Oncology Combination Dose-Finding Study Design for Targeted and Immuno-Oncology Therapies.

Combination therapies are often evaluated during the clinical development of oncology investigational agents. A new investigational agent may be combined with one or more approved agent(s) or investigational agent(s). As the initial step to test combination therapies, combination dose escalation of an investigational agent and an approved drug is generally conducted using one of the following designs: sequential design, parallel (staggered) design, healthy participant first-in-human prior to first-in-patient combination escalation, monotherapy lead-in (intra-patient "crossover"), and potentially combination escalation (no monotherapy component). Dose-finding studies for the combinations of two investigational agents may follow similar principles and considerations, and a more conservative approach may be required. A comparison of the characteristics of these designs indicates an efficient design should consider factors including the predicted difference in dose/exposure-response relationships between monotherapy and combination therapy, any potential for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between the combinatory agents, and the benefit/risk to study participants, etc. In this report, we propose application scenarios for each trial design based on the above considerations and a review of the internal database and published external studies. Generation of robust exposure-response data via an appropriate design will assist the selection of appropriate doses for further assessment to support optimal dose selection as encouraged by the US Food and Drug Administration based on Project Optimus.

Realizing the promise of Project Optimus: Challenges and emerging opportunities for dose optimization in oncology drug development.

Project Optimus is a US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence initiative aimed at reforming the dose selection and optimization paradigm in oncology drug development. This project seeks to bring together pharmaceutical companies, international regulatory agencies, academic institutions, patient advocates, and other stakeholders. Although there is much promise in this initiative, there are several challenges that need to be addressed, including multidimensionality of the dose optimization problem in oncology, the heterogeneity of cancer and patients, importance of evaluating long-term tolerability beyond dose-limiting toxicities, and the lack of reliable biomarkers for long-term efficacy. Through the lens of Totality of Evidence and with the mindset of model-informed drug development, we offer insights into dose optimization by building a quantitative knowledge base integrating diverse sources of data and leveraging quantitative modeling tools to build evidence for drug dosage considering exposure, disease biology, efficacy, toxicity, and patient factors. We believe that rational dose optimization can be achieved in oncology drug development, improving patient outcomes by maximizing therapeutic benefit while minimizing toxicity.

A comprehensive regulatory and industry review of modeling and simulation practices in oncology clinical drug development.

Exposure-response (E-R) analyses are an integral component in the development of oncology products. Characterizing the relationship between drug exposure metrics and response allows the sponsor to use modeling and simulation to address both internal and external drug development questions (e.g., optimal dose, frequency of administration, dose adjustments for special populations). This white paper is the output of an industry-government collaboration among scientists with broad experience in E-R modeling as part of regulatory submissions. The goal of this white paper is to provide guidance on what the preferred methods for E-R analysis in oncology clinical drug development are and what metrics of exposure should be considered.

PK/PD model-informed dose selection for oncology phase I expansion: Case study based on PF-06939999, a PRMT5 inhibitor.

The optimal dose for targeted oncology therapeutics is often not the maximum tolerated dose. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling can be an effective tool to integrate clinical data to help identify the optimal dose. This case study shows the utility of population PK/PD modeling in selecting the recommended dose for expansion (RDE) for the first-in-patient (FIP) study of PF-06939999, a small-molecule inhibitor of protein arginine methyltransferase 5. In the dose escalation part of the FIP trial (NCT03854227), 28 patients with solid tumors were administered PF-06939999 at 0.5 mg, 4 mg, 6 mg, or 8 mg once daily (q.d.) or 0.5 mg, 1 mg, 2 mg, 4 mg, or 6 mg twice daily (b.i.d.). Tolerability, safety, PK, PD biomarkers (plasma symmetrical dimethyl-arginine [SDMA]), and antitumor response were assessed. Semimechanistic population PK/PD modeling analyses were performed to characterize the time-courses of plasma PF-06939999 concentrations, plasma SDMA, and platelet counts collected from 28 patients. Platelet counts were evaluated because thrombocytopenia was the treatment-related adverse event with clinical safety concern. The models adequately described the PK, SDMA, and platelet count profiles both at individual and population levels. Simulations suggested that among a range of dose levels, 6 mg q.d. would yield the optimal balance between achieving the PD target (i.e., 78% reduction in plasma SDMA) and staying below an acceptable probability of developing grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia. As a result, 6 mg q.d. was selected as the RDE. The model-informed drug development approach informed the rational dose selection for the early clinical development of PF-06939999.

Oncology dose optimization paradigms: knowledge gained and extrapolated from approved oncology therapeutics.

There has been increasing attention to dose optimization in the development of targeted oncology therapeutics. The current report has analyzed the dose selection approaches for 116 new molecular entities (NMEs) approved for oncology indications by the US FDA from 2010 to August 2021, with the goal to extract learnings about the ways to select the optimal dose. The analysis showed that: (1) the initial label dose was lower than the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or maximum studied dose (MSD) in Phase 1 for the majority of approved NMEs, and that the MTD approach is no longer the mainstay for dose selection; (2) there was no dose ranging or optimization beyond Phase 1 dose escalation for ~ 80% of the NMEs; (3) integrated dose/exposure-response analyses were commonly used to justify the dose selection; (4) lack of dose optimization led to dose-related PMRs/PMCs in 14% of cases, but 82% of these did not result in change of the initial label dose; and (5) depending on properties of the NME and specific benefit/risk considerations for the target patient population, there could be different dose selection paradigms leading to identification of the appropriate clinical dose. The analysis supports the need to incorporate more robust dose optimization during oncology clinical development, through comparative assessment of benefit/risk of multiple dose levels, over a wide exposure range using therapeutically relevant endpoints and adequate sample size. On the other hand, in certain cases, data from FIP dose escalation may be adequate to support the dose selection.

Joint Disposition Properties and Comprehensive Pharmacokinetic Characterization of Antibody-Drug Conjugates.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) comprise 3 distinct parts: a specific antibody carrier (mAb), a linker, and a cytotoxic payload. Typical pharmacokinetic (PK) characterization of ADCs remains fragmented using separate noncompartmental analyses (NCA) of individual analytes, offering little insight into the dynamic relationships among the ADC components, and the safety and efficacy implications. As a result, it is exceedingly difficult to compare ADCs in terms of favorable PK characteristics. Therefore, there is a need for characterizing ADCs using the joint disposition properties critical for understanding the fate of an ADC complex and clinical implications. In this communication, we describe 3 joint disposition metrics (JDMs) for integrated NCA of ADCs based on a combination of common analytes of ADC, payload, conjugated payload, and total mAb. These JDMs were derived, each in a simple form of a ratio between appropriate PK parameters of two analytes, from the presumed drug delivery scheme behind typical ADC designs, in terms of (1) linker stability, (2) therapeutic exposure ratio, and (3) effective drug-to-antibody ratio in vivo. The validity of the JDM-based PK characterization was examined against model-based analyses via their applications to 3 clinical candidates: PF-06650808, PF-06647020, and PF-06664178. For instance, the linker stability estimates for PF-06650808, PF-06647020, and PF-06664178 were 0.31, 0.14, and 0.096, respectively, from the JDM-based analyses vs. 0.23, 0.11, and 0.086 by the model-based approach. Additionally, the JDMs were estimated for a number of FDA-approved or otherwise well-documented ADCs, showing their utilities in comparing ADCs in terms of favorable PK characteristics.

Starting dose selection and dose escalation for oncology small molecule first-in-patient trials: learnings from a survey of FDA-approved drugs.

The ideal starting dose for an oncology first-in-patient (FIP) trial should be low enough to be safe but not too far removed from therapeutically relevant doses. A low starting dose combined with small dose increments could lead to a lengthy dose escalation and could expose patients unnecessarily to sub-therapeutic dosing. In the current analyses, we reviewed 59 approved small molecule oncology drugs (SMOD) with the overarching goals to assess the current approaches of FIP starting dose selection and dose escalation, and to identify potential opportunities for improving trial efficiency and minimizing number of patients receiving sub-therapeutic dose levels. Of 59 SMODs, the majority (~ 66%) were kinase inhibitors and ~ 73% were approved for solid tumor indications. Most of the trials used a 3 + 3 design for dose escalation and had a median (range) of 4 cohorts (0-11) to reach MTD from the starting dose. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) to starting dose ratio was highly variable with a median (range) of 8 (0.25-125). About 71% of the FIP trials had < 6 dose escalation steps to reach MTD or RP2D (with 15% ≤ 2 dose escalations), but the remaining 29% of trials had ≥ 6 dose escalation steps to reach MTD or RP2D suggesting that there is still room for increasing efficiency by reducing the number of dose escalation steps, reducing the variability in MTD to starting dose ratio, and consequently reducing significant number of patients exposed at sub-therapeutic doses in the dose escalation phase of FIP study.

Phase 1b study of a small molecule antagonist of human chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 2 (PF-04136309) in combination with nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine in first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Background In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2 (CCL2)/chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 2 (CCR2) axis plays a key role in immunosuppressive properties of the tumor microenvironment, patient prognosis, and chemoresistance. This phase Ib study assessed the effects of the orally administered CCR2 inhibitor PF-04136309 in combination with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with previously untreated metastatic PDAC. Methods Patients received PF-04136309 twice daily (BID) continuously plus nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. The primary objectives were to evaluate safety and tolerability, characterize dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of PF-04136309. Results In all, 21 patients received PF-04136309 at a starting dose of 500 mg or 750 mg BID. The RP2D was identified to be 500 mg BID. Of 17 patients treated at the 500 mg BID starting dose, three (17.6%) experienced a total of four DLTs, including grade 3 dysesthesia, diarrhea, and hypokalemia and one event of grade 4 hypoxia. Relative to the small number of patients (n = 21), a high incidence (24%) of pulmonary toxicity was observed in this study. The objective response rate for 21 patients was 23.8% (95% confidence interval: 8.2-47.2%). Levels of CD14 + CCR2+ inflammatory monocytes (IM) decreased in the peripheral blood, but did not accumulate in the bone marrow. Conclusions PF-04136309 in combination with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine had a safety profile that raises concern for synergistic pulmonary toxicity and did not show an efficacy signal above nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02732938.

Correction to: Population pharmacokinetics of PF­05280014 (a trastuzumab biosimilar) and reference trastuzumab (Herceptin®) in patients with HER2­positive metastatic breast cancer.

The article "Population pharmacokinetics of PF-05280014 (a trastuzumab biosimilar) and reference trastuzumab (Herceptin®) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer" written by Xiaoying Chen, Cheryl Li, Reginald Ewesuedo, Donghua Yin was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on 3rd May 2019 without open access.

Population pharmacokinetics of PF-05280014 (a trastuzumab biosimilar) and reference trastuzumab (Herceptin®) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: PF-05280014 is a biosimilar to trastuzumab (Herceptin®). Following demonstration of pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity in healthy volunteers, a comparative clinical study in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) compared the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of PF-05280014 and trastuzumab sourced from the EU (trastuzumab-EU), both with paclitaxel. METHODS: Population PK of PF-05280014 and trastuzumab-EU was evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 702 patients were treated: PF-05280014 (n = 349) and trastuzumab-EU (n = 353). Peak-and-trough serum drug concentration samples were collected (selected doses) following repeated intravenous administration of PF-05280014 or trastuzumab-EU. Population PK analysis was performed with drug concentration-time data to cycle 17 for each compound, using nonlinear mixed effect modeling. Potential baseline covariates (circulating HER2 concentrations, body weight, Japanese race, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, number of metastatic sites and antidrug antibody status) were evaluated. Concentration-time data of PF-05280014 and trastuzumab-EU were adequately described by a two-compartment model with first-order elimination, with inter-individual variability (IIV) on clearance (CL), volumes of distribution in central compartment (V1) and peripheral compartments, and intercompartment clearance. Similar estimated PK parameters and IIV were obtained for both treatments. For PF-05280014 and trastuzumab-EU, baseline body weight was an influential covariate on CL and V1; the magnitude was comparable between treatments. PK was consistent between the limited number of Japanese and non-Japanese patients for both compounds. CONCLUSIONS: PF-05280014 and trastuzumab-EU had similar PK parameters and influential PK covariates in patients with HER2-positive mBC. These results provided further evidence in patients for PK similarity between PF-05280014 and trastuzumab-EU. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01989676.

PF-05280014 (a trastuzumab biosimilar) plus paclitaxel compared with reference trastuzumab plus paclitaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a randomised, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: This randomised, double-blind study compared PF-05280014 (a trastuzumab biosimilar) with reference trastuzumab (Herceptin®) sourced from the European Union (trastuzumab-EU), when each was given with paclitaxel as first-line treatment for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Between 4 April 2014 and 22 January 2016, 707 participants were randomised 1:1 to receive intravenous PF-05280014 plus paclitaxel (PF-05280014 group; n = 352) or trastuzumab-EU plus paclitaxel (trastuzumab-EU group; n = 355). PF-05280014 or trastuzumab-EU was administered weekly (first dose 4 mg/kg, subsequent doses 2 mg/kg), with the option to change to a 3-weekly regimen (6 mg/kg) from Week 33. Treatment with PF-05280014 or trastuzumab-EU could continue until disease progression. Paclitaxel (starting dose 80 mg/m2) was administered on Days 1, 8 and 15 of 28-day cycles for at least six cycles or until maximal benefit of response. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), evaluating responses achieved by Week 25 and confirmed by Week 33, based on blinded central radiology review. RESULTS: The risk ratio for ORR was 0.940 (95% CI: 0.842-1.049). The 95% CI fell within the pre-specified equivalence margin of 0.80-1.25. ORR was 62.5% (95% CI: 57.2-67.6%) in the PF-05280014 group and 66.5% (95% CI: 61.3-71.4%) in the trastuzumab-EU group. As of data cut-off on 11 January 2017 (using data up to 378 days post-randomisation), there were no notable differences between groups in progression-free survival (median: 12.16 months in the PF-05280014 group vs. 12.06 months in the trastuzumab-EU group; 1-year rate: 54% vs. 51%) or overall survival (median: not reached in either group; 1-year rate: 89.31% vs. 87.36%). Safety outcomes and immunogenicity were similar between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: When given as first-line treatment for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, PF-05280014 plus paclitaxel demonstrated equivalence to trastuzumab-EU plus paclitaxel in terms of ORR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01989676.

Comparative assessment of clinical response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis between PF-05280586, a proposed rituximab biosimilar, and rituximab.

AIMS: To evaluate potential differences between PF-05280586 and rituximab sourced from the European Union (rituximab-EU) and USA (rituximab-US) in clinical response (Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints [DAS28] and American College of Rheumatology [ACR] criteria), as part of the overall biosimilarity assessment of PF-05280586. METHODS: A randomised, double-blind, pharmacokinetic similarity trial was conducted in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy on a background of methotrexate. Patients were treated with 1000 mg of PF-05280586, rituximab-EU or rituximab-US on days 1 and 15 and followed over 24 weeks for pharmacokinetic, clinical response and safety assessments. Key secondary end points were the areas under effect curves for DAS28 and ACR responses. Mean differences in areas under effect curves were compared against respective reference ranges established by observed rituximab-EU and rituximab-US responses using longitudinal nonlinear mixed effects models. RESULTS: The analysis included 214 patients. Demographics were similar across groups with exceptions in some baseline disease characteristics. Baseline imbalances and group-to-group variation were accounted for by covariate effects in each model. Predictions from the DAS28 and ACR models tracked the central tendency and distribution of observations well. No point estimates of mean differences were outside the reference range for DAS28 or ACR scores. The probabilities that the predicted differences between PF-05280586 vs. rituximab-EU or rituximab-US lie outside the reference ranges were low. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically meaningful differences were detected in DAS28 or ACR response between PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU or rituximab-US as the differences were within the pre-specified reference ranges. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01526057.

Evaluating imbalances of adverse events during biosimilar development.

Biosimilars are designed to be highly similar to approved or licensed (reference) biologics and are evaluated based on the totality of evidence from extensive analytical, nonclinical and clinical studies. As part of the stepwise approach recommended by regulatory agencies, the first step in the clinical evaluation of biosimilarity is to conduct a pharmacokinetics similarity study in which the potential biosimilar is compared with the reference product. In the context of biosimilar development, a pharmacokinetics similarity study is not necessarily designed for a comparative assessment of safety. Development of PF-05280014, a potential biosimilar to trastuzumab, illustrates how a numerical imbalance in an adverse event in a small pharmacokinetics study can raise questions on safety that may require additional clinical trials.

A phase I pharmacokinetics trial comparing PF-05280586 (a potential biosimilar) and rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

AIMS: Pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity was assessed among PF-05280586 (a proposed biosimilar) vs. rituximab sourced from the European Union (rituximab-EU) and the United States (rituximab-US). Pharmacodynamics (PD), overall safety and immunogenicity were also evaluated. METHODS: Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis on a background of methotrexate and inadequate response to one or more tumour necrosis factor antagonist therapies were randomized to intravenous PF-05280586, rituximab-EU or rituximab-US 1000 mg doses on study days 1 and 15. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients were randomized to receive study treatment as assigned. Of these, 198 met per-protocol population criteria for inclusion in the PK data analysis. PF-05280586, rituximab-EU and rituximab-US exhibited similar PK profiles following administration of assigned study drug on days 1 and 15. The 90% confidence intervals of test-to-reference ratios for Cmax , AUCT , AUC0-∞ and AUC2-week were within the bioequivalence margin of 80.00-125.00% for comparisons of PF-05280586 with rituximab-EU, PF-05280586 with rituximab-US, and rituximab-EU with rituximab-US. All treatments resulted in a rapid and profound reduction in CD19+ B cells and sustained profound B cell suppression up to week 25. The incidence of antidrug antibody (ADA) response (n = 7, 10 and 9 for PF-05280586, rituximab-EU and rituximab-US, respectively), time to ADA emergence and ADA titres were similar across treatments. None of the ADA-positive samples was positive for neutralizing activity. No clinically meaningful differences in adverse events were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated PK similarity among PF-05280586, rituximab-EU and rituximab-US. In addition, all treatments showed comparable CD19+ B cell depletion PD responses, as well as safety and immunogenicity profiles.

Figitumumab in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with standard therapies: a nonrandomized, open-label, phase II trial.

PURPOSE: Figitumumab (CP-751,871) is a human IgG2 monoclonal antibody that binds and down-regulates insulin-like growth factor receptor-1 (IGF-1R) and inhibits activation of this receptor by IGF-1 and IGF-2. This nonrandomized, open-label, single-arm, phase II trial evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of figitumumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that was refractory to ≥2 systemic therapies. METHODS: Cohorts A and B received intravenous figitumumab 20 and 30 mg/kg in 3-week cycles, respectively. Both received loading doses (20 or 30 mg/kg) on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1. The primary endpoint was 6-month survival (null hypothesis for each cohort, H0: p6 mo surv = 0.45). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients (Cohort A, n = 85; Cohort B, n = 83) received figitumumab. Estimated 6-month survival was 49.4 % (95 % CI 38.8-60.0) in Cohort A and 44.1 % (95 % CI 33.4-54.9) in Cohort B. Median OS was 5.8 and 5.6 months, respectively; median PFS was 1.4 months in both cohorts. No objective partial or complete responses occurred. The respective rates of treatment discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were 5 and 7 %. The most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic AEs in both cohorts were hyperglycemia and asthenia. No grade 4 hematologic laboratory abnormalities occurred. Most deaths were reported as due to progressive disease; none were due to figitumumab. CONCLUSION: Six-month survival data do not support further study of figitumumab 20 or 30 mg/kg in this patient population.

Phase I study of oral irinotecan as a single-agent and given sequentially with capecitabine.

PURPOSE: To assess the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) of orally administered irinotecan in the semi-solid matrix (SSM) formulation, both as a single agent and in sequential combination with capecitabine, in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients were treated with irinotecan given as a single oral daily dose on days 1-5 every three weeks. An additional forty patients were treated with sequential oral irinotecan given daily on days 1-5 followed by capecitabine given orally as a divided dose twice daily on days 6-14 of each three week cycle. RESULTS: The MTD of single-agent oral irinotecan was estimated to be 60 mg/m(2)/day, and DLT included diarrhea, nausea, and neutropenia. In an initial group of patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0 to 2, the MTD of sequential oral irinotecan/capecitabine was estimated to be 40/1600 mg/m(2)/day with DLT of delayed diarrhea. In a subsequent group of patients with ECOG PS of 0 or 1, the MTD for the sequential combination was 50/2000 mg/m(2)/day. The most common adverse events were fatigue, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting and dehydration. Pharmacokinetic (PK) evaluation showed that oral irinotecan was rapidly absorbed and effectively converted to the active metabolite, SN-38, achieving approximately 50% of the SN-38 systemic exposure resulting from an equivalent IV dose. CONCLUSIONS: Oral irinotecan can be safely administered as a single agent or in sequential combination with capecitabine. The efficacy of oral irinotecan should be explored further as a potentially convenient alternative to IV chemotherapy.

Preliminary efficacy of the anti-insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor antibody figitumumab in patients with refractory Ewing sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with Ewing sarcoma (ES) with metastases and those who relapse fare poorly and receive therapies that carry significant toxicity. This phase 1/2 study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of figitumumab in advanced ES. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with sarcoma 10 to 18 years old were enrolled in two dose escalation cohorts (20 and 30 mg/Kg intravenously every 4 weeks) in the phase 1 portion of the study. Patients with ES 10 years old or older were enrolled in the phase 2 portion of the study. The primary phase 2 objective was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with ES (n = 16), osteosarcoma (n = 11), or other sarcomas (n = 4) were enrolled in the phase 1 portion of the study. Dose escalation proceeded to 30 mg/kg every 4 weeks with no dose-limiting toxicity identified. In the phase 2 portion of the study, 107 patients with ES received figitumumab at 30 mg/kg every 4 weeks for a median of 2 cycles (range, 1 to 16). Sixty three percent of phase 2 patients had received at least three prior treatment regimens. Of 106 evaluable patients, 15 had a partial response (ORR, 14.2%) and 25 had stable disease. Median overall survival was 8.9 months. Importantly, patients with a pretreatment circulating free insulin-like growth factor (IGF) -1 lower than 0.65 ng/mL (n = 14) had a median OS of 3.6 months, whereas those with a baseline free IGF-1 ≥ 0.65 ng/mL (n = 84) had a median OS of 10.4 months (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Figitumumab had modest activity as single agent in advanced ES. A strong association between pretreatment serum IGF-1 and survival benefit was identified.