COMPANION-002 A clinical trial of investigational drug CTX-009 plus paclitaxel vs paclitaxel in second line advanced BTC.

Treatment options for patients with biliary tract cancer are limited, and the prognosis is poor. CTX-009, a novel bispecific antibody targeting both DLL4 and VEGF-A, has demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced cancers as both a monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy. In a phase II study of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer who had received one or two prior therapies, CTX-009 with paclitaxel demonstrated a 37.5% overall response rate (ORR). Described here is the design of and rationale for COMPANION-002, a randomized phase II/III study, which will evaluate the safety and efficacy of CTX-009 in combination with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone as second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. The primary end point is ORR, and crossover is allowed.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05506943 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Looking for new options for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer? Explore COMPANION-002, Compass Therapeutics' phase II/III study of CTX-009 + paclitaxel as a second line treatment.#CMPX #biotech #healthcare #rarecancer.

Open-label, Phase 2 study of roxadustat for the treatment of anemia in patients receiving chemotherapy for non-myeloid malignancies.

Anemia is a common side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy; however, chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) management options are suboptimal. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of roxadustat in this setting. This open-label Phase 2 study included patients with non-myeloid malignancies and CIA (hemoglobin [Hb] ≤10 g/dL) who had planned concurrent myelosuppressive chemotherapy for ≥8 additional weeks. Oral roxadustat was administered for ≤16 weeks (starting dose 2.0 or 2.5 mg/kg, then titrated every 4 weeks). The primary efficacy endpoint was mean maximum change in Hb within 16 weeks of baseline without red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. Patients were assigned to roxadustat 2.0 (n = 31) or 2.5 mg/kg (n = 61) starting doses, and 89 were assessed for efficacy. The mean (standard deviation) maximum Hb change from baseline without RBC transfusion was 2.4 (1.5) and 2.5 (1.5) g/dL in the roxadustat 2.0 and 2.5 mg/kg groups, respectively. Median (range) time to Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL was 71 (57-92) days. Twelve patients (14.5%) had RBC transfusions (Week 5 to the end of treatment). Roxadustat was efficacious regardless of tumor type and chemotherapy regimen. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) occurred in 14 (15.2%) and nine (9.8%) patients, respectively, and three had serious adverse events attributed to roxadustat in the opinion of the investigators (PE: n = 2 [2.2%]; DVT: n = 1 [1.1%]). Roxadustat increased Hb in patients with CIA regardless of tumor type and chemotherapy regimen. Adverse events were consistent with observations in patients with advanced-stage malignancies.

Safety and efficacy of selinexor in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma and Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia.

Novel therapies are needed for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We conducted a multicenter, phase 1 study in advanced hematological malignancies to assess the safety, efficacy, and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of oral selinexor, a selective inhibitor of the nuclear export protein XPO1. In the dose-escalation phase, 25 patients with heavily pretreated MM (22) or Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (3) were administered selinexor (3-60 mg/m2) in 8 or 10 doses per 28-day cycle. In the dose-expansion phase, 59 patients with MM received selinexor at 45 or 60 mg/m2 with 20 mg dexamethasone, twice weekly in 28-day cycles, or selinexor (40 or 60 mg flat dose) without corticosteroids in 21-day cycles. The most common nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) were nausea (75%), fatigue (70%), anorexia (64%), vomiting (43%), weight loss (32%), and diarrhea (32%), which were primarily grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 or 4 AEs were hematologic, particularly thrombocytopenia (45%). Single-agent selinexor showed modest efficacy with an objective response rate (ORR) of 4% and clinical benefit rate of 21%. In contrast, the addition of dexamethasone increased the ORR with all responses of ≥partial response occurring in the 45 mg/m2 selinexor plus 20 mg dexamethasone twice weekly cohort (ORR = 50%). Furthermore, 46% of all patients showed a reduction in MM markers from baseline. Based on these findings, we conclude that selinexor in combination with dexamethasone is active in heavily pretreated MM and propose a RP2D of 45 mg/m2 (80 mg) plus 20 mg dexamethasone given twice weekly. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01607892.

Selective inhibition of nuclear export with selinexor in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. We evaluated selinexor, an orally bioavailable, first-in-class inhibitor of the nuclear export protein XPO1, in this phase 1 trial to assess safety and determine a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Seventy-nine patients with various NHL histologies, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Richter's transformation, mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, were enrolled. In the dose-escalation phase, patients received 3 to 80 mg/m2 of selinexor in 3- or 4-week cycles and were assessed for toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity. In the dose-expansion phase, patients were treated with selinexor at 35 or 60 mg/m2 The most common grade 3 to 4 drug-related adverse events were thrombocytopenia (47%), neutropenia (32%), anemia (27%), leukopenia (16%), fatigue (11%), and hyponatremia (10%). Tumor biopsies showed decreases in cell-signaling pathways (Bcl-2, Bcl-6, c-Myc), reduced proliferation (Ki67), nuclear localization of XPO1 cargos (p53, PTEN), and increased apoptosis after treatment. Twenty-two (31%) of the 70 evaluable patients had an objective responses, including 4 complete responses and 18 partial responses, which were observed across a spectrum of NHL subtypes. A dose of 35 mg/m2 (60 mg) was identified as the RP2D. These findings suggest that inhibition of XPO1 with oral selinexor at 35 mg/m2 is a safe therapy with encouraging and durable anticancer activity in patients with R/R NHL. The trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01607892.

A phase 1 clinical trial of single-agent selinexor in acute myeloid leukemia.

Selinexor is a novel, first-in-class, selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound, which blocks exportin 1 (XPO1) function, leads to nuclear accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins, and induces cancer cell death. A phase 1 dose-escalation study was initiated to examine the safety and efficacy of selinexor in patients with advanced hematological malignancies. Ninety-five patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) were enrolled between January 2013 and June 2014 to receive 4, 8, or 10 doses of selinexor in a 21- or 28-day cycle. The most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) in patients with AML were grade 1 or 2 constitutional and gastrointestinal toxicities, which were generally manageable with supportive care. The only nonhematological grade 3/4 AE, occurring in >5% of the patient population, was fatigue (14%). There were no reported dose-limiting toxicities or evidence of cumulative toxicity. The recommended phase 2 dose was established at 60 mg (∼35 mg/m2) given twice weekly in a 4-week cycle based on the totality of safety and efficacy data. Overall, 14% of the 81 evaluable patients achieved an objective response (OR) and 31% percent showed ≥50% decrease in bone marrow blasts from baseline. Patients achieving an OR had a significant improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) (5.1 vs 1.3 months; P = .008; hazard ratio [HR], 3.1) and overall survival (9.7 vs 2.7 months; P = .01; HR, 3.1) compared with nonresponders. These findings suggest that selinexor is safe as a monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory AML and have informed subsequent phase 2 clinical development. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01607892.

A Phase 2 Study of PCI-27483, a Factor VIIa Inhibitor in Combination with Gemcitabine for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Tissue factor overexpression is associated with tumor progression, venous thromboembolism, and worsened survival in patients with cancer. Tissue factor and activated factor VII (FVIIa) complex may contribute to tumor invasiveness by promoting cell migration and angiogenesis. The study objective was to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of PCI-27483, a selective FVIIa inhibitor. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicenter phase 2 trial of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Part A of the study was an intrapatient dose escalation lead-in portion in patients concurrently receiving gemcitabine, and in part B, patients were randomized 1: 1 to the recommended phase 2 dose combination PCI-27483-gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone. RESULTS: Target international normalized ratio (between 2.0-3.0) was achieved following PCI-27483 treatment. Overall safety of PCI-27483-gemcitabine (n = 26) was similar to gemcitabine alone (n = 16), with a higher incidence of mostly low-grade bleeding events (65% vs. 19%). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between patients treated with PCI-27483-gemcitabine (PFS: 3.7 months, OS: 5.7 months) and those treated with gemcitabine alone (PFS: 1.9 months, OS: 5.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted inhibition of the coagulation cascade was achieved by administering PCI-27483. PCI-27483-gemcitabine was well tolerated, but superiority to single agent gemcitabine was not demonstrated.

Phase 1 study of seviteronel, a selective CYP17 lyase and androgen receptor inhibitor, in women with estrogen receptor-positive or triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Seviteronel (INO-464) is an oral, selective cytochrome P450c17a (CYP17) 17,20-lyase (lyase) and androgen receptor inhibitor with in vitro and in vivo anti-tumor activity. This open-label phase 1 clinical study evaluated safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and activity of once-daily (QD) seviteronel in women with locally advanced or metastatic TNBC or ER+ breast cancer. METHODS: Seviteronel was administered in de-escalating 750, 600, and 450 mg QD 6-subject cohorts. The 750 mg QD start dose was a phase 2 dose determined for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer in (Shore et al. J Clin Oncol 34, 2016). Enrollment at lower doses was initiated in the presence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The primary objective of this study was to determine seviteronel safety, tolerability, and MTD. The secondary objectives included description of its PK in women and its initial activity, including clinical benefit rate at 4 (CBR16) and 6 months (CBR24). RESULTS: Nineteen women were enrolled. A majority of adverse events (AEs) were Grade (Gr) 1/2, independent of relationship; the most common were tremor (42%), nausea (42%), vomiting (37%), and fatigue (37%). Four Gr 3/4 AEs (anemia, delirium, mental status change, and confusional state) deemed possibly related to seviteronel occurred in four subjects. DLTs were observed at 750 mg (Gr 3 confusional state with paranoia) and 600 mg (Gr 3 mental status change and Gr 3 delirium) QD, with none at 450 mg QD. The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was 450 mg QD, and at the RP2D, 4 of 7 subjects reached at least CBR16 (2 TNBC subjects and 2 ER+ subjects achieved CBR16 and CBR24, respectively); no objective tumor responses were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily seviteronel was generally well tolerated in women with and 450 mg QD was chosen as the RP2D.

APF530 (granisetron injection extended-release) in a three-drug regimen for delayed CINV in highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

AIM: APF530, extended-release granisetron, provides sustained release for ≥5 days for acute- and delayed-phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We compared efficacy and safety of APF530 versus ondansetron for delayed CINV after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), following a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen. METHODS: HEC patients received APF530 500 mg subcutaneously or ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously, with dexamethasone and fosaprepitant. Primary end point was delayed-phase complete response (no emesis or rescue medication). RESULTS: A higher percentage of APF530 versus ondansetron patients had delayed-phase complete response (p = 0.014). APF530 was generally well tolerated; treatment-emergent adverse event incidence was similar across arms, mostly mild-to-moderate injection-site reactions. CONCLUSION: APF530 versus the standard three-drug regimen provided superior control of delayed-phase CINV following HEC. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02106494.

Sotatercept (ACE-011) for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients with metastatic breast cancer or advanced or metastatic solid tumors treated with platinum-based chemotherapeutic regimens: results from two phase 2 studies.

PURPOSE: Sotatercept may represent a novel approach to the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). We report the results from two phase 2 randomized studies examining the use of sotatercept for the treatment of CIA in patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS: In study A011-08, patients with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to 2:2:2:1 to receive sotatercept 0.1, 0.3, or 0.5 mg/kg, or placebo, respectively, every 28 days. In study ACE-011-NSCL-001, patients with solid tumors treated with platinum-based chemotherapy received sotatercept 15 or 30 mg every 42 days. The primary endpoint for both studies was hematopoietic response, defined as a hemoglobin (Hb) increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline. RESULTS: Both studies were terminated early due to slow patient accrual. Among patients treated with sotatercept in the A011-08 and ACE-011-NSCL-001 studies, more patients achieved a mean Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL in the combined sotatercept 0.3 mg/kg and 15 mg (66.7 %) group and sotatercept 0.5 mg/kg and 30 mg (38.9 %) group versus the sotatercept 0.1 mg/kg (0 %) group. No patients achieved a mean Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL in the placebo group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was low in both studies, and treatment discontinuations due to AEs were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Although both studies were terminated early, these results indicate that sotatercept is active and has an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of CIA.

Comparison of an extended-release formulation of granisetron (APF530) versus palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority phase 3 trial.

PURPOSE: Subcutaneous APF530 provides controlled sustained release of granisetron to prevent acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial compared APF530 and palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: Patients receiving single-day MEC or HEC received single-dose APF530 250 or 500 mg subcutaneously (SC) (granisetron 5 or 10 mg) or intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg. Primary objectives were to establish APF530 noninferiority to palonosetron for preventing acute CINV following MEC or HEC and delayed CINV following MEC and to determine APF530 superiority to palonosetron for preventing delayed CINV following HEC. The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR [using CI difference for APF530-palonosetron]). A lower confidence bound greater than -15 % indicated noninferiority. RESULTS: In the modified intent-to-treat population (MEC = 634; HEC = 707), both APF530 doses were noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute CINV after MEC (CRs 74.8 % [-9.8, 9.3] and 76.9 % [-7.5, 11.4], respectively, vs. 75.0 % palonosetron) and after HEC (CRs 77.7 % [-11.5, 5.5] and 81.3 % [-7.7, 8.7], respectively, vs. 80.7 % palonosetron). APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron in preventing delayed CINV after MEC (CR 58.5 % [-9.5, 12.1] vs. 57.2 % palonosetron) but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Adverse events were generally mild and unrelated to treatment, the most common (excluding injection-site reactions) being constipation. CONCLUSIONS: A single subcutaneous APF530 injection offers a convenient alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC.

An open-label, single-arm, phase 2 (PX-171-004) study of single-agent carfilzomib in bortezomib-naive patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma.

Carfilzomib is a selective proteasome inhibitor that binds irreversibly to its target. In phase 1 studies, carfilzomib elicited promising responses and an acceptable toxicity profile in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM). In the present phase 2, multicenter, open-label study, 129 bortezomib-naive patients with R/R MM (median of 2 prior therapies) were separated into Cohort 1, scheduled to receive intravenous carfilzomib 20 mg/m(2) for all treatment cycles, and Cohort 2, scheduled to receive 20 mg/m(2) for cycle 1 and then 27 mg/m(2) for all subsequent cycles. The primary end point was an overall response rate (≥ partial response) of 42.4% in Cohort 1 and 52.2% in Cohort 2. The clinical benefit response (overall response rate + minimal response) was 59.3% and 64.2% in Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Median duration of response was 13.1 months and not reached, and median time to progression was 8.3 months and not reached, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (62.0%) and nausea (48.8%). Single-agent carfilzomib elicited a low incidence of peripheral neuropathy-17.1% overall (1 grade 3; no grade 4)-in these pretreated bortezomib-naive patients. The results of the present study support the use of carfilzomib in R/R MM patients. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00530816.

Effects of enobosarm on muscle wasting and physical function in patients with cancer: a double-blind, randomised controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-induced muscle wasting begins early in the course of a patient's malignant disease, resulting in declining physical function and other detrimental clinical consequences. This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of enobosarm, a selective androgen receptor modulator, in patients with cancer. METHODS: We enrolled male (>45 years) and female (postmenopausal) patients with cancer who were not obese and who had at least 2% weight loss in the previous 6 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1 ratio, by computer generated list, block size three, stratified by cancer type) to receive once-daily oral enobosarm 1 mg, 3 mg, or placebo for up to 113 days at US and Argentinian oncology clinics. The sponsor, study personnel, and participants were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was change in total lean body mass from baseline, assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Efficacy analyses were done only in patients who had a baseline and an on-treatment assessment in the protocol-specified window of within 10 days before baseline or first study drug, and within 10 days of day 113 or end of study (evaluable efficacy population). Adverse events and other safety measurements were assessed in the intention-to-treat (safety) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00467844. FINDINGS: Enrolment started on July 3, 2007, and the last patient completed the trial on Aug 1, 2008. 159 patients were analysed for safety (placebo, n=52; enobosarm 1 mg, n=53; enobosarm 3 mg, n=54). The evaluable efficacy population included 100 participants (placebo, n=34; enobosarm 1 mg, n=32; enobosarm 3 mg, n=34). Compared with baseline, significant increases in total lean body mass by day 113 or end of study were noted in both enobosarm groups (enobosarm 1 mg median 1·5 kg, range -2·1 to 12·6, p=0·0012; enodosarm 3 mg 1·0 kg, -4·8 to 11·5, p=0·046). Change in total lean body mass within the placebo group (median 0·02 kg, range -5·8 to 6·7) was not significant (p=0·88). The most common serious adverse events were malignant neoplasm progression (eight of 52 [15%] with placebo vs five of 53 [9%] with enobosarm 1 mg vs seven of 54 [13%] with enobosarm 3 mg), pneumonia (two [4%] vs two [4%] vs three [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (three [6%vs one [2%] vs none). None of these events were deemed related to study drug. INTERPRETATION: Cancer cachexia is an unmet medical need and our data suggest that use of enobosarm might lead to improvements in lean body mass, without the toxic effects associated with androgens and progestational agents. FUNDING: GTx.

Oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (ASCERTAIN): a registrational, randomised, crossover, pharmacokinetics, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The DNA methyltransferase inhibitors azacitidine and decitabine for individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are available in parenteral form. Oral therapy with similar exposure for these diseases would offer potential treatment benefits. We aimed to compare the safety and pharmacokinetics of oral decitabine plus the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine. METHODS: We did a registrational, multicentre, open-label, crossover, phase 3 trial of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and individuals with acute myeloid leukaemia, enrolled as separate cohorts; results for only participants with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are reported here. In 37 academic and community-based clinics in Canada and the USA, we enrolled individuals aged 18 years or older who were candidates to receive intravenous decitabine, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 5 days of oral decitabine-cedazuridine (one tablet once daily containing 35 mg decitabine and 100 mg cedazuridine as a fixed-dose combination) or intravenous decitabine (20 mg/m2 per day by continuous 1-h intravenous infusion) in a 28-day treatment cycle, followed by 5 days of the other formulation in the next treatment cycle. Thereafter, all participants received oral decitabine-cedazuridine from the third cycle on until treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was total decitabine exposure over 5 days with oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for cycles 1 and 2, measured as area under the curve in participants who received the full treatment dose in cycles 1 and 2 and had decitabine daily AUC0-24 for both oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine (ie, paired cycles). On completion of the study, all patients were rolled over to a maintenance study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03306264. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2018, and June 7, 2021, 173 individuals were screened, 138 (80%) participants were randomly assigned to a treatment sequence, and 133 (96%) participants (87 [65%] men and 46 [35%] women; 121 [91%] White, four [3%] Black or African-American, three [2%] Asian, and five [4%] not reported) received treatment. Median follow-up was 966 days (IQR 917-1050). Primary endpoint of total exposure of oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine was 98·93% (90% CI 92·66-105·60), indicating equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure on the basis of area under the curve. The safety profiles of oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine were similar. The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or worse were thrombocytopenia (81 [61%] of 133 participants), neutropenia (76 [57%] participants), and anaemia (67 [50%] participants). The incidence of serious adverse events in cycles 1-2 was 31% (40 of 130 participants) with oral decitabine-cedazuridine and 18% (24 of 132 participants) with intravenous decitabine. There were five treatment-related deaths; two deemed related to oral therapy (sepsis and pneumonia) and three to intravenous treatment (septic shock [n=2] and pneumonia [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Oral decitabine-cedazuridine was pharmacologically and pharmacodynamically equivalent to intravenous decitabine. The results support use of oral decitabine-cedazuridine as a safe and effective alternative to intravenous decitabine for treatment of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals.

Vaccination of castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with TroVax (MVA-5T4) in combination with docetaxel: a randomized phase II trial.

The attenuated vaccinia virus, modified vaccinia Ankara, has been engineered to deliver the tumor antigen 5T4 (TroVax®). Here, we report results from a randomized open-label phase II trial in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients in which TroVax was administered in combination with docetaxel and compared against docetaxel alone. The aim was to recruit 80 patients (40 per arm), but the study was terminated early due to recruitment challenges. Therefore, this paper reports the comparative safety and immunological and clinical efficacy in 25 patients, 12 of whom were treated with TroVax plus docetaxel and 13 with docetaxel alone. 5T4-specific immune responses were monitored throughout the study. Clinical responses were assessed by measuring changes in tumor burden by CT and bone scan and by quantifying PSA concentrations. TroVax was well tolerated in all patients. Of 10 immunologically evaluable patients, 6 mounted 5T4-specific antibody responses. Patients treated with TroVax plus docetaxel showed a greater median progression-free survival of 9.67 months compared with 5.10 months for patients on the docetaxel alone arm (P = 0.097; HR = 0.31; 95% CI 0.08-1.24). Importantly, a pre-treatment biomarker previously demonstrated to predict 5T4 immune response and treatment benefit showed a strong association with 5T4 antibody response and a statistically significant association with progression-free survival in patients treated with TroVax plus docetaxel, but not docetaxel alone.

IOLite: phase 1b trial of doublet/triplet combinations of dostarlimab with niraparib, carboplatin-paclitaxel, with or without bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Doublet combination therapies targeting immune checkpoints have shown promising efficacy in patients with advanced solid tumors, but it is unknown if rational triplet combinations will be well tolerated and associated with improved antitumor activity. The objective of this trial was to determine the recommended phase 2 doses (RP2Ds) and to assess the safety and efficacy of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor dostarlimab in combination with (1) the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib with or without vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor bevacizumab or (2) carboplatin-paclitaxel chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: IOLite is a multicenter, open-label, multi-arm clinical trial. Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled. Patients received dostarlimab in combination with niraparib with or without bevacizumab or in combination with carboplatin-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. Prespecified endpoints in all parts were to evaluate the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), RP2Ds, pharmacokinetics (PKs), and preliminary efficacy for each combination. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were enrolled; patients received dostarlimab and: (1) niraparib in part A (n=22); (2) carboplatin-paclitaxel in part B (n=14); (3) niraparib plus bevacizumab in part C (n=13); (4) carboplatin-paclitaxel plus bevacizumab in part D (n=6). The RP2Ds of all combinations were determined. All combinations were safe and tolerable, with no new safety signals observed. DLTs were reported in 2, 1, 2, and 0 patients, in parts A-D, respectively. Preliminary antitumor activity was observed, with confirmed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 complete/partial responses reported in 4 of 22 patients (18.2%), 6 of 14 patients (42.9%), 4 of 13 patients (30.8%), and 3 of 6 (50.0%) patients, in parts A-D, respectively. Disease control rates were 40.9%, 57.1%, 84.6%, and 83.3%, in parts A-D, respectively. Dostarlimab PK was unaffected by any combinations tested. Coadministration of bevacizumab showed no impact on niraparib PKs. The overall mean PD-1 receptor occupancy was 99.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Dostarlimab was well tolerated in both doublet and triplet regimens tested, with promising antitumor activity observed with all combinations. We observed higher disease control rates in the triplet regimens than in doublet regimens. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03307785.

A Phase Ib/II Study of Pepinemab in Combination with Avelumab in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The CLASSICAL-Lung clinical trial tested the combination of pepinemab, an IgG4 humanized mAb targeting semaphorin 4D, with the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab to assess the effects of coupling increased T-cell infiltration and reversal of immune suppression via pepinemab with sustained T-cell activation via checkpoint inhibition. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase Ib/II, single-arm study was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pepinemab in combination with avelumab in 62 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including immunotherapy-naïve (ION) patients and patients whose tumors progressed following anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapy (IOF). The main objectives were to evaluate safety/tolerability, establish a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), obtain a preliminary evaluation of antitumor activity, and investigate candidate biomarker activity. RESULTS: The combination was well tolerated with no major safety signals identified. Pepinemab, 10 mg/kg with avelumab, 10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks, was selected as the RP2D. Among 21 evaluable ION patients, 5 patients experienced partial responses (PR), 4 patients evidenced clinical benefit ≥1 year, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 81%. Notably, overall response rate with the combination therapy was higher than previously reported for single-agent avelumab in the PD-L1-negative/low population. Among 29 evaluable IOF patients, the combination resulted in a DCR of 59%, including 2 PR and 7 patients with durable clinical benefit of ≥23 weeks. Biomarker analysis of biopsies demonstrated increased CD8 T-cell density correlating with RECIST response criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of pepinemab with avelumab was well tolerated in NSCLC and showed signs of antitumor activity in immunotherapy-resistant and PD-L1-negative/low tumors.

Tilsotolimod with Ipilimumab Drives Tumor Responses in Anti-PD-1 Refractory Melanoma.

Many patients with advanced melanoma are resistant to immune checkpoint inhibition. In the ILLUMINATE-204 phase I/II trial, we assessed intratumoral tilsotolimod, an investigational Toll-like receptor 9 agonist, with systemic ipilimumab in patients with anti-PD-1- resistant advanced melanoma. In all patients, 48.4% experienced grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events. The overall response rate at the recommended phase II dose of 8 mg was 22.4%, and an additional 49% of patients had stable disease. Responses in noninjected lesions and in patients expected to be resistant to ipilimumab monotherapy were observed. Rapid induction of a local IFNα gene signature, dendritic cell maturation and enhanced markers of antigen presentation, and T-cell clonal expansion correlated with clinical response. A phase III clinical trial with this combination (NCT03445533) is ongoing. SIGNIFICANCE: Despite recent developments in advanced melanoma therapies, most patients do not experience durable responses. Intratumoral tilsotolimod injection elicits a rapid, local type 1 IFN response and, in combination with ipilimumab, activates T cells to promote clinical activity, including in distant lesions and patients not expected to respond to ipilimumab alone.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1861.

TROPICS 1: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of tenecteplase for restoration of function in dysfunctional central venous catheters.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the thrombolytic tenecteplase, a fibrin-specific recombinant tissue plasminogen activator, for restoring function to dysfunctional central venous catheters (CVCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, eligible patients with dysfunctional nonhemodialysis CVCs were randomly assigned to two treatment arms. In the first arm (TNK-TNK-PBO), patients received an initial dose of intraluminal tenecteplase (TNK) (up to 2 mg), a second dose of tenecteplase if indicated, and a third placebo (PBO) dose. In the PBO-TNK-TNK arm, placebo was instilled first followed by up to two doses of tenecteplase, if needed, for restoration of catheter function. After administration of each dose, CVC function was assessed at 15, 30, and 120 minutes. RESULTS: There were 97 patients who received either TNK-TNK-PBO (n = 50) or PBO-TNK-TNK (n = 47). Within 120 minutes of initial study drug instillation, catheter function was restored to 30 patients (60%) in the TNK-TNK-PBO arm and 11 patients (23%) in the PBO-TNK-TNK arm, for a treatment difference of 37 percentage points (95% confidence interval 18-55; P = .0002). Cumulative restoration rates for CVC function increased to 87% after the second dose of tenecteplase in both study arms combined. Two patients developed a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after exposure to tenecteplase; one DVT was considered to be drug related. No cases of intracranial hemorrhage, major bleeding, embolic events, catheter-related bloodstream infections, or catheter-related complications were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Tenecteplase was efficacious for restoration of catheter function in these study patients with dysfunctional CVCs.

Effect of the cytochrome P450 2C19 inhibitor omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics and safety profile of bortezomib in patients with advanced solid tumours, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Bortezomib, an antineoplastic for the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma, undergoes metabolism through oxidative deboronation by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, primarily CYP3A4 and CYP2C19. Omeprazole, a proton-pump inhibitor, is primarily metabolized by and demonstrates high affinity for CYP2C19. This study investigated whether coadministration of omeprazole affected the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profile of bortezomib in patients with advanced cancer. The variability of bortezomib pharmacokinetics with CYP enzyme polymorphism was also investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, crossover, pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction study was conducted at seven institutions in the US and Europe between January 2005 and August 2006. Patients who had advanced solid tumours, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or multiple myeloma, were aged >/=18 years, weighed >/=50 kg and had a life expectancy of >/=3 months were eligible. Patients received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 for two 21-day cycles, plus omeprazole 40 mg in the morning of days 6-10 and in the evening of day 8 in either cycle 1 (sequence 1) or cycle 2 (sequence 2). On day 21 of cycle 2, patients benefiting from therapy could continue to receive bortezomib for six additional cycles. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic evaluation were collected prior to and at various timepoints after bortezomib administration on day 8 of cycles 1 and 2. Blood samples for pharmacogenomics were also collected. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated by noncompartmental analysis of plasma concentration-time data for bortezomib administration on day 8 of cycles 1 and 2, using WinNonlin version 4.0.1.a software. The pharmacodynamic profile was assessed using a whole-blood 20S proteasome inhibition assay. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (median age 64 years) were enrolled, 12 in sequence 1 and 15 in sequence 2, including eight and nine pharmacokinetic-evaluable patients, respectively. Bortezomib pharmacokinetic parameters were similar when bortezomib was administered alone or with omeprazole (maximum plasma concentration 120 vs 123 ng/mL; area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 72 hours 129 vs 135 ng . h/mL). The pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar (maximum effect 85.8% vs 93.7%; area under the percent inhibition-time curve over 72 hours 4052 vs 3910 % x h); the differences were not statistically significant. Pharmacogenomic analysis revealed no meaningful relationships between CYP enzyme polymorphisms and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters. Toxicities were generally similar between patients in sequence 1 and sequence 2, and between cycle 1 and cycle 2 in both treatment sequences. Among 26 evaluable patients, 13 (50%) were assessed as benefiting from bortezomib at the end of cycle 2 and continued to receive treatment. CONCLUSION: No impact on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profile of bortezomib was seen with coadministration of omeprazole. Concomitant administration of bortezomib and omeprazole is unlikely to cause clinically significant drug-drug interactions and is unlikely to have an impact on the efficacy or safety of bortezomib.

A phase 2 clinical trial of deforolimus (AP23573, MK-8669), a novel mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, in patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies.

PURPOSE: Deforolimus (AP23573), a novel non-prodrug rapamycin analogue, inhibits the mammalian target of rapamycin, a downstream effector of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt and nutrient-sensing pathways. A phase 2 trial was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of single-agent deforolimus in patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eligible patients were assigned to one of five disease-specific, parallel cohorts and given 12.5 mg deforolimus as a 30-minute infusion once daily for 5 days every 2 weeks. A Simon two-stage design was used for each cohort. Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor response were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients received deforolimus as follows: cohort 1 23 acute myelogenous leukemia, two myelodysplastic syndrome and one chronic myelogenous leukemia in nonlymphoid blast phase; cohort 2, one acute lymphocytic leukemia; cohort 3, nine agnogenic myeloid metaplasia; cohort 4, eight chronic lymphocytic leukemia; cohort 5, nine mantle cell lymphoma and two T-cell leukemia/lymphoma. Most patients were heavily pretreated. Of the 52 evaluable patients, partial responses were noted in five (10%), two of seven agnogenic myeloid metaplasia and three of nine mantle cell lymphoma. Hematologic improvement/stable disease was observed in 21 (40%). Common treatment-related adverse events, which were generally mild and reversible, were mouth sores, fatigue, nausea, and thrombocytopenia. Decreased levels of phosphorylated 4E-BP1 in 9 of 11 acute myelogenous leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome patients after therapy showed mammalian target of rapamycin inhibition by deforolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Deforolimus was well-tolerated in patients with heavily pretreated hematologic malignancies, and antitumor activity was observed. Further investigation of deforolimus alone and in combination with other therapeutic agents is warranted in patients with selected hematologic malignancies.