Phase II trial of afatinib in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma with genetic alterations in ERBB1-3 (LUX-Bladder 1).

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and early clinical data suggest that the irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib may be effective in urothelial cancers harbouring ERBB mutations. METHODS: This open-label, phase II, single-arm trial (LUX-Bladder 1, NCT02780687) assessed the efficacy and safety of second-line afatinib 40 mg/d in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with ERBB1-3 alterations. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6) (cohort A); other endpoints included ORR, PFS, OS, DCR and safety (cohorts A and B). Cohort A was planned to have two stages: stage 2 enrolment was based on observed antitumour activity. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were enroled into cohort A and eight into cohort B. In cohorts A/B, PFS6 was 11.8%/12.5%, ORR was 5.9%/12.5%, DCR was 50.0%/25.0%, median PFS was 9.8/7.8 weeks and median OS was 30.1/29.6 weeks. Three patients (two ERBB2-amplified [cohort A]; one EGFR-amplified [cohort B]) achieved partial responses. Stage 2 for cohort A did not proceed. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs), most commonly (any/grade 3) diarrhoea (76.2%/9.5%). Two patients (4.8%) discontinued due to AEs and one fatal AE was observed (acute coronary syndrome; not considered treatment-related). CONCLUSIONS: An exploratory biomarker analysis suggested that basal-squamous tumours and ERBB2 amplification were associated with superior response to afatinib. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02780687.

Safety and tolerability of weekly docetaxel plus nintedanib: A phase I trial after first-line chemotherapy failure in NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown improved tolerability with once-weekly versus three-weekly docetaxel in the second-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to evaluate the tolerability of nintedanib plus weekly docetaxel in patients with NSCLC. METHODS: This phase I, open-label, dose-escalation study (NCT02668393) enrolled patients with locally advanced/metastatic adenocarcinoma NSCLC that had progressed on first-line platinum chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was to determine the maximum tolerated dose of nintedanib (up to 200 mg twice daily [BID]) combined with weekly docetaxel (35 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 based on the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) over a 28-day treatment cycle. Adverse events (AEs) were also evaluated. RESULTS: The trial terminated prematurely due to recruitment challenges. At termination, seven patients had received nintedanib 150 mg BID and seven nintedanib 200 mg BID, in combination with weekly docetaxel. In the first treatment cycle, DLTs were reported for 1/6 evaluable patients (16.7%) in each group. The disease control rates were 57.1% and 42.9%, respectively. Grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs affected three patients in each group (42.9%); neutropenia was reported in one patient (14.3%) in each group. Treatment-related serious AEs were reported in three patients (42.9%) receiving nintedanib 150 mg, and two patients (28.6%) receiving nintedanib 200 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, nintedanib plus weekly docetaxel was well-tolerated in patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung adenocarcinoma who progressed on first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, without loss of efficacy. DLTs were manageable.

Afatinib in paediatric patients with recurrent/refractory ErbB-dysregulated tumours: Results of a phase I/expansion trial.

AIM: This phase I/expansion study assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics and preliminary antitumor activity of afatinib in paediatric patients with cancer. METHODS: The dose-finding part enroled patients (2-<18 years) with recurrent/refractory tumours. Patients received 18 or 23 mg/m2/d afatinib orally (tablet or solution) in 28-d cycles. In the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) expansion, eligible patients (1-<18 years) had tumours fulfilling ≥2 of the following criteria in the pre-screening: EGFR amplification; HER2 amplification; EGFR membrane staining (H-score>150); HER2 membrane staining (H-score>0). The primary end-points were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), afatinib exposure, and objective response. RESULTS: Of 564 patients pre-screened, 536 patients had biomarker data and 63 (12%) fulfilled ≥2 EGFR/HER2 criteria required for inclusion in the expansion part. A total of 56 patients were treated (17 in the dose-finding and 39 in the expansion part). DLTs were observed in one of six MTD-evaluable patients receiving 18 mg/m²/d and in two of five MTD-evaluable patients receiving 23 mg/m²/d; 18 mg/m²/d was defined as the MTD. There were no new safety signals. Pharmacokinetics confirmed exposure consistent with the approved dose in adults. One partial response (-81% per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology) was observed in a patient with a glioneuronal tumour harbouring a CLIP2::EGFR fusion; unconfirmed partial responses were observed in two patients. In total, 25% of patients experienced objective response or stable disease (95% confidence interval: 14-38). CONCLUSION: Targetable EGFR/HER2 drivers are rare in paediatric cancers. Treatment with afatinib led to a durable response (>3 years) in one patient with a glioneuronal tumour with CLIP2::EGFR fusion.

Phase II study of afatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung following progression during or after first-line chemotherapy (LUX-Lung-IO).

INTRODUCTION: Afatinib and pembrolizumab have separately shown survival benefit in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC) of the lung, and there is biological rationale for concurrent inhibition of the programmed death ligand-1 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways in this patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label, single-arm study enrolled patients with SqCC of the lung who had progressed during/after first-line chemotherapy and comprised two parts: a safety run-in to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D; afatinib 40 mg or 30 mg once daily with pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks); and the main part assessing efficacy and safety of the RP2D. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included the RP2D, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were treated in the safety run-in (afatinib 40 mg/30 mg cohorts: n = 12/12). Median age was 63.5 years; 79.2% of patients were male. All patients discontinued afatinib and pembrolizumab, most commonly due to disease progression (58.3% and 75.0%, respectively) or adverse events (AEs; 37.5% and 25.0%, respectively). The study was discontinued early after completion of the safety run-in, and no patients entered the main part. ORR was 12.5%; median PFS and OS were 13.1 and 29.3 weeks, respectively. All patients had ≥ 1 drug-related AE (grade ≥ 3: 45.8%). CONCLUSION: While there were no new or unexpected safety findings, exploratory analysis of antitumor activity indicated limited efficacy with afatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with SqCC of the lung who had progressed during/after first-line chemotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03157089.

Experience from Asian centers in a named-patient-use program for afatinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who had progressed following prior therapies, including patients with uncommon EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated outcomes among patients with advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated at Asian centers participating in the global named-patient-use (NPU) program for afatinib. METHODS: Patients had progressed after initial benefit with erlotinib or gefitinib, and/or had an EGFR or HER2 mutation, had no other treatment options, and were ineligible for afatinib trials. The recommended starting dose of afatinib was 50 mg/day. Dose modifications were allowed, and afatinib was continued as long as deemed beneficial. Response and survival information was provided voluntarily. Safety reporting was mandatory. RESULTS: 2242 patients (26% aged ≥ 70 years, 96% with adenocarcinoma) received afatinib at centers in 10 Asian countries. Most were heavily pre-treated, including prior treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib. Of 1281 patients tested, 1240 had EGFR mutations (common: 1034/1101; uncommon: 117/1101). There were no new safety signals, the most common adverse events being rash and diarrhea. Objective response rate (ORR) was 24% overall (n = 431 with data available), 27% for patients with common EGFR mutations (n = 230) and 28% for those with uncommon mutations (n = 32); median time to treatment failure (TTF) in these groups was 7.6 months (n = 1550), 6.4 months (n = 692) and 8.4 months (n = 83), respectively. In patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions (n = 23) and HER2 mutations (n = 12), median TTF exceeded 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patient outcomes in this study were similar to those reported in the analysis of the global NPU. Afatinib achieved clinical benefits in patients with refractory NSCLC. ORR and TTF were similar between patients with tumors harboring uncommon and common EGFR mutations.

Activity of Afatinib in Heavily Pretreated Patients With ERBB2 Mutation-Positive Advanced NSCLC: Findings From a Global Named Patient Use Program.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 1% to 4% of NSCLC tumors harbor erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2) mutation; there is no approved targeted treatment for this subgroup. METHODS: Patients with stage IV NSCLC that progressed after clinical benefit on erlotinib/gefitinib and/or had activating EGFR or ERBB2 mutations, had exhausted other treatments, and were ineligible for afatinib trials were enrolled in a named patient use program, receiving afatinib 30 to 50 mg/d on a compassionate basis within routine clinical practice. Efficacy and safety were retrospectively assessed in the subgroup with ERBB2 mutation-positive NSCLC. RESULTS: Twenty-eight heavily pretreated patients in the named patient use program had a documented ERBB2 mutation by local testing. Median time-to-treatment failure (TTF; time from treatment initiation to discontinuation for any reason) was 2.9 months; eight patients (29%) had TTF greater than 1 year. Objective response rate was 19% (3 of 16 patients with response data achieved partial response) and disease control rate (DCR) was 69% (11 of 16). Among 12 patients for whom type of ERBB2 mutation was specified, 10 had a p.A775_G776insYVMA insertion in exon 20, four of whom (40%) remained on afatinib for more than 1 year. This subgroup had median TTF of 9.6 months, objective response rate of 33% (two of six), and disease control rate of 100% (six of six). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of patients treated in clinical practice provides further evidence of the activity of afatinib in ERBB2 mutation-positive NSCLC, and suggests that identification of specific subgroups with certain mutations, such as p.A775_G776ins/YVMA insertion in exon 20, could help optimize outcomes with ErbB2-targeted treatment.

Global named patient use program of afatinib in advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma patients who progressed following prior therapies.

AIM: A global afatinib named patient use program in non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) commenced in 2010. MATERIALS & METHODS: Eligible NSCLC patients had progressed after clinical benefit on prior erlotinib/gefitinib and/or had activating EGFR/HER2 mutations, exhausted all other treatments, and were ineligible for afatinib trials. RESULTS: Data, as of January 2016, were reported on 3966 heavily pretreated NSCLC patients (41 countries; six continents). Among 2595/3966 (65.4%) patients with tumor EGFR status, 2407 (92.8%) were EGFR mutation positive. Median time to treatment failure (2862/3966 [72.2%] patients with available data) was 4.4 months. Among 1141/2862 (39.9%) patients with response reported, objective response rate was 23.4% (267/1141). Safety findings were as expected. CONCLUSION: Time to treatment failure durations and objective response rates were encouraging.

Cardiac safety of afatinib: a review of data from clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib is an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker that targets epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/ErbB2), and HER4 (ErbB4) and is approved for the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with certain sensitizing EGFR mutations. As anti-HER2 therapies have been associated with cardiac dysfunction, we report cardiac safety data for afatinib. METHODS: Cardiac data were analyzed from phase III trials of afatinib 40 mg in treatment-naive patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (LUX-Lung 3 [LL3]; n = 229 afatinib, n = 111 chemotherapy) and afatinib 50 mg in EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor-pretreated NSCLC patients (LUX-Lung 1 [LL1]; n = 390 afatinib, n = 195 placebo). Additional pooled data from 49 trials (n = 3865 afatinib-treated patients) is reported. Cardiac failure adverse events (CF-AEs), including symptomatic cardiac failure and depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), were analyzed. RESULTS: Time at risk-adjusted CF-AE rates (events/100 patient-years) were similar for afatinib versus placebo in LL1 (2.40 vs 2.23) and versus chemotherapy in LL3 (2.28 vs 2.92); the pooled afatinib CF-AE rate (2.88) was consistent with that for both trials. The frequency of clinically significant LVEF reductions was higher for chemotherapy in LL3 (2/15 [13.3 %], afatinib 13/208 [6.3 %]; p = 0.267) and similar to placebo in LL1 (5/122 [4.1 %], afatinib 14/304 [4.6 %]; p = 1.000). CONCLUSION: Afatinib was not associated with cardiac failure or LVEF reductions in the afatinib clinical trial program.

Symptom and quality of life benefit of afatinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients previously treated with erlotinib or gefitinib: results of a randomized phase IIb/III trial (LUX-Lung 1).

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported symptom and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefit of afatinib, a novel, irreversible, ErbB Family Blocker, was investigated in a double-blind, randomized, phase IIb/III trial (LUX-Lung 1). METHODS: Five hundred and eighty-five patients with lung adenocarcinoma (stage IIIb/IV), who had progressed after chemotherapy (1-2 lines) and at least 12 weeks of erlotinib or gefitinib, were randomized (2:1) to receive either afatinib plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. Symptom and HRQoL benefit were measured using the lung cancer-specific European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (QLQ-C30/LC13) and EuroQol (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Non-small-cell lung cancer-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, and pain) were prespecified using three preplanned analyses (percentage of patients improved/worsened/stable, change in scores over time, and time to deterioration of scores). RESULTS: Compared with patients on placebo, a significantly higher proportion of afatinib-treated patients showed an improvement in cough (p < 0.0001), dyspnea (p = 0.006), and pain (p < 0.0001). Afatinib also significantly improved the mean scores over time for cough (p < 0.0001), dyspnea (p = 0.0161), and pain (p = 0.0056); significantly delayed the time to deterioration for cough (p < 0.001); and showed a trend in delaying dyspnea (p = 0.170) and pain (p = 0.287). Consistent with the adverse-event profile of afatinib, a significantly (p < 0.05) higher proportion of afatinib-treated patients showed worsening of diarrhea, sore mouth, dysphagia, and appetite scores. However, compared with placebo, afatinib significantly (p < 0.05) improved QoL assessed with the EQ-5D questionnaire and global health status/QoL, physical functioning, and fatigue, which were assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires. CONCLUSION: In the LUX-Lung 1 trial, the addition of afatinib to BSC significantly improved non-small-cell lung cancer-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, and pain), fatigue, physical functioning, and HRQoL and significantly delayed time to deterioration of cough.

Afatinib versus placebo for patients with advanced, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of erlotinib, gefitinib, or both, and one or two lines of chemotherapy (LUX-Lung 1): a phase 2b/3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB-family blocker, has shown preclinical activity when tested in EGFR mutant models with mutations that confer resistance to EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. We aimed to assess its efficacy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with previous treatment failure on EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. METHODS: In this phase 2b/3 trial, we enrolled patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance (ECOG) performance score of 0-2 who had received one or two previous chemotherapy regimens and had disease progression after at least 12 weeks of treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib. We used a computer-generated sequence to randomly allocate patients (2:1) to either afatinib (50 mg per day) or placebo; all patients received best supportive care. Randomisation was done in blocks of three and was stratified by sex and baseline ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2). Investigators, patients, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (from date of randomisation to death), analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00656136. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2008, and Sept 21, 2009, we identified 697 patients, 585 of whom were randomly allocated to treatment (390 to afatinib, 195 to placebo). Median overall survival was 10·8 months (95% CI 10·0-12·0) in the afatinib group and 12·0 months (10·2-14·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·86-1·35; p=0·74). Median progression-free survival was longer in the afatinib group (3·3 months, 95% CI 2·79-4·40) than it was in the placebo group (1·1 months, 0·95-1·68; hazard ratio 0·38, 95% CI 0·31-0·48; p<0·0001). No complete responses to treatment were noted; 29 (7%) patients had a partial response in the afatinib group, as did one patient in the placebo group. Subsequent cancer treatment was given to 257 (68%) patients in the afatinib group and 153 (79%) patients in the placebo group. The most common adverse events in the afatinib group were diarrhoea (339 [87%] of 390 patients; 66 [17%] were grade 3) and rash or acne (305 [78%] patients; 56 [14%] were grade 3). These events occurred less often in the placebo group (18 [9%] of 195 patients had diarrhoea; 31 [16%] had rash or acne), all being grade 1 or 2. Drug-related serious adverse events occurred in 39 (10%) patients in the afatinib group and one (<1%) patient in the placebo group. We recorded two possibly treatment-related deaths in the afatinib group. INTERPRETATION: Although we recorded no benefit in terms of overall survival with afatinib (which might have been affected by cancer treatments given after progression in both groups), our findings for progression-free survival and response to treatment suggest that afatinib could be of some benefit to patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma who have failed at least 12 weeks of previous EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim Inc.

Afatinib for patients with lung adenocarcinoma and epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (LUX-Lung 2): a phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib is an irreversible ErbB-family blocker with preclinical activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the efficacy of afatinib in patients with lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations. METHODS: In this phase 2 study, we enrolled patients from 30 centres in Taiwan and the USA with lung adenocarcinoma (stage IIIb with pleural effusion or stage IV) with EGFR mutations, who had no more than one previous chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and no previous treatment with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. We tested two afatinib starting doses: 50 mg daily and subsequently 40 mg daily, introduced to establish whether tolerability could be improved with retention of anti-tumour activity. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response (complete response or partial response), on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0 (independent review). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00525148. FINDINGS: 129 patients were treated with afatinib, 99 with a starting dose of 50 mg and 30 with a starting dose of 40 mg. 79 (61%) of 129 patients had an objective response (two complete responses, 77 partial responses). 70 (66%) of the 106 patients with the two common activating EGFR mutations (deletion 19 or L858R) had an objective response, as did nine (39%) of 23 patients with less common mutations. Similar proportions of patients had an objective response when analysed by starting dose (18 [60%] of 30 patients at 40 mg vs 61 [62%] of 99 patients at 50 mg). Of the two most common adverse events (diarrhoea and rash or acne), grade 3 events were more common in patients receiving a 50 mg starting dose (22 [22%] of 99 patients for diarrhoea and 28 [28%] of 99 patients for rash or acne) than they were in those receiving a 40 mg starting dose (two [7%] of 30 patients for both diarrhoea and rash or acne); possibly treatment-related serious adverse events were also less common in patients receiving a 40 mg starting dose (two of 30 patients vs 14 of 99 patients). We recorded one possibly drug-related death (interstitial lung disease). INTERPRETATION: Afatinib shows activity in the treatment of patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, especially in patients with deletion 19 or L858R mutations. The efficacy of afatinib 40 mg should be compared with chemotherapy or other EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim Inc.

Phase 1 clinical experience using intravenous administration of PV701, an oncolytic Newcastle disease virus.

PV701 is a naturally-attenuated, non-recombinant, oncolytic strain of Newcastle disease virus that displays preclinical intravenous (IV) efficacy. PV701 is selective at killing human cancer cells versus normal human cells based on tumor specific defects in the interferon (IFN)-mediated antiviral response. This oncolytic virus displays a broad spectrum of antitumor activity in vitro and in vivo. Preclinical models successfully predicted key clinical parameters including the mechanism of toxicity, two complementary strategies (desensitization and slow infusion) to reduce toxicity, and the starting dose for phase 1 trials. In three phase 1 trials of 114 patients using IV administration of PV701, Wellstat Biologics Corporation has evaluated the effects of dose, schedule, and infusion rate for PV701. Three general classes of side effects were seen: flu-like symptoms; tumor-site-specific adverse events (AEs); and infusion reactions. The first PV701 dose desensitized the patient to the side effects of further doses, allowing a marked increase in the maximum tolerated dose for subsequent doses compared to the first dose. Tumor responses were first noted at the higher doses achieved using desensitization. In the most recent phase 1 trial of 19 patients at Hamilton, Ontario, that employed desensitization, high repeat doses, and a slower infusion rate (Hamilton Regimen), there were six responses (4 major; 2 minor) and a total of six patients with survival for at least 2 years. In addition, patient tolerability improved using the Hamilton Regimen compared to IV bolus dosing used previously. Phase 2 studies of this novel biologic agent are about to begin.

An optimized clinical regimen for the oncolytic virus PV701.

PURPOSE: Previous phase 1 trials of i.v.-administered PV701 have shown this virus to be well-tolerated with toxicity primarily associated with the first dose. Our hypothesis, based on preclinical evidence, was that patient tolerability could be improved by slowing the i.v. infusion rate, and that this approach would allow for the safe administration of higher doses. Additionally, this phase 1 trial was the first to measure PV701 clearance. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: For the first dose, a 3-h infusion was used compared with the 10- and 30-min infusions administered in the two previous trials. Subsequent doses were infused over 1 h. Six doses were given per 3-week cycle. Escalation of the first dose was done separately from the escalation of doses 2 to 6. Viral clearance was determined using whole blood reverse transcription-PCR. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with advanced chemorefractory cancer were enrolled. The first dose was safely escalated to 24x10(9) plaque-forming units/m2 and doses 2 to 6 were safely escalated to 120x10(9) plaque-forming units/m2. Tolerability was improved compared with the rapid bolus dosing used previously with the elimination of severe flu-like symptoms. Furthermore, infusion reactions were markedly decreased in this trial compared with previous PV701 trials. The presence of neutralizing antibodies did not significantly affect PV701 clearance. Four major and two minor tumor responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Using slow infusion, patient tolerability was improved, while the first dose was safely escalated relative to two previous PV701 trials. Based on improved tolerability and encouraging signs of activity, this slow infusion regimen was selected for further PV701 clinical development.

Naturally oncolytic viruses.

Naturally oncolytic viruses are replication-competent viruses that have an innate ability to selectively infect and kill tumor cells. Despite being used in the original attempts to treat cancer with live viruses five decades ago, interest in naturally oncolytic viruses has lagged behind the support for engineered adenoviruses and herpesviruses as cancer therapeutics. Recently, however, there has been renewed interest in the high potency and selectivity of these naturally occurring agents. In this review, the mechanism of selectivity as well as the preclinical and clinical activity of naturally oncolytic viruses will be discussed.

A phase 1 clinical study of intravenous administration of PV701, an oncolytic virus, using two-step desensitization.

PURPOSE: In a previous phase 1 study, adverse events, especially flu-like symptoms, were observed mainly following the first i.v. bolus dose of PV701, an oncolytic Newcastle disease virus. Desensitization to adverse events of subsequent doses occurred, allowing a 10-fold increase in the maximum tolerated dose for these doses. Although one-step desensitization (a single desensitizing dose with higher subsequent doses) addressed the tolerability of high repeat doses, additional testing was required to further improve tolerability of the initial dose. This study tested the hypothesis that two-step desensitization, using two dose increments before high repeat doses, would be well tolerated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Sixteen adults with incurable solid tumors were enrolled. Cycles consisted of six PV701 doses over 2 weeks followed by a 1-week rest. Doses 1 to 2 were 1 and 12 x 10(9) plaque-forming units (pfu)/m(2), respectively, whereas doses 3 to 6 were escalated by cohort from 24 to 120 x 10(9) pfu/m(2). RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities were observed, permitting dose escalation through cohort 4 (1, 12, 120, 120, 120, 120 x 10(9) pfu/m(2)). Mild flu-like symptoms were common following the first infusion, diminished with repeated dosing, and were less pronounced than those seen previously. Tumor regression was observed in a patient with anal carcinoma who enrolled with stable disease following palliative radiotherapy. Four patients with clearly progressing cancer before enrollment had disease stabilization of >/=6 months. CONCLUSIONS: This novel two-step desensitization improved patient tolerability compared with the previous regimen. Toxicities were predictable and manageable. PV701, the first oncolytic virus to enter phase 1 i.v. testing, continues to show single-agent activity, warranting planned phase 2 trials.

Naturally occurring viruses for the treatment of cancer.

The use of naturally occurring viruses in the treatment of cancer is not new, and reports describing the administration of viruses to cancer patients date back more than fifty years. The advent of molecular biology and the arrival of biologics to the cancer therapy arena have now set the stage for a fresh look at the potential of these agents. These viruses have the potential to specifically target tumor cells, and insights into the molecular mechanisms of this selectivity are beginning to emerge.

Overview of phase I studies of intravenous administration of PV701, an oncolytic virus.

PV701 is an attenuated, non-recombinant, oncolytic strain of Newcastle disease virus that displays preclinical intravenous (i.v.) efficacy. PV701 selectively lyses tumor cells versus normal cells based on tumor-specific defects in the interferon-mediated antiviral response. In three phase I trials in 113 patients, the effects of dose, schedule and i.v. infusion rate were evaluated. Three types of adverse events were seen: flu-like, tumor-site-specific and those occurring during infusion. The first PV701 dose desensitized the patient to the side effects of further doses, allowing a 5- to 10-fold increase in the maximum-tolerated dose for subsequent doses compared with the first dose. Tumor responses were first noted at the higher doses achieved using desensitization. In 95 evaluable patients, there were ten responses (six major and four minor), with five of these responses occurring in the most recent trial of 18 patients that employed desensitization, high repeat doses and a slower infusion rate. Phase II studies are planned.

Phase I trial of intravenous administration of PV701, an oncolytic virus, in patients with advanced solid cancers.

PURPOSE: PV701, a replication-competent strain of Newcastle disease virus, causes regression of tumor xenografts after intravenous administration. This phase I study was designed to define the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and safety of single and multiple intravenous doses of PV701 as a single agent in patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine patients with advanced solid cancers that were unresponsive to standard therapy were enrolled. Four PV701 intravenous dosing regimens were evaluated: (1) single dose: one dose every 28 days; (2) repeat dose: three doses in 1 week every 28 days; (3) desensitizing: one lower dose followed by two higher doses in 1 week every 28 days; and (4) two week: one lower dose followed by five higher doses over 2 weeks every 21 days. RESULTS: A 100-fold dose intensification was achieved over 195 cycles. A first-dose MTD of 12 x 10(9) plaque-forming units (PFU)/m(2) was established for outpatient dosing. After an initial dose of 12 x 10(9) PFU/m(2), patients tolerated an MTD for subsequent doses of 120 x 10(9) PFU/m(2). The most common adverse events were flu-like symptoms that occurred principally after the first dose and were decreased in number and severity with each subsequent dose. Tumor site-specific adverse events and acute dosing reactions were also observed but not cumulative toxicity. Objective responses occurred at higher dose levels, and progression-free survival ranged from 4 to 31 months. Tumor tissue from one patient was obtained after 11 months of therapy and showed evidence of PV701 particles budding from the tumor cell membrane by electron microscopy and a pronounced lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate by histologic examination. CONCLUSION: PV701 warrants further study as a novel therapeutic agent for cancer patients.