Autoimmune PaneLs as PrEdictors of Toxicity in Patients TReated with Immune Checkpoint InhibiTors (ALERT).

BACKGROUND: Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) can lead to immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in a significant proportion of patients. The mechanisms underlying irAEs development are mostly unknown and might involve multiple immune effectors, such as T cells, B cells and autoantibodies (AutoAb). METHODS: We used custom autoantigen (AutoAg) microarrays to profile AutoAb related to irAEs in patients receiving ICI. Plasma was collected before and after ICI from cancer patients participating in two clinical trials (NCT03686202, NCT02644369). A one-time collection was obtained from healthy controls for comparison. Custom arrays with 162 autoAg were used to detect IgG and IgM reactivities. Differences of median fluorescent intensity (MFI) were analyzed with Wilcoxon sign rank test and Kruskal-Wallis test. MFI 500 was used as threshold to define autoAb reactivity. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients and 14 healthy controls were included in this study. irAEs of grade (G) ≥ 2 occurred in 37/114 patients (32%). We observed a greater number of IgG and IgM reactivities in pre-ICI collections from patients versus healthy controls (62 vs 32 p < 0.001). Patients experiencing irAEs G ≥ 2 demonstrated pre-ICI IgG reactivity to a greater number of AutoAg than patients who did not develop irAEs (39 vs 33 p = 0.040). We observed post-treatment increase of IgM reactivities in subjects experiencing irAEs G ≥ 2 (29 vs 35, p = 0.021) and a decrease of IgG levels after steroids (38 vs 28, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these results support the potential role of autoAb in irAEs etiology and evolution. A prospective study is ongoing to validate our findings (NCT04107311).

Safety, Immunologic, and Clinical Activity of Durvalumab in Combination with Olaparib or Cediranib in Advanced Leiomyosarcoma: Results of the DAPPER Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Non-inflamed (cold) tumors such as leiomyosarcoma do not benefit from immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) monotherapy. Combining ICB with angiogenesis or PARP inhibitors may increase tumor immunogenicity by altering the immune cell composition of the tumor microenvironment (TME). The DAPPER phase II study evaluated the safety, immunologic, and clinical activity of ICB-based combinations in pretreated patients with leiomyosarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive durvalumab 1,500 mg IV every 4 weeks with either olaparib 300 mg twice a day orally (Arm A) or cediranib 20 mg every day orally 5 days/week (Arm B) until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Paired tumor biopsies, serial radiologic assessments and stool collections were performed. Primary endpoints were safety and immune cell changes in the TME. Objective responses and survival were correlated with transcriptomic, radiomic, and microbiome parameters. RESULTS: Among 30 heavily pretreated patients (15 on each arm), grade ≥ 3 toxicity occurred in 3 (20%) and 2 (13%) on Arms A and B, respectively. On Arm A, 1 patient achieved partial response (PR) with increase in CD8 T cells and macrophages in the TME during treatment, while 4 had stable disease (SD) ≥ 6 months. No patients on Arm B achieved PR or SD ≥ 6 months. Transcriptome analysis showed that baseline M1-macrophage and B-cell activity were associated with overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab plus olaparib increased immune cell infiltration of TME with clinical benefit in some patients with leiomyosarcoma. Baseline M1-macrophage and B-cell activity may identify patients with leiomyosarcoma with favorable outcomes on immunotherapy and should be further evaluated.

Phase I pharmacokinetic study of single agent trametinib in patients with advanced cancer and hepatic dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Trametinib is an oral MEK 1/2 inhibitor, with a single agent recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of 2 mg daily (QD). This study was designed to evaluate RP2D, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of trametinib in patients with advanced solid tumors who had various degrees of hepatic dysfunction (HD). METHODS: Advanced cancer patients were stratified into 4 HD groups based on Organ Dysfunction Working Group hepatic function stratification criteria: normal (Norm), mild (Mild), moderate (Mod), severe (Sev). Dose escalation was based on "3 + 3" design within each HD group. PK samples were collected at cycle 1 days 15-16. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were enrolled with 44 evaluable for safety [Norm=17, Mild=7, Mod (1.5 mg)=4, Mod (2 mg)=5, Sev (1 mg)=9, Sev (1.5 mg)=2] and 22 for PK analysis. Treatment related adverse events were consistent with prior trametinib studies. No treatment related deaths occurred. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluable in 15 patients (Mild=6, Mod (1.5 mg)=3, Mod (2 mg)=2, Sev (1 mg)=3 and Sev (1.5 mg)=1). One DLT (grade 3 acneiform rash) was observed in a Sev patient (1.5 mg). Dose interruptions or reductions due to treatment related adverse events occurred in 15 patients (34%) [Norm=9, 53%; Mild=2, 29%; Mod (1.5 mg)=1, 33%; Mod (2 mg)=2, 33%; Sev (1 mg)=1, 11%; Sev (1.5 mg)=1; 50%]. There were no significant differences across HD groups for all PK parameters when trametinib was normalized to 2 mg. However, only limited PK data were available for the Mod (n = 3) and Sev (n = 3) groups compared to Norm (n = 10) and Mild (n = 6) groups. Trametinib is heavily protein bound, with no correlation between serum albumin level and unbound trametinib fraction (p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: RP2D for trametinib in Mild HD patients is 2 mg QD. There are insufficient number of evaluable patients due to difficulty of patient accrual to declare RP2D and MTD for Mod and Sev HD groups. DLTs were not observed in the highest dose cohorts that reached three evaluable patients - 1.5 mg QD in Mod group, and 1 mg QD in Sev group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov website ( NCT02070549 ) on February 25, 2014. .

A phase II trial of GSK2256098 and trametinib in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Background: Mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) is activated by mutated KRAS in >90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). MEK and focal adhesion kinase (FAK) are frequently co-activated in PDAC providing a rationale for combining trametinib, an oral allosteric MEK1/2 inhibitor, with GSK2256098, an oral FAK inhibitor. Methods: Advanced PDAC patients whose disease progressed after first line palliative chemotherapy were treated with GSK2256098 250 mg twice daily and trametinib 0.5 mg once daily orally. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit (CB; complete response, partial response, or stable disease ≥24 weeks). Twenty-four patients were planned to enroll using a 2-stage minimax design (P0=0.15, P1=0.40; alpha =0.05, power 0.86). The combination would be considered inactive if 2/12 or fewer patients achieved CB at the end of stage 1, and would be considered active if >7/24 response-evaluable patients achieved CB by the end of stage 2. Serial blood samples were collected for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) mutation profiling. Results: Sixteen patients were enrolled and 11 were response evaluable. Of those 11, 10 had progressive disease as best tumor response and one had stable disease for 4 months. No treatment related grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were observed. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 1.6 (95% CI: 1.5-1.8) months and the median overall survival (OS) was 3.6 (95% CI: 2.7-not reached) months. One response-inevaluable patient achieved clinical stability for 5 months with reduction in CA19-9 and ctDNA levels with a MAP2K1 treatment resistance mutation detected in ctDNA at clinical progression. Conclusions: The combination of GSK2256098 and trametinib was well tolerated but was not active in unselected advanced PDAC.

A final report of a phase I study of veliparib (ABT-888) in combination with low-dose fractionated whole abdominal radiation therapy (LDFWAR) in patients with advanced solid malignancies and peritoneal carcinomatosis with a dose escalation in ovarian and fallopian tube cancers.

BACKGROUND: The combination of low-dose radiation therapy with PARP inhibition enhances anti-tumor efficacy through potentiating DNA damage. We combined low-dose fractionated whole abdominal radiation (LDFWAR) with ABT-888 in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis with a dose escalation in ovarian and fallopian cancer patients (OV). METHODS: Patients were treated with veliparib, 40-400mg orally BID on days 1-21 of 3 28-day cycles on 6 dose levels. Dose levels 5 and 6 included only OV patients. LDFWAR consisted of 21.6Gy in 36 fractions, 0.6Gy twice daily on days 1 and 5 for weeks 1-3 of each cycle. Circulating tumor material and quality of life were serially assessed. RESULTS: 32pts were treated. Median follow-up was 45months (10-50). The most common treatment-related grade 3 and 4 toxicities were lymphopenia (59%), anemia (9%), thrombocytopenia (12%), neutropenia (6%), leukopenia (6%), nausea (6%), diarrhea (6%), anorexia (6%), vomiting (6%) and fatigue (6%). The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be 250mg PO BID. Median PFS was 3.6months and median OS was 9.1months. In OV patients, OS was longer for platinum-sensitive patients (10.9mo) compared to platinum-resistant patients (5.8mo). QoL decreased for all groups during treatment. Germline BRCA status was known for 14/18 patients with OV cancers, 5 of whom were BRCA mutation carriers. One objective response (3%) was observed. CONCLUSION: ABT-888 plus LDFWAR is tolerable with gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue and myelosuppression as the most common toxicities. The single observed objective response was in a germline BRCA mutated, platinum-sensitive patient.

First-in-Class, First-in-Human Phase I Study of Selinexor, a Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export, in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

Purpose This trial evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of selinexor (KPT-330), a novel, oral small-molecule inhibitor of exportin 1 (XPO1/CRM1), and determined the recommended phase II dose. Patients and Methods In total, 189 patients with advanced solid tumors received selinexor (3 to 85 mg/m2) in 21- or 28-day cycles. Pre- and post-treatment levels of XPO1 mRNA in patient-derived leukocytes were determined by reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and tumor biopsies were examined by immunohistochemistry for changes in markers consistent with XPO1 inhibition. Antitumor response was assessed according Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 guidelines. Results The most common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue (70%), nausea (70%), anorexia (66%), and vomiting (49%), which were generally grade 1 or 2. Most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (16%), fatigue (15%), and hyponatremia (13%). Clinically significant major organ or cumulative toxicities were rare. The maximum-tolerated dose was defined at 65 mg/m2 using a twice-a-week (days 1 and 3) dosing schedule. The recommended phase II dose of 35 mg/m2 given twice a week was chosen based on better patient tolerability and no demonstrable improvement in radiologic response or disease stabilization compared with higher doses. Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional, with no evidence of drug accumulation. Dose-dependent elevations in XPO1 mRNA in leukocytes were demonstrated up to a dose level of 28 mg/m2 before plateauing, and paired tumor biopsies showed nuclear accumulation of key tumor-suppressor proteins, reduction of cell proliferation, and induction of apoptosis. Among 157 patients evaluable for response, one complete and six partial responses were observed (n = 7, 4%), with 27 patients (17%) achieving stable disease for ≥ 4 months. Conclusion Selinexor is a novel and safe therapeutic with broad antitumor activity. Further interrogation into this class of therapy is warranted.

A phase I trial of two sequence-specific schedules of decitabine and vorinostat in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

This phase I trial evaluated two schedules of escalating vorinostat in combination with decitabine every 28 days: (i) sequential or (ii) concurrent. There were three dose-limiting toxicities: grade 3 fatigue and generalized muscle weakness on the sequential schedule (n = 1) and grade 3 fatigue on the concurrent schedule (n = 2). The maximum tolerated dose was not reached on both planned schedules. The overall response rate (ORR) was 23% (three complete response [CR], two CR with incomplete incomplete blood count recovery [CRi], one partial response [PR] and two morphological leukemic free state [MLFS]). The ORR for all and previously untreated patients in the sequential arm was 13% (one CRi; one MLFS) and 0% compared to 30% (three CR; one CRi; one PR; one MLFS) and 36% in the concurrent arm (p = 0.26 for both), respectively. Decitabine plus vorinostat was safe and has clinical activity in patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Responses appear higher with the concurrent dose schedule. Cumulative toxicities may limit long-term usage on the current dose/schedules.

Phase I study of decitabine in combination with vorinostat in patients with advanced solid tumors and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas.

PURPOSE: This phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of the combination of decitabine with vorinostat. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphomas were eligible. Sequential and concurrent schedules were studied. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were studied in 9 different dose levels (6 sequential and 3 concurrent). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) on the sequential schedule was decitabine 10 mg/m(2)/day on days 1 to 5 and vorinostat 200 mg three times a day on days 6 to 12. The MTD on the concurrent schedule was decitabine 10 mg/m(2)/day on days 1 to 5 with vorinostat 200 mg twice a day on days 3 to 9. However, the sequential schedule of decitabine 10 mg/m(2)/day on days 1 to 5 and vorinostat 200 mg twice a day on days 6 to 12 was more deliverable than both MTDs with fewer delays on repeated dosing and it represents the recommended phase II (RP2D) dose of this combination. Dose-limiting toxicities during the first cycle consisted of myelosuppression, constitutional and gastrointestinal symptoms and occurred in 12 of 42 (29%) patients evaluable for toxicity. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (49% of patients), thrombocytopenia (16%), fatigue (16%), lymphopenia (14%), and febrile neutropenia (7%). Disease stabilization for 4 cycles or more was observed in 11 of 38 (29%) evaluable patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of decitabine with vorinostat is tolerable on both concurrent and sequential schedules in previously treated patients with advanced solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. The sequential schedule was easier to deliver. The combination showed activity with prolonged disease stabilization in different tumor types.

Phase I study of decitabine in combination with vorinostat in patients with advanced solid tumors and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas.

PURPOSE: This phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of the combination of decitabine with vorinostat. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphomas were eligible. Sequential and concurrent schedules were studied. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were studied in 9 different dose levels (6 sequential and 3 concurrent). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) on the sequential schedule was decitabine 10 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-5 and vorinostat 200 mg three times a day on days 6-12. The MTD on the concurrent schedule was decitabine 10 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-5 with vorinostat 200 mg twice a day on days 3-9. However, the sequential schedule of decitabine 10 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-5 and vorinostat 200 mg twice a day on days 6-12 was more deliverable than both MTDs with fewer delays on repeated dosing and it represents the recommended phase II (RP2D) dose of this combination. Dose-limiting toxicities during the first cycle consisted of myelosuppression, constitutional and gastrointestinal symptoms and occurred in 12/42 (29%) patients evaluable for toxicity. The most common ≥ grade 3 adverse events were neutropenia (49% of patients), thrombocytopenia (16%), fatigue (16%), lymphopenia (14%), and febrile neutropenia (7%). Disease stabilization for ≥ 4 cycles was observed in 11/38 (29%) evaluable patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of decitabine with vorinostat is tolerable on both concurrent schedules in previously treated patients with advanced solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. The sequential schedule was easier to deliver. The combination showed activity with prolonged disease stabilization in different tumor types.