A three-arm randomised phase II study of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib alone or in combination with paclitaxel in metastatic uveal melanoma.

AIMS: The MAPK pathway is constitutively activated in uveal melanoma (UM). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886), a MEK inhibitor, has shown limited activity as monotherapy in metastatic UM. Pre-clinical studies support synergistic cytotoxic activity for MEK inhibitors combined with taxanes, and here we sought to assess the clinical efficacy of combining selumetinib and paclitaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with metastatic UM who had not received prior chemotherapy were randomised to selumetinib alone, or combined with paclitaxel with or without interruption in selumetinib two days before paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). After amendment, the combination arms were combined for analysis and the sample size adjusted to detect a hazard ratio (HR): 0.55, 80% power at 1-sided 5% significance level. RESULTS: The median PFS in the combination arms was 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.8 - 5.6) compared with 3.4 months (2.0 - 3.9) in the selumetinib arm (HR 0.62 [90% CI 0.41 - 0.92], 1-sided p-value = 0.022). ORR was 14% and 4% in the combination and monotherapy arms respectively. Median OS was 9 months for the combination and was not significantly different from selumetinib alone (10 months) with HR of 0.98 [90% CI 0.58 - 1.66], 1-sided p-value = 0.469. Toxicity was in keeping with the known profiles of the agents involved. CONCLUSIONS: SelPac met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an improvement in PFS for combination selumetinib and paclitaxel. No improvement in OS was observed, and the modest improvement in PFS is not practice changing.

A Phase Ib Study of NUC-1031 in Combination with Cisplatin for the First-Line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer (ABC-08).

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin/gemcitabine is standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC). NUC-1031 (phosphoramidate transformation of gemcitabine) is designed to enhance efficacy by maximizing intratumoral active metabolites. METHODS: Patients with untreated ABC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 received NUC-1031 (625 or 725 mg/m2 ) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2 ) on days 1 and 8, every 21 days. Primary objectives were safety and maximum tolerated dose; secondary objectives were objective response rate (ORR), pharmacokinetics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (median age 61 years, n = 13 male; 17 cholangiocarcinoma, 2 ampullary, and 2 gallbladder cancer) received NUC-1031 625 mg/m2 (n = 8 and expansion n = 7; median six cycles) or 725 mg/m2 (n = 6; median 7.5 cycles). Treatment was well tolerated; most common treatment-emergent grade 3-4 adverse events occurring in more than one patient with 625 mg/m2 NUC-1031 were increased gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), 40%; alanine aminotransferase, 20%; bilirubin, 13%; neutropenia, 27%; decreased white cell count, 20%; thrombocytopenia, 13%; nausea, 13%; diarrhea, 13%; fatigue, 13%; and thrombus, 20% and with 725 mg/m2 , increased GGT, 67%, and fatigue, 33%. NUC-1031 725 mg/m2 was selected as the recommended dose with cisplatin in ABC. ORR was 33% (one complete response, six partial responses), DCR was 76%, median PFS was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-10.1), and median OS was 9.6 months (95% CI, 6.7-13.1). The median estimates of area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to last measurable time and maximum concentration were highest for NUC-1031 (218-324 µg•h/mL and 309-889 µg/mL, respectively) and lowest for di-fluoro-deoxycytidine (0.47-1.56 µg•h/mL and 0.284-0.522 µg/mL, respectively). CONCLUSION: This is the first study reporting on the combination of NUC-1031 with cisplatin in ABC and demonstrated a favorable safety profile; 725 mg/m2 NUC-1031 in combination with cisplatin is undergoing phase III trial evaluation in ABC. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02351765; EudraCT ID: 2015-000100-26). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The prognosis for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC) is approximately 1 year, and new treatment options are required. The cisplatin/gemcitabine combination is standard first-line treatment for patients with ABC. NUC-1031 is a phosphoramidate transformation of gemcitabine and is designed to enhance efficacy by maximizing intratumoral active metabolites. This phase Ib study (ABC-08) demonstrated a favorable safety profile of NUC-1031 in combination with cisplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with ABC, and 725 mg/m2 NUC-1031 was recommended in combination with cisplatin for phase III trial evaluation; the NuTide:121 global randomized study is currently enrolling.

MTL-CEBPA, a Small Activating RNA Therapeutic Upregulating C/EBP-α, in Patients with Advanced Liver Cancer: A First-in-Human, Multicenter, Open-Label, Phase I Trial.

PURPOSE: Transcription factor C/EBP-α (CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein alpha) acts as a master regulator of hepatic and myeloid functions and multiple oncogenic processes. MTL-CEBPA is a first-in-class small activating RNA oligonucleotide drug that upregulates C/EBP-α. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation trial of MTL-CEBPA in adults with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with cirrhosis, or resulting from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis or with liver metastases. Patients received intravenous MTL-CEBPA once a week for 3 weeks followed by a rest period of 1 week per treatment cycle in the dose-escalation phase (3+3 design). RESULTS: Thirty-eight participants have been treated across six dose levels (28-160 mg/m2) and three dosing schedules. Thirty-four patients were evaluable for safety endpoints at 28 days. MTL-CEBPA treatment-related adverse events were not associated with dose, and no maximum dose was reached across the three schedules evaluated. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in nine (24%) patients. In 24 patients with HCC evaluable for efficacy, an objective tumor response was achieved in one patient [4%; partial response (PR) for over 2 years] and stable disease (SD) in 12 (50%). After discontinuation of MTL-CEBPA, seven patients were treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs); three patients had a complete response with one further PR and two with SD. CONCLUSIONS: MTL-CEBPA is the first saRNA in clinical trials and demonstrates an acceptable safety profile and potential synergistic efficacy with TKIs in HCC. These encouraging phase I data validate targeting of C/EBP-α and have prompted MTL-CEBPA + sorafenib combination studies in HCC.

Results of a randomized, double-blind phase II clinical trial of NY-ESO-1 vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in participants with high-risk resected melanoma.

BACKGROUND: To compare the clinical efficacy of New York Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma-1 (NY-ESO-1) vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in a randomized, double-blind phase II study in participants with fully resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence. METHODS: Participants with resected stage IIc, IIIb, IIIc and IV melanoma expressing NY-ESO-1 were randomized to treatment with three doses of NY-ESO-1/ISCOMATRIX or ISCOMATRIX adjuvant administered intramuscularly at 4-week intervals, followed by a further dose at 6 months. Primary endpoint was the proportion free of relapse at 18 months in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and two per-protocol populations. Secondary endpoints included relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS), safety and NY-ESO-1 immunity. RESULTS: The ITT population comprised 110 participants, with 56 randomized to NY-ESO-1/ISCOMATRIX and 54 to ISCOMATRIX alone. No significant toxicities were observed. There were no differences between the study arms in relapses at 18 months or for median time to relapse; 139 vs 176 days (p=0.296), or relapse rate, 27 (48.2%) vs 26 (48.1%) (HR 0.913; 95% CI 0.402 to 2.231), respectively. RFS and OS were similar between the study arms. Vaccine recipients developed strong positive antibody responses to NY-ESO-1 (p≤0.0001) and NY-ESO-1-specific CD4+ and CD8+ responses. Biopsies following relapse did not demonstrate differences in NY-ESO-1 expression between the study populations although an exploratory study demonstrated reduced (NY-ESO-1)+/Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) class I+ double-positive cells in biopsies from vaccine recipients performed on relapse in 19 participants. CONCLUSIONS: The vaccine was well tolerated, however, despite inducing antigen-specific immunity, it did not affect survival endpoints. Immune escape through the downregulation of NY-ESO-1 and/or HLA class I molecules on tumor may have contributed to relapse.

Phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Brivanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling. We performed a phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in 7 tumour types (soft-tissue sarcomas [STS], ovarian cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC], gastric/esophageal cancer and transitional cell carcinoma [TCC]). PATIENTS AND METHODS: During a 12-week open-label lead-in period, patients received brivanib 800 mg daily and were evaluated for FGF2 status by immunohistochemistry. Patients with stable disease at week 12 were randomised to brivanib or placebo. A study steering committee evaluated week 12 response to determine if enrolment in a tumour type would continue. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) for brivanib versus placebo in patients with FGF2-positive tumours. RESULTS: A total of 595 patients were treated, and stable disease was observed at the week 12 randomisation point in all tumour types. Closure decisions were made for breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, NSCLC, gastric cancer and TCC. Criteria for expansion were met for STS and ovarian cancer. In 53 randomised patients with STS and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 2.8 months for brivanib and 1.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.58, p = 0.08). For all randomised patients with sarcomas, the median PFS was 2.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-4.0) for those treated with brivanib compared with 1.4 months (95% CI: 1.3-1.6) for placebo (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.38-1.07; p = 0.09). In the 36 randomised patients with ovarian cancer and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 4.0 (95% CI: 2.6-4.2) months for brivanib and 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2-2.7) for placebo (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.26-1.22). For all randomised patients with ovarian cancer, the median PFS in those randomised to brivanib was 4.0 months (95% CI: 2.6-4.2) and was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2-2.7) in those randomised to placebo (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.25-1.17; p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: Brivanib demonstrated activity in STS and ovarian cancer with an acceptable safety profile. FGF2 expression, as defined in the protocol, is not a predictive biomarker of the efficacy of brivanib.

A phase 1b/2, open-label, dose-escalation, and dose-confirmation study of eribulin mesilate in combination with capecitabine.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine and eribulin are widely used as single agents in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and have nonoverlapping toxicities. METHODS: In phase 1b (dose escalation), patients with advanced, treatment-refractory, solid tumours received eribulin mesilate intravenously in 21-day cycles according to schedule 1 (day 1) or schedule 2 (days 1, 8) with twice-daily oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 days 1-14). In phase 2 (dose confirmation), women with advanced/MBC and ≤3 prior chemotherapies received eribulin mesilate at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) per the preferred schedule plus capecitabine. Primary objectives were MTD and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; phase 1b) and objective response rate (ORR; phase 2). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: DLTs occurred in 4/19 patients (schedule 1) and 2/15 patients (schedule 2). Eribulin pharmacokinetics were dose proportional, irrespective of schedule or capecitabine coadministration. The MTD of eribulin was 1.6 mg/m2 day 1 for schedule 1 and 1.4 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 for schedule 2. ORR in phase 2 (eribulin 1.4 mg/m2 days 1, 8 plus capecitabine) was 43% and median PFS 7.2 months. The most common treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia, alopecia, nausea, and lethargy. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of capecitabine and eribulin showed promising efficacy with manageable tolerability in patients with MBC.

Phase 1 dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study of eribulin-liposomal formulation in patients with solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: This phase 1 study examined the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of eribulin-liposomal formulation (eribulin-LF) in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Eligible patients with ECOG PS 0-1 were treated with eribulin-LF either on day 1 every 21 days (Schedule 1), or on days 1 and 15 every 28 days (Schedule 2). Doses ranged from 1.0 to 3.5 mg/m2, with dose escalation in a 3 + 3 design. The dose-expansion phase evaluated eribulin-LF in select tumour types. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended dose/schedule of eribulin-LF. RESULTS: Totally, 58 patients were enroled (median age = 62 years). The MTD was 1.4 mg/m2 (Schedule 1) or 1.5 mg/m2 (Schedule 2), the latter dose selected for the dose-expansion phase. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLTs) in Schedule 1: hypophosphatemia and increased transaminase levels. DLTs in Schedule 2: stomatitis, increased alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. The pharmacokinetic profile of eribulin-LF showed a similar half-life to that of eribulin (~30 h), but with a 5-fold greater maximum serum concentration and a 40-fold greater area-under-the-curve. Eribulin-LF demonstrated clinical activity with approximately 10% of patients in both schedules achieving partial responses. CONCLUSIONS: Eribulin-LF was well tolerated with a favourable pharmacokinetic profile. Preliminary evidence of clinical activity in solid tumours was observed.

CSF1R+ Macrophages Sustain Pancreatic Tumor Growth through T Cell Suppression and Maintenance of Key Gene Programs that Define the Squamous Subtype.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is resistant to most therapies including single-agent immunotherapy and has a dense desmoplastic stroma, and most patients present with advanced metastatic disease. We reveal that macrophages are the dominant leukocyte population both in human PDAC stroma and autochthonous models, with an important functional contribution to the squamous subtype of human PDAC. We targeted macrophages in a genetic PDAC model using AZD7507, a potent selective inhibitor of CSF1R. AZD7507 caused shrinkage of established tumors and increased mouse survival in this difficult-to-treat model. Malignant cell proliferation diminished, with increased cell death and an enhanced T cell immune response. Loss of macrophages rewired other features of the TME, with global changes in gene expression akin to switching PDAC subtypes. These changes were markedly different to those elicited when neutrophils were targeted via CXCR2. These results suggest targeting the myeloid cell axis may be particularly efficacious in PDAC, especially with CSF1R inhibitors.

Selumetinib in Combination With Dacarbazine in Patients With Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: A Phase III, Multicenter, Randomized Trial (SUMIT).

Purpose Uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults with no effective systemic treatment option in the metastatic setting. Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886) is an oral, potent, and selective MEK1/2 inhibitor with a short half-life, which demonstrated single-agent activity in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma in a randomized phase II trial. Methods The Selumetinib (AZD6244: ARRY-142886) (Hyd-Sulfate) in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma (SUMIT) study was a phase III, double-blind trial ( ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT01974752) in which patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (3:1) to selumetinib (75 mg twice daily) plus dacarbazine (1,000 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of every 21-day cycle) or placebo plus dacarbazine. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central radiologic review. Secondary end points included overall survival and objective response rate. Results A total of 129 patients were randomly assigned to receive selumetinib plus dacarbazine (n = 97) or placebo plus dacarbazine (n = 32). In the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group, 82 patients (85%) experienced a PFS event, compared with 24 (75%) in the placebo plus dacarbazine group (median, 2.8 v 1.8 months); the hazard ratio for PFS was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.48 to 1.27; two-sided P = .32). The objective response rate was 3% with selumetinib plus dacarbazine and 0% with placebo plus dacarbazine (two-sided P = .36). At 37% maturity (n = 48 deaths), analysis of overall survival gave a hazard ratio of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.39 to 1.46; two-sided P = .40). The most frequently reported adverse events (selumetinib plus dacarbazine v placebo plus dacarbazine) were nausea (62% v 19%), rash (57% v 6%), fatigue (44% v 47%), diarrhea (44% v 22%), and peripheral edema (43% v 6%). Conclusion In patients with metastatic uveal melanoma, the combination of selumetinib plus dacarbazine had a tolerable safety profile but did not significantly improve PFS compared with placebo plus dacarbazine.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 2 trial, lenvatinib, an inhibitor of VEGF receptors 1-3, FGF receptors 1-4, PDGF receptor α, RET, and KIT, showed activity in hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare overall survival in patients treated with lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: This was an open-label, phase 3, multicentre, non-inferiority trial that recruited patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, who had not received treatment for advanced disease, at 154 sites in 20 countries throughout the Asia-Pacific, European, and North American regions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system-with region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; and bodyweight as stratification factors-to receive oral lenvatinib (12 mg/day for bodyweight ≥60 kg or 8 mg/day for bodyweight <60 kg) or sorafenib 400 mg twice-daily in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured from the date of randomisation until the date of death from any cause. The efficacy analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle, and only patients who received treatment were included in the safety analysis. The non-inferiority margin was set at 1·08. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01761266. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2013 and July 30, 2015, 1492 patients were recruited. 954 eligible patients were randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476). Median survival time for lenvatinib of 13·6 months (95% CI 12·1-14·9) was non-inferior to sorafenib (12·3 months, 10·4-13·9; hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·79-1·06), meeting criteria for non-inferiority. The most common any-grade adverse events were hypertension (201 [42%]), diarrhoea (184 [39%]), decreased appetite (162 [34%]), and decreased weight (147 [31%]) for lenvatinib, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (249 [52%]), diarrhoea (220 [46%]), hypertension (144 [30%]), and decreased appetite (127 [27%]) for sorafenib. INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib was non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival in untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The safety and tolerability profiles of lenvatinib were consistent with those previously observed. FUNDING: Eisai Inc.

Targeting Multiple Effector Pathways in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma with a G-Quadruplex-Binding Small Molecule.

Human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) involves the dysregulation of multiple signaling pathways. A novel approach to the treatment of PDAC is described, involving the targeting of cancer genes in PDAC pathways having over-representation of G-quadruplexes, using the trisubstituted naphthalene diimide quadruplex-binding compound 2,7-bis(3-morpholinopropyl)-4-((2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)ethyl)amino)benzo[ lmn][3,8]phenanthroline-1,3,6,8(2 H,7 H)-tetraone (CM03). This compound has been designed by computer modeling, is a potent inhibitor of cell growth in PDAC cell lines, and has anticancer activity in PDAC models, with a superior profile compared to gemcitabine, a commonly used therapy. Whole-transcriptome RNA-seq methodology has been used to analyze the effects of this quadruplex-binding small molecule on global gene expression. This has revealed the down-regulation of a large number of genes, rich in putative quadruplex elements and involved in essential pathways of PDAC survival, metastasis, and drug resistance. The changes produced by CM03 represent a global response to the complexity of human PDAC and may be applicable to other currently hard-to-treat cancers.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors: new strategies to checkmate cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4) or programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptors have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in subsets of patients with malignant disease. This emerging treatment modality holds great promise for future cancer treatment and has engaged pharmaceutical research interests in tumour immunology. While ICIs can induce rapid and durable responses in some patients, identifying predictive factors for effective clinical responses has proved challenging. This review summarizes the mechanisms of action of ICIs and outlines important preclinical work that contributed to their development. We explore clinical data that has led to disease-specific drug licensing, and highlight key clinical trials that have revealed ICI efficacy across a range of malignancies. We describe how ICIs have been used as part of combination therapies, and explore their future prospects in this area. We conclude by discussing the incorporation of these new immunotherapeutics into precision approaches to cancer therapy.

Sorafenib in combination with transarterial chemoembolisation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (TACE 2): a randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is the standard of care for patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma, while the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib improves survival in patients with advanced disease. We aimed to determine whether TACE with sorafenib improves progression-free survival versus TACE with placebo. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TACE 2) in 20 hospitals in the UK for patients with unresectable, liver-confined hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients were eligible if they were at least aged 18 years, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and had Child-Pugh A liver disease. Patients were randomised 1:1 by computerised minimisation algorithm to continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice-daily) or matching placebo combined with TACE using drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE), which was given via the hepatic artery 2-5 weeks after randomisation and according to radiological response and patient tolerance thereafter. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre and serum α-fetoprotein concentration (<400 ng/mL and ≥400 ng/mL). Only the trial coordinator was unmasked to treatment allocation before patient progression during the study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival defined as the interval between randomisation and progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or death due to any cause, and was analysed by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed by intention-to-treat. The trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2008-005073-36, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN93375053. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2010, and Dec 7, 2015, the trial enrolled 399 patients and was terminated after a planned interim futility analysis. 86 patients failed screening and 313 remaining patients were randomly assigned: 157 to sorafenib and 156 to placebo. The median daily dose was 660 mg (IQR 389·2-800·0) sorafenib versus 800 mg (758·2-800·0) placebo, and median duration of therapy was 120·0 days (IQR 43·0-266·0) for sorafenib versus 162·0 days (70·0-323·5) for placebo. There was no evidence of difference in progression-free survival between the sorafenib group and the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·77-1·27], p=0·94); median progression-free survival was 238·0 days (95% CI 221·0-281·0) in the sorafenib group and 235·0 days (209·0-322·0) in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (29 [18%] of 157 patients in the sorafenib group vs 21 [13%] of 156 patients in the placebo group), abdominal pain (20 [13%] vs 12 [8%]), diarrhoea (16 [10%] vs four [3%]), gastrointestinal disorders (18 [11%] vs 12 [8%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (12 [8%] and none). At least one serious adverse event was reported in 65 (41%) of 157 patients in the sorafenib group and 50 (32%) of 156 in the placebo group, and 181 serious adverse events were reported in total, 95 (52%) in the sorafenib group and 86 (48%) in the placebo group. Three deaths occurred in each group that were attributed to DEB-TACE. Four deaths were attributed to study drug; three in the sorafenib group and one in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of sorafenib to DEB-TACE does not improve progression-free survival in European patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Alternative systemic therapies need to be assessed in combination with TACE to improve patient outcomes. FUNDING: Bayer PLC and BTG PLC.

Transient tissue priming via ROCK inhibition uncouples pancreatic cancer progression, sensitivity to chemotherapy, and metastasis.

The emerging standard of care for patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer is a combination of cytotoxic drugs gemcitabine and Abraxane, but patient response remains moderate. Pancreatic cancer development and metastasis occur in complex settings, with reciprocal feedback from microenvironmental cues influencing both disease progression and drug response. Little is known about how sequential dual targeting of tumor tissue tension and vasculature before chemotherapy can affect tumor response. We used intravital imaging to assess how transient manipulation of the tumor tissue, or "priming," using the pharmaceutical Rho kinase inhibitor Fasudil affects response to chemotherapy. Intravital Förster resonance energy transfer imaging of a cyclin-dependent kinase 1 biosensor to monitor the efficacy of cytotoxic drugs revealed that priming improves pancreatic cancer response to gemcitabine/Abraxane at both primary and secondary sites. Transient priming also sensitized cells to shear stress and impaired colonization efficiency and fibrotic niche remodeling within the liver, three important features of cancer spread. Last, we demonstrate a graded response to priming in stratified patient-derived tumors, indicating that fine-tuned tissue manipulation before chemotherapy may offer opportunities in both primary and metastatic targeting of pancreatic cancer.

Phase 2 placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of dasatinib added to gemcitabine for patients with locally-advanced pancreatic cancer.

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a high mortality rate with limited treatment options. Gemcitabine provides a marginal survival benefit for patients with advanced PDAC. Dasatinib is a competitive inhibitor of Src kinase, which is overexpressed in PDAC tumors. Dasatinib and gemcitabine were combined in a phase 1 clinical trial where stable disease was achieved in two of eight patients with gemcitabine-refractory PDAC. Patients and methods: This placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, phase II study compared the combination of gemcitabine plus dasatinib to gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with locally advanced, non-metastatic PDAC. Patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (30-min IV infusion) on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle combined with either 100 mg oral dasatinib or placebo tablets daily. The primary objective was overall survival (OS), with safety and progression-free survival (PFS) as secondary objectives. Exploratory endpoints included overall response rate, freedom from distant metastasis, pain and fatigue progression and response rate, and CA19-9 response rate. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the two treatment groups (HR = 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-1.65; P = 0.5656). Secondary and exploratory endpoint analyses also showed no statistically significant differences. The burden of toxicity was higher in the dasatinib arm. Conclusions: Dasatinib failed to show increased OS or PFS in patients with locally advanced PDAC. Alternative combinations or trial designs may show a role for src inhibition in PDAC treatment.

A phase I, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of GSK2256098, a focal adhesion kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Focal adhesion kinase (FAK) is important in cancer growth, survival, invasion, and migration. The purpose of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of the FAK inhibitor, GSK2256098, in cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The dose of GSK2256098 was escalated, in cohorts of patients with advanced cancer, from 80 to 1500 mg, oral twice daily (BID), until the MTD was determined. Serial blood samples were obtained from all patients, and the PK was determined. Paired tumor biopsies were obtained in select patients, and the level of phospho-FAK (pFAK) was determined. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (39 males, 23 females; median age 61 y.o., range 21-84) received GSK2256098. Dose-limiting toxicities of grade 2 proteinuria (1000 mg BID), grade 2 fatigue, nausea, vomiting (1250 mg BID), and grade 3 asthenia and grade 2 fatigue (1500 mg BID) were reported with the MTD identified as 1000 mg BID. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were nausea (76%), diarrhea (65%), vomiting (58%), and decreased appetite (47%) with the majority of AEs being grades 1-2. The PK was generally dose proportional with a geometric mean elimination half-life range of 4-9 h. At the 750, 1000, and 1500 mg BID dose levels evaluated, the pFAK, Y397 autophosphorylation site, was reduced by ∼80% from baseline. Minor responses were observed in a patient with melanoma (-26%) and three patients with mesothelioma (-13%, -15%, and -17%). In the 29 patients with recurrent mesothelioma, the median progression-free survival was 12 weeks with 95% CI 9.1, 23.4 weeks (23.4 weeks merlin negative, n = 14; 11.4 weeks merlin positive, n = 9; 10.9 weeks merlin status unknown, n = 6). CONCLUSIONS: GSK2256098 has an acceptable safety profile, has evidence of target engagement at doses at or below the MTD, and has clinical activity in patients with mesothelioma, particularly those with merlin loss.

Phase II study of TP300 in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: TP300, a recently developed synthetic camptothecin analogue, is a highly selective topoisomerase I inhibitor. A phase I study showed good safety and tolerability. As camptothecins have proven active in oesophago-gastric adenocarcinomas, in this phase II study we assessed the efficacy and safety of TP300 in patients with gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinomas. METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic or locally advanced gastric or Siewert Types II or III GOJ inoperable adenocarcinoma. Patients were chemotherapy naïve unless this had been administered in the perioperative setting. TP300 was administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks (a cycle) for up to 6 cycles at a starting dose of 8 mg/m2 with intra-patient escalation to 10 mg/m2 from cycle 2 in the absence of dose-limiting toxicity. Tumour responses (RECIST 1.1) were assessed every 6 weeks. Toxicity was recorded by NCI-CTCAE version 3.0. Using a modified two-stage Simon design (Stage I and II), a total of 43 patients were to be included providing there were 3 of 18 patients with objective response in Stage I of the study. RESULTS: In Stage I of the study 20 patients (14 males, 6 females), median age 67 years (range 40 - 82), performance status ECOG 0/1, with GC [14] or GOJ carcinoma [6] were enrolled. Of the 16 evaluable patients, 11 received the planned dose increase to 10 mg/m2 at cycle 2, 2 decreased to 6 mg/m2, and 3 continued on 8 mg/m2. There were no objective responses after 2 cycles of treatment. Twelve patients had stable disease for 1 - 5 months and 4 had progressive disease. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 4.1 months (CI [1.6 - 4.9]), median time to progression (TTP) was 2.9 months (CI [1.4 - 4.2]). Grade 3/4 toxicities (worst grade all cycles) included 7 patients (35 %) with neutropenia, 4 patients (20 %) with anaemia, 2 patients (10 %) with thrombocytopenia, and 3 patients (15 %) with fatigue. This study was terminated at the end of Stage I due to a lack of the required (3/18) responders. CONCLUSIONS: This study of TP300 showed good drug tolerability but it failed to demonstrate sufficient efficacy as measured by radiological response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU-CTR 2009-012097-12 2009-09-03.

mTORC2 Signaling Drives the Development and Progression of Pancreatic Cancer.

mTOR signaling controls several critical cellular functions and is deregulated in many cancers, including pancreatic cancer. To date, most efforts have focused on inhibiting the mTORC1 complex. However, clinical trials of mTORC1 inhibitors in pancreatic cancer have failed, raising questions about this therapeutic approach. We employed a genetic approach to delete the obligate mTORC2 subunit Rictor and identified the critical times during which tumorigenesis requires mTORC2 signaling. Rictor deletion resulted in profoundly delayed tumorigenesis. Whereas previous studies showed most pancreatic tumors were insensitive to rapamycin, treatment with a dual mTORC1/2 inhibitor strongly suppressed tumorigenesis. In late-stage tumor-bearing mice, combined mTORC1/2 and PI3K inhibition significantly increased survival. Thus, targeting mTOR may be a potential therapeutic strategy in pancreatic cancer. Cancer Res; 76(23); 6911-23. ©2016 AACR.

A phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitor, WX-554, in patients with advanced solid tumours.

PURPOSE: We performed a multi-centre phase I study to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of the orally available small molecule mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor, WX-554, and to determine the optimal biological dose for subsequent trials. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with treatment-refractory, advanced solid tumours, with adequate performance status and organ function were recruited to a dose-escalation study in a standard 3 + 3 design. The starting dose was 25 mg orally once weekly with toxicity, PK and PD guided dose-escalation with potential to explore alternative schedules. RESULTS: Forty-one patients with advanced solid tumours refractory to standard therapies and with adequate organ function were recruited in eight cohorts up to doses of 150 mg once weekly and 75 mg twice weekly. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed during the study, and a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not established. The highest dose cohorts demonstrated sustained inhibition of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) phosphorylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells following ex-vivo phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate stimulation. There was a decrease of 70 ± 26% in mean phosphorylated (p)ERK in C1 day 8 tumour biopsies when compared with pre-treatment tumour levels in the 75 mg twice a week cohort. Prolonged stable disease (>6 months) was seen in two patients, one with cervical cancer and one with ampullary carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: WX-554 was well tolerated, and an optimal biological dose was established for further investigation in either a once or twice weekly regimens. The recommended phase 2 dose is 75 mg twice weekly.

Virotherapy: cancer gene therapy at last?

For decades, effective cancer gene therapy has been a tantalising prospect; for a therapeutic modality potentially able to elicit highly effective and selective responses, definitive efficacy outcomes have often seemed out of reach. However, steady progress in vector development and accumulated experience from previous clinical studies has finally led the field to its first licensed therapy. Following a pivotal phase III trial, Imlygic (talimogene laherparepvec/T-Vec) received US approval as a treatment for cutaneous and subcutaneous melanoma in October 2015, followed several weeks later by its European authorisation. These represent the first approvals for an oncolytic virotherapy. Imlygic is an advanced-generation herpesvirus-based vector optimised for oncolytic and immunomodulatory activities. Many other oncolytic agents currently remain in development, providing hope that current success will be followed by other diverse vectors that may ultimately come to constitute a new class of clinical anti-cancer agents. In this review, we discuss some of the key oncolytic viral agents developed in the adenovirus and herpesvirus classes, and the prospects for further enhancing their efficacy by combining them with novel immunotherapeutic approaches.