Phase II study of vemurafenib in children and young adults with tumors harboring BRAF V600 mutations: NCI-COG pediatric MATCH trial (APEC1621) Arm G.

BACKGROUND: This is a phase II subprotocol of the NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH study evaluating vemurafenib, a selective oral inhibitor of BRAF V600 mutated kinase, in patients with relapsed or refractory solid tumors harboring BRAF V600 mutations. METHODS: Patients received vemurafenib at 550 mg/m2 (maximum 960 mg/dose) orally twice daily for 28-day cycles until progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary aim was to determine the objective response rate and secondary objectives included estimating progression-free survival and assessing the tolerability of vemurafenib. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients matched to the subprotocol and 4 patients (18%) enrolled. Primary reasons for non-enrollment were ineligibility due to exclusions of low-grade glioma (nâ=â7) and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy (nâ=â7). Enrolled diagnoses were one each of histiocytosis, ameloblastoma, Ewing sarcoma, and high-grade glioma, all with BRAF V600E mutations. Treatment was overall tolerable with mostly expected grade 1/2 adverse events (AE). Grade 3 or 4 AE on treatment were acute kidney injury, hyperglycemia, and maculopapular rash. One patient came off therapy due to AE. One patient (glioma) had an objective partial response and remained on protocol therapy for 15 cycles. CONCLUSION: There was a low accrual rate on this MATCH subprotocol, with only 18% of those who matched with BRAFV600 mutations enrolling, resulting in early termination, and limiting study results (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03220035).

Olaparib for childhood tumors harboring defects in DNA damage repair genes: arm H of the NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH trial.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute-Children's Oncology Group Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) precision oncology platform trial enrolled children aged 1-21 years with treatment-refractory solid tumors and predefined actionable genetic alterations. Patients with tumors harboring alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes were assigned to receive olaparib. METHODS: Tumor and blood samples were submitted for centralized molecular testing. Tumor and germline sequencing were conducted in parallel. Olaparib was given twice daily for 28-day cycles starting at a dose 30% lower than the adult recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The primary endpoint was the objective response. RESULTS: Eighteen patients matched (1.5% of those screened) based on the presence of a deleterious gene alteration in BRCA1/2, RAD51C/D, or ATM detected by tumor sequencing without germline subtraction or analysis of loss of heterozygosity (LOH). Eleven (61%) harbored a germline mutation, with only one exhibiting LOH. Six patients enrolled and received the olaparib starting dose of 135 mg/m2/dose. Two participants were fully evaluable; 4 were inevaluable because <85% of the prescribed dose was administered during cycle 1. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or responses. Minimal hematologic toxicity was observed. CONCLUSION: Most DDR gene alterations detected in Pediatric MATCH were germline, monoallelic, and unlikely to confer homologous recombination deficiency predicting sensitivity to olaparib monotherapy. The study closed due to poor accrual. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03233204. IRB approved: initial July 24, 2017.

Tazemetostat for tumors harboring SMARCB1/SMARCA4 or EZH2 alterations: results from NCI-COG pediatric MATCH APEC1621C.

BACKGROUND: National Cancer Institute-Children's Oncology Group Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice assigns patients aged 1-21 years with refractory solid tumors, brain tumors, lymphomas, and histiocytic disorders to phase II trials of molecularly targeted therapies based on detection of predefined genetic alterations. Patients whose tumors harbored EZH2 mutations or loss of SMARCB1 or SMARCA4 by immunohistochemistry were treated with EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat. METHODS: Patients received tazemetostat for 28-day cycles until disease progression or intolerable toxicity (max 26 cycles). The primary endpoint was objective response rate; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and tolerability of tazemetostat. RESULTS: Twenty patients (median age = 5 years) enrolled, all evaluable for response and toxicities. The most frequent diagnoses were atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (n = 8) and malignant rhabdoid tumor (n = 4). Actionable alterations consisted of SMARCB1 loss (n = 16), EZH2 mutation (n = 3), and SMARCA4 loss (n = 1). One objective response was observed in a patient with non-Langerhans cell histiocytosis with SMARCA4 loss (26 cycles, 1200 mg/m2/dose twice daily). Four patients with SMARCB1 loss had a best response of stable disease: epithelioid sarcoma (n = 2), atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (n = 1), and renal medullary carcinoma (n = 1). Six-month progression-free survival was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.7% to 55.2%) and 6-month overall survival was 45% (95% CI = 23.1% to 64.7%). Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with prior tazemetostat reports. CONCLUSIONS: Although tazemetostat did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint in this population of refractory pediatric tumors (objective response rate = 5%, 90% CI = 1% to 20%), 25% of patients with multiple histologic diagnoses experienced prolonged stable disease of 6 months and over (range = 9-26 cycles), suggesting a potential effect of tazemetostat on disease stabilization.