The menin inhibitor revumenib in KMT2A-rearranged or NPM1-mutant leukaemia.

Targeting critical epigenetic regulators reverses aberrant transcription in cancer, thereby restoring normal tissue function1-3. The interaction of menin with lysine methyltransferase 2A (KMT2A), an epigenetic regulator, is a dependence in acute leukaemia caused by either rearrangement of KMT2A or mutation of the nucleophosmin 1 gene (NPM1)4-6. KMT2A rearrangements occur in up to 10% of acute leukaemias and have an adverse prognosis, whereas NPM1 mutations occur in up to 30%, forming the most common genetic alteration in acute myeloid leukaemia7,8. Here, we describe the results of the first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial investigating revumenib (SNDX-5613), a potent and selective oral inhibitor of the menin-KMT2A interaction, in patients with relapsed or refractory acute leukaemia (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04065399). We show that therapy with revumenib was associated with a low frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events and a 30% rate of complete remission or complete remission with partial haematologic recovery (CR/CRh) in the efficacy analysis population. Asymptomatic prolongation of the QT interval on electrocardiography was identified as the only dose-limiting toxicity. Remissions occurred in leukaemias refractory to multiple previous lines of therapy. We demonstrate clearance of residual disease using sensitive clinical assays and identify hallmarks of differentiation into normal haematopoietic cells, including differentiation syndrome. These data establish menin inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for susceptible acute leukaemia subtypes.

Axatilimab for Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease After Failure of at Least Two Prior Systemic Therapies: Results of a Phase I/II Study.

PURPOSE: Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) remains the major cause of late morbidity after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF-1R)-dependent macrophages promote cGVHD fibrosis, and their elimination in preclinical studies ameliorated cGVHD. Axatilimab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits CSF-1R signaling and restrains macrophage development. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase I (phI)/phase II (phII) open-label study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03604692) evaluated safety, tolerability, and efficacy of axatilimab in patients age ≥ 6 years with active cGVHD after ≥ 2 prior systemic therapy lines. Primary objectives in phI were to identify the optimal biologic and recommended phII dose and in phII to evaluate the overall (complete and partial) response rate (ORR) at the start of treatment cycle 7. RESULTS: Forty enrolled patients (17 phI; 23 phII) received at least one axatilimab dose. In phI, a dose of 3 mg/kg given once every 4 weeks met the optimal biologic dose definition. Two dose-limiting toxicities occurred at the 3 mg/kg dose given once every 2 weeks. At least one treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) was observed in 30 patients with grade ≥ 3 TRAEs in eight patients, the majority known on-target effects of CSF-1R inhibition. No cytomegalovirus reactivations occurred. With the 50% ORR at cycle 7 day 1, the phII cohort met the primary efficacy end point. Furthermore, the ORR in the first six cycles, an end point supporting regulatory approvals, was 82%. Responses were seen in all affected organs regardless of prior therapy. Fifty-eight percent of patients reported significant improvement in cGVHD-related symptoms using the Lee Symptom Scale. On-target activity of axatilimab was suggested by the decrease in skin CSF-1R-expressing macrophages. CONCLUSION: Targeting profibrotic macrophages with axatilimab is a therapeutically promising novel strategy with a favorable safety profile for refractory cGVHD.

Entinostat plus Pembrolizumab in Patients with Metastatic NSCLC Previously Treated with Anti-PD-(L)1 Therapy.

PURPOSE: New therapies are needed to treat immune checkpoint inhibitor-resistant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and identify biomarkers to personalize treatment. Epigenetic therapies, including histone deacetylase inhibitors, may synergize with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) blockade to overcome resistance. We report outcomes in patients with anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 [PD-(L)1]-resistant/refractory NSCLC treated with pembrolizumab plus entinostat in ENCORE 601. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The expansion cohort of ENCORE 601 included patients with NSCLC who previously experienced disease progression with immune checkpoint inhibitors. The primary endpoint for the phase II expansion cohort is overall response rate (ORR); safety, tolerability, and exploratory endpoints are described. RESULTS: Of 76 treated patients, 71 were evaluable for efficacy. immune-regulated RECIST-assessed ORR was 9.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.8-18.1], which did not meet the prespecified threshold for positivity. Median duration of response was 10.1 months (95% CI: 3.9-not estimable), progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months was 22%, median PFS was 2.8 months (95% CI: 1.5-4.1), and median overall survival was 11.7 months (95% CI: 7.6-13.4). Benefit was enriched among patients with high levels of circulating classical monocytes at baseline. Baseline tumor PD-L1 expression and IFNγ gene expression were not associated with benefit. Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 41% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In anti-PD-(L)1-experienced patients with NSCLC, entinostat plus pembrolizumab did not achieve the primary response rate endpoint but provided a clinically meaningful benefit, with objective response in 9% of patients. No new toxicities, including immune-related adverse events, were seen for either drug. Future studies will continue to evaluate the association of monocyte levels and response.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of epigenetic modifiers for children: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

The fifth multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forum focussed on epigenetic modifier therapies for children and adolescents with cancer. As most mutations in paediatric malignancies influence chromatin-associated proteins or transcription and paediatric cancers are driven by developmental gene expression programs, targeting epigenetic mechanisms is predicted to be a very important therapeutic approach in paediatric cancer. The Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act FDARA amendments to section 505B of the FD&C Act was implemented in August 2020, and as there are many epigenetic targets on the FDA Paediatric Molecular Targets List, clinical evaluation of epigenetic modifiers in paediatric cancers should be considered early in drug development. Companies are also required to submit to the EMA paediatric investigation plans aiming to ensure that the necessary data to support the authorisation of a medicine for children in EU are of high quality and ethically researched. The specific aims of the forum were i) to identify epigenetic targets or mechanisms of action associated with epigenetic modification relevant to paediatric cancers and ii) to define the landscape for paediatric drug development of epigenetic modifier therapies. DNA methyltransferase inhibitors/hypomethylating agents and histone deacetylase inhibitors were largely excluded from discussion as the aim was to discuss those targets for which therapeutic agents are currently in early paediatric and adult development. Epigenetics is an evolving field and could be highly relevant to many paediatric cancers; the biology is multifaceted and new targets are frequently emerging. Targeting epigenetic mechanisms in paediatric malignancy has in most circumstances yet to reach or extend beyond clinical proof of concept, as many targets do not yet have available investigational drugs developed. Eight classes of medicinal products were discussed and prioritised based on the existing level of science to support early evaluation in children: inhibitors of menin, DOT1L, EZH2, EED, BET, PRMT5 and LSD1 and a retinoic acid receptor alpha agonist. Menin inhibitors should be moved rapidly into paediatric development, in view of their biological rationale, strong preclinical activity and ability to fulfil an unmet clinical need. A combination approach is critical for successful utilisation of any epigenetic modifiers (e.g. EZH2 and EED) and exploration of the optimum combination(s) should be supported by preclinical research and, where possible, molecular biomarker validation in advance of clinical translation. A follow-up multistakeholder meeting focussing on BET inhibitors will be held to define how to prioritise the multiple compounds in clinical development that could be evaluated in children with cancer. As epigenetic modifiers are relatively early in development in paediatrics, there is a clear opportunity to shape the landscape of therapies targeting the epigenome in order that efficient and optimum plans for their evaluation in children and adolescents are developed in a timely manner.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus prednisone alone in chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: patient-reported outcome results of a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone significantly improves radiographic progression-free survival in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer compared with prednisone alone. We describe analyses of data for patient-reported pain and functional status in a preplanned interim analysis of a phase 3 trial. METHODS: Between April 28, 2009, and June 23, 2010, patients with progressive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were enrolled into a multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were eligible if they were asymptomatic (score of 0 or 1 on item three of the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form [BPI-SF] questionnaire) or mildly symptomatic (score of 2 or 3) and had not previously received chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral abiraterone (1 g daily) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone in continuous 4-week cycles. Pain was assessed with the BPI-SF questionnaire, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire. We analysed data with prespecified criteria for clinically meaningful pain progression and deterioration in HRQoL. All patients who underwent randomisation were included in analyses. FINDINGS: 1088 patients underwent randomisation: 546 were assigned to abiraterone plus prednisone and 542 to placebo plus prednisone. At the time of the second prespecified interim analysis, median follow-up was 22·2 months (IQR 20·2-24·8). Median time to progression of mean pain intensity was longer in patients assigned to abiraterone plus prednisone (26·7 months [95% CI 19·3-not estimable]) than in those assigned to placebo plus prednisone (18·4 months [14·9-not estimable]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·67-1·00; p=0·0490), as was median time to progression of pain interference with daily activities (10·3 months [95% CI 9·3-13·0] vs 7·4 months [6·4-8·6]; HR 0·79, 95% CI 0·67-0·93; p=0·005). Median time to progression of worst pain was also longer with abiraterone plus prednisone (26·7 months [95% CI 19·4-not estimable]) than with placebo plus prednisone (19·4 months [16·6-not estimable]), but the difference was not significant (HR 0·85, 95% CI 0·69-1·04; p=0·109). Median time to HRQoL deterioration was longer in patients assigned to abiraterone plus prednisone than in those assigned to placebo plus prednisone as assessed by the FACT-P total score (12·7 months [95% CI 11·1-14·0] vs 8·3 months [7·4-10·6]; HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·66-0·92; p=0·003) and by the score on its prostate-cancer-specific subscale (11·1 months [8·6-13·8] vs 5·8 months [5·5-8·3]; HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·60-0·83; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Abiraterone plus prednisone delays patient-reported pain progression and HRQoL deterioration in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. These results provide further support for the efficacy of abiraterone in this population.

A phase I multicenter study of continuous oral administration of lonafarnib (SCH 66336) and intravenous gemcitabine in patients with advanced cancer.

We conducted a phase I study to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and activity of lonafarnib plus gemcitabine. Subjects received oral lonafarnib twice daily and gemcitabine on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days; multiple dose levels were explored. Lonafarnib had no apparent effect on gemcitabine PK. Mean lonafarnib half-life ranged from 4 to 7 hr; median T(max) values ranged from 4 to 8 hr. Two patients had partial response; seven patients had stable disease at least 6 months. Oral lonafarnib at 150 mg a.m./100 mg p.m. plus gemcitabine at 1,000 mg/m(2) is the maximum tolerated dose with acceptable safety and tolerability.

Phase I study of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib with paclitaxel in solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To establish the maximum tolerated dose of lonafarnib, a novel farnesyltransferase inhibitor, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with solid tumors and to characterize the safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxicity, and pharmacokinetics of this combination regimen. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In a Phase I trial, lonafarnib was administered p.o., twice daily (b.i.d.) on continuously scheduled doses of 100 mg, 125 mg, and 150 mg in combination with i.v. paclitaxel at doses of 135 mg/m(2) or 175 mg/m(2) administered over 3 h on day 8 of every 21-day cycle. Plasma paclitaxel and lonafarnib concentrations were collected at selected time points from each patient. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were enrolled; 21 patients were evaluable. The principal grade 3/4 toxicity was diarrhea (5 of 21 patients), which was most likely due to lonafarnib. dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 hyperbilirubinemia at dose level 3 (100 mg b.i.d. lonafarnib and 175 mg/m(2) paclitaxel); grade 4 diarrhea and grade 3 peripheral neuropathy at dose level 3A (125 mg b.i.d. lonafarnib and 175 mg/m(2) paclitaxel); and grade 4 neutropenia with fever and grade 4 diarrhea at level 4 (150 mg b.i.d. lonafarnib and 175 mg/m(2) paclitaxel). The maximum tolerated dose established by the continual reassessment method was lonafarnib 100 mg b.i.d. and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2). Paclitaxel appeared to have no effect on the pharmacokinetics of lonafarnib. The median duration of therapy was eight cycles, including seven cycles with paclitaxel. Six of 15 previously treated patients had a durable partial response, including 3 patients who had previous taxane therapy. Notably, two of five patients with taxane-resistant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer had partial responses. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with paclitaxel, the recommended dose of lonafarnib for Phase II trials is 100 mg p.o. twice daily with 175 mg/m(2) of paclitaxel i.v. every 3 weeks. Additional studies of lonafarnib in combination regimens appear warranted, particularly in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.