TLD-1, a novel liposomal doxorubicin, in patients with advanced solid tumors: Dose escalation and expansion part of a multicenter open-label phase I trial (SAKK 65/16).

BACKGROUND: TLD-1 is a novel liposomal doxorubicin that compared favorably to conventional doxorubicin liposomal formulations in preclinical models. This phase I first-in-human study aimed to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), safety and preliminary activity of TLD-1 in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recruited patients with advanced solid tumors who failed standard therapy and received up to 3 prior lines of palliative systemic chemotherapy. TLD-1 was administered intravenously every 3 weeks up to a maximum of 9 cycles (6 for patients with prior anthracyclines) from a starting dose of 10 mg/m2, according to an accelerated titration design followed by a modified continual reassessment method. RESULTS: 30 patients were enrolled between November 2018 and May 2021. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were observed. Maximum administered dose of TLD-1 was 45 mg/m2, RP2D was defined at 40 mg/m2. Most frequent treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) of any grade included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) (50% of patients), oral mucositis (50%), fatigue (30%) and skin rash (26.7%). Most common G3 TRAE included PPE in 4 patients (13.3%) and oral mucositis in 2 (6.7%). Overall objective response rate was 10% in the whole population and 23.1% among 13 patients with breast cancer; median time-to-treatment failure was 2.7 months. TLD-1 exhibit linear pharmacokinetics, with a median terminal half-life of 95 h. CONCLUSIONS: The new liposomal doxorubicin formulation TLD-1 showed a favourable safety profile and antitumor activity, particularly in breast cancer. RP2D was defined at 40 mg/m2 administered every 3 weeks. (NCT03387917).

The clinical challenges of homologous recombination proficiency in ovarian cancer: from intrinsic resistance to new treatment opportunities.

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic cancer. Optimal cytoreductive surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab is the conventional therapeutic strategy. Since 2016, the pharmacological treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer has significantly changed following the introduction of the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). BRCA1/2 mutations and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) have been established as predictive biomarkers of the benefit from platinum-based chemotherapy and PARPi. While in the absence of HRD (the so-called homologous recombination proficiency, HRp), patients derive minimal benefit from PARPi, the use of the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab in first line did not result in different efficacy according to the presence of homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes mutations. No clinical trials have currently compared PARPi and bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in the HRp population. Different strategies are under investigation to overcome primary and acquired resistance to PARPi and to increase the sensitivity of HRp tumors to these agents. These tumors are characterized by frequent amplifications of Cyclin E and MYC, resulting in high replication stress. Different agents targeting DNA replication stress, such as ATR, WEE1 and CHK1 inhibitors, are currently being explored in preclinical models and clinical trials and have shown promising preliminary signs of activity. In this review, we will summarize the available evidence on the activity of PARPi in HRp tumors and the ongoing research to develop new treatment options in this hard-to-treat population.

Advancing antibody-drug conjugates in gynecological malignancies: myth or reality?

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) represent a new class of therapeutic agents designed to target specific antigens on tumor cells, combining the specificity of monoclonal antibodies to the cytotoxicity of classic chemotherapy agents. These drugs have been extensively studied both in solid and hematologic malignancies, leading to substantial improvement in the therapeutic landscape for several tumors. Despite no ADC have been yet approved for the treatment of gynecological malignancies, some agents have shown promising results and might have the potential to become part of the standard of care. Among them, mirvetuximab soravtansine has shown activity in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with high folate-α receptor expression, as a single agent and in combination. Tisotumab vedotin is active in patients with pre-treated cervical cancer, and further investigation is ongoing. The purpose of this review is to summarize the structural and functional characteristics of ADCs and analyze the most recent and promising data regarding the clinical development of ADCs in gynecological malignancies. The available data on the efficacy of the more studied ADCs in ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancers will be discussed along with toxicities of special interest, the mechanisms of resistance, and future possible drugs combination.

Phase I study of lurbinectedin in combination with weekly paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Lurbinectedin and paclitaxel showed synergism in preclinical studies and have non-completely overlapping toxicity profiles. This phase I trial evaluated a combination of paclitaxel and lurbinectedin with/without bevacizumab in advanced tumors. This trial was divided into Group A, which evaluated weekly paclitaxel (60 or 80 mg) plus lurbinectedin (3.0-5.0 mg flat dose [FD] or 2.2 mg/m2) every 3 weeks in advanced solid tumors; and Group B, which evaluated bevacizumab (BEV, 15 mg/kg) added to the recommended dose (RD) defined in Group A in advanced epithelial ovarian or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 67 patients (A, n = 55; B, n = 12) were treated. The RD was paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on Day (D)1,D8 plus lurbinectedin 2.2 mg/m2 on D1. At this RD, myelotoxicity was reversible and manageable, and most non-hematological toxicities were mild/moderate. Adding BEV did not notably change tolerability. Twenty-five confirmed responses were observed: 20/51 evaluable patients in Group A (overall response rate [ORR] = 39% at all dose levels and at the RD), and 5/10 evaluable patients in Group B (ORR = 50%). Most responders had breast (n = 7/12 patients), small cell lung (SCLC) (n = 5/7), epithelial ovarian (n = 3/9) and endometrial cancer (n = 3/11) in Group A, and epithelial ovarian (n = 3/4) and NSCLC (n = 2/6) in Group B. Clinical benefit rate was 61% in Group A (58% at the RD), and 90% in Group B. No major pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions were observed. Paclitaxel/lurbinectedin and paclitaxel/lurbinectedin/BEV are feasible combinations. Further development is warranted of paclitaxel/lurbinectedin in SCLC, breast, and endometrial cancer, and of paclitaxel/lurbinectedin/BEV in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Everything Comes with a Price: The Toxicity Profile of DNA-Damage Response Targeting Agents.

Targeting the inherent vulnerability of cancer cells with an impaired DNA Damage Repair (DDR) machinery, Poly-ADP-Ribose-Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have yielded significant results in several tumor types, eventually entering clinical practice for the treatment of ovarian, breast, pancreatic and prostate cancer. More recently, inhibitors of other key components of DNA repair, such as ATR, CHK1 and WEE1, have been developed and are currently under investigation in clinical trials. The inhibition of DDR inevitably induces on-target and off-target adverse events. Hematological and gastrointestinal toxicities as well as fatigue are common with all DDR-targeting agents, while other adverse events are drug specific, such as hypertension with niraparib and transaminase elevation with rucaparib. Cases of pneumonitis and secondary hematological malignancies have been reported with PARP inhibitors and, despite being overly rare, they deserve particular attention due to their severity. Safety also represents a crucial issue for the development of combination regimens incorporating DDR-targeting agents with other treatments, such as chemotherapy, anti-angiogenics or immunotherapy. As such, overlapping and cumulative toxicities should be considered, especially when more than two classes of drugs are combined. Here, we review the safety profile of DDR-targeting agents when used as single agents or in combination and we provide principles of toxicity management.

A phase I trial of lurbinectedin in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background In vitro/in vivo data showed synergism of cisplatin and lurbinectedin in ovarian cancer cells and grafts. This phase I trial investigated the recommended phase II dose (RD) of cisplatin and lurbinectedin combination, with (Group A) or without aprepitant (Group B), in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods All patients received 60 mg/m2 cisplatin 90-min intravenous (i.v.) infusion followed by lurbinectedin 60-min i.v. infusion at escalating doses on Day 1 every 3 weeks (q3wk). Patients in Group A additionally received orally 125 mg aprepitant one hour before cisplatin on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2 and 3. Toxicity was graded according to the NCI-CTCAE v.4. Results RD for Group A was cisplatin 60 mg/m2 plus lurbinectedin 1.1 mg/m2. RD for Group B was cisplatin 60 mg/m2 plus lurbinectedin 1.4 mg/m2. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 adverse events were hematological [neutropenia (41%), lymphopenia (35%), leukopenia (24%), thrombocytopenia (18%)] and fatigue (35%) in Group A (n = 17), and neutropenia (50%), leukopenia (42%), lymphopenia (29%), and fatigue (13%) and nausea (8%) in Group B (n = 24). Four patients (2 in each group) had a partial response. Disease stabilization for ≥ 4 months was observed in 4 and 10 patients, respectively. Conclusion The combination of lurbinectedin with cisplatin was not possible in meaningful therapeutic dosage due to toxicity. The addition of aprepitant in combination with cisplatin did not allow increasing the dose due to hematological toxicity, whereas omitting aprepitant increased the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Modest clinical activity was observed in general.Clinical trial registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov code: NCT01980667. Date of registration: 11 November 2013.

Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of the Dual PI3K-mTORC1/2 Inhibitor Gedatolisib in Combination with Paclitaxel and Carboplatin in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase I study evaluated safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary activity of the PI3K/mTORC1/2 dual inhibitor gedatolisib combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors treated with ≤ 2 prior chemotherapies received intravenous gedatolisib on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 (95, 110, or 130 mg according to dose level); carboplatin (AUC5) on day 8 (day 1 following protocol amendment); and paclitaxel at 80 mg/m2 on days 8, 15, and 22 (1, 8, and 15 after amendment), every 28 days. Patients without progressive disease after cycle 6 received maintenance gedatolisib until progression. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were enrolled [11 ovarian (10 clear cell ovarian cancer, CCOC), 4 endometrial, 2 lung cancers]. Median number of prior chemotherapies was 1 (range, 0-2). Median number of administered cycles was 6 (range, 2-16). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 4 patients: 2 (cycle 2 delay due to G2-G3 neutropenia) at 110 mg leading to a change in the treatment schedule, 2 at 130 mg (G2 mucositis causing failure to deliver ≥ 75% of gedatolisib at cycle 1). The recommended phase II dose is gedatolisib 110 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 with carboplatin AUC5 on day 1 and paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15. The most frequent ≥G3 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (35%), anemia (18%), and mucositis (12%). The overall response rate was 65% (80% in CCOC). Pharmacokinetic parameters of gedatolisib were consistent with single-agent results. CONCLUSIONS: Gedatolisib combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel is tolerable, and preliminary efficacy was observed especially in CCOC.

Avelumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 200): an open-label, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with ovarian cancer will relapse after receiving frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and eventually develop platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. We report results of avelumab alone or avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. METHODS: JAVELIN Ovarian 200 was an open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 149 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (maximum of three previous lines for platinum-sensitive disease, none for platinum-resistant disease) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks), avelumab plus PLD (40 mg/m2 intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02580058. The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints. FINDINGS: Between Jan 5, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 566 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (combination n=188; PLD n=190, avelumab n=188). At data cutoff (Sept 19, 2018), median duration of follow-up for overall survival was 18·4 months (IQR 15·6-21·9) for the combination group, 17·4 months (15·2-21·3) for the PLD group, and 18·2 months (15·8-21·2) for the avelumab group. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·3-5·1) in the combination group, 3·5 months (2·1-4·0) in the PLD group, and 1·9 months (1·8-1·9) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·78 [repeated 93·1% CI 0·59-1·24], one-sided p=0·030; avelumab vs PLD: 1·68 [1·32-2·60], one-sided p>0·99). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 12·7-18·7) in the combination group, 13·1 months (11·8-15·5) in the PLD group, and 11·8 months (8·9-14·1) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·89 [repeated 88·85% CI 0·74-1·24], one-sided p=0·21; avelumab vs PLD: 1·14 [0·95-1·58], one-sided p=0·83]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (18 [10%] in the combination group vs nine [5%] in the PLD group vs none in the avelumab group), rash (11 [6%] vs three [2%] vs none), fatigue (ten [5%] vs three [2%] vs none), stomatitis (ten [5%] vs five [3%] vs none), anaemia (six [3%] vs nine [5%] vs three [2%]), neutropenia (nine [5%] vs nine [5%] vs none), and neutrophil count decreased (eight [5%] vs seven [4%] vs none). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (18%) patients in the combination group, 19 (11%) in the PLD group, and 14 (7%) in the avelumab group. Treatment-related adverse events resulted in death in one patient each in the PLD group (sepsis) and avelumab group (intestinal obstruction). INTERPRETATION: Neither avelumab plus PLD nor avelumab alone significantly improved progression-free survival or overall survival versus PLD. These results provide insights for patient selection in future studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Cervical Cancer-Associated Suffering: Estimating the Palliative Care Needs of a Highly Vulnerable Population.

PURPOSE: To enable design of optimum palliative care for women with cervical cancer, we studied the most common types of suffering and their severity, prevalence, and duration. METHODS: We first reviewed the literature on the major types, severity, prevalence, and duration of suffering associated with cervical cancer. We then conducted a modified Delphi process with experts in cervical cancer care to supplement the literature. For each type of suffering, we distinguished between decedents (those who die from cervical cancer in a given year) and nondecedents (those who have cervical cancer in a given year but do not die). By applying the suffering prevalence and duration estimates to the number of decedents, nondecedents, and family caregivers in 2017, we were able to estimate their palliative care needs and the intensity of palliative care needed to respond adequately to this suffering. RESULTS: There is a high prevalence among decedents of moderate or severe pain (84%), vaginal discharge (66%), vaginal bleeding (61%), and loss of faith (31%). Among both decedents and nondecedents, there is a high prevalence of clinically significant anxiety (63% and 50%, respectively), depressed mood (52% and 38%, respectively), and sexual dysfunction (87% and 83%, respectively). Moderate or severe financial distress is prevalent among decedents, nondecedents, and family caregivers (84%, 74%, and 66%, respectively). More than 40% of decedents and nondecedents are abandoned by their intimate partners. Most patients experience some combination of moderate or severe physical, psychological, social, and spiritual suffering. In total, 258,649 decedents and 2,558,857 nondecedents needed palliative care in 2017, approximately 85% of whom were in low- and middle-income countries where palliative care is rarely accessible. CONCLUSION: Among women with advanced cervical cancer, suffering is highly prevalent and often severe and multifaceted.

Essential Package of Palliative Care for Women With Cervical Cancer: Responding to the Suffering of a Highly Vulnerable Population.

Women with cervical cancer, especially those with advanced disease, appear to experience suffering that is more prevalent, complex, and severe than that caused by other cancers and serious illnesses, and approximately 85% live in low- and middle-income countries where palliative care is rarely accessible. To respond to the highly prevalent and extreme suffering in this vulnerable population, we convened a group of experienced experts in all aspects of care for women with cervical cancer, and from countries of all income levels, to create an essential package of palliative care for cervical cancer (EPPCCC). The EPPCCC consists of a set of interventions, medicines, simple equipment, social supports, and human resources, and is designed to be safe and effective for preventing and relieving all types of suffering associated with cervical cancer. It includes only inexpensive and readily available medicines and equipment, and its use requires only basic training. Thus, the EPPCCC can and should be made accessible everywhere, including for the rural poor. We provide guidance for integrating the EPPCCC into gynecologic and oncologic care at all levels of health care systems, and into primary care, in countries of all income levels.

Augmented Package of Palliative Care for Women With Cervical Cancer: Responding to Refractory Suffering.

The essential package of palliative care for cervical cancer (EPPCCC), described elsewhere, is designed to be safe and effective for preventing and relieving most suffering associated with cervical cancer and universally accessible. However, it appears that women with cervical cancer, more frequently than patients with other cancers, experience various types of suffering that are refractory to basic palliative care such as what can be provided with the EPPCCC. In particular, relief of refractory pain, vomiting because of bowel obstruction, bleeding, and psychosocial suffering may require additional expertise, medicines, or equipment. Therefore, we convened a group of experienced experts in all aspects of care for women with cervical cancer, and from countries of all income levels, to create an augmented package of palliative care for cervical cancer with which even suffering refractory to the EPPCCC often can be relieved. The package consists of medicines, radiotherapy, surgical procedures, and psycho-oncologic therapies that require advanced or specialized training. Each item in this package should be made accessible whenever the necessary resources and expertise are available.

Binimetinib, pemetrexed and cisplatin, followed by maintenance of binimetinib and pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and KRAS mutations. The phase 1B SAKK 19/16 trial.

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutations are found in 20-25 % of non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and therapies targeting the RAS/MEK/ERK pathway are in development. We performed a multicenter open-label phase 1B trial to determine the recommended phase 2 dose and early antitumor activity of the MEK-inhibitor binimetinib combined with cisplatin and pemetrexed. METHODS: Eligible patients (pts) had stage III-IV NSCLC unsuitable for curative treatment, KRAS exon 2 or 3 (codon 12, 13 or 61) mutations, no prior systemic therapy. Pts were enrolled into part 1: 3 + 3 design with dose escalation in 2 dose levels (DL) of binimetinib and part 2: expansion cohort at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Pts received 4 cycles of cisplatin 75 mg/m2, pemetrexed 500 mg/m2and binimetinib 30 (DL1)/45 mg (DL2) orally twice a day (bid) d1-14 q3w followed by pemetrexed and binimetinib until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: From May 2017 to Dec 2019, 18 pts (13 dose escalation, 5 expansion cohort) were enrolled. Median age was 60 (48-73, range). KRAS mutations were 87.5 % at codon 12. No DLT occurred in the dose escalation cohort. Median number of cycles was 2 (1-17, range). Treatment discontinuation was mainly due to PD (33 %) or pts/physicians' decision (27 %). Together with the expansion cohort, 16 pts were evaluable for safety. Most frequent treatment-related grade 3 AEs were lung infection (25 %), fatigue (19 %), anemia (19 %). Overall response rate among 9 evaluable pts receiving binimetinib at MTD (45 mg bid) was 33 % (7-70 %, 95 % CI). Median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (1.1-14.0, 95 % CI) and overall survival 6.5 months (1.8-NR, 95 % CI). CONCLUSIONS: Pts treated with combination of cisplatin, pemetrexed and binimetinib presented no unexpected toxicity. No early signal of increased antitumor activity of binimetinib added to chemotherapy was observed in our pts population.

Carboplatin-based doublet plus bevacizumab beyond progression versus carboplatin-based doublet alone in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is approved in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of ovarian cancer, either in first-line therapy or for patients with recurrent disease not previously treated with the same drug. We aimed to test the value of continuing bevacizumab beyond progression after first-line treatment with the same drug. METHODS: In our open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 82 sites in four countries, we enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) who had previously received first-line platinum-based therapy including bevacizumab, and had recurrent (≥6 months since last platinum dose), International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage IIIB-IV ovarian cancer with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a carboplatin-based doublet intravenously (carboplatin area under the concentration curve [AUC] 5 on day 1 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on day 1, every 21 days; carboplatin AUC 4 on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, every 21 days; or carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1 plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 on day 1, every 28 days), or a carboplatin-based doublet plus bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenous every 14 days combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-carboplatin, or 15 mg/kg every 21 days combined with gemcitabine-carboplatin or paclitaxel-carboplatin). Evaluable disease according to RECIST 1.1 guidelines was required before randomisation. Randomisation was done through the trial website with a minimisation procedure, stratified by centre, time of recurrence, performance status, and type of second-line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01802749 and EudraCT 2012-004362-17. FINDINGS: Between Dec 6, 2013, and Nov 11, 2016, 406 patients were recruited (203 [50%] assigned to the bevacizumab group and 203 [50%] to the standard chemotherapy group). 130 patients (64%) in the bevacizumab group and 131 (65%) in the standard chemotherapy group had progressed after receiving a last dose of platinum more than 12 months before, and 146 patients (72%) in the bevacizumab group and 147 (72%) in the standard chemotherapy group had progressed after completion of first-line bevacizumab maintenance. 161 participants (79%) progressed in the standard chemotherapy group, as did 143 (70%) in the bevacizumab group. Median progression-free survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 8·4-9·3) in the standard chemotherapy group and 11·8 months (10·8-12·9) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·41-0·65; log-rank p<0·0001). Most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (20 [10%] in the standard chemotherapy group vs 58 (29%) in the bevacizumab group), neutrophil count decrease (81 [41%] vs 80 [40%]), and platelet count decrease (43 [22%] vs 61 [30%]). 68 patients (33%) died in the standard chemotherapy group and 79 (39%) died in the bevacizumab group; two deaths (1%) in the standard chemotherapy group and one death (<1%) in the bevacizumab group were deemed to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Continuing bevacizumab beyond progression combined with chemotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer improves progression-free survival compared with standard chemotherapy alone and might be considered in clinical practice. FUNDING: Hoffmann-La Roche and Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro.

The Role of EUPATI CH in Promoting Patient Involvement in Clinical Research: A Multi-Stakeholder Research Project.

Background: The European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation Switzerland (EUPATI CH) was established as an association in 2016 with the mission to improve patient empowerment in Switzerland, raise public awareness of EUPATI's education material, and foster multi-stakeholder partnerships in order to promote public involvement in all aspects of medicines research and development (R&D). In order to achieve its goal of improving patient involvement (PI) in all processes of medicines R&D in Switzerland and to obtain guidance and recommendations for future activities, EUPATI CH initiated a multi-stakeholder survey on PI experiences, hurdles, and best practices. The survey enabled EUPATI CH to obtain and analyze the views of various stakeholders and shape its workplan. Methods: Data collection occurred between January and July 2019 using a survey and semi-structured interviews with individual stakeholders from different groups. The online survey responses were analyzed using quantitative methods and the interviews were analyzed using qualitative methods. Results: The online survey was completed by 55 respondents (10%), and the semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 stakeholders. Respondents to the online survey were patient representatives (45%), researchers from academia (25%), individuals from the pharmaceutical industry (9%), healthcare professionals (23%), and representatives from government agencies (6%). Some respondents were also members of EUPATI CH. Thirty-eight percent of respondents consider PI in Switzerland to be limited or absent. They identified the main barriers to PI as, first and foremost, a lack of funds and human resources (65%), followed by a lack of information and a lack of education on how to become a patient advocate (21%), a lack of collaboration with other stakeholders (16%), and a lack of adequate resources. Respondents' expectations of EUPATI CH's role in supporting PI were to provide education for active PI and improve networking and collaboration among stakeholders. Conclusions: EUPATI CH's multi-stakeholder research identified some of the difficulties in promoting PI in medicines R&D in Switzerland, in particular the complex collaboration among stakeholders and a lack of funds, human resources, and knowledge. To respond to these difficulties, EUPATI CH has begun preparing a basic training course for patients that is adapted to Switzerland.

ESMO management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: gynaecological malignancies.

The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and its related disease (COVID-19) has required an immediate and coordinate healthcare response to face the worldwide emergency and define strategies to maintain the continuum of care for the non-COVID-19 diseases while protecting patients and healthcare providers. The dimension of the COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented risk especially for the more vulnerable populations. To manage patients with cancer adequately, maintaining the highest quality of care, a definition of value-based priorities is necessary to define which interventions can be safely postponed without affecting patients' outcome. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has endorsed a tiered approach across three different levels of priority (high, medium, low) incorporating information on the value-based prioritisation and clinical cogency of the interventions that can be applied for different disease sites. Patients with gynaecological cancer are at particular risk of COVID-19 complications because of their age and prevalence of comorbidities. The definition of priority level should be based on tumour stage and histology, cancer-related symptoms or complications, aim (curative vs palliative) and magnitude of benefit of the oncological intervention, patients' general condition and preferences. The decision-making process always needs to consider the disease-specific national and international guidelines and the local healthcare system and social resources, and a changing situation in relation to COVID-19 infection. These recommendations aim to provide guidance for the definition of deferrable and undeferrable interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic for ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancers within the context of the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines.

ESGO-SIOPE guidelines for the management of adolescents and young adults with non-epithelial ovarian cancers.

The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based guidelines for the management of adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 25 years with non-epithelial ovarian cancers, including malignant ovarian germ cell tumours, sex cord-stromal tumours, and small cell carcinoma of the ovary of hypercalcaemic type. The developmental process of these guidelines is based on a systematic literature review and critical appraisal process involving an international multidisciplinary developmental group consisting of experts from relevant disciplines (paediatric oncology, paediatric surgery, medical oncology, pathology, psycho-oncology, gynaecological oncology, and reproductive endocrinology). Given the specific and often complex issues involved in treating this group of patients, fertility sparing surgery and decrease of acute and long-term toxicities from treatment were important criteria for guidelines definition. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 54 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery.

Phase Ib Study of Combination Therapy with MEK Inhibitor Binimetinib and Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase Inhibitor Buparlisib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors with RAS/RAF Alterations.

BACKGROUND: This multicenter, open-label, phase Ib study investigated the safety and efficacy of binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) in combination with buparlisib (phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase [PI3K] inhibitor) in patients with advanced solid tumors with RAS/RAF alterations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-nine patients were enrolled in the study. Eligible patients had advanced solid tumors with disease progression after standard therapy and/or for which no standard therapy existed. Evaluable disease was mandatory, per RECIST version 1.1 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Binimetinib and buparlisib combinations were explored in patients with KRAS-, NRAS-, or BRAF-mutant advanced solid tumors until the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) were defined. The expansion phase comprised patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant, advanced non-small cell lung cancer, after progression on an EGFR inhibitor; advanced RAS- or BRAF-mutant ovarian cancer; or advanced non-small cell lung cancer with KRAS mutation. RESULTS: At data cutoff, 32/89 patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. RP2D for continuous dosing was buparlisib 80 mg once daily/binimetinib 45 mg twice daily. The toxicity profile of the combination resulted in a lower dose intensity than anticipated. Six (12.0%) patients with RAS/BRAF-mutant ovarian cancer achieved a partial response. Pharmacokinetics of binimetinib were not altered by buparlisib. Pharmacodynamic analyses revealed downregulation of pERK and pS6 in tumor biopsies. CONCLUSION: Although dual inhibition of MEK and the PI3K pathways showed promising activity in RAS/BRAF ovarian cancer, continuous dosing resulted in intolerable toxicities beyond the dose-limiting toxicity monitoring period. Alternative schedules such as pulsatile dosing may be advantageous when combining therapies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Because dysregulation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways are both frequently involved in resistance to current targeted therapies, dual inhibition of both pathways may be required to overcome resistance mechanisms to single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors or to treat cancers with driver mutations that cannot be directly targeted. A study investigating the safety and efficacy of combination binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) and buparlisib (PI3K inhibitor) in patients harboring alterations in the RAS/RAF pathway was conducted. The results may inform the design of future combination therapy trials in patients with tumors harboring mutations in the PI3K and MAPK pathways.

A Phase 1 study of BAL101553, a novel tumor checkpoint controller targeting microtubules, administered as 48-h infusion in adult patients with advanced solid tumors.

Purpose BAL101553, the prodrug of the microtubule-destabilizer BAL27862, previously showed signs of antitumor activity when administered as a 2-h infusion, but its use was limited by vascular toxicity. We investigated an alternative dosing strategy aimed at improving the safety profile of BAL101553. Methods This multicenter, open-label, Phase 1 dose-escalation study used a 3 + 3 design to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of BAL101553 administered as a 48-h IV infusion on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Patients received oral BAL101553 on Days 15-21 of cycle 2 to assess oral bioavailability. Results BAL101553 was well tolerated at doses up to ≤70 mg/m2. Three grade 3 DLTs occurred: hypotension (70 mg/m2), hyponatremia and neutropenia (both 90 mg/m2). The MTD for 48-h IV BAL101553 was 70 mg/m2. At this dose level, the AUC for BAL27862 was 8580 ng.h/mL and the Cmax was 144 ng/mL. No apparent dose-related effects on blood pressure were observed with 48-h BAL101553 IV infusion. BAL27862 oral bioavailability was >80%. Conclusions Continuous 48-h IV BAL101553 infusion achieved higher exposure of the BAL27862 active metabolite than a 2-h infusion at the RP2D and did not cause vascular toxicity. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT02895360.