Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: 43-month Follow-up of the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 Study.

Previous analyses of KEYNOTE-426, an open-label, phase 3 randomized study, showed superior efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib to sunitinib in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). We report results of the final protocol-prespecified analysis of KEYNOTE-426. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily (4 wk per 6-wk cycle). The dual primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as per RECIST v1.1 by a blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). The median study follow-up was 43 (range, 36-51) mo. Benefit with pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was maintained for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.60-0.88]), PFS (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]), and ORR (60% vs 40%). The median DOR was 24 (range, 1.4+ to 43+) versus 15 (range, 2.3-43+) mo in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals emerged. These results support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as a standard of care for patients with previously untreated advanced ccRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Extended results of KEYNOTE-426 support pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

A Phase I study of the safety, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of navitoclax plus docetaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Aim: This Phase I study investigated safety of navitoclax and docetaxel in patients (n = 41) with advanced solid tumors. Patients & methods: Two navitoclax plus docetaxel dosing schedules (21 and 28 days) were evaluated. Maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicities and preliminary antitumor activity were assessed. Results: Ten (24%) patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities; dose-escalation cohorts: n = 7 (21-day schedule: n = 5; 28-day schedule: n = 2) and 21-day expanded safety cohort: n = 3. Navitoclax 150-mg days 1-5 every 21 days with docetaxel 75 mg/m2 day 1 was the maximum tolerated dose and optimal schedule. Adverse events included thrombocytopenia (63%), fatigue (61%), nausea (59%) and neutropenia (51%). Four confirmed partial responses occurred. Conclusion: Navitoclax 150-mg orally once/day was safely administered with docetaxel. Myelosuppression limited dose escalation; antitumor activity was observed. Clinical trial registration: NCT00888108 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2-34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3-not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55-0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7-18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1-12·5]; 0·71 [0·60-0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis. INTERPRETATION: With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Phase 1/2a trial of intravenous BAL101553, a novel controller of the spindle assembly checkpoint, in advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: BAL101553 (lisavanbulin), the lysine prodrug of BAL27862 (avanbulin), exhibits broad anti-proliferative activity in human cancer models refractory to clinically relevant microtubule-targeting agents. METHODS: This two-part, open-label, phase 1/2a study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of 2-h infusion of BAL101553 in adults with advanced or recurrent solid tumours. The MTD was determined using a modified accelerated titration design in phase I. Patients received BAL101553 at the MTD and at lower doses in the phase 2a expansion to characterise safety and efficacy and to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). RESULTS: Seventy-three patients received BAL101553 at doses of 15-80 mg/m2 (phase 1, n = 24; phase 2a, n = 49). The MTD was 60 mg/m2; DLTs observed at doses ≥60 mg/m2 were reversible Grade 2-3 gait disturbance with Grade 2 peripheral sensory neuropathy. In phase 2a, asymptomatic myocardial injury was observed at doses ≥45 mg/m2. The RP2D for 2-h intravenous infusion was 30 mg/m2. The overall disease control rate was 26.3% in the efficacy population. CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D for 2-h infusion of BAL101553 was well tolerated. Dose-limiting neurological and myocardial side effects were consistent with the agent's vascular-disrupting properties. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2010-024237-23.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of olaparib in patients with advanced solid tumours and mild or moderate hepatic impairment.

AIMS: Olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, is partially hepatically cleared. We investigated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of olaparib in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment to provide dosing recommendations. METHODS: This Phase I open-label study assessed the PK, safety and tolerability of single doses of olaparib 300-mg tablets in patients with advanced solid tumours. Patients had normal hepatic function (NHF), or mild (MiHI; Child-Pugh class A) or moderate (MoHI; Child-Pugh class B) hepatic impairment. Blood was collected for PK assessments for 96 hours. Patients could continue taking olaparib 300 mg twice daily for long-term safety assessment. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received ≥1 dose of olaparib and 30 were included in the PK assessment. Patients with MiHI had an area under the curve geometric least-squares mean (GLSmean) ratio of 1.15 (90% confidence interval 0.72, 1.83) and a GLSmean maximum plasma concentration ratio of 1.13 (0.82, 1.56) vs those with NHF. In patients with MoHI, GLSmean ratio for area under the curve was 1.08 (0.66, 1.74) and for maximum plasma concentration was 0.87 (0.63, 1.22) vs those with NHF. For patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, no new safety signals were detected. CONCLUSION: Patients with MiHI or MoHI had no clinically significant changes in exposure to olaparib compared with patients with NHF. The safety profile of olaparib did not differ from a clinically relevant extent between cohorts. No olaparib tablet or capsule dose reductions are required for patients with MiHI or MoHI.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Olaparib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumours and Renal Impairment.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, is partially renally cleared. We investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety of olaparib in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment to provide dosing recommendations. METHODS: This phase I open-label study assessed the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of single-dose, oral 300-mg olaparib tablets in adults (aged 18-75 years) with solid tumours. Patients had normal renal function, or mild or moderate renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance ≥ 81, 51-80 or 31-50 mL/min, respectively). Blood was collected for 96 h, and urine samples collected for 24 h post-dose. Patients could continue taking olaparib 300 mg twice daily for a long-term safety assessment. RESULTS: Overall, 44 patients received one or more doses of olaparib and 38 were included in the pharmacokinetic assessment. Patients with mild renal impairment had an area under the curve geometric least-squares mean ratio of 1.24 (90% confidence interval 1.06-1.47) and a geometric least-squares mean maximum plasma concentration ratio of 1.15 (90% confidence interval 1.04-1.27) vs. those with normal renal function. In patients with moderate renal impairment, the geometric least-squares mean ratio for the area under the curve was 1.44 (90% confidence interval 1.10-1.89) and for the maximum plasma concentration was 1.26 (90% confidence interval 1.06-1.48) vs. those with normal renal function. No new safety signals were detected in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild renal impairment, the small increase in exposure to olaparib was not considered clinically relevant. In patients with moderate renal impairment, exposure to olaparib increased by 44%; thus, these patients should be carefully monitored and the tablet dose should be adjusted to 200 mg twice daily. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01894256.

Phase 1 dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study of eribulin-liposomal formulation in patients with solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: This phase 1 study examined the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of eribulin-liposomal formulation (eribulin-LF) in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Eligible patients with ECOG PS 0-1 were treated with eribulin-LF either on day 1 every 21 days (Schedule 1), or on days 1 and 15 every 28 days (Schedule 2). Doses ranged from 1.0 to 3.5 mg/m2, with dose escalation in a 3 + 3 design. The dose-expansion phase evaluated eribulin-LF in select tumour types. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended dose/schedule of eribulin-LF. RESULTS: Totally, 58 patients were enroled (median age = 62 years). The MTD was 1.4 mg/m2 (Schedule 1) or 1.5 mg/m2 (Schedule 2), the latter dose selected for the dose-expansion phase. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLTs) in Schedule 1: hypophosphatemia and increased transaminase levels. DLTs in Schedule 2: stomatitis, increased alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. The pharmacokinetic profile of eribulin-LF showed a similar half-life to that of eribulin (~30 h), but with a 5-fold greater maximum serum concentration and a 40-fold greater area-under-the-curve. Eribulin-LF demonstrated clinical activity with approximately 10% of patients in both schedules achieving partial responses. CONCLUSIONS: Eribulin-LF was well tolerated with a favourable pharmacokinetic profile. Preliminary evidence of clinical activity in solid tumours was observed.

Pharmacokinetic Effects and Safety of Olaparib Administered with Endocrine Therapy: A Phase I Study in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumours.

INTRODUCTION: The PARP inhibitor olaparib is efficacious as monotherapy and has potential application in combination with endocrine therapy for the treatment of breast cancer. This phase I study assessed the safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of olaparib combined with tamoxifen, anastrozole or letrozole in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: During part A, PK profiles were assessed in three consecutive treatment periods: (1) olaparib (tablet) 300 mg bid, days 1-5 followed by a 4-day washout; (2) cohort 1, tamoxifen 60 mg loading dose qd days 10-13, 20 mg qd days 14-26; cohort 2, anastrozole 1 mg qd days 10-19; cohort 3, letrozole 2.5 mg qd days 10-38; (3) as for period 2, with concomitant olaparib 300 mg bid for 5 days. Patients could then enter part B and receive olaparib monotherapy (300 mg bid continuously). Safety was assessed in parts A and B until 12 months after the last patient entered part B. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients (20.3% with breast cancer) received treatment in part A; 72 completed part A and 69 entered part B. Anastrozole and letrozole had no effect on the PK profile of olaparib and vice versa. Co-administration with tamoxifen produced a modest decrease in exposure to olaparib [geometric least-squares mean (GLSmean) Cmax,ss and AUC0-τ decreased by 20% (90% CI 0.71-0.90) and 27% (0.63-0.84), respectively]. Exposure to tamoxifen was slightly increased when combined with olaparib [GLSmean Cmax,ss and AUC0-τ increased by 13% (1.06-1.22) and 16% (1.11-1.21), respectively]; however, the 90% CI fell within the 0.7-1.43 boundary and there were no changes in exposure to tamoxifen metabolites. The safety profile for olaparib alone and in combination with the antihormonal therapies was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of olaparib and either anastrozole, letrozole or tamoxifen was generally well tolerated, with no clinically relevant PK interactions identified. FUNDING: AstraZeneca. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02093351.

High frequency of radiological differential responses with poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy.

Despite impressive clinical activity in patients with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutant cancers, antitumor responses to poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are variable. We set out to assess the rate of intrapatient radiological differential responses (RDR) to PARP inhibitors, its correlation with patient outcomes, and the identification of factors associated with RDR. We retrospectively reviewed all patients with advanced cancers from five early phase PARP inhibitor monotherapy trials. 113 patients (ovarian cancers 57.5%; breast cancers 23.9%) were included in this retrospective study; 46 (40.7%) patients developed RDR on PARP inhibitor monotherapy. We identified two patterns of RDR: early RDR (1st or 2nd on-treatment scans) in 69.6% of patients, and late RDR (penultimate or final scans) in 30.4% of patients. Early RDR was associated with shorter time to progression (TTP) (225 vs 367 days, HR:0.59, 95%CI 0.36-0.98; p=0.04) and overall survival (OS) (499 vs 857 days; HR:0.47, 95%CI 0.27-0.82, p=0.006). Seventy-nine (69.9%) patients had known germline BRCA1/2 mutations; 49.4% of these BRCA1/2 mutation carriers developed RDR versus 20.6% of patients with unknown or wildtype BRCA1/2 status. Harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations was independently predictive for RDR (RR:2.93, 95% CI 1.08-7.90, p=0.03). Patients with germline BRCA1 mutations had worse TTP and OS than BRCA2 mutation carriers (212 vs 406 days, HR:0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.94, p=0.023 and 515 vs 937 days; HR:0.49, 95% CI 0.29-0.83; p=0.007). RDR with PARP inhibitors are frequent, particularly in germline BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. These findings have clinical implications for patient outcomes and may reflect underlying intrapatient genomic heterogeneity.

Baseline clinical predictors of antitumor response to the PARP inhibitor olaparib in germline BRCA1/2 mutated patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The PARP inhibitor olaparib was recently granted Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval in patients with advanced BRCA1/2 mutation ovarian cancer. However, antitumor responses are observed in only approximately 40% of patients and the impact of baseline clinical factors on response to treatment remains unclear. Although platinum sensitivity has been suggested as a marker of response to PARP inhibitors, patients with platinum-resistant disease still respond to olaparib. RESULTS: 108 patients with advanced BRCA1/2 mutation ovarian cancers were included. The interval between the end of the most recent platinum chemotherapy and PARPi (PTPI) was used to predict response to olaparib independent of conventional definition of platinum sensitivity. RECIST complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) rates were 35% in patients with platinum-sensitive versus 13% in platinum-resistant (p<0.005). Independent of platinum sensitivity status, the RECIST CR/PR rates were 42% in patients with PTPI greater than 52 weeks and 18% in patients with PTPI less than 52 weeks (p=0.016). No association was found between baseline clinical factors such as FIGO staging, debulking surgery, BRCA1 versus BRCA2 mutations, prior history of breast cancer and prior chemotherapy for breast cancer, and the response to olaparib. METHODS: We conducted an international multicenter retrospective study to investigate the association between baseline clinical characteristics of patients with advanced BRCA1/2 mutation ovarian cancers from eight different cancer centers and their antitumor response to olaparib. CONCLUSION: PTPI may be used to refine the prediction of response to PARP inhibition based on the conventional categorization of platinum sensitivity.

Clinical factors of response in patients with advanced ovarian cancer participating in early phase clinical trials.

Drug resistance to conventional anticancer therapies is almost inevitable in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC), limiting their available treatment options. Novel phase I trial therapies within a dedicated drug development unit may represent a viable alternative; however, there is currently little evidence for patient outcomes in such patients. To address this, we undertook a retrospective review of patients with AOC allocated to phase I trials in the Drug Development Unit at Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) between June 1998 and October 2010. A total of 200 AOC patients with progressive disease were allocated to ≥1 trial each, with a total of 281 allocations. Of these, 135 (68%) patients commenced ≥1 trial (mean 1.4 [1-8]), totaling 216 allocated trials; 65 (32%) patients did not start due to deterioration resulting from rapidly progressive disease (63 patients) or patient choice (2 patients). Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) complete/partial responses (CR/PR) were observed in 43 (20%) of those starting trials, including those on poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (18/79 [23%]), antiangiogenics (9/65 [14%]) and chemotherapy combinations (14/43 [33%]). Factors associated with CR/PR included: fewer prior treatments, platinum-sensitive disease, CR/PR with prior therapy, (the United States-based) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score, fewer metastatic sites, higher albumin and haemoglobin levels, lower white cell counts and baseline CA125 levels, germline BRCA1/2 mutations and better RMH Prognostic Score. Mean survival was 32° months for patients who achieved CR/PR. Treatments were generally well tolerated. Most patients with AOC (134/200 [67%]) received ≥1 subsequent line of therapy after phase I trials. Our data suggest that phase I trial referrals should be considered earlier in the AOC treatment pathway and before the onset of rapid disease progression particularly with the emergence of promising novel agents in the era of precision medicine.

A phase I study of intravenous and oral rucaparib in combination with chemotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of intravenous and oral rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, combined with chemotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Initially, patients received escalating doses of intravenous rucaparib combined with carboplatin, carboplatin/paclitaxel, cisplatin/pemetrexed, or epirubicin/cyclophosphamide. Subsequently, the study was amended to focus on oral rucaparib (once daily, days 1-14) combined with carboplatin (day 1) in 21-day cycles. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed in cycle 1 and safety in all cycles. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled (22 breast, 15 ovarian/peritoneal, and 48 other primary cancers), with a median of three prior therapies (range, 1-7). Neutropenia (27.1%) and thrombocytopenia (18.8%) were the most common grade ⩾3 toxicities across combinations and were DLTs with the oral rucaparib/carboplatin combination. Maximum tolerated dose for the combination was 240 mg per day oral rucaparib and carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg ml-1 min-1. Oral rucaparib demonstrated dose-proportional kinetics, a long half-life (≈17 h), and good bioavailability (36%). Pharmacokinetics were unchanged by carboplatin coadministration. The rucaparib/carboplatin combination had radiologic antitumour activity, primarily in BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast and ovarian/peritoneal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Oral rucaparib can be safely combined with a clinically relevant dose of carboplatin in patients with advanced solid tumours (Trial registration ID: NCT01009190).

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of patients with advanced mesothelioma treated in a phase I clinical trials unit.

BACKGROUND: We have previously reported a prognostic score for patients in phase I trials in the Drug Development Unit, treated at the Royal Marsden Hospital (RPS). The RPS is an objective tool used in patient selection for phase I trials based on albumin, number of disease sites and LDH. Patients with mesothelioma are often selected for phase I trials as the disease remains localised for long periods of time. We have now reviewed the clinical outcomes of patients with relapsed malignant mesothelioma (MM) and propose a specific mesothelioma prognostic score (m-RPS) that can help identify patients who are most likely to benefit from early referral. METHODS: Patients who participated in 38 phase I trials between September 2003 and November 2015 were included in the analysis. Efficacy was assessed by response rate, median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Univariate (UVA) and multivariate analyses (MVA) were carried out to develop the m-RPS. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients with advanced MM were included in this retrospective study. The PFS was 2.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-3.1 months) and OS was 8 months (95% CI 5.6-9.8 months). A total of four (6%) patients had RECIST partial responses, whereas 26 (40%) patients had RECIST stable disease >3 months. The m-RPS was developed comprising of three different prognostic factors: a neutrophil: lymphocyte ratio greater than 3, the presence of more than two disease sites (including lymph nodes as a single site of disease) and albumin levels less than 35 from the MVA. Patients each received a score of 1 for the presence of each factor. Patients in group A (m-RPS 0-1; n = 35) had a median OS of 13.4 months (95% CI 8.5-21.6), whereas those in group B (m-RPS 2-3; n = 30) had a median OS of 4.0 months (95% CI 2.9-7.1, P < 0.0001). A total of 56 (86%) patients experienced G1-2 toxicities, whereas reversible G3-4 toxicities were observed in 18 (28%) patients. Only 10 (15%) patients discontinued phase I trials due to toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Phase I clinical trial therapies were well tolerated with early signals of antitumour activity in advanced MM patients. The m-RPS is a useful tool to assess MM patient suitability for phase I trials and should now be prospectively validated.

Effect of Itraconazole and Rifampin on the Pharmacokinetics of Olaparib in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors: Results of Two Phase I Open-label Studies.

PURPOSE: The metabolism of olaparib, a potent inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) with demonstrated efficacy in patients with BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer, is mediated by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes (predominantly CYP3A4/5). We assessed the potential of a CYP3A4 inhibitor (itraconazole) and inducer (rifampin) to alter the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of olaparib following single oral tablet doses. METHODS: Two Phase I, open-label, non-randomized trials were conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors. In Study 7, patients received olaparib alone and co-administered with itraconazole; in Study 8, a separate group of patients received olaparib alone and co-administered with rifampin. No interaction between itraconazole and olaparib was concluded if two-sided 90% CIs for the treatment ratios of AUC and/or AUC0-t and Cmax fell within the bioequivalence range of 0.80-1.25. An interaction between rifampin and olaparib was concluded if the lower limit of the 90% CI for the treatment ratios was <0.5 (ie, >50% decrease in olaparib AUC or Cmax in the presence of rifampin compared with olaparib alone). FINDINGS: In Study 7 (N = 59; 17 male, 42 female), 56 and 53 patients were evaluable for PK analysis following treatment with olaparib alone and olaparib plus itraconazole, respectively; in Study 8 (N = 22; 4 male, 18 female), all patients were evaluable. Co-administration of olaparib with itraconazole resulted in a statistically significant increase in the relative bioavailability of olaparib: Cmax treatment ratio, 1.42 (90% CI, 1.33-1.52); mean AUC treatment ratio, 2.70 (90% CI, 2.44-2.97). Mean CL/F and Vz/F were reduced (8.16 vs 3.05 L/h and 192 vs 75.1 L), although mean t½ was unchanged (15.0 vs 15.6 hours). Co-administration of olaparib with rifampin resulted in a statistically significant decrease in the relative bioavailability of olaparib: Cmax treatment ratio, 0.29 (90% CI, 0.24-0.33); mean AUC treatment ratio, 0.13 (90% CI, 0.11-0.16). CL/F and Vz/F were increased when olaparib and rifampin were co-administered (6.36 vs 48.3 L/h and 112 vs 1076 L); however, mean t½ was unchanged (13.0 vs 15.8 hours). Safety data for olaparib following tablet dosing were consistent with the known safety profile. IMPLICATIONS: Exposure to olaparib was significantly increased when co-administered with the potent CYP3A4 inhibitor itraconazole, and significantly decreased when co-administered with the potent CYP3A4 inducer rifampin, compared with olaparib alone. Potent CYP3A4 enzyme inhibitors and inducers should be avoided during olaparib treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01900028 (Study 7) and NCT01929603 (Study 8).

Olaparib tablet formulation: effect of food on the pharmacokinetics after oral dosing in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: The oral PARP inhibitor olaparib has shown efficacy in patients with BRCA-mutated cancer. This Phase I, open-label, three-part study (Parts A-C) in patients with advanced solid tumours evaluated the effect of food on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of olaparib when administered in tablet formulation. METHODS: PK data were obtained in Part A using a two-treatment period crossover design; single-dose olaparib 300 mg (two 150 mg tablets) was administered in two prandial states: fasted and fed. In Part B, patients received olaparib tablets (300 mg bid) for 5 days under fasting conditions; in Part C, patients were allowed continued access to olaparib. Safety was assessed throughout, with data reported for Parts A and B. RESULTS: A total of 60 and 56 patients were evaluable for safety and PK analyses, respectively; 57 patients entered Part B. Rate of olaparib absorption was slower in the presence of food (t max delayed by 2.5 h), resulting in a statistically significant ~21 % decrease in peak plasma exposure (C max) [ratio of geometric means (90 % CI), 0.79 (0.72, 0.86)] but only a marginal increase in olaparib absorption (AUC0-∞) [ratio of geometric means (90 % CI), 1.08 (1.01, 1.16)]. The point estimate and 90 % CI for the AUC0-∞ treatment ratio were within pre-defined bioequivalence limits (0.80-1.25). Adverse event data were consistent with the known safety profile of olaparib. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study showed that a high-fat meal decreases the rate of absorption and peak exposure to olaparib 300 mg tablets, although in the absence of an effect on the extent of olaparib absorption.

Higher Risk of Infections with PI3K-AKT-mTOR Pathway Inhibitors in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors on Phase I Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Novel antitumor therapies against the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway are increasingly used to treat cancer, either as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy or other targeted therapies. Although these agents are not known to be myelosuppressive, an increased risk of infection has been reported with rapamycin analogues. However, the risk of infection with new inhibitors of this pathway such as PI3K, AKT, mTORC 1/2, or multikinase inhibitors is unknown. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this retrospective case-control study, we determined the incidence of infection in a group of 432 patients who were treated on 15 phase I clinical trials involving PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway inhibitors (cases) versus a group of 100 patients on 10 phase I clinical trials of single agent non-PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway inhibitors (controls) which did not involve conventional cytotoxic agents. We also collected data from 42 patients who were treated with phase I trials of combinations of PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors and MEK inhibitors and 24 patients with combinations of PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors and cytotoxic chemotherapies. RESULTS: The incidence of all grade infection was significantly higher with all single-agent PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors compared with the control group [27% vs. 8%, respectively, OR, 4.26; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.9-9.1, P = 0.0001]. The incidence of grade 3 and 4 infection was also significantly higher with PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors compared with the control group (10.3% vs. 3%, OR, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.1-12.4; P = 0.02). Also, the combination of PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors and chemotherapy was associated with a significantly higher incidence of all grade (OR, 4.79; 95% CI, 2.0-11.2; P = 0.0001) and high-grade (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.0-7.6; P = 0.03) infection when compared with single-agent PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Inhibitors of the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway can be associated with a higher risk of infection. Combinations of PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors and cytotoxic chemotherapy significantly increase the risk of infection. This should be taken into consideration during the design and conduct of trials involving PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway inhibitors, particularly when combined with chemotherapy or myelosuppressive agents.

A phase I, dose-escalation study of the multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, golvatinib, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Receptor tyrosine kinases c-Met and Ron transduce signals regulating cell migration and matrix invasion. This phase I dose-escalation trial tested golvatinib, a highly potent, small-molecule, ATP-competitive inhibitor of c-Met and multiple members of the Eph receptor family plus c-Kit and Ron. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced solid tumors received golvatinib orally, once daily, continuously. Using a "3+3" design, dosing started at 100 mg once daily, escalating to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) defined by dose-limiting toxicities. Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and preliminary antitumor activity was assessed during dose escalation and in a MTD expansion cohort. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were treated at six dose levels. The MTD was determined as 400 mg once daily. Three dose-limiting toxicities were observed: grade 3 increased γ-glutamyltransferase and alkaline phosphatase (200 mg), repeated grade 2 fatigue, and grade 3 fatigue (50.0%). Frequent treatment-related adverse events (with incidence >10%) included diarrhea (58.8%), nausea (50%), vomiting (44.1%), fatigue (41.2%), decreased appetite (32.4%), elevated alanine aminotransferase (32.4%), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (20.6%), dry skin (11.8%), and dysgeusia (11.8%). Best overall response was stable disease (median duration 85 days, range 85-237). Pharmacokinetics demonstrated high variability, although maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve increased with dose. Soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor, VEGFR2, c-Met, and angiopoietin-2 levels increased after dose. Posttreatment decrease in either p-c-Met or p-ERK was observed in 3 of 4 paired biopsies at MTD. CONCLUSIONS: Golvatinib at the MTD of 400 mg once daily was well tolerated with pharmacodynamic evidence of c-Met target modulation.

Randomized Phase II trial of nintedanib, afatinib and sequential combination in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

AIMS: The aim of this article was to evaluate afatinib (BIBW 2992), an ErbB family blocker, and nintedanib (BIBF 1120), a triple angiokinase inhibitor, in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. PATIENTS & METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive nintedanib (250 mg twice daily), afatinib (40 mg once daily [q.d.]), or alternating sequential 7-day nintedanib (250 mg twice daily) and afatinib (70 mg q.d. [Combi70]), which was reduced to 40 mg q.d. (Combi40) due to adverse events. The primary end point was progression-free rate at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 85 patients treated 46, 20, 16 and three received nintedanib, afatinib, Combi40 and Combi70, respectively. At 12 weeks, the progression-free rate was 26% (seven out of 27 patients) for nintedanib, and 0% for afatinib and Combi40 groups. Two patients had a ≥50% decline in PSA (nintedanib and the Combi40 groups). The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and lethargy. CONCLUSION: Nintedanib and/or afatinib demonstrated limited anti-tumor activity in unselected advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

Cancer therapeutics: Targeting the apoptotic pathway.

Apoptosis, a physiological process of programmed cell death, is disrupted in various malignancies. It has been exploited as an anti-cancer strategy traditionally by inducing DNA damage with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. With an increased understanding of the intrinsic and extrinsic pathways of apoptosis in recent years, novel approaches of targeting the apoptotic pathways have been tested in pre-clinical and clinical models. There are several early phase clinical trials investigating the therapeutic role of pro-apoptotic agents, both as single agents and in combination. In this review, we examine such treatment strategies, detailing the various compounds currently under clinical investigation, their potential roles in cancer therapeutics, and discussing approaches to their optimal use in the clinic.