Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with brain metastases: CheckMate 920.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and safety in patients with previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Although most phase 3 clinical trials exclude patients with brain metastases, the ongoing, multicohort phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial (ClincalTrials.gov identifier NCT02982954) evaluated the safety and efficacy of NIVO + IPI in a cohort that included patients with aRCC and brain metastases, as reported here. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated aRCC and asymptomatic brain metastases received NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks. The primary end point was the incidence of grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of the last dose of study drug. Key secondary end points were progression-free survival and the objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (both determined by the investigator). Exploratory end points included overall survival, among others. RESULTS: After a minimum follow-up of 24.5 months (N = 28), no grade 5 imAEs occurred. The most common grade 3 and 4 imAEs were diarrhea/colitis (n = 2; 7%) and hypophysitis, rash, hepatitis, and diabetes mellitus (n = 1 each; 4%). The objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 14.9%-53.5%) with a median duration of response of 24.0 months; 4 of 8 responders remained without reported progression. Seven patients (25%) had intracranial progression. The median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 2.9-12.0 months), and the median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 14.1 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who had previously untreated aRCC and brain metastases-a population with a high unmet medical need that often is underrepresented in clinical trials-the approved regimen of NIVO + IPI followed by NIVO showed encouraging antitumor activity and no new safety signals.

FOLFOXIRI-Bevacizumab or FOLFOX-Panitumumab in Patients with Left-Sided RAS/BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Doublets plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs) are the preferred upfront option for patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Initial therapy with FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab is superior to doublets plus bevacizumab independently from primary tumor sidedness and RAS/BRAF status. No randomized comparison between FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab versus doublets plus anti-EGFRs is available in left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected patients with left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with first-line FOLFOX-panitumumab or FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab in five randomized trials: Valentino, TRIBE, TRIBE2, STEAM, and CHARTA. A propensity score-based analysis was performed to compare FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab with FOLFOX-panitumumab. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients received FOLFOX-panitumumab and 132 received FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 13.3 and 33.1 months in the FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab group compared with 11.4 and 30.3 months in the FOLFOX-panitumumab group (propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for PFS, 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-1.04; p = .11; propensity score-adjusted HR for OS, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.59-1.08; p = .14). No significant differences in overall response rate and disease control rate were observed. A statistically nonsignificant difference in favor of FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab was observed for OS after secondary resection of metastases. Chemotherapy-related adverse events were more frequent in the FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab group, with specific regard to grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (48% vs. 26%, adjusted p = .001). CONCLUSION: Although randomized comparison is lacking, both FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab and FOLFOX-panitumumab are valuable treatment options in left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A propensity score-based analysis of five trials was performed to compare FOLFOX-panitumumab versus FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab in left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). No significant differences were observed, but FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab achieved numerically superior survival outcomes versus FOLFOX-panitumumab. Chemotherapy-related adverse events were more frequent in the FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab group. These observations suggest that although doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFRs remains the preferred treatment in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC, FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab is a valuable option able to provide similar, if not better, outcomes at the price of a moderate increase in toxicity and may be adopted based on patients' preference and potential impact on quality of life.

A phase Ib open-label dose escalation study of the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of cobimetinib (GDC-0973) and ipatasertib (GDC-0068) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: This Phase Ib study explored combination dosing of the allosteric MEK1/2 inhibitor cobimetinib and the ATP-competitive pan-AKT inhibitor ipatasertib. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled to two dose escalation arms, each using a 3 + 3 design in 28-day cycles. In Arm A, patients received concurrent cobimetinib and ipatasertib on days 1-21. In Arm B, cobimetinib was administered intermittently with ipatasertib for 21 days. Primary objectives evaluated dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated doses (MTD), and the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives included analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters, MAPK and PI3K pathway alterations, changes in tissue biomarkers, and preliminary anti-tumor efficacy. Expansion cohorts included patients with PTEN-deficient triple-negative breast cancer and endometrial cancer. RESULTS: Among 66 patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug, all experienced an adverse event (AE). Although no DLTs were reported, 6 patients experienced Cycle 1 DLT-equivalent AEs. The most common treatment-related AEs were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, dermatitis acneiform, and fatigue. Thirty-five (53%) patients experienced drug-related AEs of ≥ grade 3 severity. Cobimetinb/ipatasertib MTDs were 60/200 mg on Arm A and 150/300 mg on Arm B; the latter was chosen as the RP2D. No pharmacokinetic interactions were identified. Biomarker analyses indicated pathway blockade and increases in IFNγ and PD-L1 gene expression following the combination. Three patients with endometrial or ovarian cancer achieved partial response, all with PTEN-low disease and two with tumor also harboring KRAS mutation. CONCLUSION: There was limited tolerability and efficacy for this MEK and AKT inhibitor combination. Nonetheless, pharmacodynamic analyses indicated target engagement and suggest rationale for further exploration of cobimetinib or ipatasertib in combination with other anticancer agents. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01562275.

Effect of Celecoxib vs Placebo Added to Standard Adjuvant Therapy on Disease-Free Survival Among Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer: The CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance) Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Aspirin and cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors have been associated with a reduced risk of colorectal polyps and cancer in observational and randomized studies. The effect of celecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor, as treatment for nonmetastatic colon cancer is unknown. Objective: To determine if the addition of celecoxib to adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) improves disease-free survival in patients with stage III colon cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance)/Southwest Oncology Group 80702 was a 2 × 2 factorial design, phase 3 trial conducted at 654 community and academic centers throughout the United States and Canada. A total of 2526 patients with stage III colon cancer were enrolled between June 2010 and November 2015 and were followed up through August 10, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive adjuvant FOLFOX (every 2 weeks) for 3 vs 6 months with or without 3 years of celecoxib (400 mg orally daily; n = 1263) vs placebo (n = 1261). This report focuses on the results of the celecoxib randomization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was disease-free survival, measured from the time of randomization until documented recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary end points included overall survival, adverse events, and cardiovascular-specific events. Results: Of the 2526 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 61.0 years [11 years]; 1134 women [44.9%]), 2524 were included in the primary analysis. Adherence with protocol treatment, defined as receiving celecoxib or placebo for more than 2.75 years or continuing treatment until recurrence, death, or unacceptable adverse events, was 70.8% for patients treated with celecoxib and 69.9% for patients treated with placebo. A total of 337 patients randomized to celecoxib and 363 to placebo experienced disease recurrence or died, and with 6 years' median follow-up, the 3-year disease-free survival was 76.3% for celecoxib-treated patients vs 73.4% for placebo-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] for disease recurrence or death, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76-1.03; P = .12). The effect of celecoxib treatment on disease-free survival did not vary significantly according to assigned duration of adjuvant chemotherapy (P for interaction = .61). Five-year overall survival was 84.3% for celecoxib vs 81.6% for placebo (HR for death, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-1.04; P = .13). Hypertension (any grade) occurred while treated with FOLFOX in 14.6% of patients in the celecoxib group vs 10.9% of patients in the placebo group, and a grade 2 or higher increase in creatinine levels occurred after completion of FOLFOX in 1.7% vs 0.5% of patients, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with stage III colon cancer, the addition of celecoxib for 3 years, compared with placebo, to standard adjuvant chemotherapy did not significantly improve disease-free survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01150045.

Margetuximab plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated, HER2-positive gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CP-MGAH22-05): a single-arm, phase 1b-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Margetuximab, a novel, investigational, Fc-engineered, anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, is designed to more effectively potentiate innate immunity than trastuzumab. We aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and antitumour activity of margetuximab plus pembrolizumab (an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) in previously treated patients with HER2-positive gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: CP-MGAH22-05 was a single-arm, open-label, phase 1b-2 dose-escalation and cohort expansion study done at 11 academic centres in the USA and Canada and 15 centres in southeast Asia (Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore) that enrolled men and women aged 18 years or older with histologically proven, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic, HER2-positive, PD-L1-unselected gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had progressed after at least one previous line of therapy with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in the locally advanced unresectable or metastatic setting. In the dose-escalation phase, nine patients were treated: three received margetuximab 10 mg/kg intravenously plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks and six received the recommended phase 2 dose of margetuximab 15 mg/kg plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. An additional 86 patients were enrolled in the phase 2 cohort expansion and received the recommended phase 2 dose. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, assessed in the safety population (patients who received at least one dose of either margetuximab or pembrolizumab) and the objective response rate as assessed by the investigator according to both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, in the response-evaluable population (patients with measurable disease at baseline and who received the recommended phase 2 dose of margetuximab and pembrolizumab). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02689284. Recruitment for the trial has completed and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11, 2016, and Oct 2, 2018, 95 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 19·9 months (IQR 10·7-23·1). The combination therapy showed acceptable safety and tolerability; there were no dose-limiting toxicities in the dose-escalation phase. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (four [4%]) and infusion-related reactions (three [3%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in nine (9%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Objective responses were observed in 17 (18·48%; 95% CI 11·15-27·93) of 92 evaluable patients. INTERPRETATION: These findings serve as proof of concept of synergistic antitumour activity with the combination of an Fc-optimised anti-HER2 agent (margetuximab) along with anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade (pembrolizumab). FUNDING: MacroGenics.

The McCAVE Trial: Vanucizumab plus mFOLFOX-6 Versus Bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX-6 in Patients with Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma (mCRC).

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab, a VEGF-A inhibitor, in combination with chemotherapy, has proven to increase progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in multiple lines of therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The angiogenic factor angiopoetin-2 (Ang-2) is associated with poor prognosis in many cancers, including mCRC. Preclinical models demonstrate improved activity when inhibiting both VEGF-A and Ang-2, suggesting that the dual VEGF-A and Ang-2 blocker vanucizumab (RO5520985 or RG-7221) may improve clinical outcomes. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of vanucizumab plus modified (m)FOLFOX-6 (folinic acid (leucovorin), fluorouracil (5-FU) and oxaliplatin) versus bevacizumab/mFOLFOX-6 for first-line mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients received mFOLFOX-6 and were randomized 1:1 to also receive vanucizumab 2,000 mg or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every other week. Oxaliplatin was given for eight cycles; other agents were continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for a maximum of 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-nine patients were randomized (vanucizumab, n = 94; bevacizumab, n = 95). The number of PFS events was comparable (vanucizumab, n = 39; bevacizumab, n = 43). The hazard ratio was 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.58; p = .98) in a stratified analysis based on number of metastatic sites and region. Objective response rate was 52.1% and 57.9% in the vanucizumab and bevacizumab arm, respectively. Baseline plasma Ang-2 levels were prognostic in both arms but not predictive for treatment effects on PFS of vanucizumab. The incidence of adverse events of grade ≥3 was similar between treatment arms (83.9% vs. 82.1%); gastrointestinal perforations (10.8% vs. 8.4%) exceeded previously reported rates in this setting. Hypertension and peripheral edema were more frequent in the vanucizumab arm. CONCLUSION: Vanucizumab/mFOLFOX-6 did not improve PFS and was associated with increased rates of antiangiogenic toxicity compared with bevacizumab/mFOLFOX-6. Our results suggest that Ang-2 is not a relevant therapeutic target in first-line mCRC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This randomized phase II study demonstrates that additional angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) inhibition does not result in superior benefit over anti-VEGF-A blockade alone when each added to standard chemotherapy. Moreover, the performed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis revealed that vanucizumab was bioavailable and affected its intended target, thereby strongly suggesting that Ang-2 is not a relevant therapeutic target in the clinical setting of treatment-naïve metastatic colorectal cancer. As a result, the further clinical development of the dual VEGF-A and Ang-2 inhibitor vanucizumab was discontinued.

A phase 1 dose-escalation study of checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) inhibitor prexasertib in combination with p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (p38 MAPK) inhibitor ralimetinib in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer.

Purpose The primary objective was to determine the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor, prexasertib, in combination with the p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitor, ralimetinib, which may be safely administered to patients with advanced cancer. Methods This Phase 1, nonrandomized, open-label, dose-escalation study of prexasertib+ralimetinib included patients with advanced and/or metastatic cancer, followed by a planned cohort expansion in patients with colorectal or non-small-cell lung cancer with KRAS and/or BRAF mutations. Intravenous prexasertib was administered at 60 mg/m2 (days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle), together with oral ralimetinib every 12 h (days 1 to 14 at 100 mg [Cohort 1, n = 3] or 200 mg [Cohort 2, n = 6]). Dose escalations for each agent were planned using a model-based 3 + 3 escalation paradigm. Safety was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0X. Tumor response was determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1. Results Nine patients were treated; 3 experienced dose-limiting toxicities, all in Cohort 2, prohibiting further dose escalation. The most common ≥Grade 3 adverse event was neutrophil count decreased; other reported ≥Grade 3 hematological toxicities included febrile neutropenia and anemia. The pharmacokinetics of prexasertib+ralimetinib was comparable to the monotherapy population profile for each agent. One patient achieved a best overall response of stable disease (for 2 cycles); there were no complete/partial responses. Conclusions This study did not achieve its primary objective of establishing an RP2D of combination prexasertib + ralimetinib that could be safely administered to patients with advanced cancer.

Phase I, First-in-Human, Dose-Escalation Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Vorolanib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

LESSONS LEARNED: Pharmacokinetic results underscore that the vorolanib (X-82) study design was successful without the need for further dose escalation beyond 400 mg once daily (q.d.).Therefore, the recommended dose of X-82 as a single agent in patients with advanced cancer is 400 mg q.d. BACKGROUND: Vorolanib (X-82) is a novel, oral, multikinase vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor/platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) receptor inhibitor that was developed on the same chemical scaffold as sunitinib, but designed to improve upon the safety profile while maintaining the efficacy of sunitinib. By targeting the VEGF and PDGF receptors, X-82 was expected to disrupt tumor angiogenesis and be active in a broad spectrum of solid tumors. Therefore, we determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and characterized the preliminary pharmacokinetics and clinical tumor response of X-82 as a single agent in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Adult patients with advanced solid tumors received X-82 as tablets or capsules (once daily [q.d.] or b.i.d.) every 4 weeks. Patients were evaluated for response every 8 weeks, and continued treatment until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients received study treatment in 17 cohorts. X-82 capsule dosing was as follows: cohorts 1-6 (20-400 mg q.d.) and cohorts 7-8 (140-200 mg b.i.d.). Patients in cohorts 9-17 received 50-800 mg q.d. tablet dosing. The median time on treatment was 58 days. X-82 blood pharmacokinetics appeared dose-independent with a t 1/2 of 5.13 hours and 6.48 hours for capsule and tablet formulations, respectively. No apparent accumulation was observed after 21 days of daily dosing. CONCLUSION: X-82 had a safety profile consistent with its mechanism of action. It has a short half-life and was well tolerated by most patients. Study enrollment ended prior to the determination of the MTD because of the apparent saturation of absorption at 400-800 mg. The recommended dose of X-82 as a single agent in patients with advanced cancer is 400 mg q.d.

First-in-human study of the anti-HB-EGF antibody U3-1565 in subjects with advanced solid tumors.

U3-1565 is a monoclonal antibody directed against heparin-binding epidermal growth factor-like growth factor (HB-EGF), which mediates angiogenesis via induction of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF-A). This first-in-human study characterized the safety, tolerability, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of U3-1565 in subjects with advanced solid tumors. In Part 1 (dose escalation following a modified 3 + 3 design), Cohorts 1-4, U3-1565 was administered at 2, 8, 16, and 24 mg/kg every 3 weeks for Cycle 1 and every 2 weeks thereafter. In Part 1, Cohort 5, and in Part 2 (dose expansion), U3-1565 was administered at 24 mg/kg every week. Thirty-six subjects were enrolled and treated (15 in Part 1; 21 in Part 2). No subject experienced dose limiting toxicity and maximum tolerated dose was not reached. All drug-related events were Grade 1 or 2 in severity, with fatigue and rash predominating. Following treatment with U3-1565, 1 subject with metastatic colorectal cancer experienced partial response and 6 subjects achieved stable disease. Four subjects completed the study main phase (first 12 cycles) and entered the extension phase. Of the 6/36 subjects with high (> 1500 pg/ml) baseline VEGF-A levels, all showed a decrease in VEGF-A (median - 60% [-22% to -97%]). Of the remaining subjects, only 19/30 showed a decrease (median - 18% [-2% to -82%]). Subjects with high VEGF-A baseline levels remained on treatment longer (3/6 entered study extension phase versus 1/30), and were more likely to show disease control (3/6 versus 4/30). In conclusion, U3-1565 demonstrates both proof of mechanism and clinical activity across different tumor types.

Integrated safety summary for trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102).

Trifluridine/tipiracil, an oral treatment combining trifluridine (an antineoplastic thymidine-based nucleoside analog) and tipiracil hydrochloride (a thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor), led to significant improvement in overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients refractory to standard therapy in the phase III RECOURSE trial. Here, we report an integrated summary of the safety of trifluridine/tipiracil. The main safety analysis includes integrated data from the RECOURSE and J003 studies (safety data group 2) of patients with refractory mCRC receiving trifluridine/tipiracil at the recommended starting dose: 35 mg/m twice daily for 5 days with 2 days' rest for 2 weeks, followed by a 14-day rest (one cycle). Integrated data from a larger group of mCRC patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil at the recommended starting dose (group 1) and nonintegrated data on serious adverse events (SAEs) representing all clinical experience with trifluridine/tipiracil as of the data cutoff date (group 3) are also summarized. In group 2, myelosuppressive and all-grade gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) were more frequent in trifluridine/tipiracil patients than in placebo patients. The trifluridine/tipiracil and placebo patients had similar frequencies of AEs leading to discontinuation (9.0 vs. 11.5%) and SAEs (27.7 vs. 29.2%); fatal AEs were more frequent in placebo patients than in trifluridine/tipiracil patients (9.3 vs. 2.8%). AEs leading to interruptions/delays/reductions were more frequent in trifluridine/tipiracil patients (56.3 vs. 12.7%). Trifluridine/tipiracil was generally well tolerated, but over 50% of patients required interruptions/delays/reductions. There was a low rate of discontinuations, SAEs, and fatal AEs. This analysis confirms the safety profile observed in RECOURSE.

A phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study of binimetinib (MEK162), a potent and selective oral MEK1/2 inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Binimetinib (MEK162; ARRY-438162) is a potent and selective oral MEK 1/2 inhibitor. This phase 1 study determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and preliminary anti-tumour activity of binimetinib in patients with advanced solid tumours, with expansion cohorts of patients with biliary cancer or KRAS- or BRAF-mutant colorectal cancer. METHODS: Binimetinib was administered twice daily. Expansion cohorts were enroled after MTD determination following a 3+3 dose-escalation design. Pharmacokinetic properties were determined from plasma samples. Tumour samples were assessed for mutations in RAS, RAF, and other relevant genes. Pharmacodynamic properties were evaluated in serum and skin punch biopsy samples. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients received binimetinib (dose-escalation phase, 19; expansion, 74). The MTD was 60 mg twice daily, with dose-limiting adverse events (AEs) of dermatitis acneiform and chorioretinopathy. The dose for expansion patients was subsequently decreased to 45 mg twice daily because of the frequency of treatment-related ocular toxicity at the MTD. Common AEs across all dose levels included rash (81%), nausea (56%), vomiting (52%), diarrhoea (51%), peripheral oedema (46%), and fatigue (43%); most were grade 1/2. Dose-proportional increases in binimetinib exposure were observed and target inhibition was demonstrated in serum and skin punch biopsy samples. Three patients with biliary cancer had objective responses (one complete and two partial). CONCLUSIONS: Binimetinib demonstrated a manageable safety profile, target inhibition, and dose-proportional exposure. The 45 mg twice daily dose was identified as the recommended phase 2 dose. The three objective responses in biliary cancer patients are encouraging and support further evaluation in this population.

A Phase II Study with Lead-In Safety Cohort of 5-Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, and Lapatinib in Combination with Radiation Therapy as Neoadjuvant Treatment for Patients with Localized HER2-Positive Esophagogastric Adenocarcinomas.

LESSONS LEARNED: Neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and lapatinib in combination with radiation therapy is safe for neoadjuvant treatment for patients with localized human epidermal growth receptor 2-positive esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.Evaluation of this drug combination in a larger patient pool would allow for more accurate analysis of its efficacy. BACKGROUND: The optimal design of neoadjuvant chemoradiation for the treatment of localized esophagogastric cancers is the subject of much debate. In this nonrandomized trial, we evaluated neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin, and lapatinib in combination with radiation therapy as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with localized human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2)-positive esophagogastric adenocarcinomas. METHODS: Patients received neoadjuvant 5-FU (225 mg/m2 continuous intravenous infusion, days 1-42), oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2 intravenously [IV], days 1, 15, and 29), and lapatinib (six patients, 1,000 mg p.o., days 1-42; six patients, 750 mg p.o., days 1-42) plus radiation (1.8 Gy/day Monday through Friday for 50.4 Gy total). Following restaging, eligible patients underwent definitive resection, and pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy was assessed. Planned enrollment was 42 patients. The primary endpoint was the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. RESULTS: Twelve patients (median age 64 years; 67% male) received a median of 5.6 weeks of treatment (range: 1.1-8.4). The pCR rate was 8%; four of the 12 patients underwent tumor resection and one patient had a pCR, with pathologic partial response in the remaining three. The most common lapatinib-related adverse events included (all grades) nausea (67%) and diarrhea (58%), although these were all grade 1 or 2. Enrollment was halted due to low accrual. CONCLUSION: The treatment regimen was determined to be safe. The study was terminated early due to low accrual.

A Phase II Randomized Trial (GO27827) of First-Line FOLFOX Plus Bevacizumab with or Without the MET Inhibitor Onartuzumab in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Dysregulated hepatocyte growth factor/mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) signaling is associated with poor prognosis and resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We report outcomes from a double-blind, multicenter phase II trial of the MET inhibitor onartuzumab in combination with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab for mCRC (GO27827; NCT01418222). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive onartuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously [IV]) or placebo plus mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg IV). Oxaliplatin was given for 8-12 cycles; other agents were continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and MET immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression-positive populations. RESULTS: Between September 2011 and November 2012, 194 patients were enrolled. In September 2013, an interim analysis recommended stopping onartuzumab treatment due to lack of efficacy. At the time of the final analysis in February 2014, no significant improvement in PFS was seen with onartuzumab versus placebo in either the ITT or MET IHC-positive populations. An improvement in PFS was noted in the MET IHC-negative population. Neither overall survival nor response rate was improved with onartuzumab. The incidence of fatigue, peripheral edema, and deep vein thrombosis was increased with onartuzumab relative to placebo. CONCLUSION: Onartuzumab combined with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab did not significantly improve efficacy outcomes in either the ITT or MET IHC-positive populations. MET expression by IHC was not a predictive biomarker in this setting. The Oncologist 2017;22:264-271 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The addition of onartuzumab to mFOLFOX-6 plus bevacizumab did not improve outcomes in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer in this randomized, phase II study. Although initial results with onartuzumab were promising, a number of phase II/III clinical trials have reported a lack of improvement in efficacy with onartuzumab combined with standard-of-care therapies in several tumor types. Furthermore, negative study data have been published for rilotumumab and ficlatuzumab, both of which block hepatocyte growth factor binding to the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) receptor. MET immunohistochemistry was not a predictive biomarker. It remains to be seen if other biomarkers or small molecule inhibitors may be more appropriate for inhibiting this oncogenic pathway.

A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Phase II Trial of Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Apatorsen or Placebo in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: The RAINIER Trial.

LESSONS LEARNED: The addition of the heat shock protein 27 (Hsp27)-targeting antisense oligonucleotide, apatorsen, to a standard first-line chemotherapy regimen did not result in improved survival in unselected patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.Findings from this trial hint at the possible prognostic and predictive value of serum Hsp27 that may warrant further investigation. BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein 27 (Hsp27) mRNA, or placebo in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to Arm A (gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus apatorsen) or Arm B (gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus placebo). Treatment was administered in 28-day cycles, with restaging every 2 cycles, until progression or intolerable toxicity. Serum Hsp27 levels were analyzed at baseline and on treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled, 66 per arm. Cytopenias and fatigue were the most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events for both arms. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were 2.7 and 5.3 months, respectively, for arm A, and 3.8 and 6.9 months, respectively, for arm B. Objective response rate was 18% for both arms. Patients with high serum level of Hsp27 represented a poor-prognosis subgroup who may have derived modest benefit from addition of apatorsen. CONCLUSION: Addition of apatorsen to chemotherapy does not improve outcomes in unselected patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in the first-line setting, although a trend toward prolonged PFS and OS in patients with high baseline serum Hsp27 suggests this therapy may warrant further evaluation in this subgroup.

First-in-human study of the antibody DR5 agonist DS-8273a in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background DR5 is a transmembrane receptor that transduces extracellular ligand-binding to activate apoptosis signaling cascades. This phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics of a new monoclonal antibody potent DR5 agonist, DS-8273a, in subjects with advanced solid tumors. Methods The study comprised dose escalation and dose expansion cohorts. The dose escalation cohorts intended to determine the safety and to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or maximum administered dose (MAD) and to characterize the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics by a conventional 3 + 3 design (starting at 2 mg/kg and escalating through 8, 16 and 24 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). In the dose expansion cohort, additional subjects were treated at the MAD for further evaluation of PK and safety. Results Thirty two subjects were enrolled and treated, 16 in the dose escalation cohorts and 16 in the dose expansion cohort. No subjects experienced a dose limiting toxicity (DLT). Treatment emergent adverse events were observed in 29 (91%) subjects, 14 (44%) of which were attributed to study-drug; all drug-related events were grade 1 and 2 in severity, and were mainly fatigue, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Measures of plasma exposure increased dose-proportionally and the mean terminal elimination half-life was 11 days. Blood samples available from a subset of patients treated at 24 mg/kg revealed declines in myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) at 2 weeks. No objective responses were observed in any subjects. Conclusions DS-8273a was well tolerated and demonstrated linear pharmacokinetics. Decreases in MDSC were temporally associated with DS-8273a exposure. This agent could be studied further in combination with other agents, pending further proof-of-target-engagement.

Phase Ib study of the mitochondrial inhibitor ME-344 plus topotecan in patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic small cell lung, ovarian and cervical cancers.

Background This multicenter, open-label, phase Ib study was designed to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of ME-344, a mitochondrial inhibitor, administered in combination with the topoisomerase I inhibitor, topotecan, in patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic small cell lung (SCLC), ovarian and cervical cancers. Patients and methods In Part 1, patients received ME-344 10 mg/kg intravenously weekly on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 in combination with topotecan 4 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28 day cycle. Cycles were repeated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were evaluated for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in cycle 1 and ME-344 pharmacokinetic samples were obtained. In Part 2, patients with locally advanced or metastatic SCLC and ovarian cancer were enrolled in expansion cohorts treated at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) determined in Part 1. Results Fourteen patients were enrolled in Part 1 and no DLTs were observed. The RP2D of ME-344 in combination with topotecan was established as 10 mg/kg. In Part 2, 32 patients were enrolled. The most common treatment-emergent all-grade and grade 3/4 toxicities included fatigue (65.2%, 6.5%), neutropenia (56.5%, 43.5%) and thrombocytopenia (50%, 23.9%). One patient with recurrent ovarian cancer experienced a partial response by RECIST 1.1 and 21 patients achieved stable disease as best response. Conclusions The combination of ME-344 10 mg/kg weekly and topotecan 4 mg/m2 was tolerable, however, the degree of anti-cancer activity does not support further investigation of the combination in unselected patients with SCLC, ovarian and cervical cancers.

A Phase 2 Study of 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU), Ziv-Aflibercept, and Radiation for the Preoperative and Adjuvant Treatment of Patients with Stage II/III Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study combined aflibercept with preoperative chemoradiation for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer, followed by mFOLFOX6/aflibercept. METHODS: Patients received preoperative 5-FU (days 1-43), radiation (weeks 1-6), and aflibercept (days 1-15) each 28 day cycle for 6 weeks. Six weeks following the last aflibercept dose, patients underwent surgical resection. Four cycles of mFOLFOX6 plus aflibercept began 8 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Common treatment-related toxicities included diarrhea, fatigue, and mucositis. The pCR rate was 23%. DISCUSSION: Afilbercept plus 5-FU-based chemoradiation was tolerated in patients with localized rectal cancer and showed a pCR rate within range of historical data.

A Phase-2 Trial of Single Agent Axitinib as Maintenance Therapy Following First-Line Treatment With Modified FOLFOX/Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

This phase-2 trial evaluated the efficacy of axitinib as maintenance therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) following first-line treatment with FOLFOX/bevacizumab. Patients with mCRC received mFOLFOX/bevacizumab followed by axitinib maintenance after four cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Seventy patients were enrolled. Common treatment-related toxicities were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, and peripheral neuropathy during FOLFOX/bevacizumab treatment; and fatigue, hypertension, diarrhea, and peripheral neuropathy during axitinib treatment. Median PFS was 8.3 months. Treatment with FOLFOX/bevacizumab followed by maintenance axitinib as first-line treatment for mCRC produced a median PFS consistent with historical controls of other first-line regimens.

A randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 study of tivantinib (ARQ 197) in combination with irinotecan and cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with wild-type KRAS who have received first-line systemic therapy.

Cetuximab in combination with an irinotecan-containing regimen is a standard treatment in patients with KRAS wild-type (KRAS WT), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We investigated the addition of the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib to cetuximab + irinotecan (CETIRI) based on preclinical evidence that activation of the MET pathway may confer resistance to anti-EGFR therapy. Previously treated patients with KRAS WT advanced or mCRC were enrolled. The phase 1, open-label 3 + 3, dose-escalation study evaluated the safety and maximally tolerated dose of tivantinib plus CETIRI. The phase 2, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of biweekly CETIRI plus tivantinib or placebo was restricted to patients who had received only one prior line of chemotherapy. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The recommended phase 2 dose was tivantinib (360 mg/m(2) twice daily) with biweekly cetuximab (500 mg/m(2)) and irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)). Among 117 patients evaluable for phase 2 analysis, no statistically significant PFS difference was observed: 8.3 months on tivantinib vs. 7.3 months on placebo (HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.33; P = 0.38). Subgroup analyses trended in favor of tivantinib in patients with MET-High tumors by immunohistochemistry, PTEN-Low tumors, or those pretreated with oxaliplatin, but subgroups were too small to draw conclusions. Neutropenia, diarrhea, nausea and rash were the most frequent severe adverse events in tivantinib-treated patients. The combination of tivantinib and CETIRI was well tolerated but did not significantly improve PFS in previously treated KRAS WT mCRC. Tivantinib may be more active in specific subgroups.

A Phase II Study of FOLFOXIRI Plus Panitumumab Followed by Evaluation for Resection in Patients With Metastatic KRAS Wild-Type Colorectal Cancer With Liver Metastases Only.

BACKGROUND: Patients with liver-only metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are not candidates for potentially curative resection may become resectable with more aggressive chemotherapy regimens. In this nonrandomized trial, we evaluated folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor panitumumab as first-line treatment for KRAS wild-type mCRC with liver-only metastasis. METHODS: Patients received FOLFOXIRI (5-FU, 3,200 mg/m(2), 48-hour continuous intravenous (i.v.) infusion; leucovorin, 200 mg/m(2) i.v.; irinotecan, 125 mg/m(2); oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m(2) i.v.) and panitumumab (6 mg/kg i.v.) on day 1 of 14-day cycles. Patients were restaged and evaluated for surgery every four cycles. Planned enrollment was originally 49 patients. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (median age: 55 years; 87% male) received a median 6 cycles of treatment (range: 1-33 cycles); 10 patients (67%) were surgical candidates at baseline. Twelve patients were evaluable for clinical response; 9 (60%) achieved partial response. Ten patients underwent surgery; all were complete resections and pathologic partial response. Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events included diarrhea (33%) and rash (20%). Enrollment was halted because of emerging data on expanded KRAS/NRAS mutations beyond the region we initially examined, and the potential for negative interaction with oxaliplatin-based therapy. Eight patients underwent expanded KRAS/NRAS analysis outside exon 2; no additional mutations were found. CONCLUSION: KRAS/NRAS mutations outside the region tested in this study were recently shown to be associated with inferior survival on similar treatment regimens. Therefore, this trial was stopped early. This regimen remains a viable option for patients with liver-only mCRC in the KRAS/NRAS wild-type population. Enrollment criteria on future studies should include testing for the newly identified mutations.