Neoadjuvant Talazoparib in Patients With Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation-Positive, Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Results of a Phase II Study.

BACKGROUND: The undetermined efficacy of the current standard-of-care neoadjuvant treatment, anthracycline/platinum-based chemotherapy, in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and germline BRCA mutations emphasizes the need for biomarker-targeted treatment, such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, in this setting. This phase II, single-arm, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant talazoparib in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated early-stage TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated early-stage TNBC received talazoparib 1 mg once daily for 24 weeks (0.75 mg for moderate renal impairment) followed by surgery. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) by independent central review (ICR). Secondary endpoints included residual cancer burden (RCB) by ICR. Safety and tolerability of talazoparib and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 61 patients, 48 received ≥80% talazoparib doses, underwent surgery, and were assessed for pCR or progressed before pCR assessment and considered nonresponders. pCR rate was 45.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.0%-60.6%) and 49.2% (95% CI, 36.7%-61.6%) in the evaluable and intent-to-treat (ITT) population, respectively. RCB 0/I rate was 45.8% (95% CI, 29.4%-63.2%) and 50.8% (95% CI, 35.5%-66.0%) in the evaluable and ITT population, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were reported in 58 (95.1%) patients. Most common grade 3 and 4 TRAEs were anemia (39.3%) and neutropenia (9.8%). There was no clinically meaningful detriment in quality of life. No deaths occurred during the reporting period; 2 deaths due to progressive disease occurred during long-term follow-up (>400 days after first dose). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant talazoparib monotherapy was active despite pCR rates not meeting the prespecified threshold; these rates were comparable to those observed with combination anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy regimens. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03499353.

Overall Survival with Ribociclib plus Fulvestrant in Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In an earlier analysis of this phase 3 trial, ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than fulvestrant alone in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. Here we report the results of a protocol-specified second interim analysis of overall survival. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either ribociclib or placebo in addition to fulvestrant as first-line or second-line treatment. Survival was evaluated by means of a stratified log-rank test and summarized with the use of Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: This analysis was based on 275 deaths: 167 among 484 patients (34.5%) receiving ribociclib and 108 among 242 (44.6%) receiving placebo. Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant. The estimated overall survival at 42 months was 57.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.0 to 63.2) in the ribociclib group and 45.9% (95% CI, 36.9 to 54.5) in the placebo group, for a 28% difference in the relative risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92; P = 0.00455). The benefit was consistent across most subgroups. In a descriptive update, median progression-free survival among patients receiving first-line treatment was 33.6 months (95% CI, 27.1 to 41.3) in the ribociclib group and 19.2 months (95% CI, 14.9 to 23.6) in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. (Funded by Novartis; MONALEESA-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02422615.).

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Phase I Oncology Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient-reported outcome (PRO) usage in phase I oncology clinical trials, including types of PRO measures and changes over time. METHODS: We analyzed ClinicalTrials.gov records of phase I oncology clinical trials completed by December 2019. RESULTS: Of all eligible trials, 2.3% (129/5,515) reported ≥1 PRO, totaling 181 instances of PRO usage. PRO usage increased over time, from 0.6% (trials initiated before 2000) to 3.4% (trials starting between 2015 and 2019). The most common PRO measures were unspecified (29%), tumor-specific (24%), and generic cancer (19%). CONCLUSION: Although uncommon in phase I oncology clinical trials, PRO usage is increasing over time. PRO measures were often unspecified on ClinicalTrials.gov, suggesting that more precise reporting and standardization are needed.

A phase 2, randomized trial evaluating the combination of dalantercept plus axitinib in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a prior open-label study, the combination of dalantercept, a novel antiangiogenic targeting activin receptor-like kinase 1 (ALK1), plus axitinib was deemed safe and tolerable with a promising efficacy signal in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: In the current phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with clear cell RCC previously treated with 1 prior angiogenesis inhibitor were randomized 1:1 to receive axitinib plus dalantercept versus axitinib plus placebo. Randomization was stratified by the type of prior therapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were PFS in patients with ≥2 prior lines of anticancer therapy, overall survival, and the objective response rate. RESULTS: Between June 10, 2014, and February 23, 2017, a total of 124 patients were randomly assigned to receive axitinib plus dalantercept (59 patients) or placebo (65 patients). The median PFS was not found to be significantly different between the treatment groups (median, 6.8 months vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.71-1.73; P = .670]). Neither group reached the median overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.70-2.77; P = .349]). The objective response rate was 19.0% (11 of 58 patients; 95% CI, 9.9%-31.4%) in the dalantercept plus axitinib group and 24.6% (15 of 61 patients; 95% CI, 14.5%-37.3%) in the placebo plus axitinib group. At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event of ≥grade 3 was observed in 59% of patients (34 of 58 patients) in the dalantercept group and 64% of patients (39 of 61 patients) in the placebo group. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo plus axitinib group. CONCLUSIONS: Although well tolerated, the addition of dalantercept to axitinib did not appear to improve treatment-related outcomes in previously treated patients with advanced RCC.

Correction: A phase 2 randomised study of veliparib plus FOLFIRI±bevacizumab versus placebo plus FOLFIRI±bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer.

The original version of this article contained an error in Figure 1a. The number of patients at risk listed in the Veliparib arm of Figure 1a should have read "65" instead of "35".An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

A phase 2 randomised study of veliparib plus FOLFIRI±bevacizumab versus placebo plus FOLFIRI±bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has low survival rates. We assessed if addition of veliparib, concurrent to FOLFIRI, improves survival in patients with previously untreated mCRC. METHODS: This study compared veliparib (200 mg BID for 7 days of each 14-day cycle) to placebo, each with FOLFIRI. Bevacizumab was allowed in both arms. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Patients were randomised to receive veliparib (n = 65) or placebo (n = 65) in combination with FOLFIRI. Median PFS was 12 vs 11 months (veliparib vs placebo) [HR = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.60, 1.48)]. Median OS was 25 vs 27 months [HR = 1.26 (95% CI: 0.74, 2.16)]. Response rate was 57% vs 62%. Median DOR was 11 vs 9 months [HR = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.38, 1.40)]. AEs with significantly higher frequency (p < 0.05) in the veliparib group were anaemia (39% vs 19%, p = 0.019) and neutropenia (66% vs 37%, p = 0.001) for common AEs (≥20%); neutropenia (59% vs 22%, p < 0.001) for common Grade 3/4 AEs (≥5%); none in serious AEs. Haematopoietic cytopenias were more common with veliparib (79% vs 52%, p = 0.003). Fourteen percent of patients on veliparib and 15% on placebo discontinued treatment due to AEs. CONCLUSION: Veliparib added to FOLFIRI ± bevacizumab demonstrated similar efficacy as FOLFIRI ± bevacizumab in frontline mCRC patients. No unexpected safety concerns occurred.

Extending Aromatase-Inhibitor Adjuvant Therapy to 10 Years.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years as up-front monotherapy or after tamoxifen therapy is the treatment of choice for hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Extending treatment with an aromatase inhibitor to 10 years may further reduce the risk of breast-cancer recurrence. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effect of the extended use of letrozole for an additional 5 years. Our primary end point was disease-free survival. RESULTS: We enrolled 1918 women. After a median follow-up of 6.3 years, there were 165 events involving disease recurrence or the occurrence of contralateral breast cancer (67 with letrozole and 98 with placebo) and 200 deaths (100 in each group). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93 to 96) with letrozole and 91% (95% CI; 89 to 93) with placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or the occurrence of contralateral breast cancer, 0.66; P=0.01 by a two-sided log-rank test stratified according to nodal status, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, the interval from the last dose of aromatase-inhibitor therapy, and the duration of treatment with tamoxifen). The rate of 5-year overall survival was 93% (95% CI, 92 to 95) with letrozole and 94% (95% CI, 92 to 95) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.97; P=0.83). The annual incidence rate of contralateral breast cancer in the letrozole group was 0.21% (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.32), and the rate in the placebo group was 0.49% (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.67) (hazard ratio, 0.42; P=0.007). Bone-related toxic effects occurred more frequently among patients receiving letrozole than among those receiving placebo, including a higher incidence of bone pain, bone fractures, and new-onset osteoporosis. No significant differences between letrozole and placebo were observed in scores on most subscales measuring quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The extension of treatment with an adjuvant aromatase inhibitor to 10 years resulted in significantly higher rates of disease-free survival and a lower incidence of contralateral breast cancer than those with placebo, but the rate of overall survival was not higher with the aromatase inhibitor than with placebo. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00003140 and NCT00754845.).

Prevention of everolimus-related stomatitis in women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer using dexamethasone mouthwash (SWISH): a single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Stomatitis is a class effect associated with the inhibition of mTOR and is associated with everolimus therapy for breast cancer. Topical steroids might reduce stomatitis incidence and severity, and the need for dose reductions and interruptions of everolimus. Anecdotal use of topical steroid oral prophylaxis has been reported in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to assess dexamethasone-based mouthwash for prevention of stomatitis in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: This US-based, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 prevention study enrolled women aged 18 years and older with postmenopausal status who had histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Beginning on day 1 of cycle 1, patients received everolimus 10 mg plus exemestane 25 mg daily, with 10 mL of alcohol-free dexamethasone 0·5 mg per 5 mL oral solution (swish for 2 min and spit, four times daily for 8 weeks). After 8 weeks, dexamethasone mouthwash could be continued for up to eight additional weeks at the discretion of the clinician and patient. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade 2 or worse stomatitis by 8 weeks assessed in the full analysis set (patients who received at least one dose of everolimus and exemestane and at least one confirmed dose of dexamethasone mouthwash) versus historical controls from the BOLERO-2 trial (everolimus and exemestane treatment in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who were not given dexamethasone mouthwash for prevention of stomatitis). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02069093. FINDINGS: Between May 28, 2014, and Oct 8, 2015, we enrolled 92 women; 85 were evaluable for efficacy. By 8 weeks, the incidence of grade 2 or worse stomatitis was two (2%) of 85 patients (95% CI 0·29-8·24), versus 159 (33%) of 482 patients (95% CI 28·8-37·4) for the duration of the BOLERO-2 study. Overall, 83 (90%) of 92 patients had at least one adverse event. The most frequently reported grade 3 and 4 adverse events in the safety set were hyperglycaemia (seven [8%] of 92 patients), rash (four [4%]), and dyspnoea (three [3%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 20 (22%) patients; six (7%) were deemed treatment related, with dyspnoea (three [3%]) and pneumonia (two [2%]) reported most frequently. 12 (13%) of 92 patients had adverse events suspected to be related to treatment that led to discontinuation of everolimus and exemestane (the most common were rash, hyperglycaemia, and stomatitis, which each affected two [2%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Prophylactic use of dexamethasone oral solution substantially reduced the incidence and severity of stomatitis in patients receiving everolimus and exemestane and could be a new standard of oral care for patients receiving everolimus and exemestane therapy. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Pixantrone-rituximab versus gemcitabine-rituximab in relapsed/refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

UNLABELLED: We describe the rationale and design of the ongoing randomized, active-controlled, multicenter, Phase III study evaluating the efficacy of pixantrone and rituximab versus gemcitabine and rituximab in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or follicular grade 3 lymphoma, who are ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation, and who failed front-line regimens containing rituximab. The administration schedule is pixantrone 50 mg/m(2) intravenously (iv.) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) iv. on days 1, 8 and 15, combined with rituximab 375 mg/m(2) iv. on day 1, up to six cycles. Pixantrone has a conditional European marketing approval for monotherapy in adults with multiple relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Our trial explores the efficacy of combining pixantrone with rituximab and completes postauthorization measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01321541.

Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to endocrine therapy in breast cancer is associated with activation of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) intracellular signaling pathway. In early studies, the mTOR inhibitor everolimus added to endocrine therapy showed antitumor activity. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized trial, we compared everolimus and exemestane versus exemestane and placebo (randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio) in 724 patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who had recurrence or progression while receiving previous therapy with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in the adjuvant setting or to treat advanced disease (or both). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included survival, response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed by an independent data and safety monitoring committee after 359 progression-free survival events were observed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two study groups. The median age was 62 years, 56% had visceral involvement, and 84% had hormone-sensitive disease. Previous therapy included letrozole or anastrozole (100%), tamoxifen (48%), fulvestrant (16%), and chemotherapy (68%). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were stomatitis (8% in the everolimus-plus-exemestane group vs. 1% in the placebo-plus-exemestane group), anemia (6% vs. <1%), dyspnea (4% vs. 1%), hyperglycemia (4% vs. <1%), fatigue (4% vs. 1%), and pneumonitis (3% vs. 0%). At the interim analysis, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with everolimus plus exemestane and 2.8 months with placebo plus exemestane, according to assessments by local investigators (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.54; P<0.001). Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months and 4.1 months, respectively, according to central assessment (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.47; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus combined with an aromatase inhibitor improved progression-free survival in patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer previously treated with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. (Funded by Novartis; BOLERO-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00863655.).

Everolimus for patients with mantle cell lymphoma refractory to or intolerant of bortezomib: multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study.

The multicentre, open-label, two-stage, single-arm, phase 2, PILLAR (PIvotaL Lymphoma triAls of RAD001)-1 study (NCT00702052) assessed the efficacy and safety of everolimus 10 mg/d in adults with confirmed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) refractory to or intolerant of bortezomib who received ≥1 other antineoplastic agent, either separately or in combination with bortezomib. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) per investigator review according to the response criteria for malignant lymphoma. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Fifty-eight patients were enrolled from August 2008-January 2011. Five partial responses were observed (ORR 8·6%; 90% confidence interval [CI] 3·5-17·3%); the study did not meet the prespecified objective of ≥8 objective responses among 57 patients. Median PFS and OS were 4·4 months (95% CI 3·5-6·1) and 16·9 months (95% CI 14·4-29·9), respectively. Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities occurred in 70·7% of patients. Based on laboratory values, grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and anaemia occurred in 13·8%, 13·8% and 8·6% of patients, respectively. Everolimus demonstrated modest activity and acceptable tolerability in heavily pretreated patients with MCL refractory to or intolerant of bortezomib. Future studies evaluating everolimus in a less refractory population or in combination with other targeted therapies in refractory MCL are warranted.

Everolimus plus exemestane as first-line therapy in HR⁺, HER2⁻ advanced breast cancer in BOLERO-2.

The present exploratory analysis examined the efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life effects of everolimus (EVE) + exemestane (EXE) in the subgroup of patients in BOLERO-2 whose last treatment before study entry was in the (neo)adjuvant setting. In BOLERO-2, patients with hormone-receptor-positive (HR(+)), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2(-)) advanced breast cancer recurring/progressing after a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive EVE (10 mg/day) + EXE (25 mg/day) or placebo (PBO) + EXE. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by local assessment. Overall, 137 patients received first-line EVE + EXE (n = 100) or PBO + EXE (n = 37). Median PFS by local investigator assessment nearly tripled to 11.5 months with EVE + EXE from 4.1 months with PBO + EXE (hazard ratio = 0.39; 95 % CI 0.25-0.62), while maintaining quality of life. This was confirmed by central assessment (15.2 vs 4.2 months; hazard ratio = 0.32; 95 % CI 0.18-0.57). The marked PFS improvement in patients receiving EVE + EXE as first-line therapy for disease recurrence during or after (neo)adjuvant NSAI therapy supports the efficacy of this combination in the first-line setting. Furthermore, the results highlight the potential benefit of early introduction of EVE + EXE in the management of HR(+), HER2(-) advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal patients.

MEK162 for patients with advanced melanoma harbouring NRAS or Val600 BRAF mutations: a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with melanoma harbouring Val600 BRAF mutations benefit from treatment with BRAF inhibitors. However, no targeted treatments exist for patients with BRAF wild-type tumours, including those with NRAS mutations. We aimed to assess the use of MEK162, a small-molecule MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with NRAS-mutated or Val600 BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. METHODS: In our open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study, we assigned patients with NRAS-mutated or BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma to one of three treatment arms on the basis of mutation status. Patients were enrolled at university hospitals or private cancer centres in Europe and the USA. The three arms were: twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for NRAS-mutated melanoma, twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for BRAF-mutated melanoma, and twice-daily MEK162 60 mg for BRAF-mutated melanoma. Previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors was permitted, but previous MEK inhibitor therapy was not allowed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had an objective response (ie, a complete response or confirmed partial response). We report data for the 45 mg groups. We assessed clinical activity in all patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 and in patients assessable for response (with two available CT scans). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01320085, and is currently recruiting additional patients with NRAS mutations (based on a protocol amendment). FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2011, and Jan 17, 2012, we enrolled 71 patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 45 mg. By Feb 29, 2012 (data cutoff), median follow-up was 3·3 months (range 0·6-8·7; IQR 2·2-5·0). No patients had a complete response. Six (20%) of 30 patients with NRAS-mutated melanoma had a partial response (three confirmed) as did eight (20%) of 41 patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma (two confirmed). The most frequent adverse events were acneiform dermatitis (18 [60%] patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and 15 [37%] patients with the BRAF-mutated melanoma), rash (six [20%] and 16 [39%]), peripheral oedema (ten [33%] and 14 [34%]), facial oedema (nine [30%] and seven [17%]), diarrhoea (eight [27%] and 15 [37%]), and creatine phosphokinase increases (11 [37%] and nine [22%]). Increased creatine phosphokinase was the most common grade 3-4 adverse event (seven [23%] and seven [17%]). Four patients had serious adverse events (two per arm), which included diarrhoea, dehydration, acneiform dermatitis, general physical deterioration, irregular heart rate, malaise, and small intestinal perforation. No deaths occurred from treatment-related causes. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, MEK162 is the first targeted therapy to show activity in patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and might offer a new option for a cancer with few effective treatments. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Neoadjuvant talazoparib in patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutation-positive, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: exploration of tumor BRCA mutational status.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib monotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) showed activity in the neoadjuvant setting in the phase II NEOTALA study (NCT03499353). These biomarker analyses further assessed the mutational landscape of the patients enrolled in the NEOTALA study. METHODS: Baseline tumor tissue from the NEOTALA study was tested retrospectively using FoundationOne®CDx. To further hypothesis-driven correlative analyses, agnostic heat-map visualizations of the FoundationOne®CDx tumor dataset were used to assess overall mutational landscape and identify additional candidate predictive biomarkers of response. RESULTS: All patients enrolled (N = 61) had TNBC. In the biomarker analysis population, 75.0% (39/52) and 25.0% (13/52) of patients exhibited BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively. Strong concordance (97.8%) was observed between tumor BRCA and germline BRCA mutations, and 90.5% (38/42) of patients with tumor BRCA mutations evaluable for somatic-germline-zygosity were predicted to exhibit BRCA loss of heterozygosity (LOH). No patients had non-BRCA germline DNA damage response (DDR) gene variants with known/likely pathogenicity, based on a panel of 14 non-BRCA DDR genes. Ninety-eight percent of patients had TP53 mutations. Genomic LOH, assessed continuously or categorically, was not associated with response. CONCLUSION: The results from this exploratory biomarker analysis support the central role of BRCA and TP53 mutations in tumor pathobiology. Furthermore, these data support assessing germline BRCA mutational status for molecular eligibility for talazoparib in patients with TNBC.

A next-generation BRAF inhibitor overcomes resistance to BRAF inhibition in patients with BRAF-mutant cancers using pharmacokinetics-informed dose escalation.

RAF inhibitors have transformed treatment for BRAF V600-mutant cancer patients, but clinical benefit is limited by adaptive induction of ERK signaling, genetic alterations that induce BRAF V600 dimerization, and poor brain penetration. Next-generation pan-RAF dimer inhibitors are limited by narrow therapeutic index. PF-07799933 (ARRY-440) is a brain-penetrant, selective, pan-mutant BRAF inhibitor. PF-07799933 inhibited signaling in vitro, disrupted endogenous mutant-BRAF:wild-type-CRAF dimers, and spared wild-type ERK signaling. PF-07799933 ± binimetinib inhibited growth of mouse xenograft tumors driven by mutant BRAF that functions as dimers and by BRAF V600E with acquired resistance to current RAF inhibitors. We treated patients with treatment-refractory BRAF-mutant solid tumors in a first-in-human clinical trial (NCT05355701) that utilized a novel, flexible, pharmacokinetics-informed dose escalation design that allowed rapid achievement of PF-07799933 efficacious concentrations. PF-07799933 ± binimetinib was well-tolerated and resulted in multiple confirmed responses, systemically and in the brain, in BRAF-mutant cancer patients refractory to approved RAF inhibitors.

Health-related quality of life of patients with advanced breast cancer treated with everolimus plus exemestane versus placebo plus exemestane in the phase 3, randomized, controlled, BOLERO-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, controlled BOLERO-2 (Breast Cancer Trials of Oral Everolimus) trial demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival with the use of everolimus plus exemestane (EVE + EXE) versus placebo plus exemestane (PBO + EXE) in patients with advanced breast cancer who developed disease progression after treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. This analysis investigated the treatment effects on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: Using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire, HRQOL was assessed at baseline and every 6 weeks thereafter until disease progression and/or treatment discontinuation. The 30 items in 15 subscales of the QLQ-C30 include global health status wherein higher scores (range, 0-100) indicate better HRQOL. This analysis included a protocol-specified time to definitive deterioration (TDD) analysis at a 5% decrease in HRQOL versus baseline, with no subsequent increase above this threshold. The authors report additional sensitivity analyses using 10-point minimal important difference decreases in the global health status score versus baseline. Treatment arms were compared using the stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for trial stratum (visceral metastases, previous hormone sensitivity), age, sex, race, baseline global health status score and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, prognostic risk factors, and treatment history. RESULTS: Baseline global health status scores were found to be similar between treatment groups (64.7 vs 65.3). The median TDD in HRQOL was 8.3 months with EVE + EXE versus 5.8 months with PBO + EXE (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .0084). At the 10-point minimal important difference, the median TDD with EVE + EXE was 11.7 months versus 8.4 months with PBO + EXE (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .1017). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced breast cancer who develop disease progression after treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors, EVE + EXE was associated with a longer TDD in global HRQOL versus PBO + EXE.

Increased Utilization of Low-Dose CT for Lung Cancer Screening at an Arkansas Community Oncology Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose CT (LDCT) is underused in Arkansas for lung cancer screening, a rural state with a high incidence of lung cancer. The objective was to determine whether offering free LDCT increased the number of high-risk individuals screened in a rural catchment area. METHODS: There were 5,402 patients enrolled in screening at Highlands Oncology, a community oncology clinic in Northwest Arkansas, from 2013 to 2020. Screenings were separated into time periods: period 1 (10 months for-fee), period 2 (10 months free with targeted advertisements and primary care outreach), and period 3 (62 months free with only primary care outreach). In all, 5,035 high-risk participants were eligible for analysis based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Enrollment rates, incidence densities (IDs), Cox proportional hazard models, and Kaplan-Meier curves were performed to investigate differences between enrollment periods and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Patient volume increased drastically once screenings were offered free of charge (period 1 = 4.6 versus period 2 = 66.0 and period 3 = 69.8 average patients per month). Incidence density per 1,000 person-years increased through each period (IDPeriod 1 = 17.2; IDPeriod 2 = 20.8; IDPeriod 3 = 25.5 cases). Cox models revealed significant differences in lung cancer risk between high-risk groups (P = .012) but not enrollment periods (P = .19). Kaplan-Meier lung cancer-free probabilities differed significantly between high-risk groups (log-rank P = .00068) but not enrollment periods (log-rank P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that eligible patients are more receptive to free LDCT screening, despite most insurances not having a required copay for eligible patients.

Avelumab Plus Talazoparib in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors: The JAVELIN PARP Medley Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Preclinical data suggest that poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have synergistic activity when combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); however, it is unknown which tumor types or molecular subtypes may benefit from this combination. Objective: To investigate responses associated with the combination of avelumab and talazoparib in different tumor types and/or molecular subtypes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this phase 1b and 2 basket nonrandomized controlled trial, patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in the following cohorts: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); DNA damage response (DDR)-positive NSCLC; triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC); hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-negative, DDR-positive breast cancer; recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (OC); recurrent, platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2-altered OC; urothelial cancer; metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); DDR-positive mCRPC; and BRCA1/2- or ATM-altered solid tumors. Data were analyzed between June 17, 2021, and August 6, 2021. Interventions: All patients in phases 1b and 2 received avelumab plus talazoparib. Main Outcomes and Measures: The phase 1b primary end point was dose-limiting toxic effects. The phase 2 primary end point was objective response, measured as objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included safety, time to response, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, time to prostate-specific antigen progression and PSA response of 50% or greater (for mCRPC), cancer antigen 125 response (for OC), pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and biomarkers. Results: A total of 223 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.2 [11.0] years; 117 [52.5%] men) were treated, including 12 patients in phase 1b and 211 patients in phase 2. The recommended phase 2 dose was avelumab 800 mg every 2 weeks plus talazoparib 1 mg once daily. In phase 2, the ORR was 18.2% (95% CI, 5.2%-40.3%) in patients with TNBC; 34.8% (95% CI, 16.4%-57.3%) in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and DDR-positive BC; and 63.6% (95% CI, 30.8%-89.1%) in patients with platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2-altered OC. Responses occurred more frequently in patients with BRCA1/2-altered tumors. Durable responses were observed in patients with TNBC (median [range] DOR, 11.1 [3.4-20.4] months); HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and DDR-positive BC (median [range] DOR, 15.7 [3.9 to ≥20.6] months); and BRCA1/2-altered OC (median DOR not reached; range, 5.6 to ≥18.4 months). The most common grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events were anemia (75 patients [33.6%]), thrombocytopenia (48 patients [21.5%]), and neutropenia (31 patients [13.9%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized controlled trial found that ORRs for avelumab plus talazoparib were comparable with those with PARP inhibitor or ICI monotherapy. Prolonged DOR in patients with TNBC; HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and DDR-positive BC; and BRCA1/2-altered OC warrant further investigation in randomized clinical trials. These data highlight the importance of prospective patient selection in future studies of ICI and PARP-inhibitor combinations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03330405.

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

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

Final 5-year results of Z-FAST trial: adjuvant zoledronic acid maintains bone mass in postmenopausal breast cancer patients receiving letrozole.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal breast cancer (BC) patients receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy are at risk of progressive bone loss and fractures. Zoledronic acid inhibits osteoclastic bone resorption, is effective in maintaining bone health, and may therefore be beneficial in this setting. METHODS: Overall, 602 postmenopausal women with early, hormone receptor-positive BC receiving adjuvant letrozole were randomized (301 each group) to receive upfront or delayed-start zoledronic acid (4 mg intravenously every 6 months) for 5 years. The primary endpoint was the change in lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) at month 12. Secondary endpoints included changes in LS BMD, total hip BMD, and bone turnover markers at 2, 3, and 5 years; fracture incidence at 3 years; and time to disease recurrence. RESULTS: At month 61, the adjusted mean difference in LS and total hip BMDs between the upfront and delayed groups was 8.9% and 6.7%, respectively (P < .0001, for both). Approximately 25% of delayed patients received zoledronic acid by month 61. Only 1 patient experienced grade 4 renal dysfunction; no confirmed cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were reported. Fracture rates (upfront, 28 [9.3%]; delayed, 33 [11%]; P = .3803) and Kaplan-Meier disease recurrence rates (upfront, 9.8 [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.0-10.3]; delayed, 10.5 [95% CI, 6.6-14.4]; P = .6283) were similar at month 61. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront zoledronic acid seems to be the preferred treatment strategy versus delayed administration, as it significantly and progressively increases BMD in postmenopausal women with early BC receiving letrozole for 5 years, and long-term coadministration of letrozole and zoledronic acid is well tolerated.