Phase I study of daily and weekly regimens of the orally administered MDM2 antagonist idasanutlin in patients with advanced tumors.

Aim The oral MDM2 antagonist idasanutlin inhibits the p53-MDM2 interaction, enabling p53 activation, tumor growth inhibition, and increased survival in xenograft models. Methods We conducted a Phase I study of idasanutlin (microprecipitate bulk powder formulation) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, food effect, and clinical activity in patients with advanced malignancies. Schedules investigated were once weekly for 3 weeks (QW × 3), once daily for 3 days (QD × 3), or QD × 5 every 28 days. We also analyzed p53 activation and the anti-proliferative effects of idasanutlin. Results The dose-escalation phase included 85 patients (QW × 3, n = 36; QD × 3, n = 15; QD × 5, n = 34). Daily MTD was 3200 mg (QW × 3), 1000 mg (QD × 3), and 500 mg (QD × 5). Most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, decreased appetite, and thrombocytopenia. Dose-limiting toxicities were nausea/vomiting and myelosuppression; myelosuppression was more frequent with QD dosing and associated with pharmacokinetic exposure. Idasanutlin exposure was approximately dose proportional at low doses, but less than dose proportional at > 600 mg. Although inter-patient variability in exposure was high with all regimens, cumulative idasanutlin exposure over the whole 28-day cycle was greatest with a QD × 5 regimen. No major food effect on pharmacokinetic exposure occurred. MIC-1 levels were higher with QD dosing, increasing in an exposure-dependent manner. Best response was stable disease in 30.6% of patients, prolonged (> 600 days) in 2 patients with sarcoma. Conclusions Idasanutlin demonstrated dose- and schedule-dependent p53 activation with durable disease stabilization in some patients. Based on these findings, the QD × 5 schedule was selected for further development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01462175 (ClinicalTrials.gov), October 31, 2011.

A pneumococcal pneumonia and influenza vaccination quality improvement program for women receiving chemotherapy for gynecologic cancers at a major tertiary cancer Centre.

OBJECTIVE: International guidelines recommend pneumococcal pneumonia and influenza vaccination for all patients with solid organ malignancies prior to initiating chemotherapy. Baseline vaccination rates (March 2019) for pneumococcal pneumonia and influenza at our tertiary cancer centre were 8% and 40%, respectively. The aim of this study was to increase the number of gynecologic chemotherapy patients receiving pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations to 80% by March 2020. METHODS: We performed an interrupted time series study using structured quality improvement methodology. Three interventions were introduced to address vaccination barriers: an in-house vaccination program, a staff education campaign, and a patient care bundle (pre-printed prescription, information brochure, vaccine record booklet). Process and outcome data were collected by patient survey and pharmacy audit and analyzed on statistical process control charts. RESULTS: We identified 195 eligible patients. Pneumococcal and influenza vaccination rates rose significantly from 5% to a monthly mean of 61% and from 36% to a monthly mean of 67%, respectively. The 80% target was reached for both vaccines during one or more months of study. The in-house vaccination and staff education programs were major contributors to the improvement, whereas the information brochure and record booklet were minor contributors. CONCLUSIONS: Three interventions to promote pneumococcal and influenza vaccination among chemotherapy patients resulted in significantly improved vaccination rates. Lessons learned about promoting vaccine uptake may be generalizable to different populations and vaccine types. In response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, initiatives to expand the program to all chemotherapy patients at our centre are underway.

Short-Course Radiation plus Temozolomide in Elderly Patients with Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma is associated with a poor prognosis in the elderly. Survival has been shown to increase among patients 70 years of age or younger when temozolomide chemotherapy is added to standard radiotherapy (60 Gy over a period of 6 weeks). In elderly patients, more convenient shorter courses of radiotherapy are commonly used, but the benefit of adding temozolomide to a shorter course of radiotherapy is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients 65 years of age or older with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either radiotherapy alone (40 Gy in 15 fractions) or radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide. RESULTS: A total of 562 patients underwent randomization, 281 to each group. The median age was 73 years (range, 65 to 90). The median overall survival was longer with radiotherapy plus temozolomide than with radiotherapy alone (9.3 months vs. 7.6 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.80; P<0.001), as was the median progression-free survival (5.3 months vs. 3.9 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.60; P<0.001). Among 165 patients with methylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) status, the median overall survival was 13.5 months with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 7.7 months with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.73; P<0.001). Among 189 patients with unmethylated MGMT status, the median overall survival was 10.0 months with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 7.9 months with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.01; P=0.055; P=0.08 for interaction). Quality of life was similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients with glioblastoma, the addition of temozolomide to short-course radiotherapy resulted in longer survival than short-course radiotherapy alone. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00482677 .).

Evolution of genetic assessment for BRCA-associated gynaecologic malignancies: a Canadian multisociety roadmap.

The landscape of genetic testing in ovarian cancer patients has changed dramatically in recent years. The therapeutic benefits of poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in treatment of BRCA1/2-related ovarian cancers has resulted in an increased demand and urgency for genetic testing results, while technological developments have led to widespread use of multi-gene cancer panels and development of tumour testing protocols. Traditional genetic counselling models are no longer sustainable and must evolve to match the rapid evolution of genetic testing technologies and developments in personalized medicine. Recently, representatives from oncology, clinical genetics, molecular genetics, pathology, and patient advocacy came together to create a national multi-disciplinary Canadian consortium. By aligning stakeholder interests, the BRCA Testing to Treatment (BRCA TtoT) Community of Practice aims to develop a national strategy for tumour and germline BRCA1/2 testing and genetic counselling in women with ovarian cancer. This article serves to provide an overview of the recent evolution of genetic assessment for BRCA1/2-associated gynecologic malignancies and outline a Canadian roadmap to facilitate change, improve genetic testing rates, and ultimately improve outcomes for hereditary ovarian cancer patients and their families.

Ex vivo-expanded NK cells from blood and ascites of ovarian cancer patients are cytotoxic against autologous primary ovarian cancer cells.

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the leading cause of gynecological cancer-related death in North America. Most ovarian cancer patients (OCPs) experience disease recurrence after first-line surgery and chemotherapy; thus, there is a need for novel second-line treatments to improve the prognosis of OC. Although peripheral blood-derived NK cells are known for their ability to spontaneously lyse tumour cells without prior sensitization, ascites-derived NK cells (ascites-NK cells) isolated from OCPs exhibit inhibitory phenotypes, impaired cytotoxicity and may play a pro-tumourigenic role in cancer progression. Therefore, it is of interest to improve the cytotoxic effector function of impaired OCP ascites-NK cells at the tumour environment. We investigated the efficacy of using an artificial APC-based ex vivo expansion technique to generate cytotoxic, expanded NK cells from previously impaired OCP ascites-NK cells, for use in an autologous model of NK cell immunotherapy. We are the first to obtain a log-scale expansion of OCP ascites-NK cells that upregulate the surface expression of activating receptors NKG2D, NKp30, NKp44, produce robust amounts of anti-tumour cytokines in the presence of OC cells and mediate direct tumour cytotoxicity against ascites-derived, primary OC cells obtained from autologous patients. Our findings demonstrate that it is possible to generate cytotoxic OCP ascites-NK cells from previously impaired OCP ascites-NK cells, which presents a promising immunotherapeutic target for the second-line treatment of OC. Future work should focus on evaluating the in vivo efficacy of autologous NK cell immunotherapy through the intraperitoneal delivery of NK cell expansion factors to a preclinical xenograft mouse model of human OC.

Phase 2 study evaluating intermittent and continuous linsitinib and weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent platinum resistant ovarian epithelial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Linsitinib, an oral, dual inhibitor of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor and insulin receptor, in combination with weekly paclitaxel, may improve clinical outcomes compared with paclitaxel alone in patients with refractory or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label phase 1/2 clinical trial (NCT00889382) randomized patients with refractory or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (1:1:1) to receive either oral intermittent linsitinib (600mg once daily on Days 1-3 per week) combined with paclitaxel (80mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15; Arm A) or continuous linsitinib (150mg twice daily) in combination with paclitaxel (Arm B), or paclitaxel alone (Arm C). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 152 women were randomized to treatment (n=51 Arm A; n=51 Arm B, n=50 Arm C). In combination with paclitaxel, neither intermittent linsitinib (median PFS 2.8months; 95% confidence interval [CI]:2.5-4.4) nor continuous linsitinib (median PFS 4.2months; 95% CI:2.8-5.1) improved PFS over weekly paclitaxel alone (median PFS 5.6months; 95% CI:3.2-6.9). No improvement in ORR, DCR, or OS in either linsitinib dosing schedule was observed compared with paclitaxel alone. Adverse event (AE) rates, including all-grade and grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs, and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation, were higher among patients receiving intermittent linsitinib compared with the other treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Addition of intermittent or continuous linsitinib with paclitaxel did not improve outcomes in patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer compared with paclitaxel alone.

Rindopepimut with temozolomide for patients with newly diagnosed, EGFRvIII-expressing glioblastoma (ACT IV): a randomised, double-blind, international phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Rindopepimut (also known as CDX-110), a vaccine targeting the EGFR deletion mutation EGFRvIII, consists of an EGFRvIII-specific peptide conjugated to keyhole limpet haemocyanin. In the ACT IV study, we aimed to assess whether or not the addition of rindopepimut to standard chemotherapy is able to improve survival in patients with EGFRvIII-positive glioblastoma. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with glioblastoma from 165 hospitals in 22 countries. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed glioblastoma confirmed to express EGFRvIII by central analysis, and had undergone maximal surgical resection and completion of standard chemoradiation without progression. Patients were stratified by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer recursive partitioning analysis class, MGMT promoter methylation, and geographical region, and randomly assigned (1:1) with a prespecified randomisation sequence (block size of four) to receive rindopepimut (500 µg admixed with 150 µg GM-CSF) or control (100 µg keyhole limpet haemocyanin) via monthly intradermal injection until progression or intolerance, concurrent with standard oral temozolomide (150-200 mg/m2 for 5 of 28 days) for 6-12 cycles or longer. Patients, investigators, and the trial funder were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in patients with minimal residual disease (MRD; enhancing tumour <2 cm2 post-chemoradiation by central review), analysed by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01480479. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2012, and Dec 15, 2014, 745 patients were enrolled (405 with MRD, 338 with significant residual disease [SRD], and two unevaluable) and randomly assigned to rindopepimut and temozolomide (n=371) or control and temozolomide (n=374). The study was terminated for futility after a preplanned interim analysis. At final analysis, there was no significant difference in overall survival for patients with MRD: median overall survival was 20·1 months (95% CI 18·5-22·1) in the rindopepimut group versus 20·0 months (18·1-21·9) in the control group (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·79-1·30; p=0·93). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events for all 369 treated patients in the rindopepimut group versus 372 treated patients in the control group were: thrombocytopenia (32 [9%] vs 23 [6%]), fatigue (six [2%] vs 19 [5%]), brain oedema (eight [2%] vs 11 [3%]), seizure (nine [2%] vs eight [2%]), and headache (six [2%] vs ten [3%]). Serious adverse events included seizure (18 [5%] vs 22 [6%]) and brain oedema (seven [2%] vs 12 [3%]). 16 deaths in the study were caused by adverse events (nine [4%] in the rindopepimut group and seven [3%] in the control group), of which one-a pulmonary embolism in a 64-year-old male patient after 11 months of treatment-was assessed as potentially related to rindopepimut. INTERPRETATION: Rindopepimut did not increase survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Combination approaches potentially including rindopepimut might be required to show efficacy of immunotherapy in glioblastoma. FUNDING: Celldex Therapeutics, Inc.

Cediranib in patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (ICON6): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is a validated clinical target in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cediranib is an oral antiangiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1-3 inhibitor that has shown antitumour activity in recurrent ovarian cancer. We assessed efficacy and safety of cediranib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as continued maintenance treatment in patients with first relapse of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer at 63 centres in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, and the UK. Participants received up to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (once every 3 weeks) then entered a maintenance phase. Participants were randomly allocated (2:3:3), with five stratification factors and in alternating blocks, to receive placebo alongside chemotherapy and then placebo only maintenance (arm A; reference), cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then placebo only maintenance (arm B; concurrent), or cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then cediranib 20 mg once-daily maintenance (arm C; maintenance). Patients continued treatment to progression or excessive toxic effects. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival between arms A and C. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received the allocated study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00532194; the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN68510403; and ANZ Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN1261000016003. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 486 [corrected] women between Nov 13, 2007, and Dec 23, 2011; results presented are for 456 patients randomly assigned subsequent to the 30mg safety phase. During a median of 19·5 months (IQR 14-26) follow-up, 113 (96%) of 118 women assigned to arm A and 141 (86%) of 164 assigned to arm C had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·4-11·7) in arm C and 8·7 months (7·7-9·4) in arm A (hazard ratio 0·56, 0·44-0·72, p<0·0001). 156 (90%) of 174 patients in arm B had disease progression, and median progression-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 9·4-10·5). Diarrhoea, neutropenia, hypertension, and voice changes were significantly more common, during chemotherapy with cediranib, and diarrhoea, hypothyroidism and voice changes were more common during maintenance. Poor compliance with cediranib was noted during maintenance treatment with toxic effects being the most common cause for discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Cediranib, when given orally with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, yielded a meaningful improvement [corrected] in progression-free survival in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, albeit with added toxic effects. The positive results in ICON6 could provide women with a new therapeutic option for recurrent ovarian cancer. Assessment of the secondary endpoint of overall survival will need longer follow-up. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Cancer Australia, National Gynecological Cancer Centre, and AstraZeneca.

Effect of Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Maintenance Temozolomide vs Maintenance Temozolomide Alone on Survival in Patients With Glioblastoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) is an antimitotic treatment modality that interferes with glioblastoma cell division and organelle assembly by delivering low-intensity alternating electric fields to the tumor. Objective: To investigate whether TTFields improves progression-free and overall survival of patients with glioblastoma, a fatal disease that commonly recurs at the initial tumor site or in the central nervous system. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized, open-label trial, 695 patients with glioblastoma whose tumor was resected or biopsied and had completed concomitant radiochemotherapy (median time from diagnosis to randomization, 3.8 months) were enrolled at 83 centers (July 2009-2014) and followed up through December 2016. A preliminary report from this trial was published in 2015; this report describes the final analysis. Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:1 to TTFields plus maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy (n = 466) or temozolomide alone (n = 229). The TTFields, consisting of low-intensity, 200 kHz frequency, alternating electric fields, was delivered (≥ 18 hours/d) via 4 transducer arrays on the shaved scalp and connected to a portable device. Temozolomide was administered to both groups (150-200 mg/m2) for 5 days per 28-day cycle (6-12 cycles). Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free survival (tested at α = .046). The secondary end point was overall survival (tested hierarchically at α = .048). Analyses were performed for the intent-to-treat population. Adverse events were compared by group. Results: Of the 695 randomized patients (median age, 56 years; IQR, 48-63; 473 men [68%]), 637 (92%) completed the trial. Median progression-free survival from randomization was 6.7 months in the TTFields-temozolomide group and 4.0 months in the temozolomide-alone group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76; P < .001). Median overall survival was 20.9 months in the TTFields-temozolomide group vs 16.0 months in the temozolomide-alone group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76; P < .001). Systemic adverse event frequency was 48% in the TTFields-temozolomide group and 44% in the temozolomide-alone group. Mild to moderate skin toxicity underneath the transducer arrays occurred in 52% of patients who received TTFields-temozolomide vs no patients who received temozolomide alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In the final analysis of this randomized clinical trial of patients with glioblastoma who had received standard radiochemotherapy, the addition of TTFields to maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy vs maintenance temozolomide alone, resulted in statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival. These results are consistent with the previous interim analysis. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00916409.

A phase I trial of ANG1/2-Tie2 inhibitor trebaninib (AMG386) and temsirolimus in advanced solid tumors (PJC008/NCI♯9041).

BACKGROUND: There is crosstalk between the ANG-Tie2 and the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathways. Combined ANG1/2 and mTOR blockade may have additive anti-cancer activity. The combination of trebananib, an inhibitor of ANG1/2-Tie2 interaction, with temsirolimus was evaluated in patients with advanced solid tumors to determine tolerability, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and preliminary antitumor activity. METHODS: Patients were enrolled using 3 + 3 design, and were given intravenous trebananib and temsirolimus on Day 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated during cycle 1. Peripheral blood was collected for evaluation of Tie2-expressing monocytes (TEMs) and thymidine phosphorylase (TP). Sparse pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling for trebananib drug levels was performed on Day 1 and 8 of cycle 2. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled, 6 at dose level (DL) 1, 7 at DL -1, and 8 at DL -2. No effect of temsirolimus on trebananib PK was observed. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were: fatigue (81 %), edema (62 %), anorexia (57 %), nausea (52 %), rash (43 %) and mucositis (43 %). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs included lymphopenia (28 %) and fatigue (28 %). The MTD was exceeded at DL-2. Of 18 response evaluable patients, 1 partial response was observed (ER+/HER2-/PIK3CA mutant breast cancer) and 4 patients had prolonged SD ≥ 24 weeks. No correlation with clinical benefit was observed with change in number TEMs or TP expression in TEMs with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD was exceeded at trebananib 10 mg/kg weekly and temsirolimus 20 mg weekly, with frequent overlapping toxicities including fatigue, edema, and anorexia.

A phase II study of single-agent RO4929097, a gamma-secretase inhibitor of Notch signaling, in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer: A study of the Princess Margaret, Chicago and California phase II consortia.

PURPOSE: A phase II study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single-agent RO4929097 (a gamma-secretase inhibitor) in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Women with progressive platinum-resistant ovarian cancer treated with ≤2 chemotherapy regimens for recurrent disease were enrolled in this trial. Patients received oral RO4929097 at 20 mg once daily, 3 days on/4 days off each week in a three week cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at the end of 4 cycles. Secondary objectives included assessment of the safety of RO4929097 and exploration of molecular correlates of outcome in archival tumor tissue and serum. RESULTS: Of 45 patients enrolled, 40 were evaluable for response. Thirty-seven (82%) patients had high-grade ovarian cancer. No objective responses were observed. Fifteen patients (33%) had stable disease as their best response, with a median duration of 3.1 months. The median PFS for the whole group was 1.3 months (1.2-2.5). Treatment was generally well tolerated with 10% of patients discontinuing treatment due to an adverse event. In high grade serous ovarian cancer patients, the median PFS trended higher when the expression of intracellular Notch (NICD) protein by immunohistochemistry was high versus low (3.3 versus 1.3 months, p=0.09). No clear relationship between circulating angiogenic factors and PFS was found despite a suggestion of an improved outcome with higher baseline VEGFA levels. CONCLUSIONS: RO4929097 has insufficient activity as a single-agent in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer to warrant further study as monotherapy. Future studies are needed to explore the potential for cohort enrichment using NICD expression.

A phase I, dose-escalation trial of continuous- and pulsed-dose afatinib combined with pemetrexed in patients with advanced solid tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, demonstrated synergistic inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant cell growth with pemetrexed. This phase I study investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of afatinib plus pemetrexed in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: In a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, patients were given intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle (maximum 6 cycles), combined with continuous daily oral afatinib (schedule A [SA]; starting dose 30 mg, escalation to 50 mg) or pulsed-dose daily oral afatinib (schedule B [SB]; starting dose 50 mg, escalation to 70 mg) on days 1-6 of each 21-day cycle. Primary endpoint was determination of MTD based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in cycle 1. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were treated (SA: n = 23; SB: n = 30). Eight patients had DLTs in SA, 11 patients in SB; diarrhea and fatigue were the most common. MTD of afatinib was 30 mg in SA and 50 mg in SB. Six patients in SA and eight in SB completed 6 treatment cycles. One patient in each schedule had confirmed objective response; 18/53 patients had disease control (SA: n = 7; SB: n = 11). Most frequent drug-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash, fatigue, and stomatitis. No relevant pharmacokinetic interactions were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous- or pulsed-dose afatinib combined with pemetrexed exhibited a manageable safety profile. Pulsed dosing conferred no apparent safety or dose advantage. Continuous-dose afatinib 30 mg/day with pemetrexed is recommended for phase II studies.

A phase I study of the oral gamma secretase inhibitor R04929097 in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors (PHL-078/CTEP 8575).

PURPOSE: To establish the recommended phase II dose of the oral γ-secretase inhibitor RO4929097 (RO) in combination with gemcitabine; secondary objectives include the evaluation of safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, biomarkers of Notch signaling and preliminary anti-tumor activity. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in cohorts of escalating RO dose levels (DLs). Tested RO DLs were 20 mg, 30 mg, 45 mg and 90 mg. RO was administered orally, once daily on days 1-3, 8-10, 15-17, 22-24. Gemcitabine was administered at 1,000 mg/m(2) on d1, 8, and 15 in 28 d cycles. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed by CTCAE v4. Serial plasma was collected for RO (total and unbound) and gemcitabine pharmacokinetic analysis. Biomarkers of Notch signaling were assessed by immunohistochemistry in archival tissue. Antitumor activity was evaluated (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS: A total of 18 patients were enrolled to establish the recommended phase II dose. Of these, 3 patients received 20 mg RO, 7 patients received 30 mg RO, 6 patients received 45 mg RO and 2 patients received 90 mg RO. DLTs were grade 3 transaminitis (30 mg RO), grade 3 transaminitis and maculopapular rash (45 mg RO), and grade 3 transaminitis and failure to receive 75 % of planned RO doses secondary to prolonged neutropenia (90 mg); all were reversible. The maximum tolerated dose was exceeded at 90 mg RO. Pharmacokinetic analysis of both total and free RO confirmed the presence of autoinduction at 45 and 90 mg. Median levels of Notch3 staining were higher in individuals who received fewer than 4 cycles (p = 0.029). Circulating angiogenic factor levels did not correlate with time to progression or ≥ grade 3 adverse events. Best response (RECIST 1.1) was partial response (nasopharyngeal cancer) and stable disease > 4 months was observed in 3 patients (pancreas, tracheal, and breast primary cancers). CONCLUSIONS: RO and gemcitabine can be safely combined. The recommended phase II dose of RO was 30 mg in combination with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2). Although RO exposure was limited by the presence of autoinduction, RO levels achieved exceeded the area under the concentration-time curve for 0-24 h (AUC(0-24)) predicted for efficacy in preclinical models using daily dosing. Evidence of clinical antitumor activity and prolonged stable disease were identified.

A phase II trial of sunitinib in women with metastatic or recurrent endometrial carcinoma: a study of the Princess Margaret, Chicago and California Consortia.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options remain limited for women with relapsed/metastatic endometrial cancer (EC). Angiogenesis is one of the major components of tumor progression and thus an attractive target. The aim of this phase II trial was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of sunitinib, an oral multitargeted receptor tyrosine-kinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic and antitumor activity in the treatment of recurrent EC. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, single arm, two-stage phase II study of sunitinib, 50mg daily administered on a 4 weeks on-2 weeks off schedule. Eligibility criteria included recurrent/metastatic EC or carcinosarcoma with no more than one prior line of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. RESULTS: 34 women were enrolled; 33 received at least one dose of sunitinib and were included in the analyses. Six women (18.1%) had a partial response and six additional women (18.1%) stable disease. In total, ten patients (30.3%) had disease control for at least 6 months and of these, seven were controlled for more than one year. Median progression free and overall survival times were 3 months and 19.4 months, respectively. Adverse events related to treatment were frequent. At least one grade 3 toxicity occurred in 30 patients and dose reductions were required in 17 patients (52%). The most common grade 3 toxicities were fatigue, hypertension, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, diarrhea and hematologic. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib therapy showed promising activity in women with recurrent EC. Toxicity was seen frequently but was manageable. Anti-angiogenic agents warrant further investigation in EC to define which patients will derive the greatest benefit.

Marizomib for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a randomized phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma includes surgery, radiotherapy (RT) and temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy (TMZ/RT→TMZ). The proteasome has long been considered a promising therapeutic target because of its role as a central biological hub in tumor cells. Marizomib is a novel pan-proteasome inhibitor that crosses the blood brain barrier. METHODS: EORTC 1709/CCTG CE.8 was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open label phase 3 superiority trial. Key eligibility criteria included newly diagnosed glioblastoma, age > 18 years and Karnofsky performance status > 70. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The primary objective was to compare overall survival (OS) in patients receiving marizomib in addition to TMZ/RT→TMZ with patients receiving only standard treatment in the whole population, and in the subgroup of patients with MGMT promoter-unmethylated tumors. RESULTS: The trial was opened at 82 institutions in Europe, Canada and the US. A total of 749 patients (99.9% of planned 750) were randomized. OS was not different between the standard and the marizomib arm (median 17 vs 16.5 months; HR=1.04; p=0.64). PFS was not statistically different either (median 6.0 vs. 6.3 months; HR=0.97; p=0.67). In patients with MGMT promoter-unmethylated tumors, OS was also not different between standard therapy and marizomib (median 14.5 vs 15.1 months, HR=1.13; p=0.27). More CTCAE grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in the marizomib arm than in the standard arm. CONCLUSIONS: Adding marizomib to standard temozolomide-based radiochemotherapy resulted in more toxicity, but did not improve OS or PFS in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Feasibility of real time next generation sequencing of cancer genes linked to drug response: results from a clinical trial.

The successes of targeted drugs with companion predictive biomarkers and the technological advances in gene sequencing have generated enthusiasm for evaluating personalized cancer medicine strategies using genomic profiling. We assessed the feasibility of incorporating real-time analysis of somatic mutations within exons of 19 genes into patient management. Blood, tumor biopsy and archived tumor samples were collected from 50 patients recruited from four cancer centers. Samples were analyzed using three technologies: targeted exon sequencing using Pacific Biosciences PacBio RS, multiplex somatic mutation genotyping using Sequenom MassARRAY and Sanger sequencing. An expert panel reviewed results prior to reporting to clinicians. A clinical laboratory verified actionable mutations. Fifty patients were recruited. Nineteen actionable mutations were identified in 16 (32%) patients. Across technologies, results were in agreement in 100% of biopsy specimens and 95% of archival specimens. Profiling results from paired archival/biopsy specimens were concordant in 30/34 (88%) patients. We demonstrated that the use of next generation sequencing for real-time genomic profiling in advanced cancer patients is feasible. Additionally, actionable mutations identified in this study were relatively stable between archival and biopsy samples, implying that cancer mutations that are good predictors of drug response may remain constant across clinical stages.

A phase Ib combination study of RO4929097, a gamma-secretase inhibitor, and temsirolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: To determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and assess the safety, pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics of RO4929097in combination with temsirolimus. METHODS: Escalating doses of RO4929097 and temsirolimus were administered at three dose levels. Patients received once daily oral RO4929097 on a 3 days on/4 days off schedule every week, and weekly intravenous temsirolimus. Blood samples were collected for PK analysis. Archival tissue specimens were collected for Notch pathway biomarker analysis and genotyping of frequent oncogenic mutations. RESULTS: Seventeen patients with refractory advanced solid tumors were enrolled in three dose levels (DLs): DL1 (RO4929097 10 mg; Temsirolimus 25 mg), DL2 (RO4929097 20 mg; Temsirolimus 25 mg), and DL3 (RO4929097 20 mg; Temsirolimus 37.5 mg). The most common toxicities related to the study drug combination included: fatigue (82 %; grade 3 6 %), mucositis, (71 %; grade 3 6 %), neutropenia (59 %; grade 3 12 %), anemia (59 %; grade 3 0 %), and hypertriglyceridemia (59 %; grade 3 0 %). Two dose-limiting toxicities, grade 3 rash and grade 3 mucositis, were observed in the same patient in the first dose level prompting dose expansion. Eleven patients (73 %) had stable disease as their best response. Co-administration of RO4929097 was associated with increased clearance and reduced exposure to temsirolimus, suggestive of drug-drug interaction via CYP3A4 induction. No correlation between the expression of Notch pathway biomarkers or genotype and time to progression was noted. CONCLUSIONS: RO4929097 can be safely combined with temsirolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors. The RP2D was established at 20 mg of RO4929097 combined with 37.5 mg of temsirolimus.

Intravenous aflibercept for treatment of recurrent symptomatic malignant ascites in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Targeting of VEGF is a potential therapeutic option in patients with malignant ovarian ascites. We present the final results of a multicentre study of the efficacy and safety of aflibercept, a potent inhibitor of both VEGF and placental growth factor, in the treatment of malignant ascites. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2 study, patients with advanced chemoresistant ovarian cancer and recurrent symptomatic malignant ascites were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to either intravenous aflibercept (4 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or placebo, stratified by interval of time (≤ 2 weeks vs > 2 weeks) between the two most recent paracenteses before randomisation. Patients participated in the double-blind period (during which patients, investigators, and sponsor personnel were masked to treatment assignment) until they had a repeat paracentesis and for at least 60 days, and could also participate in an optional open-label period during which all patients received aflibercept. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to repeat paracentesis based on response during the double-blind period alone, and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with censoring of patients who did not have a repeat paracentesis as of the last day of the double-blind period. Safety analyses included both double-blind and open-label periods. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00327444. FINDINGS: 55 patients with a median of four (range two to 11) previous lines of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n=26) or aflibercept (n=29). Mean time to repeat paracentesis was significantly longer with aflibercept than with placebo (55·1 [SE 7·3] vs 23·3 [7·7] days; difference 31·8 days, 95% CI 10·6-53·1; p=0·0019). In the aflibercept group, two patients did not need a repeat paracentesis during 6 months of double-blind treatment. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were dyspnoea (six [20%] aflibercept vs two [8%] placebo), fatigue or asthenia (four [13%] vs 11 [44%]), and dehydration (three [10%] vs three [12%]). The frequency of fatal gastrointestinal events was higher with aflibercept (three intestinal perforations) than with placebo (one intestinal fistula leading to sepsis). INTERPRETATION: This study shows the effectiveness of VEGF blockade in the reduction of malignant ascites, but confirms the significant clinical risk of fatal bowel perforation in this population of patients with very advanced cancer. VEGF blockade should be used with caution in advanced ovarian cancer with abdominal carcinomatosis, and the benefit-risk balance should be thoroughly discussed for each patient. FUNDING: Sanofi Oncology.

Olaparib in patients with recurrent high-grade serous or poorly differentiated ovarian carcinoma or triple-negative breast cancer: a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib (AZD2281) is a small-molecule, potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. We aimed to assess the safety and tolerability of this drug in patients without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations with advanced triple-negative breast cancer or high-grade serous and/or undifferentiated ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-randomised study, women with advanced high-grade serous and/or undifferentiated ovarian carcinoma or triple-negative breast cancer were enrolled and received olaparib 400 mg twice a day. Patients were stratified according to whether they had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation or not. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST). All patients who received treatment were included in the analysis of toxic effects, and patients who had measurable lesions at baseline were included in the primary efficacy analysis. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00679783. FINDINGS: 91 patients were enrolled (65 with ovarian cancer and 26 breast cancer) and 90 were treated between July 8, 2008, and Sept 24, 2009. In the ovarian cancer cohorts, 64 patients received treatment. 63 patients had target lesions and therefore were evaluable for objective response as per RECIST. In these patients, confirmed objective responses were seen in seven (41%; 95% CI 22-64) of 17 patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and 11 (24%; 14-38) of 46 without mutations. No confirmed objective responses were reported in patients with breast cancer. The most common adverse events were fatigue (45 [70%] of patients with ovarian cancer, 13 [50%] of patients with breast cancer), nausea (42 [66%] and 16 [62%]), vomiting (25 [39%] and nine [35%]), and decreased appetite (23 [36%] and seven [27%]). INTERPRETATION: Our study suggests that olaparib is a promising treatment for women with ovarian cancer and further assessment of the drug in clinical trials is needed. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.