Efficacy and safety results of depatuxizumab mafodotin (ABT-414) in patients with advanced solid tumors likely to overexpress epidermal growth factor receptor.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) alterations are associated with multiple cancers. Current EGFR-directed therapies have led to increased efficacy but are associated with specific side effects. The antibody-drug conjugate depatuxizumab mafodotin (depatux-m) targets EGFR with a monoclonal antibody linked to a cytotoxin, and is highly tumor-specific. METHODS: This phase 1/2 study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of depatux-m in patients who had advanced solid tumors with known wild-type EGFR overexpression, amplification, or mutated EGFR variant III. A 3 + 3 dose escalation was used, and 2 dosing schedules were evaluated. Depatux-m also was manufactured under an alternate process to reduce the drug load and improve the safety profile, and it was tested at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). In another cohort, prolonged infusion time of depatux-m was evaluated; and a cohort with confirmed EGFR amplification also was evaluated at the MTD. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were treated. The MTD and the recommended phase 2 dose for depatux-m was 3.0 mg/kg. Common adverse events (AEs) were blurred vision (48%) and fatigue (41%). A majority of patients (66%) experienced 1 or more ocular AEs. Grade 3 or 4 AEs were observed in 43% of patients. One patient with EGFR-amplified, triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response. Stable disease was observed in 23% of patients. Pharmacokinetics revealed that depatux-m exposures were approximately dose-proportional. CONCLUSIONS: Depatux-m resulted in infrequent nonocular AEs but increased ocular AEs. Patient follow-up confirmed that ocular AEs were reversible. Lowering the drug-antibody ratio did not decrease the number of ocular AEs. A partial response in 1 patient with EGFR-amplified disease provides the opportunity to study depatux-m in diseases with a high incidence of EGFR amplification. Cancer 2018;124:2174-83. © 2018 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor response of depatuxizumab mafodotin as monotherapy or in combination with temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma.

Background: We recently reported an acceptable safety and pharmacokinetic profile of depatuxizumab mafodotin (depatux-m), formerly called ABT-414, plus radiation and temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (arm A). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of depatux-m, either in combination with temozolomide in newly diagnosed or recurrent glioblastoma (arm B) or as monotherapy in recurrent glioblastoma (arm C). Methods: In this multicenter phase I dose escalation study, patients received depatux-m (0.5-1.5 mg/kg in arm B, 1.25 mg/kg in arm C) every 2 weeks by intravenous infusion. Maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and preliminary efficacy were also determined. Results: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled as of March 1, 2016. The most frequent toxicities were ocular, occurring in 35/38 (92%) patients. Keratitis was the most common grade 3 adverse event observed in 6/38 (16%) patients; thrombocytopenia was the most common grade 4 event seen in 5/38 (13%) patients. The MTD was set at 1.5 mg/kg in arm B and was not reached in arm C. RP2D was declared as 1.25 mg/kg for both arms. Depatux-m demonstrated a linear pharmacokinetic profile. In recurrent glioblastoma patients, the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months was 30.8% and the median overall survival was 10.7 months. Best Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology responses were 1 complete and 2 partial responses. Conclusion: Depatux-m alone or in combination with temozolomide demonstrated an acceptable safety and pharmacokinetic profile in glioblastoma. Further studies are currently under way to evaluate its efficacy in newly diagnosed (NCT02573324) and recurrent glioblastoma (NCT02343406).

HEXIM1 as a Robust Pharmacodynamic Marker for Monitoring Target Engagement of BET Family Bromodomain Inhibitors in Tumors and Surrogate Tissues.

An increasing number of BET family protein inhibitors have recently entered clinical trials. It has been reported that attempts of monitoring target engagement of the BET bromodomain inhibitor OTX015 using literature-described putative pharmacodynamic markers, such as c-Myc, BRD2, etc., failed to detect pharmacodynamic marker responses in AML patients treated at active dose and those with clinical responses. Here, we report the identification and characterization of HEXIM1 and other genes as robust pharmacodynamic markers for BET inhibitors. Global gene expression profiling studies were carried out using cancer cells and surrogate tissues, such as whole blood and skin, to identify genes that are modulated by BET family proteins. Candidate markers were further characterized for concentration- and time-dependent responses to the BET inhibitor ABBV-075 in vitro and in vivo HEXIM1 was found to be the only gene that exhibited robust and consistent modulation by BET inhibitors across multiple cancer indications and surrogate tissues. Markers such as SERPINI1, ZCCHC24, and ZMYND8 were modulated by ABBV-075 and other BET inhibitors across cancer cell lines and xenograft tumors but not in blood and skin. Significant downregulation of c-Myc, a well-publicized target of BET inhibitors, was largely restricted to hematologic cancer cell lines. Incorporating well-characterized pharmacodynamic markers, such as HEXIM1 and other genes described here, can provide a better understanding of potential efficacy and toxicity associated with inhibiting BET family proteins and informs early clinical decisions on BET inhibitor development programs. Mol Cancer Ther; 16(2); 388-96. ©2016 AACR.