A phase I safety and efficacy clinical trial of plocabulin and gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Plocabulin (Plo) induces depolymerization of tubulin fibers with disorganization and fragmentation of the microtubule network leading to mitosis. Plo combined with gemcitabine (Gem) showed synergistic anti-tumor activity in preclinical studies. This phase I trial evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and efficacy of Plo 10-min infusion plus Gem on Day 1 and 8 every 3-week in patients with advanced solid tumors. Fifty-seven patients were enrolled into 8 dose levels (DLs); 74%: females; 74%: ECOG performance status 1; median age: 62 years; median number of prior lines of therapy:3. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) in Cycle 1 were grade (G) 3 intestinal obstruction at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), G3 peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN), G3 abdominal pain, and G4 thrombocytopenia (1 patient each). The highest DL (DL8: Plo 10.5 mg/m2/Gem 1000 mg/m2) was the MTD. Accrual into DL7 (Plo 10.0 mg/m2/Gem 1000 mg/m2) was stopped before it was formally defined as the recommended dose (RD). Most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (56%), nausea (55%), diarrhea (31%); G3/4 hematologic toxicities comprised anemia (35%), neutropenia (27%) and thrombocytopenia (17%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. PK parameters for Gem or dFdU at all DLs were in line with reference values from the literature. Six of 46 evaluable pts were responders (overall response rate:13%). Of note, 2 partial responses (PR) and 2 stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months occurred among 13 pts with ovarian cancer. The combination of Plo and Gem is well tolerated. The MTD was Plo 10.5 mg/m2/Gem 1000 mg/m2. No PK drug-drug interaction was found. The most encouraging outcome occurred in ovarian cancer patients.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Lurbinectedin Administrated with Itraconazole in Cancer Patients: A Drug-Drug Interaction Study.

This open-label, two-part, phase Ib drug-drug interaction study investigated whether the pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety profiles of lurbinectedin (LRB), a marine-derived drug, are affected by co-administration of itraconazole (ITZ), a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor, in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. In Part A, three patients were sequentially assigned to Sequence 1 (LRB 0.8 mg/m2, 1-h intravenous [IV] + ITZ 200 mg/day oral in Cycle 1 [C1] and LRB alone 3.2 mg/m2, 1 h, IV in Cycle 2 [C2]). In Part B, 11 patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either Sequence 1 (LRB at 0.9 mg/m2 + ITZ in C1 and LRB alone in C2) or Sequence 2 (LRB alone in C1 and LRB + ITZ in C2). Eleven patients were evaluable for PK analysis: three in Part A and eight in Part B (four per sequence). The systemic total exposure of LRB increased with ITZ co-administration: 15% for Cmax, area under the curve (AUC) 2.4-fold for AUC0-t and 2.7-fold for AUC0-∞. Co-administration with ITZ produced statistically significant modifications in the unbound plasma LRB PK parameters. The LRB safety profile was consistent with the toxicities described in previous studies. Co-administration with multiple doses of ITZ significantly altered LRB systemic exposure. Hence, to avoid LRB overexposure when co-administered with strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, an LRB dose reduction proportional to CL reduction should be applied.

Impact of a Moderate CYP3A4 Inducer (Bosentan) on Lurbinectedin Pharmacokinetics and Safety in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: An Open-Label, Two-Way, Crossover, Phase Ib Drug-Drug Interaction Study.

This open-label, two-way, crossover, phase Ib drug-drug interaction study investigated whether the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and safety profile of lurbinectedin (LRB) are affected by co-administration of a moderate CYP3A4 inducer (bosentan, BOS) in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. Eleven patients were randomly assigned to Sequence 1 (LRB + BOS in Cycle 1 [C1] and LRB alone in Cycle 2 [C2]) or Sequence 2 (LRB alone in C1 and LRB + BOS in C2), and finally, eight patients (four per sequence) were considered evaluable for PK assessment. LRB (3.2 mg/m2, 1 h [h], intravenous) was administered alone or combined with multiple BOS administration (125 mg/12 h oral; 5.5 days). Co-administration with BOS decreased the systemic total exposure (area under the curve, AUC) of LRB by 21% for AUC0-t and 20% for AUC0-∞ and increased clearance by 25%. Co-administration with BOS did not significantly modify the unbound plasma LRB PK parameters. BOS increased the conversion of LRB to its metabolite M1, with no changes on its metabolite M4. The LRB safety profile was consistent with the toxicities previously described for this drug. No differences in terms of toxicity were found between LRB with and without BOS. In summary, the magnitude of the observed changes precludes a clinically relevant effect of BOS co-administration on LRB exposure and its safety profile.

Lurbinectedin in patients with small cell lung cancer with chemotherapy-free interval ≥30 days and without central nervous metastases.

OBJECTIVES: This report focuses on lurbinectedin activity and safety in a subgroup of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients from a Basket phase 2 study (Trigo et al. Lancet Oncology 2020;21:645-654) with chemotherapy-free interval (CTFI) ≥ 30 days. This pre-planned analysis was requested for obtaining regulatory approval of lurbinectedin in Switzerland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with extensive-stage SCLC, no central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and disease progression after platinum-containing therapy were included. Topotecan data from a contemporary, randomized, controlled phase 3 study (ATLANTIS) were used as indirect external control in a matched patient population (n = 98 patients). RESULTS: Lurbinectedin showed a statistically significant higher overall response rate (ORR) by investigator assessment (IA) compared to topotecan subgroup (41.0 % vs. 25.5 %; p = 0.0382); higher ORR by Independent Review Committee (IRC) (33.7 % vs. 25.5 %); longer median duration of response (IA: 5.3 vs. 3.9 months; IRC: 5.1 vs. 4.3 months), and longer median overall survival (10.2 vs. 7.6 months). Grade ≥ 3 hematological abnormalities were remarkably lower with lurbinectedin: anemia 12.0 % vs. 54.1 %; leukopenia 30.1 % vs. 68.4 %; neutropenia 47.0 % vs. 75.5 %, and thrombocytopenia 6.0 % vs. 52.0 %. Febrile neutropenia was observed at a higher incidence with topotecan (6.1 % vs. 2.4 % with lurbinectedin) despite that the use of growth-colony stimulating factors was mandatory with topotecan. CONCLUSION: With the limitations of an indirect comparison, however using recent and comparable SCLC datasets, this post hoc analysis shows that SCLC patients with CTFI ≥ 30 days and no CNS metastases have a positive benefit/risk ratio with lurbinectedin, superior to that observed with topotecan.

Lurbinectedin in patients with pretreated endometrial cancer: results from a phase 2 basket clinical trial and exploratory translational study.

Second-line treatment of endometrial cancer is an unmet medical need. Lurbinectedin showed promising antitumor activity in a phase I study in combination with doxorubicin in advanced endometrial cancer. This phase 2 Basket trial evaluated lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in a cohort of 73 patients with pretreated endometrial cancer. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety and an exploratory translational study. Confirmed complete (CR) and partial response (PR) was reported in two and six patients, respectively (ORR = 11.3%; 95%CI, 5.0-21.0%). Median DoR was 9.2 months (95%CI, 3.4-18.0 months), median PFS was 2.6 months (95%CI, 1.4-4.0 months) and median OS was 9.3 months (95%CI, 6.1-12.8 months). Molecular subtypes showed differences in PFS rate at 6 months (p53abn 23.7% vs. "No Specific Molecular Profile" [NSMP] 42.9%) and median OS (p53abn 6.6 months vs. NSMP 16.1 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events (mostly grade 1/2) were fatigue (54.8% of patients), nausea (50.7%), vomiting (26.0%) decreased appetite (17.8%). and constipation, (19.2%). The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (43.8%; grade 4, 19.2%; febrile neutropenia, 4.1%). In conclusion, considering the exploratory aim of this trial and the hints of antitumor activity observed together with a predictable and manageable safety profile, further biomarker-based development of lurbinectedin is recommended in this indication in combination with other agents. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02454972.

Pooled Safety Analysis of Single-Agent Lurbinectedin in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumours.

BACKGROUND: Lurbinectedin was approved by FDA and other health regulatory agencies for treating adults with metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Safety profile at approved dose (3.2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) was acceptable and manageable in 105 adult SCLC patients from a phase II basket trial. This study analyses safety data from several solid tumours treated at the lurbinectedin-approved dose. METHODS: Data were pooled from 554 patients: 335 from all nine tumour-specific cohorts of the phase II basket trial and 219 from a randomised phase III trial (CORAIL) in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Events and laboratory abnormalities were graded using NCI-CTCAE v.4. RESULTS: Most common tumours were ovarian (n = 219, 40%), SCLC (n = 105, 19%) and endometrial (n = 73, 13%). Transient haematological laboratory abnormalities were the most frequent grade 3 or more events: neutropenia (41%), leukopenia (30%), anaemia (17%) and thrombocytopenia (10%). Most common treatment-emergent non-haematological events (any grade) were transient transaminase increases (alanine aminotransferase [66%], aspartate aminotransferase [53%]), fatigue (63%), nausea (57%), constipation (32%), vomiting (30%) and decreased appetite (25%). Dose reductions were mostly due to haematological toxicities, but most patients (79%) remained on full lurbinectedin dose. Serious events mostly consisted of haematological disorders. Eighteen treatment discontinuations (3%) and seven deaths (1%) were due to treatment-related events. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms a manageable safety profile for lurbinectedin in patients with advanced solid tumours. Findings are consistent with those reported in patients with relapsed SCLC, Ewing sarcoma, germline BRCA1/2 metastatic breast cancer, neuroendocrine tumours and ovarian cancer.

Combination lurbinectedin and doxorubicin versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIS): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Lurbinectedin is a synthetic marine-derived anticancer agent that acts as a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Lurbinectedin monotherapy (3·2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of efficacy in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who relapsed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The ATLANTIS trial assessed the efficacy and safety of combination lurbinectedin and the anthracycline doxorubicin as second-line treatment for SCLC. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label, randomised study, adult patients aged 18 years or older with SCLC who relapsed after platinum-based chemotherapy were recruited from 135 hospitals across North America, South America, Europe, and the Middle East. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by dynamic allocation to intravenous lurbinectedin 2·0 mg/m2 plus doxorubicin 40·0 mg/m2 administered on day 1 of 21-day cycles or physician's choice of control therapy (intravenous topotecan 1·5 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of 21-day cycles; or intravenous cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2, doxorubicin 45·0 mg/m2, and vincristine 2·0 mg on day 1 of 21-day cycles [CAV]) administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was mandatory in both treatment groups. Neither patients nor clinicians were masked to treatment allocation, but the independent review committee, which assessed outcomes, was masked to patients' treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02566993, and with EudraCT, 2015-001641-89, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Aug 30, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 613 patients were randomly assigned to lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin (n=307) or control (topotecan, n=127; CAV, n=179) and comprised the intention-to-treat population; safety endpoints were assessed in patients who had received any partial or complete study treatment infusions (lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin, n=303; control, n=289). After a median follow-up of 24·1 months (95% CI 21·7-26·3), 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 289 patients in the control group had discontinued study treatment; progressive disease was the most common reason for discontinuation (213 [70%] patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 152 [53%] in the control group). Median overall survival was 8·6 months (95% CI 7·1-9·4) in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group versus 7·6 months (6·6-8·2) in the control group (stratified log-rank p=0·90; hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·82-1·15], p=0·70). 12 patients died because of treatment-related adverse events: two (<1%) of 303 in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and ten (3%) of 289 in the control group. 296 (98%) of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group had treatment-emergent adverse events compared with 284 (98%) of 289 patients in the control group; treatment-related adverse events occurred in 268 (88%) patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 266 (92%) patients in the control group. Grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were less frequent in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than the control group (anaemia, 57 [19%] of 302 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 110 [38%] of 288 in the control group; neutropenia, 112 [37%] vs 200 [69%]; thrombocytopenia, 42 [14%] vs 90 [31%]). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was lower in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than in the control group (26 [9%] of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 47 [16%] of 289 in the control group). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin did not improve overall survival versus control in patients with relapsed SCLC. However, lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin showed a favourable haematological safety profile compared with control. FUNDING: PharmaMar.

Phase I study of plitidepsin in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Previous studies showed antitumor activity for plitidepsin plus dexamethasone (DXM) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (r/r MM), and in vitro synergism with bortezomib (BTZ) or DXM against MM cells. This phase I trial evaluated plitidepsin (3-h intravenous infusion Day 1 and 15), BTZ (subcutaneous bolus Day 1, 4, 8, and 11), and DXM (orally Day 1, 8, 15, and 22), every 4 weeks in 36 r/r MM patients. Twenty-two patients were treated using a standard dose escalation design (10 at the recommended dose [RD] cohort), and 14 additional patients were treated to expand the RD cohort. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred during dose escalation. The highest dose level evaluated (plitidepsin 5.0 mg/m2 , BTZ 1.3 mg/m2 , DXM 40.0 mg) was the RD for phase II studies. Results shown herein are focused on this RD. Two patients had DLTs (grade 3 diarrhea, and grade 3 nausea/vomiting refractory to antiemetic therapy). Grade ≥ 3 hematological toxicity (thrombocytopenia 46%, anemia 33%, and neutropenia 17%) was manageable and did not result in treatment discontinuation. Transient and manageable grade 3 ALT increase (26%) was the most common biochemical abnormality. At the RD cohort, overall response rate was 22.2% (95%CI, 6.4%-47.6%), including one stringent complete response, one very good partial response, and two partial responses in r/r patients to BTZ and/or lenalidomide. The clinical benefit rate was 77.8% (95%CI, 52.4-93.6%). No major pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction was found. In conclusion, the triple combination of plitidepsin, BTZ, and DXM showed an acceptable safety profile and had moderate activity in adult patients with r/r MM.

Phase I study of lurbinectedin in combination with weekly paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Lurbinectedin and paclitaxel showed synergism in preclinical studies and have non-completely overlapping toxicity profiles. This phase I trial evaluated a combination of paclitaxel and lurbinectedin with/without bevacizumab in advanced tumors. This trial was divided into Group A, which evaluated weekly paclitaxel (60 or 80 mg) plus lurbinectedin (3.0-5.0 mg flat dose [FD] or 2.2 mg/m2) every 3 weeks in advanced solid tumors; and Group B, which evaluated bevacizumab (BEV, 15 mg/kg) added to the recommended dose (RD) defined in Group A in advanced epithelial ovarian or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 67 patients (A, n = 55; B, n = 12) were treated. The RD was paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on Day (D)1,D8 plus lurbinectedin 2.2 mg/m2 on D1. At this RD, myelotoxicity was reversible and manageable, and most non-hematological toxicities were mild/moderate. Adding BEV did not notably change tolerability. Twenty-five confirmed responses were observed: 20/51 evaluable patients in Group A (overall response rate [ORR] = 39% at all dose levels and at the RD), and 5/10 evaluable patients in Group B (ORR = 50%). Most responders had breast (n = 7/12 patients), small cell lung (SCLC) (n = 5/7), epithelial ovarian (n = 3/9) and endometrial cancer (n = 3/11) in Group A, and epithelial ovarian (n = 3/4) and NSCLC (n = 2/6) in Group B. Clinical benefit rate was 61% in Group A (58% at the RD), and 90% in Group B. No major pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions were observed. Paclitaxel/lurbinectedin and paclitaxel/lurbinectedin/BEV are feasible combinations. Further development is warranted of paclitaxel/lurbinectedin in SCLC, breast, and endometrial cancer, and of paclitaxel/lurbinectedin/BEV in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Lurbinectedin in patients with pretreated neuroendocrine tumours: Results from a phase II basket study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) need alternative therapies after failure of first-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II trial evaluated lurbinectedin, a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription, at 3.2 mg/m2 as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in 32 NETs patients treated in the second- or third-line setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1 assessed by the investigators. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: Two of 31 evaluable patients had confirmed partial responses (ORR = 6.5%; 95%CI, 0.8-21.4%). Median DoR was 4.7 months (95% CI, 4.0-5.4 months), median PFS was 1.4 months (95% CI, 1.2-3.0 months) and median OS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.4-16.2 months). Lurbinectedin showed an acceptable, predictable and manageable safety profile. The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (40.6%; grade 4, 12.4%; febrile neutropenia, 3.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the exploratory aim of this trial that evaluated a heterogeneous population of NETs patients, and the signs of antitumour activity observed (two confirmed partial responses and seven long disease stabilisations), further development of lurbinectedin is warranted in a more selected NETs population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Sponsor Study Code: PM1183-B-005-14. EudraCT number: 2014-003773-42. CLINICALTRIALS: gov reference: NCT02454972.

Antitumor Activity of Lurbinectedin, a Selective Inhibitor of Oncogene Transcription, in Patients with Relapsed Ewing Sarcoma: Results of a Basket Phase II Study.

PURPOSE: Lurbinectedin suppresses the oncogenic transcription factor EWS-FLI1 through relocalization to the nucleolus, and delays tumor growth in mice bearing Ewing sarcoma xenografts. On the basis of this rationale, lurbinectedin was evaluated in patients with relapsed Ewing sarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, single-arm, Basket phase II trial included a cohort of 28 treated adult patients with confirmed Ewing sarcoma, measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) v.1.1, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2, adequate organ function, no central nervous system metastasis, and pretreated with ≤2 chemotherapy lines for metastatic/recurrent disease. Patients received lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 as a 1-hour infusion every 3 weeks. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) as per RECIST v.1.1. Secondary endpoints included time-to-event parameters and safety profile. RESULTS: ORR was 14.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.0%-32.7%], with median duration of response of 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.9-5.5 months). Median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.4-4.3 months), clinical benefit rate was 39.3%, and disease control rate was 57.1%. With 39% censoring, median overall survival was 12.0 months (95% CI, 8.5-18.5 months). Most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (57%), anemia, thrombocytopenia, and treatment-related febrile neutropenia (14% each). No deaths or discontinuations were due to toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Lurbinectedin was active in the treatment of relapsed Ewing sarcoma and had a manageable safety profile. Lurbinectedin could represent a valuable addition to therapies for Ewing sarcoma, and is currently being evaluated in combination with irinotecan in advanced Ewing sarcoma in a phase Ib/II trial.

A phase I trial of lurbinectedin in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background In vitro/in vivo data showed synergism of cisplatin and lurbinectedin in ovarian cancer cells and grafts. This phase I trial investigated the recommended phase II dose (RD) of cisplatin and lurbinectedin combination, with (Group A) or without aprepitant (Group B), in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods All patients received 60 mg/m2 cisplatin 90-min intravenous (i.v.) infusion followed by lurbinectedin 60-min i.v. infusion at escalating doses on Day 1 every 3 weeks (q3wk). Patients in Group A additionally received orally 125 mg aprepitant one hour before cisplatin on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2 and 3. Toxicity was graded according to the NCI-CTCAE v.4. Results RD for Group A was cisplatin 60 mg/m2 plus lurbinectedin 1.1 mg/m2. RD for Group B was cisplatin 60 mg/m2 plus lurbinectedin 1.4 mg/m2. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 adverse events were hematological [neutropenia (41%), lymphopenia (35%), leukopenia (24%), thrombocytopenia (18%)] and fatigue (35%) in Group A (n = 17), and neutropenia (50%), leukopenia (42%), lymphopenia (29%), and fatigue (13%) and nausea (8%) in Group B (n = 24). Four patients (2 in each group) had a partial response. Disease stabilization for ≥ 4 months was observed in 4 and 10 patients, respectively. Conclusion The combination of lurbinectedin with cisplatin was not possible in meaningful therapeutic dosage due to toxicity. The addition of aprepitant in combination with cisplatin did not allow increasing the dose due to hematological toxicity, whereas omitting aprepitant increased the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Modest clinical activity was observed in general.Clinical trial registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov code: NCT01980667. Date of registration: 11 November 2013.

Doxorubicin plus lurbinectedin in patients with advanced endometrial cancer: results from an expanded phase I study.

OBJECTIVE: Second-line treatment of endometrial cancer is an unmet medical need. We conducted a phase I study evaluating lurbinectedin and doxorubicin intravenously every 3 weeks in patients with solid tumors. The aim of this study was to characterise the efficacy and safety of lurbinectedin and doxorubicin for patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS: Thirty-four patients were treated: 15 patients in the escalation phase (doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 and lurbinectedin 3.0-5.0 mg) and 19 patients in the expansion cohort (doxorubicin 40 mg/m2 and lurbinectedin 2.0 mg/m2). All histological subtypes were eligible and patients had received one to two prior lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Antitumor activity was evaluated every two cycles according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Adverse events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4. RESULTS: Median age (range) was 65 (51-78) years. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was up to 1 in 97% of patients. In the escalation phase, 4 (26.7%) of 15 patients had confirmed response: two complete and two partial responses (95% CI 7.8% to 55.1%). Median duration of response was 19.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 7.3 (2.5 to 10.1) months. In the expansion cohort, confirmed partial response was reported in 8 (42.1%) of 19 patients (95% CI 20.3% to 66.5%). Median duration of response was 7.5 (6.4 to not reached) months, median progression-free survival was 7.7 (2.0 to 16.7) months and median overall survival was 14.2 (4.5 to not reached) months. Fatigue (26.3% of patients), and transient and reversible myelosuppression (neutropenia, 78.9%; febrile neutropenia, 21.1%; thrombocytopenia, 15.8%) were the main grade 3 and higher toxicities in the expanded cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent advanced endometrial cancer treated with doxorubicin and lurbinectedin, response rates (42%) and duration of response (7.5 months) were favorable. Further evaluation of doxorubicin and lurbinectedin is warranted in this patient population.

Lurbinectedin versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: A multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label phase 3 study (CORAIL).

OBJECTIVE: The randomized phase 3 CORAIL trial evaluated whether lurbinectedin improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) or topotecan in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 1-h i.v. infusion q3wk (experimental arm), versus PLD 50 mg/m2 1-h i.v. infusion q4wk or topotecan 1.50 mg/m2 30-min i.v. infusion Days 1-5 q3wk (control arm). Stratification factors were PS (0 vs. ≥1), prior PFI (1-3 months vs. >3 months), and prior chemotherapy lines (1-2 vs. 3). The primary endpoint was PFS by Independent Review Committee in all randomized patients. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02421588. RESULTS: 442 patients were randomized: 221 in lurbinectedin arm and 221 in control arm (127 PLD and 94 topotecan). With a median follow-up of 25.6 months, median PFS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.1-3.7) in the lurbinectedin arm and 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.7-3.8) in the control arm (stratified log-rank p = 0.6294; HR = 1.057). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were most frequent in the control arm: 64.8% vs. 47.9% (p = 0.0005), mainly due to hematological toxicities. The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were: fatigue (7.3% of patients) and nausea (5.9%) with lurbinectedin; mucosal inflammation (8.5%) and fatigue (8.0%) in the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint of improvement in PFS was not met. Lurbinectedin showed similar antitumor efficacy and was better tolerated than current standard of care in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Efficacy and safety of lurbinectedin and doxorubicin in relapsed small cell lung cancer. Results from an expansion cohort of a phase I study.

Background A phase I study found remarkable activity and manageable toxicity for doxorubicin (bolus) plus lurbinectedin (1-h intravenous [i.v.] infusion) on Day 1 every three weeks (q3wk) as second-line therapy in relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). An expansion cohort further evaluated this combination. Patients and methods Twenty-eight patients with relapsed SCLC after no more than one line of cytotoxic-containing chemotherapy were treated: 18 (64%) with sensitive disease (chemotherapy-free interval [CTFI] ≥90 days) and ten (36%) with resistant disease (CTFI <90 days; including six with refractory disease [CTFI ≤30 days]). Results Ten patients showed confirmed response (overall response rate [ORR] = 36%); median progression-free survival (PFS) = 3.3 months; median overall survival (OS) = 7.9 months. ORR was 50% in sensitive disease (median PFS = 5.7 months; median OS = 11.5 months) and 10% in resistant disease (median PFS = 1.3 months; median OS = 4.6 months). The main toxicity was transient and reversible myelosuppression. Treatment-related non-hematological events (fatigue, nausea, decreased appetite, vomiting, alopecia) were mostly mild or moderate. Conclusion Doxorubicin 40 mg/m2 and lurbinectedin 2.0 mg/m2 on Day 1 q3wk has shown noteworthy activity in relapsed SCLC and a manageable safety profile. The combination is being evaluated as second-line therapy for SCLC in an ongoing, randomized phase III trial. Clinical trial registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov code: NCT01970540. Date of registration: 22 October, 2013.

Lurbinectedin in the treatment of relapsed small cell lung cancer.

Lurbinectedin is a marine-derived drug that inhibits transcription, a process that is frequently dysregulated in small cell lung cancer. The activity of lurbinectedin has been studied in many solid tumors, showing not only promising results but also a favorable safety profile. In relapsed small cell lung cancer, the drug has shown encouraging activity both as a single agent and in combination with doxorubicin, paclitaxel or irinotecan. The USA FDA has recently granted accelerated approval to lurbinectedin monotherapy in this setting. This article provides an update on available data and ongoing studies of lurbinectedin in small cell lung cancer, including Phase I combination trials, the basket Phase II trial and the ATLANTIS Phase III trial.

Lay abstract Lung cancer is currently responsible for a large number of cancer deaths worldwide. Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is considered the most aggressive subtype of lung cancer. When a patient presents with extensive SCLC, first-line treatment needs to be used. The most appropriate treatment option for the patient is selected; however, it is possible for the cancer to continue to get worse, even over a brief period of time. The patient will then be given another treatment; however, studies on the effectiveness of classical second-line drugs are scarce. For this reason, new therapies for SCLC are in development. One of these treatments is a marine-derived drug called lurbinectedin, which shows promising activity in some solid tumors, such as extensive SCLC, after failure of first-line treatment. Here the authors present the results of the main trials related to the activity of lurbinectedin either alone or in combination with other drugs for this type of cancer.

Antitumor activity of lurbinectedin in second-line small cell lung cancer patients who are candidates for re-challenge with the first-line treatment.

INTRODUCTION: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend re-challenge with the first-line treatment for relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with chemotherapy-free interval (CTFI)≥180 days. A phase II study (NCT02454972) showed remarkable antitumor activity in SCLC patients treated with lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 1 -h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks as second-line therapy. We report results for the pre-planned subset of patients with CTFI ≥ 180 days. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients aged ≥18 years with pathologically proven SCLC diagnosis, pretreated with only one prior platinum-containing line, no CNS metastases, and with CTFI ≥ 180 days were evaluated. The primary efficacy endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) assessed by the Investigators according to RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: ORR was 60.0 % (95 %CI, 36.1-86.9), with a median duration of response of 5.5 months (95 %CI, 2.9-11.2) and disease control rate of 95.0 % (95 %CI, 75.1-99.9). Median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95 %CI, 2.6-7.3). With a censoring of 55.0 %, the median overall survival was 16.2 months (95 %CI, 9.6-upper level not reached). Of note, 60.9 % and 27.1 % of patients were alive at 1 and 2 years, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were hematological disorders (neutropenia, 55.0 %; anemia; 10.0 % thrombocytopenia, 10.0 %), fatigue (10.0 %) and increased liver function tests (GGT, 10 %; ALT and AP, 5.0 % each). No febrile neutropenia was reported. CONCLUSION: Lurbinectedin is an effective treatment for platinum-sensitive relapsed SCLC, especially in patients with CTFI ≥ 180 days, with acceptable safety and tolerability. These encouraging results suggest that lurbinectedin can be another valuable therapeutic option rather than platinum re-challenge.

Lurbinectedin as second-line treatment for patients with small-cell lung cancer: a single-arm, open-label, phase 2 basket trial.

BACKGROUND: Few options exist for treatment of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of first-line therapy. Lurbinectedin is a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. In this phase 2 study, we evaluated the acti and safety of lurbinectedin in patients with SCLC after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this single-arm, open-label, phase 2 basket trial, we recruited patients from 26 hospitals in six European countries and the USA. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with a pathologically proven diagnosis of SCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, measurable disease as per Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, absence of brain metastasis, adequate organ function, and pre-treated with only one previous chemotherapy-containing line of treatment (minimum 3 weeks before study initiation) were eligible. Treatment consisted of 3·2 mg/m2 lurbinectedin administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an overall response (complete or partial response) as assessed by the investigators according to RECIST 1.1. All treated patients were analysed for activity and safety. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02454972. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2015, and Jan 15, 2019, 105 patients were enrolled and treated with lurbinectedin. Median follow-up was 17·1 months (IQR 6·5-25·3). Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 patients (35·2%; 95% CI 26·2-45·2). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (irrespective of causality) were haematological abnormalities-namely, anaemia (in nine [9%] patients), leucopenia (30 [29%]), neutropenia (48 [46%]), and thrombocytopenia (seven [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 11 (10%) patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (five [5%] patients for each). No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Lurbinectedin was active as second-line therapy for SCLC in terms of overall response and had an acceptable and manageable safety profile. Lurbinectedin could represent a potential new treatment for patients with SCLC, who have few options especially in the event of a relapse, and is being investigated in combination with doxorubicin as second-line therapy in a randomised phase 3 trial. FUNDING: Pharma Mar.

Randomized phase III study (ADMYRE) of plitidepsin in combination with dexamethasone vs. dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

The randomized phase III ADMYRE trial evaluated plitidepsin plus dexamethasone (DXM) versus DXM alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma after at least three but not more than six prior regimens, including at least bortezomib and lenalidomide or thalidomide. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive plitidepsin 5 mg/m2 on D1 and D15 plus DXM 40 mg on D1, D8, D15, and D22 (arm A, n = 171) or DXM 40 mg on D1, D8, D15, and D22 (arm B, n = 84) q4wk. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS without disease progression (PD) confirmation (IRC assessment) was 2.6 months (arm A) and 1.7 months (arm B) (HR = 0.650; p = 0.0054). Median PFS with PD confirmation (investigator's assessment) was 3.8 months (arm A) and 1.9 months (arm B) (HR = 0.611; p = 0.0040). Median overall survival (OS, intention-to-treat analysis) was 11.6 months (arm A) and 8.9 months (arm B) (HR = 0.797; p = 0.1261). OS improvement favoring arm A was found when discounting a crossover effect (37 patients crossed over from arm B to arm A) (two-stage method; HR = 0.622; p = 0.0015). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (% of patients arm A/arm B) were fatigue (10.8%/1.2%), myalgia (5.4%/0%), and nausea (3.6%/1.2%), being usually transient and reversible. The safety profile does not overlap with the toxicity observed with other agents used in multiple myeloma. In conclusion, efficacy data, the reassuring safety profile, and the novel mechanism of action of plitidepsin suggest that this combination can be an alternative option in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma after at least three prior therapy lines.