Phase 1/2 trial of avelumab combined with utomilumab (4-1BB agonist), PF-04518600 (OX40 agonist), or radiotherapy in patients with advanced gynecologic malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint blockade has shown mixed results in advanced/recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Efficacy may be improved through costimulation with OX40 and 4-1BB agonists. The authors sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of avelumab combined with utomilumab (a 4-1BB agonist), PF-04518600 (an OX40 agonist), and radiotherapy in patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: The primary end point in this six-arm, phase 1/2 trial was safety of the combination regimens. Secondary end points included the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, the disease control rate (DCR), the duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Forty patients were included (35% with cervical cancer, 30% with endometrial cancer, and 35% with ovarian cancer). Most patients (n = 33; 83%) were enrolled in arms A-C (no radiation). Among 35 patients who were evaluable for efficacy, the ORR was 2.9%, and the DCR was 37.1%, with a median duration of stable disease of 5.4 months (interquartile range, 4.1-7.3 months). Patients with cervical cancer in arm A (avelumab and utomilumab; n = 9 evaluable patients) achieved an ORR of 11% and a DCR of 78%. The median progression-free survival was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.5 months), and overall survival was 9.4 months (95% CI, 5.6-11.9 months). No dose-limiting toxicities or grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this trial highlight that, in heavily pretreated patients with gynecologic cancer, even multidrug regimens targeting multiple immunologic pathways, although safe, did not produce significant responses. A DCR of 78% in patients with cervical cancer who received avelumab and utomilumab indicates that further research on this combination in select patients may be warranted.

Metastatic extraneural glioblastoma diagnosed with molecular testing.

Glioblastoma, the most common malignant brain tumor in adults, is associated with a median overall survival duration of less than 2 years. Extraneural metastases occur in less than 1% of all patients with glioblastoma. The mechanism of extraneural metastasis is unclear. We present a case of extensive extraneural, extraosseous, epidural, and soft-tissue metastasis of glioblastoma. The diagnosis of metastatic glioblastoma was made only after next-generation sequencing (NGS) of the metastatic paraspinal lesions was completed. The CDK4, pTERT, PTEN, and TP53 molecular alterations seen in the initial intracranial glioblastoma were found in the paraspinal tumor, along with the addition of MYC, which is implicated in angiogenesis and epidermal-to-mesenchymal transition. Immunohistochemical stains showed that neoplastic cells were negative for GFAP. In conclusion, this case raises awareness about the role of NGS in the diagnosis of extraneural glioblastoma. This diagnosis was not possible with histology alone and only became evident after molecular profiling of the metastatic lesions and its comparison to the original tumor.

First-In-Human Phase I Study of Tinengotinib (TT-00420), a Multiple Kinase Inhibitor, as a Single Agent in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This first-in-human phase I dose-escalation study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of tinengotinib (TT-00420), a multi-kinase inhibitor targeting fibroblast growth factor receptors 1-3 (FGFRs 1-3), Janus kinase 1/2, vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, and Aurora A/B, in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received tinengotinib orally daily in 28-day cycles. Dose escalation was guided by Bayesian modeling using escalation with overdose control. The primary objective was to assess dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and dose recommended for dose expansion (DRDE). Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics and efficacy. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were enrolled (dose escalation, n = 40; dose expansion, n = 8). MTD was not reached; DRDE was 12 mg daily. DLTs were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (8 mg, n = 1) and hypertension (15 mg, n = 2). The most common treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (50.0%). In 43 response-evaluable patients, 13 (30.2%) achieved partial response (PR; n = 7) or stable disease (SD) ≥ 24 weeks (n = 6), including 4/11 (36.4%) with FGFR2 mutations/fusions and cholangiocarcinoma (PR n = 3; SD ≥ 24 weeks n = 1), 3/3 (100.0%) with hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer (PR n = 2; SD ≥ 24 weeks n = 1), 2/5 (40.0%) with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC; PR n = 1; SD ≥ 24 weeks n = 1), and 1/1 (100.0%) with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC; PR). Four of 12 patients (33.3%; HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer, TNBC, prostate cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma) treated at DRDE had PRs. Tinengotinib's half-life was 28-34 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Tinengotinib was well tolerated with favorable pharmacokinetic characteristics. Preliminary findings indicated potential clinical benefit in FGFR inhibitor-refractory cholangiocarcinoma, HER2-negative breast cancer (including TNBC), and CRPC. Continued evaluation of tinengotinib is warranted in phase II trials.

A Phase I Trial of Bevacizumab and Temsirolimus in Combination With Valproic Acid in Advanced Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical models suggest synergy between anti-angiogenesis therapy, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and histone deacetylase inhibitors to promote anticancer activity. METHODS: This phase I study enrolled 47 patients between April 2012 and 2018 and determined safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) when combining bevacizumab, temsirolimus, and valproic acid in patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: Median age of enrolled patients was 56 years. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 lines of prior therapy. Forty-five patients (95.7%) experienced one or more treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Grade 3 TRAEs were lymphopenia (14.9%), thrombocytopenia (8.5%), and mucositis (6.4%). Grade 4 TRAEs included lymphopenia (2.1%) and CNS cerebrovascular ischemia (2.1%). Six patients developed DLTs across 10 dose levels with grade 3 infection, rash, mucositis, bowel perforation, elevated lipase, and grade 4 cerebrovascular ischemia. The MTD was dose level 9 (bevacizumab 5 mg/kg days 1 and 15 intravenously (IV) plus temsirolimus 25 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 IV and valproic acid 5 mg/kg on days 1-7 and 15-21 per orally (PO)). Objective response rate (ORR) was 7.9% with confirmed partial response (PRs) in 3 patients (one each in parotid gland, ovarian, and vaginal cancers). Stable disease (SD) ≥+6 months was seen in 5 patients (13.1%). Clinical benefit state (CBR: PR + SD ≥+6 months) was 21%. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with bevacizumab, temsirolimus, and valproic acid was feasible, but there were numerous toxicities, which will require careful management for future clinical development (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01552434).

Selinexor in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with metastatic solid tumors: Results of an open label, single-center, multi-arm phase 1b study with expansion phase in ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Selinexor is a first-in-class, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound which blocks Exportin-1 (XPO1). Our objective was to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of selinexor and weekly paclitaxel. METHODS: This was an open label, single-center, multi-arm phase 1b study utilizing a "3 + 3" design and a "basket-type" expansion in recurrent solid tumors. Selinexor (60 mg or 80 mg twice weekly orally) and weekly paclitaxel (80 mg IV 2 week on, 1 week off) were one of 13 parallel arms. Efficacy was evaluated using RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: All 35 patients treated were evaluable for toxicity and 31 (88%) were evaluable for response. Patient diagnoses included platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian (n = 28), breast (n = 4), prostate (n = 2), and cervical (n = 1) cancer. Patients had a median of four prior therapies (range 1-10), and 47% had a prior taxane in the recurrent setting. There were no DLTs and 60 mg was chosen as the RP2D due to long-term tolerability. Ninety-seven percent of patients had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and the most common grade ≥ 3 TEAE were neutropenia (46%), anemia (31%), and nausea (21%). Among 24 evaluable patients with ovarian cancer, response rate was 17%, CBR was 58%, and median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI 3.7, not reached (NR)). CONCLUSIONS: Oral selinexor in combination with weekly paclitaxel demonstrated promising clinical activity with manageable toxicity. This combination should be considered for further exploration in a randomized study, especially in ovarian malignancies.

A phase i study of ixazomib and erlotinib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies have shown that the combined inhibition of EGFR and NF-kB pathways to target the RalB/TBK1 pathway led to synergistic antitumor activity. Based on this rationale, we conducted a Phase I dose-escalation study combining the EGFR inhibitor erlotinib with the NF-kB inhibitor ixazomib in advanced solid tumors. Patients and methods. Patients with advanced solid tumors were eligible. The bayesian optimal interval phase I dose escalation design was used to establish the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Results. Nineteen patients with a range of solid tumors were enrolled. The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were diarrhea (42.1%, 8/19), followed by rash (36.8%, 7/19) and nausea (21.1%, 4/19). The combination RP2D for oral ixazomib was 4.0 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle, with oral erlotinib 150 mg daily. While no patient achieved RECIST v1.1 objective responses, 3 patients with advanced sarcoma experienced durable RECIST v1.1 stable disease ≥ 6 months (8.4, 10.6, and 15.7 months) and the best response was -13% decrease in clear cell sarcoma. Conclusions. The combination of erlotinib and ixazomib was safe and well tolerated among patients with advanced cancer, with preliminary signals of antitumor activity in patients with advanced sarcoma.

Supportive care for the prevention of nausea, vomiting and anorexia in a phase 1B study of selinexor in advanced cancer patients: an exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical observations of cancer patients treated with selinexor have reported high incidence of nausea and anorexia. The study objective was to investigate the adoption of prophylactic olanzapine for the prevention of nausea, vomiting and anorexia in cancer patients receiving selinexor and standard chemotherapy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed supportive care interventions in patients receiving selinexor and recorded frequency of adverse events (NCI-CTAE). Association between categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests; repeated measures analysis was performed to assess weight changes over time. RESULTS: Of 124 evaluable patients, 83 (66.9%) were female, 93 were white (75.0%), and the most common cancer was ovarian (N = 30, 24.2%). One hundred and four patients (83.9%) received olanzapine, of which 93 (89.4%) were prophylactically treated, the majority (86.5%) receiving low 2.5 mg daily dose. Other anti-emetics included ondansetron in 90 patients (72.6%), dexamethasone prescribed in 50 patients (40.3%) and metoclopramide in 49 patients (39.5%), while aprepitant/fosaprepitant (N = 2, 1.6%) were prescribed infrequently. Cancer patients receiving prophylactic olanzapine (N = 93) compared to patients who never received olanzapine (N = 20) had more Grade 1 + anorexia (31.2% vs 20.0%), less nausea (53.8% vs 70.0%), less vomiting (33.3% vs 40.0%), and increased hyperglycemia (29.0% vs 10.0%), but differences were non-statistically significant. In addition, there was minimal weight loss over time in both groups and no statistically significant differences in weight loss between groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic olanzapine decreased nausea, vomiting and maintained weight over 3 months but did not prevent anorexia in patients receiving selinexor and chemotherapy. Low dose olanzapine was well tolerated but associated with hyperglycemia.

Selinexor in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors: Results of a single-center, multi-arm phase Ib study.

BACKGROUND: Carboplatin and paclitaxel (CT) is one of the standard chemotherapy regimens used in various tumor types. Preclinical models have suggested that selinexor, a first-in-class oral potent selective inhibitor of nuclear export Exportin-1, and CT exerts antitumor activity in multiple malignancies. METHODS: This was a single-center, multi-arm phase Ib study utilizing a "basket type" expansion. CT and selinexor was employed as one of the 13 parallel arms. Advanced relapsed/refractory solid tumors following standard therapy or where the addition of selinexor to standard regimens deemed appropriate, were eligible. RESULTS: Of 13 patients treated, 12 patients were evaluable for response. The most common cancers were breast (n = 4), esophageal (n = 2), ovarian (n = 2) and non-small cell lung cancers (n = 2). All 13 patients had at least one treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and the most common were neutropenia (85%), leukopenia (85%), thrombocytopenia (85%), anemia (69%), nausea (54%), vomiting (46%), and fatigue (46%). One patient at 60 mg QW experienced DLT with grade 3 nausea and vomiting lasting 3 days. Unconfirmed partial response (uPR) was observed in 3 patients; one patient each with esophageal, breast, and ovarian cancer. One patient with esophageal adenocarcinoma had confirmed PR, however, was discontinued from the study due to clinical progression. Five patients achieved stable disease (SD). Disease control rate was 8%. Majority of patients (77%), including two patients who had uPR, had prior exposure to carboplatin and/or paclitaxel. Time-to-treatment failure (TTF) ranged from 1 to 153 weeks. CONCLUSION: The RP2D of selinexor was 60 mg QW in combination with CT. The combination conferred viable clinical activity with durable objective responses which should further be explored in tumor types for which CT is used as standard of care. Trial information. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT02419495. Sponsor(s): Karyopharm Therapeutics. (Trial registration: NCT02419495. Registered 14 April 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02419495 ).

Phase 1 trial of ADI-PEG20 plus cisplatin in patients with pretreated metastatic melanoma or other advanced solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Arginine depletion interferes with pyrimidine metabolism and DNA damage-repair pathways, and pairing arginine deiminase pegylated with 20,000-molecular-weight polyethylene glycol (ADI-PEG20) with platinum enhances cytotoxicity in vitro and in vivo in arginine auxotrophs. METHODS: This single-centre, Phase 1 trial was conducted using a 3 + 3 dose escalation designed to assess safety, tolerability and determine the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of ADI-PEG20. RESULTS: We enrolled 99 patients with metastatic argininosuccinate synthetase 1 (ASS1) deficient malignancies. We observed no dose-limiting toxic effects or treatment-related mortality. Three percent of patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity. After treatment, 5% (5/99) of patients had partial responses, and 41% had stable disease. The median progression-free and overall survival durations were 3.62 and 8.06 months, respectively. Substantial arginine depletion and citrulline escalation persisted in most patients through weeks 24 and 8, respectively. Tumour responses were associated with anti-ADI-PEG20 antibody levels at weeks 8 and 16 (p = 0.031 and p = 0.0357, respectively). CONCLUSION: Concurrently administered ADI-PEG20 and cisplatin had an acceptable safety profile and had shown antitumour activity against metastatic ASS1-deficient solid tumours. Further evaluation of this treatment combination is warranted.

Overview of Ocular Side Effects of Selinexor.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this review is to elucidate the type and frequency of ocular adverse events associated with selinexor with a goal to quantify the occurrence of these events in our investigator-initiated trial. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 174 patients treated with at least one dose of selinexor in combination with multiple standard chemotherapy or immunotherapy agents between July 2015 and July 2020 at a comprehensive cancer center in the U.S. All reported ocular adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 174 patient medical records were reviewed. All patients received at least one dose of selinexor in combination with multiple standard chemotherapy or immunotherapy agents in our cohort of patients with advanced malignancies. A total of 34 (19.54%) patients experienced 37 ocular adverse events. The most frequently reported ocular symptom was blurred vision, which was reported in 22 (12.64%) patients. The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event was dry eye syndrome reported in 21 (12.1%) patients, and 19 (10.9%) of them were diagnosed with mild dry eye. The second most common treatment-related adverse event was the progression of age-related nuclear sclerosis (cataract) reported in 7 (4.0%) patients. None of the ocular adverse events required therapy discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that ocular adverse events associated with oral selinexor were mild. The most frequently reported ocular treatment-related adverse events were mild dry eye and progression of age-related nuclear sclerosis. None of the ocular adverse events required therapy discontinuation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients receiving selinexor in combination with multiple standard chemotherapy or immunotherapy agents were reviewed, with a total of 34 patients experiencing 37 ocular adverse events. Findings highlight that ocular adverse events associated with oral selinexor were mild. The most frequently reported ocular treatment-related adverse events were mild dry eye and progression of age-related nuclear sclerosis. None of the ocular adverse events required therapy discontinuation.

Patient-Reported Out-of-Pocket Costs and Financial Toxicity During Early-Phase Oncology Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are an important therapeutic option for patients with cancer. Although financial burden in cancer treatment is well documented, the financial burden associated with clinical trials is not well understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a survey regarding economic burden and financial toxicity in patients with cancer enrolled in phase I clinical trials for >1 month. Financial toxicity score was assessed using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity survey. Patients also reported monthly out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen patients completed the survey (72% non-Hispanic White; 45% with annual income ≤$60,000; 50% lived >300 miles from the clinic; 37% required air travel). Forty-eight percent of patients had monthly OOP costs of at least $1,000. Fifty-five percent and 64% of patients reported unanticipated medical and nonmedical expenses, respectively. Worse financial toxicity was associated with yearly household income <$60,000 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.7; p = .008), having unanticipated medical costs (OR: 3.2; p = .024), and living >100 miles away from the clinical trial hospital (OR: 2.3; p = .043). Non-White or Hispanic patients (OR: 2.5; p = .011) and patients who were unemployed or not working outside the home (OR: 2.5; p = .016) were more likely to report high unanticipated medical costs. CONCLUSION: Among patients with cancer participating in clinical trials, economic burden is high, and most of patients' OOP costs were nonmedical costs. Financial toxicity is disproportionally higher in patients with lower income and those who travel farther, and unexpected medical costs were more common among non-White or Hispanic patients. OOP costs can be substantial and are often unexpected for patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The financial burden of cancer treatment is well documented, but there are limited data regarding the financial burden associated with cancer clinical trials. This study surveyed 213 patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials. Monthly out-of-pocket costs were at least $1000 for nearly half of patients. Worse financial toxicity was associated with income <$60,000 and living farther away from the hospital. Racial/ethnic minorities had higher rates of unanticipated medical costs. These data help to quantify the high financial burden for patients and may reveal a cause of disparities in clinical trial enrollment for underrepresented populations.

Berzosertib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: High-grade serous ovarian cancers show increased replication stress, rendering cells vulnerable to ATR inhibition because of near universal loss of the G1/S checkpoint (through deleterious TP53 mutations), premature S phase entry (due to CCNE1 amplification, RB1 loss, or CDKN2A mRNA downregulation), alterations of homologous recombination repair genes, and expression of oncogenic drivers (through MYC amplification and other mechanisms). We hypothesised that the combination of the selective ATR inhibitor, berzosertib, and gemcitabine could show acceptable toxicity and superior efficacy to gemcitabine alone in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study, 11 different centres in the US Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent, platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (determined histologically) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) on day 1 and day 8, or gemcitabine plus intravenous berzosertib (210 mg/m2) on day 2 and day 9 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Randomisation was done centrally using the Theradex Interactive Web Response System, stratified by platinum-free interval, and with a permuted block size of six. Following central randomisation, patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595892, and is active but closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between Feb 14, 2017, and Sept 7, 2018, 88 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 70 were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine alone (36 patients) or gemcitabine plus berzosertib (34 patients). At the data cutoff date (Feb 21, 2020), the median follow-up was 53·2 weeks (25·6-81·8) in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group and 43·0 weeks (IQR 23·2-69·1) in the gemcitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival was 22·9 weeks (17·9-72·0) for gemcitabine plus berzosertib and 14·7 weeks (90% CI 9·7-36·7) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·33-0·98; one-sided log-rank test p=0·044). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (14 [39%] of 36 patients in the gemcitabine alone group vs 16 [47%] of 34 patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group) and decreased platelet count (two [6%] vs eight [24%]). Serious adverse events were observed in ten (28%) patients in the gemcitabine alone group and nine (26%) patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group. There was one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine alone group due to sepsis and one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group due to pneumonitis. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomised study of an ATR inhibitor in any tumour type. This study shows a benefit of adding berzosertib to gemcitabine in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer. This combination warrants further investigation in this setting. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.

Phase I Study of Ramucirumab Plus Merestinib in Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Safety, Preliminary Efficacy, and Pharmacokinetic Findings.

LESSONS LEARNED: The combination of the antivascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 monoclonal antibody, ramucirumab, and the type II MET kinase inhibitor, merestinib, is tolerable. Preliminary efficacy data suggest that the combination may provide clinical benefit to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Further development of this combination would likely necessitate the identification of subsets of patients with mCRC where the clinical benefit is of clinical relevance. BACKGROUND: This study evaluated safety, preliminary efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of ramucirumab plus merestinib in patients with MCR previously treated with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan. METHODS: Open-label phase Ia/b study comprising 3+3 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) observation and expansion parts. Treatment was ramucirumab 8 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 and merestinib 80 mg once daily (QD; 28-day cycle). Primary objective was safety and tolerability. Secondary objectives were pharmacokinetics and preliminary antitumor activity. Exploratory objective was biomarker associations. RESULTS: Safety findings: DLT (proteinuria) of 7 phase Ia patients (the expansion part started at the initial recommended dose level); 16 patients (70%) with grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 10 patients (43%) with grade ≥3 treatment-related TEAEs. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related TEAEs were fatigue (4 patients [17%]) and increased blood alkaline phosphatase, diarrhea, and hypertension (2 patients each [9%]). One patient discontinued treatment because of cholestatic hepatitis. Geometric mean trough concentrations at cycle 1, day 15, were ramucirumab, 24.8 µg/mL; merestinib, 130 ng/mL. No complete or partial response was seen; 12 patients (52%) achieved stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 3.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-4.4). Median overall survival was 8.9 months (95% CI: 3.5-12.7). There were no associations between genetic alterations and efficacy. CONCLUSION: Ramucirumab plus merestinib is tolerable and may have clinical benefit in biomarker-unselected, heavily pretreated patients with mCRC.

Cancer-Related Internet Use and Its Association With Patient Decision Making and Trust in Physicians Among Patients in an Early Drug Development Clinic: A Questionnaire-Based Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The role of cancer-related internet use on the patient-physician relationship has not been adequately explored among patients who are cancer-related internet users (CIUs) in early-phase clinical trial clinics. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between cancer-related internet use and the patient-physician relationship and decision making among CIUs in an early drug development clinic. METHODS: Of 291 Phase I clinic patients who completed a questionnaire on internet use, 179 were CIUs. Generations were defined by the year of patient's birth: "millennials" (after 1990) and "Generation X/Y" (1965-1990) grouped as "Millennials or Generation X/Y"; "Baby Boomers" (1946-1964); and "Greatest or Silent Generation" (1945 and earlier). Statistical analyses included the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test and the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: CIUs were 52% (94/179) female, 44% (78/179) were older than 60 years, and 60% (108/179) had household incomes exceeding US $60,000. The sources of information on cancer and clinical trials included physicians (171/179, 96%), the internet (159/179, 89%), and other clinical trial personnel (121/179, 68%). For the overall sample and each generation, the median values for trust in referring and Phase I clinical trial physicians among early drug development clinic CIUs were 5 on a 0-5 scale, with 5 indicating "complete trust." CIUs' trust in their referring (5) and phase 1 (5) physicians was higher than CIUs' trust in Web-based cancer-related information (3; P<.001 for both). CIUs who reported visiting the National Cancer Institute (NCI) website, NCI.org, to learn about cancer reported higher levels of trust in Web-based cancer-related information than CIUs who did not use the NCI website (P=.02). Approximately half of CIUs discussed internet information with their doctor. Only 14% (23/165) of CIUs had asked their physician to recommend cancer-related websites, and 24% (35/144) of CIUs reported at least occasional conflict between their physician's advice and Web-based information. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the plethora of websites related to cancer and cancer clinical trials, patients in early-phase clinical trial settings trust their physicians more than Web-based information. Cancer-related organizations should provide regularly updated links to trustworthy websites with cancer and clinical trial information for patients and providers and educate providers on reliable cancer websites so that they can better direct their patients to appropriate internet content.

Development of a prognostic scoring system for patients with advanced cancer enrolled in immune checkpoint inhibitor phase 1 clinical trials.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.85.

Phase I study of nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancers.

BACKGROUND: We performed a phase I modified 3 + 3 dose escalation study to evaluate the safety and activity of bevacizumab plus gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients were given fixed dose gemcitabine plus increasing doses of nab-paclitaxel and bevacizumab. Toxicity, response, and association with VEGF polymorphism was analysed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 110 patients who had undergone a median of 3 prior lines of therapy. The median age was 60 years (range, 17-85 years), and 55 patients (50%) had gemcitabine-refractory disease. We observed 3 dose-limiting toxicities during dose escalation and 3 DLTs in expansion cohorts. Dose escalation to 150 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel and 15 mg/kg bevacizumab with 1000 mg/m2 of gemcitabine was well tolerated with no MTD. One patient with gemcitabine-refractory peritoneal papillary carcinoma had a complete response, 13 patients (13%) had partial responses, and 54 patients (52%) had stable disease ≥12 weeks. Exploratory VEGF single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis was performed on 13 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and bevacizumab is safe, well-tolerated, and has activity in advanced malignancies, including gemcitabine-refractory tumours. Based on this study, the recommended phase 2 dose is gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg. VEGF polymorphism data should be evaluated in future bevacizumab-based trials.

Phase I study of the combination of crizotinib (as a MET inhibitor) and dasatinib (as a c-SRC inhibitor) in patients with advanced cancer.

Background Both MET and c-SRC are important mediators of cancer progression and there is cross talk between the two molecules. Preclinical studies have demonstrated combination of MET and c-SRC inhibitors is effective in multiple cancer types. Methods We analyzed the safety and efficacy of administering a c-SRC inhibitor (dasatinib) in combination with a MET inhibitor (crizotinib) in a two-arm concurrent phase I study. Arm A consisted of crizotinib fixed at 250 mg twice per day with escalation of dasatinib. Arm B consisted of dasatinib fixed at 140 mg daily with escalation of crizotinib. Endpoints included dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and response (RECIST 1.1). Results We enrolled 61 patients (arm A: 31, arm B: 30). The most common cancers were sarcoma (21%) and prostate cancer (16%). In Arm A, at dose level 2 (DL2), 40% (2/5) experienced DLTs. In the expanded DL1, 21% (4/19) experienced DLTs (all grade 3). In Arm B, at DL2, 50% (2/4) experienced DLTs. In the expanded DL1, 22% (4/18) experienced DLTs (all grade 3). RP2D was determined to be arm A, DL1 (250 mg crizotinib orally twice per day plus 50 mg dasatinib orally daily). Partial response (N = 1) and stable disease for ≥6 months (N = 3) were seen. Conclusions The combination of crizotinib and dasatinib is safe to administer but tolerability is limited given the high rate of adverse events. Responses and durable stable disease were limited. Further precision therapy approach using this specific combination may be difficult given the toxicity.

Radiomics to predict immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis: proof of concept.

We present the first reported work that explores the potential of radiomics to predict patients who are at risk for developing immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis. Despite promising results with immunotherapies, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are challenging. Although less common, pneumonitis is a potentially fatal irAE. Thus, early detection is critical for improving treatment outcomes; an urgent need to identify biomarkers that predict patients at risk for pneumonitis exists. Radiomics, an emerging field, is the automated extraction of high fidelity, high-dimensional imaging features from standard medical images and allows for comprehensive visualization and characterization of the tissue of interest and corresponding microenvironment. In this pilot study, we sought to determine whether radiomics has the potential to predict development of pneumonitis. We performed radiomic analyses using baseline chest computed tomography images of patients who did (N = 2) and did not (N = 30) develop immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis. We extracted 1860 radiomic features in each patient. Maximum relevance and minimum redundancy feature selection method, anomaly detection algorithm, and leave-one-out cross-validation identified radiomic features that were significantly different and predicted subsequent immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis (accuracy, 100% [p = 0.0033]). This study suggests that radiomic features can classify and predict those patients at baseline who will subsequently develop immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis, further enabling risk-stratification that will ultimately lead to better treatment outcomes.

Incidence of immune-related adverse events and its association with treatment outcomes: the MD Anderson Cancer Center experience.

Background Immunotherapy is emerging as the cornerstone for treatment of patients with advanced cancer, but significant toxicity (immune-related adverse events [irAEs]) associated with unbridled T cell activity remains a concern. Patients and methods A retrospective review of the electronic medical records of 290 patients with advanced cancer treated on an immunotherapy-based clinical trial in the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between February 2010 and September 2015 was performed. Clinical and laboratory parameters were collected to determine the incidence of irAEs, risk factors, and their association with treatment outcomes. Results Ninety eight of 290 patients (34%) experienced any grade irAEs. Among the 15 (5.2%) patients with grade ≥ 3 irAEs, the most common irAEs were dermatitis and enterocolitis. Although 80% of the patients with grade ≥ 3 irAEs required systemic corticosteroids, all the 15 patients recovered from the irAEs. On re-challenge, 4 of the 5 patients who had received systemic corticosteroids for irAE continued to respond. There were no irAE-related deaths. Importantly, patients with grade ≥ 3 irAEs had improved overall response rate (25 vs. 6%; p = 0.039) and longer median time to progression (30 weeks vs. 10 weeks; p = 0.0040) when compared to those without grade ≥ 3 irAEs. Conclusion Incidence of irAEs with immunotherapeutic agents indicates an active immune status, suggestive of potential clinical benefit to the patient. Further validation of this association in a large prospective study is warranted.

Outcomes of patients ≥65 years old with advanced cancer treated on phase I trials at MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER.

Patients ≥65 years with cancer remain underrepresented in clinical trials, particularly in phase I clinical trials. We analyzed the clinical course of patients ≥65 years treated on phase I clinical trials with particular emphasis on toxicities. We identified 347 consecutive patients ≥65 years with advanced cancer in our phase I clinic from 01/2004-12/2009 and analyzed disease characteristics, toxicities, survival and response. Overall, 251 patients received a targeted agent, of whom 241 (96%) received an investigational, non-FDA-approved drug. Clinical benefit (complete response + partial response + stable disease ≥ 6 months) was noted in 61 patients (18%). Eighty-nine patients (26%) had grade 3/4 toxicity, commonly hematologic, including 6 dose-limiting toxicities and 1 treatment-related death (<0.01%). Median overall survival from first Phase I Clinic visit was 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.8-10.6); median time to treatment failure was 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.8-2.1). Multivariable analyses revealed 4 indicators of lack of clinical benefit (liver metastases, performance status [PS] >1, prior radiation, ≥5 prior treatments; p <0.0001). Patients age 70-79 years had a greater risk of grade 3/4 toxicities when treated with combinations (≥2 drugs) compared to monotherapy (p = 0.006). Predictors of shorter time to treatment failure and overall survival included PS >1, thrombocytosis, >2 metastatic sites, and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (p <0.05). Our results suggest that phase I clinical trials are well tolerated in patients ≥65 years. Additionally, we identified risk factors that may facilitate patient selection for clinical trial participation.