Phase I, first-in-human study of MSC-1 (AZD0171), a humanized anti-leukemia inhibitory factor monoclonal antibody, for advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Activation of leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) is linked to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME), with a strong association between LIF expression and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). MSC-1 (AZD0171) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to LIF, promoting antitumor inflammation through TAM modulation and cancer stem cell inhibition, slowing tumor growth. In this phase I, first-in-human, open-label, dose-escalation study, MSC-1 monotherapy was assessed in patients with advanced, unresectable solid tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using accelerated-titration dose escalation followed by a 3 + 3 design, MSC-1 doses of 75-1500 mg were administered intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W) until progression or unmanageable toxicity. Additional patients were enrolled in selected cohorts to further evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics after escalation to the next dose had been approved. The primary objective was characterizing safety and determining the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Evaluating antitumor activity and progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1, PK and immunogenicity were secondary objectives. Exploratory objectives included pharmacodynamic effects on circulating LIF and TME immune markers. RESULTS: Forty-one patients received treatment. MSC-1 monotherapy was safe and well tolerated at all doses, with no dose-limiting toxicities. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached and the RP2D was determined to be 1500 mg Q3W. Almost half of the patients had treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with no apparent trends across doses; no patients withdrew due to TRAEs. There were no objective responses; 23.7% had stable disease for ≥2 consecutive tumor assessments. Median PFS was 5.9 weeks; 23.7% had PFS >16 weeks. On-treatment changes in circulating LIF and TME signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 signaling, M1:M2 macrophage populations, and CD8+ T-cell infiltration were consistent with the hypothesized mechanism of action. CONCLUSIONS: MSC-1 was very well tolerated across doses, with prolonged PFS in some patients. Biomarker and preclinical data suggest potential synergy with checkpoint inhibitors.

IgE blockade with omalizumab reduces pruritus related to immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-HER2 therapies.

BACKGROUND: Immunoglobulin E (IgE) blockade with omalizumab has demonstrated clinical benefit in pruritus-associated dermatoses (e.g. atopic dermatitis, bullous pemphigoid, urticaria). In oncology, pruritus-associated cutaneous adverse events (paCAEs) are frequent with immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) and targeted anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies. Thus, we sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IgE blockade with omalizumab in cancer patients with refractory paCAEs related to CPIs and anti-HER2 agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients included in this multicenter retrospective analysis received monthly subcutaneous injections of omalizumab for CPI or anti-HER2 therapy-related grade 2/3 pruritus that was refractory to topical corticosteroids plus at least one additional systemic intervention. To assess clinical response to omalizumab, we used the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. The primary endpoint was defined as reduction in the severity of paCAEs to grade 1/0. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients (50% female, median age 67.5 years) received omalizumab for cancer therapy-related paCAEs (71% CPIs; 29% anti-HER2). All had solid tumors (29% breast, 29% genitourinary, 15% lung, 26% other), and most (n = 18, 64%) presented with an urticarial phenotype. In total 28 of 34 (82%) patients responded to omalizumab. The proportion of patients receiving oral corticosteroids as supportive treatment for management of paCAEs decreased with IgE blockade, from 50% to 9% (P < 0.001). Ten of 32 (31%) patients had interruption of oncologic therapy due to skin toxicity; four of six (67%) were successfully rechallenged following omalizumab. There were no reports of anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity reactions related to omalizumab. CONCLUSIONS: IgE blockade with omalizumab demonstrated clinical efficacy and was well tolerated in cancer patients with pruritus related to CPIs and anti-HER2 therapies.

Enrichment of kinase fusions in ESR1 wild-type, metastatic breast cancer revealed by a systematic analysis of 4854 patients.

BACKGROUND: Kinase fusions are rare and poorly characterized in breast cancer (BC). We aimed to characterize kinase fusions within a large cohort of advanced BC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 4854 patients with BC were analyzed by Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets (MSK-IMPACT) targeted DNAseq and MSK-Fusion targeted RNAseq during the study time period. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 4854 (0.6%) patients harbored fusions: 11 FGFR (five FGFR2, three FGFR3, three FGFR1), five BRAF, four NTRK1, two RET, two ROS1, one ALK, one ERBB2, and one MET. A history of endocrine therapy was present in 15 (56%) of fusion-positive BC; eight of the 15 cases had available pre-treatment samples, of which six were fusion-negative. None of the fusion-positive BC samples harbored ESR1 hotspot mutations. Two patients with acquired LMNA-NTRK1 fusions and metastatic disease received larotrectinib and demonstrated clinical benefit. CONCLUSION: Kinase fusions in BC are extremely rare, and appear to be enriched in hormone-resistant, metastatic carcinomas and mutually exclusive with ESR1 mutations. The present study expands the spectrum of genetic alterations activating mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling that can substitute for ESR1 mutations in this setting. Molecular testing at progression after endocrine therapy should include fusion testing, particularly in the absence of ESR1 hotspot alterations, in an effort to identify additional therapeutic options which may provide substantial clinical benefit.

Oncologist use and perception of large panel next-generation tumor sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Genomic profiling is increasingly incorporated into oncology research and the clinical care of cancer patients. We sought to determine physician perception and use of enterprise-scale clinical sequencing at our center, including whether testing changed management and the reasoning behind this decision-making. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All physicians who consented patients to MSK-IMPACT, a next-generation hybridization capture assay, in tumor types where molecular profiling is not routinely performed were asked to complete a questionnaire for each patient. Physician determination of genomic 'actionability' was compared to an expertly curated knowledgebase of somatic variants. Reported management decisions were compared to chart review. RESULTS: Responses were received from 146 physicians pertaining to 1932 patients diagnosed with 1 of 49 cancer types. Physicians indicated that sequencing altered management in 21% (331/1593) of patients in need of a treatment change. Among those in whom treatment was not altered, physicians indicated the presence of an actionable alteration in 55% (805/1474), however, only 45% (362/805) of these cases had a genomic variant annotated as actionable by expert curators. Further evaluation of these patients revealed that 66% (291/443) had a variant in a gene associated with biologic but not clinical evidence of actionability or a variant of unknown significance in a gene with at least one known actionable alteration. Of the cases annotated as actionable by experts, physicians identified an actionable alteration in 81% (362/445). In total, 13% (245/1932) of patients were enrolled to a genomically matched trial. CONCLUSION: Although physician and expert assessment differed, clinicians demonstrate substantial awareness of the genes associated with potential actionability and report using this knowledge to inform management in one in five patients. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01775072.