Safety and efficacy of parsaclisib in combination with rituximab, bendamustine + rituximab, or ibrutinib in patients with previously treated B-cell lymphoma: analysis of a phase 1 dose-finding study (CITADEL­112).

Parsaclisib, a potent and highly selective phosphoinositide 3-kinase δ inhibitor, has shown clinical activity in relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell lymphoma. The phase 1 CITADEL-112 (NCT03424122) study assessed safety and efficacy of parsaclisib in combination with investigator choice standard of care (SOC; rituximab [Treatment A], rituximab plus bendamustine [Treatment B], or ibrutinib [Treatment C]) in 50 patients with R/R B-cell lymphoma. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events included neutropenia (62.5%, 50.0%, and 50.0% of patients in Treatments A, B, and C, respectively); diarrhea (37.5%) and anemia (31.3%) in Treatment A; abdominal pain, asthenia, diarrhea, and nausea (each 33.3%) in Treatment B; and increased alanine and aspartate aminotransferase (each 37.5%) in Treatment C. Objective responses were observed in 13 patients (81.3%) in Treatment A, 10 (55.6%) in Treatment B, and 8 (50.0%) in Treatment C. Parsaclisib combined with SOC therapies had an expected safety profile and promising efficacy in patients with R/R B-cell lymphomas.

Safety and efficacy of parsaclisib in combination with obinutuzumab and bendamustine in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (CITADEL-102): A phase 1 study.

Parsaclisib is a potent and highly selective PI3Kδ inhibitor that has shown clinical benefit with monotherapy in a phase 2 study in relapsed or refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL). CITADEL-102 (NCT03039114), a phase 1, multicenter study, assessed the efficacy of parsaclisib in combination with obinutuzumab and bendamustine in patients with R/R FL. Patients were ≥18 years of age with histologically confirmed and documented CD20-positive FL, and R/R to previous rituximab-containing treatment regimens. Part one (safety run-in) determined the maximum tolerated dose of parsaclisib in combination with standard dosage regimens of obinutuzumab and bendamustine. Part two (dose expansion) was an open-label, single-group design evaluating safety, tolerability (primary endpoint), and efficacy (secondary endpoint) of parsaclisib combination therapy. Twenty-six patients were enrolled in CITADEL-102 and all patients received parsaclisib 20 mg once daily for 8 weeks, followed by 20 mg once weekly thereafter, in combination with obinutuzumab and bendamustine. One patient in safety run-in experienced a dose-limiting toxicity of grade 4 QT interval prolongation that was considered related to parsaclisib. Eight patients (30.8%) discontinued treatment due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of colitis (2 [7.7%]), alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase increase (both in one patient [3.8%]), neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, QT prolongation, tonsil cancer, and maculopapular rash (each 1 [3.8%]). The most common reported TEAEs were pyrexia (53.8%), neutropenia (50.0%), and diarrhea (46.2%). Twenty-three patients (88.5%) experienced grade 3 or 4 TEAEs; the most common were neutropenia (34.6%), febrile neutropenia (23.1%), and thrombocytopenia (19.2%). Seventeen patients (65.4%) had a complete response and 3 patients (11.5%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 76.9%. Overall, results from CITADEL-102 suggest that the combination of parsaclisib with obinutuzumab and bendamustine did not result in unexpected safety events, with little evidence of synergistic toxicity, and demonstrated preliminary efficacy in patients with R/R FL who progressed following prior rituximab-containing regimens.

JAK inhibitors and COVID-19.

During SARS-CoV-2 infection, the innate immune response can be inhibited or delayed, and the subsequent persistent viral replication can induce emergency signals that may culminate in a cytokine storm contributing to the severe evolution of COVID-19. Cytokines are key regulators of the immune response and virus clearance, and, as such, are linked to the-possibly altered-response to the SARS-CoV-2. They act via a family of more than 40 transmembrane receptors that are coupled to one or several of the 4 Janus kinases (JAKs) coded by the human genome, namely JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2. Once activated, JAKs act on pathways for either survival, proliferation, differentiation, immune regulation or, in the case of type I interferons, antiviral and antiproliferative effects. Studies of graft-versus-host and systemic rheumatic diseases indicated that JAK inhibitors (JAKi) exert immunosuppressive effects that are non-redundant with those of corticotherapy. Therefore, they hold the potential to cut-off pathological reactions in COVID-19. Significant clinical experience already exists with several JAKi in COVID-19, such as baricitinib, ruxolitinib, tofacitinib, and nezulcitinib, which were suggested by a meta-analysis (Patoulias et al.) to exert a benefit in terms of risk reduction concerning major outcomes when added to standard of care in patients with COVID-19. Yet, only baricitinib is recommended in first line for severe COVID-19 treatment by the WHO, as it is the only JAKi that has proven efficient to reduce mortality in individual randomized clinical trials (RCT), especially the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) and COV-BARRIER phase 3 trials. As for secondary effects of JAKi treatment, the main caution with baricitinib consists in the induced immunosuppression as long-term side effects should not be an issue in patients treated for COVID-19.We discuss whether a class effect of JAKi may be emerging in COVID-19 treatment, although at the moment the convincing data are for baricitinib only. Given the key role of JAK1 in both type I IFN action and signaling by cytokines involved in pathogenic effects, establishing the precise timing of treatment will be very important in future trials, along with the control of viral replication by associating antiviral molecules.

Ruxolitinib in addition to standard of care for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RUXCOVID): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Background: COVID-19 is associated with acute respiratory distress and cytokine release syndrome. The Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib reduces inflammatory cytokine concentrations in disorders characterised by cytokine dysregulation, including graft-versus-host disease, myelofibrosis, and secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. We assessed whether treatment with the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib would be beneficial in patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital. Methods: RUXCOVID was an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial of ruxolitinib plus standard of care versus placebo plus standard of care in patients with COVID-19. Patients who were hospitalised but not on mechanical ventilation or in the intensive care unit [ICU] were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral ruxolitinib 5 mg twice per day or placebo for 14 days (14 additional days were allowed if no improvement). The primary endpoint was a composite of death, respiratory failure (invasive ventilation), or ICU care by day 29, analysed by logistic regression including region, treatment, baseline clinical status, age, and sex as covariates. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04362137. Findings: Between May 4 and Sept 19, 2020, 432 patients were randomly assigned to ruxolitinib (n=287) or placebo (n=145) plus standard of care; the mean age was 56·5 years (SD 13·3), 197 (46%) were female, and 235 (54%) were male. The primary objective was not met: the composite endpoint occurred in 34 (12%) of 284 ruxolitinib-treated patients versus 17 (12%) of 144 placebo-treated patients (odds ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·48-1·73; p=0·77). By day 29, nine (3%) of 286 ruxolitinib-treated patients had died compared with three (2%) of 145 placebo-treated patients; 22 (8%) of 286 ruxolitinib-treated patients had received invasive ventilation compared with ten (7%) of 145 placebo-treated patients; and 30 (11%) of 284 ruxolitinib-treated patients had received ICU care compared with 17 (12%) of 144 placebo-treated patients. In an exploratory analysis, median time to recovery was 1 day faster with ruxolitinib versus placebo (8 days vs 9 days; hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·89-1·36). Adverse events included headache (23 [8%] of 281 on ruxolitinib vs 11 [8%] of 143 on placebo) and diarrhoea (21 [7%] vs 12 [8%]). Interpretation: Ruxolitinib 5 mg twice per day showed no benefit in the overall study population. A larger sample is required to determine the clinical importance of trends for increased efficacy in patient subgroups. Funding: Novartis and Incyte.

Ruxolitinib for Glucocorticoid-Refractory Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a major complication of allogeneic stem-cell transplantation, becomes glucocorticoid-refractory or glucocorticoid-dependent in approximately 50% of patients. Robust data from phase 3 randomized studies evaluating second-line therapy for chronic GVHD are lacking. In retrospective surveys, ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK1-JAK2) inhibitor, showed potential efficacy in patients with glucocorticoid-refractory or -dependent chronic GVHD. METHODS: This phase 3 open-label, randomized trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib at a dose of 10 mg twice daily, as compared with the investigator's choice of therapy from a list of 10 commonly used options considered best available care (control), in patients 12 years of age or older with moderate or severe glucocorticoid-refractory or -dependent chronic GVHD. The primary end point was overall response (complete or partial response) at week 24; key secondary end points were failure-free survival and improved score on the modified Lee Symptom Scale at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 329 patients underwent randomization; 165 patients were assigned to receive ruxolitinib and 164 patients to receive control therapy. Overall response at week 24 was greater in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (49.7% vs. 25.6%; odds ratio, 2.99; P<0.001). Ruxolitinib led to longer median failure-free survival than control (>18.6 months vs. 5.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.37; P<0.001) and higher symptom response (24.2% vs. 11.0%; odds ratio, 2.62; P = 0.001). The most common (occurring in ≥10% patients) adverse events of grade 3 or higher up to week 24 were thrombocytopenia (15.2% in the ruxolitinib group and 10.1% in the control group) and anemia (12.7% and 7.6%, respectively). The incidence of cytomegalovirus infections and reactivations was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with glucocorticoid-refractory or -dependent chronic GVHD, ruxolitinib led to significantly greater overall response, failure-free survival, and symptom response. The incidence of thrombocytopenia and anemia was greater with ruxolitinib. (Funded by Novartis and Incyte; REACH3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03112603.).

Inhibition of cytokine signaling by ruxolitinib and implications for COVID-19 treatment.

Approximately 15% of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience severe disease, and 5% progress to critical stage that can result in rapid death. No vaccines or antiviral treatments have yet proven effective against COVID-19. Patients with severe COVID-19 experience elevated plasma levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which can result in cytokine storm, followed by massive immune cell infiltration into the lungs leading to alveolar damage, decreased lung function, and rapid progression to death. As many of the elevated cytokines signal through Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2, inhibition of these pathways with ruxolitinib has the potential to mitigate the COVID-19-associated cytokine storm and reduce mortality. This is supported by preclinical and clinical data from other diseases with hyperinflammatory states, where ruxolitinib has been shown to reduce cytokine levels and improve outcomes. The urgent need for treatments for patients with severe disease support expedited investigation of ruxolitinib for patients with COVID-19.

A phase 1 trial of itacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease.

Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is a primary cause of nonrelapse mortality and a major barrier to successful transplant outcomes. Itacitinib is a Janus kinase (JAK)1-selective inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy in preclinical models of aGVHD. We report results from the first registered study of a JAK inhibitor in patients with aGVHD. This was an open-label phase 1 study enrolling patients aged ≥18 years with first HCT from any source who developed grade IIB to IVD aGVHD. Patients with steroid-naive or steroid-refractory aGVHD were randomized 1:1 to itacitinib 200 mg or 300 mg once daily plus corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability; day 28 overall response rate (ORR) was the main secondary endpoint. Twenty-nine patients (200 mg, n = 14; 300 mg, n = 15) received ≥1 dose of itacitinib and were included in safety and efficacy assessments. One dose-limiting toxicity was reported (grade 3 thrombocytopenia attributed to GVHD progression in a patient receiving 300 mg itacitinib with preexisting thrombocytopenia). The most common nonhematologic treatment-emergent adverse event was diarrhea (48.3%, n = 14); anemia occurred in 11 patients (38%). ORR on day 28 for all patients in the 200-mg and 300-mg groups was 78.6% and 66.7%, respectively. Day 28 ORR was 75.0% for patients with treatment-naive aGVHD and 70.6% in those with steroid-refractory aGVHD. All patients receiving itacitinib decreased corticosteroid use over time. In summary, itacitinib was well tolerated and demonstrated encouraging efficacy in patients with steroid-naive or steroid-refractory aGVHD, warranting continued clinical investigations. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02614612.

Design of Clinical Trials Evaluating Ruxolitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 Inhibitor, for Treatment of COVID-19-Associated Cytokine Storm.

Recent insight into the pathophysiology of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has implicated hyperactivation of the immune response, resulting in a "cytokine storm," which can lead to excessive immune-cell infiltration of the lungs, alveolar damage, decreased lung function, and death. Several cytokines implicated in the COVID-19-associated cytokine storm predominantly signal through the Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway. Ruxolitinib is a selective inhibitor of JAK1 and JAK2 that has been explored in small studies of patients with COVID-19-associated cytokine storm. Early clinical data from these trials, combined with a body of preclinical and clinical evidence in other inflammatory conditions, support exploration of the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in these patients in larger, well-controlled trials. Here we describe the designs of three such ongoing clinical trials. RUXCOVID is a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of ruxolitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) vs placebo (both plus standard of care) in patients with COVID-19-associated cytokine storm. 369-DEVENT is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of ruxolitinib 5 or 15 mg BID vs placebo (all plus standard of care) in patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome who require mechanical ventilation. Patients with severe COVID-19-associated cytokine storm who are ineligible for these trials can receive ruxolitinib through an Expanded Access Program (EAP) in the United States and similar programs outside of the United States. RUXCOVID and 369-DEVENT will provide insight into the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib in hospitalized patients prior to or during ventilator use. If these trials are successful, ruxolitinib could improve outcomes for patients with COVID-19 as well as lessen the overall burden on the health care system.

Long-term survival in patients treated with ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis: COMFORT-I and -II pooled analyses.

BACKGROUND: Myelofibrosis (MF) is associated with a variety of burdensome symptoms and reduced survival compared with age-/sex-matched controls. This analysis evaluated the long-term survival benefit with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, in patients with intermediate-2 (int-2) or high-risk MF. METHODS: This was an exploratory analysis of 5-year data pooled from the phase 3 COMFORT-I and -II trials. In both trials, patients could cross over to ruxolitinib from the control group (COMFORT-I, placebo; COMFORT-II, best available therapy). All continuing patients in the control groups crossed over to ruxolitinib by the 3-year follow-up. Overall survival (OS; a secondary endpoint in both trials) was evaluated using pooled intent-to-treat data from patients randomized to ruxolitinib or the control groups. OS was also evaluated in subgroups stratified by baseline anemia and transfusion status at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 528 patients were included in this analysis; 301 were originally randomized to ruxolitinib (COMFORT-I, n = 155; COMFORT-II, n = 146) and 227 to control (n = 154 and n = 73, respectively). The risk of death was reduced by 30% among patients randomized to ruxolitinib compared with patients in the control group (median OS, 5.3 vs 3.8 years, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.91]; P = 0.0065). After correcting for crossover using a rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) method, the OS advantage was more pronounced for patients who were originally randomized to ruxolitinib compared with patients who crossed over from control to ruxolitinib (median OS, 5.3 vs 2.3 years; HR [ruxolitinib vs RPSFT], 0.35 [95% CI, 0.23-0.59]). An analysis of OS censoring patients at the time of crossover also demonstrated that ruxolitinib prolonged OS compared with control (median OS, 5.3 vs 2.4 years; HR [ruxolitinib vs censored at crossover], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.36-0.78]; P = 0.0013). The survival benefit with ruxolitinib was observed irrespective of baseline anemia status or transfusion requirements at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support ruxolitinib treatment for patients with int-2 or high-risk MF, regardless of anemia or transfusion status. Further analyses will be important for exploring ruxolitinib earlier in the disease course to assess the effect on the natural history of MF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT00952289 and NCT00934544 .

Activity and safety of ODM-201 in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (ARADES): an open-label phase 1 dose-escalation and randomised phase 2 dose expansion trial.

BACKGROUND: ODM-201 is a novel androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor designed to block the growth of prostate cancer cells through high-affinity binding to the AR and inhibition of AR nuclear translocation. This trial assessed ODM-201's safety, pharmacokinetics, and activity in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: The ARADES trial is an open-label phase 1-2 trial undertaken in 23 hospitals across Europe and USA with ongoing long-term follow-up. Men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, who had castrate concentrations of testosterone and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-1 were enrolled. In the phase 1 part of the trial, patients were given oral ODM-201 at a starting daily dose of 200 mg, which was increased to 400 mg, 600 mg, 1000 mg, 1400 mg, and 1800 mg. In phase 2, patients were randomly assigned centrally and stratified by previous chemotherapy and treatment with CPY17 inhibitors, to receive one of three daily doses of ODM-201 (200 mg, 400 mg, and 1400 mg). The primary endpoint in phase 1 was safety and tolerability, whereas in phase 2 it was the proportion of patients with a PSA response (50% or greater decrease in serum PSA) at week 12. All analyses included patients who had received at least one dose of ODM-201. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317641, and NCT01429064 for the follow-up after 12 weeks. FINDINGS: We enrolled patients between April 5, 2011, and March 12, 2013. In phase 1, 24 patients were enrolled to six sequential cohorts of three to six patients and received a daily dose of ODM-201, 200-1800 mg. No dose-limiting toxic effects were reported and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. In phase 1, three patients reported eight adverse events of grade 3 (fracture, muscle injury, laceration, paralytic ileus, pain, presyncope, urinary retention, and vomiting) and one patient had a grade 4 adverse event (lymphoedema). None of the grade 3-4 adverse events were deemed to be related to ODM-201. Of the phase 1 patients, the four who received 200 mg, seven who received 400 mg, and three who received 1400 mg entered the phase 2 part of the trial. In addition to these patients, 110 were randomly assigned to three groups: 200 mg (n=38), 400 mg (n=37), and 1400 mg (n=35). For these patients, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue or asthenia (15 [12%] of 124 patients), hot flush (six [5%]), and decreased appetite (five [4%]). One patient (<1%) had a grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse event (fatigue); no patients had a treatment-emergent grade 4 adverse event. 38 patients who received 200 mg, 39 who received 400 mg, and 33 who received 1400 mg were assessable for PSA response at 12 weeks. 11 (29%) patients in the 200 mg group, 13 (33%) in the 400 mg group, and 11 (33%) in the 1400 mg group had a PSA response at 12 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that ODM-201 monotherapy in men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer provides disease suppression and that ODM-201 has a favourable safety profile. These findings support further investigation of clinical responses with ODM-201 in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. FUNDING: Orion Corporation Orion Pharma, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Vandetanib Versus placebo in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after prior therapy with an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial (ZEPHYR).

PURPOSE: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and RET signaling. This placebo-controlled trial assessed whether vandetanib conferred an overall survival benefit in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after prior treatment with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor and one or two chemotherapy regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to compare the outcomes between the two arms with respect to overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 924 patients received vandetanib (n = 617) or placebo (n = 307). No significant increase in overall survival was detected in the vandetanib cohort compared with placebo (hazard ratio = 0.95; 95.2% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P = .527); median overall survival was 8.5 months versus 7.8 months for vandetanib and placebo patients, respectively. Statistically significant advantages favoring vandetanib were observed for progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.63; P < .001) and objective response rate (2.6% v 0.7%; P = .028). Postprogression therapy was balanced across the cohorts in both number and type. Adverse events were generally consistent with previous NSCLC studies of vandetanib 300 mg; common events occurring with a greater frequency in the vandetanib arm versus placebo included diarrhea (46% v 11%), rash (42% v 11%), and hypertension (26% v 3%). CONCLUSION: The study did not demonstrate an overall survival benefit for vandetanib versus placebo. There was a higher incidence of some adverse events with vandetanib.

Vandetanib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial.

PURPOSE: There is no effective therapy for patients with advanced medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC). Vandetanib, a once-daily oral inhibitor of RET kinase, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling, has previously shown antitumor activity in a phase II study of patients with advanced hereditary MTC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced MTC were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d or placebo. On objective disease progression, patients could elect to receive open-label vandetanib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), determined by independent central Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) assessments. RESULTS: Between December 2006 and November 2007, 331 patients (mean age, 52 years; 90% sporadic; 95% metastatic) were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib (231) or placebo (100). At data cutoff (July 2009; median follow-up, 24 months), 37% of patients had progressed and 15% had died. The study met its primary objective of PFS prolongation with vandetanib versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.69; P < .001). Statistically significant advantages for vandetanib were also seen for objective response rate (P < .001), disease control rate (P = .001), and biochemical response (P < .001). Overall survival data were immature at data cutoff (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.65). A final survival analysis will take place when 50% of the patients have died. Common adverse events (any grade) occurred more frequently with vandetanib compared with placebo, including diarrhea (56% v 26%), rash (45% v 11%), nausea (33% v 16%), hypertension (32% v 5%), and headache (26% v 9%). CONCLUSION: Vandetanib demonstrated therapeutic efficacy in a phase III trial of patients with advanced MTC (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00410761).

Vandetanib plus pemetrexed for the second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib plus pemetrexed as second-line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 534) were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 100 mg/d plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) every 21 days (n = 256) or placebo plus pemetrexed (n = 278). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point; overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, time to deterioration of symptoms, and safety were secondary assessments. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in PFS between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 97.58% CI, 0.69 to 1.06; P = .108). Overall survival was also not significantly different (HR, 0.86; 97.54% CI, 0.65 to 1.13; P = .219). Statistically significant improvements in objective response rate (19% v 8%; P < .001) and time to deterioration of symptoms (HR, 0.71; P = .0052; median, 18.1 weeks for vandetanib and 12.1 weeks for placebo) were observed in patients receiving vandetanib. Adding vandetanib to pemetrexed increased the incidence of some adverse events, including rash, diarrhea, and hypertension, while showing a reduced incidence of nausea, vomiting, anemia, fatigue, and asthenia with no reduction in the dose intensity of pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: This study did not meet the primary end point of statistically significant PFS prolongation with vandetanib plus pemetrexed versus placebo plus pemetrexed. The vandetanib combination showed a significantly higher objective response rate and a significant delay in the time to worsening of lung cancer symptoms versus the placebo arm as well as an acceptable safety profile in this patient population.

Phase III trial of vandetanib compared with erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted. RESULTS: There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.

Pharmacokinetics of vandetanib in subjects with renal or hepatic impairment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Vandetanib, an oncology drug being evaluated in phase III clinical trials, undergoes significant renal and hepatic excretion. The objective of these two studies was to investigate the single-dose pharmacokinetics of vandetanib in subjects with renal or hepatic impairment in comparison with healthy subjects. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two open-label, parallel-group studies were conducted at a single centre in Germany. Subjects aged 18-75 years with a body mass index of 18-32 kg/m2 were eligible. The renal impairment study recruited subjects with normal renal function and mild, moderate and severe renal impairment according to creatinine clearance calculated from a 24-hour urine collection pre-dose. The hepatic impairment study recruited subjects with normal hepatic function and mild, moderate and severe hepatic impairment according to the Child-Pugh classification. All subjects received a single 800 mg oral vandetanib dose. Blood samples for measurement of vandetanib, N-desmethylvandetanib and vandetanib N-oxide were collected before and at various timepoints after vandetanib administration for up to 63 days. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined using noncompartmental methods. RESULTS: Thirty-two subjects were recruited for the renal impairment study (ten with normal renal function and six, ten and six with mild, moderate and severe impairment, respectively). Thirty subjects were recruited for the hepatic impairment study (eight with normal hepatic function and eight, eight and six with mild, moderate and severe impairment, respectively). The area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC(infinity)) values of free vandetanib increased by approximately 46%, 62% and 79% in subjects with mild, moderate and severe renal impairment, respectively. These increases were statistically significant, with the increase in the severe renal impairment group having the possibility of being double the value observed in subjects with normal renal function (geometric least squares [GLS] mean ratio [renal impairment : normal renal function] of 1.79; 90% CI 1.39, 2.31). Peak plasma concentrations of free vandetanib increased slightly by approximately 7%, 9% and 11% in subjects with mild, moderate and severe renal impairment, respectively. Total plasma clearance of free vandetanib decreased with all degrees of renal dysfunction. Hepatic impairment did not have a statistically significant effect on the AUC(infinity) of total vandetanib. Peak plasma concentrations of total vandetanib were reduced in subjects with all classifications of hepatic impairment compared with normal hepatic function, with a statistically significant effect in the severe hepatic impairment group (GLS mean ratio 0.71; 90% CI 0.53, 0.96). Increased exposure to both metabolites was seen in subjects with renal impairment. Exposure to N-desmethylvandetanib was reduced in subjects with hepatic impairment, while exposure to vandetanib N-oxide was increased in subjects with severe hepatic impairment. Vandetanib was well tolerated and had a similar tolerability profile in subjects with renal or hepatic impairment compared with healthy subjects. CONCLUSION: Exposure to vandetanib was increased by about 46%, 62% and 79% in subjects with mild, moderate and severe renal impairment, respectively. A doubling in exposure could be ruled out in subjects with mild or moderate renal impairment but not for those with severe renal impairment. The possibility of dose reductions in patients with severe renal impairment will need to be assessed when the safety and tolerability profile is fully defined. Exposure to vandetanib was not altered in subjects with hepatic impairment, and no dose adjustment would be expected in patients with hepatic impairment.

Vandetanib plus docetaxel versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ZODIAC): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and rearranged during transfection (RET) tyrosine kinases. In a randomised phase 2 study in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adding vandetanib 100 mg to docetaxel significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with docetaxel alone, including a longer PFS in women. These results supported investigation of the combination in this larger, definitive phase 3 trial (ZODIAC). METHODS: Between May, 2006, and April, 2008, patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB-IV) NSCLC after progression following first-line chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 through a third-party interactive voice system to receive vandetanib (100 mg/day) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously every 21 days; maximum six cycles) or placebo plus docetaxel. The primary objective was comparison of PFS between the two groups in the intention-to-treat population. Women were a coprimary analysis population. This study has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00312377. FINDINGS: 1391 patients received vandetanib plus docetaxel (n=694 [197 women]) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=697 [224 women]). Vandetanib plus docetaxel led to a significant improvement in PFS versus placebo plus docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 97.58% CI 0.70-0.90; p<0.0001); median PFS was 4.0 months in the vandetanib group versus 3.2 months in placebo group. A similar improvement in PFS with vandetanib plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel was seen in women (HR 0.79, 0.62-1.00, p=0.024); median PFS was 4.6 months in the vandetanib group versus 4.2 months in the placebo group. Among grade 3 or higher adverse events, rash (63/689 [9%] vs 7/690 [1%]), neutropenia (199/689 [29%] vs 164/690 [24%]), leukopenia (99/689 [14%] vs 77/690 [11%]), and febrile neutropenia (61/689 [9%] vs 48/690 [7%]) were more common with vandetanib plus docetaxel than with placebo plus docetaxel. The most common serious adverse event was febrile neutropenia (46/689 [7%] in the vandetanib group vs 38/690 [6%] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: The addition of vandetanib to docetaxel provides a significant improvement in PFS in patients with advanced NSCLC after progression following first-line therapy.

Distinct patterns of cytokine and angiogenic factor modulation and markers of benefit for vandetanib and/or chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: There is an unmet need for biomarkers for identifying patients likely to benefit from anticancer treatments, selecting dose, and understanding mechanisms of resistance. Plasma vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and soluble VEGF receptor 2 (sVEGFR-2) are known to be modulated by VEGF pathway inhibitors. It is unknown whether chemotherapy or VEGFR inhibitor/chemotherapy combinations induce changes in these or other cytokines and angiogenic factors (CAFs) and whether such changes could be markers of benefit. METHODS: Thirty-five plasma CAFs were analyzed using multiplexed bead arrays and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays from 123 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in a randomized phase II study who received vandetanib, a VEGFR and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, monotherapy carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP), or the combination (VCP). Changes in CAFs at days 8, 22, and 43 from baseline were correlated with progression risk. RESULTS: VEGF increased and sVEGFR-2 decreased by day 43 in the vandetanib arm, whereas a distinct pattern was observed in the CP and VCP arms, with significant decreases in interleukin (IL) -12, IL-1 receptor antagonist, and matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9) and increased macrophage chemoattractant protein 1. In each treatment arm, changes in different markers were associated with progression risk. For example, increases in IL-8 with VCP, MMP-9 with CP, and VEGF with vandetanib monotherapy were associated with increased progression risk, and increase in intercellular adhesion molecule 1 with vandetanib was associated with decreased risk. CONCLUSION: Vandetanib and chemotherapy treatment led to distinct patterns of CAF changes; the combination resembled chemotherapy alone. Changes in specific CAFs correlated with clinical outcome, but markers differed for each treatment arm. CAF profiling may provide insights into the biologic effects of treatment and identify drug-specific markers of activity and clinical benefit.

Baseline vascular endothelial growth factor concentration as a potential predictive marker of benefit from vandetanib in non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Vandetanib [vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor/epidermal growth factor receptor/RET inhibitor] has shown improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer in three randomized phase II studies: vandetanib versus gefitinib (study 3), docetaxel +/- vandetanib (study 6), and carboplatin-paclitaxel and/or vandetanib (study 7). In study 7, vandetanib monotherapy was inferior to carboplatin-paclitaxel. We performed an exploratory retrospective analysis of the relationship between baseline circulating VEGF concentrations and PFS. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Mean baseline VEGF levels were determined by ELISA from two baseline samples of plasma (163 of 168 patients, study 3; 65 of 127, study 6) or serum (144 of 181, study 7). High baseline VEGF values were above the immunoassay reference range for healthy subjects; low baseline VEGF values were within the range. RESULTS: Patients with low baseline VEGF had a lower risk of disease progression with vandetanib versus gefitinib [hazard ratio (HR), 0.55; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.35-0.86; P = 0.01] or vandetanib 100 mg/d + docetaxel versus docetaxel (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.68; P = 0.01). High VEGF patients had a similar risk of disease progression with vandetanib monotherapy versus gefitinib (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.60-1.75; P = 0.92) or vandetanib 100 mg/d + docetaxel versus docetaxel (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.25-3.61; P = 0.94). In study 7, low VEGF patients had a similar risk of disease progression with vandetanib monotherapy 300 mg/d versus carboplatin-paclitaxel (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.41-1.56; P = 0.51); high VEGF patients progressed more quickly (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 0.81-3.15; P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: These analyses suggest that low baseline circulating VEGF may be predictive of PFS advantage in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer receiving vandetanib versus gefitinib or vandetanib + docetaxel versus docetaxel. Moreover, patients with low VEGF levels may have a similar outcome with either vandetanib monotherapy or carboplatin-paclitaxel.

Phase II study of vandetanib or placebo in small-cell lung cancer patients after complete or partial response to induction chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.20.

PURPOSE: This double-blind randomized phase II trial examined whether vandetanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial and epidermal growth factor receptors, could prolong progression-free survival in responding patients with small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to combination chemotherapy (+/- thoracic or prophylactic cranial radiation) received oral vandetanib 300 mg/d or matched placebo. With 100 patients and 77 events, the study had 80% power to detect an improvement in median progression-free survival from 4 to 6.5 months (one-sided, 10%-level test). RESULTS: Between May 2003 and March 2006, 107 patients were accrued; 46 had limited disease and 61 extensive disease. There were fewer patients with a performance status of 0 (n = 11 v 20), and fewer had CR to initial therapy (n = 4 v 8) in the vandetanib arm. Vandetanib patients had more toxicity and required more dose modifications for gastrointestinal toxicity and rash. Asymptomatic Corrected QT interval (QTC) prolongation was observed in eight vandetanib patients. Median progression-free survival for vandetanib and placebo was 2.7 and 2.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 80% CI, 0.75 to 1.36; one-sided P = .51). Overall survival for vandetanib was 10.6 versus 11.9 months for placebo (HR, 1.43; 80% CI, 1.00 to 2.05; one-sided P = 0.9). In planned subgroup analyses, a significant interaction was noted (P = .01): limited-stage vandetanib patients had longer overall survival (HR, 0.45; one-sided P = .07) and extensive-stage vandetanib patients shorter survival compared with placebo (HR, 2.27; one-sided P = .996). CONCLUSION: Vandetanib failed to demonstrate efficacy as maintenance therapy for small-cell lung cancer.

Magnetic resonance imaging measurements of the response of murine and human tumors to the vascular-targeting agent ZD6126.

PURPOSE: ZD6126 is a novel vascular targeting agent currently undergoing clinical evaluation. It acts by destabilizing the microtubulin of fragile and proliferating neoendothelial cells in tumors. The drug leads to blood vessel congestion, the selective destruction of the vasculature, and extensive necrosis in experimental tumors. The aim of the study reported here was to assess the ability of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure the antivascular effects of ZD6126 in tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The work was carried out in mice bearing C38 colon adenocarcinoma and in patients with advanced cancers. MRI was performed before and 6 h (human tumors) or 24 h (C38 tumors) after i.v. drug administration. Contrast agent (gadolinium diethylenetriaminepentaacetate) enhancement was characterized by the initial area under the gadolinium diethylenetriaminepentaacetate uptake versus time curve (IAUC). IAUC reflects blood flow, vascular permeability, and the fraction of interstitial space. RESULTS: The median IAUC was reduced in all C38 tumors after ZD6126 administration [by 6-48% at 50 mg/kg (n = 3)], 58-91% at 100 mg/kg (n = 4), and 11-93% at 200 mg/kg (n = 6). In contrast, the administration of vehicle only led to no consistent change in median IAUC (n = 4). The ZD6126-induced changes in median IAUC appeared to be dose dependent (P = 0.045). No ZD6126-induced changes were apparent in murine muscle. Similar effects were seen in preliminary data from human tumors (11 tumors studied, 9 patients). At doses of 80 mg/m(2) and higher, the median IAUC post-ZD6126 treatment was reduced in all of the tumors studied (8 tumors, 6 patients) to 36-72% from the baseline value. There was a significant trend of increasing reductions with increasing exposure (P < 0.01). No drug-induced changes in human muscle or spleen IAUC were apparent. The reproducibility of the median IAUC parameter was investigated in patients. In 19 human tumors (measured in 19 patients) inter- and intratumor coefficients of variation were 64 and 18%. CONCLUSIONS: The contrast enhanced-MRI measured median IAUC is a useful end point for quantifying ZD6126 antivascular effects in human tumors.