Selinexor in combination with topotecan in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors: Results of an open-label, single-center, multi-arm phase Ib study.

Background Selinexor, a first-in-class, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound inhibits Exportin-1(XPO1), had demonstrated synergistic activity with many chemotherapies and conferred in vivo antitumor efficacy in hematologic as well as solid tumors. Methods This open-label, single-center, multi-arm phase 1b study used a standard 3 + 3 design and a "basket type" expansion. Selinexor with intravenous topotecan was given in one of the 13 parallel arms. Patients with advanced or metastatic relapsed/refractory solid tumors following prior systemic therapy, or in whom the addition of selinexor to standard chemotherapy deemed appropriate, were eligible. Results Fourteen patients with the median age of 61 years (range, 22-68years) were treated, and the most common cancer types were gynecological cancers; ovarian (n = 5), endometrial (n = 2), and 1 each with fallopian tube and vaginal cancers. Of the 14 patients treated, 12 (86 %) had at least one treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). The most common TRAEs were anemia (71 %), thrombocytopenia (57 %), hyponatremia (57 %), vomiting (57 %), fatigue (50 %), nausea (50 %), and neutropenia (36 %). Two patients had dose limiting toxicities. One patient dosed at selinexor 80 mg had grade 3 nausea and vomiting and one patient dosed at selinexor 60 mg experienced grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Of the 13 efficacy evaluable patients, one (8 %) with endometrial cancer achieved unconfirmed partial response (uPR) and the time-to-treatment failure (TTF) was 48 weeks, whereas 6 of the 13 (46 %) patients had stable disease (SD) contributing to the clinical benefit rate of 46 %. The median TTF for all patients was 9 weeks (range, 2-48weeks). Conclusions Once weekly selinexor in combination with topotecan was viable and showed some preliminary tumor efficacy. The recommend phase 2 dose of selinexor was 60 mg once weekly in combination with IV topotecan.Trial registration: NCT02419495. Registered 14 April 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02419495.

Phase I study of nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancers.

BACKGROUND: We performed a phase I modified 3 + 3 dose escalation study to evaluate the safety and activity of bevacizumab plus gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients were given fixed dose gemcitabine plus increasing doses of nab-paclitaxel and bevacizumab. Toxicity, response, and association with VEGF polymorphism was analysed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 110 patients who had undergone a median of 3 prior lines of therapy. The median age was 60 years (range, 17-85 years), and 55 patients (50%) had gemcitabine-refractory disease. We observed 3 dose-limiting toxicities during dose escalation and 3 DLTs in expansion cohorts. Dose escalation to 150 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel and 15 mg/kg bevacizumab with 1000 mg/m2 of gemcitabine was well tolerated with no MTD. One patient with gemcitabine-refractory peritoneal papillary carcinoma had a complete response, 13 patients (13%) had partial responses, and 54 patients (52%) had stable disease ≥12 weeks. Exploratory VEGF single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis was performed on 13 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and bevacizumab is safe, well-tolerated, and has activity in advanced malignancies, including gemcitabine-refractory tumours. Based on this study, the recommended phase 2 dose is gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg. VEGF polymorphism data should be evaluated in future bevacizumab-based trials.

Phase I study of the combination of crizotinib (as a MET inhibitor) and dasatinib (as a c-SRC inhibitor) in patients with advanced cancer.

Background Both MET and c-SRC are important mediators of cancer progression and there is cross talk between the two molecules. Preclinical studies have demonstrated combination of MET and c-SRC inhibitors is effective in multiple cancer types. Methods We analyzed the safety and efficacy of administering a c-SRC inhibitor (dasatinib) in combination with a MET inhibitor (crizotinib) in a two-arm concurrent phase I study. Arm A consisted of crizotinib fixed at 250 mg twice per day with escalation of dasatinib. Arm B consisted of dasatinib fixed at 140 mg daily with escalation of crizotinib. Endpoints included dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and response (RECIST 1.1). Results We enrolled 61 patients (arm A: 31, arm B: 30). The most common cancers were sarcoma (21%) and prostate cancer (16%). In Arm A, at dose level 2 (DL2), 40% (2/5) experienced DLTs. In the expanded DL1, 21% (4/19) experienced DLTs (all grade 3). In Arm B, at DL2, 50% (2/4) experienced DLTs. In the expanded DL1, 22% (4/18) experienced DLTs (all grade 3). RP2D was determined to be arm A, DL1 (250 mg crizotinib orally twice per day plus 50 mg dasatinib orally daily). Partial response (N = 1) and stable disease for ≥6 months (N = 3) were seen. Conclusions The combination of crizotinib and dasatinib is safe to administer but tolerability is limited given the high rate of adverse events. Responses and durable stable disease were limited. Further precision therapy approach using this specific combination may be difficult given the toxicity.

Phase I clinical trial of combination imatinib and ipilimumab in patients with advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Imatinib mesylate can induce rapid tumor regression, increase tumor antigen presentation, and inhibit tumor immunosuppressive mechanisms. CTLA-4 blockade and imatinib synergize in mouse models to reduce tumor volume via intratumoral accumulation of CD8+ T cells. We hypothesized that imatinib combined with ipilimumab would be tolerable and may synergize in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Primary objective of the dose-escalation study (3 + 3 design) was to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose. Secondary objectives included evaluation of antitumor activity of the combination based on KIT mutation status and the capacity of tumor-associated immune biomarkers to predict response. RESULTS: The primary objective to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was achieved, and the recommended phase II doses are ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks and imatinib 400 mg twice daily. Of the 35 patients treated in the escalation and GIST expansion, none experienced dose-limiting toxicities. The most common grade 1/2-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (66%), nausea (57%), anorexia, vomiting (each 31%), edema (29%), and anemia, diarrhea, and rash (each 23%). Grade 3 AEs occurred in 6 patients (17%) and included fatigue, anemia, fever, rash, and vomiting. There were no grade 4 AEs. In general, the combination was well tolerated. Among all patients, 2 responses were seen: 1 partial response (GIST) and 1 partial response (melanoma). Stable disease was seen in 6 patients lasting an average of 6 months. The melanoma responder was KIT mutated and the GIST responder was wild-type. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that this combination of a targeted agent with checkpoint blockade is safe across multiple tumor types. Low activity with no clear signal for synergy was observed in escalation or GIST expansion cohorts. Assessment of antitumor activity of this combination in the KIT-mutant melanoma population is being evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01738139, registered 28 November 2012.

Incidence of infusion reactions to anti-neoplastic agents in early phase clinical trials: The MD Anderson Cancer Center experience.

Infusion reactions (IRs) to anti-neoplastic agents require prompt recognition and immediate treatment to avert significant complications. We conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of consecutive patients who received anti-neoplastic therapy in the outpatient treatment center of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics from January 1, 2013 to November 30, 2013. Of the 597 patients who received treatment, 9 (1.5 %) had IRs (all ≤ grade 2). The most common IRs observed on first occurrence were chills (n = 5), itching, rash, and facial flushing (n = 3 each). There were no IR-related deaths. All the IRs were reversible with appropriate symptomatic treatment and the therapy was completed after temporary cessation of infusion in 7 of the 9 patients. The infusion was stopped in 2 patients due to symptoms suggestive of IgE-mediated allergic reaction and cytokine storm. Five of the 8 patients who were re-challenged with the same therapy developed a similar reaction. However, the infusion was completed in 4 of the 5 patients after administration of intravenous diphenhydramine and/or hydrocortisone, or slowing the rate of infusion. And, subsequent cycles with the same agents were uneventful. IRs to anti-neoplastic agents are rare. Though the clinical presentations are overlapping, most IRs are not IgE-mediated allergic reactions. Appropriate premedication and slow rate of infusion facilitates uneventful administration of the anti-neoplastic agents in subsequent cycles. Further study in a larger cohort of patients to identify biomarkers of hypersensitivity is warranted.