Modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab with and without nivolumab for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: phase 2 results from the CheckMate 9X8 randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include fluoropyrimidine-containing regimens with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan and a biologic agent. Immunotherapy may enhance antitumor activity in combination with standard therapies in patients with mCRC. Here, we present phase 2 results of nivolumab plus standard-of-care therapy (SOC; 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/bevacizumab) versus SOC in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC (CheckMate 9X8). METHODS: CheckMate 9X8 was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 2/3 trial. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age with unresectable mCRC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab 240 mg plus SOC or SOC alone every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Secondary endpoints included PFS by investigator assessment; objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, duration of response, and time to response, all by BICR and investigator assessments; overall survival; and safety. Preplanned exploratory biomarker analyses were also performed. RESULTS: From February 2018 through April 2019, 310 patients were enrolled, of which 195 patients were randomized to nivolumab plus SOC (n=127) or SOC (n=68). At 21.5-month minimum follow-up, PFS with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance; median PFS by BICR was 11.9 months in both arms (HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.23); p=0.30). Higher PFS rates after 12 months (18 months: 28% vs 9%), higher ORR (60% vs 46%), and durable responses (median 12.9 vs 9.3 months) were observed with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 75% versus 48% of patients; no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The CheckMate 9X8 trial investigating first-line nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in patients with mCRC did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS by BICR. Nivolumab plus SOC showed numerically higher PFS rates after 12 months, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC alone, with acceptable safety. Further investigation to identify subgroups of patients with mCRC that may benefit from nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in the first-line setting is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03414983.

Phase II randomized trial of weekly and every-3-week ixabepilone in metastatic breast cancer patients.

This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II trial compared the efficacy and tolerability of weekly ixabepilone versus the standard 3 weekly dosing regimen. Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were randomly assigned to receive either ixabepilone 16 mg/m(2) as a 1-h intravenous (IV) infusion weekly on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (1 week off therapy; n = 85), or 40 mg/m(2) as a 3-h IV infusion on day 1 of a 21-day cycle (n = 91), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by (i) measurable versus nonmeasurable (evaluable) disease, (ii) ≤two versus >two prior chemotherapy regimens for MBC, and (iii) hormone receptor (HR)-positive versus HR-negative breast cancer. The primary endpoint was rate of progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months. Of 176 randomized patients, 171 were treated. The 6-month PFS rate was significantly higher in patients treated with ixabepilone every 3 weeks (42.7, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 31.5-53.5) compared with those who received ixabepilone weekly (28.6, 95 % CI 18.9-38.9; log-rank P = 0.03). Every-3-week dosing significantly prolonged median PFS versus weekly dosing (5.3 vs. 2.9 months; log-rank P = 0.05). The every-3-week regimen was associated with higher rates of grade 3/4 toxicities, particularly neutropenia (38.2 vs. 6.1 %) and a higher rate of patient withdrawal due to adverse events. These results suggest that every-3-week ixabepilone is more effective than weekly treatment in MBC, albeit with more toxicity.

Multi-cancer early detection test sensitivity for cancers with and without current population-level screening options.

There are four solid tumors with common screening options in the average-risk population aged 21 to 75 years (breast, cervical, colorectal, and, based on personalized risk assessment, prostate), but many cancers lack recommended population screening and are often detected at advanced stages when mortality is high. Blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests have the potential to improve cancer mortality through additional population screening. Reported here is a post-hoc analysis from the third Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas substudy to examine multi-cancer early detection test performance in solid tumors with and without population screening recommendations and in hematologic malignancies. Participants with cancer in the third Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas substudy analysis were split into three subgroups: solid screened tumors (breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate), solid unscreened tumors, and hematologic malignancies. In this post hoc analysis, sensitivity is reported for each subgroup across all ages and those aged ⩾50 years overall, by cancer, and by clinical cancer stage. Aggregate sensitivity in the solid screened, solid unscreened, and hematologic malignancy subgroups was 34%, 66%, and 55% across all cancer stages, respectively; restricting to participants aged ⩾50 years showed similar aggregate sensitivity. Aggregate sensitivity was 27%, 53%, and 60% across stages I to III, respectively. Within the solid unscreened subgroup, aggregate sensitivity was >75% in 8/18 cancers (44%) and >50% in 13/18 (72%). This multi-cancer early detection test detected cancer signals at high (>75%) sensitivity for multiple cancers without existing population screening recommendations, suggesting its potential to complement recommended screening programs.Clinical trial identifier: NCT02889978.

Umbralisib, a Dual PI3Kδ/CK1ε Inhibitor in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Indolent Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors have shown activity in relapsed or refractory (R/R) indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL). PI3K inhibitors have been hampered by poor long-term tolerability and toxicity, which interfere with continuous use. Umbralisib, a dual inhibitor of PI3Kδ/casein kinase-1ε, exhibits improved selectivity for PI3Kδ compared with other PI3K inhibitors. This phase IIb trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umbralisib in patients with R/R iNHL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicohort, open-label, phase IIb study, 208 patients with R/R marginal zone, follicular, or small lymphocytic lymphoma (MZL, FL, or SLL) unresponsive to prior treatments (≥ 1 MZL; ≥ 2 FL/SLL), including ≥ 1 anti-CD20-based therapy, were administered umbralisib 800 mg orally once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or study withdrawal. Primary end point is overall response rate; secondary end points include time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety. RESULTS: The median follow-up is 27.7 months (efficacy) and 21.4 months (safety). The overall response rate was 47.1%, and tumor reduction occurred in 86.4% of patients. The median time to response was 2.7-4.6 months. The median duration of response was not reached for MZL, 11.1 months for FL, and 18.3 months for SLL. Median progression-free survival was not reached for MZL, 10.6 months for FL, and 20.9 months for SLL. At least one grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was reported in 53.4% of patients. TEAEs led to umbralisib discontinuation in 32 patients (15.4%). A total of 31 patients (14.9%) discontinued because of a treatment-related adverse event. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs reported in ≥ 10% of patients: neutropenia (11.5%) and diarrhea (10.1%). Increased ALT/AST (grade ≥ 3) occurred in 6.7%/7.2% of patients. CONCLUSION: Umbralisib achieved meaningful clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with iNHL. The safety profile was manageable, with a relatively low incidence of immune-mediated toxicities and adverse event-related discontinuations.

Randomised phase II trial of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel with necuparanib or placebo in untreated metastatic pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Necuparanib, a rationally engineered low-molecular-weight heparin, combined with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel showed an encouraging safety and oncologic signal in a phase Ib trial. This randomised multicentre phase II trial evaluates the addition of necuparanib or placebo to gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility included 18 years, histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic PDAC, measurable disease and Eastern Co-Operative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned to necuparanib (5 mg/kg subcutaneous injection once daily) or placebo (subcutaneous injection once daily) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel on days 1, 8 and 15 of 28-day cycles. The primary end-point was median overall survival (OS), and secondary end-points included median progression-free survival, response rates and safety. RESULTS: One-hundred ten patients were randomised, 62 to necuparanib arm and 58 to placebo arm. The futility boundary was crossed at a planned interim analysis, and the study was terminated by the Data Safety Monitoring Board. The median OS was 10.71 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.95-11.96) for necuparanib arm and 9.99 months (95% CI: 7.85-12.85) for placebo arm (hazard ratio: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.66-1.89, P-value: 0.671). The necuparanib arm had a higher incidence of haematologic toxicity relative to placebo patients (83% and 70%). CONCLUSION: The addition of necuparanib to standard of care treatment for advanced PDAC did not improve OS. Safety was acceptable. No further development of necuparanib is planned although targeting the coagulation cascade pathway remains relevant in PDAC. NCT01621243.