From the European Medicines Agency to Project Orbis: new activities and challenges to facilitate UK oncology drug approval following Brexit.

The departure of the UK from the European Union (EU) and affiliated European regulatory bodies, including the European Medicines Agency, on Dec 31, 2020, has resulted in the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency becoming an independent national regulator. This change has required a fundamental transformation of the UK drug regulatory landscape, creating both opportunities and challenges for future development of oncology drugs. New UK pharmaceutical policies have sought to make the UK an attractive market for drug development and regulatory review, by offering expedited review pathways coupled to strong collaborative relations with other leading international medicines regulators, outside of Europe. Oncology is a key global therapy area for both drug development and regulatory approval, and the UK Government has been keen to show regulatory innovation and international collaboration through approval of new cancer medicines. In this Policy Review, we examine the new UK regulatory frameworks, policies, and global collaborations affecting new oncology drug approvals after departure from the EU. We explore some of the challenges that might lie ahead as the UK creates new and independent regulatory review and approval processes for the next generation of cancer medicines.

Additional consensus recommendations for conducting complex innovative trials of oncology agents: a post-pandemic perspective.

In our 2020 consensus paper, we devised ten recommendations for conducting Complex Innovative Design (CID) trials to evaluate cancer drugs. Within weeks of its publication, the UK was hit by the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Large CID trials were prioritised to compare the efficacy of new and repurposed COVID-19 treatments and inform regulatory decisions. The unusual circumstances of the pandemic meant studies such as RECOVERY were opened almost immediately and recruited record numbers of participants. However, trial teams were required to make concessions and adaptations to these studies to ensure recruitment was rapid and broad. As these are relevant to cancer trials that enrol patients with similar risk factors, we have added three new recommendations to our original ten: employing pragmatism such as using focused information sheets and collection of only the most relevant data; minimising negative environmental impacts with paperless systems; and using direct-to-patient communication methods to improve uptake. These recommendations can be applied to all oncology CID trials to improve their inclusivity, uptake and efficiency. Above all, the success of CID studies during the COVID-19 pandemic underscores their efficacy as tools for rapid treatment evaluation.

Phase I/II sequencing study of azacitidine, epacadostat, and pembrolizumab in advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1), an interferon-inducible enzyme, contributes to tumor immune intolerance. Immune checkpoint inhibition may increase interferon levels; combining IDO1 inhibition with immune checkpoint blockade represents an attractive strategy. Epigenetic agents trigger interferon responses and may serve as an immunotherapy priming method. We evaluated whether epigenetic therapy plus IDO1 inhibition and immune checkpoint blockade confers clinical benefit to patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: ECHO-206 was a Phase I/II study where treatment-experienced patients with advanced solid tumors (N = 70) received azacitidine plus an immunotherapy doublet (epacadostat [IDO1 inhibitor] and pembrolizumab). Sequencing of treatment was also assessed. Primary endpoints were safety/tolerability (Phase I), maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or pharmacologically active dose (PAD; Phase I), and investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; Phase II). RESULTS: In Phase I, no dose-limiting toxicities were reported, the MTD was not reached; a PAD was not determined. ORR was 5.7%, with four partial responses. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (42.9%) and nausea (42.9%). Twelve (17.1%) patients experienced ≥1 fatal AE, one of which (asthenia) was treatment-related. CONCLUSIONS: Although the azacitidine-epacadostat-pembrolizumab regimen was well tolerated, it was not associated with substantial clinical response in patients with advanced solid tumors previously exposed to immunotherapy.

Controversies around the function of LARP1.

The RNA-binding protein LARP1 has generated interest in recent years for its role in the mTOR signalling cascade and its regulation of terminal oligopyrimidine (TOP) mRNA translation. Paradoxically, some scientists have shown that LARP1 represses TOP translation while others that LARP1 activates it. Here, we present opinions from four leading scientists in the field to discuss these and other contradictory findings.

LARP1 isoform expression in human cancer cell lines.

LARP1 is an oncogenic RNA-binding protein required for ribosome biogenesis and cancer cell survival. From published in vitro studies, there is disparity over which of two different LARP1 protein isoforms (termed the long LI-LARP1 and short SI-LARP1) is the canonical. Here, after conducting a series of biochemical and cellular assays, we conclude that LI-LARP1 (NM_033551.3 > NP_056130.2) is the dominantly expressed form. We observe that SI-LARP1 (NM_015315.5> NP_056130.2) is epigenetically repressed and that this repression is evolutionarily conserved in all but a small subclade of mammalian species. As with other LARP family members, there are multiple potential LARP1 mRNA isoforms that appear to be censored within the nucleus. The capacity of the cell to modulate splicing and expression of these apparently 'redundant' mRNAs hints at contextually specific mechanisms of LARP1 expression.

Weekly platinum-based chemotherapy versus 3-weekly platinum-based chemotherapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ICON8): quality-of-life results of a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The ICON8 study reported no significant improvement in progression-free survival (a primary endpoint) with weekly chemotherapy compared with standard 3-weekly treatment among patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. All ICON8 patients were eligible to take part in the accompanying health-related quality-of-life study, which measured the effect of treatment on self-reported wellbeing, reported here. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, three-arm, Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) trial done at 117 hospital sites in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Republic of Ireland, women (aged at least 18 years) with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC-IV ovarian cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally using minimisation to group 1 (intravenous carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 intravenous paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 weekly and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Randomisation was stratified by GCIG group, disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients underwent immediate or delayed primary surgery according to clinicians' choice. Patients were asked to complete European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OV28 questionnaires at enrolment, before each chemotherapy cycle, then 6-weekly up to 9 months, 3-monthly up to 2 years, and 6-monthly up to 5 years. Quality of life was a prespecified secondary outcome of the ICON8 study. Within the quality-of-life study, the co-primary endpoints were QLQ-C30 global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) and mean QLQ-C30 global health score from randomisation to 9 months (longitudinal analysis). Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146 and ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is currently in long-term follow up. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were recruited into ICON8 (522 were included in group 1, 523 in group 2, and 521 in group 3). Baseline quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by 1438 (92%) of 1566 patients and 9-month questionnaires by 882 (69%) of 1280 patients. We observed no significant difference in global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) between study groups (group 2 vs group 1, difference in mean score 2·3, 95% CI -0·4 to 4·9, p=0·095; group 3 vs group 1, -0·8, -3·8 to 2·2, p=0·61). Using longitudinal analysis, we found lower global health scores for those receiving weekly paclitaxel than for those receiving 3-weekly chemotherapy (group 2 vs group 1, mean difference -1·8, 95% CI -3·6 to -0·1, p=0·043; group 3 vs group 1, -2·9, -4·7 to -1·1, p=0·0018). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence of a difference in global quality of life between treatment groups at 9 months; however, patients receiving weekly treatment reported lower mean quality of life across the 9-month period after randomisation. Taken together with the lack of progression-free survival benefit, these findings do not support routine use of weekly paclitaxel-containing regimens in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Effective delivery of Complex Innovative Design (CID) cancer trials-A consensus statement.

The traditional cancer drug development pathway is increasingly being superseded by trials that address multiple clinical questions. These are collectively termed Complex Innovative Design (CID) trials. CID trials not only assess the safety and toxicity of novel anticancer medicines but also their efficacy in biomarker-selected patients, specific cancer cohorts or in combination with other agents. They can be adapted to include new cohorts and test additional agents within a single protocol. Whilst CID trials can speed up the traditional route to drug licencing, they can be challenging to design, conduct and interpret. The Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres (ECMC) network, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the Health Boards of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, formed a working group with relevant stakeholders from clinical trials units, the pharmaceutical industry, funding bodies, regulators and patients to identify the main challenges of CID trials. The working group generated ten consensus recommendations. These aim to improve the conduct, quality and acceptability of oncology CID trials in clinical research and, importantly, to expedite the process by which effective treatments can reach cancer patients.

A phase Ib dose-finding, pharmacokinetic study of the focal adhesion kinase inhibitor GSK2256098 and trametinib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Combined focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and MEK inhibition may provide greater anticancer effect than FAK monotherapy. METHODS: This dose-finding phase Ib study (adaptive 3 + 3 design) determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of trametinib and the FAK inhibitor GSK2256098 in combination. Eligible patients had mesothelioma or other solid tumours with probable mitogen activated protein kinase pathway activation. Adverse events (AEs), dose-limiting toxicities, disease progression and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics were analysed. RESULTS: Thirty-four subjects were enrolled. The GSK2256098/trametinib MTDs were 500 mg twice daily (BID)/0.375 mg once daily (QD) (high/low) and 250 mg BID/0.5 mg QD (low/high). The most common AEs were nausea, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, pruritus, fatigue and rash; none were grade 4. Systemic exposure to trametinib increased when co-administered with GSK2256098, versus trametinib monotherapy; GSK2256098 pharmacokinetics were unaffected by concomitant trametinib. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.8 weeks (95% CI: 6.1-24.1) in subjects with mesothelioma and was longer with Merlin-negative versus Merlin-positive tumours (15.0 vs 7.3 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Trametinib exposure increased when co-administered with GSK2256098, but not vice versa. Mesothelioma patients with loss of Merlin had longer PFS than subjects with wild-type, although support for efficacy with this combination was limited. Safety profiles were acceptable up to the MTD.

Anti-tumour activity of a first-in-class agent NUC-1031 in patients with advanced cancer: results of a phase I study.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine is used to treat a wide range of tumours, but its efficacy is limited by cancer cell resistance mechanisms. NUC-1031, a phosphoramidate modification of gemcitabine, is the first anti-cancer ProTide to enter the clinic and is designed to overcome these key resistance mechanisms. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with advanced solid tumours who had relapsed after treatment with standard therapy were recruited to a dose escalation study to determine the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) and assess the safety of NUC-1031. Pharmacokinetics and anti-tumour activity was also assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients received treatment, 50% of whom had prior exposure to gemcitabine. NUC-1031 was well tolerated with the most common Grade 3/4 adverse events of neutropaenia, lymphopaenia and fatigue occurring in 13 patients each (19%). In 49 response-evaluable patients, 5 (10%) achieved a partial response and 33 (67%) had stable disease, resulting in a 78% disease control rate. Cmax levels of the active intracellular metabolite, dFdCTP, were 217-times greater than those reported for equimolar doses of gemcitabine, with minimal toxic metabolite accumulation. The RP2D was determined as 825 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. CONCLUSIONS: NUC-1031 was well tolerated and demonstrated clinically significant anti-tumour activity, even in patients with prior gemcitabine exposure and in cancers not traditionally perceived as gemcitabine-responsive.