Dose Optimization in Oncology Drug Development: An International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development White Paper.

The landscape of oncology drug development has witnessed remarkable advancements over the last few decades, significantly improving clinical outcomes and quality of life for patients with cancer. Project Optimus, introduced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, stands as a groundbreaking endeavor to reform dose selection of oncology drugs, presenting both opportunities and challenges for the field. To address complex dose optimization challenges, an Oncology Dose Optimization IQ Working Group was created to characterize current practices, provide recommendations for improvement, develop a clinical toolkit, and engage Health Authorities. Historically, dose selection for cytotoxic chemotherapeutics has focused on the maximum tolerated dose, a paradigm that is less relevant for targeted therapies and new treatment modalities. A survey conducted by this group gathered insights from member companies regarding industry practices in oncology dose optimization. Given oncology drug development is a complex effort with multidimensional optimization and high failure rates due to lack of clinically relevant efficacy, this Working Group advocates for a case-by-case approach to inform the timing, specific quantitative targets, and strategies for dose optimization, depending on factors such as disease characteristics, patient population, mechanism of action, including associated resistance mechanisms, and therapeutic index. This white paper highlights the evolving nature of oncology dose optimization, the impact of Project Optimus, and the need for a tailored and evidence-based approach to optimize oncology drug dosing regimens effectively.

Clinical Pharmacology of the Antibody-Drug Conjugate Enfortumab Vedotin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma and Other Malignant Solid Tumors.

Enfortumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate comprised of a human monoclonal antibody directed to Nectin-4 and monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), a microtubule-disrupting agent. The objectives of this review are to summarize the clinical pharmacology of enfortumab vedotin monotherapy and demonstrate that the appropriate dose has been selected for clinical use. Pharmacokinetics (PK) of enfortumab vedotin (antibody-drug conjugate and total antibody) and free MMAE were evaluated in five clinical trials of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (n = 748). Intravenous enfortumab vedotin 0.5-1.25 mg/kg on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle showed linear, dose-proportional PK. No significant differences in exposure or safety of enfortumab vedotin and free MMAE were observed in mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment versus normal renal function. Patients with mildly impaired versus normal hepatic function had a 37% increase in area under the concentration-time curve (0-28 days), a 31% increase in maximum concentration of free MMAE, and a similar adverse event profile. No clinically significant PK differences were observed based on race/ethnicity with weight-based dosing, and no clinically meaningful QT prolongation was observed. Concomitant use with dual P-glycoprotein and strong cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibitors may increase MMAE exposure and the risk of adverse events. Approximately 3% of patients developed antitherapeutic antibodies against enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg. These findings support enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg monotherapy on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. No dose adjustments are required for patients with renal impairment or mild hepatic impairment, or by race/ethnicity.

Enzalutamide: Understanding and Managing Drug Interactions to Improve Patient Safety and Drug Efficacy.

Enzalutamide is an oral androgen receptor signaling inhibitor utilized in the treatment of men with prostate cancer. It is a moderate inducer of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP2C9 and CYP2C19, and a strong inducer of CYP3A4. It was also shown to be a mild inhibitor of the efflux transporter P-glycoprotein in patients with prostate cancer. Enzalutamide is primarily metabolized by CYP3A4 and CYP2C8. The risk of enzalutamide drug interactions arises primarily when it is coadministered with other drugs that interact with these CYPs, including CYP3A4. In this review, we begin by providing an overview of enzalutamide including its dosing, use in special populations, pharmacokinetics, changes to its prescribing information, and potential for interaction with coadministered drugs. Enzalutamide interactions with drugs from a wide range of medication classes commonly prescribed to patients with prostate cancer are described, including oral androgen deprivation therapy, agents used to treat a range of cardiovascular diseases, antidiabetic drugs, antidepressants, anti-seizure medications, common urology medications, analgesics, proton pump inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and antigout drugs. Enzalutamide interactions with common vitamins and supplements are also briefly discussed. This review provides a resource for healthcare practitioners and patients that will help provide a basis for the understanding and management of enzalutamide drug-drug interactions to inform decision making, improve patient safety, and optimize drug efficacy.

Enzalutamide is a drug that is used to treat various stages of advanced prostate cancer, a type of cancer that begins in the prostate and may spread beyond the prostate. Enzalutamide stops testosterone from stimulating prostate cancer growth. Like other drugs, enzalutamide enters the bloodstream, and then is processed and removed from the body. Sometimes, when a person takes multiple drugs, one drug can make it difficult for the body to process and remove one or more of the other drugs. This is referred to as a drug interaction. Enzalutamide drug interactions can cause the level of other drugs in the body to increase or decrease in an abnormal way. It is also possible for certain other drugs to alter the levels of enzalutamide. Drug interactions that cause the level of a drug to get too low can prevent that drug from working effectively, whereas drug interactions that cause the level of a drug to get too high can lead to side effects of that drug. People with prostate cancer are mostly aged 65 years or older and often take medications to treat a variety of diseases. Examples include medications to treat heart conditions, diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and many other conditions. Here, we describe enzalutamide drug interactions with these types of medications. Our goal is to provide a resource to help healthcare providers and patients better understand enzalutamide drug interactions and how to manage them to improve patient safety and drug effectiveness.

Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling to predict drug-drug interaction of enzalutamide with combined P-gp and CYP3A substrates.

Enzalutamide is known to strongly induce cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4). Furthermore, enzalutamide showed induction and inhibition of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) in in vitro studies. A clinical drug-drug interaction (DDI) study between enzalutamide and digoxin, a typical P-gp substrate, suggested enzalutamide has weak inhibitory effect on P-gp substrates. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as apixaban and rivaroxaban, are dual substrates of CYP3A4 and P-gp, and hence it is recommended to avoid co-administration of these DOACs with combined P-gp and strong CYP3A inducers. Enzalutamide's net effect on P-gp and CYP3A for apixaban and rivaroxaban plasma exposures is of interest to physicians who treat patients for venous thromboembolism with prostate cancer. Accordingly, a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) analysis was performed to predict the magnitude of DDI on apixaban and rivaroxaban exposures in the presence of 160 mg once-daily dosing of enzalutamide. The PBPK models of enzalutamide and M2, a major metabolite of enzalutamide which also has potential to induce CYP3A and P-gp and inhibit P-gp, were developed and verified as perpetrators of CYP3A-and P-gp-mediated interaction. Simulation results predicted a 31% decrease in AUC and no change in Cmax for apixaban and a 45% decrease in AUC and a 25% decrease in Cmax for rivaroxaban when 160 mg multiple doses of enzalutamide were co-administered. In summary, enzalutamide is considered to decrease apixaban and rivaroxaban exposure through the combined effects of CYP3A induction and net P-gp inhibition. Concurrent use of these drugs warrants careful monitoring for efficacy and safety.

Effect of enzalutamide on PK of P-gp and BCRP substrates in cancer patients: CYP450 induction may not always predict overall effect on transporters.

Drug-drug interaction (DDI) is an important consideration for clinical decision making in prostate cancer treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide, an oral androgen receptor inhibitor, on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of digoxin (P-glycoprotein [P-gp] probe substrate) and rosuvastatin (breast cancer resistance protein [BCRP] probe substrate) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This was a phase I, open-label, fixed-sequence, crossover study (NCT04094519). Eligible men with mCRPC received a single dose of transporter probe cocktail containing 0.25 mg digoxin and 10 mg rosuvastatin plus enzalutamide placebo-to-match on day 1. On day 8, patients started 160 mg enzalutamide once daily through day 71. On day 64, patients also received a single dose of the cocktail. The primary end points were digoxin and rosuvastatin plasma maximum concentration (Cmax ), area under the concentration-time curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration (AUClast ), and AUC from the time of dosing extrapolated to time infinity (AUCinf ). Secondary end points were enzalutamide and N-desmethyl enzalutamide (metabolite) plasma Cmax , AUC during a dosing interval, where tau is the length of the dosing interval (AUCtau ), and concentration immediately prior to dosing at multiple dosing (Ctrough ). When administered with enzalutamide, there was a 17% increase in Cmax , 29% increase in AUClast , and 33% increase in AUCinf of plasma digoxin compared to digoxin alone, indicating that enzalutamide is a "mild" inhibitor of P-gp. No PK interaction was observed between enzalutamide and rosuvastatin (BCRP probe substrate). The PK of enzalutamide and N-desmethyl enzalutamide were in agreement with previously reported data. The potential for transporter-mediated DDI between enzalutamide and digoxin and rosuvastatin is low in men with prostate cancer. Therefore, concomitant administration of enzalutamide with medications that are substrates for P-gp and BCRP does not require dose adjustment in this patient population.

A Randomized Phase II Study of AGS-16C3F Versus Axitinib in Previously Treated Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: The primary endpoint of this phase II study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the investigational compound, AGS-16C3F, versus axitinib in previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was not met. Median progression-free survival, the primary endpoint, was 2.9 months with AGS-16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (HR, 1.676; 95% CI, 1.107-2.537; p = .015), per investigator assessment The safety profile for each study drug was as expected, with the most commonly reported adverse events being fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS-16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm. These results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC. BACKGROUND: AGS-16C3F is a novel antibody-drug conjugate that targets cell-surface ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/phosphodiesterase 3 (ENPP3) and is conjugated to a microtubule disruptive agent. Here we present findings from a phase II study of AGS-16C3F versus axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: Patients with mRCC of any histology and disease progression during or after their last treatment regimen were randomized 1:1 to intravenous AGS-16C3F 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks or oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary objective was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) of AGS-16C3F versus axitinib (RECIST version 1.1). RESULTS: In the total population (N = 133), 63% (n = 84) of patients had completed the study at data cutoff (August 21, 2019). Median PFS was 2.9 months with AGS-16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.676; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.107-2.537; p = .015). There were no significant differences between arms in secondary efficacy endpoints, including overall survival (13.1 months, AGS-16C3F and 15.4 months, axitinib; HR, 1.079; 95% CI, 0.681-1.707; p = .747). In the safety population (n = 131), the most commonly reported adverse events were fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS-16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm. The incidence of diarrhea was lower in the AGS-16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (17% vs. 48%), and ocular toxicities were more frequent in the AGS-16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (44% vs. 26%). CONCLUSION: The investigational compound, AGS-16C3F, did not meet the primary endpoint of this trial. These study results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.

Phase 2 study evaluating intermittent and continuous linsitinib and weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent platinum resistant ovarian epithelial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Linsitinib, an oral, dual inhibitor of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor and insulin receptor, in combination with weekly paclitaxel, may improve clinical outcomes compared with paclitaxel alone in patients with refractory or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label phase 1/2 clinical trial (NCT00889382) randomized patients with refractory or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (1:1:1) to receive either oral intermittent linsitinib (600mg once daily on Days 1-3 per week) combined with paclitaxel (80mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15; Arm A) or continuous linsitinib (150mg twice daily) in combination with paclitaxel (Arm B), or paclitaxel alone (Arm C). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 152 women were randomized to treatment (n=51 Arm A; n=51 Arm B, n=50 Arm C). In combination with paclitaxel, neither intermittent linsitinib (median PFS 2.8months; 95% confidence interval [CI]:2.5-4.4) nor continuous linsitinib (median PFS 4.2months; 95% CI:2.8-5.1) improved PFS over weekly paclitaxel alone (median PFS 5.6months; 95% CI:3.2-6.9). No improvement in ORR, DCR, or OS in either linsitinib dosing schedule was observed compared with paclitaxel alone. Adverse event (AE) rates, including all-grade and grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs, and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation, were higher among patients receiving intermittent linsitinib compared with the other treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Addition of intermittent or continuous linsitinib with paclitaxel did not improve outcomes in patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer compared with paclitaxel alone.

A Phase I, Dose Escalation Study of Oral ASP8273 in Patients with Non-small Cell Lung Cancers with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations.

Purpose: Acquired EGFR T790M mutations are the most frequently identified resistance mechanism to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancers. ASP8273 is a third-generation EGFR TKI with antitumor activity in preclinical models of EGFR-mutant lung cancer that targets mutant EGFR, including EGFR T790M.Experimental Design: In this multicohort, phase I study (NCT02113813), escalating doses of ASP8273 (25-500 mg) were administered once daily to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with disease progression after prior treatment with an EGFR TKI. EGFR T790M was required for all cohorts, except the dose escalation cohort. Primary endpoints were safety/tolerability; secondary endpoints were determination of the RP2D, pharmacokinetic profile, and preliminary antitumor activity of ASP8273. Evaluation of the use of EGFR mutations in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) as a biomarker of ASP8273 treatment effects was an exploratory endpoint.Results: A total of 110 patients were treated with ASP8273 across dose escalation (n = 36), response-expansion (n = 36), RP2D (300 mg; n = 19) and food-effect (n = 19) cohorts. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events included diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, constipation, vomiting, and hyponatremia. Across all doses, in patients with EGFR T790M, the response rate was 30.7% (n = 27/88; 95% CI, 19.5%-44.5%), and median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.5-10.1 months). EGFR mutations in cfDNA, both the activating mutation and EGFR T790M, became undetectable in most patients in the setting of clinical response and reemerged upon disease progression.Conclusions: ASP8273 was well tolerated and promoted antitumor activity in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer with disease progression on prior EGFR TKI therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 23(24); 7467-73. ©2017 AACR.

Randomised Phase 2 study of maintenance linsitinib (OSI-906) in combination with erlotinib compared with placebo plus erlotinib after platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy is important in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib as switch maintenance following platinum-based chemotherapy increases survival. Cross-talk between the epidermal growth factor receptor and insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGFR) pathways mediate resistance to individual receptor blockade. This study compared maintenance linsitinib plus erlotinib vs erlotinib plus placebo in patients with NSCLC. METHODS: In this Phase II randomised trial, patients without progression following four cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (N=205) received continuous schedule maintenance oral linsitinib 150 mg or placebo BID combined with erlotinib 150 mg QD for 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The study was unblinded early due to linsitinib non-superiority. No difference was found between the two treatment groups in median PFS of 125 days linsitinib vs 129 days placebo (P=0.601); no difference in overall survival (OS) was observed. Tolerability was similar, although in the linsitinib group, treatment-related adverse events and discontinuations were more frequent. No drug-drug interaction was implicated. CONCLUSIONS: Linsitinib maintenance therapy added to erlotinib did not improve PFS or OS in non-progressing NSCLC patients. This highlights the need for robust biomarkers of response for combinations that incorporate IGFR-targeted therapies in maintenance or other therapeutic settings.

Phase 2 Study of Erlotinib in Combination With Linsitinib (OSI-906) or Placebo in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Activating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations.

INTRODUCTION: First-line epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR-activating mutations improves outcomes compared with chemotherapy, but resistance develops in most patients. Compensatory signaling through type 1 insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R) may contribute to resistance; dual blockade of IGF-1R and EGFR may improve outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of linsitinib, a dual IGF-1R and insulin receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in chemotherapy-naive patients with EGFR-mutation positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients received linsitinib 150 mg twice daily or placebo plus erlotinib 150 mg once daily on continuous 21-day cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: After randomization of 88 patients (44 each arm), the trial was unblinded early owing to inferiority in the linsitinib arm. The median progression-free survival for the linsitinib versus the placebo group was 8.4 months versus 12.4 months (hazard ratio, 1.37; P = .29). Overall response rate (47.7% vs. 75.0%; P = .02) and disease control rate (77.3% vs. 95.5%; P = .03) were also inferior. Whereas most adverse events were ≤ grade 2, linsitinib plus erlotinib was associated with increased adverse events that led to decreased erlotinib exposure (median days, 228 vs. 305). No drug-drug interaction was suggested by pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results. CONCLUSION: Adding linsitinib to erlotinib resulted in inferior outcomes compared with erlotinib alone. Further understanding of the signaling pathways and a biomarker that can predict efficacy is needed prior to further clinical development of IGF-1R inhibitors in lung cancer.

A first in man, dose-finding study of the mTORC1/mTORC2 inhibitor OSI-027 in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The kinase activity of mTOR involves 2 multiprotein complexes, (mTORC1-mTORC2). Targeting mTORC1 with rapalogues induces compensatory feedback loops resulting in AKT/ERK activation, which may be abrogated by mTORC2 inhibition. A first-in-human trial evaluating tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the dual TORC1/TORC2 inhibitor OSI-027 was conducted. METHODS: Dose escalation was pursued for three schedules of administration (three consecutive days per week (S1), once a week (S2) and daily dosing (S3)), until dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were identified. Expansion cohorts with paired tumour biopsies were initiated based on tolerability and pharmacodynamics. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty eight patients with advanced cancer were enrolled. DLT consisted predominantly of fatigue, renal function disturbances and cardiac events. OSI-027 exposure was dose proportional, with Tmax within 4 h and a half-life of ∼14 h. Expansion cohorts were initiated for S1 and S2, as MTD for S3 was overall considered suboptimal. Target modulation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were observed from 30 mg, but in tumour biopsies 120 mg QD were needed, which was a non-tolerable dose due to renal toxicity. No RECIST responses were recorded, with stable disease >6 months in six (5%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: OSI-027 inhibits mTORC1/2 in patients with advanced tumour s in a dose-dependent manner but doses above the tolerable levels in S1 and S3 are required for a sustained biological effect in tumour biopsies.

Mass balance, pharmacokinetics, and metabolism of linsitinib in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: This study characterized the pharmacokinetics, mass balance, routes and extent of elimination, metabolites, and safety of a single oral dose of (14)C-linsitinib, an IGF-1R/IR inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. The tolerability of linsitinib after multiple-dose administration was assessed in those patients who wished to continue treatment beyond the single (14)C-linsitinib dose. METHODS: Five patients received a single oral dose of 150 mg (14)C-linsitinib, followed by collection of blood, plasma, urine, and feces for 10 days. The collected material was analyzed for total radioactivity, linsitinib, and metabolites. The safety of 150 mg of unlabeled linsitinib administered twice daily until disease progression was also assessed. RESULTS: The median time to reach the maximum plasma concentration of linsitinib was 3.0 h, median maximum plasma concentration was 1789 ng/mL, median terminal half-life was 2.4 h, and median apparent oral clearance was 12.45 L/h. After a single dose of (14)C-linsitinib, 5.44 and 76.4 % of mean total radioactivity administered were recovered in urine and feces, respectively. Eighteen linsitinib metabolites (M1-M18) were detected in plasma, urine, and feces samples, and their structures were elucidated. The main metabolic reactions of linsitinib in humans were oxidation and sulfate conjugation. Linsitinib was well tolerated after a single dose of (14)C-linsitinib, and fatigue was the most frequent adverse event following multiple doses of unlabeled linsitinib. CONCLUSIONS: (14)C-linsitinib is rapidly absorbed and extensively metabolized. Linsitinib excretion via bile into feces is the predominant elimination route from plasma with minor renal elimination.

Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of Linsitinib (OSI-906) and Erlotinib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Cross-talk between type I IGF receptor (IGF1R), insulin receptor (INSR), and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mediates resistance to individual receptor blockade. This study aimed to determine the MTD, safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary antitumor activity of linsitinib, a potent oral IGF1R/INSR inhibitor, with EGFR inhibitor erlotinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This open-label, dose-escalation study investigated linsitinib schedules S1: once daily intermittent (days 1-3 weekly); S2, once daily continuous; S3, twice-daily continuous; each with erlotinib 100-150 mg once daily; and a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) expansion cohort. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled (S1, 44; S2, 24; S3, 12; expansion cohort, 15) and 91 treated. Seven experienced dose-limiting toxicities: QTc prolongation (3), abnormal liver function (2), hyperglycemia (1), and anorexia (1). Common adverse events included drug eruption (84%), diarrhea (73%), fatigue (68%), nausea (58%), vomiting (40%). MTDs for linsitinib/erlotinib were 450/150 mg (S1), 400/100 mg (S2). On the basis of prior monotherapy data, S3 dosing at 150 mg twice daily/150 mg once daily was the recommended phase II dose for the expansion cohort. There was no evidence of drug-drug interaction. Pharmacodynamic data showed IGF-1 elevation and reduced IGF1R/INSR phosphorylation, suggesting pathway inhibition. Across schedules, 5/75 (7%) evaluable patients experienced partial responses: spinal chordoma (268+ weeks), rectal cancer (36 weeks), three NSCLCs including 2 adenocarcinomas (16, 72 weeks), 1 squamous wild-type EGFR NSCLC (36 weeks). Disease control (CR+PR+SD) occurred in 38 of 75 (51%), and 28 of 91 (31%) patients were on study >12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The linsitinib/erlotinib combination was tolerable with preliminary evidence of activity, including durable responses in cases unlikely to respond to erlotinib monotherapy. Clin Cancer Res; 22(12); 2897-907. ©2016 AACR.

Linsitinib (OSI-906) versus placebo for patients with locally advanced or metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma: a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare, aggressive cancer for which few treatment options are available. Linsitinib (OSI-906) is a potent, oral small molecule inhibitor of both IGF-1R and the insulin receptor, which has shown acceptable tolerability and preliminary evidence of anti-tumour activity. We assessed linsitinib against placebo to investigate efficacy in patients with advanced adrenocortical carcinoma. METHODS: In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, adult patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma were recruited at clinical sites in nine countries. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) twice-daily 150 mg oral linsitinib or placebo via a web-based, centralised randomisation system and stratified according to previous systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy for adrenocortical carcinoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and use of one or more oral antihyperglycaemic therapy at randomisation. Allocation was concealed by blinded block size and permuted block randomisation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, calculated from date of randomisation until death from any cause. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00924989. FINDINGS: Between Dec 2, 2009, and July 11, 2011, 139 patients were enrolled, of whom 90 were assigned to linsitinib and 49 to placebo. The trial was unblinded on March 19, 2012, based on data monitoring committee recommendation due to the failure of linsitinib to increase either progression-free survival or overall survival. At database lock and based on 92 deaths, no difference in overall survival was noted between linsitinib and placebo (median 323 days [95% CI 256-507] vs 356 days [249-556]; hazard ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·61-1·44]; p=0·77). The most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse in the linsitinib group were fatigue (three [3%] patients vs no patients in the placebo group), nausea (two [2%] vs none), and hyperglycaemia (two [2%] vs none). No adverse events in the linsitinib group were deemed to be treatment related; one death (due to sepsis and megacolon) in the placebo group was deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Linsitinib did not increase overall survival and so cannot be recommended as treatment for this general patient population. Further studies of IGF-1R and insulin receptor inhibitors, together with genetic profiling of responders, might pave the way toward individualised and improved therapeutic options in adrenocortical carcinoma. FUNDING: Astellas.

A phase I study of continuous oral dosing of OSI-906, a dual inhibitor of insulin-like growth factor-1 and insulin receptors, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: OSI-906 is a potent inhibitor of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF1R) and insulin receptor (IR). The purpose of this study was to determine the MTD, safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary activity of OSI-906 in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a nonrandomized, open-label, phase I, dose-escalation study in patients with advanced solid tumors. The study also included a diabetic expansion cohort and a biomarker expansion cohort of patients with colorectal cancer. Patients were treated with OSI-906 by once- or twice-daily continuous dosing schedules. RESULTS: Of 95 patients enrolled in the study, 86 received at least one dose of OSI-906. Dose-limiting toxicities included QTc prolongation, grade 2 abdominal pain and nausea, hyperglycemia, and elevation of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase (all grade 3). The MTDs were established to be 400 mg once daily and 150 mg twice daily. The recommended phase II dose was determined as 150 mg twice daily. OSI-906 was rapidly absorbed with a half-life of 5 hours, and steady-state plasma concentrations were achieved by day 8. Pharmacodynamic effects on IGF1R and IR phosphorylation were levels observed and correlated with plasma concentrations of OSI-906. Thirty-one patients had stable disease as their best response. One patient with melanoma had a radiographic partial response and underwent resection, during which only melanocytic debris but no viable tumor tissue was identified. CONCLUSIONS: At the established MTD, OSI-906 was well tolerated and antitumor activity was observed. These results support further evaluation of OSI-906 in solid tumors.

Phase I study of intermittent oral dosing of the insulin-like growth factor-1 and insulin receptors inhibitor OSI-906 in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: We determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary activity of OSI-906, a potent, oral, dual inhibitor of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF1R) and insulin receptor (IR), in patients with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This was a multicenter, open-label, dose escalation phase I study evaluating three intermittent dosing schedules of once-daily OSI-906 [schedule (S) 1, days 1-3 every 14 days; S2, days 1-5 every 14 days; S3, days 1-7 every 14 days]. A fed-fasting expansion cohort was included in the study. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were enrolled: 62 in S1, 4 in S2, and 13 in S3. S2 was discontinued. Dose-limiting toxicity comprised grade 3-4 hyperglycemia, vomiting, fatigue, and prolonged QTc interval. The MTD and recommended phase II dose of OSI-906 was 600 mg for both S1 and S3 schedules. Other common adverse events were grade 1-2 nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and diarrhea. The pharmacokinetics of OSI-906 was dose linear, and the terminal half-life ranged between 2 and 6 hours. High-fat meals had a moderate effect on the pharmacokinetics of OSI-906. At the MTD, inhibition of IGF1R and IR was observed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. An increase in plasma IGF1 concentrations, an indirect measure of IGF1R signaling inhibition, was seen at doses ≥ 450 mg. Two patients with adrenocortical carcinoma achieved partial responses. CONCLUSION: The MTD of 600 mg was well tolerated and associated with preliminary antitumor activity. These data support further evaluation of OSI-906 in solid tumors.

First-in-human phase I trial of two schedules of OSI-930, a novel multikinase inhibitor, incorporating translational proof-of-mechanism studies.

PURPOSE: OSI-930 is a novel, potent, oral small-molecule receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, predominantly against VEGF receptors (VEGFR), c-Kit, and platelet-derived growth factor receptors. A phase I trial was undertaken to determine safety, maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of OSI-930 in patients with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: OSI-930 was administered once or twice a day using a modified accelerated titration design. Pharmacokinetics and plasma soluble VEGFR2 (sVEGFR2) studies were undertaken. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) MTD expansion cohorts were conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients received OSI-930 in 2 schedules; once a day schedule: 12 patients at doses up to 1,600 mg without reaching MTD; twice a day schedule: 46 patients at 400 mg (n = 7), 500 mg (n = 31), and 600 mg (n = 8). Dose-limiting toxicities were observed at 600 mg twice a day (n = 3): G3 rash (n = 2) and G4 γ-glutamyltransferase, establishing the MTD at 500 mg twice a day. Common G1-2 toxicities included fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and rash. Antitumor responses were seen in 2 patients with advanced ovarian cancer [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) partial response (PR) (n = 1); GCIG CA125 response (n = 1)]. Eleven of 19 heavily pretreated imatinib-resistant patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors achieved RECIST stable disease (median duration: 126 days), with FDG-PET scans showing PRs in 4 of 9 patients. OSI-930 exposure increased with dose; substantial decreases in sVEGFR levels were observed with OSI-930 twice a day doses ≥400 mg, while DCE-MRI responses were shown in 4 of 6 patients. CONCLUSIONS: OSI-930 is safe and well tolerated, with pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic data supporting proof-of-mechanism with clinically relevant antitumor activity.

Structure-guided design of potent and selective pyrimidylpyrrole inhibitors of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) using conformational control.

The Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK signal transduction, an oncogenic pathway implicated in a variety of human cancers, is a key target in anticancer drug design. A novel series of pyrimidylpyrrole ERK inhibitors has been identified. Discovery of a conformational change for lead compound 2, when bound to ERK2 relative to antitarget GSK3, enabled structure-guided selectivity optimization, which led to the discovery of 11e, a potent, selective, and orally bioavailable inhibitor of ERK.

Identification of 3-amido-4-anilinoquinolines as potent and selective inhibitors of CSF-1R kinase.

3-amido-4-anilinoquinolines are potent and highly selective inhibitors of CSF-1R. Their synthesis and SAR is reported, along with initial efforts to optimize the physical properties and PK through modifications at the quinoline 6- and 7-positions.

Identification of amidoheteroaryls as potent inhibitors of mutant (V600E) B-Raf kinase with in vivo activity.

A series of amidoheteroaryl compounds were designed and synthesized as inhibitors of B-Raf kinase. Several compounds from the series show excellent potency in biochemical, phenotypic and mode of action cellular assays. Potent examples from the series have also demonstrated good plasma exposure following an oral dose in rodents and activity against the Ras-Raf pathway in tumor bearing mice.