Phase 1b investigation of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib in patients with advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer.

Background The MAPK pathway plays a central role in regulation of several cellular processes, and its dysregulation is a hallmark of biliary tract cancer (BTC). Binimetinib (MEK162), a potent, selective oral MEK1/2 inhibitor, was assessed in patients with advanced BTC. Patients and Methods An expansion cohort study in patients who received ≤1 line of therapy for advanced BTC was conducted after determination of the maximum tolerated dose in this Phase 1 trial. Patients received binimetinib 60 mg twice daily. The primary objectives were to characterize the safety profile and pharmacokinetics of binimetinib in advanced BTC. Secondary objectives included assessment of clinical efficacy, changes in weight and lean body mass, and pharmacodynamic effects. Tumor samples were assessed for mutations in relevant genes. Results Twenty-eight patients received binimetinib. Common adverse events (AEs) were mild, with rash (82%) and nausea (54%) being most common. Two patients experienced grade 4 AEs, one generalized edema and the other pulmonary embolism. The pharmacokinetics in this patient population were consistent with those previously reported (Bendell JC et al., Br J Cancer 2017;116:575-583). Twelve patients (43%) experienced stable disease and two had objective responses (1 complete response, 1 partial response) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and stable metabolic disease by positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Most patients (18/25; 72%) did not have KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, PI3KCA, or PTEN mutations, nor was there correlation between mutation status and response. The average non-fluid weight gain was 1.3% for lean muscle and 4.7% for adipose tissue. Conclusion Binimetinib was well tolerated and showed promising evidence of activity in patients with BTC. Correlative studies suggested the potential for binimetinib to promote muscle gain in patients with BTC.

A phase I trial of vertical inhibition of IGF signalling using cixutumumab, an anti-IGF-1R antibody, and selumetinib, an MEK 1/2 inhibitor, in advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: We completed a phase I clinical trial to test the safety and toxicity of combined treatment with cixutumumab (anti-IGF-1R antibody) and selumetinib (MEK 1/2 inhibitor). METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours, refractory to standard therapy received selumetinib hydrogen sulphate capsules orally twice daily, and cixutumumab intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. The study used a 3+3 design, with a dose-finding cohort followed by an expansion cohort at the maximally tolerated dose that included pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic correlative studies. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled, with 16 in the dose-finding cohort and 14 in the expansion cohort. Grade 3 or greater toxicities included nausea and vomiting, anaemia, CVA, hypertension, hyperglycaemia, and ophthalmic symptoms. The maximally tolerated combination dose was 50 mg twice daily of selumetinib and 12 mg kg(-1) every 2 weeks of cixutumumab. Two patients achieved a partial response (one unconfirmed), including a patient with BRAF wild-type thyroid carcinoma, and a patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue, and six patients achieved time to progression of >6 months, including patients with thyroid carcinoma, colorectal carcinoma, and basal cell carcinoma. Comparison of pre- and on-treatment biopsies showed significant suppression of pERK and pS6 activity with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our study of anti-IGF-1R antibody cixutumumab and MEK 1/2 inhibitor selumetinib showed that the combination is safe and well-tolerated at these doses, with preliminary evidence of clinical benefit and pharmacodynamic evidence of target inhibition.

A phase II, open-label, multicenter study to evaluate the antitumor efficacy of CO-1.01 as second-line therapy for gemcitabine-refractory patients with stage IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma and negative tumor hENT1 expression.

BACKGROUND: Nucleotide transporters such as human equilibrative nucleoside transporter-1 (hENT1) play a major role in transporting gemcitabine into cells. CO-1.01 (gemcitabine-5'-elaidate) is a novel cytotoxic agent consisting of a fatty acid derivative of gemcitabine, which is transported intracellularly independent of hENT1. CO-1.01 was postulated to have efficacy as a second-line treatment in gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic adenocarcinoma in patients with negative tumor hENT1 expression. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included patients with either a newly procured or archival biopsy tumor confirming the absence of hENT1 and either gemcitabine-refractory metastatic pancreas adenocarcinoma or with progression of disease following resection during or within 3 months of adjuvant gemcitabine therapy. Patients were treated with intravenous infusion of CO-1.01 dosed at 1250 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week cycle. The primary end point was disease control rate (DCR). RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled of which 18 patients were evaluable for efficacy assessment. Thirteen patients (68%) had liver metastases, 6 (32%) had lymph node metastases, and 10 (53%) had lung metastases. Two of 18 patients (11%) achieved disease control. The median survival time was 4.3 (95% CI 2.1-8.1) months. All patients experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event with the majority of events being mild or moderate. CONCLUSION: This study did not meet its primary endpoint and no efficacy signal was identified for CO-1.01 in treating progressive metastatic pancreas adenocarcinoma.

Phase II trial of vatalanib in patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma after first-line gemcitabine therapy (PCRT O4-001).

PURPOSE: Vatalanib (PTK 787/ZK22584) is an oral poly-tyrosine kinase inhibitor with strong affinity for platelet-derived growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors. We conducted an open-label, phase II multicenter therapeutic trial investigating the efficacy and tolerability of vatalanib in patients with metastatic or advanced pancreatic cancer who failed first-line gemcitabine-based therapy. METHODS: Vatalanib treatment consisted of a twice daily oral dosing using a "ramp-up schedule," beginning with 250 mg bid during week 1,500 mg bid during week 2, and 750 mg bid on week three and thereafter. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the 6-month survival rate. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were enrolled. The median age was 64, and 66% (N = 43) had only one prior regimen. Common grade 3/4 adverse events included hypertension (20%; N = 13), fatigue (17%; N = 11), abdominal pain (17%; N = 11), and elevated alkaline phosphatase (15%; N = 10). Among the 65 evaluable patients, the 6-month survival rate was 29% (95% CI 18-41%) and the median progression-free survival was 2 months. Fifteen patients survived 6 months or more. Two patients had objective partial responses, and 28% of patients had stable disease. Changes in biomarkers including soluble VEGF and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor did not correlate with response to drug. CONCLUSION: Vatalanib was well tolerated as a second-line therapy and resulted in favorable 6-month survival rate in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, compared with historic controls.

Integrated preclinical and clinical development of mTOR inhibitors in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this work was to determine the efficacy of inhibiting mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) in pancreatic cancer preclinical models and translate preclinical observations to the clinic. METHODS: Temsirolimus (20 mg Kg(-1) daily) was administered to freshly generated pancreatic cancer xenografts. Tumour growth inhibition was determined after 28 days. Xenografts were characterised at baseline by gene expression and comparative genomic hybridisation. Patients with advanced, gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic cancer were treated with sirolimus (5 mg daily). The primary end point was 6-month survival rate (6mSR). Correlative studies included immunohistochemistry assessment of pathway expression in baseline tumours, drug pharmacokinetics (PKs), response assessment by FDG-PET and pharmacodynamic effects in peripheral-blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). RESULTS: In all, 4 of 17 xenografts (23%) responded to treatment. Sensitive tumours were characterised by gene copy number variations and overexpression of genes leading to activation of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway. Activation of p70S6K correlated with drug activity in the preclinical studies. Sirolimus was well tolerated in the clinic, showed predictable PKs, exerted pathway inhibition in post-treatment PBMCs and resulted in a 6mSR of 26%. No correlation, however, was found between activated p70S6K in tumour tissues and anti-tumour effects. CONCLUSION: Sirolimus activity in pancreatic cancer was marginal and not predicted by the selected biomarker.

Phase I study of troxacitabine administered by continuous infusion in subjects with advanced solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Troxacitabine is a novel L-nucleoside analogue. Preclinical studies showed improved activity with infusions of at least 3 days compared with bolus regimens, especially at concentrations >20 ng/ml. This phase I study tested the feasibility of achieving a troxacitabine steady-state concentration of 20 ng/ml for at least 72 h in patients with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with solid tumors received troxacitabine as a progressively longer infusion on days 1-4 of a 28-day cycle. The initial length of infusion and infusion rate were 48 h and 3 mg/m(2)/day. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were treated at infusion lengths that increased from 48 to 72 h and then 96 h. The infusion rate was decreased from 3 to 1.88 mg/m(2)/day due to toxicity. Dose-limiting toxicities consisted of grade 4 neutropenia (three) and grade 3 constipation (one). The maximum tolerated dose of continuous infusion troxacitabine in patients with solid tumors is 7.5 mg/m(2) administered over 96 h. This dose level resulted in steady-state drug concentration of at least 20 ng/ml for 72 h. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of troxacitabine by continuous infusion achieved the prospectively defined target plasma concentration. Pharmacokinetics (PK) modeling coupled with real-time PK assessment was an efficient approach to conduct hypothesis-driven phase I trials.

Immunologic approaches to the management of pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most difficult cancers to treat; very few effective therapies are available, with surgery being the sole chance for cure-yet surgery is not a viable option for most pancreatic cancer patients. Immunotherapy has the potential to provide a non-cross-resistant mechanism of antitumor activity that can be integrated with surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. However, the inherent instability of the tumorgenome as well as tumor tolerance mechanisms are significant practical obstacles that must be overcome if immune-based approaches for pancreatic cancer can achieve its promise. Recent advances in both tumor immunology and vaccine design have already resulted in promising preliminary data from phase I studies, and additional trials are already in progress. This article summarizes some of the progress and challenges in immunotherapy research.

Novel allogeneic granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-secreting tumor vaccine for pancreatic cancer: a phase I trial of safety and immune activation.

PURPOSE: Allogeneic granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-secreting tumor vaccines can cure established tumors in the mouse, but their efficacy against human tumors is uncertain. We have developed a novel GM-CSF-secreting pancreatic tumor vaccine. To determine its safety and ability to induce antitumor immune responses, we conducted a phase I trial in patients with surgically resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with stage 1, 2, or 3 pancreatic adenocarcinoma were enrolled. Eight weeks after pancreaticoduodenectomy, three patients received 1 x 10(7) vaccine cells, three patients received 5 x 10(7) vaccine cells, three patients received 10 x 10(7) vaccine cells, and five patients received 50 x 10(7) vaccine cells. Twelve of 14 patients then went on to receive a 6-month course of adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy. One month after completing adjuvant treatment, six patients still in remission received up to three additional monthly vaccinations with the same vaccine dose that they had received originally. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities were encountered. Vaccination induced increased delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) responses to autologous tumor cells in three patients who had received >or= 10 x 10(7) vaccine cells. These three patients also seemed to have had an increased disease-free survival time, remaining disease-free at least 25 months after diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Allogeneic GM-CSF-secreting tumor vaccines are safe in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This vaccine approach seems to induce dose-dependent systemic antitumor immunity as measured by increased postvaccination DTH responses against autologous tumors. Further clinical evaluation of this approach in patients with pancreatic cancer is warranted.

Potential role of tumor vaccines in GI malignancies.

Although surgery remains the only curative option for patients with gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and/or localized radiation is considered standard therapy for patients who present with locoregional disease. Even with adjuvant therapy, however, the 5-year survival rate for such patients ranges from 2% to 50%, depending on the specific cancer type and stage. As a result, more effective interventions are necessary for all but the earliest stages of GI malignancies. Colon cancer represents the paradigm for the management of GI malignancies, not only because it is, by far, the most common cancer in this group, but also because the biological progression to disease is well characterized. Immunotherapy is an alternative approach for treating GI malignancies that can either: (1) activate tumor-specific T-cells; or (2) use monoclonal antibodies derived from tumor-specific antigens. Monoclonal antibodies act by a mechanism that is distinct from that of chemotherapy and, thus, represent a non-cross-resistant treatment with an entirely different spectrum of toxicities. Thanks to an improved understanding of tumor immunology, as well as the events needed to generate an optimal immune response, the possibility of designing an effective colon cancer vaccine approach that induces both humoral and cellular responses has become even more realistic.