-positive breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease. In addition, more and more new anti-HER2 treatments are becoming available. There is a need to identify markers of sensitivity to different treatments to move in the direction of treatment personalization. This study identified PIK3CA mutations as a potential predictive marker of resistance to dual anti-HER2 treatment that should be further studied in breast cancer.

Progression-free survival by local investigator versus independent central review: comparative analysis of the AGO-OVAR16 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary endpoint in advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer (AEOC) trials may be confounded by the difficulty of radiologic evaluation of disease progression and the potential for discrepancy between investigator and blinded independent central assessments. PFS as assessed by local investigator (INV) was the primary endpoint of AGO-OVAR16, a randomized, double-blind trial of pazopanib maintenance therapy in AEOC. To confirm the robustness of the primary analysis, PFS was also evaluated by blinded independent central review (BICR). METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed AEOC (N = 940) were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg/day or placebo for up to 24 months. Tumor response in the intent-to-treat population was evaluated by CT/MRI every 6 months and analyzed per RECIST 1.0. RESULTS: Pazopanib prolonged PFS versus placebo by INV (median 17.9 vs 12.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.766, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.643-0.911; P = 0.0021). Results for PFS by BICR were similar (median 15.4 vs 11.8 months; HR = 0.802, 95% CI: 0.678-0.949; P = 0.0084). Progression events were recorded later by INV in 23% of pazopanib-treated patients and 17% of placebo-treated patients. The overall concordance between INV and BICR assessments was 84% and 86% in the pazopanib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: By INV and BICR assessments, maintenance therapy with pazopanib in AEOC provided a significantly longer PFS than placebo. The good overall concordance between INV and BICR assessments, as well as HR and P value consistency, supports the reliability of investigator-assessed PFS as the primary endpoint in AGO-OVAR16.

Incorporation of pazopanib in maintenance therapy of ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: Pazopanib is an oral, multikinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) -1/-2/-3, platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) -α/-ß, and c-Kit. Preclinical and clinical studies support VEGFR and PDGFR as targets for advanced ovarian cancer treatment. This study evaluated the role of pazopanib maintenance therapy in patients with ovarian cancer whose disease did not progress during first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine hundred forty patients with histologically confirmed cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, International Federation Gynecology Obstetrics (FIGO) stages II-IV, no evidence of progression after primary therapy consisting of surgery and at least five cycles of platinum-taxane chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once per day or placebo for up to 24 months. The primary end point was progression-free survival by RECIST 1.0 assessed by the investigators. RESULTS: Maintenance pazopanib prolonged progression-free survival compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.91; P = .0021; median, 17.9 v 12.3 months, respectively). Interim survival analysis based on events in 35.6% of the population did not show any significant difference. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events of hypertension (30.8%), neutropenia (9.9%), liver-related toxicity (9.4%), diarrhea (8.2%), fatigue (2.7%), thrombocytopenia (2.5%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (1.9%) were significantly higher in the pazopanib arm. Treatment discontinuation related to adverse events was higher among patients treated with pazopanib (33.3%) compared with placebo (5.6%). CONCLUSION: Pazopanib maintenance therapy provided a median improvement of 5.6 months (HR, 0.77) in progression-free survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer who have not progressed after first-line chemotherapy. Overall survival data to this point did not suggest any benefit. Additional analysis should help to identify subgroups of patients in whom improved efficacy may balance toxicity (NCT00866697).

Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pazopanib and sunitinib provided a progression-free survival benefit, as compared with placebo or interferon, in previous phase 3 studies involving patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3, randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of pazopanib and sunitinib as first-line therapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1110 patients with clear-cell, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a continuous dose of pazopanib (800 mg once daily; 557 patients) or sunitinib in 6-week cycles (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment; 553 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by independent review, and the study was powered to show the noninferiority of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Secondary end points included overall survival, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Pazopanib was noninferior to sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival (hazard ratio for progression of disease or death from any cause, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.22), meeting the predefined noninferiority margin (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, <1.25). Overall survival was similar (hazard ratio for death with pazopanib, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.08). Patients treated with sunitinib, as compared with those treated with pazopanib, had a higher incidence of fatigue (63% vs. 55%), the hand-foot syndrome (50% vs. 29%), and thrombocytopenia (78% vs. 41%); patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of increased levels of alanine aminotransferase (60%, vs. 43% with sunitinib). The mean change from baseline in 11 of 14 health-related quality-of-life domains, particularly those related to fatigue or soreness in the mouth, throat, hands, or feet, during the first 6 months of treatment favored pazopanib (P<0.05 for all 11 comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib and sunitinib have similar efficacy, but the safety and quality-of-life profiles favor pazopanib. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals; COMPARZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00720941.).