A phase 1/2a safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy study of the novel nucleoside analog FF-10502-01 for the treatment of advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: The nucleoside FF-10502-01, structurally similar to but with different biologic effects than gemcitabine, shows promising activity both alone and combined with cisplatin in preclinical gemcitabine-resistant tumor models. We conducted an open-label, single-arm, 3 + 3 first-in-human trial to explore the safety, tolerability, and antitumor activity of FF-10502-01 in patients with solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with inoperable metastatic tumors refractory to standard therapies were enrolled. Escalating intravenous FF-10502-01 doses (8-135 mg/m2 ) were administered weekly for 3 weeks in 28-day cycles until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity was observed. Three expansion cohorts were subsequently evaluated. RESULTS: A phase 2 dose of 90 mg/m2 was determined after evaluating 40 patients. Dose-limiting toxicities included hypotension and nausea. Phase 2a enrolled patients with cholangiocarcinoma (36), gallbladder cancer (10), and pancreatic/other tumors (20). Common adverse events were grade 1-2 rash, pruritus, fever, and fatigue. Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicities were observed at low incidences, including thrombocytopenia (5.1%) and neutropenia (2%). Confirmed partial responses (PRs) occurred in five patients with gemcitabine-refractory tumors, including three with cholangiocarcinoma and one each with gallbladder and urothelial cancer. Median progression-free and overall survival rates in patients with cholangiocarcinoma were 24.7 and 39.1 weeks, respectively. Prolonged progression-free survival in patients with cholangiocarcinoma was associated with BAP1 and PBRM1 mutations. CONCLUSION: FF-10502-01 was well tolerated with manageable side effects and limited hematologic toxicity. Durable PRs and disease stabilizations were observed in heavily pretreated biliary tract patients who had received prior gemcitabine. FF-10502-01 is distinct from gemcitabine and may represent an effective therapy.

Characterization of Blood-Based Molecular Profiling in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

Background: Molecular profiling is being explored in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) as a tool to assist with early detection, prognosis, and patient selection in targeted therapy clinical trials. Due to the challenges and risks of traditional tissue biopsies in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the utility of blood-based molecular profiling is now being explored more broadly. However, given its novelty, what value blood-based molecular profiling may provide to oncologists caring for individuals with PDAC remains unknown. Herein, we characterize the mutational landscape of metastatic PDAC using blood-based circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) collected in patients with refractory, metastatic PDAC who were referred to an oncology drug development unit in Denver, Colorado, between August 2014 and May 2019. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed results of blood-based molecular profiling that was performed on 77 consecutive patients with metastatic PDAC who underwent Guardant-360 testing for whom results were available. Results: In our data set, 55% of patients (41/77) were men, median (SD) age was 66 (9.3) years (range, 44-83). Of 77 patients, 34 (44%) had 1 or more somatic alterations. Variants reported as being of unknown significance were not included in the analyses. The total number of alterations were 119 (nonunique) and 96 (unique). The median number of alterations per patient was 3 and the median mutant allele frequency was 0.5%. TP53 was the most commonly altered gene (29 unique alterations), followed by KRAS (27 unique alterations). Of the patients with any alteration, 34% had 1 or more actionable alterations that could be potentially targeted in a clinical trial. Conclusions: Detection of genomic alterations in ctDNA from patients with metastatic PDAC is feasible and reveals a wide range of genomic alterations, the actionability of which is being explored in clinical trials. Further investigation is needed to determine the extent to which blood-based molecular profiling can provide clinical utility in helping to select patients into clinical trials and determine its impact on survival.

Molecular Profiling Practices in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Academic vs Community Physicians.

Background: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is relatively rare but highly aggressive, with most patients diagnosed once they have metastatic or locally invasive disease. Molecular profiling is being explored as a tool for selecting patients for targeted therapy clinical trials and for assessing whether targeted therapies may be effective in PDAC. Whether molecular profiling is being performed at both academic and community oncology clinics has yet to be examined. Here, we characterized the molecular profiling practice patterns in patients with PDAC in academic versus community practices in Denver, Colorado. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed records of all patients with refractory, metastatic PDAC who were referred to a tertiary clinical trials drug development unit in Denver between 2014 and 2019. Results: Of 77 patients, 41 (55%) were men with a mean age of 65 years (SD, 9.3). Fifty-three patients (69%) were referred from the community and 20 (26%) from academic centers; 4 (5%) were self-referred. A total of 51% received profiling prior to referral; 29 of 50 (58%) were from the community and 10 of 21 (47%) from academic settings. Guardant was the most commonly ordered test (47 of 77; 61%); FoundationOne was the second most common (40 of 77; 52%). Twenty-three of 77 patients (30%) received both Guardant and FoundationOne testing, and 3 of 77 (4%) received Caris MI Profile. One patient received a Mocha assay and another received Ascend/Clarient fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Four patients were self-referred, 2 of whom underwent both Guardant and FoundationOne, 1 who underwent Guardant testing only, and 1 who did not receive any molecular profiling testing. Conclusions: This study characterizes molecular profiling practice patterns in individuals with advanced PDAC who were referred to a tertiary clinical trials drug development unit. Both academic and community physicians were found to order profiling about 50% of the time. Further research is needed to determine impact on clinical trial enrollment and detection of PDAC.

Screening for Phase 1 Clinical Trials: An Opportunity to Evaluate Psychological States and Reeducate Patients on Prognosis?

Disease progression or recurrence after a period of remission can be a challenging event for individuals seeking cancer treatment. Those referred for possible phase 1 trial enrollment are often motivated to participate in these studies with hope for a cure despite approximately 5% response rates in this setting. Addressing such commonly held misunderstandings during the initial evaluation for phase 1 trial eligibility could provide a valuable opportunity to improve physician communication by identifying signs of distress or psychiatric conditions, addressing underlying psychological biases, and encouraging adaptive coping strategies.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment in Patients With Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Eligible for Early-Phase Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Early-phase clinical trials are critical to the advancement of cancer care, especially in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, given its aggressive nature and limited available therapeutic options. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients with refractory or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, referred to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE between 2014 and 2019, were reviewed. Patients who completed genomic profiling and qualified for a phase 1 trial (primarily 1a but some 1b) were identified to assess barriers to trial enrollment. RESULTS: Of 74 identified patients, 54 patients (73%) qualified for at least 1 clinical trial based on eligibility criteria and alterations detected via molecular profiling. Up to 40 industry-sponsored clinical trials were available during this time for consideration. Of the 54, 28 patients (52%) enrolled in a clinical trial, while 26 (48%) did not enroll. The most frequently cited barriers to enrollment were concerns regarding time commitment (12%), prolonged wait time for enrollment (12%), and fear of adverse events (8%). Seven of the 26 patients (27%) were lost to follow-up or had no stated reason for declining enrollment; others did not go on trial due to death/transition to hospice (n=5; 19%) or progression of disease/declining functional status (n=4; 15%). There were few statistically significant differences between patients who chose to go on trial and those who declined. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of why eligible patients elect not to participate in early-phase clinical trials provides insight into the patient experience and can help identify misperceptions and areas for improvement in education and the clinical trial enrollment process.

Development of a prognostic scoring system for patients with advanced cancer enrolled in immune checkpoint inhibitor phase 1 clinical trials.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.85.

Phase I study of nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancers.

BACKGROUND: We performed a phase I modified 3 + 3 dose escalation study to evaluate the safety and activity of bevacizumab plus gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients were given fixed dose gemcitabine plus increasing doses of nab-paclitaxel and bevacizumab. Toxicity, response, and association with VEGF polymorphism was analysed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 110 patients who had undergone a median of 3 prior lines of therapy. The median age was 60 years (range, 17-85 years), and 55 patients (50%) had gemcitabine-refractory disease. We observed 3 dose-limiting toxicities during dose escalation and 3 DLTs in expansion cohorts. Dose escalation to 150 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel and 15 mg/kg bevacizumab with 1000 mg/m2 of gemcitabine was well tolerated with no MTD. One patient with gemcitabine-refractory peritoneal papillary carcinoma had a complete response, 13 patients (13%) had partial responses, and 54 patients (52%) had stable disease ≥12 weeks. Exploratory VEGF single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis was performed on 13 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and bevacizumab is safe, well-tolerated, and has activity in advanced malignancies, including gemcitabine-refractory tumours. Based on this study, the recommended phase 2 dose is gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg. VEGF polymorphism data should be evaluated in future bevacizumab-based trials.

Remodeling of glucose metabolism precedes pressure overload-induced left ventricular hypertrophy: review of a hypothesis.

When subjected to pressure overload, the ventricular myocardium shifts from fatty acids to glucose as its main source for energy provision and frequently increases its mass. Here, we review the evidence in support of the concept that metabolic remodeling, measured as an increased myocardial glucose uptake using dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) with the glucose analogue 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG), precedes the onset of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and heart failure. Consistent with this, early intervention with propranolol, which attenuates glucose uptake, prevents the maladaptive metabolic response and preserves cardiac function in vivo. We also review ex vivo studies suggesting a link between dysregulated myocardial glucose metabolism, intracellular accumulation of glucose 6-phosphate (G6P) and contractile dysfunction of the heart. G6P levels correlate with activation of mTOR (mechanistic target of rapamycin) and endoplasmic reticulum stress. This sequence of events could be prevented by pretreatment with rapamycin (mTOR inhibition) or metformin (enzyme 5'-AMP-activated protein kinase activation). In conclusion, we propose that metabolic imaging with FDG PET may provide a novel approach to guide the treatment of patients with hypertension-induced LVH.

Impact of Biomarker-Matched Therapies on Outcomes in Patients with Sarcoma Enrolled in Early-Phase Clinical Trials (SAMBA 101).

PURPOSE: Developing new therapeutics for any of the more than 100 sarcoma subtypes presents a challenge. After progression from standard therapies, patients with sarcoma may be referred for enrollment in early-phase trials. This study aimed to investigate whether enrollment in biomarker-matched early-phase clinical trials leads to better outcomes for patients with advanced sarcoma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this retrospective analysis, investigational treatment characteristics and longitudinal survival outcomes were analyzed in patients with biopsy-confirmed sarcoma enrolled in early-phase trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center from May 2006 to July 2021. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-seven patients were included [405 soft tissue, 122 bone, 60 gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST); median of three prior lines of therapy]. Most common subtypes were leiomyosarcoma (17.2%), liposarcoma (14.0%), and GIST (10.2%). Molecular testing was available for 511 patients (87.1%); 221 patients (37.6%) were treated in matched trials. Overall response rate was 13.1% matched compared with 4.9% in unmatched (P < 0.001); the clinical benefit rate at 6 months was 43.9% vs. 19.9% (P < 0.001). Progression-free survival was longer for patients in matched trials (median, 5.5 vs. 2.4 months; P < 0.001), and overall survival was also superior for patients in matched trials (median, 21.5 vs. 12.3 months; P < 0.001). The benefit of enrollment in matched trials was maintained when patients with GIST were excluded from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Enrollment in biomarker-matched early-phase trials is associated with improved outcomes in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic sarcoma. Molecular testing of tumors from patients with advanced sarcoma and enrollment in matched trials is a reasonable therapeutic strategy.

Bariatric surgery to unload the stressed heart: a metabolic hypothesis.

Obesity is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Data from the Framingham Study have reported a higher incidence of heart failure in obese individuals compared with a normal cohort. The body initially copes with the abundance of fuel present in an obese milieu by storing it in adipose tissue. However, when the storage capacity is exceeded, the excess energy is taken up and stored ectopically as fat in vital organs such as the heart. Indeed, intramyocardial lipid overload is present in hearts of obese patients, as well as in hearts of animal models of obesity, and is associated with a distinct gene expression profile and cardiac dysfunction. By imposing a metabolic stress on the heart, obesity causes it to hypertrophy and ultimately to fail. Conventional measures to treat obesity include diet, exercise, and drugs. More recently, weight loss surgery (WLS) has achieved increasing prominence because of its ability to reduce the neurohumoral load, normalize metabolic dysregulation, and improve overall survival. The effects of WLS on systemic metabolic, neurohumoral, and hemodynamic parameters are well described and include an early normalization of serum glucose and insulin levels as well as reduction in blood pressure. WLS is also associated with reverse cardiac remodeling, regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, and improved left ventricular and right ventricular function. By targeting the source of the excess energy, we hypothesize that WLS improves contractile function by limiting exogenous substrate availability to the metabolically overloaded heart. These changes have also been found to be associated with increased levels of adiponectin and improved insulin sensitivity. Taken together, the sustained beneficial effects of WLS on left ventricular mass and function highlight the need to better understand the mechanism by which obesity regulates cardiovascular physiology.