A randomized, double-blind study of zinpentraxin alfa in patients with myelofibrosis who were previously treated with or ineligible for ruxolitinib: Stage 2 of a phase II trial.

Not available.

Safety and efficacy of zinpentraxin alfa as monotherapy or in combination with ruxolitinib in myelofibrosis: stage I of a phase II trial.

Pentraxin 2 (PTX-2; serum amyloid P component), a circulating endogenous regulator of the inflammatory response to tissue injury and fibrosis, is reduced in patients with myelofibrosis (MF). Zinpentraxin alfa (RO7490677, PRM-151) is a recombinant form of PTX-2 that has shown preclinical antifibrotic activity and no dose-limiting toxicities in phase I trials. We report results from stage 1 of a phase II trial of zinpentraxin alfa in patients with intermediate-1/2 or high-risk MF. Patients (n=27) received intravenous zinpentraxin α weekly (QW) or every 4 weeks (Q4W), as monotherapy or an additional therapy for patients on stable-dose ruxolitinib. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; investigatorassessed) adapted from International Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment criteria. Secondary endpoints included modified Myeloproliferative Neoplasm-Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score (MPN-SAF TSS) change, bone marrow (BM) MF grade reduction, pharmacokinetics, and safety. ORR at week 24 was 33% (n=9/27) and varied across individual cohorts (QW: 38% [3/8]; Q4W: 14% [1/7]; QW+ruxolitinib: 33% [2/6]; Q4W+ruxolitinib: 50% [3/6]). Five of 18 evaluable patients (28%) experienced a ≥50% reduction in MPN-SAF TSS, and six of 17 evaluable patients (35%) had a ≥1 grade improvement from baseline in BM fibrosis at week 24. Most treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) were grade 1-2, most commonly fatigue. Among others, anemia and thrombocytopenia were infrequent (n=3 and n=1, respectively). Treatment-related serious AE occurred in four patients (15%). Overall, zinpentraxin alfa showed evidence of clinical activity and tolerable safety as monotherapy and in combination with ruxolitinib in this open-label, non-randomized trial (clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT01981850).

Primary results from TAIL: a global single-arm safety study of atezolizumab monotherapy in a diverse population of patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab treatment improves survival, with manageable safety, in patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The global phase III/IV study TAIL (NCT03285763) was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab monotherapy in a clinically diverse population of patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer, including those not eligible for pivotal trials. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer whose disease progressed after 1-2 lines of chemotherapy were eligible for this open-label, single-arm, multicenter study, including those with severe renal impairment, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, prior anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) therapy, and autoimmune disease. Atezolizumab was administered intravenously (1200 mg every 3 weeks). Coprimary endpoints were treatment-related serious adverse events and immune-related adverse events. RESULTS: 619 patients enrolled and 615 received atezolizumab. At data cutoff, the median follow-up was 12.6 months (95% CI 11.9 to 13.1). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 7.8% and immune-related adverse events in 8.3% of all patients and as follows, respectively, in these subgroups: renal impairment (n=78), 11.5% and 12.8%; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 (n=61), 14.8% and 8.2%; prior anti-PD-1 therapy (n=39), 5.1% and 7.7%; and autoimmune disease (n=30), 6.7% and 10.0%. No new safety signals were reported. In the overall population, the median overall survival was 11.1 months (95% CI 8.9 to 12.9), the median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI 2.1 to 2.8) and the objective response rate was 11%. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the benefit-risk profile of atezolizumab monotherapy in a clinically diverse population of patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer. These safety and efficacy outcomes may inform treatment decisions for patients generally excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials.

A noninterventional, multinational study to assess PD-L1 expression in cytological and histological lung cancer specimens.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of advanced lung cancer is made with minimally invasive procedures. This often results in the availability of cytological material only for subtype determination and companion diagnostic testing, with the latter being technically and clinically validated on histological material only. Thus, the primary objective of the MO29978 clinical study was to assess programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) protein expression on cytology samples as surrogates for histology samples in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded histological samples and cytological cell blocks from 190 patients were analyzed with immunohistochemical assays using the rabbit monoclonal anti-PD-L1 antibody clones SP142 and SP263. PD-L1 expression was quantified on both tumor cells (TC) and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC). Overall concordance, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, with a 1% cutoff used for both assays, were assessed for PD-L1 expression on TC and IC. RESULTS: In non-small cell lung cancer histology and cytology samples measured with the PD-L1 (SP142) antibody (n = 173), the intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.40 and 0.06 on TC and IC, respectively. With SP142 and SP263, accuracies of 74.1% for TC and 51.9% for IC and accuracies of 75.2% for TC and 61.2% for IC, respectively, were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study has demonstrated that PD-L1 analysis on TC is feasible in cytological material, but quantification is challenging. Tumor tissue should be preferred over cell block cytology for PD-L1 immunohistochemical analysis unless laboratories have validated their cytology preanalytical approaches and demonstrated the comparability of histology and cytology for TC PD-L1 results.

Obinutuzumab plus fludarabine and cyclophosphamide in previously untreated, fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a subgroup analysis of the GREEN study.

GREEN (NCT01905943) is a nonrandomized, open-label, single-arm, phase 3b study investigating the safety and efficacy of obinutuzumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We report the preplanned subgroup analysis of 140 previously untreated, fit CLL patients who received obinutuzumab plus fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (G-FC). The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Efficacy was the secondary endpoint. Obinutuzumab 1000 mg was administered intravenously on Day (D)1 (dose split D1‒2), D8 and D15 of Cycle (C)1, and D1 of C2-6 (28-day cycles). Standard intravenous/oral doses of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide were administered on D1-3 of C1-6. Overall, 87.1% of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs), including neutropenia (67.1%) and thrombocytopenia (17.1%). Serious AEs were experienced by 42.1% of patients. Rates of grade ≥ 3 infusion-related reactions and infections were 19.3% and 15.7%, respectively. Overall response rate was observed in 90.0%, with 46.4% of patients achieving complete response (CR; including CR with incomplete marrow recovery). Minimal residual disease negativity rates were 64.3% in peripheral blood and 35.7% in bone marrow (intent-to-treat analysis). After a median observation time of 25.6 months, 2 year progression-free survival was 91%. Frontline G-FC represents a promising treatment option for fit patients with CLL.

Safety and efficacy of vemurafenib in BRAF(V600E) and BRAF(V600K) mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM-3): extended follow-up of a phase 3, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: In the BRIM-3 trial, vemurafenib was associated with risk reduction versus dacarbazine of both death and progression in patients with advanced BRAF(V600) mutation-positive melanoma. We present an extended follow-up analysis of the total population and in the BRAF(V600E) and BRAF(V600K) mutation subgroups. METHODS: Patients older than 18 years, with treatment-naive metastatic melanoma and whose tumour tissue was positive for BRAF(V600) mutations were eligible. Patients also had to have a life expectancy of at least 3 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate haematological, hepatic, and renal function. Patients were randomly assigned by interactive voice recognition system to receive either vemurafenib (960 mg orally twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) of body surface area intravenously every 3 weeks). Coprimary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (n=675), with data censored at crossover. A sensitivity analysis was done. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01006980. FINDINGS: 675 eligible patients were enrolled from 104 centres in 12 countries between Jan 4, 2010, and Dec 16, 2010. 337 patients were randomly assigned to receive vemurafenib and 338 to receive dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 12·5 months (IQR 7·7-16·0) on vemurafenib and 9·5 months (3·1-14·7) on dacarbazine. 83 (25%) of the 338 patients initially randomly assigned to dacarbazine crossed over from dacarbazine to vemurafenib. Median overall survival was significantly longer in the vemurafenib group than in the dacarbazine group (13·6 months [95% CI 12·0-15·2] vs 9·7 months [7·9-12·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·57-0·87]; p=0·0008), as was median progression-free survival (6·9 months [95% CI 6·1-7·0] vs 1·6 months [1·6-2·1]; HR 0·38 [95% CI 0·32-0·46]; p<0·0001). For the 598 (91%) patients with BRAF(V600E) disease, median overall survival in the vemurafenib group was 13·3 months (95% CI 11·9-14·9) compared with 10·0 months (8·0-14·0) in the dacarbazine group (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·93]; p=0·0085); median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·2-7·0) and 1·6 months (1·6-2·1), respectively (HR 0·39 [95% CI 0·33-0·47]; p<0·0001). For the 57 (9%) patients with BRAF(V600K) disease, median overall survival in the vemurafenib group was 14·5 months (95% CI 11·2-not estimable) compared with 7·6 months (6·1-16·6) in the dacarbazine group (HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·21-0·90]; p=0·024); median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 4·4-9·0) and 1·7 months (1·4-2·9), respectively (HR 0·30 [95% CI 0·16-0·56]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3-4 events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (65 [19%] of 337 patients) and keratoacanthomas (34 [10%]), rash (30 [9%]), and abnormal liver function tests (38 [11%]) in the vemurafenib group and neutropenia (26 [9%] of 287 patients) in the dacarbazine group. Eight (2%) patients in the vemurafenib group and seven (2%) in the dacarbazine group had grade 5 events. INTERPRETATION: Inhibition of BRAF with vemurafenib improves survival in patients with the most common BRAF(V600E) mutation and in patients with the less common BRAF(V600K) mutation. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech.

Pharmacodynamic effects and mechanisms of resistance to vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma.

PURPOSE To assess pharmacodynamic effects and intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib in BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma, leading to an understanding of the mechanism of action of vemurafenib and ultimately to optimization of metastatic melanoma therapy. METHODS In the phase II clinical study NP22657 (BRIM-2), patients received oral doses of vemurafenib (960 mg twice per day). Serial biopsies were collected to study changes in mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling, cell-cycle progression, and factors causing intrinsic or acquired resistance by immunohistochemistry, DNA sequencing, or somatic mutation profiling. Results Vemurafenib inhibited MAPK signaling and cell-cycle progression. An association between the decrease in extracellular signal-related kinase (ERK) phosphorylation and objective response was observed in paired biopsies (n = 22; P = .013). Low expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog showed a modest association with lower response. Baseline mutations in MEK1(P124) coexisting with BRAF(V600) were noted in seven of 92 samples; their presence did not preclude objective tumor responses. Acquired resistance to vemurafenib associated with reactivation of MAPK signaling as observed by elevated ERK1/2 phosphorylation levels in progressive lesions and the appearance of secondary NRAS(Q61) mutations or MEK1(Q56P) or MEK1(E203K) mutations. These two activating MEK1 mutations had not previously been observed in vivo in biopsies of progressive melanoma tumors. CONCLUSION Vemurafenib inhibits tumor proliferation and oncogenic BRAF signaling through the MAPK pathway. Acquired resistance results primarily from MAPK reactivation driven by the appearance of secondary mutations in NRAS and MEK1 in subsets of patients. The data suggest that inhibition downstream of BRAF should help to overcome acquired resistance.

Analysis of dermatologic events in vemurafenib-treated patients with melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Vemurafenib has been approved for the treatment of patients with advanced BRAF(V600E)-mutant melanoma. This report by the Vemurafenib Dermatology Working Group presents the characteristics of dermatologic adverse events (AEs) that occur in vemurafenib-treated patients, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cuSCC). METHODS: Dermatologic AEs were assessed from three ongoing trials of BRAF(V600E) mutation-positive advanced melanoma. Histologic central review and genetic characterization were completed for a subset of cuSCC lesions. RESULTS: A total of 520 patients received vemurafenib. The most commonly reported AEs were dermatologic AEs, occurring in 92%-95% of patients. Rash was the most common AE (64%-75% of patients), and the most common types were rash not otherwise specified, erythema, maculopapular rash, and folliculitis. Rash development did not appear to correlate with tumor response. Photosensitivity occurred in 35%-63% of patients, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) occurred in 8%-10% of patients. The severity of rash, photosensitivity, and PPE were mainly grade 1 or 2. In all, 19%-26% of patients developed cuSCC, mostly keratoacanthomas (KAs). The majority of patients with cuSCC continued therapy without dose reduction after resection. Genetic analysis of 29 cuSCC/KA samples demonstrated HRAS mutations in 41%. CONCLUSIONS: Dermatologic AEs associated with vemurafenib treatment in patients with melanoma were generally manageable with supportive care measures. Dose interruptions and/or reductions were required in <10% of patients.

RAS mutations in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas are common findings in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors. METHODS: We performed a molecular analysis to identify oncogenic mutations (HRAS, KRAS, NRAS, CDKN2A, and TP53) in the lesions from patients treated with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib. An analysis of an independent validation set and functional studies with BRAF inhibitors in the presence of the prevalent RAS mutation was also performed. RESULTS: Among 21 tumor samples, 13 had RAS mutations (12 in HRAS). In a validation set of 14 samples, 8 had RAS mutations (4 in HRAS). Thus, 60% (21 of 35) of the specimens harbored RAS mutations, the most prevalent being HRAS Q61L. Increased proliferation of HRAS Q61L-mutant cell lines exposed to vemurafenib was associated with mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)-pathway signaling and activation of ERK-mediated transcription. In a mouse model of HRAS Q61L-mediated skin carcinogenesis, the vemurafenib analogue PLX4720 was not an initiator or a promoter of carcinogenesis but accelerated growth of the lesions harboring HRAS mutations, and this growth was blocked by concomitant treatment with a MEK inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: Mutations in RAS, particularly HRAS, are frequent in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas that develop in patients treated with vemurafenib. The molecular mechanism is consistent with the paradoxical activation of MAPK signaling and leads to accelerated growth of these lesions. (Funded by Hoffmann-La Roche and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00405587, NCT00949702, NCT01001299, and NCT01006980.).

Resistance to selective BRAF inhibition can be mediated by modest upstream pathway activation.

A high percentage of patients with BRAF(V600E) mutant melanomas respond to the selective RAF inhibitor vemurafenib (RG7204, PLX4032) but resistance eventually emerges. To better understand the mechanisms of resistance, we used chronic selection to establish BRAF(V600E) melanoma clones with acquired resistance to vemurafenib. These clones retained the V600E mutation and no second-site mutations were identified in the BRAF coding sequence. Further characterization showed that vemurafenib was not able to inhibit extracellular signal-regulated kinase phosphorylation, suggesting pathway reactivation. Importantly, resistance also correlated with increased levels of RAS-GTP, and sequencing of RAS genes revealed a rare activating mutation in KRAS, resulting in a K117N change in the KRAS protein. Elevated levels of CRAF and phosphorylated AKT were also observed. In addition, combination treatment with vemurafenib and either a MAP/ERK kinase (MEK) inhibitor or an AKT inhibitor synergistically inhibited proliferation of resistant cells. These findings suggest that resistance to BRAF(V600E) inhibition could occur through several mechanisms, including elevated RAS-GTP levels and increased levels of AKT phosphorylation. Together, our data implicate reactivation of the RAS/RAF pathway by upstream signaling activation as a key mechanism of acquired resistance to vemurafenib, in support of clinical studies in which combination therapy with other targeted agents are being strategized to combat resistance.

Prospective molecular marker analyses of EGFR and KRAS from a randomized, placebo-controlled study of erlotinib maintenance therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled Sequential Tarceva in Unresectable NSCLC (SATURN; BO18192) study found that erlotinib maintenance therapy extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had nonprogressive disease following first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. This study included prospective analysis of the prognostic and predictive value of several biomarkers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mandatory diagnostic tumor specimens were collected before initiating first-line chemotherapy and were tested for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein expression by using immunohistochemistry (IHC), EGFR gene copy number by using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and EGFR and KRAS mutations by using DNA sequencing. An EGFR CA simple sequence repeat in intron 1 (CA-SSR1) polymorphism was evaluated in blood. RESULTS: All 889 randomly assigned patients provided tumor samples. EGFR IHC, EGFR FISH, KRAS mutation, and EGFR CA-SSR1 repeat length status were not predictive for erlotinib efficacy. A profound predictive effect on PFS of erlotinib relative to placebo was observed in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (hazard ratio [HR], 0.10; P < .001). Significant PFS benefits were also observed with erlotinib in the wild-type EGFR subgroup (HR, 0.78; P = .0185). KRAS mutation status was a significant negative prognostic factor for PFS. CONCLUSION: This large prospective biomarker study found that patients with activating EGFR mutations derive the greatest PFS benefit from erlotinib maintenance therapy. No other biomarkers were predictive for outcomes with erlotinib, although the study was not powered for clinical outcomes in biomarker subgroups other than EGFR IHC-positive [corrected]. KRAS mutations were prognostic for reduced PFS. The study demonstrated the feasibility of prospective tissue collection for biomarker analyses in NSCLC.