Phase 1b trial of anti-VEGF/PDGFR vorolanib combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Vorolanib is a multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor with anti-angiogenic properties. This study aimed to evaluate the tolerability, safety and efficacy of vorolanib when added to checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: We conducted a phase 1b study of vorolanib (300 or 400 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab or nivolumab using a standard 3 + 3 design to determine the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The endpoints included safety, toxicity and objective response rate, according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS: Sixteen patients (9 in pembrolizumab arm, 7 in nivolumab arm) with gastrointestinal or lung cancers were enrolled. All patients had at least 1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). The most common TRAEs across all cohorts were lymphopenia (n = 7), leukopenia (n = 5), fatigue (n = 5), and alanine aminotransferase elevation (n = 5); most toxicities were grade (G) 1-2. DLTs were reported in 3 patients at vorolanib 400 mg dose level, with G3 aspartate aminotransferase elevation, G3 rectal hemorrhage, and G3 rash. Of 13 total response-evaluable patients, 2 patients had confirmed partial responses (1 rectal squamous cell cancer and 1 small cell lung cancer). Two patients achieved prolonged stable disease. Vorolanib 300 mg daily was determined to be the RP2D for either pembrolizumab or nivolumab. CONCLUSION: Combination vorolanib 300 mg orally once daily plus CPI appears to be a feasible regimen with manageable toxicity and promising efficacy in select tumor types. NCT03511222. Date of Registration: April 18, 2018.

Effects of manual versus voice-activated dialing during simulated driving.

We measured driving performance (lane-keeping errors, driving times, and glances away from the road scene) in a video driving simulator for 24 volunteers who each drove alone on a 10.6-km multicurved course while simultaneously placing calls on a mobile phone subscribed to a voice-activated dialing system. Driving performance also was measured for the same distance while participants manually dialed phone numbers and while they drove without dialing. There were 22% fewer lane-keeping errors (p<.01) and 56% fewer glances away from the road scene (p<.01) when they used voice-activated dialing as compared to manual dialing. Significantly longer driving times in both of the dialing conditions as compared to the No Dialing condition are discussed in terms of the hypothesis that drivers decrease driving speed to compensate for the demands of the secondary phone tasks.