Targeting myeloid chemotaxis to reverse prostate cancer therapy resistance.

Inflammation is a hallmark of cancer1. In patients with cancer, peripheral blood myeloid expansion, indicated by a high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, associates with shorter survival and treatment resistance across malignancies and therapeutic modalities2-5. Whether myeloid inflammation drives progression of prostate cancer in humans remain unclear. Here we show that inhibition of myeloid chemotaxis can reduce tumour-elicited myeloid inflammation and reverse therapy resistance in a subset of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We show that a higher blood neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio reflects tumour myeloid infiltration and tumour expression of senescence-associated mRNA species, including those that encode myeloid-chemoattracting CXCR2 ligands. To determine whether myeloid cells fuel resistance to androgen receptor signalling inhibitors, and whether inhibiting CXCR2 to block myeloid chemotaxis reverses this, we conducted an investigator-initiated, proof-of-concept clinical trial of a CXCR2 inhibitor (AZD5069) plus enzalutamide in patients with metastatic CRPC that is resistant to androgen receptor signalling inhibitors. This combination was well tolerated without dose-limiting toxicity and it decreased circulating neutrophil levels, reduced intratumour CD11b+HLA-DRloCD15+CD14- myeloid cell infiltration and imparted durable clinical benefit with biochemical and radiological responses in a subset of patients with metastatic CRPC. This study provides clinical evidence that senescence-associated myeloid inflammation can fuel metastatic CRPC progression and resistance to androgen receptor blockade. Targeting myeloid chemotaxis merits broader evaluation in other cancers.

A Phase I Trial of CT900, a Novel α-Folate Receptor-Mediated Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitor, in Patients with Solid Tumors with Expansion Cohorts in Patients with High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: CT900 is a novel small molecule thymidylate synthase inhibitor that binds to α-folate receptor (α-FR) and thus is selectively taken up by α-FR-overexpressing tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 3+3 dose escalation design was used. During dose escalation, CT900 doses of 1-6 mg/m2 weekly and 2-12 mg/m2 every 2 weeks (q2Wk) intravenously were evaluated. Patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were enrolled in the expansion cohorts. RESULTS: 109 patients were enrolled: 42 patients in the dose escalation and 67 patients in the expansion cohorts. At the dose/schedule of 12 mg/m2/q2Wk (with and without dexamethasone, n = 40), the most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, cough, anemia, and pneumonitis, which were predominantly grade 1 and grade 2. Levels of CT900 more than 600 nmol/L needed for growth inhibition in preclinical models were achieved for >65 hours at a dose of 12 mg/m2. In the expansion cohorts, the overall response rate (ORR), was 14/64 (21.9%). Thirty-eight response-evaluable patients in the expansion cohorts receiving 12 mg/m2/q2Wk had tumor evaluable for quantification of α-FR. Patients with high or medium expression had an objective response rate of 9/25 (36%) compared with 1/13 (7.7%) in patients with negative/very low or low expression of α-FR. CONCLUSIONS: The dose of 12 mg/m2/q2Wk was declared the recommended phase II dose/schedule. At this dose/schedule, CT900 exhibited an acceptable side effect profile with clinical benefit in patients with high/medium α-FR expression and warrants further investigation.

Phase 1, dose-escalation study of guadecitabine (SGI-110) in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that immunomodulation induced by DNA hypomethylating agents can sensitize tumors to immune checkpoint inhibitors. We conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation trial (NCT02998567) of guadecitabine and pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. We hypothesized that guadecitabine will overcome pembrolizumab resistance. METHODS: Patients received guadecitabine (45 mg/m2 or 30 mg/m2, administered subcutaneously on days 1-4), with pembrolizumab (200 mg administered intravenously starting from cycle 2 onwards) every 3 weeks. Primary endpoints were safety, tolerability and maximum tolerated dose; secondary and exploratory endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), changes in methylome, transcriptome, immune contextures in pre-treatment and on-treatment tumor biopsies. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and January 2020, 34 patients were enrolled. The recommended phase II dose was guadecitabine 30 mg/m2, days 1-4, and pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 every 3 weeks. Two dose-limiting toxicities (neutropenia, febrile neutropenia) were reported at guadecitabine 45 mg/m2 with none reported at guadecitabine 30 mg/m2. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were neutropenia (58.8%), fatigue (17.6%), febrile neutropenia (11.8%) and nausea (11.8%). Common, grade 3+ TRAEs were neutropaenia (38.2%) and febrile neutropaenia (11.8%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Overall, 30 patients were evaluable for antitumor activity; ORR was 7% with 37% achieving disease control (progression-free survival) for ≥24 weeks. Of 12 evaluable patients with non-small cell lung cancer, 10 had been previously treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors with 5 (42%) having disease control ≥24 weeks (clinical benefit). Reduction in LINE-1 DNA methylation following treatment in blood (peripheral blood mononuclear cells) and tissue samples was demonstrated and methylation at transcriptional start site and 5' untranslated region gene regions showed enriched negative correlation with gene expression. Increases in intra-tumoural effector T-cells were seen in some responding patients. Patients having clinical benefit had high baseline inflammatory signature on RNAseq analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Guadecitabine in combination with pembrolizumab is tolerable with biological and anticancer activity. Reversal of previous resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors is demonstrated.

Triplet Therapy with Palbociclib, Taselisib, and Fulvestrant in PIK3CA-Mutant Breast Cancer and Doublet Palbociclib and Taselisib in Pathway-Mutant Solid Cancers.

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) and PI3K inhibitors synergize in PIK3CA-mutant ER-positive HER2-negative breast cancer models. We conducted a phase Ib trial investigating the safety and efficacy of doublet CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib plus selective PI3K inhibitor taselisib in advanced solid tumors, and triplet palbociclib plus taselisib plus fulvestrant in 25 patients with PIK3CA-mutant, ER-positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The triplet therapy response rate in PIK3CA-mutant, ER-positive HER2-negative cancer was 37.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 18.8-59.4]. Durable disease control was observed in PIK3CA-mutant ER-negative breast cancer and other solid tumors with doublet therapy. Both combinations were well tolerated at pharmacodynamically active doses. In the triplet group, high baseline cyclin E1 expression associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS; HR = 4.2; 95% CI, 1.3-13.1; P = 0.02). Early circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) dynamics demonstrated high on-treatment ctDNA association with shorter PFS (HR = 5.2; 95% CI, 1.4-19.4; P = 0.04). Longitudinal plasma ctDNA sequencing provided genomic evolution evidence during triplet therapy. SIGNIFICANCE: The triplet of palbociclib, taselisib, and fulvestrant has promising efficacy in patients with heavily pretreated PIK3CA-mutant ER-positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. A subset of patients with PIK3CA-mutant triple-negative breast cancer derived clinical benefit from palbociclib and taselisib doublet, suggesting a potential nonchemotherapy targeted approach for this population.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1.

Intermittent schedules of the oral RAF-MEK inhibitor CH5126766/VS-6766 in patients with RAS/RAF-mutant solid tumours and multiple myeloma: a single-centre, open-label, phase 1 dose-escalation and basket dose-expansion study.

BACKGROUND: CH5126766 (also known as VS-6766, and previously named RO5126766), a novel MEK-pan-RAF inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity across various solid tumours; however, its initial development was limited by toxicity. We aimed to investigate the safety and toxicity profile of intermittent dosing schedules of CH5126766, and the antitumour activity of this drug in patients with solid tumours and multiple myeloma harbouring RAS-RAF-MEK pathway mutations. METHODS: We did a single-centre, open-label, phase 1 dose-escalation and basket dose-expansion study at the Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust (London, UK). Patients were eligible for the study if they were aged 18 years or older, had cancers that were refractory to conventional treatment or for which no conventional therapy existed, and if they had a WHO performance status score of 0 or 1. For the dose-escalation phase, eligible patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic solid tumours. For the basket dose-expansion phase, eligible patients had advanced or metastatic solid tumours or multiple myeloma harbouring RAS-RAF-MEK pathway mutations. During the dose-escalation phase, we evaluated three intermittent oral schedules (28-day cycles) in patients with solid tumours: (1) 4·0 mg or 3·2 mg CH5126766 three times per week; (2) 4·0 mg CH5126766 twice per week; and (3) toxicity-guided dose interruption schedule, in which treatment at the recommended phase 2 dose (4·0 mg CH5126766 twice per week) was de-escalated to 3 weeks on followed by 1 week off if patients had prespecified toxic effects (grade 2 or worse diarrhoea, rash, or creatinine phosphokinase elevation). In the basket dose-expansion phase, we evaluated antitumour activity at the recommended phase 2 dose, determined from the dose-escalation phase, in biomarker-selected patients. The primary endpoints were the recommended phase 2 dose at which no more than one out of six patients had a treatment-related dose-limiting toxicity, and the safety and toxicity profile of each dosing schedule. The key secondary endpoint was investigator-assessed response rate in the dose-expansion phase. Patients who received at least one dose of the study drug were evaluable for safety and patients who received one cycle of the study drug and underwent baseline disease assessment were evaluable for response. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02407509. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2013, and Jan 10, 2019, 58 eligible patients were enrolled to the study: 29 patients with solid tumours were included in the dose-escalation cohort and 29 patients with solid tumours or multiple myeloma were included in the basket dose-expansion cohort (12 non-small-cell lung cancer, five gynaecological malignancy, four colorectal cancer, one melanoma, and seven multiple myeloma). Median follow-up at the time of data cutoff was 2·3 months (IQR 1·6-3·5). Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 bilateral retinal pigment epithelial detachment in one patient who received 4·0 mg CH5126766 three times per week, and grade 3 rash (in two patients) and grade 3 creatinine phosphokinase elevation (in one patient) in those who received 3·2 mg CH5126766 three times per week. 4·0 mg CH5126766 twice per week (on Monday and Thursday or Tuesday and Friday) was established as the recommended phase 2 dose. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were rash (11 [19%] patients), creatinine phosphokinase elevation (six [11%]), hypoalbuminaemia (six [11%]), and fatigue (four [7%]). Five (9%) patients had serious treatment-related adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. Eight (14%) of 57 patients died during the trial due to disease progression. Seven (27% [95% CI 11·6-47·8]) of 26 response-evaluable patients in the basket expansion achieved objective responses. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that highly intermittent schedules of a RAF-MEK inhibitor has antitumour activity across various cancers with RAF-RAS-MEK pathway mutations, and that this inhibitor is tolerable. CH5126766 used as a monotherapy and in combination regimens warrants further evaluation. FUNDING: Chugai Pharmaceutical.

Phase I Trial of the PARP Inhibitor Olaparib and AKT Inhibitor Capivasertib in Patients with BRCA1/2- and Non-BRCA1/2-Mutant Cancers.

Preclinical studies have demonstrated synergy between PARP and PI3K/AKT pathway inhibitors in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2)-deficient and BRCA1/2-proficient tumors. We conducted an investigator-initiated phase I trial utilizing a prospective intrapatient dose- escalation design to assess two schedules of capivasertib (AKT inhibitor) with olaparib (PARP inhibitor) in 64 patients with advanced solid tumors. Dose expansions enrolled germline BRCA1/2-mutant tumors, or BRCA1/2 wild-type cancers harboring somatic DNA damage response (DDR) or PI3K-AKT pathway alterations. The combination was well tolerated. Recommended phase II doses for the two schedules were: olaparib 300 mg twice a day with either capivasertib 400 mg twice a day 4 days on, 3 days off, or capivasertib 640 mg twice a day 2 days on, 5 days off. Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional. Pharmacodynamic studies confirmed phosphorylated (p) GSK3ß suppression, increased pERK, and decreased BRCA1 expression. Twenty-five (44.6%) of 56 evaluable patients achieved clinical benefit (RECIST complete response/partial response or stable disease ≥ 4 months), including patients with tumors harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations and BRCA1/2 wild-type cancers with or without DDR and PI3K-AKT pathway alterations. SIGNIFICANCE: In the first trial to combine PARP and AKT inhibitors, a prospective intrapatient dose- escalation design demonstrated safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic activity and assessed predictive biomarkers of response/resistance. Antitumor activity was observed in patients harboring tumors with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and BRCA1/2 wild-type cancers with or without somatic DDR and/or PI3K-AKT pathway alterations.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1426.