Botensilimab plus balstilimab in relapsed/refractory microsatellite stable metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase 1 trial.

Microsatellite stable metastatic colorectal cancer (MSS mCRC; mismatch repair proficient) has previously responded poorly to immune checkpoint blockade. Botensilimab (BOT) is an Fc-enhanced multifunctional anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) antibody designed to expand therapy to cold/poorly immunogenic solid tumors, such as MSS mCRC. BOT with or without balstilimab (BAL; anti-PD-1 antibody) is being evaluated in an ongoing expanded phase 1 study. The primary endpoint is safety and tolerability, which was evaluated separately in the dose-escalation portion of the study and in patients with MSS mCRC (using combined dose-escalation/dose-expansion data). Secondary endpoints include investigator-assessed RECIST version 1.1-confirmed objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Here we present outcomes in 148 heavily pre-treated patients with MSS mCRC (six from the dose-escalation cohort; 142 from the dose-expansion cohort) treated with BOT and BAL, 101 of whom were considered response evaluable with at least 6 months of follow-up. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 89% of patients with MSS mCRC (131/148), most commonly fatigue (35%, 52/148), diarrhea (32%, 47/148) and pyrexia (24%, 36/148), with no grade 5 TRAEs reported and a 12% discontinuation rate due to a TRAE (18/148; data fully mature). In the response-evaluable population (n = 101), ORR was 17% (17/101; 95% confidence interval (CI), 10-26%), and DCR was 61% (62/101; 95% CI, 51-71%). Median DOR was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 5.7 months-NR), and median PFS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.7-4.1 months), at a median follow-up of 10.3 months (range, 0.5-42.6 months; data continuing to mature). The combination of BOT plus BAL demonstrated a manageable safety profile with no new immune-mediated safety signals and encouraging clinical activity with durable responses. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03860272 .

Synergistic cytotoxicity of histone deacetylase and poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors and decitabine in pancreatic cancer cells: Implications for novel therapy.

Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) can modulate the acetylation status of proteins, influencing the genomic instability exhibited by cancer cells. Poly (ADP ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) have a direct effect on protein poly (ADP-ribosyl)ation, which is important for DNA repair. Decitabine is a nucleoside cytidine analogue, which when phosphorylated gets incorporated into the growing DNA strand, inhibiting methylation and inducing DNA damage by inactivating and trapping DNA methyltransferase on the DNA, thereby activating transcriptionally silenced DNA loci. We explored various combinations of HDACi and PARPi +/- decitabine (hypomethylating agent) in pancreatic cancer cell lines BxPC-3 and PL45 (wild-type BRCA1 and BRCA2) and Capan-1 (mutated BRCA2). The combination of HDACi (panobinostat or vorinostat) with PARPi (talazoparib or olaparib) resulted in synergistic cytotoxicity in all cell lines tested. The addition of decitabine further increased the synergistic cytotoxicity noted with HDACi and PARPi, triggering apoptosis (evidenced by increased cleavage of caspase 3 and PARP1). The 3-drug combination treatments (vorinostat, talazoparib, and decitabine; vorinostat, olaparib, and decitabine; panobinostat, talazoparib, and decitabine; panobinostat, olaparib, and decitabine) induced more DNA damage (increased phosphorylation of histone 2AX) than the individual drugs and impaired the DNA repair pathways (decreased levels of ATM, BRCA1, and ATRX proteins). The 3-drug combinations also altered the epigenetic regulation of gene expression (NuRD complex subunits, reduced levels). This is the first study to demonstrate synergistic interactions between the aforementioned agents in pancreatic cancer cell lines and provides preclinical data to design individualized therapeutic approaches with the potential to improve pancreatic cancer treatment outcomes.

Case report: Fatal overwhelming post-splenectomy infection in a patient with metastatic angiosarcoma treated with immunotherapy.

A patient in his 40s with splenic angiosarcoma metastatic to the liver underwent splenectomy, chemotherapy, and partial hepatectomy before being treated on a clinical trial with CTLA4 and PD1 inhibitors. He had received pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines post-splenectomy. On week 10, he developed grade 3 immune-related colitis, successfully treated with the anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor infliximab and steroids. After 4 cycles of treatment, scans showed partial response. He resumed anti-PD1 therapy, and 6 hours after the second dose of anti-PD1 he presented to the emergency room with hematemesis, hematochezia, hypotension, fever, and oxygen desaturation. Laboratory tests demonstrated acute renal failure and septicemia (Streptococcus pneumoniae). He died 12 hours after the anti-PD1 infusion from overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI). Autopsy demonstrated non-viable liver tumors among other findings. In conclusion, patients undergoing immunotherapy and with prior history of asplenia should be monitored closely for OPSI as they may be at increased risk.

First-In-Human Phase I Study of Tinengotinib (TT-00420), a Multiple Kinase Inhibitor, as a Single Agent in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This first-in-human phase I dose-escalation study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of tinengotinib (TT-00420), a multi-kinase inhibitor targeting fibroblast growth factor receptors 1-3 (FGFRs 1-3), Janus kinase 1/2, vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, and Aurora A/B, in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received tinengotinib orally daily in 28-day cycles. Dose escalation was guided by Bayesian modeling using escalation with overdose control. The primary objective was to assess dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and dose recommended for dose expansion (DRDE). Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics and efficacy. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were enrolled (dose escalation, n = 40; dose expansion, n = 8). MTD was not reached; DRDE was 12 mg daily. DLTs were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (8 mg, n = 1) and hypertension (15 mg, n = 2). The most common treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (50.0%). In 43 response-evaluable patients, 13 (30.2%) achieved partial response (PR; n = 7) or stable disease (SD) ≥ 24 weeks (n = 6), including 4/11 (36.4%) with FGFR2 mutations/fusions and cholangiocarcinoma (PR n = 3; SD ≥ 24 weeks n = 1), 3/3 (100.0%) with hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer (PR n = 2; SD ≥ 24 weeks n = 1), 2/5 (40.0%) with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC; PR n = 1; SD ≥ 24 weeks n = 1), and 1/1 (100.0%) with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC; PR). Four of 12 patients (33.3%; HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer, TNBC, prostate cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma) treated at DRDE had PRs. Tinengotinib's half-life was 28-34 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Tinengotinib was well tolerated with favorable pharmacokinetic characteristics. Preliminary findings indicated potential clinical benefit in FGFR inhibitor-refractory cholangiocarcinoma, HER2-negative breast cancer (including TNBC), and CRPC. Continued evaluation of tinengotinib is warranted in phase II trials.

Phase 1/2 trial of avelumab combined with utomilumab (4-1BB agonist), PF-04518600 (OX40 agonist), or radiotherapy in patients with advanced gynecologic malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint blockade has shown mixed results in advanced/recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Efficacy may be improved through costimulation with OX40 and 4-1BB agonists. The authors sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of avelumab combined with utomilumab (a 4-1BB agonist), PF-04518600 (an OX40 agonist), and radiotherapy in patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: The primary end point in this six-arm, phase 1/2 trial was safety of the combination regimens. Secondary end points included the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, the disease control rate (DCR), the duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Forty patients were included (35% with cervical cancer, 30% with endometrial cancer, and 35% with ovarian cancer). Most patients (n = 33; 83%) were enrolled in arms A-C (no radiation). Among 35 patients who were evaluable for efficacy, the ORR was 2.9%, and the DCR was 37.1%, with a median duration of stable disease of 5.4 months (interquartile range, 4.1-7.3 months). Patients with cervical cancer in arm A (avelumab and utomilumab; n = 9 evaluable patients) achieved an ORR of 11% and a DCR of 78%. The median progression-free survival was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.5 months), and overall survival was 9.4 months (95% CI, 5.6-11.9 months). No dose-limiting toxicities or grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this trial highlight that, in heavily pretreated patients with gynecologic cancer, even multidrug regimens targeting multiple immunologic pathways, although safe, did not produce significant responses. A DCR of 78% in patients with cervical cancer who received avelumab and utomilumab indicates that further research on this combination in select patients may be warranted.

Phase I Study of mTORC1/2 Inhibitor Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) in Combination with Metformin in Patients with mTOR/AKT/PI3K Pathway Alterations and Advanced Solid Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) is a potent, selective ATP-competitive, dual inhibitor of mTORC1/2. Metformin is thought to inhibit the mTOR pathway through upstream activation of 5'-AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) suggesting combination therapy may enhance antitumor activity of sapanisertib. We report preliminary safety, tolerability, and efficacy from the dose-escalation study of sapanisertib in combination with metformin in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with advanced metastatic solid tumors resistant or refractory to standard treatment, with and without mTOR/AKT/PI3K pathway alterations, received sapanisertib 3 or 4 mg daily together with metformin once to three times daily (500-1,500 mg). All patients underwent 14-day titration period for metformin in cycle 1. Tumor measurements were performed following cycle 2 and subsequently every 8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled across four cohorts (3 mg/500 mg; 3 mg/1,000 mg, 4 mg/1,000 mg; 4 mg/1,500 mg). 19 were female (63%), median age was 57 (range: 30-77), all were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1. Tumor types included sarcoma (6), breast (4), ovarian (4), head and neck (3), colorectal (2), lung (2), renal cell (2), endometrial (2), gastroesophageal junction (1), prostate (1), stomach (1), urachus (1), and cervical cancer (1). Median number of prior lines of therapy was 4. Most common genomic alterations included PIK3CA (27%), PTEN (17%), AKT1/2 (10%), mTOR (10%). Of 30 patients evaluable for response, 4 patients achieved partial response (PR); 15 patients achieved stable disease (SD) as best response. Disease control rate (PR+SD) was 63%. Of the responders in PR, 3 of 4 patients had documented PTEN mutations (3/5 patients enrolled with PTEN mutations had PR); 2 of 4 of patients in PR had comutations (patient with leiomyosarcoma had both PTEN and TSC; patient with breast cancer had both PTEN and STK11); 1 of 4 patients in PR had AKT and mTOR mutation; tumor types included leiomyosarcoma (n = 2), breast (n = 1), and endometrial cancer (n = 1). Most common treatment-emergent adverse events included nausea, anorexia, diarrhea, and rash. Grade (G) 3-5 treatment-related adverse events included hyperglycemia (4/30; 13%), fatigue (2/30; 7%), hypertriglyceridemia (1/30; 3%), rash (2/20; 7%), diarrhea (2/30; 7%), creatinine increase (1/30; 3%), acidosis (1/30; 3%). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were reported in the 3 mg/500 mg cohort. One of 6 patient had DLT in the 3 mg/1,000 mg cohort (G3 diarrhea) and 2 of 11 patients had DLTs in the 4 mg/1,500 mg cohort (G3 fatigue, G3 rash). 4 mg/1,000 mg was defined as the MTD. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of mTORC1/2 inhibitor sapanisertib in combination with metformin was generally tolerable, with antitumor activity observed in patients with advanced malignancies harboring PTEN mutations and AKT/mTOR pathway alterations. SIGNIFICANCE: Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) is a potent, selective ATP-competitive, next-generation dual inhibitor of mTORC1/2. Metformin is thought to inhibit the mTOR pathway through upstream activation of AMPK suggesting combination therapy may enhance antitumor activity of sapanisertib. This dose-escalation study of sapanisertib and metformin in advanced solid tumors and mTOR/AKT/PI3K pathway alterations, demonstrates safety, tolerability, and early clinical activity in advanced malignancies harboring PTEN mutations and AKT/mTOR pathway alterations.Clinical trial information: NCT03017833.

Autologous engineered T cell receptor therapy in advanced cancer.

To overcome challenges associated with adoptive cell therapy (ACT), we developed a personalized autologous T-cell therapy program. Patients with advanced cancer with HLA-A *02:01 allele and tumor expression of PRAME, MAGEA1, MAGEA4, MAGEA8, NY-ESO-1, COL6A3 exon 6, MXRA5, and/or MMP1 underwent leukapheresis and T-cell product manufacturing. Patients received lymphodepletion, IMA101 infusion and interleukin 2 for 14 days. Of 214 screened patients, 14 were treated (6, IMA101; 8, IMA101 and atezolizumab). The most common adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (G1, n = 6; G2, n = 4) and cytopenia. At 6 weeks, 12 (85.7%) patients had stable disease. Three patients had prolonged disease stabilization for 12.9, 7.3, and 13.7 months, respectively. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.4 months and 9.4 months, respectively. Target-specific T cells expanded to constitute up to 78.7% of CD8+ cells. In conclusion, IMA101 was feasible and well tolerated, leveraging the potential of multi-targeted ACT that warrants further investigation.

Reprogramming T cell differentiation and exhaustion in CAR-T cell therapy.

T cell differentiation is a highly regulated, multi-step process necessary for the progressive establishment of effector functions, immunological memory, and long-term control of pathogens. In response to strong stimulation, as seen in severe or chronic infections or cancer, T cells acquire a state of hypo-responsiveness known as exhaustion, limiting their effector function. Recent advances in autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapies have revolutionized the treatment of hematologic malignancies by taking advantage of the basic principles of T cell biology to engineer products that promote long-lasting T cell response. However, many patients' malignancies remain unresponsive to treatment or are prone to recur. Discoveries in T cell biology, including the identification of key regulators of differentiation and exhaustion, offer novel opportunities to have a durable impact on the fate of CAR-T cells after infusion. Such next-generation CAR-T cell therapies and their clinical implementation may result in the next leap forward in cancer treatment for selected patients. In this context, this review summarizes the foundational principles of T cell differentiation and exhaustion and describes how they can be utilized and targeted to further improve the design and efficacy of CAR-T cell therapies.

Recommendations for Cell-Free DNA Assay Validations: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology and College of American Pathologists.

Diagnosing, selecting therapy for, and monitoring cancer in patients using a minimally invasive blood test represents a significant advance in precision medicine. Wide variability exists in how circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays are developed, validated, and reported in the literature, which hinders clinical adoption and may negatively impact patient care. Standardization is needed for factors affecting ctDNA assay performance and reporting, including pre-analytical variables, analytical considerations, and elements of laboratory assay reporting. The Association for Molecular Pathology Clinical Practice Committee's Liquid Biopsy Working Group (LBxWG), including organizational representation from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists, has undertaken a full-text data extraction of 1228 ctDNA publications that describe assays performed in patients with lymphoma and solid tumor malignancies. With an emphasis on clinical assay validation, the LBxWG has developed a set of 13 best practice consensus recommendations for validating, reporting, and publishing clinical ctDNA assays. Recommendations include reporting key pre-analytical considerations and assay performance metrics; this analysis demonstrates these elements are inconsistently included in publications. The LBxWG recommendations are intended to assist clinical laboratories with validating and reporting ctDNA assays and to ensure high-quality data are included in publications. It is expected that these recommendations will need to be updated as the body of literature continues to mature.

Molecular tumour boards - current and future considerations for precision oncology.

Over the past 15 years, rapid progress has been made in developmental therapeutics, especially regarding the use of matched targeted therapies against specific oncogenic molecular alterations across cancer types. Molecular tumour boards (MTBs) are panels of expert physicians, scientists, health-care providers and patient advocates who review and interpret molecular-profiling results for individual patients with cancer and match each patient to available therapies, which can include investigational drugs. Interpretation of the molecular alterations found in each patient is a complicated task that requires an understanding of their contextual functional effects and their correlations with sensitivity or resistance to specific treatments. The criteria for determining the actionability of molecular alterations and selecting matched treatments are constantly evolving. Therefore, MTBs have an increasingly necessary role in optimizing the allocation of biomarker-directed therapies and the implementation of precision oncology. Ultimately, increased MTB availability, accessibility and performance are likely to improve patient care. The challenges faced by MTBs are increasing, owing to the plethora of identifiable molecular alterations and immune markers in tumours of individual patients and their evolving clinical significance as more and more data on patient outcomes and results from clinical trials become available. Beyond next-generation sequencing, broader biomarker analyses can provide useful information. However, greater funding, resources and expertise are needed to ensure the sustainability of MTBs and expand their outreach to underserved populations. Harmonization between practice and policy will be required to optimally implement precision oncology. Herein, we discuss the evolving role of MTBs and current and future considerations for their use in precision oncology.

Multidisciplinary Care of a Large Brain Metastasis in a Patient with Hormone-Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer with Ataxia-Telangiectasia Mutation.

Poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARP)i are emerging as standard oncology treatments in various tumor types. The indications will expand as PARPi are being investigated in various breast cancer subtypes. Currently, except for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer, there is inadequate identification of predictive biomarkers of response. We present a 57-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer, hormone-receptor-positive, HER2 negative with a germline ataxia-telangiectasia mutation with a large brain metastasis with clinical benefit to talazoparib. This case report exemplifies the importance of the multidisciplinary management of patients with brain metastases and personalized biomarker selected treatment.

A Phase I Trial of Bevacizumab and Temsirolimus in Combination With Valproic Acid in Advanced Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical models suggest synergy between anti-angiogenesis therapy, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and histone deacetylase inhibitors to promote anticancer activity. METHODS: This phase I study enrolled 47 patients between April 2012 and 2018 and determined safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) when combining bevacizumab, temsirolimus, and valproic acid in patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: Median age of enrolled patients was 56 years. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 lines of prior therapy. Forty-five patients (95.7%) experienced one or more treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Grade 3 TRAEs were lymphopenia (14.9%), thrombocytopenia (8.5%), and mucositis (6.4%). Grade 4 TRAEs included lymphopenia (2.1%) and CNS cerebrovascular ischemia (2.1%). Six patients developed DLTs across 10 dose levels with grade 3 infection, rash, mucositis, bowel perforation, elevated lipase, and grade 4 cerebrovascular ischemia. The MTD was dose level 9 (bevacizumab 5 mg/kg days 1 and 15 intravenously (IV) plus temsirolimus 25 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 IV and valproic acid 5 mg/kg on days 1-7 and 15-21 per orally (PO)). Objective response rate (ORR) was 7.9% with confirmed partial response (PRs) in 3 patients (one each in parotid gland, ovarian, and vaginal cancers). Stable disease (SD) ≥+6 months was seen in 5 patients (13.1%). Clinical benefit state (CBR: PR + SD ≥+6 months) was 21%. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with bevacizumab, temsirolimus, and valproic acid was feasible, but there were numerous toxicities, which will require careful management for future clinical development (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01552434).

Feasibility and Safety of Personalized, Multi-Target, Adoptive Cell Therapy (IMA101): First-in-Human Clinical Trial in Patients with Advanced Metastatic Cancer.

IMA101 is an actively personalized, multi-targeted adoptive cell therapy (ACT), whereby autologous T cells are directed against multiple novel defined peptide-HLA (pHLA) cancer targets. HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with relapsed/refractory solid tumors expressing ≥1 of 8 predefined targets underwent leukapheresis. Endogenous T cells specific for up to 4 targets were primed and expanded in vitro. Patients received lymphodepletion (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide), followed by T-cell infusion and low-dose IL2 (Cohort 1). Patients in Cohort 2 received atezolizumab for up to 1 year (NCT02876510). Overall, 214 patients were screened, 15 received lymphodepletion (13 women, 2 men; median age, 44 years), and 14 were treated with T-cell products. IMA101 treatment was feasible and well tolerated. The most common adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (Grade 1, n = 6; Grade 2, n = 4) and expected cytopenias. No patient died during the first 100 days after T-cell therapy. No neurotoxicity was observed. No objective responses were noted. Prolonged disease stabilization was noted in three patients lasting for 13.7, 12.9, and 7.3 months. High frequencies of target-specific T cells (up to 78.7% of CD8+ cells) were detected in the blood of treated patients, persisted for >1 year, and were detectable in posttreatment tumor tissue. Individual T-cell receptors (TCR) contained in T-cell products exhibited broad variation in TCR avidity, with the majority being low avidity. High-avidity TCRs were identified in some patients' products. This study demonstrates the feasibility and tolerability of an actively personalized ACT directed to multiple defined pHLA cancer targets. Results warrant further evaluation of multi-target ACT approaches using potent high-avidity TCRs. See related Spotlight by Uslu and June, p. 865.

Precision Oncology: Evolving Clinical Trials across Tumor Types.

Advances in molecular technologies and targeted therapeutics have accelerated the implementation of precision oncology, resulting in improved clinical outcomes in selected patients. The use of next-generation sequencing and assessments of immune and other biomarkers helps optimize patient treatment selection. In this review, selected precision oncology trials including the IMPACT, SHIVA, IMPACT2, NCI-MPACT, TAPUR, DRUP, and NCI-MATCH studies are summarized, and their challenges and opportunities are discussed. Brief summaries of the new ComboMATCH, MyeloMATCH, and iMATCH studies, which follow the example of NCI-MATCH, are also included. Despite the progress made, precision oncology is inaccessible to many patients with cancer. Some patients' tumors may not respond to these treatments, owing to the complexity of carcinogenesis, the use of ineffective therapies, or unknown mechanisms of tumor resistance to treatment. The implementation of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and bioinformatic analyses of complex multi-omic data may improve the accuracy of tumor characterization, and if used strategically with caution, may accelerate the implementation of precision medicine. Clinical trials in precision oncology continue to evolve, improving outcomes and expediting the identification of curative strategies for patients with cancer. Despite the existing challenges, significant progress has been made in the past twenty years, demonstrating the benefit of precision oncology in many patients with advanced cancer.

Phase 1b study of combined selinexor and eribulin for the treatment of advanced solid tumors and triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Selinexor (KPT-330) is a potent inhibitor of exportin 1 (XPO1), in turn inhibiting tumor growth. Selinexor enhances the antitumor efficacy of eribulin in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in vitro and in vivo. Given the unmet medical need in TNBC and sarcoma, the authors explored the safety and efficacy of this combination. METHODS: The authors conducted a phase 1b trial of combined selinexor and eribulin using a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design in patients who had advanced solid tumors and in those who had TNBC in a dose-expansion cohort. RESULTS: Patients with TNBC (N = 19), sarcoma (N = 9), and other cancers (N = 3) were enrolled in the dose-escalation cohort (N = 10) and in the dose-expansion cohort (N = 21). The median number lines of prior therapy received was four (range, from one to seven prior lines). The most common treatment-related adverse events for selinexor were nausea (77%), leukopenia (77%), anemia (68%), neutropenia (68%), and fatigue (48%). One dose-limiting toxicity occurred at the first dose level with prolonged grade 3 neutropenia. The recommended phase 2 dose was 80 mg of selinexor orally once per week and 1 mg/m2 eribulin on days 1 and 8 intravenously every 3 weeks. The objective response rate (ORR) was 10% in three patients. In the dose-escalation cohort, the ORR was 10%, whereas six patients with had stable disease. In the TNBC dose-expansion cohort (n = 18), ORR was 11%, and there were two confirmed partial responses with durations of 10.8 and 19.1 months (ongoing). CONCLUSIONS: Selinexor and eribulin had an acceptable toxicity profile and modest overall efficacy with durable responses in select patients. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Effective therapies for advanced, triple-negative breast cancer and sarcoma represent an unmet need. Exportin 1 is associated with the transport of cancer-related proteins. Preclinical studies have demonstrated tumor growth inhibition and enhanced tumor sensitivity in patients who receive selinexor combined with eribulin. In this phase 1b study, the authors evaluated the safety profile and clinical activity of the combination of selinexor, a potent oral inhibitor of exportin 1, and eribulin in patients with advanced cancers enriched for triple-negative breast cancer or sarcoma. The combination was well tolerated; most adverse events were mild or moderate, reversible, and managed with dose modifications or growth factor support. The combination of selinexor and eribulin produced an antitumor response, particularly in some patients with triple-negative breast cancer. This work lays the foundation for prospective investigations of the role of selinexor and eribulin in the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer.

Pertuzumab Plus Trastuzumab in Patients With Endometrial Cancer With ERBB2/3 Amplification, Overexpression, or Mutation: Results From the TAPUR Study.

PURPOSE: The TAPUR Study is a pragmatic basket trial evaluating antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers harboring potentially actionable genomic alterations. Data from a cohort of patients with endometrial cancer (EC) with ERBB2 or ERBB3 (ERBB2/3) amplification, overexpression, or mutation treated with pertuzumab plus trastuzumab (P + T) are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced EC, no standard treatment options, measurable disease (RECIST v1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and tumors with ERBB2/3 amplification, overexpression, or mutation. Simon's two-stage design was used with a primary end point of disease control (DC), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) of at least 16 weeks (SD16+) duration. Secondary end points include safety, duration of response, duration of SD, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled from March 2017 to November 2019; all patients were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. Seventeen patients had tumors with ERBB2/3 amplification and/or overexpression, eight with both ERBB2 amplification and ERBB2/3 mutations, and three with only ERBB2 mutations. Ten patients had DC (two partial response and eight SD16+); all 10 had ERBB2 amplification, and 6 of the 10 patients with DC had >1 ERBB2/3 alteration. DC and OR rates were 37% (95% CI, 21 to 50) and 7% (95% CI, 1 to 24), respectively; the median PFS and median OS were 16 weeks (95% CI, 10-28) and 61 weeks (95% CI, 24-105), respectively. One patient experienced a grade 3 serious adverse event (muscle weakness) at least possibly related to P + T. CONCLUSION: P + T has antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with EC with ERBB2 amplification and warrants additional study.

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.

Phase I study of sapanisertib with carboplatin and paclitaxel in mTOR pathway altered solid malignancies.

Pre-clinically, the mTORC1/2 inhibitor sapanisertib restored sensitivity to platinums and enhanced paclitaxel-induced cancer cell killing. NCT03430882 enrolled patients with mTOR pathway aberrant tumors to receive sapanisertib, carboplatin and paclitaxel. Primary objective was safety and secondary objectives were clinical response and survival. One patient had a dose-limiting toxicity at dose level 4. There were no unanticipated toxicities. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events included anemia (21%), neutropenia (21%), thrombocytopenia (10.5%), and transaminitis (5%). Of 17 patients evaluable for response, 2 and 11 patients achieved partial response and stable disease, respectively. Responders included a patient with unclassified renal cell carcinoma harboring EWSR1-POU5F1 fusion and a patient with castrate resistant prostate cancer harboring PTEN loss. Median progression free survival was 3.84 months. Sapanisertib in combination with carboplatin plus paclitaxel demonstrated a manageable safety profile, with preliminary antitumor activity observed in advanced malignancies harboring mTOR pathway alterations.

Predictors of Oncologic Outcome in Patients Receiving Phase I Investigational Therapy for Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer.

Introduction: We aimed to identify clinical, pathologic, and treatment factors that are predictive of response and survival in patients with cervical cancer referred to phase I clinical trials. Methods: Patients with cervical cancer who received at least one dose of a phase I investigational agent at our institution between 2014 and 2022 were included. The log-rank test was used to analyze differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and multivariable regression analysis was performed. Results: We included 65 patients with a median age of 41 years (range, 20-74), 3 prior therapies (range, 1-7), and 67.7% squamous carcinoma. The rate of distant metastasis at trial entry was 84.6%. The most common molecular alterations included PIK3CA (46.5%), PD-L1+ (46.2%), EPH (30.0%), and CREBBP (23.1%); 23.1% had received a prior checkpoint inhibitor. Phase I trials were for immunotherapy (58.5%) or targeted therapy (41.5%). The rate of biomarker matching was 21.5%. For all patients, median PFS was 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-5.2) and OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.0-10.6). Factors at study entry associated with worse survival were presence of bone metastasis (PFS 1.6 vs 4.4 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.8; p = 0.001; OS 3.8 vs 10.0 months: HR, 3.9; p < 0.0001) and absolute lymphocyte count below 1000/µL (PFS 1.8 vs 5.2 months: HR, 2.9; p = 0.0004; OS 7.0 vs 10.6 months: HR, 3.2; p = 0.0009). Factors associated only with worse OS were absolute neutrophil count above 4700/µL, hemoglobin below 10.5 g/dL, and smoking status. Grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events were seen in 16.9% of cases. Conclusion: Bone metastasis and absolute lymphocyte count below normal range at phase I study entry portend poor survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.