Preclinical Evaluation of MEDI0641, a Pyrrolobenzodiazepine-Conjugated Antibody-Drug Conjugate Targeting 5T4.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) are used to selectively deliver cytotoxic agents to tumors and have the potential for increased clinical benefit to cancer patients. 5T4 is an oncofetal antigen overexpressed on the cell surface in many carcinomas on both bulk tumor cells as well as cancer stem cells (CSC), has very limited normal tissue expression, and can internalize when bound by an antibody. An anti-5T4 antibody was identified and optimized for efficient binding and internalization in a target-specific manner, and engineered cysteines were incorporated into the molecule for site-specific conjugation. ADCs targeting 5T4 were constructed by site-specifically conjugating the antibody with payloads that possess different mechanisms of action, either a DNA cross-linking pyrrolobenzodiazepine (PBD) dimer or a microtubule-destabilizing tubulysin, so that each ADC had a drug:antibody ratio of 2. The resulting ADCs demonstrated significant target-dependent activity in vitro and in vivo; however, the ADC conjugated with a PBD payload (5T4-PBD) elicited more durable antitumor responses in vivo than the tubulysin conjugate in xenograft models. Likewise, the 5T4-PBD more potently inhibited the growth of 5T4-positive CSCs in vivo, which likely contributed to its superior antitumor activity. Given that the 5T4-PBD possessed both potent antitumor activity as well as anti-CSC activity, and thus could potentially target bulk tumor cells and CSCs in target-positive indications, it was further evaluated in non-GLP rat toxicology studies that demonstrated excellent in vivo stability with an acceptable safety profile. Taken together, these preclinical data support further development of 5T4-PBD, also known as MEDI0641, against 5T4+ cancer indications. Mol Cancer Ther; 16(8); 1576-87. ©2017 AACR.

The root causes of pharmacodynamic assay failure.

Robust pharmacodynamic assay results are valuable for informing go/no-go decisions about continued development of new anti-cancer agents and for identifying combinations of targeted agents, but often pharmacodynamic results are too incomplete or variable to fulfill this role. Our experience suggests that variable reagent and specimen quality are two major contributors to this problem. Minimizing all potential sources of variability in procedures for specimen collection, processing, and assay measurements is essential for meaningful comparison of pharmacodynamic biomarkers across sample time points. This is especially true in the evaluation of pre- and post-dose tumor biopsies, which suffer from high levels of tumor insufficiency due to variations in biopsy collection techniques and significant specimen heterogeneity within and across patients. Developing methods to assess heterogeneous biopsies is necessary in order to evaluate a majority of tumor biopsies collected for pharmacodynamic biomarker studies. Improved collection devices and standardization of methods are being sought in order to improve the tumor content and quality of tumor biopsies. In terms of reagent variability, we have found that stringent initial reagent qualification and quality control of R&D-grade reagents is critical to minimize lot-to-lot variability and prevent assay failures, especially for clinical pharmacodynamic questions, which often demand assay performance that meets or exceeds clinical diagnostic assay standards. Rigorous reagent specifications and use of appropriate assay quality control methodologies help to ensure consistency between assay runs, laboratories and trials to provide much needed pharmacodynamic insights into the activity of investigational agents.

Phase I Safety, Pharmacokinetic, and Pharmacodynamic Study of the Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase (PARP) Inhibitor Veliparib (ABT-888) in Combination with Irinotecan in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: PARP is essential for recognition and repair of DNA damage. In preclinical models, PARP inhibitors modulate topoisomerase I inhibitor-mediated DNA damage. This phase I study determined the MTD, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of veliparib, an orally bioavailable PARP1/2 inhibitor, in combination with irinotecan. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced solid tumors were treated with 100 mg/m(2) irinotecan on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Twice-daily oral dosing of veliparib (10-50 mg) occurred on days 3 to 14 (cycle 1) and days -1 to 14 (subsequent cycles) followed by a 6-day rest. PK studies were conducted with both agents alone and in combination. Paired tumor biopsies were obtained after irinotecan alone and veliparib/irinotecan to evaluate PARP1/2 inhibition and explore DNA damage signals (nuclear γ-H2AX and pNBS1). RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were treated. DLTs included fatigue, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and neutropenia. The MTD was 100 mg/m(2) irinotecan (days 1 and 8) combined with veliparib 40 mg twice daily (days -1-14) on a 21-day cycle. Of 31 response-evaluable patients, there were six (19%) partial responses. Veliparib exhibited linear PK, and there were no apparent PK interactions between veliparib and irinotecan. At all dose levels, veliparib reduced tumor poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) content in the presence of irinotecan. Several samples showed increases in γ-H2AX and pNBS1 after veliparib/irinotecan compared with irinotecan alone. CONCLUSIONS: Veliparib can be safely combined with irinotecan at doses that inhibit PARP catalytic activity. Preliminary antitumor activity justifies further evaluation of the combination. Clin Cancer Res; 22(13); 3227-37. ©2016 AACR.