Safety and efficacy of pralsetinib in RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer including as first-line therapy: update from the ARROW trial.

BACKGROUND: RET fusions are present in 1%-2% of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, central nervous system-penetrant, selective RET inhibitor, previously demonstrated clinical activity in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC in the phase I/II ARROW study, including among treatment-naive patients. We report an updated analysis from the ARROW study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARROW is a multi-cohort, open-label, phase I/II study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 (later 0-1). Patients initiated pralsetinib at the recommended phase II dose of 400 mg once daily until disease progression, intolerance, consent withdrawal, or investigator's decision. The co-primary endpoints (phase II) were overall response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review and safety. RESULTS: Between 17 March 2017 and 6 November 2020 (data cut-off), 281 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC were enrolled. The ORR was 72% [54/75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 60% to 82%] for treatment-naive patients and 59% (80/136; 95% CI 50% to 67%) for patients with prior platinum-based chemotherapy (enrolment cut-off for efficacy analysis: 22 May 2020); median duration of response was not reached for treatment-naive patients and 22.3 months for prior platinum-based chemotherapy patients. Tumour shrinkage was observed in all treatment-naive patients and in 97% of patients with prior platinum-based chemotherapy; median progression-free survival was 13.0 and 16.5 months, respectively. In patients with measurable intracranial metastases, the intracranial response rate was 70% (7/10; 95% CI 35% to 93%); all had received prior systemic treatment. In treatment-naive patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who initiated pralsetinib by the data cut-off (n = 116), the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were neutropenia (18%), hypertension (10%), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (9%), and lymphopenia (9%). Overall, 7% (20/281) discontinued due to TRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Pralsetinib treatment produced robust efficacy and was generally well tolerated in treatment-naive patients with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC. Results from the confirmatory phase III AcceleRET Lung study (NCT04222972) of pralsetinib versus standard of care in the first-line setting are pending.

Bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma: updated time-to-event analyses of the multicenter phase 2 PINNACLE study.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported results of the phase 2, multicenter PINNACLE study, which confirmed the substantial single-agent activity of bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report updated time-to-event data, in all patients and by response to treatment, after extended follow-up (median 26.4 months). RESULTS: Median time to progression (TTP) was 6.7 months. Median time to next therapy (TTNT) was 7.4 months. Median overall survival (OS) was 23.5 months. In responding patients, median TTP was 12.4 months, median duration of response (DOR) was 9.2 months, median TTNT was 14.3 months, and median OS was 35.4 months. Patients achieving complete response had heterogeneous disease characteristics; among these patients, median TTP and DOR were not reached, and median OS was 36.0 months. One-year survival rate was 69% overall and 91% in responding patients. Median OS from diagnosis was 61.1 months, after median follow-up of 63.7 months. Activity was seen in patients with refractory disease and patients relapsing following high-intensity treatment. Toxicity was generally manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent bortezomib is associated with lengthy responses and notable survival in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, with considerable TTP and TTNT in responding patients, suggesting substantial clinical benefit.

Efficacy and safety of bortezomib in patients with renal impairment: results from the APEX phase 3 study.

Renal impairment is associated with poor prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM). This subgroup analysis of the phase 3 Assessment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remissions (APEX) study of bortezomib vs high-dose dexamethasone assessed efficacy and safety in patients with relapsed MM with varying degrees of renal impairment (creatinine clearance (CrCl) <30, 30-50, 51-80 and >80 ml min(-1)). Time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and safety were compared between subgroups with CrCl < or =50 ml min(-1) (severe-to-moderate) and >50 ml min(-1) (no/mild impairment). Response rates with bortezomib were similar (36-47%) and time to response rapid (0.7-1.6 months) across subgroups. Although the trend was toward shorter TTP/OS in bortezomib patients with severe-to-moderate vs no/mild impairment, differences were not significant. OS was significantly shorter in dexamethasone patients with CrCl < or =50 vs >50 ml min(-1) (P=0.003), indicating that bortezomib is more effective than dexamethasone in overcoming the detrimental effect of renal impairment. Safety profile of bortezomib was comparable between subgroups. With dexamethasone, grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and discontinuations for AEs were significantly elevated in patients with CrCl < or =50 vs >50 ml min(-1). These results indicate that bortezomib is active and well tolerated in patients with relapsed MM with varying degrees of renal insufficiency. Efficacy/safety were not substantially affected by severe-to-moderate vs no/mild impairment.

Translational research: walking the bridge between idea and cure--seventeenth Bruce F. Cain Memorial Award lecture.

Advances in the understanding of normal and malignant cell biology are allowing the development of biologically targeted drugs directed at specific differences between host and tumor. The array of potential new targets is vast, but drugs currently in development are targeted at cell-cycle regulators, growth factors and their receptors, signal transduction intermediates, angiogenesis, and the mechanisms that mediate apoptosis and DNA repair. Recent results raise the possibility that novel biologically targeted agents, perhaps in combination with traditional cytotoxic agents, may finally cure cancer. However, the development of a biologically targeted drug raises unique challenges in the design of clinical trials to demonstrate its efficacy, and despite the promising preclinical data that exist for most of the agents in development, the clinical trial remains the critical, final step across the bridge from basic research to clinical application. In this review, we discuss some of the challenges in the clinical development of biologically targeted agents and the implications for clinical trial design.

Clinical evaluation of biologically targeted drugs: obstacles and opportunities.

Recent insights into the molecular mechanisms of cancer have indicated that a variety of fundamental cellular processes are dysregulated in malignant cells. These processes include cell cycle control, signal transduction pathways, apoptosis, telomere stability, angiogenesis, and interactions with the extracellular matrix. Remarkable advances in molecular genetics, enzymology, and medicinal chemistry have permitted the design of compounds that modulate some of these processes with specificity that was unimaginable a decade ago. As these novel, biologically targeted compounds enter the clinic, they will require a strategy for clinical evaluation and development different from that used commonly for cytotoxic antineoplastic agents. This review examines the development of cancer drugs directed against angiogenesis, metastasis, signal transduction, telomerase, and molecular message (antisense), outlines strategies for the clinical testing of agents directed at these processes, and contrasts these efforts with traditional approaches to cancer drug testing.

Relative importance of elements within the SL3-3 virus enhancer for T-cell specificity.

Elements within the enhancer of T-lymphomagenic SL3-3 virus were examined for their contributions to transcriptional activity in T lymphocytes and non-T cells. A region containing two sequences homologous to the enhancer core consensus sequence and a sequence homologous to the binding site for factor LVb was found to have the largest effect on activity. Evidence was obtained that suggests that the activity of this region was greater in T lymphocytes than in non-T cells and that multiple elements within it were necessary for activity. A second region, containing sequences homologous to the binding site of factor NF-I and the glucocorticoid response element, had about a twofold effect on transcription in both T lymphocytes and non-T cell lines. The twofold effect was seen whether the region containing the cores and LVb site was present or not. These results indicate that the most important region for the specificity of SL3-3 enhancer activity and, presumably, for viral leukemogenicity comprises the core elements and the LVb site. DNA-protein-binding studies demonstrated that one cellular factor, S/A-CBF, bound to both core elements, while a second cellular factor, S-CBF, bound to only one of them. In combination with earlier studies, this indicates that cells contain multiple factors that bind to the critical region.

Identification of the SL3-3 virus enhancer core as a T-lymphoma cell-specific element.

Transient expression assays were used to determine the sequences within the long terminal repeat (LTR) that define the high activity in T-lymphoma cells of the leukemogenic SL3-3 virus in comparison with that of the nonleukemogenic Akv virus. Each of these viruses contains sequences related to the consensus element, the enhancer core. The SL3-3 and Akv enhancer cores differ at a single base pair. Substitution of the Akv core element into the SL3-3 LTR decreased expression in T-lymphoma cells but not in other cell types. Likewise, substitution of the SL3-3 core sequence into the Akv LTR increased expression in T-lymphoma cells but not in other types of hematopoietic cells. These data indicate that the SL3-3 enhancer core sequence functions better than that of Akv in T-lymphoma cells, but in other hematopoietic cell types the two are approximately equivalent. Competition DNA-protein binding assays were used to assess what nuclear factors from T-lymphoma lines and non-T lines bound to the SL3-3 and Akv core elements. Factors were detected that bound specifically to either the SL3-3 or Akv core but not to the other. Another factor was detected that bound equally well to both. However, none of these factors was specific to T-lymphoma cells.