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.

Discrepancies between tumor genomic profiling and germline genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) often incidentally identifies germline pathogenic variants (PVs) associated with cancer predisposition syndromes. Methods used by somatic testing laboratories, including germline analysis, differ from designated germline laboratories that have optimized the identification of germline PVs. This study evaluated discrepancies between somatic and germline testing results, and their impact on patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chart reviews were carried out at a single institution for patients who had both somatic and designated germline genetic testing. Cases with discrepant results in which germline PVs were not detected by the somatic laboratory or in which variant classification differed are summarized. RESULTS: TGP was carried out on 2811 cancer patients, 600 of whom also underwent designated germline genetic testing. Germline PVs were identified for 109 individuals. Discrepancies between germline genetic testing and tumor profiling reports were identified in 20 cases, including 14 PVs identified by designated germline genetic testing laboratories that were not reported by somatic testing laboratories and six variants with discrepant classifications between the designated germline and somatic testing laboratories. Three PVs identified by designated germline laboratories are targets for poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and resulted in different treatment options. Of the PVs identified by designated germline laboratories, 60% (n = 12) were in genes with established associations to the patients' cancer, and 40% of the PVs were incidental. The majority (90%) of all discrepant findings, both contributory and incidental, changed management recommendations for these patients, highlighting the importance of comprehensive germline assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Methods used by somatic laboratories, regardless of the inclusion of germline analysis, differ from those of designated germline laboratories for identifying germline PVs. Unrecognized germline PVs may harm patients by missing hereditary syndromes and targeted therapy opportunities (e.g. anti-programmed cell death protein 1 immunotherapy, PARP inhibitors). Clinicians should refer patients who meet the criteria for genetic evaluation regardless of somatic testing outcomes.

A phase I/II study of decitabine in combination with panitumumab in patients with wild-type (wt) KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: KRAS mutations are predictive of lack of response to monoclonal antibodies (mAb) against EGFR in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Most wild-type KRAS patients, however, are also resistant. Retrospective data suggest that EGFR silencing play a role in resistance to therapy. We conducted a study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of decitabine (a hypomethylating agent) in combination with panitumumab (mAb against EGFR) in mCRC patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: 20 patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC were included in this phase I/II study. Patients were treated with decitabine at 45 mg/m(2) IV over 2 h on day 1 and 15 and panitumumab 6 mg/kg IV over 1 h on day 8 and 22 every 28 days. Blood samples were collected at baseline, day 8, 15 and 22. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to measure promoter-specific methylation in peripheral-blood cells (PBMCs). RESULTS: The most common adverse events were grade 1-2 (rash and hypomagnesemia); 3 (16 %) patients had grade III-IV neutropenia including one patient with neutropenic fever. Two of 20 patients (10 %) had a partial response. Both had previously received cetuximab. Ten patients had stable disease (3 of them longer than 16 weeks). Decreased methylation of the MAGE promoter was not evidenced in PBMCs. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of decitabine and panitumumab was well tolerated and showed activity in wild-type KRAS mCRC patients previously treated with cetuximab. Target modulation in surrogate tissues was not achieved and tumor biopsies were not available. Future studies evaluating hypomethylating agents in combination with EGFR mAb in patients with mCRC are warranted.

Integrated preclinical and clinical development of mTOR inhibitors in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this work was to determine the efficacy of inhibiting mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) in pancreatic cancer preclinical models and translate preclinical observations to the clinic. METHODS: Temsirolimus (20 mg Kg(-1) daily) was administered to freshly generated pancreatic cancer xenografts. Tumour growth inhibition was determined after 28 days. Xenografts were characterised at baseline by gene expression and comparative genomic hybridisation. Patients with advanced, gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic cancer were treated with sirolimus (5 mg daily). The primary end point was 6-month survival rate (6mSR). Correlative studies included immunohistochemistry assessment of pathway expression in baseline tumours, drug pharmacokinetics (PKs), response assessment by FDG-PET and pharmacodynamic effects in peripheral-blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). RESULTS: In all, 4 of 17 xenografts (23%) responded to treatment. Sensitive tumours were characterised by gene copy number variations and overexpression of genes leading to activation of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway. Activation of p70S6K correlated with drug activity in the preclinical studies. Sirolimus was well tolerated in the clinic, showed predictable PKs, exerted pathway inhibition in post-treatment PBMCs and resulted in a 6mSR of 26%. No correlation, however, was found between activated p70S6K in tumour tissues and anti-tumour effects. CONCLUSION: Sirolimus activity in pancreatic cancer was marginal and not predicted by the selected biomarker.

Acute ischaemic cerebrovascular attack secondary to infusional 5-fluoruracil and cisplatin in a patient with advanced gastric cancer.

Acute ischaemic cerebrovascular attack may be an underreported complication related to chemotherapy. We report here the case of a patient with acute ischaemic cerebrovascular attack, immediately after administration of a first cycle of chemotherapy based on 5-fluoruracil and cisplatin.

Acute ischaemic cerebrovascular attack secondary to infusional 5-fluoruracil and cisplatin in a patient with advanced gastric cancer

Acute ischaemic cerebrovascular attack may be an underreported complication related to chemotherapy. We report here the case of a patient with acute ischaemic cerebrovascular attack, immediately after administration of a first cycle of chemotherapy based on 5-fluoruracil and cisplatin (AU)

No disponible