Avelumab or talazoparib in combination with binimetinib in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: dose-finding results from phase Ib of the JAVELIN PARP MEKi trial.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of avelumab [anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1)] or talazoparib [poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor] with binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) were expected to result in additive or synergistic antitumor activity relative to each drug administered alone. Here, we report phase Ib results from JAVELIN PARP MEKi, which investigated avelumab or talazoparib combined with binimetinib in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mPDAC that had progressed with prior treatment received avelumab 800 mg every 2 weeks plus binimetinib 45 mg or 30 mg two times daily (continuous), or talazoparib 0.75 mg daily plus binimetinib 45 mg or 30 mg two times daily (7 days on/7 days off). The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). RESULTS: A total of 22 patients received avelumab plus binimetinib 45 mg (n = 12) or 30 mg (n = 10). Among DLT-evaluable patients, DLT occurred in five of 11 patients (45.5%) at the 45-mg dose, necessitating de-escalation to 30 mg; DLT occurred in three of 10 patients (30.0%) at the 30-mg dose. Among patients treated at the 45-mg dose, one (8.3%) had a best overall response of partial response. Thirteen patients received talazoparib plus binimetinib 45 mg (n = 6) or 30 mg (n = 7). Among DLT-evaluable patients, DLT occurred in two of five patients (40.0%) at the 45-mg dose, necessitating de-escalation to 30 mg; DLT occurred in two of six patients (33.3%) at the 30-mg dose. No objective responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Combinations of avelumab or talazoparib plus binimetinib resulted in higher-than-expected DLT rates. However, most DLTs were single occurrences, and the overall safety profiles were generally consistent with those reported for the single agents. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT03637491; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03637491.

Recommendations for the use of next-generation sequencing in patients with metastatic cancer in the Asia-Pacific region: a report from the APODDC working group.

INTRODUCTION: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) diagnostics have shown clinical utility in predicting survival benefits in patients with certain cancer types who are undergoing targeted drug therapies. Currently, there are no guidelines or recommendations for the use of NGS in patients with metastatic cancer from an Asian perspective. In this article, we present the Asia-Pacific Oncology Drug Development Consortium (APODDC) recommendations for the clinical use of NGS in metastatic cancers. METHODS: The APODDC set up a group of experts in the field of clinical cancer genomics to (i) understand the current NGS landscape for metastatic cancers in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region; (ii) discuss key challenges in the adoption of NGS testing in clinical practice; and (iii) adapt/modify the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines for local use. Nine cancer types [breast cancer (BC), gastric cancer (GC), nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), ovarian cancer (OC), prostate cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer (CRC) as well as cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)] were identified, and the applicability of NGS was evaluated in daily practice and/or clinical research. Asian ethnicity, accessibility of NGS testing, reimbursement, and socioeconomic and local practice characteristics were taken into consideration. RESULTS: The APODDC recommends NGS testing in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Routine NGS testing is not recommended in metastatic BC, GC, and NPC as well as cholangiocarcinoma and HCC. The group suggested that patients with epithelial OC may be offered germline and/or somatic genetic testing for BReast CAncer gene 1 (BRCA1), BRCA2, and other OC susceptibility genes. Access to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors is required for NGS to be of clinical utility in prostate cancer. Allele-specific PCR or a small-panel multiplex-gene NGS was suggested to identify key alterations in CRC. CONCLUSION: This document offers practical guidance on the clinical utility of NGS in specific cancer indications from an Asian perspective.

Safety and efficacy of pralsetinib in RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer including as first-line therapy: update from the ARROW trial.

BACKGROUND: RET fusions are present in 1%-2% of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, central nervous system-penetrant, selective RET inhibitor, previously demonstrated clinical activity in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC in the phase I/II ARROW study, including among treatment-naive patients. We report an updated analysis from the ARROW study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARROW is a multi-cohort, open-label, phase I/II study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 (later 0-1). Patients initiated pralsetinib at the recommended phase II dose of 400 mg once daily until disease progression, intolerance, consent withdrawal, or investigator's decision. The co-primary endpoints (phase II) were overall response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review and safety. RESULTS: Between 17 March 2017 and 6 November 2020 (data cut-off), 281 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC were enrolled. The ORR was 72% [54/75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 60% to 82%] for treatment-naive patients and 59% (80/136; 95% CI 50% to 67%) for patients with prior platinum-based chemotherapy (enrolment cut-off for efficacy analysis: 22 May 2020); median duration of response was not reached for treatment-naive patients and 22.3 months for prior platinum-based chemotherapy patients. Tumour shrinkage was observed in all treatment-naive patients and in 97% of patients with prior platinum-based chemotherapy; median progression-free survival was 13.0 and 16.5 months, respectively. In patients with measurable intracranial metastases, the intracranial response rate was 70% (7/10; 95% CI 35% to 93%); all had received prior systemic treatment. In treatment-naive patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who initiated pralsetinib by the data cut-off (n = 116), the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were neutropenia (18%), hypertension (10%), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (9%), and lymphopenia (9%). Overall, 7% (20/281) discontinued due to TRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Pralsetinib treatment produced robust efficacy and was generally well tolerated in treatment-naive patients with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC. Results from the confirmatory phase III AcceleRET Lung study (NCT04222972) of pralsetinib versus standard of care in the first-line setting are pending.

Genetic landscape of patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and response to ceritinib in ASCEND-1 study.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand genetic determinants of response to ceritinib, an exploratory analysis was conducted using tumor biopsies from anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with ceritinib at doses of ≥ 300 mg in the ASCEND-1 study. METHODS: ASCEND-1 was an open-label, multicentre, phase 1, dose-escalation and expansion study of ceritinib (fasted) in ALK inhibitor (ALKi)-naïve or ALKi-pretreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK + NSCLC. Biopsies were assayed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) using a Foundation Medicine panel targeting 295 genes. Somatic alterations were correlated with clinical outcome (cut-off 14-Apr-2014). A total of 285 ALK + NSCLC patients were treated with ceritinib at doses ≥ 300 mg. RESULTS: NGS data were generated for 85 pts (ALKi-pretreated [n = 54]; ALKi-naïve [n = 31]), 57 were collected from patients before exposure to any ALKi. NGS did not detect ALK rearrangement in 14 of 85 patients; several of these ALK NGS negative cases harbored alternative drivers, e.g. EGFR mutation. Of the 71 biopsies with NGS confirmed ALK rearrangement, the most frequently detected rearrangements were EML4-ALK variant 1 (V1) and EML4-ALK V3 (36.6% [26/71] and 32.4% [23/71] respectively). Eight (six crizotinib-pretreated and two pretreated with crizotinib followed by alectinib) of the 21 ALKi-pretreated patients carried a point mutation of the ALK TKD, and had the biopsy collected between 1 and 14 days before ceritinib; with the exception of one patient with a G1202R point mutation, all patients derived clinical benefit from ceritinib treatment. Of the 14 ALKi-naïve patients, ceritinib was effective in almost all patients, including a patient carrying a concomitant ERBB4 and HGF amplification. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis highlights the potential role of NGS in improving our understanding of response and resistance to ceritinib. It also illustrates that ceritinib is active against almost all ALK resistance mutations found in ALKi-pretreated patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01283516. Registered January 26, 2011, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01283516.

Clinical definition of acquired resistance to immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Acquired resistance (AR) to programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-(L)1] blockade is frequent in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), occurring in a majority of initial responders. Patients with AR may have unique properties of persistent antitumor immunity that could be re-harnessed by investigational immunotherapies. The absence of a consistent clinical definition of AR to PD-(L)1 blockade and lack of uniform criteria for ensuing enrollment in clinical trials remains a major barrier to progress; such clinical definitions have advanced biologic and therapeutic discovery. We examine the considerations and potential controversies in developing a patient-level definition of AR in NSCLC treated with PD-(L)1 blockade. Taking into account the specifics of NSCLC biology and corresponding treatment strategies, we propose a practical, clinical definition of AR to PD-(L)1 blockade for use in clinical reports and prospective clinical trials. Patients should meet the following criteria: received treatment that includes PD-(L)1 blockade; experienced objective response on PD-(L)1 blockade (inclusion of a subset of stable disease will require future investigation); have progressive disease occurring within 6 months of last anti-PD-(L)1 antibody treatment or rechallenge with anti-PD-(L)1 antibody in patients not exposed to anti-PD-(L)1 in 6 months.

Mechanisms of resistance to selective RET tyrosine kinase inhibitors in RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rearranged during transfection (RET) gene fusions are a validated target in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). RET-selective inhibitors selpercatinib (LOXO-292) and pralsetinib (BLU-667) recently demonstrated favorable antitumor activity and safety profiles in advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and both have received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for this indication. Insights into mechanisms of resistance to selective RET inhibitors remain limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was performed at five institutions. Tissue and/or cell-free DNA was obtained from patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC after treatment with selpercatinib or pralsetinib and assessed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) or MET FISH. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 23 post-treatment tissue and/or plasma biopsies from 18 RET fusion-positive patients who received an RET-selective inhibitor (selpercatinib, n = 10; pralsetinib, n = 7; pralsetinib followed by selpercatinib, n = 1, with biopsy after each inhibitor). Three cases had paired tissue and plasma samples, of which one also had two serial resistant tissue specimens. The median progression-free survival on RET inhibitors was 6.3 months [95% confidence interval 3.6-10.8 months]. Acquired RET mutations were identified in two cases (10%), both affecting the RET G810 residue in the kinase solvent front. Three resistant cases (15%) harbored acquired MET amplification without concurrent RET resistance mutations, and one specimen had acquired KRAS amplification. No other canonical driver alterations were identified by NGS. Among 16 resistant tumor specimens, none had evidence of squamous or small-cell histologic transformation. CONCLUSIONS: RET solvent front mutations are a recurrent mechanism of RET inhibitor resistance, although they occurred at a relatively low frequency. The majority of resistance to selective RET inhibition may be driven by RET-independent resistance such as acquired MET or KRAS amplification. Next-generation RET inhibitors with potency against RET resistance mutations and combination strategies are needed to effectively overcome resistance in these patients.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with locally-advanced unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: a KSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, ISMPO, JSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of early and locally-advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was published in 2017, and covered the diagnosis, staging, management and treatment of both early stage I and II disease and locally-advanced stage III disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2018, it was decided by both the ESMO and the Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO) to convene a special face-to-face guidelines meeting in 2019 in Seoul. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2017 guidelines to take into account potential differences related to ethnicity, cancer biology and standard practices associated with the treatment of locally-advanced, unresectable NSCLC in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by those experts in the treatment of patients with lung cancer who represented the oncology societies of Korea (KSMO), China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and it was independent of both local current treatment practices and the treatment availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

Pan-Asian adapted Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a CSCO-ESMO initiative endorsed by JSMO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was published in 2016. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group Annual Meeting 2018, in Guangzhou, China. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic NSCLC cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the six participating Asian countries. During the review process, the updated ESMO 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for metastatic NSCLC were released and were also considered, during the final stages of the development of the Pan-Asian adapted Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Phase I study of saracatinib (AZD0530) in combination with paclitaxel and/or carboplatin in patients with solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: As a prelude to combination studies aimed at resistance reversal, this dose-escalation/dose-expansion study investigated the selective Src kinase inhibitor saracatinib (AZD0530) in combination with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours received saracatinib once-daily oral tablets in combination with either carboplatin AUC 5 every 3 weeks (q3w), paclitaxel 175 mg m(-2) q3w, paclitaxel 80 mg m(-2) every 1 week (q1w), or carboplatin AUC 5 plus paclitaxel 175 mg m(-2) q3w. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients received saracatinib 125 (N=20), 175 (N=44), 225 (N=40), 250 (N=9), or 300 mg (N=3). There were no clear dose-related trends within each chemotherapy regimen group in number or severity of adverse events (AEs). However, combining all groups, the occurrence of grade ≥3 asthenic AEs (all causality) was dose-related (125 mg, 10%; 175 mg, 20%; ≥225 mg, 33%), and grade ≥3 neutropenia occurred more commonly at doses ≥225 mg. There was no evidence that saracatinib affected exposure to carboplatin or paclitaxel, or vice versa. Objective responses were seen in 5 out of 44 patients (11%) receiving carboplatin plus paclitaxel q3w, and 5 out of 24 (21%) receiving paclitaxel q1w. CONCLUSION: Saracatinib doses up to 175 mg with paclitaxel with/without carboplatin showed acceptable toxicity in most patients, and are suitable for further trials.

Gefitinib, cisplatin, and concurrent radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck cancer: EGFR FISH, protein expression, and mutational status are not predictive biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: Gefitinib was demonstrated to be synergistic with cisplatin and radiotherapy (RT) in in vitro studies. Biomarkers predictive of response to gefitinib in squamous cell head and neck cancer is still lacking. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with locally advanced and easily accessible primary tumor sites for biopsies were recruited. Gefitinib was started 3 weeks before the start of cisplatin/concurrent radiotherapy (CTRT) and continued during the CTRT phase and thereafter for 4 months as consolidation phase. Two baselines and a repeat tumor sample were taken after 2 weeks of gefitinib alone to study its impact on tumor gene expression. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein expression, FISH and mutational status, and matrix metallopeptidase 11 (MMP11) protein expression were correlated with response and survival outcome. RESULTS: The overall response rate to gefitinib alone was 9.7%. The survival outcome is as follows: median disease free 1.3 years, median survival time 2.4 years, 3-year disease free 42.9%, and 3-year overall survival 48.4%. EGFR FISH, protein expression, and mutational status did not predict for response nor survival outcome of patients. Although MMP11 overexpression did not predict for response, it predicted significantly for a poorer survival outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Gefitinib can be combined safely with cisplatin/RT. More studies are needed to uncover predictive biomarkers of benefit to gefitinib.

Uveal melanomas express vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor and support endothelial cell growth.

BACKGROUND: Tumour microvascularity is a significant determinant of prognosis for a large number of different tumours, including uveal melanoma. The development of blood vessels within these and other tumours is partly controlled by soluble pro-angiogenic cytokines, of which basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF) are the best described. METHODS: Because VEGF has been inconsistently found within uveal melanomas and bFGF is described as an autocrine growth factor in cutaneous melanoma, the authors looked at the expression of these cytokines in uveal melanomas using immunohistochemistry and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The cross talk between uveal melanoma cells and endothelial cells was then assessed in an in vitro co-culture model. RESULTS: While most tumour cells expressed bFGF at the protein level by immunohistochemistry (89%), relatively few (22%) expressed VEGF, and this was of limited extent. All 20 tumours tested by RT-PCR contained mRNA for both bFGF and VEGF. Co-culture experiments using an ATP based bioassay showed that uveal melanomas could support the growth of a rat brain endothelial cell line (GPNT) and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC), and that this could be modulated by cytokines and anti-cytokine antibodies. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that angiogenesis within uveal melanoma may be the result of a complex interplay between endothelial and tumour cells, and that bFGF and VEGF could play a part.