Preclinical Antitumor Activity of a Novel Anti-c-KIT Antibody-Drug Conjugate against Mutant and Wild-type c-KIT-Positive Solid Tumors.

Purpose: c-KIT overexpression is well recognized in cancers such as gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). Treatment with the small-molecule inhibitors imatinib, sunitinib, and regorafenib resulted in resistance (c-KIT mutant tumors) or limited activity (c-KIT wild-type tumors). We selected an anti-c-KIT ADC approach to evaluate the anticancer activity in multiple disease models.Experimental Design: A humanized anti-c-KIT antibody LMJ729 was conjugated to the microtubule destabilizing maytansinoid, DM1, via a noncleavable linker (SMCC). The activity of the resulting ADC, LOP628, was evaluated in vitro against GIST, SCLC, and AML models and in vivo against GIST and SCLC models.Results: LOP628 exhibited potent antiproliferative activity on c-KIT-positive cell lines, whereas LMJ729 displayed little to no effect. At exposures predicted to be clinically achievable, LOP628 demonstrated single administration regressions or stasis in GIST and SCLC xenograft models in mice. LOP628 also displayed superior efficacy in an imatinib-resistant GIST model. Further, LOP628 was well tolerated in monkeys with an adequate therapeutic index several fold above efficacious exposures. Safety findings were consistent with the pharmacodynamic effect of neutropenia due to c-KIT-directed targeting. Additional toxicities were considered off-target and were consistent with DM1, such as effects in the liver and hematopoietic/lymphatic system.Conclusions: The preclinical findings suggest that the c-KIT-directed ADC may be a promising therapeutic for the treatment of mutant and wild-type c-KIT-positive cancers and supported the clinical evaluation of LOP628 in GIST, AML, and SCLC patients. Clin Cancer Res; 24(17); 4297-308. ©2018 AACR.

An approach to minimise dog use in regulatory toxicology: production of a best practice guide to study design.

The primary non-rodent species used in toxicology is the dog. It is generally agreed that, for ethical reasons, dog use should be reduced to the minimum consistent with maintaining the scientific quality of toxicology studies and ensuring human safety. Dog use in toxicology has been discussed widely, both from a scientific and ethical viewpoint, and there appears to be real potential for achieving significant reductions in the number of dogs used in pharmaceutical safety testing. An industry animal welfare initiative commenced in 2000, with the aim of evaluating and, where possible, putting into practice, scientifically valid approaches to minimise dog use in regulatory toxicology without increasing the use of other non-rodent species, such as non-human primates or minipigs. The study's Steering Group categorised potential reduction approaches into three distinct areas, one of which is the production of a best practice guide on aspects of study design, including: group sizes, use of control animals, single sex studies and design of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) studies. Information on current practice and experience within the pharmaceutical industry is now being analysed, and additional input is invited.

Preclinical safety evaluation using nonrodent species: an industry/welfare project to minimize dog use.

This review of the dog, the primary nonrodent species used in toxicology, and its use in the safety evaluation of pharmaceuticals, provides data on the number used in particular projects in an effort to establish a baseline from which some minimization can be measured. Opportunities for reduction and replacement, as identified by a European Industry/Welfare Steering Group, are discussed. The three distinct areas of potential approaches to minimize dog use are categorized as industrial cooperation/data sharing, achieving best practice in study design, and assessing the need for a particular study. The Steering Group prioritized the approaches based on the impact on the number of animals used, the impact on the welfare of the remaining animals, the potential for industry's acceptance of the scientific approach, the potential for regulators' acceptance of the validated approach, and the time/cost of evaluation or implementation. Examples of each category are presented, and the work needed to facilitate industry/regulatory change is discussed.