Phase II Study of Erdafitinib in Patients With Tumors With Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Mutations or Fusions: Results From the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial (EAY131) Subprotocol K2.

PURPOSE: Subprotocol K2 (EAY131-K2) of the NCI-MATCH platform trial was an open-label, single-arm, phase II study designed to evaluate the antitumor efficacy of the oral FGFR1-4 inhibitor, erdafitinib, in patients with tumors harboring FGFR1-4 mutations or fusions. METHODS: Central confirmation of tumor FGFR1-4 mutations or fusions was required for outcome analysis. Patients with urothelial carcinoma were excluded. Enrolled subjects received oral erdafitinib at a starting dose of 8 mg daily continuously until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) with key secondary end points of safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were enrolled, and 25 patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis as prespecified in the protocol. The median age was 61 years, and 52% of subjects had received ≥3 previous lines of therapy. The confirmed ORR was 16% (4 of 25 [90% CI, 5.7 to 33.0], P = .034 against the null rate of 5%). An additional seven patients experienced stable disease as best-confirmed response. Four patients had a prolonged PFS including two with recurrent WHO grade IV, IDH1-/2-wildtype glioblastoma. The median PFS and OS were 3.6 months and 11.0 months, respectively. Erdafitinib was manageable with no new safety signals. CONCLUSION: This study met its primary end point in patients with several pretreated solid tumor types harboring FGFR1-3 mutations or fusions. These findings support advancement of erdafitinib for patients with fibroblast growth factor receptor-altered tumors outside of currently approved indications in a potentially tumor-agnostic manner.

Phase II Study of Erdafitinib in Patients With Tumors With FGFR Amplifications: Results From the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial (EAY131) Subprotocol K1.

PURPOSE: Despite fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors being approved in tumor types with select FGFR rearrangements or gene mutations, amplifications of FGFR represent the most common FGFR alteration across malignancies. Subprotocol K1 (EAY131-K1) of the National Cancer Institute-MATCH platform trial was designed to evaluate the antitumor efficacy of the oral FGFR1-4 inhibitor, erdafitinib, in patients with tumors harboring FGFR1-4 amplification. METHODS: EAY131-K1 was an open-label, single-arm, phase II study with central confirmation of presence of FGFR1-4 amplification in tumors. Patients with urothelial carcinoma were excluded. Enrolled patients received oral erdafitinib at a starting dose of 8 mg once daily continuously with escalation to 9 mg once daily continuously, on the basis of predefined time point assessments of phosphate levels, until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was centrally assessed objective response rate (ORR), with key secondary end points being 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6), PFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were enrolled into this study with 18 included in the prespecified primary efficacy analysis. The median age of the 18 patients was 60 years, and 78% had received ≥3 previous lines of therapy. There were no confirmed responses to erdafitinib; however, five patients experienced stable disease (SD) as best response. One patient with an FGFR1-amplified breast cancer had a prolonged PFS >168 days (5.5 months). The median PFS was 1.7 months (90% CI, 1.1 to 1.8 months) and the median OS was 4.2 months (90% CI, 2.3 to 9.3 months). The estimated PFS6 rate was 13.8% (90% CI, 3.3 to 31.6). The majority of toxicities were grade 1 to 2 in nature, although there was one grade 5 treatment-related adverse event. CONCLUSION: Erdafitinib did not meet its primary end point of efficacy as determined by ORR in treatment-refractory solid tumors harboring FGFR1-4 amplifications. Our findings support that rearrangements and gene mutations, but not amplifications, of FGFR remain the established FGFR alterations with approved indications for FGFR inhibition.

Impact of the 2021 CKD-EPI equation on anticancer pharmacotherapy in black and non-black cancer patients.

Cancer and kidney disease disproportionately impact Black patients. The CKD-EPI2021 equation was developed to estimate glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) without using race. We assessed the impact of using CKD-EPI2021 instead of CKD-EPI2009 or Cockcroft-Gault (CG) on dosing and eligibility of anticancer drugs in Black and non-Black patients. Utilizing the National Cancer Institute Theradex database, deindexed eGFR (mL/min) was calculated for 3931 patients (8.6 % Black) using CKD-EPI2021, CKD-EPI2009, and CG. Dosing simulations based on each eGFR were performed for ten anticancer drugs with kidney function-based eligibility or dosing cutoffs. eGFR differences using CKD-EPI2021 versus CKD-EPI2009 varied between Black and non-Black patients (p < 0.001); on average, Black patients had 10.3 mL/min lower eGFR and non-Black patients had 4.2 mL/min higher eGFR using CKD-EPI2021. This corresponded to a difference in relative odds of cisplatin ineligibility using CKD-EPI2021 versus CKD-EPI2009; Black patients had 48 % higher odds of ineligibility and non-Black patients had 27 % lower odds of ineligibility using CKD-EPI2021 (p < 0.001). When using CKD-EPI2021 versus CG, eGFR differences were similar between Black and non-Black patients (p = 0.679) and relative difference in odds of cisplatin ineligibility did not vary. Using CKD-EPI2021 versus CKD-EPI2009 differentially impacts Black versus non-Black cancer patients; Black patients have lower calculated eGFR and are less likely to receive full doses of drug using CKD-EPI2021. From the historical default of CG, adopting CKD-EPI2021 would not disparately impact patients based on race, but would result in Black patients being less likely to receive full doses of drug than if CKD-EPI2009 were used.

Circulating Tumor DNA Dynamics Fail to Predict Efficacy of Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase/VEGFR Inhibition in Patients With Heavily Pretreated Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has shown its potential as a quantitative biomarker for longitudinal monitoring of response to anticancer therapies. However, ctDNA dynamics have not been studied in patients with heavily pretreated, advanced solid tumors, for whom therapeutic responses can be weak. We investigated whether changes in ctDNA could predict clinical outcomes in such a cohort treated with combined poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received up to 7 days of cediranib 30 mg orally once daily monotherapy lead-in followed by addition of olaparib 200 mg orally twice daily. Patients had progressed on a median of three previous lines of therapy. Plasma samples were collected before and after cediranib monotherapy lead-in and on combination therapy at 7 days, 28 days, and every 28 days thereafter. ctDNA was quantified from plasma samples using a multigene mutation-based assay. Radiographic assessment was performed every 8 weeks. RESULTS: ctDNA measurements were evaluable in 63 patients. The median baseline ctDNA variant allele fractions (VAFs) were 20%, 28%, 27%, and 34% for PDAC, TNBC, SCLC, and NSCLC, respectively. No association was observed between baseline VAF and radiographic response, progression-free survival, or overall survival (OS). Similarly, no association was found between ctDNA decline and radiographic response or survival. However, an increase in ctDNA at 56 days of combination therapy was associated with disease progression and inferior OS in a landmark analysis. CONCLUSION: ctDNA levels or dynamics did not correlate with radiographic response or survival outcomes in patients with advanced metastatic malignancies treated with olaparib and cediranib.

The New NCI Precision Medicine Trials.

Basket, umbrella, and platform trial designs (master protocols) have emerged over the last decade to study precision medicine approaches in oncology. First-generation trials like NCI-MATCH (Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice) have proven the principle that studying targeted therapies on a large scale is feasible both from the laboratory and clinical perspectives. However, single-agent targeted therapies have shown limited ability to control metastatic disease, despite careful matching of drug to target. As such, newer approaches employing combinations of targeted therapy, or targeted therapy with standard therapies, need to be considered. The NCI has recently embarked on three second-generation precision medicine trials to address this need: ComboMATCH, iMATCH, and myeloMATCH. The design of these trials and necessary infrastructure are discussed in the following perspective.

Phase II Study of Olaparib and Temozolomide for Advanced Uterine Leiomyosarcoma (NCI Protocol 10250).

PURPOSE: Uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) is an aggressive subtype of soft-tissue sarcoma with frequent metastatic relapse after curative surgery. Chemotherapy provides limited benefit for advanced disease. Multiomics profiling studies have identified homologous recombination deficiency in uLMS. In preclinical studies where olaparib and temozolomide provided modest activity, the combination was highly effective for inhibiting uLMS tumor growth. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NCI Protocol 10250 is a single-arm, open-label, multicenter, phase II study evaluating olaparib and temozolomide in advanced uLMS. Patients with progression on ≥1 prior line received temozolomide 75 mg/m2 orally once daily with olaparib 200 mg orally twice a day both on days 1-7 in 21-day cycles. The primary end point was the best objective response rate (ORR) within 6 months. A one-stage binomial design was used. If ≥5 of 22 responded, the treatment would be considered promising (93% power; α = .06). All patients underwent paired biopsies that were evaluated with whole-exome sequencing (WES)/RNAseq and a RAD51 foci formation assay. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were evaluable. The median age was 55 years, and 59% had received three or more prior lines. Best ORR within 6 months was 23% (5 of 22). The overall ORR was 27% (6 of 22). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.4 months to not estimable). Hematologic toxicity was common (grade 3/4 neutropenia: 75%; thrombocytopenia: 32%) but manageable with dose modification. Five of 16 (31%) of tumors contained a deleterious homologous recombination gene alteration by WES, and 9 of 18 (50%) were homologous recombination-deficient by the RAD51 assay. In an exploratory analysis, mPFS was prolonged for patients with homologous recombination-deficient versus homologous recombination-proficient tumors (11.2 v 5.4 months, P = .05) by RAD51. CONCLUSION: Olaparib and temozolomide met the prespecified primary end point and provided meaningful clinical benefit in patients with advanced, pretreated uLMS.

Multicenter Phase II Trial of the PARP Inhibitor Olaparib in Recurrent IDH1- and IDH2-mutant Glioma.

Purpose: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 and IDH2 mutations (IDH1/2mt) are frequent in glioma. Preclinical studies suggest IDH1/2mts confer "BRCAness" phenotype, a vulnerability that can be targeted through PARP inhibition. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a multicenter study of olaparib monotherapy in patients with IDH1/2mt gliomas. Methods: Patients with recurrent, contrast-enhancing IDH1/2mt gliomas were enrolled in a two-step phase II trial; the primary endpoint was overall response rate per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria. Olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily was given. Results: A total of 15 evaluable patients were enrolled. Histology was astrocytoma (N = 12) and oligodendroglioma (N = 3). Most toxicities were grade 1 or 2. Best response was stable disease (SD) in 9 (60%) patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.63 months and median overall survival was 20.7 months. For patients with SD, median PFS was 5.53 months; 4 patients had SD for >6 months. Among patients with best response progressive disease (N = 6), 5 had grade 4 tumor and 4 had known CDKN2A alteration. PFS was 5.23 months for grades 2 or 3 tumors (N = 10) versus 1.8 months for grade 4 (N = 5; P = 0.0013). Conclusion: The study did not meet the prespecified response-based activity threshold for moving to step 2. However, prolonged SD was observed in patients with grades 2 and 3 histologies, suggesting olaparib monotherapy could be of clinical benefit in select populations. Grade 4 tumors per 2021 World Health Organization classification defined by histology or CDKN2A alteration derived no benefit from this drug, highlighting the usefulness of this classification for future patient stratification and trial design. Significance: A single-arm phase II trial of olaparib in IDH-mutant glioma demonstrated clinically significant prolonged SD for select patients with grade 2/3 disease, suggesting potential benefit of olaparib in IDH-mutant gliomas.

A Phase I Study of Combination Olaparib and Radium-223 in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) with Bone Metastases (COMRADE).

Given that radium-223 is a radiopharmaceutical that induces DNA damage, and olaparib is a PARP inhibitor that interferes with DNA repair mechanisms, we hypothesized their synergy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We sought to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of olaparib + radium-223. We conducted a multicenter phase I 3+3 dose escalation study of olaparib with fixed dose radium-223 in patients with mCRPC with bone metastases. The primary objective was to establish the RP2D of olaparib, with secondary objectives of safety, PSA response, alkaline phosphatase response, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival, and efficacy by homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene status. Twelve patients were enrolled; all patients received a prior androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI; 100%) and 3 patients (25%) prior docetaxel. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) included cytopenias, fatigue, and nausea. No DLTs were seen in the observation period however delayed toxicities guided the RP2D. The RP2D of olaparib was 200 mg orally twice daily with radium-223. The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (92%) and anemia (58%). The rPFS at 6 months was 58% (95% confidence interval, 27%-80%). Nine patients were evaluable for HRR gene status; 1 had a BRCA2 alteration (rPFS 11.8 months) and 1 had a CDK12 alteration (rPFS 3.1 months). Olaparib can be safely combined with radium-223 at the RP2D 200 mg orally twice daily with fixed dose radium-223. Early clinical benefit was observed and will be investigated in a phase II study.

A phase 1 study of veliparib (ABT-888) plus weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced solid malignancies, with an expansion cohort in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) (ETCTN 8620).

BACKGROUND: Veliparib is a poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, and it has clinical activity with every 3 weeks carboplatin and paclitaxel. In breast cancer, weekly paclitaxel is associated with improved overall survival. We aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of veliparib with weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel as well as safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary clinical activity in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic solid tumors and adequate organ function were eligible. A standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design was followed by a TNBC expansion cohort. Veliparib doses ranging from 50 to 200 mg orally bid were tested with carboplatin (AUC 2) and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) given weekly in a 21-day cycle. Adverse events (AE) were evaluated by CTCAE v4.0, and objective response rate (ORR) was determined by RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled, of whom 22 had TNBC. Two dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The RP2D was determined to be 150 mg PO bid veliparib with weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel 2 weeks on, 1 week off, based on hematologic toxicity requiring dose reduction in the first 5 cycles of treatment. The most common grade 3/4 AEs included neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. PK parameters of veliparib were comparable to single-agent veliparib. In 23 patients with evaluable disease, the ORR was 65%. In 19 patients with TNBC with evaluable disease, the ORR was 63%. CONCLUSION: Veliparib can be safely combined with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin, and this triplet combination has promising clinical activity.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Sunitinib or Cediranib in Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare, highly vascular tumor with few treatment options. We designed a phase II randomized trial to determine the activity and tolerability of single-agent cediranib or sunitinib in patients with advanced metastatic ASPS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients 16 years of age and older were randomized to receive cediranib (30 mg) or sunitinib (37.5 mg) in 28-day cycles. Patients could cross over to the other treatment arm at disease progression. The primary endpoint was to measure the objective response rate (ORR) for each agent. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) for the two arms was also determined. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 34 enrolled patients were evaluable for response. One patient on each of the initial two treatment arms had a partial response (ORR: 6.7% and 7.1% for cediranib and sunitinib, respectively). Twenty-four patients had a best response of stable disease (86.7% and 78.6% for cediranib and sunitinib, respectively). There were no significant differences in mPFS for the two treatment arms. Clinical benefit (i.e., objective response or stable disease for a minimum of four or six cycles of therapy) on the first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy did not predict benefit on the second-line TKI. Both drugs were well tolerated. As of August 2021, 1 patient (unevaluable for ORR) remains on study. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet its endpoints for ORR. Although both TKIs provided clinical benefit, the outcomes may have been attenuated in patients who had progressed ≤6 months before enrollment, potentially accounting for the low response rates. See related commentary by Wilky and Maleddu, p. 1163.

Randomized Trial of Olaparib With or Without Cediranib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The Results From National Cancer Institute 9984.

PURPOSE: Cediranib, a pan-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, suppresses expression of homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and increases sensitivity to poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition in preclinical models. We investigated whether cediranib combined with olaparib improves the clinical outcomes of patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were randomly assigned 1:1 to arm A: cediranib 30 mg once daily plus olaparib 200 mg twice daily or arm B: olaparib 300 mg twice daily alone. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in the intention-to-treat patients. The secondary end points were rPFS in patients with HRR-deficient and HRR-proficient mCRPC. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat set of 90 patients, median rPFS was 8.5 (95% CI, 5.4 to 12.0) and 4.0 (95% CI, 3.2 to 8.5) months in arms A and B, respectively. Cediranib/olaparib significantly improved rPFS versus olaparib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.617; 95% CI, 0.392 to 0.969; P = .0359). Descriptive analyses showed a median rPFS of 10.6 (95% CI, 5.9 to not assessed [NA]) and 3.8 (95% CI, 2.33 to NA) months (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.272 to 1.504) among patients with HRR-deficient mCRPC, and 13.8 (95% CI, 3.3 to NA) and 11.3 (95% CI, 3.8 to NA) months (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.321 to 2.988) among patients with BRCA2-mutated mCRPC in arms A and B, respectively. The incidence of grades 3-4 adverse events was 61% and 18% in arms A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Cediranib combined with olaparib improved rPFS compared with olaparib alone in men with mCRPC. This combination was associated with an increased incidence of grades 3-4 adverse events. BRCA2-mutated subgroups treated with olaparib with or without cediranib were associated with a numerically longer median rPFS.

Implementing Modernized Eligibility Criteria in US National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials.

In 2018, the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) at the US National Cancer Institute published new protocol template language that focused on organ function and prior and concurrent cancers in an effort to modernize eligibility criteria for cancer treatment trials. We conducted an analysis of CTEP-supported trials to evaluate the uptake and incorporation of the new language. The analysis included evaluation of 122 protocols approved in the years 2018-2020 for inclusion of the modernized eligibility criteria and consistency with new protocol template language related to 7 major eligibility criteria. These were cardiac function, liver function, kidney function, HIV status, prior and/or concurrent malignancies, treated and/or stable brain metastasis, and new and/or progressive brain metastases. Overall, CTEP trials evaluated in this period demonstrated that eligibility criteria were implemented to a relatively high degree ranging from a low of 54.1% for prior and/or concurrent malignancies to a high of 93.4% for eligibility criteria related to HIV infection. The findings demonstrate that modernized eligibility criteria can be successfully implemented but that consistent implementation requires sustained focused effort. As a result of these findings, CTEP began a new initiative in January 2022 that incorporates a specific review of eligibility criteria for new protocols to promote and improve consistency with the modernization effort.

Early drug development in solid tumours: analysis of National Cancer Institute-sponsored phase 1 trials.

BACKGROUND: The low expectation of clinical benefit from phase 1 cancer therapeutics trials might negatively affect patient and physician participation, study reimbursement, and slow the progress of oncology research. Advances in cancer drug development, meanwhile, might have favourably improved treatment responses; however, little comprehensive data exist describing the response and toxicity associated with phase 1 trials across solid tumours. The aim of the study is to evaluate the trend of toxicity and response in phase 1 trials for solid tumours over time. METHODS: We analysed patient-level data from the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program of the National Cancer Institute-sponsored investigator-initiated phase 1 trials for solid tumours, from Jan 1, 2000, to May 31, 2019. We assessed risks of treatment-related death (grade 5 toxicity ratings possibly, probably, or definitely attributable to treatment), all on-treatment deaths (deaths during protocol treatment regardless of attribution), grade 3-4 toxicity, and proportion of overall response (complete response and partial response) and complete response rate in the study periods of 2000-05, 2006-12, and 2013-2019, and evaluated their trends over time. We also analysed cancer type-specific and investigational agent-specific response, and analysed the trend of response in each cancer type over time. Univariate associations of overall response rates with patients' baseline characteristics (age, sex, performance status, BMI, albumin concentration, and haemoglobin concentration), enrolment period, investigational agents, and trial design were assessed using risk ratio based on the modified Poisson regression model. FINDINGS: We analysed 465 protocols that enrolled 13 847 patients using 261 agents. 144 (31%) trials used a monotherapy and 321 (69%) used combination therapies. The overall treatment-related death rate was 0·7% (95% CI 0·5-0·8) across all periods. Risks of treatment-related deaths did not change over time (p=0·52). All on-treatment death risk during the study period was 8·0% (95% CI 7·6-8·5). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological; grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 2336 (16·9%) of 13 847 patients, lymphopenia in 1230 (8·9%), anaemia in 894 (6·5%), and thrombocytopenia in 979 (7·1%). The overall response rate for all trials during the study period was 12·2% (95% CI 11·5-12·8; 1133 of 9325 patients) and complete response rate was 2·7% (2·4-3·0; 249 of 9325). Overall response increased from 9·6% (95% CI 8·7-10·6) in 2000-05 to 18·0% (15·7-20·5) in 2013-19, and complete response rates from 2·5% (2·0-3·0) to 4·3% (3·2-5·7). Overall response rates for combination therapy were substantially higher than for monotherapy (15·8% [15·0-16·8] vs 3·5% [2·8-4·2]). The overall response by class of agents differed across diseases. Anti-angiogenesis agents were associated with higher overall response rate for bladder, colon, kidney and ovarian cancer. DNA repair inhibitors were associated with higher overall response rate in ovarian and pancreatic cancer. The rates of overall response over time differed markedly by disease; there were notable improvements in bladder, breast, and kidney cancer and melanoma, but no change in the low response of pancreatic and colon cancer. INTERPRETATION: During the past 20 years, the response rate in phase 1 trials nearly doubled without an increase in the treatment-related death rate. However, there is significant heterogeneity in overall response by various factors such as cancer type, investigational agent, and trial design. Therefore, informed decision making is crucial for patients before participating in phase 1 trials. This study provides updated encouraging outcomes of modern phase 1 trials in solid tumours. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute.

Survey of Lifestyle, Past Medical History and Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Among Adult Patients Participating in the National Cancer Institute's Exceptional Responders Initiative.

INTRODUCTION: The Exceptional Responders Initiative (ERI) at the National Cancer Institute attempts to correlate unusually good outcomes in patients with cancer with genetic targets in tumors and the therapies the patients received. It is not known if other factors might contribute to exceptional responses or outcomes. We explored aspects of the medical history, lifestyle changes, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and communication between health care practitioners and patients who experienced an exceptional response following cancer treatment. METHODS: All subjects whose case was submitted to the ERI were eligible to participate in the survey. A 121-question survey questionnaire was developed to assess aspects of the subject's past medical history, lifestyle (e.g., diet, exercise, spirituality) and use of CAM. RESULTS: Thirty subjects completed and returned the questionnaire from approximately 88 patients invited to participate (approximate response rate = 34%). Approximately 68% were female and 32% were male. Fifty percent of subjects changed their diet after their cancer diagnosis. Eighteen patients (60%) reported using a CAM therapy (not including oral vitamins/minerals or spiritual practices) during their Exceptional Response (ER). CONCLUSION: Multiple factors, including features of the tumor itself, the patient, or the environment, could affect tumor response or patient survival, either solely or in combination with the treatments received. Many patients use other medications, change their diet or physical activity or use CAM interventions after their cancer diagnosis. Investigators attempting to understand the exceptional response phenomenon should acquire rich data sets of their subjects that include information about these factors.

A phase 1 and pharmacodynamic study of chronically-dosed, single-agent veliparib (ABT-888) in patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated cancer or platinum-refractory ovarian or triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutated cancers (BRCAmut) have intrinsic sensitivity to PARP inhibitors due to deficiency in homologous recombination-mediated DNA repair. There are similarities between BRCAmut and BRCAwt ovarian and basal-like breast cancers. This phase I study determined the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and preliminary efficacy of the PARP inhibitor, veliparib (ABT-888), in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 98) were dosed with veliparib 50-500 mg twice daily (BID). The BRCAmut cohort (n = 70) contained predominantly ovarian (53%) and breast (23%) cancers; the BRCAwt cohort (n = 28) consisted primarily of breast cancer (86%). The MTD, DLT, adverse events, PK, PD, and clinical response were assessed. RESULTS: DLTs were grade 3 nausea/vomiting at 400 mg BID in a BRCAmut carrier, grade 2 seizure at 400 mg BID in a patient with BRCAwt cancer, and grade 2 seizure at 500 mg BID in a BRCAmut carrier. Common toxicities included nausea (65%), fatigue (45%), and lymphopenia (38%). Grade 3/4 toxicities were rare (highest lymphopenia at 15%). Overall response rate (ORR) was 23% (95% CI 13-35%) in BRCAmut overall, and 37% (95% CI 21-55%) at 400 mg BID and above. In BRCAwt, ORR was 8% (95% CI 1-26%), and clinical benefit rate was 16% (95% CI 4-36%), reflecting prolonged stable disease in some patients. PK was linear with dose and was correlated with response and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous veliparib is safe and tolerable. The RP2D was 400 mg BID. There is evidence of clinical activity of veliparib in patients with BRCAmut and BRCAwt cancers.

Reaching beyond maximum grade: progress and future directions for modernising the assessment and reporting of adverse events in haematological malignancies.

Remarkable improvements in outcomes for many haematological malignancies have been driven primarily by a proliferation of novel therapeutics over the past two decades. Targeted agents, immune and cellular therapies, and combination regimens have adverse event profiles distinct from conventional finite cytotoxic chemotherapies. In 2018, a Commission comprising patient advocates, clinicians, clinical investigators, regulators, biostatisticians, and pharmacists representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examined issues of adverse event evaluation in the context of both newer and existing therapies for haematological cancers. The Commission proposed immediate actions and long-term solutions in the current processes in adverse event assessment, patient-reported outcomes in haematological malignancies, toxicities in cellular therapies, long-term toxicity and survivorship in haematological malignancies, issues in regulatory approval from an international perspective, and toxicity reporting in haematological malignancies and the real-world setting. In this follow-up report, the Commission describes progress that has been made in these areas since the initial report.

Trends in Grade 5 Toxicity and Response in Phase I Trials in Hematologic Malignancy: 20-Year Experience From the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at the National Cancer Institute.

PURPOSE: Cancer drug development has largely shifted from cytotoxic chemotherapy to targeted treatment in the past two decades. Although previous studies have highlighted improvement in response rates in recent phase I trials, disease-focused reporting is limited. METHODS: We integrated patient-level data for patients with hematologic malignancies who participated in phase I trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program between January 2000 and May 2019 and estimated the trend of grade 5 toxicity and response by disease subtype over time. RESULTS: We analyzed 161 trials involving 3,308 patients, all of whom were assessed for toxicity and 2,404 of whom were evaluable for response to therapy. The overall rate of grade 5 toxicities was 1.81% (95% CI, 1.36 to 2.27), with no significant change in the rate over time. Baseline characteristics associated with higher risk of grade 5 toxicity were age and performance status ≥ 2 at enrollment. Overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate for all trials during the study period were 25.1% and 14.7%, respectively. A significant increase in both ORR and CR rate was observed over time (ORR, 18.5% in 2000-2005, 25.9% in 2006-2012, and 50.6% in 2013-2019, P < .001). ORR in phase I trials varied across disease subtypes: 20.2% in acute myeloid leukemia, 9.1% in myelodysplastic syndrome, 43.2% in lymphoma, 42.9% in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 15.1% in acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and 16.5% in myeloma. CONCLUSION: Over time, the ORR and CR rates in phase I trials for hematologic malignancy have improved meaningfully, whereas the rate of toxicity-related death remains stable. This study provides broad experience that physicians can use when discussing the potential outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy considering participation in phase I trials.

Phase I pharmacokinetic study of single agent trametinib in patients with advanced cancer and hepatic dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Trametinib is an oral MEK 1/2 inhibitor, with a single agent recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of 2 mg daily (QD). This study was designed to evaluate RP2D, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of trametinib in patients with advanced solid tumors who had various degrees of hepatic dysfunction (HD). METHODS: Advanced cancer patients were stratified into 4 HD groups based on Organ Dysfunction Working Group hepatic function stratification criteria: normal (Norm), mild (Mild), moderate (Mod), severe (Sev). Dose escalation was based on "3 + 3" design within each HD group. PK samples were collected at cycle 1 days 15-16. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were enrolled with 44 evaluable for safety [Norm=17, Mild=7, Mod (1.5 mg)=4, Mod (2 mg)=5, Sev (1 mg)=9, Sev (1.5 mg)=2] and 22 for PK analysis. Treatment related adverse events were consistent with prior trametinib studies. No treatment related deaths occurred. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluable in 15 patients (Mild=6, Mod (1.5 mg)=3, Mod (2 mg)=2, Sev (1 mg)=3 and Sev (1.5 mg)=1). One DLT (grade 3 acneiform rash) was observed in a Sev patient (1.5 mg). Dose interruptions or reductions due to treatment related adverse events occurred in 15 patients (34%) [Norm=9, 53%; Mild=2, 29%; Mod (1.5 mg)=1, 33%; Mod (2 mg)=2, 33%; Sev (1 mg)=1, 11%; Sev (1.5 mg)=1; 50%]. There were no significant differences across HD groups for all PK parameters when trametinib was normalized to 2 mg. However, only limited PK data were available for the Mod (n = 3) and Sev (n = 3) groups compared to Norm (n = 10) and Mild (n = 6) groups. Trametinib is heavily protein bound, with no correlation between serum albumin level and unbound trametinib fraction (p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: RP2D for trametinib in Mild HD patients is 2 mg QD. There are insufficient number of evaluable patients due to difficulty of patient accrual to declare RP2D and MTD for Mod and Sev HD groups. DLTs were not observed in the highest dose cohorts that reached three evaluable patients - 1.5 mg QD in Mod group, and 1 mg QD in Sev group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov website ( NCT02070549 ) on February 25, 2014. .