LXR/ApoE Activation Restricts Innate Immune Suppression in Cancer.

Therapeutic harnessing of adaptive immunity via checkpoint inhibition has transformed the treatment of many cancers. Despite unprecedented long-term responses, most patients do not respond to these therapies. Immunotherapy non-responders often harbor high levels of circulating myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs)-an immunosuppressive innate cell population. Through genetic and pharmacological approaches, we uncovered a pathway governing MDSC abundance in multiple cancer types. Therapeutic liver-X nuclear receptor (LXR) agonism reduced MDSC abundance in murine models and in patients treated in a first-in-human dose escalation phase 1 trial. MDSC depletion was associated with activation of cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) responses in mice and patients. The LXR transcriptional target ApoE mediated these effects in mice, where LXR/ApoE activation therapy elicited robust anti-tumor responses and also enhanced T cell activation during various immune-based therapies. We implicate the LXR/ApoE axis in the regulation of innate immune suppression and as a target for enhancing the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy in patients.

Final outcomes analysis of the cell product SQZ-PBMC-HPV Phase 1 trial in incurable HPV16+ solid tumors shows improved overall survival in patients with increased CD8+ T cell tumor infiltration.

Cancer vaccines strive to induce robust, antigen-targeted, T-cell-mediated immune responses but have struggled to produce meaningful regression in solid tumors. An autologous cell vaccine, SQZ-PBMC-HPV, was developed by SQZ Biotechnologies using microfluidic squeezing technology to load PBMCs with HPV16 E6 and E7 antigens in HLA-A*02+ patients. The SQZ-PBMC-HPV-101 Phase 1 trial (NCT04084951) enrolled patients with incurable HPV16+ cancers. Here, we present a post hoc analysis of the relationship between Posttreatment CD8+ T cell infiltration and patient outcomes. SQZ-PBMC-HPV was administered as monotherapy every 3 weeks. Tumor samples were collected pre-dose and post-dose 4 weeks after treatment start. Biomarkers including CD8, MHC-I, E6, E7, GZMB, and Ki67 were evaluated by immunohistochemistry, immunofluorescence, and RNA in situ hybridization, and were correlated with clinical response, survival, and drug product composition. Eighteen patients had paired pre- and post-dose biopsies. Six (33%) had an increase in CD8+ T cell density in tumor parenchyma between screening and C2D8. Patients with increased CD8+ T cell density had improved disease control rate (66.7% vs 16.7%) and median overall survival (606.5 days vs 170.0 days, p = 0.0078). Drug product was significantly enriched for higher T cells and lower monocytes in the increased CD8+ T cell density group. In patients with incurable HPV16+ solid tumors treated with SQZ-PBMC-HPV, an increase in CD8+ T cell density within the tumor parenchyma was associated with superior disease control rate and overall survival. The product composition for patients with increased CD8+ T cell density was enriched for T cells.

Phase 1 study to determine the safety and dosing of autologous PBMCs modified to present HPV16 antigens (SQZ-PBMC-HPV) in HLA-A*02+ patients with HPV16+ solid tumors.

We conducted a dose escalation Phase 1 study of autologous PBMCs loaded by microfluidic squeezing (Cell Squeeze® technology) with HPV16 E6 and E7 antigens (SQZ-PBMC-HPV), in HLA-A*02+ patients with advanced/metastatic HPV16+ cancers. Preclinical studies in murine models had shown such cells resulted in stimulation and proliferation of antigen specific CD8+ cells, and demonstrated antitumor activity. Administration of SQZ-PBMC-HPV was every 3 weeks. Enrollment followed a modified 3+3 design with primary objectives to define safety, tolerability, and the recommended Phase 2 dose. Secondary and exploratory objectives were antitumor activity, manufacturing feasibility, and pharmacodynamic evaluation of immune responses. Eighteen patients were enrolled at doses ranging from 0.5 × 106 to 5.0 × 106 live cells/kg. Manufacture proved feasible and required < 24 h within the overall vein-to-vein time of 1 - 2 weeks; at the highest dose, a median of 4 doses were administered. No DLTs were observed. Most related TEAEs were Grade 1 - 2, and one Grade 2 cytokine release syndrome SAE was reported. Tumor biopsies in three patients showed 2 to 8-fold increases in CD8+ tissue infiltrating lymphocytes, including a case that exhibited increased MHC-I+ and PD-L1+ cell densities and reduced numbers of HPV+ cells. Clinical benefit was documented for the latter case. SQZ-PBMC-HPV was well tolerated; 5.0 × 106 live cells/kg with double priming was chosen as the recommended Phase 2 dose. Multiple participants exhibited pharmacodynamic changes consistent with immune responses supporting the proposed mechanism of action for SQZ-PBMC-HPV, including patients previously refractory to checkpoint inhibitors.

Bromodomain inhibitors a decade later: a promise unfulfilled?

Over the last decade, bromodomain inhibitors have emerged as a promising class of anticancer drugs. However, the clinical progress of these agents has faced significant obstacles, which precluded their regulatory approval. This editorial will review the challenges and opportunities associated with the development of bromodomain inhibitors.

Phase 1 study of mTORC1/2 inhibitor sapanisertib (TAK-228) in advanced solid tumours, with an expansion phase in renal, endometrial or bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1 dose-escalation/expansion study assessed safety/tolerability of sapanisertib, an oral, highly selective inhibitor of mTORC1/mTORC2, in advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Eligible patients received increasing sapanisertib doses once daily (QD; 31 patients), once weekly (QW; 30 patients), QD for 3 days on/4 days off QW (QD × 3dQW; 33 patients) or QD for 5 days on/2 days off QW (QD × 5dQW; 22 patients). In expansion cohorts, 82 patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), endometrial or bladder cancer received sapanisertib 5 mg QD (39 patients), 40 mg QW (26 patients) or 30 mg QW (17 patients). RESULTS: Maximum tolerated doses of sapanisertib were 6 mg QD, 40 mg QW, 9 mg QD × 3dQW and 7 mg QD × 5dQW. Frequent dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included hyperglycaemia, maculo-papular rash (QD), asthenia and stomatitis (QD × 3dQW/QD × 5dQW); expansion phase doses of 5 mg QD and 30 mg QW were selected based on tolerability beyond the DLT evaluation period. One patient with RCC achieved complete response; nine experienced partial responses (RCC: seven patients; carcinoid tumour/endometrial cancer: one patient each). Sapanisertib pharmacokinetics were time-linear and supported multiple dosing. Pharmacodynamic findings demonstrated treatment-related reductions in TORC1/2 biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Sapanisertib demonstrated a manageable safety profile, with preliminary antitumour activity observed in RCC and endometrial cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01058707.

Phase Ib clinical trial of the anti-frizzled antibody vantictumab (OMP-18R5) plus paclitaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Vantictumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to frizzled (FZD) receptors and inhibits canonical WNT signaling. This phase Ib dose escalation study enrolled patients with locally recurrent or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated with weekly paclitaxel in combination with escalating doses of vantictumab. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in dose escalation cohorts treated with weekly paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 in combination with vantictumab 3.5-14 mg/kg days 1 and 15 or 3-8 mg/kg day 1 of every 28-day cycle. Primary endpoints were safety, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics, efficacy and an exploratory biomarker analysis. RESULTS: Forty-eight female patients with a mean age of 54 were enrolled. The majority (66.6%) received prior chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic disease; 45.8% were hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative and 54.2% triple-negative. The most frequent adverse events related to any study treatment were nausea (54.2%), alopecia (52.1%), fatigue (47.9%), and peripheral neuropathy (43.8%). No DLTs occurred; however, 6 patients experienced fractures outside of the DLT window. The overall response rate was 31.3% and the clinical benefit rate was 68.8%. A 6-gene WNT pathway signature showed significant association with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the biomarker high versus biomarker low groups (PFS: p = 0.029 and OS: p = 0.00045, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of vantictumab and weekly paclitaxel was generally well tolerated with promising efficacy; however, the incidence of fractures limits future clinical development of this particular WNT inhibitor in metastatic breast cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT01973309.

A phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation trial of oral TSR-011 in patients with advanced solid tumours and lymphomas.

BACKGROUND: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements are oncogenic drivers in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). TSR-011 is a dual ALK and tropomyosin-related kinase (TRK) inhibitor, active against ALK inhibitor resistant tumours in preclinical studies. Here, we report the safety, tolerability and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of TSR-011 in patients with relapsed or refractory ALK- and TRK-positive advanced cancers. METHODS: In this sequential, open-label, phase 1 trial (NCT02048488), patients received doses of 30 mg, escalated to 480 mg every 24 hours (Q24h), followed by an expansion cohort of patients with ALK-positive cancers. The primary objective was to evaluate safety and tolerability. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: TSR-011 320- and 480-mg Q24h doses exceeded the maximum tolerated dose. At the RP2D of 40 mg every 8 hours (Q8h), the most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 3.2-6.5% of patients. Of 14 ALK inhibitor-naive patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, 6 experienced partial responses and 8 had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: At the RP2D (40 mg Q8h), TSR-011 demonstrated a favourable safety profile with acceptable QTc changes. Limited clinical activity was observed. Based on the competitive ALK inhibitor landscape and benefit/risk considerations, further TSR-011 development was discontinued. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02048488.

A phase Ib dose-escalation and expansion study of the oral MEK inhibitor pimasertib and PI3K/MTOR inhibitor voxtalisib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: This phase Ib study evaluated the safety, maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of pimasertib (MSC1936369B), a MEK1/2 inhibitor, in combination with voxtalisib (SAR245409), a pan-PI3K and mTORC1/mTORC2 inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: This study included a dose escalation and expansion in patients with select tumour types and alterations in the MAPK or PI3K pathways. A 3 + 3 design was used to determine MTD. Patients were evaluated for adverse events and tumour response. RESULTS: 146 patients were treated, including 63 in dose escalation and 83 in expansion. The MTD was pimasertib 90 mg and voxtalisib 70 mg daily. Based on the safety profile, the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was pimasertib 60 mg and voxtalisib 70 mg. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were diarrhoea (75%), fatigue (57%), and nausea (50%). Responses included a complete response in one patient (1%), partial response in five (5%), and stable disease in 51 (46%). At the RP2D, 74 patients required dose interruption (73%), 20 required dose reduction (20%), and 26 discontinued treatment due to TEAEs (26%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of pimasertib and voxtalisib showed poor long-term tolerability and limited anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced solid tumours.

Phase 1 safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor dinaciclib administered every three weeks in patients with advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Dinaciclib is a potent inhibitor of cell cycle and transcriptional cyclin-dependent kinases. This Phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of various dosing schedules of dinaciclib in advanced solid tumour patients and assessed pharmacodynamic and preliminary anti-tumour activity. METHODS: In part 1, patients were enrolled in escalating cohorts of 2-h infusions administered once every 3 weeks, utilising an accelerated titration design until a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was defined. In part 2, 8- and 24-h infusions were evaluated. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for all schedules. Pharmacodynamic effects were assessed with an ex vivo stimulated lymphocyte proliferation assay performed in whole blood.Effects of dinaciclib on retinoblastoma (Rb) phosphorylation and other CDK targets were evaluated in skin and tumour biopsies. In addition to tumour size, metabolic response was evaluated by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were enrolled to parts 1 and 2. The RP2Ds were 50, 7.4 and 10.4 mg m-2 as 2- 8- and 24-hour infusions, respectively. Dose-limiting toxicities included pancytopenia, neutropenic fever, elevated transaminases, hyperuricemia and hypotension. Pharmacokinetics demonstrated rapid distribution and a short plasma half-life. Dinaciclib suppressed proliferation of stimulated lymphocytes. In skin and tumour biopsies, dinaciclib reduced Rb phosphorylation at CDK2 phospho-sites and modulated expression of cyclin D1 and p53, suggestive of CDK9 inhibition. Although there were no RECIST responses, eight patients had prolonged stable disease and received between 6 and 30 cycles. Early metabolic responses occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Dinaciclib is tolerable at doses demonstrating target engagement in surrogate and tumour tissue.

Phase I trial of MEK 1/2 inhibitor pimasertib combined with mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background Dual inhibition of activated MAPK and mTOR signaling pathways may enhance the antitumor efficacy of the MEK 1/2 inhibitor pimasertib and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus given in combination. Methods In this phase I study, patients with refractory advanced solid tumors (NCT01378377) received once-weekly temsirolimus plus once-daily oral pimasertib in 21-day cycles in a modified 3 + 3 dose-escalation design. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of pimasertib in combination with temsirolimus, safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) were investigated. Results Of 33 patients evaluated, all experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and 31 had treatment-related TEAEs, most frequently stomatitis and thrombocytopenia. TEAEs were reversible. No deaths were attributed to treatment. Nine patients had dose-limiting toxicities (stomatitis, thrombocytopenia, serum creatinine phosphokinase increase, visual impairment) and the MTD was determined as 45 mg/day pimasertib plus 25 mg/week temsirolimus. However, due to overlapping toxicities no further investigations were performed and the RP2D was not defined. PK profiles of both agents were not adversely affected. Seventeen patients (17/26 patients) had a best response of stable disease; five had stable disease lasting >12 weeks. Conclusions The RP2D was not defined and the pimasertib plus temsirolimus combination investigated did not warrant further study.

Pharmacokinetic study of aldoxorubicin in patients with solid tumors.

Introduction Aldoxorubicin, a prodrug of doxorubicin, binds covalently to serum albumin in the bloodstream and accumulates in tumors. Aldoxorubicin can be administered at doses several-fold higher than doxorubicin can, without associated acute cardiotoxicity. Purpose This study fully evaluated the pharmacokinetic profile of aldoxorubicin (serum and urine). Methods Eighteen patients with advanced solid tumors received aldoxorubicin 230 or 350 mg/m(2) (equivalent in drug load to doxorubicin at doses of 170 or 260 mg/m(2), respectively) once every 21 days. Blood samples were taken in cycle 1 before aldoxorubicin infusion, and at 5, 15, 30, and 60 min, and at 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 48, and 72 h after infusion. Urine samples were taken in cycle 1 at 24, 48, and 72 h after infusion. Limited blood sampling was done in cycle 3, before aldoxorubicin infusion, and at 60 min and at 2, 4, and 8 h after infusion. Results The long mean half-life (20.1-21.1 h), narrow mean volume of distribution (3.96-4.08 L/m(2)), and slow mean clearance rate (0.136-0.152 L/h/m(2)) suggest that aldoxorubicin is stable in circulation and does not accumulate readily in body compartments outside of the bloodstream. Very little doxorubicin and its major metabolite doxorubicinol, which has been implicated in doxorubicin-associated cardiotoxicity, are excreted in urine. This might explain the lack of cardiotoxicity observed thus far with aldoxorubicin. Conclusions Our findings support dosing and administration schemas used in an ongoing phase 3 clinical study of aldoxorubicin in soft tissue sarcoma, and phase 2 clinical studies in small cell lung cancer, glioblastoma, and Kaposi's sarcoma.

A multicenter, open-label, Phase 1 study evaluating the safety and tolerability of pegaspargase in combination with gemcitabine in advanced metastatic solid tumors and lymphoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the maximum tolerated dose, safety profile, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of pegaspargase (PEG-ASP) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced metastatic solid tumors and lymphoma. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open label, nonrandomized, Phase 1 dose escalation study designed to evaluate up to 10 cohorts of patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors and lymphoma. Seventeen patients were treated with of PEG-ASP in combination with gemcitabine. RESULTS: The study was terminated early because the doses for PEG-ASP suggested for de-escalation were predicted not to provide desired sustained asparaginase concentrations based on the analysis of treated patients.

Adnectin-targeted inhibitors: rationale and results.

Adnectins are a family of binding proteins derived from the 10th type III domain of human fibronectin (10Fn3), which is part of the immunoglobulin superfamily and normally binds integrin. The 10Fn3 has the potential for broad therapeutic applications given its structural stability, ability to be manipulated, and its abundance in the human body. The most commonly studied adnectin is CT-322, which is an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2. A bispecific adnectin, El-Tandem, has also been developed and binds to epidermal growth factor receptor and insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor simultaneously. Pre-clinical studies have shown promising results in relation to reducing tumor growth, decreasing microvessel density, and promoting normalization of tumor architecture. The phase I trial with CT-322 demonstrates relatively low toxicities. However, the phase II study done with CT-322 in recurrent glioblastoma does not reveal as promising results.

Relative bioavailability of a prototype oral solution of the Aurora A kinase inhibitor alisertib (MLN8237) in patients with advanced solid tumors.

OBJECTIVES: Alisertib (MLN8237) is an investigational, oral, small-molecule, selective inhibitor of Aurora A kinase. Phase I/II studies of powder-in-capsule (PIC) and enteric-coated tablet formulations of alisertib have determined the recommended phase II dose and have demonstrated anti-tumor activity. This phase I relative bioavailability study characterized the pharmacokinetics of a prototype oral solution (OS) of alisertib (developed for patients unable to swallow solid dosage forms) in reference to the PIC formulation in adult cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A safety evaluation was undertaken first following a 3+3 design (OS starting dose, 15 mg). The relative bioavailability of alisertib OS vs. PIC was then evaluated following single dose administration of alisertib OS 25 mg and PIC 50 mg, using a 2-way crossover study design. RESULTS: The relative bioavailability (geometric mean dose-normalized AUCinf ratio) of alisertib OS vs. PIC formulation was 1.26 (90% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-1.47 (OS, n=17; PIC, n=18 evaluable patients)). These results support a distinguishable difference in bioavailability of alisertib between the two formulations (lower bound of 90% CI>1), with an estimated 26% higher total systemic exposure with alisertib OS vs. PIC. Alisertib absorption from OS was faster than from PIC, with a shorter median tmax (OS, 1 hour; PIC, 2 hours) and a geometric mean dose-normalized Cmax ratio (OS vs. PIC) of 1.90 (90% CI: 1.52 - 2.37). CONCLUSIONS: These findings inform the starting dose of alisertib OS to support further clinical evaluation of alisertib in patients unable to swallow solid dosage forms.

Phase I dose-escalation study of cabazitaxel administered in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Cabazitaxel is a second-generation taxane with in vivo activity against taxane-sensitive and -resistant tumor cell lines and tumor xenografts. Cabazitaxel/cisplatin have therapeutic synergism in tumor-bearing mice, providing a rationale for assessing this combination in patients with solid tumors. METHODS: The primary objectives of this study were to determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a cabazitaxel/cisplatin combined regimen (Part 1) and to assess antitumor activity at the MTD (Part 2). Safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) were also examined. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled (10 in Part 1; 15 in Part 2). In Part 1, two dose levels were evaluated; the MTD for cabazitaxel/cisplatin (given Q3W) was 15/75 mg/m(2). DLTs occurring during Cycle 1 at the maximum administered dose (20/75 mg/m(2); acute renal failure and febrile neutropenia) and the MTD (febrile neutropenia and hypersensitivity despite pre-medication) were as expected for taxane/platinum combinations. For the 18 patients treated at the MTD, the most frequent possibly related non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (Grade ≥ 3) were nausea (16.7%), fatigue, acute renal failure and decreased appetite (each 11.1%). Neutropenia was the most frequent treatment-emergent Grade ≥ 3 hematologic laboratory abnormality at the MTD (77.8%). The best overall response at the MTD was stable disease, observed in 66.7% of patients. PK results of the combination did not appear to differ from single-agent administration for each agent. CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with cabazitaxel/cisplatin had a manageable safety profile; no PK interactions were evident. The recommended Phase II dose for this combination is cabazitaxel/cisplatin 15/75 mg/m(2) administered every 3 weeks. Antitumor activity findings suggest that further evaluation of this combination in disease-specific trials is warranted.

Inhibition of lysine acetyltransferase KAT6 in ER+HER2- metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1 trial.

Inhibition of histone lysine acetyltransferases (KATs) KAT6A and KAT6B has shown antitumor activity in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer preclinical models. PF-07248144 is a selective catalytic inhibitor of KAT6A and KAT6B. In the present study, we report the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, efficacy and biomarker results from the first-in-human, phase 1 dose escalation and dose expansion study (n = 107) of PF-07248144 monotherapy and fulvestrant combination in heavily pretreated ER+ human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). The primary objectives of assessing the safety and tolerability and determining the recommended dose for expansion of PF-07248144, as monotherapy and in combination with fulvestrant, were met. Secondary endpoints included characterization of PK and evaluation of antitumor activity, including objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Common treatment-related adverse events (any grade; grades 3-4) included dysgeusia (83.2%, 0%), neutropenia (59.8%, 35.5%) and anemia (48.6%, 13.1%). Exposure was approximately dose proportional. Antitumor activity was observed as monotherapy. For the PF-07248144-fulvestrant combination (n = 43), the ORR (95% confidence interval (CI)) was 30.2% (95% CI = 17.2-46.1%) and the median PFS was 10.7 (5.3-not evaluable) months. PF-07248144 demonstrated a tolerable safety profile and durable antitumor activity in heavily pretreated ER+HER2- mBC. These findings establish KAT6A and KAT6B as druggable cancer targets, provide clinical proof of concept and reveal a potential avenue to treat mBC. clinicaltrial.gov registration: NCT04606446 .

Single-cell and spatial profiling identify three response trajectories to pembrolizumab and radiation therapy in triple negative breast cancer.

Strategies are needed to better identify patients that will benefit from immunotherapy alone or who may require additional therapies like chemotherapy or radiotherapy to overcome resistance. Here we employ single-cell transcriptomics and spatial proteomics to profile triple negative breast cancer biopsies taken at baseline, after one cycle of pembrolizumab, and after a second cycle of pembrolizumab given with radiotherapy. Non-responders lack immune infiltrate before and after therapy and exhibit minimal therapy-induced immune changes. Responding tumors form two groups that are distinguishable by a classifier prior to therapy, with one showing high major histocompatibility complex expression, evidence of tertiary lymphoid structures, and displaying anti-tumor immunity before treatment. The other responder group resembles non-responders at baseline and mounts a maximal immune response, characterized by cytotoxic T cell and antigen presenting myeloid cell interactions, only after combination therapy, which is mirrored in a murine model of triple negative breast cancer.

Endocrine-Sensitive Disease Rate in Postmenopausal Patients With Estrogen Receptor-Rich/ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Anastrozole, Fulvestrant, or Their Combination: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Adding fulvestrant to anastrozole (A+F) improved survival in postmenopausal women with advanced estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative breast cancer. However, the combination has not been tested in early-stage disease. Objective: To determine whether neoadjuvant fulvestrant or A+F increases the rate of pathologic complete response or ypT1-2N0/N1mic/Ki67 2.7% or less residual disease (referred to as endocrine-sensitive disease) over anastrozole alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: A phase 3 randomized clinical trial assessing differences in clinical and correlative outcomes between each of the fulvestrant-containing arms and the anastrozole arm. Postmenopausal women with clinical stage II to III, ER-rich (Allred score 6-8 or >66%)/ERBB2-negative breast cancer were included. All analyses were based on data frozen on March 2, 2023. Interventions: Patients received anastrozole, fulvestrant, or a combination for 6 months preoperatively. Tumor Ki67 was assessed at week 4 and optionally at week 12, and if greater than 10% at either time point, the patient switched to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or immediate surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the endocrine-sensitive disease rate (ESDR). A secondary outcome was the percentage change in Ki67 after 4 weeks of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) (week 4 Ki67 suppression). Results: Between February 2014 and November 2018, 1362 female patients (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [8.2] years) were enrolled. Among the 1298 evaluable patients, ESDRs were 18.7% (95% CI, 15.1%-22.7%), 22.8% (95% CI, 18.9%-27.1%), and 20.5% (95% CI, 16.8%-24.6%) with anastrozole, fulvestrant, and A+F, respectively. Compared to anastrozole, neither fulvestrant-containing regimen significantly improved ESDR or week 4 Ki67 suppression. The rate of week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10% was 25.1%, 24.2%, and 15.7% with anastrozole, fulvestrant, and A+F, respectively. Pathologic complete response/residual cancer burden class I occurred in 8 of 167 patients and 17 of 167 patients, respectively (15.0%; 95% CI, 9.9%-21.3%), after switching to neoadjuvant chemotherapy due to week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10%. PAM50 subtyping derived from RNA sequencing of baseline biopsies available for 753 patients (58%) identified 394 luminal A, 304 luminal B, and 55 nonluminal tumors. A+F led to a greater week 4 Ki67 suppression than anastrozole alone in luminal B tumors (median [IQR], -90.4% [-95.2 to -81.9%] vs -76.7% [-89.0 to -55.6%]; P < .001), but not luminal A tumors. Thirty-six nonluminal tumors (65.5%) had a week 4 or week 12 Ki67 greater than 10%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, neither fulvestrant nor A+F significantly improved the 6-month ESDR over anastrozole in ER-rich/ERBB2-negative breast cancer. Aromatase inhibition remains the standard-of-care NET. Differential NET response by PAM50 subtype in exploratory analyses warrants further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01953588.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in OlympiA: A Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Adjuvant Olaparib in gBRCA1/2 Mutations and High-Risk Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Early Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The OlympiA randomized phase III trial compared 1 year of olaparib (OL) or placebo (PL) as adjuvant therapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2, high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer after completing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy ([N]ACT), surgery, and radiotherapy. The patient-reported outcome primary hypothesis was that OL-treated patients may experience greater fatigue during treatment. METHODS: Data were collected before random assignment, and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary end point was fatigue, measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale. Secondary end points, assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, Core 30 item, included nausea and vomiting (NV), diarrhea, and multiple functional domains. Scores were compared between treatment groups using mixed model for repeated measures. Two-sided P values <.05 were statistically significant for the primary end point. All secondary end points were descriptive. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and thirty-eight patients (NACT: 746, ACT: 792) contributed to the analysis. Fatigue severity was statistically significantly greater for OL versus PL, but not clinically meaningfully different by prespecified criteria (≥3 points) at 6 months (diff OL v PL: NACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .022; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.2]; P = .017) and 12 months (NACT: -1.6 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.3]; P = .017; ACT: -1.3 [95% CI, -2.4 to -0.2]; P = .025). There were no significant differences in fatigue severity between treatment groups at 18 and 24 months. NV severity was worse in patients treated with OL compared with PL at 6 months (NACT: 6.0 [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.0]; ACT: 5.3 [95% CI, 3.4 to 7.2]) and 12 months (NACT: 6.4 [95% CI, 4.4 to 8.3]; ACT: 4.5 [95% CI, 2.8 to 6.1]). During treatment, there were some clinically meaningful differences between groups for other symptoms but not for function subscales or global health status. CONCLUSION: Treatment-emergent symptoms from OL were limited, generally resolving after treatment ended. OL- and PL-treated patients had similar functional scores, slowly improving during the 24 months after (N)ACT and there was no clinically meaningful persistence of fatigue severity in OL-treated patients.

A phase I dose-escalation study of intravenous panobinostat in patients with lymphoma and solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Panobinostat, a pan-deacetylase inhibitor, is a promising anti-cancer agent that increases acetylation of proteins associated with growth and survival pathways of malignant cells. The primary objective of this phase I dose-escalation study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of intravenous (i.v.) panobinostat administered on different dosing schedules in patients with advanced solid tumors or lymphoma. Secondary objective was to characterize safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetic profiles, and activities of the i.v. formulation. METHODS: i.v. panobinostat was administered at escalating doses on a daily (days 1-3 and 8-10 of a 21-day cycle; days 1-3 and 15-17 of a 28-day cycle) or weekly (days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle; days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) schedule, and safety and tolerability were monitored. Serial blood samples were collected following dosing for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses. RESULTS: The MTD for the daily administration schedule was 7.2 g/m(2), whereas the MTD for the weekly schedule was 20.0 mg/m(2). In addition to fatigue and cardiac arrhythmias, including prolonged QTcF, DLTs associated with the study drug were principally due to myelosuppressive effects. Maximum concentrations and bioavailability of i.v. panobinostat increased dose-proportionally across all doses evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study and others, the i.v. formulation of panobinostat was well tolerated in many patients, but concerns remain regarding its potential suitability outside the study setting due to potential electrocardiogram abnormalities. Therefore, further development will focus on the panobinostat oral formulation.