A Phase Ib Study Assessing the Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of the First-in-Class Wee1 Inhibitor Adavosertib (AZD1775) as Monotherapy in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Adavosertib (AZD1775) is a first-in-class, selective, small-molecule inhibitor of Wee1. OBJECTIVE: The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of adavosertib monotherapy were evaluated in patients with various solid-tumor types and molecular profiles. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had the following: confirmed diagnosis of ovarian cancer (OC), triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), or small-cell lung cancer (SCLC); previous treatment for metastatic/recurrent disease; and measurable disease. Patients were grouped into six matched cohorts based on tumor type and presence/absence of biomarkers and received oral adavosertib 175 mg twice a day on days 1-3 and 8-10 of a 21-day treatment cycle. RESULTS: Eighty patients received treatment in the expansion phase; median total treatment duration was 2.4 months. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (56.3%), nausea (42.5%), fatigue (36.3%), vomiting (18.8%), and decreased appetite (12.5%). Treatment-related grade ≥ 3 AEs and serious AEs were reported in 32.5% and 10.0% of patients, respectively. AEs led to dose interruptions in 22.5%, reductions in 11.3%, and discontinuations in 16.3% of patients. One patient died following serious AEs of deep vein thrombosis (treatment related) and respiratory failure (not treatment related). Objective response rate, disease control rate, and progression-free survival were as follows: 6.3%, 68.8%, 4.5 months (OC BRCA wild type); 3.3%, 76.7%, 3.9 months (OC BRCA mutation); 0%, 69.2%, 3.1 months (TNBC biomarker [CCNE1/MYC/MYCL1/MYCN] non-amplified [NA]); 0%, 50%, 2 months (TNBC biomarker amplified); 8.3%, 33.3%, 1.3 months (SCLC biomarker NA); and 0%, 33.3%, 1.2 months (SCLC biomarker amplified). CONCLUSION: Adavosertib monotherapy was tolerated and demonstrated some antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02482311; registered June 2015.

A phase Ib study of adavosertib, a selective Wee1 inhibitor, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

Adavosertib selectively inhibits Wee1, which regulates intra-S and G2/M cell-cycle checkpoints. This study investigated dosing schedules for adavosertib monotherapy, determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) in patients with advanced solid tumors.Patients received oral adavosertib qd or bid on a 5/9 schedule (5 days on treatment, 9 days off) in 14-day cycles, or qd on one of two 5/2 schedules (weekly, or for 2 of 3 weeks) in 21-day cycles. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic analyses were performed.Sixty-two patients (female, 64.5%; median age, 61.5 years; most common primary tumors: lung [24.2%], ovary [21.0%]) received treatment (qd schedules, n = 50; bid schedules, n = 12) for 1.8 months (median). Median time to maximum adavosertib concentration was 2.2-4.1 h; mean half-life was 5-12 h. Adverse events (AEs) caused dose reductions, interruptions and discontinuations in 17 (27.4%), 25 (40.3%) and 4 (6.5%) patients, respectively. Most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were anemia, neutropenia (each n = 9, 14.5%) and diarrhea (n = 8, 12.9%). Seven (11.3%) patients experienced 10 treatment-related serious AEs (pneumonia n = 2 [3.2%], dehydration n = 2 [3.2%], anemia n = 1 [1.6%], febrile neutropenia n = 1 [1.6%], and thrombocytopenia n = 1 [1.6%]). Overall objective response rate was 3.4% (2/58); disease control rate was 48.4% (30/62); median progression-free survival was 2.7 months.MTDs were 125 mg (bid 5/9) and 300 mg (qd 5/9 and 5/2 for 2 of 3 weeks); RP2D was 300 mg (qd 5/2 for 2 of 3 weeks). The safety profile was manageable, acceptable, and generally concordant with the known safety profile.

A Phase Ib Dose-Escalation Study of LCL161 Plus Oral Topotecan for Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Small Cell Lung Cancer and Select Gynecologic Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: This was an open-label, multicenter, single-arm phase Ib dose-escalation study of oral LCL161 administered in combination with oral topotecan in patients with relapsed/refractory small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and select gynecological cancers. METHODS: Cohorts of 3-6 patients initiated treatment with LCL161 and topotecan in escalating doses. LCL161 was administered orally on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 21-day cycle; topotecan was administered orally for the first 5 days of each 21-day cycle. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients were enrolled in 6 cohorts; 30 patients were female; 4 patients had SCLC and 19 patients had ovarian cancer. Median prior lines of therapy were 3 (1-10). Median duration of treatment was 7.1 weeks (0.1-174). The most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were thrombocytopenia (51.43%) and anemia (31.43%). ORR was 9.7%; 58% of patients had SD. The study was stopped early before the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) were determined. CONCLUSION: The addition of LCL161 to oral topotecan caused more myelosuppression when dosed together than what was associated with either drug alone. Moreover, the drug combination did not improve outcomes. The study was terminated early (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02649673).

Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of Aurora kinase B inhibitor AZD2811: a phase 1 dose-finding study in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: AZD2811 is a potent, selective Aurora kinase B inhibitor. We report the dose-escalation phase of a first-in-human study assessing nanoparticle-encapsulated AZD2811 in advanced solid tumours. METHODS: AZD2811 was administered in 12 dose-escalation cohorts (2-h intravenous infusion; 15‒600 mg; 21-/28-day cycles) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at higher doses. The primary objective was determining safety and maximum tolerated/recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). RESULTS: Fifty-one patients received AZD2811. Drug exposure was sustained for several days post-dose. The most common AZD2811-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (27.3%) at ≤200 mg/cycle and neutropenia (37.9%) at ≥400 mg/cycle. Five patients had dose-limiting toxicities: grade (G)4 decreased neutrophil count (n = 1, 200 mg; Days 1, 4; 28-day cycle); G4 decreased neutrophil count and G3 stomatitis (n = 1 each, both 400 mg; Day 1; 21-day cycle); G3 febrile neutropenia and G3 fatigue (n = 1 each, both 600 mg; Day 1; 21-day cycle +G-CSF). RP2D was 500 mg; Day 1; 21-day cycle with G-CSF on Day 8. Neutropenia/neutrophil count decrease were on-target AEs. Best overall responses were partial response (n = 1, 2.0%) and stable disease (n = 23, 45.1%). CONCLUSIONS: At RP2D, AZD2811 was tolerable with G-CSF support. Neutropenia was a pharmacodynamic biomarker. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02579226.

A real-world retrospective study of the use of Ki-67 testing and treatment patterns in patients with HR+, HER2- early breast cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer be considered for adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) after primary treatment like surgical excision. Adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) use primarily depends on risk of recurrence. Biomarkers such as Ki-67 potentially have most value in patients with intermediate risk factors, such as involvement of 1-3 positive nodes. This study evaluated the use of Ki-67 testing and treatment patterns in patients with HR+, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer. METHODS: This was an observational retrospective cohort study of patients with electronic medical records from January 2010 to August 2018 treated for HR+, HER2- early breast cancer at Sarah Cannon sites in the United States (US). Overall, 567 patients were randomly selected after using the eligibility criteria: female or male ≥18 years, without distant metastases, and with available physician and pathology reports. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate factors predicting Ki-67 testing and test results. Descriptive analyses were applied to treatment patterns. RESULTS: Multivariable logistic regression analyses found no clinical or pathological factors that predicted whether Ki-67 testing had been ordered by physicians. Of all tested patients (N = 130), having Grade-2 tumors (OR, 7.95 [95% CI: 2.05, 30.9]; p = 0.0027) or Grade-3 tumors (OR, 95.3 [95% CI, 11.9, 760.7]; p < 0.001) at initial diagnosis was a predictor of high Ki-67 expression (≥20%). Ki-67 expression was tested in 23.6% (61/258) of patients with 1-3 positive nodes; 54.1% of them (33/61) had high Ki-67 expression (≥20%). While having a higher grade tumor predicted high Ki-67 (≥20%), 28.6% of patients with Grade-1 tumors also had high Ki-67 expression. Neo-adjuvant therapy was received by 16.0% of patients (91/567), most of whom (66/91; 72.5%) received CT alone. Adjuvant therapy, either endocrine and/or chemotherapy, was received by 92.6% (525/567) of patients and by 67.0% (61/91) of those who received neo-adjuvant therapy. Most (428/525, 81.5%) received ET in the adjuvant treatment setting. CONCLUSIONS: High grade tumors predicted high Ki-67 (≥20%) expression, but Ki-67 testing was not widely used in these US patients. Most HR+, HER2- early breast cancers were treated with adjuvant ET, with or without CT.

Discordance in Tumor Mutation Burden from Blood and Tissue Affects Association with Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Real-World Settings.

BACKGROUND: Tumor mutation burden (TMB), a biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) response, is reported by both blood- and tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) vendors. However, the agreement between TMB from blood (bTMB) and tissue (tTMB) in real-world settings, both in absolute value and association with CPI response, is not known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study utilizes Sarah Cannon's precision medicine platform, Genospace, to harmonize clinico-genomic data from 17 206 patients with cancer with NGS results from September 2015 to August 2021. A subset of patients have both bTMB and tTMB results. Statistical analyses are performed in R and include (1) correlation (r) and concordance (ρ) between patient-matched bTMB-tTMB pairs, (2) distribution of total bTMB and tTMB values, and (3) association of bTMB and tTMB with time to CPI therapy failure. RESULTS: In 410 patient-matched bTMB-tTMB pairs, the median bTMB (m = 10.5 mut/Mb) was significantly higher than the median tTMB (m = 6.0 mut/Mb, P < .001) leading to conflicting "high" and "low" statuses in over one-third of cases at a threshold of 10 mut/Mb (n = 410). Significant differences were observed in the distribution of bTMB values from blood-NGS vendors, with guardant health (GH) reporting higher (m = 10.5 mut/Mb, n = 2183) than Foundation Medicine (FMI, m = 3.8 mut/Mb, n = 462, P < .001). bTMB from GH required a higher threshold (≥40 mut/Mb) than bTMB from FMI (≥12 mut/Mb) in order to be associated with CPI response. CONCLUSIONS: This study uncovers variability in bTMB reporting among commercial NGS platforms, thereby evidencing a need for assay-specific thresholds in identifying patients who may respond to CPI therapy.

Adavosertib with Chemotherapy in Patients with Primary Platinum-Resistant Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Peritoneal Cancer: An Open-Label, Four-Arm, Phase II Study.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of adavosertib in combination with four chemotherapy agents commonly used in patients with primary platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with histologically or cytologically confirmed epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer with measurable disease were enrolled between January 2015 and January 2018 in this open-label, four-arm, multicenter, phase II study. Patients received adavosertib (oral capsules, 2 days on/5 days off or 3 days on/4 days off) in six cohorts from 175 mg once daily to 225 mg twice daily combined with gemcitabine, paclitaxel, carboplatin, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. The primary outcome measurement was overall response rate. RESULTS: Three percent of patients (3/94) had confirmed complete response and 29% (27/94) had confirmed partial response. The response rate was highest with carboplatin plus weekly adavosertib, at 66.7%, with 100% disease control rate, and median progression-free survival of 12.0 months. The longest median duration of response was in the paclitaxel cohort (12.0 months). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events across all cohorts were neutropenia [45/94 (47.9%) patients], anemia [31/94 (33.0%)], thrombocytopenia [30/94 (31.9%)], and diarrhea and vomiting [10/94 (10.6%) each]. CONCLUSIONS: Adavosertib showed preliminary efficacy when combined with chemotherapy. The most promising treatment combination was adavosertib 225 mg twice daily on days 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 plus carboplatin every 21 days. However, hematologic toxicity was more frequent than would be expected for carboplatin monotherapy, and the combination requires further study to optimize the dose, schedule, and supportive medications.

A Phase 1b Trial of Prexasertib in Combination with Standard-of-Care Agents in Advanced or Metastatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) inhibitor prexasertib exhibited modest monotherapy antitumor activity in prior trials, suggesting that combination with chemotherapy or other targeted agents may be needed to maximize efficacy. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the recommended phase II dose and schedule of prexasertib in combination with either cisplatin, cetuximab, pemetrexed, or 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced and/or metastatic cancer, and to summarize preliminary antitumor activity of these combinations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase Ib, nonrandomized, open-label study comprised dose-escalation phase(s) with multiple sub-arms evaluating different prexasertib-drug combinations: Part A, prexasertib + cisplatin (n = 63); Part B, prexasertib + cetuximab (n = 41); Part C, prexasertib + pemetrexed (n = 3); Part D, prexasertib + 5-fluorouracil (n =8). Alternate dose schedules/regimens intended to mitigate toxicity and maximize dose exposure and efficacy were also explored in sub-parts. RESULTS: In Part A, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of prexasertib in combination with cisplatin (75 mg/m2) was declared at 80 mg/m2, with cisplatin administered on Day 1 and prexasertib on Day 2 of a 21-day cycle. The overall objective response rate (ORR) in Part A was 12.7%, and 28 of 55 evaluable patients (50.9%) had a decrease in target lesions from baseline. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in Part A were hematologic, with the most common being white blood cell count decreased/neutrophil count decreased, experienced by 73.0% (any grade) and 66.7% (grade 3 or higher) of patients. In Part B, an MTD of 70 mg/m2 was established for prexasertib administered in combination with cetuximab (500 mg /m2), both administered on Day 1 of a 14-day cycle. The overall ORR in Part B was 4.9%, and 7 of 31 evaluable patients (22.6%) had decreased target lesions compared with baseline. White blood cell count decreased/neutrophil count decreased was also the most common treatment-related AE (56.1% any grade; 53.7% grade 3 or higher). In Parts A and B, hematologic toxicities, even with the addition of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, resulted in frequent dose adjustments (> 60% of patients). In Part C, evaluation of prexasertib + pemetrexed was halted due to dose-limiting toxicities in two of the first three patients; MTD was not established. In Part D, the MTD of prexasertib in combination with 5-fluorouracil (label dose) was declared at 40 mg /m2, both administered on Day 1 of a 14-day cycle. In Part D, overall ORR was 12.5%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the proof-of-concept that prexasertib can be combined with cisplatin, cetuximab, and 5-fluorouracil. Schedule was a key determinant of the tolerability and feasibility of combining prexasertib with these standard-of-care agents. Reversible hematologic toxicity was the most frequent AE and was dose-limiting. Insights gleaned from this study will inform future combination strategies for the development of prexasertib and next-generation CHK1 inhibitors. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02124148 (date of registration 28 April 2014).

Can wearable technology be used to approximate cardiopulmonary exercise testing metrics?

BACKGROUND: Consumer wrist-worn wearable activity monitors are widely available, low cost and are able to provide a direct measurement of several markers of physical activity. Despite this, there is limited data on their use in perioperative risk prediction. We explored whether these wearables could accurately approximate metrics (anaerobic threshold, peak oxygen uptake and peak work) derived using formalised cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in patients undergoing high-risk surgery. METHODS: Patients scheduled for major elective intra-abdominal surgery and undergoing CPET were included. Physical activity levels were estimated through direct measures (step count, floors climbed and total distance travelled) obtained through continuous wear of a wrist worn activity monitor (Garmin Vivosmart HR+) for 7 days prior to surgery and self-report through completion of the short International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Correlations and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis explored the relationships between parameters provided by CPET and physical activity. DEVICE SELECTION: Our choice of consumer wearable device was made to maximise feasibility outcomes for this study. The Garmin Vivosmart HR+ had the longest battery life and best waterproof characteristics of the available low-cost devices. RESULTS: Of 55 patients invited to participate, 49 (mean age 65.3 ± 13.6 years; 32 males) were enrolled; 37 provided complete wearable data for analyses and 36 patients provided full IPAQ data. Floors climbed, total steps and total travelled as measured by the wearable device all showed moderate correlation with CPET parameters of peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2) (R = 0.57 (CI 0.29-0.76), R = 0.59 (CI 0.31-0.77) and R = 0.62 (CI 0.35-0.79) respectively), anaerobic threshold (R = 0.37 (CI 0.01-0.64), R = 0.39 (CI 0.04-0.66) and R = 0.42 (CI 0.07-0.68) respectively) and peak work (R = 0.56 (CI 0.27-0.75), R = 0.48 (CI 0.17-0.70) and R = 0.50 (CI 0.2-0.72) respectively). Receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis for direct and self-reported measures of 7-day physical activity could accurately approximate the ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (VE/VCO2) and the anaerobic threshold. The area under these curves was 0.89 for VE/VCO2 and 0.91 for the anaerobic threshold. For peak VO2 and peak work, models fitted using just the wearable data were 0.93 for peak VO2 and 1.00 for peak work. CONCLUSIONS: Data recorded by the wearable device was able to consistently approximate CPET results, both with and without the addition of patient reported activity measures via IPAQ scores. This highlights the potential utility of wearable devices in formal assessment of physical functioning and suggests they could play a larger role in pre-operative risk assessment. ETHICS: This study entitled "uSing wearable TEchnology to Predict perioperative high-riSk patient outcomes (STEPS)" gained favourable ethical opinion on 24 January 2017 from the Welsh Research Ethics Committee 3 reference number 17/WA/0006. It was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier NCT03328039.

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Laboratory Reference Ranges and Testing Intervals Work Group.

PURPOSE: In clinical research, eligibility criteria promote patient safety and optimize the evidence generated from clinical trials. However, overly stringent eligibility criteria, including laboratory requirements, may limit enrollment, resulting in delayed trial completion and potentially limiting applicability of trial results to a general practice population. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Starting in 2018, a working group consisting of experts in direct patient care, the FDA, industry, and patient advocacy developed recommendations to guide the optimal use of laboratory reference ranges and testing intervals in clinical trial eligibility criteria and study procedures. The working group evaluated current eligibility criteria across different clinical trial phases and performed a literature review to evaluate the impact of and justification for laboratory test eligibility requirements and testing intervals in clinical trials. Recommendations were developed on the basis of the goals of promoting safety and optimizing the evidence generated, while also expanding eligibility and applicability, and minimizing excess burden of trial participation. RESULTS: In general, we found little variation over time and trial phase in laboratory test requirements, suggesting that these eligibility criteria are not refined according to ongoing clinical experience. We propose recommendations to optimize the use of laboratory tests when considering eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Tailoring the use of laboratory test requirements and testing intervals may increase the number and diversity of patients in clinical trials and provide clinical data that more closely represent the general practice populations.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

Preclinical Evaluation and Phase Ib Study of Prexasertib, a CHK1 Inhibitor, and Samotolisib (LY3023414), a Dual PI3K/mTOR Inhibitor.

PURPOSE: Prexasertib, a checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor (CHK1), exhibited modest monotherapy antitumor activity in previous studies. Preclinical data were generated to support the clinical combination of prexasertib + samotolisib, a PI3K/mTOR inhibitor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prexasertib + samotolisib was first evaluated in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells, MDA-MB-231 orthotopic xenograft tumors, and TNBC patient-derived xenograft (PDX) mouse models. In the phase Ib trial, following dose escalation, the initial expansion arm (E1, solid tumors) explored prexasertib 105 mg/m2 intravenously every 14 days + samotolisib 200 mg orally twice daily. Subsequent expansion arms evaluated samotolisib 150 mg twice daily in patients carrying PIK3CA mutations (E2, solid tumors) or with TNBC (E3). Safety and antitumor activity were assessed. RESULTS: Prexasertib + samotolisib inhibited cell proliferation in TNBC lines and primary tumor growth in the MDA-MB-231 model. Prexasertib + samotolisib exhibited synergistic or additive effects in 30 of 38 PDX single-mouse ("n = 1") models, and provided rationale for clinical evaluation. In the phase Ib study, 53 patients were enrolled (escalation, n = 13; E1, n = 9; E2, n = 15; and E3, n = 16). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were observed during escalation; however, DLT-equivalent toxicities were observed in E1, leading to samotolisib dose reduction (150 mg twice daily) in E2/E3. Common treatment-related adverse events were leukopenia/neutropenia (94.3%), thrombocytopenia (62.3%), and nausea (52.8%). During escalation, 2 patients achieved partial response for an overall response rate (ORR) of 15.4%, and ORRs were 13.3% for E2 (PIK3CA) and 25% for E3 (TNBC). CONCLUSIONS: Prexasertib + samotolisib showed antitumor activity in preclinical models and preliminary efficacy in heavily pretreated patients. The clinical combination was associated with toxicity, suggesting supportive measures may be required. However, these data may inform future trials using other CHK1 and PI3K pathway inhibitors.

Tumor-Specific and Tumor-Agnostic Molecular Signatures Associated With Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing is being incorporated into routine standard of care for patients with cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are approved for use in both tumor-specific and tumor-agnostic indications. We sought to determine tumor type-specific or tumor-agnostic correlations between mutations detected by NGS and response to CPIs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 26,004 patient records with NGS data available was conducted. Time to treatment failure and overall survival analyses were performed. Hazard ratios and associated statistics were computed in the R programming language. The study was considered exempt from internal review board review and data were considered nonhuman subjects. RESULTS: Response to CPIs varied between tumor types with melanoma and lung cancer performing relatively better on CPIs than other tumor types. Within tumor types, response to CPIs was stratified by mutations in specific genes. Tumor-agnostic markers including high tumor mutation burden and microsatellite instability-high were also associated with longer time to treatment failure on CPIs. Importantly, within the high tumor mutation burden and microsatellite instability-high groups, mutations in individual genes correlate with response to CPIs. CONCLUSION: The results from commercial NGS panels may be used to stratify patients for response to CPIs. In tumors where CPIs show relatively low efficacy, there may be distinct patient populations-based on gene mutation status-that are predicted to have better response to CPIs. Likewise, there may be distinct patient populations who do relatively worse on CPIs within tumor types known to respond well to CPIs.

Next-Generation Sequencing of Patients With Breast Cancer in Community Oncology Clinics.

PURPOSE: Molecular biomarkers informing disease diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment decisions in patients with breast cancer are being uncovered by next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies. In this study, we survey how NGS is used for patients with breast cancer in real-world settings with a focus on physician behaviors and sequencing results. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with breast cancer who received NGS testing from commercial vendors as part of standard of care from 2014 to 2019. A total of 2,635 NGS reports from 2,316 unique breast cancer patients were assessed. Hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 statuses were abstracted from patient medical records. Comparative gene amplification and mutation frequencies were analyzed using Pearson's correlation and Lin's concordance statistics. RESULTS: The number of physicians ordering NGS tests for patients with breast cancer increased more than six-fold from 2014 to 2019. Tissue- and plasma-based tests were ordered roughly equally by 2019, with plasma-based testing ordered most frequently in hormone receptor-positive subtypes. Patients with triple-negative breast cancer were most likely to receive NGS testing. Gene amplifications including ERBB2 were detected less frequently in our real-world data set as compared to previous genomic landscape studies, whereas the opposite was true for gene mutations including ESR1. Pathogenic mutations in the PI3K pathway (38.6%) and DNA damage repair pathway (11.0%) were frequently reported. Alterations were also reported across other cellular pathways. CONCLUSION: Overall, we found that an increasing number of physicians in community settings are adopting NGS in the care of patients with breast cancer. Discrepancies between our real-world NGS data and previous genomic landscape studies are likely owed to the prevalence of plasma-based testing in community oncology clinics, as the reference data were from tissue-based NGS alone.

Negative-pressure wound therapy compared with standard dressings following surgical treatment of major trauma to the lower limb: the WHiST RCT.

BACKGROUND: Major trauma is the leading cause of death in people aged < 45 years. Patients with major trauma usually have lower-limb fractures. Surgery to fix the fractures is complicated and the risk of infection may be as high as 27%. The type of dressing applied after surgery could potentially reduce the risk of infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the deep surgical site infection rate, disability, quality of life, patient assessment of the surgical scar and resource use in patients with surgical incisions associated with fractures following major trauma to the lower limbs treated with incisional negative-pressure wound therapy versus standard dressings. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-four specialist trauma hospitals representing the UK Major Trauma Network. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1548 adult patients were randomised from September 2016 to April 2018. Exclusion criteria included presentation > 72 hours after injury and inability to complete questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: Incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (n = 785), in which a non-adherent absorbent dressing covered with a semipermeable membrane is connected to a pump to create a partial vacuum over the wound, versus standard dressings not involving negative pressure (n = 763). Trial participants and the treating surgeon could not be blinded to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Deep surgical site infection at 30 days was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes were deep infection at 90 days, the results of the Disability Rating Index, health-related quality of life, the results of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and resource use collected at 3 and 6 months post surgery. RESULTS: A total of 98% of participants provided primary outcome data. There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of deep surgical site infection at 30 days. The infection rate was 6.7% (50/749) in the standard dressing group and 5.8% (45/770) in the incisional negative-pressure wound therapy group (intention-to-treat odds ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.33; p = 0.52). There was no difference in the deep surgical site infection rate at 90 days: 13.2% in the standard dressing group and 11.4% in the incisional negative-pressure wound therapy group (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.19; p = 0.32). There was no difference between the two groups in disability, quality of life or scar appearance at 3 or 6 months. Incisional negative-pressure wound therapy did not reduce the cost of treatment and was associated with a low probability of cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the emergency nature of the surgery, we anticipated that some patients who were randomised would subsequently be unable or unwilling to participate. However, the majority of the patients (85%) agreed to participate. Therefore, participants were representative of the population with lower-limb fractures associated with major trauma. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study do not support the use of negative-pressure wound therapy in patients having surgery for major trauma to the lower limbs. FUTURE WORK: Our work suggests that the use of incisional negative-pressure wound therapy dressings in other at-risk surgical wounds requires further investigation. Future research may also investigate different approaches to reduce postoperative infections, for example the use of topical antibiotic preparations in surgical wounds and the role of orthopaedic implants with antimicrobial coatings when fixing the associated fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12702354 and UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio ID20416. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library for further project information.

WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: We found no evidence of a difference in the rate of surgical site infection between those patients randomised to negative-pressure wound therapy and those patients randomised to standard wound dressings. There was no difference in the rate of other wound healing complications or in the patients' self-report of disability, health-related quality of life or scar healing. Negative-pressure wound therapy is very unlikely to be cost-effective for the NHS. In conclusion, and contrary to previous reports, the findings of this study do not support the use of negative-pressure wound therapy in patients having surgery for major trauma to their legs.

Major trauma is the leading cause of death worldwide in people aged < 45 years and a significant cause of short- and long-term health problems. In 85% of major trauma patients, the injury involves broken bones. Surgery to fix broken bones in the lower limbs is complicated and has risks, one of the main ones being wound infection. In these patients, rates of wound infection have been reported to be as high as 27%. One factor that may affect the risk of infection is the type of dressing applied after surgery. In this trial, we compared standard wound dressings with a new treatment called incisional negative-pressure wound therapy. Negative-pressure wound therapy is a special type of dressing whereby gentle suction is applied to the surface of the wound. A total of 1548 patients from 24 specialist trauma hospitals in the UK agreed to take part and were assigned at random to receive either a standard wound dressing or negative-pressure wound therapy after their surgery. We reviewed the recovery of the patients for 6 months. We recorded how many had an infection in the surgical wound and asked the patients to rate the extent of their disability, their quality of life and the scar healing. We also collected information about the cost of treatment.

Molecular Profiling in Drug Development: Paving a Way Forward.

As researchers learn more about tumor biology and the molecular mechanisms involved in tumorigenesis, metastasis, and tumor evolution, clinical trials are growing more complex and patient selection for clinical trials is becoming more specific. Rather than exploit certain phenotypic characteristics of tumor cells (e.g., rapid cell division and uncontrolled cell growth), pharmaceuticals targeting the genotypic causes of tumorigenesis are emerging. The sequencing of the human genome, advances in chemical techniques, and increased efficiency in drug target identification have changed the way drugs are developed. Now, more precise drugs targeting specific mutations within individual genes are being used to treat narrow patient populations harboring these specific driver mutations, often with greater efficacy and lower toxicity than traditional chemotherapeutic agents. This precision in drug development relies not only on the ability to design exquisitely specific pharmaceuticals but also to identify (with the same level of precision) the patients who are most likely to respond to those therapies. Robust screening techniques and adequate molecular oncology education are required to match the appropriate patient to precision therapies, and these same screening techniques provide the data necessary to advance to the next generation of drug development.

Phase Ib study of the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib (GDC-0973) in combination with the PI3K inhibitor pictilisib (GDC-0941) in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Purpose We investigated the combination of the MEK inhibitor, cobimetinib, and the pan-PI3K inhibitor, pictilisib, in an open-label, phase Ib study. Experimental Design Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in 3 dose escalation schedules: (1) both agents once-daily for 21-days-on 7-days-off ("21/7"); (2) intermittent cobimetinib and 21/7 pictilisib ("intermittent"); or (3) both agents once-daily for 7-days-on 7-days-off ("7/7"). Starting doses for the 21/7, intermittent, and 7/7 schedules were 20/80, 100/130, and 40/130 mg of cobimetinib/pictilisib, respectively. Nine indication-specific expansion cohorts interrogated the recommended phase II dose and schedule. Results Of 178 enrollees (dose escalation: n = 98), 177 patients were dosed. The maximum tolerated doses for cobimetinib/pictilisib (mg) were 40/100, 125/180, and not reached, for the 21/7, intermittent, and 7/7 schedules, respectively. Six dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 (G3) elevated lipase, G4 elevated creatine phosphokinase, and G3 events including fatigue concurrent with a serious adverse event (SAE) of diarrhea, decreased appetite, and SAEs of hypersensitivity and dehydration. Common drug-related adverse events included nausea, fatigue, vomiting, decreased appetite, dysgeusia, rash, and stomatitis. Pharmacokinetic parameters of the drugs used in combination were unaltered compared to monotherapy exposures. Confirmed partial responses were observed in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (n = 1) and KRAS-mutant endometrioid adenocarcinoma (n = 1). Eighteen patients remained on study ≥6 months. Biomarker data established successful blockade of MAP kinase (MAPK) and PI3K pathways. The metabolic response rate documented by FDG-PET was similar to that observed with cobimetinib monotherapy. Conclusions Cobimetinib and pictilisib combination therapy in patients with solid tumors had limited tolerability and efficacy.

A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Phase II Trial of Carboplatin and Pemetrexed with or without Apatorsen (OGX-427) in Patients with Previously Untreated Stage IV Non-Squamous-Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The SPRUCE Trial.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and pemetrexed plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein (Hsp) 27 mRNA, or placebo in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to Arm A (carboplatin/pemetrexed plus apatorsen) or Arm B (carboplatin/pemetrexed plus placebo). Treatment was administered in 21-day cycles, with restaging every two cycles, until progression or intolerable toxicity. Serum Hsp27 levels were analyzed at baseline and during treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 155 patients (median age 66 years; 44% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0). Toxicities were similar in the 2 treatment arms; cytopenias, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events. Median PFS and OS were 6.0 and 10.8 months, respectively, for Arm A, and 4.9 and 11.8 months for Arm B (differences not statistically significant). Overall response rates were 27% for Arm A and 32% for Arm B. Sixteen patients (12%) had high serum levels of Hsp27 at baseline. In this small group, patients who received apatorsen had median PFS of 10.8 months, and those who received placebo had median PFS 4.8 months. CONCLUSION: The addition of apatorsen to carboplatin and pemetrexed was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC cancer in the first-line setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and pemetrexed plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein 27 mRNA, or placebo in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The addition of apatorsen to carboplatin and pemetrexed was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC cancer in the first-line setting.

Evaluation of Prexasertib, a Checkpoint Kinase 1 Inhibitor, in a Phase Ib Study of Patients with Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Purpose: Prexasertib, a checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor, demonstrated single-agent activity in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in the dose-escalation portion of a phase I study (NCT01115790). Monotherapy prexasertib was further evaluated in patients with advanced SCC.Patients and Methods: Patients were given prexasertib 105 mg/m2 as a 1-hour infusion on day 1 of a 14-day cycle. Expansion cohorts were defined by tumor and treatment line. Safety, tolerability, efficacy, and exploratory biomarkers were analyzed.Results: Prexasertib was given to 101 patients, including 26 with SCC of the anus, 57 with SCC of the head and neck (SCCHN), and 16 with squamous cell non-small cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC). Patients were heavily pretreated (49% ≥3 prior regimens). The most common treatment-related adverse event was grade 4 neutropenia (71%); 12% of patients had febrile neutropenia. Median progression-free survival was 2.8 months [90% confidence interval (CI), 1.9-4.2] for SCC of the anus, 1.6 months (90% CI, 1.4-2.8) for SCCHN, and 3.0 months (90% CI, 1.4-3.9) for sqNSCLC. The clinical benefit rate at 3 months (complete response + partial response + stable disease) across tumors was 29% (23% SCC of the anus, 28% SCCHN, 44% sqNSCLC). Four patients with SCC of the anus had partial or complete response [overall response rate (ORR) = 15%], and three patients with SCCHN had partial response (ORR = 5%). Biomarker analyses focused on genes that altered DNA damage response or increased replication stress.Conclusions: Prexasertib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and single-agent activity in patients with advanced SCC. The prexasertib maximum-tolerated dose of 105 mg/m2 was confirmed as the recommended phase II dose. Clin Cancer Res; 24(14); 3263-72. ©2018 AACR.

A phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study of binimetinib (MEK162), a potent and selective oral MEK1/2 inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Binimetinib (MEK162; ARRY-438162) is a potent and selective oral MEK 1/2 inhibitor. This phase 1 study determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and preliminary anti-tumour activity of binimetinib in patients with advanced solid tumours, with expansion cohorts of patients with biliary cancer or KRAS- or BRAF-mutant colorectal cancer. METHODS: Binimetinib was administered twice daily. Expansion cohorts were enroled after MTD determination following a 3+3 dose-escalation design. Pharmacokinetic properties were determined from plasma samples. Tumour samples were assessed for mutations in RAS, RAF, and other relevant genes. Pharmacodynamic properties were evaluated in serum and skin punch biopsy samples. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients received binimetinib (dose-escalation phase, 19; expansion, 74). The MTD was 60 mg twice daily, with dose-limiting adverse events (AEs) of dermatitis acneiform and chorioretinopathy. The dose for expansion patients was subsequently decreased to 45 mg twice daily because of the frequency of treatment-related ocular toxicity at the MTD. Common AEs across all dose levels included rash (81%), nausea (56%), vomiting (52%), diarrhoea (51%), peripheral oedema (46%), and fatigue (43%); most were grade 1/2. Dose-proportional increases in binimetinib exposure were observed and target inhibition was demonstrated in serum and skin punch biopsy samples. Three patients with biliary cancer had objective responses (one complete and two partial). CONCLUSIONS: Binimetinib demonstrated a manageable safety profile, target inhibition, and dose-proportional exposure. The 45 mg twice daily dose was identified as the recommended phase 2 dose. The three objective responses in biliary cancer patients are encouraging and support further evaluation in this population.