Testing for homologous recombination repair or homologous recombination deficiency for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors: A current perspective.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) have demonstrated clinical activity in patients with BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutated breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. Notably, BRCA mutations are associated with defects in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway. This homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) phenotype can also be observed as genomic instability in tumour cells. Accordingly, PARPi sensitivity has been observed in various tumours with HRD, independent of BRCA mutations. Currently, four PARPis are approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of cancer across multiple tumour types. Most indications are specific to tumours with a confirmed BRCA mutation, mutations in other HRR-related genes, HRD evidenced by genomic instability, or evidence of platinum sensitivity. Regulatory agencies have also approved companion and complementary diagnostics to facilitate patient selection for each PARPi indication. This review aims to summarise the biological basis, clinical validation, and clinical relevance of the available diagnostic methods and assays to assess HRD.

Maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-grade ovarian cancer: Main analysis of second progression-free survival in the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

BACKGROUND: PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (NCT02477644) demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer. We report the prespecified main second progression-free survival (PFS2) analysis for PAOLA-1. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, phase III trial was conducted in 11 countries. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer and were in response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients were randomised 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo for up to 24 months; all patients received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) for up to 15 months. Primary PFS end-point was reported previously. Time from randomisation to second disease progression or death was a key secondary end-point included in the hierarchical-testing procedure. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 35.5 months and 36.5 months, respectively, median PFS2 was 36.5 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 32.6 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0125. Median time to second subsequent therapy or death was 38.2 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 31.5 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0115. Seventy-two (27%) patients in the placebo plus bevacizumab group received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor as first subsequent therapy. No new safety signals were observed for olaparib plus bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: In newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab provided continued benefit beyond first progression, with a significant PFS2 improvement and a time to second subsequent therapy or death delay versus placebo plus bevacizumab.

Cediranib in Combination with Olaparib in Patients without a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation and with Recurrent Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: Phase IIb CONCERTO Trial.

PURPOSE: The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cediranib plus olaparib (cedi/ola) were investigated in patients with nongermline-BRCA-mutated (non-gBRCAm) platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PARP inhibitor-naïve women aged ≥18 years with platinum-resistant non-gBRCAm ovarian cancer, ECOG performance status of 0-2, and ≥3 prior lines of therapy received cediranib 30 mg once daily plus olaparib 200 mg twice daily in this single-arm, multicenter, phase IIb trial. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review (ICR) using RECIST 1.1. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability were also examined. RESULTS: Sixty patients received cedi/ola, all of whom had confirmed non-gBRCAm status. Patients had received a median of four lines of chemotherapy; most (88.3%) had received prior bevacizumab. ORR by ICR was 15.3%, median PFS was 5.1 months, and median OS was 13.2 months. Forty-four (73.3%) patients reported a grade ≥3 adverse event (AE), with one patient experiencing a grade 5 AE (sepsis), considered unrelated to the study treatment. Dose interruptions, reductions, and discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 55.0%, 18.3%, and 18.3% of patients, respectively. Patients with high global loss of heterozygosity (gLOH) had ORR of 26.7% [4/15; 95% confidence interval (CI), 7.8-55.1], while ORR was 12.5% (4/32; 95% CI, 3.5-29.0) in the low gLOH group. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical activity was shown for the cedi/ola combination in heavily pretreated, non-gBRCAm, platinum-resistant patients with ovarian cancer despite failing to meet the target ORR of 20%, highlighting a need for further biomarker studies.

Concordance of BRCA mutation detection in tumor versus blood, and frequency of bi-allelic loss of BRCA in tumors from patients in the phase III SOLO2 trial.

OBJECTIVE: Maintenance olaparib provided a progression-free survival benefit in the phase III SOLO2 trial (NCT01874353) in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm). However, questions remain regarding tumor versus germline BRCA testing and the impact of heterozygous versus bi-allelic loss of BRCA1 or BRCA2 in the tumor. METHODS: Blood and tumor samples were analyzed. A concordance analysis of germline BRCAm status (BRACAnalysis® CLIA test) and tumor BRCAm status (myChoice® CDx test) was conducted (Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc.). Bi-allelic loss of BRCA1 and BRCA2 and a genomic instability score (GIS) (myChoice® CDx test) were also determined. RESULTS: 289 of 295 enrolled patients had a germline BRCAm confirmed centrally and tumor BRCAm status was evaluable in 241 patients. There was 98% and 100% concordance between tumor and germline testing for BRCA1m and BRCA2m, respectively, with discordance found in four cases. Of 210 tumor samples evaluable for BRCA zygosity, 100% of germline BRCA1-mutated tumors (n = 144) and 98% of germline BRCA2-mutated tumors (n = 66) had bi-allelic loss of BRCA. One patient with a heterozygous BRCA2m had a GIS of 53, was progression free for 911 days and remained on olaparib at data cut-off. CONCLUSIONS: Very high concordance was demonstrated between tumor and germline BRCA testing, supporting wider implementation of tumor BRCA testing in ovarian cancer. Near 100% rates of bi-allelic loss of BRCA in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian tumors suggest routine testing for BRCA zygosity is not required in this population and reflects BRCA loss being a driver of tumorigenesis.

Prognostic nomogram for progression-free survival in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer on maintenance olaparib therapy following response to chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors (PARPi) on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) varies widely. Individual prognostic factors do not reliably distinguish patients who progress early from those who have durable benefit. We developed and validated a prognostic nomogram to predict PFS in these patients. METHODS: The nomogram was developed using data from a training patient cohort with BRCA mutations and high-grade serous PSROC on the placebo arm of two maintenance therapy trials, Study 19 and SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21. We performed multivariable Cox regression analysis based on pre-treatment characteristics to develop a nomogram that predicts PFS. We assessed the discrimination and validation of the nomogram in independent validation patient cohorts treated with maintenance olaparib. RESULTS: The nomogram includes four PFS predictors: CA-125 at randomisation, platinum-free interval, presence of measurable disease and number of prior lines of platinum therapy. In the training (placebo) cohort (internal validation C-index 0.64), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: 7.7 (95% CI 5.3-11.3), 5.4 (4.8-5.8) and 2.9 (2.8-4.4) months, respectively. In the validation (olaparib) cohort (C-index 0.71), median PFS in the model-predicted good, intermediate and poor-risk groups was: not reached, 16.6 (13.1-22.4) and 8.3 (7.1-10.8) months, respectively. The nomogram showed good calibration in the validation cohort (calibration plot). CONCLUSIONS: This nomogram can be used to predict PFS and counsel patients with BRCA mutations and PSROC prior to maintenance olaparib and for stratification of patients in trials of maintenance therapies.

Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a final analysis of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously been shown to extend progression-free survival versus placebo when given to patients with relapsed high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer who were platinum sensitive and who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation, as part of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 trial. The aim of this final analysis is to investigate the effect of olaparib on overall survival. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done across 123 medical centres in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1, had histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, and had received two or more previous platinum regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive web or voice-response system. Stratification was by response to previous chemotherapy and length of platinum-free interval. Treatment assignment was masked to patients, treatment providers, and data assessors. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been reported previously. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint and was analysed in all patients as randomly allocated. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01874353, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013 and Nov 21, 2014, 295 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either olaparib (n=196 [66%]) or placebo (n=99 [34%]). One patient, randomised in error, did not receive olaparib. Median follow-up was 65·7 months (IQR 63·6-69·3) with olaparib and 64·5 months (63·4-68·7) with placebo. Median overall survival was 51·7 months (95% CI 41·5-59·1) with olaparib and 38·8 months (31·4-48·6) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]; p=0·054), unadjusted for the 38% of patients in the placebo group who received subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia (which occurred in 41 [21%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group and two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50 (26%) of 195 patients receiving olaparib and eight (8%) of 99 patients receiving placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (4%) of the 195 patients receiving olaparib, six of which were judged to be treatment-related (attributed to myelodysplastic syndrome [n=3] and acute myeloid leukaemia [n=3]). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib provided a median overall survival benefit of 12·9 months compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although statistical significance was not reached, these findings are arguably clinically meaningful and support the use of maintenance olaparib in these patients. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck.

Olaparib Versus Nonplatinum Chemotherapy in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive Relapsed Ovarian Cancer and a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation (SOLO3): A Randomized Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: A phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00628251) showed activity of olaparib capsules versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. We conducted a phase III trial (SOLO3) of olaparib tablets versus nonplatinum chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received at least 2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, open-label trial, patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib 300 mg twice a day or physician's choice single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, or topotecan). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) in the measurable disease analysis set assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). The key secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by BICR in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: Of 266 randomly assigned patients, 178 were assigned to olaparib and 88 to chemotherapy. In patients with measurable disease (olaparib, n = 151; chemotherapy, n = 72), the BICR-assessed ORR was significantly higher with olaparib than with chemotherapy (72.2% v 51.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.53 [95% CI, 1.40 to 4.58]; P = .002). In the subgroup who had received 2 prior lines of treatment, the ORR was 84.6% with olaparib and 61.5% with chemotherapy (OR, 3.44 [95% CI, 1.42 to 8.54]). BICR-assessed PFS also significantly favored olaparib versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.91]; P = .013; median, 13.4 v 9.2 months). Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of olaparib and chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Olaparib resulted in statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in ORR and PFS compared with nonplatinum chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received at least 2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy.

Bridging Olaparib Capsule and Tablet Formulations Using Population Pharmacokinetic Meta-analysis in Oncology Patients.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib is a first-in-class potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this analysis were to establish an integrated population pharmacokinetic (PK) model of olaparib in patients with solid tumors and to bridge the PK of olaparib between capsule and tablet formulations. METHODS: The population PK model was developed using plasma concentration data from 659 patients in 11 phase I, II, and III studies of olaparib tablets/capsules monotherapy. Relative bioavailability between the tablet and capsule formulations was estimated and the relative exposure between olaparib tablet and capsule therapeutic doses was further assessed. RESULTS: The concentration-time profile was described using a two-compartment model with sequential zero- and first-order absorption and first-order elimination for both capsules and tablets with different absorption parameters. Multiple-dose clearance compared with single-dose clearance was reduced by approximately 15% (auto-inhibition). Disease severity had an impact on olaparib clearance, and tablet strength had an impact on Ka. The olaparib geometric mean area under the curve (AUC) and maximal concentration (Cmax) following a single 300 mg tablet were 42.1 µg h/mL and 5.8 µg/mL, respectively, and the steady-state geometric mean AUC and Cmax following a 300 mg tablet twice daily were 49.0 µg h/mL and 7.7 µg/mL, respectively. The relative exposure (AUC) of the 300 mg tablet formulation is 13% higher than the 400 mg capsule formulation. CONCLUSION: This analysis bridged the olaparib capsule and tablet formulation PK and provided key assessment to support the approval of the olaparib tablet formulation in patients with ovarian cancer, regardless of their BRCA mutation status.

Efficacy and Safety Exposure-Response Analyses of Olaparib Capsule and Tablet Formulations in Oncology Patients.

Olaparib is a poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor that induces synthetic lethality in tumors with deficient homologous recombination repair. Population exposure-response analyses were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olaparib exposure in patients with cancer. Data from multiple phase I/II/III clinical studies from both capsule and tablet formulations were combined for efficacy (N = 410) and safety (N = 757) analyses. Exposure-progression-free survival (Cox proportional hazards model indicated that a 300 mg b.i.d. tablet was statistically superior to the 200 mg b.i.d. tablet dose (hazard ratio of 0.96), although the difference was small. Exposure-safety logistic regression models and hemoglobin models predicted similar probability of safety events or hemoglobin decrease with largely overlapping 95% confidence intervals at 300 mg b.i.d. tablet, 200 mg b.i.d. tablet, and 400 mg b.i.d. capsule. The analyses provided key assessments to support the approval of olaparib 300 mg tablet therapeutic dose in patients with ovarian and breast cancer, regardless of their breast cancer (BRCA) mutation status.

Technology Applications: Use of Digital Health Technology to Enable Drug Development.

PURPOSE: This pilot study developed and evaluated the feasibility, usability, and perceived satisfaction with an end-user mobile medical application and provider web portal. The two interfaces allowed for remote monitoring, provided daily guidance in the management of hypertension and diarrhea, and allowed for rapid management of adverse events during a clinical trial of olaparib and cediranib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: eCO (eCediranib/Olaparib) was designed for patient self-reported, real-time management of hypertension and diarrhea using remote monitoring. eCO links to a Bluetooth-enabled blood pressure (BP) monitor and transmits data to a secure provider web portal. eCO use was assessed for suitability, usability, and satisfaction after 4 weeks using a 17-item questionnaire. Metrics regarding patient-reported BP and diarrhea events were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixteen patients enrolled in the pilot. A total of 98.2% of expected BP values were reported: 94.2% via Bluetooth and 5.8% entered manually. Twelve patients experienced 21 BP events (systolic BP > 140 and/or diastolic BP > 90 mmHg on two consecutive readings); data from cycle 1 were comparable to the study database. Thirteen patients reported diarrhea (more than one stool per 24 hours over baseline) categorized as grade 1 or 2, which was comparable to the study database. Survey analysis showed that patients had statistically significant, positive responses to the use of the eCO application. Patients indicated eCO use made them feel more involved in their care and better connected to their health care team. The only aspect of the application that did not show a statistically significant positive response was the process of reporting diarrhea. CONCLUSION: The eCO application was designed to assist in managing acute treatment-related events most often associated with treatment discontinuation, need for drug holidays, or dose interruption. Hypertension and diarrhea events reported via eCO allowed rapid provider response and a positive overall patient experience.

Gefitinib treatment in EGFR mutated caucasian NSCLC: circulating-free tumor DNA as a surrogate for determination of EGFR status.

INTRODUCTION: In the phase IV, open-label, single-arm study NCT01203917, first-line gefitinib 250 mg/d was effective and well tolerated in Caucasian patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (previously published). Here, we report EGFR mutation analyses of plasma-derived, circulating-free tumor DNA. METHODS: Mandatory tumor and duplicate plasma (1 and 2) baseline samples were collected (all screened patients; n = 1060). Preplanned, exploratory analyses included EGFR mutation (and subtype) status of tumor versus plasma and between plasma samples. Post hoc, exploratory analyses included efficacy by tumor and plasma EGFR mutation (and subtype) status. RESULTS: Available baseline tumor samples were 1033 of 1060 (118 positive of 859 mutation status known; mutation frequency, 13.7%). Available plasma 1 samples were 803 of 1060 (82 positive of 784 mutation status known; mutation frequency, 10.5%). Mutation status concordance between 652 matched tumor and plasma 1 samples was 94.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.3-96.0) (comparable for mutation subtypes); test sensitivity was 65.7% (95% CI, 55.8-74.7); and test specificity was 99.8% (95% CI, 99.0-100.0). Twelve patients of unknown tumor mutation status were subsequently identified as plasma mutation-positive. Available plasma 2 samples were 803 of 1060 (65 positive of 224 mutation status-evaluable and -known). Mutation status concordance between 224 matched duplicate plasma 1 and 2 samples was 96.9% (95% CI, 93.7-98.7). Objective response rates are as follows: mutation-positive tumor, 70% (95% CI, 60.5-77.7); mutation-positive tumor and plasma 1, 76.9% (95% CI, 65.4-85.5); and mutation-positive tumor and mutation-negative plasma 1, 59.5% (95% CI, 43.5-73.7). Median progression-free survival (months) was 9.7 (95% CI, 8.5-11.0; 61 events) for mutation-positive tumor and 10.2 (95% CI, 8.5-12.5; 36 events) for mutation-positive tumor and plasma 1. CONCLUSION: The high concordance, specificity, and sensitivity demonstrate that EGFR mutation status can be accurately assessed using circulating-free tumor DNA. Although encouraging and suggesting that plasma is a suitable substitute for mutation analysis, tumor tissue should remain the preferred sample type when available.

[Efficacy and safety of gefitinib or docetaxel in Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous platinum-based first-line chemotherapy].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of gefitinib or docetaxel in Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 222 Chinese NSCLC patients in the subgroup of INTEREST (gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small cell lung cancer) study. Survival analysis was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) was used to compare the quality of life between gefitinib group and docetaxel group. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients were analyzed in this subgroup study. 107 patients were treated with gefitinib, and 115 patients treated with docetaxel. There were all balanced between the two groups in terms of sex, age, staging and pathology in patient characteristics. The median overall survival in the two groups was similar (11 months in the gefitinib group vs. 14.0 months in the docetaxel group, P = 0.783). The progression-free survival (PFS) was also similar between the two groups (median PFS: 3.4 months in gefitinib group vs. 3.8 months in docetaxel group, P = 0.214). The response rate in gefitinib group was significantly higher than that in the docetaxel group (21.9% vs. 9.1%, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of gefitinib is similar with that of docetaxel in pretreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, however, gefitinib is more favorable in the tolerance and quality of life improvement.

Vandetanib plus pemetrexed for the second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib plus pemetrexed as second-line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 534) were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 100 mg/d plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) every 21 days (n = 256) or placebo plus pemetrexed (n = 278). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point; overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, time to deterioration of symptoms, and safety were secondary assessments. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in PFS between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 97.58% CI, 0.69 to 1.06; P = .108). Overall survival was also not significantly different (HR, 0.86; 97.54% CI, 0.65 to 1.13; P = .219). Statistically significant improvements in objective response rate (19% v 8%; P < .001) and time to deterioration of symptoms (HR, 0.71; P = .0052; median, 18.1 weeks for vandetanib and 12.1 weeks for placebo) were observed in patients receiving vandetanib. Adding vandetanib to pemetrexed increased the incidence of some adverse events, including rash, diarrhea, and hypertension, while showing a reduced incidence of nausea, vomiting, anemia, fatigue, and asthenia with no reduction in the dose intensity of pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: This study did not meet the primary end point of statistically significant PFS prolongation with vandetanib plus pemetrexed versus placebo plus pemetrexed. The vandetanib combination showed a significantly higher objective response rate and a significant delay in the time to worsening of lung cancer symptoms versus the placebo arm as well as an acceptable safety profile in this patient population.

A phase I study of Vandetanib in combination with vinorelbine/cisplatin or gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral agent that selectively inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor, and RET (REarranged during Transfection) signaling. METHODS: This Phase I study investigated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of vandetanib when administered with either gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) or vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. RESULTS: Seventeen patients received vandetanib 100 mg/d plus VC (n = 9) or GC (n = 8). Three dose-limiting toxicities were reported in each treatment group: vandetanib + VC (pulmonary artery thrombosis and asymptomatic QTc prolongation [n = 2]); vandetanib + GC (peripheral ischemia [due to arterial occlusion], pulmonary embolism, and limb venous thrombosis). The protocol definition of a tolerable dose was not met, and no patients were recruited to receive vandetanib 300 mg plus VC or GC. There was no apparent pharmacokinetic interaction between vandetanib and vinorelbine or gemcitabine, but there was an approximate 30% increase in the exposure to cisplatin, which may be due to accumulation of total platinum and/or an interaction with vandetanib. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer, vandetanib 100 mg/d in combination with either VC or GC was not tolerated.

DCE-MRI assessment of the effect of vandetanib on tumor vasculature in patients with advanced colorectal cancer and liver metastases: a randomized phase I study.

BACKGROUND: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of VEGFR, EGFR and RET signaling pathways. In patients with advanced colorectal cancer and liver metastases, the effect of vandetanib on tumor vasculature was assessed using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). METHODS: Eligible patients received vandetanib 100 or 300 mg/day. DCE-MRI (iAUC(60 )and K(trans)) was used to quantify the primary endpoints of tumor perfusion and vascular permeability. An exploratory assessment of tumor oxygenation was performed using MRI/T2*. All MRI parameters were measured at baseline (twice) and on days 2, 8, 29 and 57. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients received vandetanib (n = 10, 100 mg; n = 12, 300 mg). Baseline measurements of iAUC(60 )and K(trans )were reproducible, with low intrapatient coefficients of variation (11% and 24%, respectively). Estimates of mean % changes from baseline were -3.4% (100 mg) and -4.6% (300 mg) for iAUC(60), and -4.6% (100 mg) and -2.7% (300 mg) for K(trans); these changes were not significantly different between doses. The exploratory T2* measurement showed a significant increase at 300 mg versus 100 mg (P = 0.006). Both doses of vandetanib were generally well tolerated; common toxicities were fatigue, rash and diarrhea (majority CTC grade 1 or 2). The pharmacokinetic profile of vandetanib was similar to that observed previously. There were no RECIST-defined objective responses; five patients experienced stable disease >/=8 weeks. CONCLUSION: In this study in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, vandetanib did not modulate gadolinium uptake in tumor vasculature and tissue measured by the DCE-MRI parameters iAUC(60 )and K(trans). TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00496509 (ClinicalTrials.gov); D4200C00050 (AstraZeneca).