Iniparib administered weekly or twice-weekly in combination with gemcitabine/carboplatin in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a phase II randomized open-label study with pharmacokinetics.

PURPOSE: Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a phenotypic breast cancer subgroup with a very poor prognosis, despite standard treatments. Combined twice-weekly iniparib and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC+tw-iniparib) showed benefit over gemcitabine/carboplatin in a randomized phase II trial, and a phase III was initiated comparing these regimens. The present phase II study was initiated to compare GC+tw-iniparib with a more practical once-weekly schedule (GC+w-iniparib) in TNBC. METHODS: Metastatic TNBC patients were randomized to receive iniparib weekly (11.2 mg/kg on days 1 and 8) or twice-weekly (5.6 mg/kg on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the curve 2 on days 1 and 8), every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). Pharmacokinetics of iniparib and its two metabolites were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were randomized, 82 GC+w-iniparib and 81 GC+tw-iniparib. Demographic and baseline characteristics were well balanced. ORR was 34.1% (95% CI 23.9-44.4%) vs. 29.6% (95% CI 19.7-39.6%) and median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI 4.2-5.7) vs. 4.3 months (95% CI 3.0-5.8) for GC+w-iniparib and GC+tw-iniparib, respectively. Safety was similar across treatment arms in terms of event severity and type. Iniparib plasma concentrations and exposure were two-fold higher with w-iniparib compared to tw-iniparib. Iniparib and its metabolites were cleared rapidly with a terminal half-life of < 1 h, without accumulation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a doubled maximum concentration with weekly iniparib, no detectable differences in safety or efficacy were observed between the weekly and twice-weekly administration schedules in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT01045304.

SOLTI NeoPARP: a phase II randomized study of two schedules of iniparib plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

Iniparib is an investigational agent with antitumor activity of controversial mechanism of action. Two previous trials in advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in combination with gemcitabine and carboplatin showed some evidence of efficacy that was not confirmed. This phase II randomized neoadjuvant study was designed to explore its activity and tolerability with weekly paclitaxel (PTX) as neoadjuvant treatment in TNBC patients. 141 patients with Stage II-IIIA TNBC were randomly assigned to receive PTX (80 mg/m(2), d1; n = 47) alone or in combination with iniparib, either once-weekly (PWI) (11.2 mg/kg, d1; n = 46) or twice-weekly (PTI) (5.6 mg/kg, d1, 4; n = 48) for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) in the breast. pCR rate was similar among the three arms (21, 22, and 19 % for PTX, PWI, and PTI, respectively). Secondary efficacy endpoints were comparable: pCR in breast and axilla (21, 17, and 19 %); best overall response in the breast (60, 61, and 63 %); and breast conservation rate (53, 54, and 50 %). Slightly more patients in the PTI arm presented grade 3/4 neutropenia (4, 0, and 10 %). Grade 1/2 (28, 22, and 29 %), but no grade 3/4 neuropathy, was observed. There were no differences in serious adverse events and treatment-emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation among the three arms. Addition of iniparib to weekly PTX did not add relevant antitumor activity or toxicity. These results do not support further evaluation of the combination of iniparib at these doses plus paclitaxel in early TNBC.

Phase I study of iniparib concurrent with monthly or continuous temozolomide dosing schedules in patients with newly diagnosed malignant gliomas.

Iniparib is a prodrug that converts to highly reactive cytotoxic metabolites intracellularly with activity in preclinical glioma models. We investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of iniparib with monthly (m) and continuous (c) temozolomide (TMZ) dosing schedules in patients with malignant gliomas (MG). Adults with newly diagnosed MG who had successfully completed ≥80% of radiation (RT) and TMZ without toxicity received mTMZ dosing (150-200 mg/m(2) days 1-5/28 days) or cTMZ dosing (75 mg/m(2)/days × 6 weeks) in conjunction with iniparib (i.v. 2 days/week) in the adjuvant setting. Iniparib was dose escalated using a modified continual reassessment method (mCRM). 43 patients (32 male; 34 GBM, 8 AA, 1 gliosarcoma; median age 54 years; median KPS 90) were enrolled across 4 dose levels. In the mTMZ group, 2/4 patients had dose limiting toxicities (DLT) at 19 mg/kg/week (rash/hypersensitivity). At 17.2 mg/kg/week, 1/9 patients had a DLT (grade 3 fatigue). Additional grade 3 toxicities were neutropenia, lymphopenia, and nausea. In the cTMZ group, one DLT (thromboembolic event) occurred at 10.2 mg/kg/week. Dose escalation stopped at 16 mg/kg/week based on mCRM. The mean maximum plasma concentration of iniparib increased with dose. Concentration of the two major circulating metabolites, 4-iodo-3-aminobenzamide and 4-iodo-3-aminobenzoic acid, was ≤5% of the corresponding iniparib concentration. Iniparib is well tolerated, at doses higher than previously investigated, in combination with TMZ after completion of RT + TMZ in patients with MG. Recommended phase 2 dosing of iniparib based on mCRM is 17.2 mg/kg/week with mTMZ and 16 mg/kg/week with cTMZ. An efficacy study of TMZ/RT + iniparib followed by TMZ + iniparib in newly diagnosed GBM using these doses has completed enrollment. Survival assessment is ongoing.

Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of TAK-931, a Cell Division Cycle 7 Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: A Phase I First-in-Human Study.

Purpose: We conducted a first-in-human, dose-escalation study, to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and activity of TAK-931, a cell division cycle 7 inhibitor, in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. Experimental Design: Patients ages ≥20 years received oral TAK-931: once daily for 14 days in 21-day cycles (schedule A; from 30 mg); once daily or twice daily for 7 days on, 7 days off in 28-day cycles (schedule B; from 60 mg); continuous once daily (schedule D; from 20 mg); or once daily for 2 days on, 5 days off (schedule E; from 100 mg) in 21-day cycles. Results: Of the 80 patients enrolled, all had prior systemic treatment and 86% had stage IV disease. In schedule A, 2 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of grade 4 neutropenia and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was 50 mg. In schedule B, 4 patients experienced DLTs of grade 3 febrile neutropenia (n = 3) or grade 4 neutropenia (n = 1); the MTD was 100 mg. Schedules D and E were discontinued before MTD determination. The most common adverse events were nausea (60%) and neutropenia (56%). Time to maximum plasma concentration of TAK-931 was approximately 1-4 hours postdose; systemic exposure was approximately dose proportional. Posttreatment pharmacodynamic effects correlating to drug exposure were observed. Overall, 5 patients achieved a partial response. Conclusions: TAK-931 was tolerable with a manageable safety profile. TAK-931 50 mg once daily days 1-14 in 21-day cycles was selected as a recommended phase II dose and achieved proof of mechanism. Trial registration ID: NCT02699749. Significance: This was the first-in-human study of the CDC7 inhibitor, TAK-931, in patients with solid tumors. TAK-931 was generally tolerable with a manageable safety profile. The recommend phase II dose was determined to be TAK-931 50 mg administered once daily on days 1-14 of each 21-day cycle. A phase II study is ongoing to confirm the safety, tolerability, and antitumor activity of TAK-931 in patients with metastatic solid tumors.

Gastrointestinal complications in patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy or monotherapy.

Aim & methods: A retrospective study using the IBM Explorys Universe Database assessed the risk of gastrointestinal events (enterocolitis or diarrhea) among melanoma and lung cancer patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab combination or monotherapy. Results & conclusion: There were 904 melanoma patients (607 ipilimumab, 140 nivolumab and 157 combo) and 1641 lung cancer patients (68 ipilimumab, 1542 nivolumab and 31 combo). Approximately, 37% of lung patients and 46% of melanoma patients experienced at least one adverse event. After adjusting for covariates, patients receiving combination therapy were more likely to have a gastrointestinal event compared with ipilimumab monotherapy patients (melanoma hazard ratio: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.06-2.25; lung hazard ratio: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.09-7.89).

Gastrointestinal adverse events with combination of checkpoint inhibitors in advanced melanoma: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Immunotherapies, including checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors, are revolutionizing the treatment of advanced melanoma. Combining CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors provides additional clinical benefit compared with single agents alone. However, combination therapy can increase the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events (GI AEs). This systematic review assessed the epidemiological, clinical, economic, and humanistic burden of GI AEs due to combination CIs in advanced melanoma. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched (December 2011 to December 2016) to identify primary studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and conference proceedings (2014-2016) evaluating adults treated with ≥2 CIs for advanced melanoma. RESULTS: Of the 3391 identified articles, 14 were included. Most studies examined the ipilimumab plus nivolumab combination. Any grade and grade 3-4 GI AEs occurred in more patients receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab versus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone. The most common grade 3-4 GI AEs were diarrhea and colitis. Grade 3-4 colitis occurred in more patients receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab. However, grade 3-4 diarrhea occurred at the same rate as ipilimumab alone. GI AEs developed with ipilimumab plus nivolumab approximately 6.6 weeks after initiating treatment. No studies assessing the economic or humanistic burden of GI AEs were identified. CONCLUSION: GI AEs occurred at a higher rate and greater severity in patients treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab versus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy. The lack of research on economic and humanistic burden of GI AEs with combination CIs for advanced melanoma represents an unmet need in the literature and should be explored in future studies.

Assessment of the value of confirming responses in clinical trials in oncology.

The requirement for a second assessment to confirm initial tumour response is required by all response guidelines. Its rationale, however, is not clear. We have conducted this study to compare validity of response rate assessment determined with and without secondary confirmation. Using specified criteria, nine trials of one single cytotoxic drug including 416 patients were selected from a pharmaceutical database. Objective response rates were determined by a single determination and by two separate determinations. 81 responses (19.5%, [15.8-23.6%]) were scored by the confirmation method and 97 responses (23.3% [19.3-27.7%]) by the no-confirmation method. The Kappa (kappa) coefficient of 0.89 indicates good agreement between both methods. This is the first study that systematically compares response rates calculated with and without performing response confirmation. Results show good agreement between both methods. We suggest that assessing response without confirmation may be the preferred method. These results should be confirmed by additional studies in a variety of cancer settings.

A phase II trial of gemcitabine and weekly high-dose 5-fluorouracil in a 48-hour continuous-infusion schedule in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma. A study of the Spanish Cooperative Group for Gastrointestinal Tumour Therapy (TTD).

AIM: A multi-centred, open-labelled, phase 11 study containing 46 patients was conducted to evaluate the clinical benefit of gemcitabine (1,400 mg/m(2)) combined with 5-FU (3 g/m(2)) in a 48 h continuous infusion (CI). METHODS: Both drugs were administered on days 1, 8 and 15 of every 4 week cycle in chemotherapy-naïve patients with locally advanced unresectable metastatic pancreatic carcinoma. The minimum follow-up was 6 months. RESULTS: Clinical benefit response was the primary endpoint and this was achieved by 24.4% of the patients. Quality of life (QoL) improved in 16.6% of patients. Objective response was observed in 7% of the patients. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.4 weeks and the median overall survival (OS) time was 22.7 weeks. One-year survival was 25%. The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (45%), mucositis (7.5%) and hyperbilirubinaemia (10.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This schedule was not superior in terms of clinical benefit, response rate, PFS and OS than standard gemcitabine treatment

Phase III study of iniparib plus gemcitabine and carboplatin versus gemcitabine and carboplatin in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of treatments providing survival benefit for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC), with no standard of care. A randomized phase II trial showed significant benefit for gemcitabine, carboplatin, and iniparib (GCI) over gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) in clinical benefit rate, response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Here, we formally compare the efficacy of these regimens in a phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV/locally recurrent TNBC who had received no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens for mTNBC were randomly allocated to gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under the curve 2 (days 1 and 8) alone or GC plus iniparib 5.6 mg/kg (days 1, 4, 8, and 11) every 3 weeks. Random assignment was stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies. The coprimary end points were OS and PFS. Patients receiving GC could cross over to iniparib on progression. RESULTS: Five hundred nineteen patients were randomly assigned (261 GCI; 258 GC). In the primary analysis, no statistically significant difference was observed for OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.12; P = .28) nor PFS (HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98; P = .027). An exploratory analysis showed that patients in the second-/third-line had improved OS (HR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.91) and PFS (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.92) with GCI. The safety profile for GCI was similar to GC. CONCLUSION: The trial did not meet the prespecified criteria for the coprimary end points of PFS and OS in the ITT population. The potential benefit with iniparib observed in second-/third-line subgroup warrants further evaluation.

Connexin-26 is a key factor mediating gemcitabine bystander effect.

Gemcitabine is a nucleoside analogue with anticancer activity. Inside the cell, it is sequentially phosphorylated to generate the active drug. Phosphorylated nucleoside analogues have been shown to traffic through gap junctions. We investigated the participation of gap junctional intercellular communication (GJIC) as a possible mechanism spreading gemcitabine cytotoxicity in pancreatic tumors. Immunohistochemical analysis of pancreatic cancer biopsies revealed increased connexin 26 (Cx26) content but loss of connexins 32 (Cx32) and 43 (Cx43) expression. Cx26 abundance in neoplastic areas was confirmed by Cx26 mRNA in situ hybridization. Heterogeneity on the expression levels and the localization of Cx26, Cx32, and Cx43 were identified in pancreatic cancer cells and found to be associated with the extent of GJIC, and correlated with gemcitabine bystander cytotoxic effect. The abundance of Cx26 at the contact points in tumoral regions prompted us to study the involvement of Cx26 in the GJIC of gemcitabine toxic metabolites and their influence on the antitumoral effects of gemcitabine. Knockdown of Cx26 led to decreased GJIC and reduced gemcitabine bystander killing whereas overexpression of Cx26 triggered increased GJIC and enhanced the gemcitabine cytotoxic bystander effect. Gemcitabine treatment of mice bearing tumors, with a high GJIC capacity, resulted in a significant delay in tumor progression. Interestingly, gemcitabine administration in mice bearing tumors that overexpress Cx26 triggered a dramatic tumor regression of 50% from the initial volume. This study shows that Cx26 participates in the gap junction-mediated bystander cytoxic effect of gemcitabine and provides evidence that upregulation of Cx26 improves gemcitabine anticancer efficacy.

Phase I study of Oral gemcitabine prodrug (LY2334737) alone and in combination with erlotinib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: LY2334737 is an orally available prodrug of gemcitabine. The objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose limiting toxicities (DLT) of daily administration of LY2334737 with or without erlotinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced or metastatic cancer were treated with escalating doses of LY2334737 monotherapy or in combination with continuous daily administration of 100 mg erlotinib. LY2334737 was given once daily for 14 days of a 21-day cycle. The study was extended with a bioequivalence trial to investigate a novel LY2334737 drug formulation. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients were treated in this study. The MTD was 40 mg LY2334737. Fatigue was the most frequent DLT for LY2334737 monotherapy (4 patients) followed by elevated transaminase levels (2 patients), both observed at the 40- to 50-mg dose levels. Among the 10 patients in the combination arm, 2 had DLTs at the 40-mg dose level. These were fatigue and elevated liver enzyme levels. The most common adverse events were fatigue (n = 38), nausea (n = 27), vomiting (n = 24), diarrhea (n = 23), anorexia (n = 20), pyrexia (n = 18), and elevated transaminase levels (n = 14). The pharmacokinetics showed dose proportional increase in LY2334737 and gemcitabine exposure. The metabolite 2',2'-difluorodeoxyuridine accumulated with an accumulation index of 4.3 (coefficient of variation: 20%). In one patient, complete response in prostate-specific antigen was observed for 4 cycles, and stable disease was achieved in 22 patients overall. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that the 2 investigated LY2334737 drug formulations were bioequivalent. CONCLUSIONS: LY2334737 displays linear pharmacokinetics and the MTD is 40 mg with or without daily administration of 100 mg erlotinib. Signs of antitumor activity warrant further development.

The role of extreme phenotype selection studies in the identification of clinically relevant genotypes in cancer research.

The investigation of genetic alterations that may be related to the prognosis of patients with malignant disease has become a frequently used strategy in recent years. Although some conclusions have been reached in certain studies, the complexity and the multifactorial nature of most neoplastic diseases makes it difficult to identify clinically relevant information, and the results of some studies have been of borderline significance or have been conflicting. In contrast, the identification and the study of patients or families with very characteristic phenotypes have yielded outstanding results in the identification of the genetic characteristics underlying such phenotypes. Although, in most cases, the individuals who are selected for these types of studies are characterized by a negative phenotype (i.e., individuals who are at increased risk for developing a specific disease), a few studies have been directed toward individuals with phenotypes that imply an unusually good prognosis (i.e., individuals who present with a decreased risk for developing specific diseases despite an important exposure to well-known risk factors). Therefore, it seems logical to develop this strategy further as a valid methodology for the study of other diseases, such as cancer. The study of individuals with phenotypes that imply an extremely good prognosis, such as long-term survivors of theoretically incurable malignancies or individuals who seem to be protected against a certain neoplastic disorder despite having a markedly increased risk for its development, may unveil genetic alterations that explain such characteristic phenotypes and may provide potentially useful therapeutic targets against these diseases.

Phase I pharmacokinetic study of a single intravesical instillation of gemcitabine administered immediately after transurethral resection plus multiple random biopsies in patients with superficial bladder cancer.

PURPOSE: In this phase I study we determined the pharmacokinetic and toxicity profiles of a single intravesical instillation of gemcitabine administered immediately after complete transurethral resection (TUR) plus multiple random biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients with superficial bladder cancer clinically staged as Ta/T1 with no carcinoma in situ were included. A single dose of gemcitabine was administered intra-vesically immediately after TUR plus 6 random biopsies. Five patients received 1,500 mg and 5 received 2,000 mg diluted in 100 ml saline. Retention time in the bladder was 60 minutes. Concentrations of gemcitabine and dFdU (2',2'-difluoro-2'-deoxyuridine) were determined by high pressure liquid chromatography assay. RESULTS: Treatment was clinically well tolerated in all patients. Two patients in the 1,500 mg group had minimal hipogastric discomfort and 1 in the 2,000 mg group had grade 1 bladder spasms. There was no remarkable systemic toxicity on hematology or biochemistry at any dose level on day 12 or 30. One patient per dose level showed tumor recurrence on 3-month repeat cystourethroscopy. Mean maximum gemcitabine concentration was 1.8 microg/ml and the mean last AUC was 158 microg/ml*minute. There was large interpatient variability but no significant differences between the 2 dose levels. CONCLUSIONS: Single intravesical instillation of gemcitabine immediately after TUR and multiple random biopsies for superficial bladder cancer are a safe and well tolerated treatment. The favorable toxicity and pharmacokinetic profiles of intravesical gemcitabine support future phase II studies with this agent.