The development of brain metastases in patients with different therapeutic strategies for metastatic renal cell cancer.

A diagnosis of brain metastasis (BM) significantly affects quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). Although systemic treatments have shown efficacy in mRCC, active surveillance (AS) is still commonly used in clinical practice. In this single-center cohort study, we assessed the impact of different initial treatment strategies for metastatic RCC (mRCC) on the development of BM. All consecutive patients diagnosed with mRCC between 2011 and 2022 were included at the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, the Netherlands, and a subgroup of patients with BM was selected. In total, 381 patients with mRCC (ECM, BM, or both) were identified. Forty-six patients had BM of whom 39 had metachronous BM (diagnosed ≥1 month after ECM). Twenty-five (64.1%) of these 39 patients with metachronous BM had received prior systemic treatment for ECM and 14 (35.9%) patients were treatment naive at BM diagnosis. The median BM-free survival since ECM diagnosis was significantly longer (p = .02) in previously treated patients (29.0 [IQR 12.6-57.0] months) compared to treatment naive patients (6.8 [IQR 1.0-7.0] months). In conclusion, patients with mRCC who received systemic treatment for ECM prior to BM diagnosis had a longer BM-free survival as compared to treatment naïve patients. These results emphasize the need for careful evaluation of treatment strategies, and especially AS, for patients with mRCC.

Efficacy of pembrolizumab and biomarker analysis in patients with WGS-based intermediate to high tumor mutational load: results from the Drug Rediscovery Protocol.

PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy of pembrolizumab across multiple cancer types harboring different levels of Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS)-based tumor mutational load (TML; total of non-synonymous mutations across the genome) in patients included in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (NCT02925234). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with solid, treatment-refractory, microsatellite-stable tumors were enrolled in cohort A: breast cancer TML 140-290, cohort B: tumor-agnostic cohort TML 140-290, and cohort C: tumor-agnostic cohort TML >290. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every three weeks. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit (CB: objective response or stable disease (SD) ≥16 weeks). Pre-treatment tumor biopsies were obtained for WGS and RNA-sequencing. RESULTS: Seventy-two evaluable patients with 26 different histotypes were enrolled. CB rate was 13% in cohort A (3/24 with partial response (PR)), 21% in cohort B (3/24 with SD, 2/24 with PR), and 42% in cohort C (4/24 with SD, 6/24 with PR). In cohort C, neoantigen burden estimates and expression of inflammation and innate immune biomarkers were significantly associated with CB. Similar associations were not identified in cohort A and B. In cohort A, CB was significantly associated with mutations in the chromatin remodeling gene PBRM1, while in cohort B, CB was significantly associated with expression of MICA/MICB and butyrophilins. CB and clonal TML were not significantly associated. CONCLUSION: While in cohort A pembrolizumab lacked activity, cohort B and cohort C met the study's primary endpoint. Further research is warranted to refine selection of patients with tumors harboring lower TMLs and may benefit from a focus on innate immunity.

Patient values in patient-provider communication about participation in early phase clinical cancer trials: a qualitative analysis before and after implementation of an online value clarification tool intervention.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer who no longer have standard treatment options available may decide to participate in early phase clinical trials (i.e. experimental treatments with uncertain outcomes). Shared decision-making (SDM) models help to understand considerations that influence patients' decision. Discussion of patient values is essential to SDM, but such communication is often limited in this context and may require new interventions. The OnVaCT intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) for patients and communication training for oncologists, was previously developed to support SDM. This study aimed to qualitatively explore associations between patient values that are discussed between patients and oncologists during consultations about potential participation in early phase clinical trials before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. METHODS: This study is part of a prospective multicentre nonrandomized controlled clinical trial and had a between-subjects design: pre-intervention patients received usual care, while post-intervention patients additionally received the OnVaCT. Oncologists participated in the communication training between study phases. Patients' initial consultation on potential early phase clinical trial participation was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Applying a directed approach, two independent coders analysed the transcripts using an initial codebook based on previous studies. Steps of continuous evaluation and revision were repeated until data saturation was reached. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after 32 patient-oncologist consultations (i.e. 17 pre-intervention and 15 post-intervention). The analysis revealed the values: hope, perseverance, quality or quantity of life, risk tolerance, trust in the healthcare system/professionals, autonomy, social adherence, altruism, corporeality, acceptance of one's fate, and humanity. Patients in the pre-intervention phase tended to express values briefly and spontaneously. Oncologists acknowledged the importance of patients' values, but generally only gave 'contrasting' examples of why some accept and others refuse to participate in trials. In the post-intervention phase, many oncologists referred to the OnVaCT and/or asked follow-up questions, while patients used longer phrases that combined multiple values, sometimes clearly indicating their weighing. CONCLUSIONS: While all values were recognized in both study phases, our results have highlighted the different communication patterns around patient values in SDM for potential early phase clinical trial participation before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. This study therefore provides a first (qualitative) indication that the OnVaCT intervention may support patients and oncologists in discussing their values. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry: NL7335, registered on July 17, 2018.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAFV600E-mutated rare cancers: the phase 2 ROAR trial.

BRAFV600E alterations are prevalent across multiple tumors. Here we present final efficacy and safety results of a phase 2 basket trial of dabrafenib (BRAF kinase inhibitor) plus trametinib (MEK inhibitor) in eight cohorts of patients with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced rare cancers: anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (n = 36), biliary tract cancer (n = 43), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 1), adenocarcinoma of the small intestine (n = 3), low-grade glioma (n = 13), high-grade glioma (n = 45), hairy cell leukemia (n = 55) and multiple myeloma (n = 19). The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed overall response rate in these cohorts was 56%, 53%, 0%, 67%, 54%, 33%, 89% and 50%, respectively. Secondary endpoints were median duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Median DoR was 14.4 months, 8.9 months, not reached, 7.7 months, not reached, 31.2 months, not reached and 11.1 months, respectively. Median PFS was 6.7 months, 9.0 months, not reached, not evaluable, 9.5 months, 5.5 months, not evaluable and 6.3 months, respectively. Median OS was 14.5 months, 13.5 months, not reached, 21.8 months, not evaluable, 17.6 months, not evaluable and 33.9 months, respectively. The most frequent (≥20% of patients) treatment-related adverse events were pyrexia (40.8%), fatigue (25.7%), chills (25.7%), nausea (23.8%) and rash (20.4%). The encouraging tumor-agnostic activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib suggests that this could be a promising treatment approach for some patients with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced rare cancers. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02034110 .

Efficacy, safety and biomarker analysis of durvalumab in patients with mismatch-repair deficient or microsatellite instability-high solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: In this study we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab across various mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumours in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP). This is a clinical study in which patients are treated with drugs outside their labeled indication, based on their tumour molecular profile. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours who had exhausted all standard of care options were eligible. Patients were treated with durvalumab. The primary endpoints were clinical benefit ((CB): objective response (OR) or stable disease ≥16 weeks) and safety. Patients were enrolled using a Simon like 2-stage model, with 8 patients in stage 1, up to 24 patients in stage 2 if at least 1/8 patients had CB in stage 1. At baseline, fresh frozen biopsies were obtained for biomarker analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with 10 different cancer types were included. Two patients (2/26, 8%) were considered as non-evaluable for the primary endpoint. CB was observed in 13 patients (13/26, 50%) with an OR in 7 patients (7/26, 27%). The remaining 11 patients (11/26, 42%) had progressive disease. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 5 months (95% CI, 2-not reached) and 14 months (95% CI, 5-not reached), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed. We found a significantly higher structural variant (SV) burden in patients without CB. Additionally, we observed a significant enrichment of JAK1 frameshift mutations and a significantly lower IFN-γ expression in patients without CB. CONCLUSION: Durvalumab was generally well-tolerated and provided durable responses in pre-treated patients with dMMR/MSI-H solid tumours. High SV burden, JAK1 frameshift mutations and low IFN-γ expression were associated with a lack of CB; this provides a rationale for larger studies to validate these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration: NCT02925234. First registration date: 05/10/2016.

Impact of Novel Treatments in Patients with Melanoma Brain Metastasis: Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma brain metastasis (MBM) is associated with poor outcome, but targeted therapies (TTs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized treatment over the past decade. We assessed the impact of these treatments in a real-world setting. METHODS: A single-center cohort study was performed at a large, tertiary referral center for melanoma (Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands). Overall survival (OS) was assessed before and after 2015, after which TTs and ICIs were increasingly prescribed. RESULTS: There were 430 patients with MBM included; 152 pre-2015 and 278 post-2015. Median OS improved from 4.4 to 6.9 months (HR 0.67, p < 0.001) after 2015. TTs and ICIs prior to MBM diagnosis were associated with poorer median OS as compared to no prior systemic treatment (TTs: 2.0 vs. 10.9 and ICIs: 4.2 vs. 7.9 months, p < 0.001). ICIs directly after MBM diagnosis were associated with improved median OS as compared to no direct ICIs (21.5 vs. 4.2 months, p < 0.001). Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT; HR 0.49, p = 0.013) and ICIs (HR 0.32, p < 0.001) were independently associated with improved OS. CONCLUSION: After 2015, OS significantly improved for patients with MBM, especially with SRT and ICIs. Demonstrating a large survival benefit, ICIs should be considered first after MBM diagnosis, if clinically feasible.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600E mutation-positive hairy cell leukemia.

BRAF V600E is the key oncogenic driver mutation in hairy cell leukemia (HCL). We report the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600E mutation-positive HCL. This open-label, phase 2 study enrolled patients with BRAF V600E mutation-positive HCL refractory to first-line treatment with a purine analog or relapsed after ≥2 prior lines of treatment. Patients received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per criteria adapted from National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Consensus Resolution guidelines. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Fifty-five patients with BRAF V600E mutation-positive HCL were enrolled. The investigator-assessed ORR was 89.0% (95% confidence interval, 77.8%-95.9%); 65.5% of patients had a complete response (without minimal residual disease [MRD]: 9.1% [negative immunohistochemistry of bone marrow {BM} biopsy], 12.7% [negative BM aspirate flow cytometry {FC}], 16.4% [negative immunohistochemistry and/or FC results]; with MRD, 49.1%), and 23.6% had a partial response. The 24-month DOR was 97.7% with 24-month PFS and OS rates of 94.4% and 94.5%, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events were pyrexia (58.2%), chills (47.3%), and hyperglycemia (40.0%). Dabrafenib plus trametinib demonstrated durable responses with a manageable safety profile consistent with previous observations in other indications and should be considered as a rituximab-free therapeutic option for patients with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600E mutation-positive HCL. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02034110.

Core values of patients with advanced cancer considering participation in an early-phase clinical trial: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This article identifies the core values that play a role in patients' decision-making process about participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. METHODS: Face-to-face, semi-structured serial interviews (n = 22) were performed with thirteen patients with advanced cancer recruited in two Dutch specialized cancer centers. In a cyclic qualitative analysis process, open and axial coding of the interviews finally led to an overview of the values that are woven into patients' common language about cancer and clinical trials. RESULTS: Six core values were described, namely, acceptance creates room for reconsideration of values, reconciliation with one's fate, hope, autonomy, body preservation, and altruism. Previously found values in advanced cancer, such as acceptance, hope, autonomy, and altruism, were further qualified. Reconciliation with one's fate and body preservation were highlighted as new insights for early-phase clinical cancer trial literature. CONCLUSIONS: This article furthers the understanding of core values that play a role in the lives and decision-making of patients with advanced cancer who explore participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. These values do not necessarily have to be compatible with one another, making tragic choices necessary. Understanding the role of core values can contribute to professional sensitivity regarding what motivates patients' emotions, thoughts, and decisions and help patients reflect on and give words to their values and preferences. It supports mutual understanding and dialog from which patients can make decisions according to their perspectives on a good life for themselves and their fellows in the context of participation in an early-phase clinical cancer trial.

Eftozanermin alfa (ABBV-621) monotherapy in patients with previously treated solid tumors: findings of a phase 1, first-in-human study.

Eftozanermin alfa (eftoza), a second-generation tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand receptor (TRAIL-R) agonist, induces apoptosis in tumor cells by activation of death receptors 4/5. This phase 1 dose-escalation/dose-optimization study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary activity of eftoza in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients received eftoza 2.5-15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 or day 1/day 8 every 21 days in the dose-escalation phase, and 1.25-7.5 mg/kg once-weekly (QW) in the dose-optimization phase. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated during the first treatment cycle to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Pharmacodynamic effects were evaluated in circulation and tumor tissue. A total of 105 patients were enrolled in the study (dose-escalation cohort, n = 57; dose-optimization cohort, n = 48 patients [n = 24, colorectal cancer (CRC); n = 24, pancreatic cancer (PaCA)]). In the dose-escalation cohort, seven patients experienced DLTs. MTD and RP2D were not determined. Most common treatment-related adverse events were increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels, nausea, and fatigue. The one treatment-related death occurred due to respiratory failure. In the dose-optimization cohort, three patients (CRC, n = 2; PaCA, n = 1) had a partial response. Target engagement with regard to receptor saturation, and downstream apoptotic pathway activation in circulation and tumor were observed. Eftoza had acceptable safety, evidence of pharmacodynamic effects, and preliminary anticancer activity. The 7.5-mg/kg QW regimen was selected for future studies on the basis of safety findings, pharmacodynamic effects, and biomarker modulations. (Trial registration number: NCT03082209 (registered: March 17, 2017)).

Decisional Conflict after Deciding on Potential Participation in Early Phase Clinical Cancer Trials: Dependent on Global Health Status, Satisfaction with Communication, and Timing.

When standard treatment options are not available anymore, patients with advanced cancer may participate in early phase clinical trials. Improving this complex decision-making process may improve their quality of life. Therefore, this prospective multicenter study with questionnaires untangles several contributing factors to decisional conflict (which reflects the quality of decision-making) in patients with advanced cancer who recently decided upon early phase clinical trial participation (phase I or I/II). We hypothesized that health-related quality of life, health literacy, sense of hope, satisfaction with the consultation, timing of the decision, and the decision explain decisional conflict. Mean decisional conflict in 116 patients was 30.0 (SD = 16.9). Multivariate regression analysis showed that less decisional conflict was reported by patients with better global health status (ß = −0.185, p = 0.018), higher satisfaction (ß = −0.246, p = 0.002), and who made the decision before (ß = −0.543, p < 0.001) or within a week after the consultation (ß = −0.427, p < 0.001). These variables explained 37% of the variance in decisional conflict. Healthcare professionals should realize that patients with lower global health status and who need more time to decide may require additional support. Although altering such patient intrinsic characteristics is difficult, oncologists can impact the satisfaction with the consultation. Future research should verify whether effective patient-centered communication could prevent decisional conflict.

Systemic Blockade of Clever-1 Elicits Lymphocyte Activation Alongside Checkpoint Molecule Downregulation in Patients with Solid Tumors: Results from a Phase I/II Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Macrophages are critical in driving an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that counteracts the efficacy of T-cell-targeting therapies. Thus, agents able to reprogram macrophages toward a proinflammatory state hold promise as novel immunotherapies for solid cancers. Inhibition of the macrophage scavenger receptor Clever-1 has shown benefit in inducing CD8+ T-cell-mediated antitumor responses in mouse models of cancer, which supports the clinical development of Clever-1-targeting antibodies for cancer treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, we analyzed the mode of action of a humanized IgG4 anti-Clever-1 antibody, FP-1305 (bexmarilimab), both in vitro and in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic cancer (n = 30) participating in part 1 (dose-finding) of a phase I/II open-label trial (NCT03733990). We studied the Clever-1 interactome in primary human macrophages in antibody pull-down assays and utilized mass cytometry, RNA sequencing, and cytokine profiling to evaluate FP-1305-induced systemic immune activation in patients with cancer. RESULTS: Our pull-down assays and functional studies indicated that FP-1305 impaired multiprotein vacuolar ATPase-mediated endosomal acidification and improved the ability of macrophages to activate CD8+ T-cells. In patients with cancer, FP-1305 administration led to suppression of nuclear lipid signaling pathways and a proinflammatory phenotypic switch in blood monocytes. These effects were accompanied by a significant increase and activation of peripheral T-cells with indications of antitumor responses in some patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal a nonredundant role played by the receptor Clever-1 in suppressing adaptive immune cells in humans. We provide evidence that targeting macrophage scavenging activity can promote an immune switch, potentially leading to intratumoral proinflammatory responses in patients with metastatic cancer.

Identifying patient values impacting the decision whether to participate in early phase clinical cancer trials: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: For many patients with advanced cancer, the decision whether to participate in early phase clinical trials or not is complex. The decision-making process requires an in-depth discussion of patient values. We therefore aimed to synthesize and describe patient values that may affect early phase clinical trial participation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in seven electronic databases on patient values in relation to patients' decisions to participate in early phase clinical cancer trials. RESULTS: From 3072 retrieved articles, eleven quantitative and five qualitative studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We extracted ten patient values that can contribute to patients' decisions. Overall, patients who seek trial participation usually report hope, trust, quantity of life, altruism, perseverance, faith and/or risk tolerance as important values. Quality of life and humanity are main values of patients who refuse trial participation. Autonomy and social adherence can be reported by both trial seekers or refusers, dependent upon how they are manifested in a patient. CONCLUSIONS: We identified patient values that frequently play a role in the decision-making process. In the setting of discussing early phase clinical trial participation with patients, healthcare professionals need to be aware of these values. This analysis supports the importance of individual exploration of values. Patients that become aware of their values, e.g. by means of interventions focused on clarifying their values, could feel more empowered to choose. Subsequently, healthcare professionals could improve their support in a patients' decision-making process and reduce the chance of decisional conflict.

A first-in-man phase 1 study of the DNA-dependent protein kinase inhibitor peposertib (formerly M3814) in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: This open-label, phase 1 trial (NCT02316197) aimed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of peposertib (formerly M3814), a DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK) inhibitor in patients with advanced solid tumours. Secondary/exploratory objectives included safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles and clinical activity. METHODS: Adult patients with advanced solid tumours received peposertib 100-200 mg once daily or 150-400 mg twice daily (BID) in 21-day cycles. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included (median age 66 years, 61% male). One dose-limiting toxicity, consisting of mainly gastrointestinal, non-serious adverse events (AEs) and long recovery duration, was reported at 300 mg BID. The most common peposertib-related AEs were nausea, vomiting, fatigue and pyrexia. The most common peposertib-related Grade 3 AEs were maculopapular rash and nausea. Peposertib was quickly absorbed systemically (median Tmax 1.1-2.5 h). The p-DNA-PK/t-DNA-PK ratio decreased consistently in peripheral blood mononuclear cells 3-6 h after doses ≥100 mg. The best overall response was stable disease (12 patients), lasting for ≥12 weeks in seven patients. CONCLUSIONS: Peposertib was well-tolerated and demonstrated modest efficacy in unselected tumours. The MTD was not reached; the RP2D was declared as 400 mg BID. Further studies, mainly with peposertib/chemo-radiation, are ongoing. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02316197.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Antitumor Effect of Apalutamide with Abiraterone Acetate plus Prednisone in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Phase Ib Study.

PURPOSE: Apalutamide is a next-generation androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor approved for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. We evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and antitumor activity of apalutamide combined with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA-P) in patients with metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Multicenter, open-label, phase Ib drug-drug interaction study conducted in 57 patients with mCRPC treated with 1,000 mg abiraterone acetate plus 10 mg prednisone daily beginning on cycle 1 day 1 (C1D1) and 240 mg apalutamide daily starting on C1D8 in 28-day cycles. Serial blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected on C1D7 and C2D8. RESULTS: Systemic exposure to abiraterone, prednisone, and prednisolone decreased 14%, 61%, and 42%, respectively, when apalutamide was coadministered with AA-P. No increase in mineralocorticoid excess-related adverse events was observed. Patients without prior exposure to AR signaling inhibitors had longer median treatment duration and greater mean decrease in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from baseline compared with those who had received prior therapy. Confirmed PSA reductions of ≥50% from baseline at any time were observed in 80% (12/15) of AR signaling inhibitor-naïve patients and 14% (6/42) of AR signaling inhibitor-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with apalutamide plus AA-P was well tolerated and showed evidence of antitumor activity in patients with mCRPC, including those with disease progression on AR signaling inhibitors. No clinically significant pharmacokinetic interaction was observed between abiraterone and apalutamide; however, apalutamide decreased exposure to prednisone. These data support development of 1,000 mg abiraterone acetate plus 10 mg prednisone daily with 240 mg apalutamide daily in patients with mCRPC.

Phase I study of continuous olaparib capsule dosing in combination with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel (Part 1).

Background The PARP inhibitor olaparib has shown acceptable toxicity at doses of up to 400 mg twice daily (bid; capsule formulation) with encouraging signs of antitumor activity. Based on its mode of action, olaparib may sensitize tumor cells to DNA-damaging agents. This Phase I trial (NCT00516724) evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary efficacy of olaparib combined with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors received olaparib (capsule bid) plus carboplatin (Part A), carboplatin and paclitaxel (Part B), or paclitaxel (Part C). In each part of the study, different drug doses were given to define the most appropriate dose/drug combination to use in further studies. Safety assessments included evaluation of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; cycle 1 only), adverse events (AEs) and physical examinations. PK assessments of olaparib, carboplatin and paclitaxel were performed. Tumor responses (RECIST) were assessed every two cycles. Results Fifty-seven patients received treatment. DLTs were reported in two patients (both receiving olaparib 100 mg bid and carboplatin AUC 4; Part A, cohort 2): grade 1 thrombocytopenia with grade 2 neutropenia lasting for 16 days, and grade 2 neutropenia lasting for 7 days. Non-hematologic AEs were predominantly grade 1-2 and included fatigue (70%) and nausea (40%). Bone marrow suppression, mainly neutropenia (51%) and thrombocytopenia (25%), frequently led to dose modifications. Conclusions Olaparib in combination with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel resulted in increased hematologic toxicities, making it challenging to establish a dosing regimen that could be tolerated for multiple cycles without dose modifications.

Phase I study of intermittent olaparib capsule or tablet dosing in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel (part 2).

Background In the first part of this extensive phase I study (NCT00516724), continuous olaparib twice daily (bid) with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel resulted in myelosuppression and dose modifications. Here, we report the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of intermittent olaparib dosing combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors (part D) and enriched for ovarian and breast cancer (part E) received olaparib (capsule and tablet formulations) using intermittent schedules (2 to 10 days of a 21-day cycle) combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel. Safety assessments included evaluation of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; cycle 1 only), adverse events (AEs), and physical examinations. Pharmacokinetic assessments of olaparib capsule and tablet combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel were performed. Tumor responses (RECIST) were assessed every 2 cycles. Results In total, 132 heavily pre-treated patients were included. One DLT of grade 3 elevated alanine aminotransferase lasting for 8 days was reported (olaparib tablet 100 mg bid days 3-12, carboplatin area under the curve 4 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2). The most common hematological AEs were neutropenia (47%) and thrombocytopenia (39%), which frequently led to dose modifications. Non-hematological AEs were predominantly grade 1-2, including alopecia (89%) and fatigue (84%). Overall objective response rate was 46%. Conclusions Discontinuous dosing of olaparib resulted in significant myelosuppression leading to dose interruptions and/or delays. Anti-tumor activity was encouraging in patients enriched with BRCA-mutated breast and ovarian cancer. The most appropriate olaparib tablet dose for use in further studies evaluating olaparib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is 50 mg bid (days 1-5).

Realizing better doctor-patient dialogue about choices in palliative care and early phase clinical trial participation: towards an online value clarification tool (OnVaCT).

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic treatment is no longer available may be offered participation in early phase clinical trials. In the decision making process, both medical-technical information and patient values and preferences are important. Since patients report decisional conflict after deciding on participation in these trials, improving the decision making process is essential. We aim to develop and evaluate an Online Value Clarification Tool (OnVaCT) to assist patients in clarifying their values around this end-of-life decision. This improved sharing of values is hypothesized to support medical oncologists in tailoring their information to individual patients' needs and, consequently, to support patients in taking decisions in line with their values and reduce decisional conflict. METHODS: In the first part, patients' values and preferences and medical oncologists' views hereupon will be explored in interviews and focus groups to build a first prototype OnVaCT using digital communication (serious gaming). Next, we will test feasibility during think aloud sessions, to deliver a ready-to-implement OnVaCT. In the second part, the OnVaCT, with accompanied training module, will be evaluated in a pre-test (12-18 months before implementation) post-test (12-18 months after implementation) study in three major Dutch cancer centres. We will include 276 patients (> 18 years) with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic therapy is no longer available, and who are referred for participation in early phase clinical trials. The first consultation will be recorded to analyse patient-physician communication regarding the discussion of patients' values and the decision making process. Three weeks afterwards, decisional conflict will be measured. DISCUSSION: This project aims to support the discussion of patient values when considering participation in early phase clinical trials. By including patients before their first appointment with the medical oncologist and recording that consultation, we are able to link decisional conflict to the decision making process, e.g. the communication during consultation. The study faces challenges such as timely including patients within the short period between referral and first consultation. Furthermore, with new treatments being developed rapidly, molecular stratification may affect the patient populations included in the pre-test and post-test periods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry number: NTR7551 (prospective; July 17, 2018).

Phase I Study of BI 853520, an Inhibitor of Focal Adhesion Kinase, in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Nonhematologic Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Overexpression/activation of focal adhesion kinase (FAK) in human malignancies has led to its evaluation as a therapeutic target. We report the first-in-human phase I study of BI 853520, a novel, potent, highly selective FAK inhibitor. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), biomarker expression, and preliminary activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation phase followed by an expansion phase in patients with selected advanced, nonhematologic malignancies. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients received BI 853520 in the dose-escalation phase; the MTD was 200 mg once daily (QD). Dose-limiting toxicities included proteinuria and fatigue, both of which were grade 3. Preliminary PK data supported QD dosing. In the expansion cohort, 63 patients received BI 853520 200 mg QD. Drug-related adverse events (AEs) in > 10% of patients included proteinuria (57%), nausea (57%), fatigue (51%), diarrhea (48%), vomiting (40%), decreased appetite (19%), and peripheral edema (16%). Most AEs were grade 1-2; grade 3 proteinuria, reported in 13 patients (21%), was generally reversible upon treatment interruption. Nineteen patients underwent dose reduction due to AEs, and three drug-related serious AEs were reported, none of which were fatal. Preliminary PD analysis indicated target engagement. Of 63 patients, 49 were evaluable; 17 (27%) achieved a best response of stable disease (4 with 150 + days), and 32 (51%) patients had progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: BI 853520 has a manageable and acceptable safety profile, favorable PK, and modest antitumor activity at an MTD of 200 mg QD in patients with selected advanced nonhematologic malignancies. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01335269.

Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Studies Evaluating the Effect of Food and Liquid Formulation on the Pharmacokinetics of the Novel Focal Adhesion Kinase (FAK) Inhibitor BI 853520.

BACKGROUND: BI 853520 is a potent inhibitor of focal adhesion kinase and is currently under clinical development for the treatment of non-hematological malignancies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of food and liquid dispersion on the pharmacokinetics of BI 853520 in two open-label, crossover substudies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in each substudy. The order of administration was randomized, and pharmacokinetic samples were collected for 48 h after administration of a 200 mg dose of BI 853520. Lack of effect would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the adjusted geometric mean (GMR) of the area under the plasma curve (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration at tz [[Formula: see text]] and observed area under the plasma concentration-time curve extrapolated from time zero to infinity [AUC0-∞,obs]) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) did not cross the 80-125% (bioequivalence) boundaries. RESULTS: Adjusted GMRs (90% CIs) for the fed versus fasted state were 92.46% (74.24-115.16), 98.17% (78.53-122.74), and 87.34% (71.04-107.38) for [Formula: see text], AUC0-∞,obs, and Cmax, respectively. Although the 90% CIs were not within bioequivalence limits for the food-effect study, the limited reductions in these pharmacokinetic parameters after administration with a high-fat meal are unlikely to be clinically relevant. Compared with a tablet, administration of BI 853520 as a liquid dispersion did not strongly affect [Formula: see text], AUC0-∞,obs, or Cmax, resulting in adjusted GMRs (90% CIs) of 1.00 (0.92-1.09), 0.98 (0.90-1.07), and 0.93 (0.86-1.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These studies demonstrate that BI 853520 can be given with no food restrictions, and as a liquid dispersion, without strongly impacting pharmacokinetics. These pharmacokinetic properties may help make BI 853520 dosing more convenient and flexible, improving treatment compliance. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01335269.

53BP1 as a potential predictor of response in PARP inhibitor-treated homologous recombination-deficient ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have shown substantial activity in homologous recombination- (HR-) deficient ovarian cancer and are undergoing testing in other HR-deficient tumors. For reasons that are incompletely understood, not all patients with HR-deficient cancers respond to these agents. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that changes in alternative DNA repair pathways affect PARP inhibitor (PARPi) sensitivity in ovarian cancer models. This has not previously been assessed in the clinical setting. METHODS: Clonogenic and plasmid-based HR repair assays were performed to compare BRCA1-mutant COV362 ovarian cancer cells with or without 53BP1 gene deletion. Archival biopsies from ovarian cancer patients in the phase I, open-label clinical trial of PARPi ABT-767 were stained for PARP1, RAD51, 53BP1 and multiple components of the nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) DNA repair pathway. Modified histochemistry- (H-) scores were determined for each repair protein in each sample. HRD score was determined from tumor DNA. RESULTS: 53BP1 deletion increased HR in BRCA1-mutant COV362 cells and decreased PARPi sensitivity in vitro. In 36 women with relapsed ovarian cancer, responses to the PARPi ABT-767 were observed exclusively in cancers with HR deficiency. In this subset, 7 of 18 patients (39%) had objective responses. The actual HRD score did not further correlate with change from baseline tumor volume (r = 0.050; p = 0.87). However, in the HR-deficient subset, decreased 53BP1 H-score was associated with decreased antitumor efficacy of ABT-767 (r = -0.69, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Differences in complementary repair pathways, particularly 53BP1, correlate with PARPi response of HR-deficient ovarian cancers.