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.

A first in man, dose-finding study of the mTORC1/mTORC2 inhibitor OSI-027 in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The kinase activity of mTOR involves 2 multiprotein complexes, (mTORC1-mTORC2). Targeting mTORC1 with rapalogues induces compensatory feedback loops resulting in AKT/ERK activation, which may be abrogated by mTORC2 inhibition. A first-in-human trial evaluating tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the dual TORC1/TORC2 inhibitor OSI-027 was conducted. METHODS: Dose escalation was pursued for three schedules of administration (three consecutive days per week (S1), once a week (S2) and daily dosing (S3)), until dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were identified. Expansion cohorts with paired tumour biopsies were initiated based on tolerability and pharmacodynamics. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty eight patients with advanced cancer were enrolled. DLT consisted predominantly of fatigue, renal function disturbances and cardiac events. OSI-027 exposure was dose proportional, with Tmax within 4 h and a half-life of ∼14 h. Expansion cohorts were initiated for S1 and S2, as MTD for S3 was overall considered suboptimal. Target modulation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were observed from 30 mg, but in tumour biopsies 120 mg QD were needed, which was a non-tolerable dose due to renal toxicity. No RECIST responses were recorded, with stable disease >6 months in six (5%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: OSI-027 inhibits mTORC1/2 in patients with advanced tumour s in a dose-dependent manner but doses above the tolerable levels in S1 and S3 are required for a sustained biological effect in tumour biopsies.

Phase I trials in patients with relapsed, advanced upper gastrointestinal carcinomas: experience in a specialist unit.

BACKGROUND: Conventional therapeutic options for patients with advanced upper gastrointestinal cancers (UGIC) are limited. Following first-line treatments, some patients are offered experimental therapies, including participation in Phase I trials. This study aims to describe the experience of UGIC patients treated in a dedicated Phase I unit. METHODS: Patient, tumour and treatment characteristics, and clinical outcomes of UGIC patients treated consecutively at the Drug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, between 2005 and 2009, were recorded. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients who previously received a median of 2 (range 1-4) lines of chemotherapies were treated in 30 Phase I trials. Of 81 evaluable patients, 9 achieved RECIST-objective response (11 %) with a 6-month clinical benefit rate of 14 %. Median progression free and overall survival were 7.7 weeks [95 %CI 7.7 (6.4-9.0)] and 19.1 weeks (95 %CI 17.5-20.8), respectively. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities were observed in 37 patients (39 %) and led to trial discontinuation in 9 (9 %); no toxicity-related death was recorded. In the multivariate analysis, serum albumin (<35 g/dl, HR2.0, p = 0.002) and lactate dehydrogenase (>192 µmol/l, HR1.7, p = 0.016) were prognostic of overall survival. CONCLUSION: Phase I clinical trials can be considered a reasonable option in selected patients with relapsed UGIC. The use of objective prognosticators may improve selection and risk/benefit profile of patients.

The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib (MK4827) in BRCA mutation carriers and patients with sporadic cancer: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) is implicated in DNA repair and transcription regulation. Niraparib (MK4827) is an oral potent, selective PARP-1 and PARP-2 inhibitor that induces synthetic lethality in preclinical tumour models with loss of BRCA and PTEN function. We investigated the safety, tolerability, maximum tolerated dose, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and preliminary antitumour activity of niraparib. METHODS: In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, we enrolled patients with advanced solid tumours at one site in the UK and two sites in the USA. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years; had a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less; had assessable disease; were not suitable to receive any established treatments; had adequate organ function; and had discontinued any previous anticancer treatments at least 4 weeks previously. In part A, cohorts of three to six patients, enriched for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, received niraparib daily at ten escalating doses from 30 mg to 400 mg in a 21-day cycle to establish the maximum tolerated dose. Dose expansion at the maximum tolerated dose was pursued in 15 patients to confirm tolerability. In part B, we further investigated the maximum tolerated dose in patients with sporadic platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer and sporadic prostate cancer. We obtained blood, circulating tumour cells, and optional paired tumour biopsies for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessments. Toxic effects were assessed by common toxicity criteria and tumour responses ascribed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Circulating tumour cells and archival tumour tissue in prostate patients were analysed for exploratory putative predictive biomarkers, such as loss of PTEN expression and ETS rearrangements. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00749502. FINDINGS: Between Sept 15, 2008, and Jan 14, 2011, we enrolled 100 patients: 60 in part A and 40 in part B. 300 mg/day was established as the maximum tolerated dose. Dose-limiting toxic effects reported in the first cycle were grade 3 fatigue (one patient given 30 mg/day), grade 3 pneumonitis (one given 60 mg/day), and grade 4 thrombocytopenia (two given 400 mg/day). Common treatment-related toxic effects were anaemia (48 patients [48%]), nausea (42 [42%]), fatigue (42 [42%]), thrombocytopenia (35 [35%]), anorexia (26 [26%]), neutropenia (24 [24%]), constipation (23 [23%]), and vomiting (20 [20%]), and were predominantly grade 1 or 2. Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional and the mean terminal elimination half-life was 36·4 h (range 32·8-46·0). Pharmacodynamic analyses confirmed PARP inhibition exceeded 50% at doses greater than 80 mg/day and antitumour activity was documented beyond doses of 60 mg/day. Eight (40% [95% CI 19-64]) of 20 BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with ovarian cancer had RECIST partial responses, as did two (50% [7-93]) of four mutation carriers with breast cancer. Antitumour activity was also reported in sporadic high-grade serous ovarian cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, and prostate cancer. We recorded no correlation between loss of PTEN expression or ETS rearrangements and measures of antitumour activity in patients with prostate cancer. INTERPRETATION: A recommended phase 2 dose of 300 mg/day niraparib is well tolerated. Niraparib should be further assessed in inherited and sporadic cancers with homologous recombination DNA repair defects and to target PARP-mediated transcription in cancer. FUNDING: Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Ovarian cancer: strategies for overcoming resistance to chemotherapy.

Ovarian cancer is responsible for 4% of deaths from cancer in women. Treatment comprises a combination of surgery and chemotherapy, but patients typically experience disease relapse within 2 years of the initial treatment. Further treatment can extend survival, although relapse eventually occurs again. A better understanding of the mechanisms that underlie this drug resistance should allow treatment to be optimized, so that substantial improvements in the outlook for women with this disease can be achieved.

Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: The inhibition of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) is a potential synthetic lethal therapeutic strategy for the treatment of cancers with specific DNA-repair defects, including those arising in carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. We conducted a clinical evaluation in humans of olaparib (AZD2281), a novel, potent, orally active PARP inhibitor. METHODS: This was a phase 1 trial that included the analysis of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of olaparib. Selection was aimed at having a study population enriched in carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. RESULTS: We enrolled and treated 60 patients; 22 were carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and 1 had a strong family history of BRCA-associated cancer but declined to undergo mutational testing. The olaparib dose and schedule were increased from 10 mg daily for 2 of every 3 weeks to 600 mg twice daily continuously. Reversible dose-limiting toxicity was seen in one of eight patients receiving 400 mg twice daily (grade 3 mood alteration and fatigue) and two of five patients receiving 600 mg twice daily (grade 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 3 somnolence). This led us to enroll another cohort, consisting only of carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, to receive olaparib at a dose of 200 mg twice daily. Other adverse effects included mild gastrointestinal symptoms. There was no obvious increase in adverse effects seen in the mutation carriers. Pharmacokinetic data indicated rapid absorption and elimination; pharmacodynamic studies confirmed PARP inhibition in surrogate samples (of peripheral-blood mononuclear cells and plucked eyebrow-hair follicles) and tumor tissue. Objective antitumor activity was reported only in mutation carriers, all of whom had ovarian, breast, or prostate cancer and had received multiple treatment regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib has few of the adverse effects of conventional chemotherapy, inhibits PARP, and has antitumor activity in cancer associated with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00516373.)

Advanced solid tumors treated with cediranib: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and CT as markers of vascular activity.

PURPOSE: To assess baseline reproducibility and compare performance of dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging versus DCE computed tomographic (CT) measures of early vascular response in the same patients treated with cediranib (30 or 45 mg daily). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After institutional review board approval, written informed consent was obtained from 29 patients with advanced solid tumors who had lesions 3 cm or larger and in whom simultaneous imaging of an adjacent artery was possible. Two baseline DCE MR acquisitions and two baseline DCE CT acquisitions 7 days or fewer apart (within 14 days of starting treatment) and two posttreatment acquisitions with each modality at day 7 and 28 (±3 days) were obtained. Nonmodeled and modeled parameters were derived (measured arterial input function [AIF] for CT, population-based AIF for MR imaging; temporal sampling rate of 0.5 second for CT, 3-6 seconds for MR imaging). Baseline variability was assessed by using intra- and intersubject analysis of variance and Bland-Altman analysis; a paired t test assessed change from baseline to after treatment. RESULTS: The most reproducible parameters were DCE MR imaging enhancement fraction (baseline intrapatient coefficient of variation [CV]=8.6%), volume transfer constant (CV=13.9%), and integrated area under the contrast agent uptake curve at 60 seconds (CV=15.5%) and DCE CT positive enhancement integral (CV=16.0%). Blood plasma volume was highly variable and the only parameter with CV greater than 30%. Average reductions (percentage change) from baseline were consistently observed for all DCE MR imaging and DCE CT parameters at day 7 and 28 for both starting-dose groups (45 and 30 mg), except for DCE CT mean transit time. Percentage change from baseline for parameters reflecting blood flow and permeability were comparable, and reductions from baseline at day 7 were maintained at day 28. CONCLUSION: DCE MR imaging and DCE CT can depict vascular response to antiangiogenic agents with response evident at day 7. Improved reproducibility with MR imaging favors its use in trials with small patient numbers.

Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of trabectedin and carboplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This study intended to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended phase II dose (RD) of trabectedin combined with carboplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Carboplatin-pretreated patients received carboplatin AUC 4 (Group 1), whereas carboplatin-naïve patients received carboplatin AUC 5 (Group 2) as a 1-h i.v. infusion followed by trabectedin at dose range from 0.5-1.2 mg/m(2) in the schedule of 3-h/every-3-weeks. Pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling was performed in the first 2 cycles. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were treated and evaluable for safety and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). In Group 1, at trabectedin 1.0 mg/m(2), cumulative hematological toxicity was found in all patients and 1/10 patients had DLTs. The RD was considered trabectedin 0.8 mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin AUC 4. Although no DLT occurred at this dose level, frequent dose delays (28.6%) and the 4-week cycle re-scheduling (66.7%) were required. In Group 2, DLTs occurred at trabectedin 0.8 mg/m(2) (3/8 patients), 1.0 mg/m(2) (3/10 patients) and 1.2 mg/m(2) (2/2 patients) with cumulative hematological toxicity associated with an important number of transfusions. In this group, neither the MTD nor the RD were established. Promising antitumor activity was found for this carboplatin/trabectedin combination; especially in patients with advanced ovarian cancer and soft tissue sarcoma. No significant PK drug-drug interaction occurred. CONCLUSIONS: This study established a trabectedin dose of 0.8 mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin AUC 4 and given every 4 weeks as the most feasible schedule in carboplatin-pretreated patients. Dose and cycle recommendations for carboplatin-naïve patients warrant further evaluation.

Metastatic ovarian and primary peritoneal cancer: assessing chemotherapy response with diffusion-weighted MR imaging--value of histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficients.

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histograms in the prediction of chemotherapy response in patients with metastatic ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Research ethics committee approval and patient written informed consent were obtained. Diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was performed through the abdomen and pelvis before and after one and three cycles of chemotherapy in 42 women (mean age, 63.0 years ± 11.4 [standard deviation]) with newly diagnosed or recurrent disease. Reproducibility and intra- and interobserver agreement of ADC calculations were assessed. Per-patient weighted ADC histograms were generated at each time point from pixel ADCs from five or fewer target lesions. Mean ADC, percentiles (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th), skew, kurtosis, and their change were analyzed according to histologic grade, primary versus recurrent disease status, and response, determined with integrated biochemical and morphologic criteria, with a linear mixed model. Areas under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for combinations of parameters were calculated with linear discriminant analysis. RESULTS: Coefficients of variation for repeat measurements and for within and between observers were 4.8%, 11.4%, and 13.7%, respectively. Grade and disease status did not significantly affect histogram parameters. Pretreatment ADCs were not predictive of response. In responders, all ADCs increased after the first and third cycle (P < .001), while skew and kurtosis decreased after the third (P < .001 and P = .006, respectively); however, in nonresponders, no parameter changed significantly. Percentage change of the 25th percentile performed best in identifying response (AUC = 0.82 and 0.83 after first and third cycle, respectively), whereas combination of parameters did not improve accuracy. CONCLUSION: An early increase of ADCs and later decrease of skew and kurtosis characterize chemotherapy response. Quantitative DW MR imaging can aid in early monitoring of treatment efficacy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Quantitative imaging of RAD51 expression as a marker of platinum resistance in ovarian cancer.

Early relapse after platinum chemotherapy in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) portends poor survival. A-priori identification of platinum resistance is therefore crucial to improve on standard first-line carboplatin-paclitaxel treatment. The DNA repair pathway homologous recombination (HR) repairs platinum-induced damage, and the HR recombinase RAD51 is overexpressed in cancer. We therefore designed a REMARK-compliant study of pre-treatment RAD51 expression in EOC, using fluorescent quantitative immunohistochemistry (qIHC) to overcome challenges in quantitation of protein expression in situ. In a discovery cohort (n = 284), RAD51-High tumours had shorter progression-free and overall survival compared to RAD51-Low cases in univariate and multivariate analyses. The association of RAD51 with relapse/survival was validated in a carboplatin monotherapy SCOTROC4 clinical trial cohort (n = 264) and was predominantly noted in HR-proficient cancers (Myriad HRDscore < 42). Interestingly, overexpression of RAD51 modified expression of immune-regulatory pathways in vitro, while RAD51-High tumours showed exclusion of cytotoxic T cells in situ. Our findings highlight RAD51 expression as a determinant of platinum resistance and suggest possible roles for therapy to overcome immune exclusion in RAD51-High EOC. The qIHC approach is generalizable to other proteins with a continuum instead of discrete/bimodal expression.

PARP inhibition: targeting the Achilles' heel of DNA repair to treat germline and sporadic ovarian cancers.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ovarian cancer remains the gynaecological malignancy with the highest mortality in the Western world. The strategy of identifying biologically distinct subgroups of ovarian cancer by means of clinical characteristics, histology and molecular profiling is an exciting prospect in personalizing and improving therapy for ovarian cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Preclinical recognition that BRCA1 and BRCA2-associated tumours are very sensitive to inhibition of poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP), a key molecule in DNA repair, led to ovarian cancer patients with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations being treated with the PARP inhibitor olaparib (AZD2281, KU-0059436; KuDOS/Astra-Zeneca). The initial trials of olaparib in this patient population demonstrated an impressive rate of clinical benefit. Furthermore, tumours from patients with sporadic ovarian cancer have been found to commonly have somatic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations or other defects in DNA repair, with the implication that PARP inhibition may also have a role in treating these patients. SUMMARY: In this review, we discuss DNA repair mechanisms and strategies used to target them in oncology, our current experience with PARP inhibition in BRCA1 and BRCA2-mutation associated and sporadic ovarian cancer, as well as current issues in the clinical development of these agents.

Baseline Results of the West London lung cancer screening pilot study - Impact of mobile scanners and dual risk model utilisation.

OBJECTIVES: The West London lung screening pilot aimed to identify early-stage lung cancer by targeting low-dose CT (LDCT) to high risk participants. Successful implementation of screening requires maximising participant uptake and identifying those at highest risk. As well as reporting pre-specified baseline screening metrics, additional objectives were to 1) compare participant uptake between a mobile and hospital-based CT scanner and 2) evaluate the impact on cancer detection using two lung cancer risk models. METHODS: From primary care records, ever-smokers aged 60-75 were invited to a lung health check at a hospital or mobile site. Participants with PLCOM2012 6-yr risk ≥1.51 % and/or LLPv2 5-yr risk ≥2.0 % were offered a LDCT. Lung cancer detection rate, stage, and recall rates are reported. Participant uptake was compared at both sites (chi-squared test). LDCT eligibility and cancer detection rate were compared between those recruited under each risk model. RESULTS: Of 8366 potential participants invited, 1047/5135 (20.4 %) invitees responded to an invitation to the hospital site, and 702/3231 (21.7 %) to the mobile site (p = 0.14). The median distance travelled to the hospital site was less than to the mobile site (3.3 km vs 6.4 km, p < 0.01). Of 1159 participants eligible for a scan, 451/1159 (38.9 %) had a LLPv2 ≥2.0 % only, 71/1159 (6.1 %) had a PLCOM2012 ≥1.5 % only; 637/1159 (55.0 %) met both risk thresholds. Recall rate was 15.9 %. Lung cancer was detected in 29/1145 (2.5 %) participants scanned (stage 1, 58.6 %); 5/29 participants with lung cancer did not meet a PLCOM2012 threshold of ≥1.51 %; all had a LLPv2 ≥2.0 %. CONCLUSION: Targeted screening is effective in detecting early-stage lung cancer. Similar levels of participant uptake at a mobile and fixed site scanner were demonstrated, indicating that uptake was driven by factors in addition to scanner location. The LLPv2 model was more permissive; recruitment with PLCOM2012 alone would have missed several cancers.

Multidisciplinary interventions in a specialist Drug Development Unit to improve family history documentation and onward referral of patients with advanced cancer to cancer genetics services.

BACKGROUND: Molecular aberrations in cancer may represent therapeutic targets, and, if arising from the germline, may impact further cancer risk management in patients and their blood relatives. Annually, 600-700 patients are referred for consideration of experimental drug trials in the Drug Development Unit (DDU) in our institution. A proportion of patients may merit germline genetic testing because of suspicious personal/family history or findings of tumour-based testing. We aimed to assess the impact of different multidisciplinary interventions on family history taking and referral rates from DDU to Cancer Genetics Unit (CGU). METHODS: Over 42 months, three interventions were undertaken at different intervals: (1) embedding a genetics provider in the DDU review clinic, (2) 'traffic light' system flagging cancers with a heritable component and (3) virtual multidisciplinary meeting (MDM). Comparative analyses between intervals were undertaken, including referral rates to CGU, investigations and patient outcomes. Family history taking in a sample of 20 patients managed in each interval was assessed by a retrospective chart review. RESULTS: Frequency of family history taking and referral to CGU, increased with each intervention, particularly, the virtual MDM (40% vs 85%). Referral rates increased over the study period, from 0.1 referral/week (5/year, 0.36% total referrals) to 1.2/week (projected 63/year, 3.81%). Forty-four (52%) patients referred required germline testing; in three of whom, variants were identified. Non-attendance rates were low (6, 7%). CONCLUSION: Patients in the DDU are unique, with long cancer histories and often short estimated life expectancy. Multidisciplinary working between CGU and DDU facilitates germline testing of those patients who may otherwise miss the opportunity.

Phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Brivanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling. We performed a phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in 7 tumour types (soft-tissue sarcomas [STS], ovarian cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC], gastric/esophageal cancer and transitional cell carcinoma [TCC]). PATIENTS AND METHODS: During a 12-week open-label lead-in period, patients received brivanib 800 mg daily and were evaluated for FGF2 status by immunohistochemistry. Patients with stable disease at week 12 were randomised to brivanib or placebo. A study steering committee evaluated week 12 response to determine if enrolment in a tumour type would continue. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) for brivanib versus placebo in patients with FGF2-positive tumours. RESULTS: A total of 595 patients were treated, and stable disease was observed at the week 12 randomisation point in all tumour types. Closure decisions were made for breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, NSCLC, gastric cancer and TCC. Criteria for expansion were met for STS and ovarian cancer. In 53 randomised patients with STS and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 2.8 months for brivanib and 1.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.58, p = 0.08). For all randomised patients with sarcomas, the median PFS was 2.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-4.0) for those treated with brivanib compared with 1.4 months (95% CI: 1.3-1.6) for placebo (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.38-1.07; p = 0.09). In the 36 randomised patients with ovarian cancer and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 4.0 (95% CI: 2.6-4.2) months for brivanib and 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2-2.7) for placebo (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.26-1.22). For all randomised patients with ovarian cancer, the median PFS in those randomised to brivanib was 4.0 months (95% CI: 2.6-4.2) and was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2-2.7) in those randomised to placebo (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.25-1.17; p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: Brivanib demonstrated activity in STS and ovarian cancer with an acceptable safety profile. FGF2 expression, as defined in the protocol, is not a predictive biomarker of the efficacy of brivanib.

The Bcl-2/Bcl-XL family inhibitor ABT-737 sensitizes ovarian cancer cells to carboplatin.

PURPOSE: The effective treatment of ovarian cancer is hampered by the development of drug resistance, which may be mediated by members of the Bcl-2 family of apoptosis regulators. ABT-737 is a recently described inhibitor of members of this family. We investigated whether this compound could sensitize ovarian cancer cells to chemotherapeutic agents. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The sensitivity of ovarian cancer cell lines to ABT-737 in combination with either carboplatin or paclitaxel was tested either in vitro by assessing cell growth/survival and apoptosis or in xenograft studies. RESULTS: As a single agent, ABT-737 inhibited the growth of eight ovarian cancer cell lines, although with relatively poor potency. However, ABT-737, but not a less active enantiomer, increased the sensitivity of several cell lines to carboplatin. The increased sensitivity to carboplatin was accompanied by a decrease in time at which apoptosis was observed when assessed according to the number of attached cells, PARP cleavage, and nucleosome formation. ABT-737 was more effective at sensitizing IGROV-1 cells when ABT-737 was administered after carboplatin. In addition, ABT-737 significantly enhanced the activity of carboplatin in one of three primary cultures derived directly from ascitic tumor cells in patients recently treated with chemotherapy. Small interfering RNA directed to Bcl-X(L) also increased the sensitivity of ovarian cancer cell lines to carboplatin. ABT-737 was also able to augment the inhibition of IGROV-1 tumor xenograft growth beyond that obtained with carboplatin alone. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that ABT-737, in combination with carboplatin, may find utility in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer.

10th Biennial Helene Harris Memorial Trust meeting.

Improving the prognosis of ovarian cancer patients is a major challenge to scientists and clinicians. At a recent multidisciplinary meeting in Washington DC, advances in identification of precursor lesions, progress in disease biomarkers and animal models, the promise of nanotechnology, and strategies for manipulation of the innate and adaptive immune response offered prospects for real progress in this difficult-to-treat disease.

The role of genomic profiling in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with advanced cancer participating in phase I clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with cancer between ages 15-39 years may harbour germline variants associated with cancer predisposition. Such variants represent putative therapeutic targets, as may somatic variants in the tumour. Germline and tumour molecular profiling is increasingly utilised to facilitate personalisation of cancer treatment in such individuals. AIM: Considering AYAs with advanced solid tumours managed in a specialist drug development unit (DDU), the aims of this study were to investigate the use and impact of: 1. Germline genetic assessment. 2. Tumour molecular profiling. METHODS: AYAs treated in the DDU at the Royal Marsden Hospital between 2002 and 2016 were identified from departmental databases. Data regarding clinicopathological features, clinical assessments and germline and tumour genetic testing were retrieved by chart review. RESULTS: The study cohort included 219 AYAs. Common cancer types included sarcoma (41, 19%); cervical (27, 12%); breast (25, 11%); ovarian (23, 11%) and colorectal (21, 10%) cancers. Germline testing was undertaken in 34 (16%) patients, 22 of whom carried a pathogenic variant. Using current testing criteria, an additional 32 (15%) would be eligible for germline testing based on their personal history of cancer alone. Tumour testing was undertaken in 46 (21%) individuals. Somatic mutations were commonly identified in TP53 13 (28%); PIK3CA (8, 18%); KRAS (4, 9%) and MET 5 (11%). DISCUSSION: A significant proportion of AYAs with advanced cancer have targetable somatic or germline mutations. Consideration of familial risk factors and inclusion of germline testing wherever appropriate can complement tumour testing to optimise patient management and inform management of at-risk relatives.

Clinical outcomes of adolescents and young adults with advanced solid tumours participating in phase I trials.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with advanced solid tumours are often considered for phase I clinical trials with novel agents. The outcome of AYAs in these trials have not been described before. AIM: To study the outcome of AYA patients in phase I clinical trials. METHODS: Clinical trial data of AYAs (defined as aged 15-39 years at diagnosis) treated at the Drug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, between 2002 and 2016, were analysed. RESULTS: From a prospectively maintained database of 2631 patients treated in phase I trials, 219 AYA patients (8%) were identified. Major tumour types included gynaecological cancer (25%) and sarcoma (18%). Twenty-five (11%) had a known hereditary cancer syndrome (most commonly BRCA). Molecular characterisation of tumours (n = 45) identified mutations most commonly in TP53 (33%), PI3KCA (18%) and KRAS (9%). Therapeutic targets of trials included DNA damage repair (16%), phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) (16%) and angiogenesis (16%). Grade 3/4 toxicities were experienced in 26% of patients. Of the 214 evaluable patients, objective response rate was 12%, with clinical benefit rate at 6 months of 22%. Median overall survival (OS) was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval: 6.3-9.5), and 2-year OS was 11%. Of patients with responses, 36% were matched to phase I trials based on germline or somatic genetic aberrations. CONCLUSION: We describe the outcome of the largest cohort of AYA patients treated in phase I trials. A subgroup of these patients demonstrates benefit, with several durable responses beyond 2 years. A sizeable proportion of AYA patients have cancer syndromes, significant family history or somatic molecular aberrancies which may influence novel therapeutic treatment options.