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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Tumor Treating Fields in combination with paclitaxel in recurrent ovarian carcinoma: Results of the INNOVATE pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are an anti-mitotic therapy comprising continuous delivery of low-intensity alternating electric fields at intermediate frequencies to the tumor region by a home-use medical device. METHODS: The INNOVATE (EF-22) Study was a phase 2, single arm clinical trial, which tested the safety and efficacy of TTFields (200 kHz) in combination with weekly paclitaxel (weekly for 8 weeks and then on days 1, 8, 15 of each subsequent 28 day-cycle; starting dose 80 mg/m2) in 31 patients with recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma. The primary endpoint was safety and secondary endpoints included OS, PFS and RR. RESULTS: Median age was 60 (range: 45-77), 24 patients (77%) had serous histology, 16 patients (52%) ECOG score 0 and 15 (48%) ECOG 1, the median number of prior chemotherapy lines was 4 (range: 1-11). All patients received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 30 (97%) received prior taxanes. No serious adverse events related to TTFields were reported. There was no increase in grade 3-4 adverse events compared to the frequency of such events reported in the literature with single agent weekly paclitaxel. Twenty-six patients (84%) had the expected TTFields-related dermatitis but only one patient permanently discontinued TTFields due to dermatitis. The median PFS was 8.9 months, 7 patients (25%) had partial response and the clinical benefit rate was 71%. The median overall survival was not reached: the one-year survival rate was 61%. CONCLUSION: TTFields combined with weekly paclitaxel were safe in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer and warrants evaluation in a randomized phase 3 trial.

Phase 2 study evaluating intermittent and continuous linsitinib and weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent platinum resistant ovarian epithelial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Linsitinib, an oral, dual inhibitor of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor and insulin receptor, in combination with weekly paclitaxel, may improve clinical outcomes compared with paclitaxel alone in patients with refractory or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label phase 1/2 clinical trial (NCT00889382) randomized patients with refractory or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (1:1:1) to receive either oral intermittent linsitinib (600mg once daily on Days 1-3 per week) combined with paclitaxel (80mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15; Arm A) or continuous linsitinib (150mg twice daily) in combination with paclitaxel (Arm B), or paclitaxel alone (Arm C). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 152 women were randomized to treatment (n=51 Arm A; n=51 Arm B, n=50 Arm C). In combination with paclitaxel, neither intermittent linsitinib (median PFS 2.8months; 95% confidence interval [CI]:2.5-4.4) nor continuous linsitinib (median PFS 4.2months; 95% CI:2.8-5.1) improved PFS over weekly paclitaxel alone (median PFS 5.6months; 95% CI:3.2-6.9). No improvement in ORR, DCR, or OS in either linsitinib dosing schedule was observed compared with paclitaxel alone. Adverse event (AE) rates, including all-grade and grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs, and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation, were higher among patients receiving intermittent linsitinib compared with the other treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Addition of intermittent or continuous linsitinib with paclitaxel did not improve outcomes in patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer compared with paclitaxel alone.

ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer: Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up.

The first joint European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) and European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) consensus conference on endometrial cancer was held on 11-13 December 2014 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of endometrial cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel prepared three clinically-relevant questions about endometrial cancer relating to the following four areas: prevention and screening, surgery, adjuvant treatment and advanced and recurrent disease. All relevant scientific literature, as identified by the experts, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. Results of this consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation, are detailed in this article. All participants have approved this final article.

European Society of Gynaecologic Oncology Quality Indicators for Advanced Ovarian Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The surgical management of advanced ovarian cancer involves complex surgery. Implementation of a quality management program has a major impact on survival. The goal of this work was to develop a list of quality indicators (QIs) for advanced ovarian cancer surgery that can be used to audit and improve the clinical practice. This task has been carried out under the auspices of the European Society of Gynaecologic Oncology (ESGO). METHODS: Quality indicators were based on scientific evidence and/or expert consensus. A 4-step evaluation process included a systematic literature search for the identification of potential QIs and the documentation of scientific evidence, physical meetings of an ad hoc multidisciplinarity International Development Group, an internal validation of the targets and scoring system, and an external review process involving physicians and patients. RESULTS: Ten structural, process, or outcome indicators were selected. Quality indicators 1 to 3 are related to achievement of complete cytoreduction, caseload in the center, training, and experience of the surgeon. Quality indicators 4 to 6 are related to the overall management, including active participation to clinical research, decision-making process within a structured multidisciplinary team, and preoperative workup. Quality indicator 7 addresses the high value of adequate perioperative management. Quality indicators 8 to 10 highlight the need of recording pertinent information relevant to improvement of quality. An ESGO-approved template for the operative report has been designed. Quality indicators were described using a structured format specifying what the indicator is measuring, measurability specifications, and targets. Each QI was associated with a score, and an assessment form was built. CONCLUSIONS: The ESGO quality criteria can be used for self-assessment, for institutional or governmental quality assurance programs, and for the certification of centers. Quality indicators and corresponding targets give practitioners and health administrators a quantitative basis for improving care and organizational processes in the surgical management of advanced ovarian cancer.

Immunologic response to the survivin-derived multi-epitope vaccine EMD640744 in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Survivin is a member of the inhibitor-of-apoptosis family. Essential for tumor cell survival and overexpressed in most cancers, survivin is a promising target for anti-cancer immunotherapy. Immunogenicity has been demonstrated in multiple cancers. Nonetheless, few clinical trials have demonstrated survivin-vaccine-induced immune responses. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This phase I trial was conducted to test whether vaccine EMD640744, a cocktail of five HLA class I-binding survivin peptides in Montanide(®) ISA 51 VG, promotes anti-survivin T-cell responses in patients with solid cancers. The primary objective was to compare immunologic efficacy of EMD640744 at doses of 30, 100, and 300 µg. Secondary objectives included safety, tolerability, and clinical efficacy. RESULTS: In total, 49 patients who received ≥2 EMD640744 injections with available baseline- and ≥1 post-vaccination samples [immunologic-diagnostic (ID)-intention-to-treat] were analyzed by ELISpot- and peptide/MHC-multimer staining, revealing vaccine-activated peptide-specific T-cell responses in 31 patients (63 %). This cohort included the per study protocol relevant ID population for the primary objective, i.e., T-cell responses by ELISpot in 17 weeks following first vaccination, as well as subjects who discontinued the study before week 17 but showed responses to the treatment. No dose-dependent effects were observed. In the majority of patients (61 %), anti-survivin responses were detected only after vaccination, providing evidence for de novo induction. Best overall tumor response was stable disease (28 %). EMD640744 was well tolerated; local injection-site reactions constituted the most frequent adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination with EMD640744 elicited T-cell responses against survivin peptides in the majority of patients, demonstrating the immunologic efficacy of EMD640744.

Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of ombrabulin (AVE8062) combined with cisplatin/docetaxel or carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Preclinical evidence supports synergy between the vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin and various chemotherapy agents. Ombrabulin was combined with two standard taxane/platinum doublets in a phase I study to determine the recommended combination doses. METHODS: Ombrabulin (30-min infusion, day 1 every 3 weeks) was escalated from 15.5 to 35 mg/m(2) with two chemotherapy doublets; OCD, 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin (C), day 1 (cohort 1) or day 2 (cohort 2) with 60/75 mg/m(2) docetaxel (D), day 2; and OCP, AUC5/6 carboplatin (C) and paclitaxel (P) 175 mg/m(2) (cohort 3) or 200 mg/m(2) (cohort 4), day 2. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and tumor response were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were treated (32 OCD, 37 OCP). Four had DLTs in cycle 1, two in cohort 1 (grade 4 febrile neutropenia, grade 4 pulmonary embolism) and one each in cohorts 2 (grade 3 ALT elevation) and 4 (grade 3 peripheral ischemia). Ombrabulin escalation in cohorts 2, 3 and 4 was halted at the highest planned dose (35 mg/m(2)). Asthenia, nausea, paresthesia, alopecia, vomiting, and stomatitis were common, as was grade 3-4 neutropenia. Ombrabulin clearance was high with a short terminal half-life and a medium volume of distribution. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed no clinically relevant drug interactions between the taxane-platinum doublet and ombrabulin or its active metabolite RPR258063, however docetaxel and carboplatin pharmacokinetics were slightly altered. One complete and 15 partial responses (10 OCD, 5 OCP; median duration 5.5 and 4.4 months, respectively) were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ombrabulin to standard doses of cisplatin/docetaxel or carboplatin/paclitaxel proved feasible with manageable overlapping toxicities but appears to have limited impact on the efficacy of these doublets. Recommended combination doses are 35 mg/m(2) ombrabulin with 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin/75 mg/m(2) docetaxel or 200 mg/m(2) paclitaxel/AUC6 carboplatin, every 3 weeks.

Clinical relevance of circulating tumor DNA in ovarian cancer: current issues and future opportunities.

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy worldwide. Due to the lack of effective screening and early detection strategies, many patients with OC are diagnosed with advanced disease, where treatment is rarely curative. Moreover, OC is characterized by high intratumor heterogeneity, which represents a major barrier to the development of effective treatments. Conventional tumor biopsy and blood-based biomarkers, such as cancer antigen 125 (CA125), have different limitations. Liquid biopsy has recently emerged as an attractive and promising area of investigation in oncology, due to its minimally invasive, safe, comprehensive, and real-time dynamic nature. Preliminary evidence suggests a potential role of liquid biopsy to refine OC management, by improving screening, early diagnosis, assessment of response to treatment, detection, and profiling of drug resistance. The current knowledge and the potential clinical value of liquid biopsy in OC is discussed in this review to provide an overview of the clinical settings in which its use might support and improve diagnosis and treatment.

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).

Population pharmacokinetics of TLD-1, a novel liposomal doxorubicin, in a phase I trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: TLD-1 is a novel pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) formulation aiming to optimise the PLD efficacy-toxicity ratio. We aimed to characterise TLD-1's population pharmacokinetics using non-compartmental analysis and nonlinear mixed-effects modelling. METHODS: The PK of TLD-1 was analysed by performing a non-compartmental analysis of longitudinal doxorubicin plasma concentration measurements obtained from a clinical trial in 30 patients with advanced solid tumours across a 4.5-fold dose range. Furthermore, a joint parent-metabolite PK model of doxorubicinentrapped, doxorubicinfree, and metabolite doxorubicinol was developed. Interindividual and interoccasion variability around the typical PK parameters and potential covariates to explain parts of this variability were explored. RESULTS: Medians  ± standard deviations of dose-normalised doxorubicinentrapped+free Cmax and AUC0-∞ were 0.342 ± 0.134 mg/L and 40.1 ± 18.9 mg·h/L, respectively. The median half-life (95 h) was 23.5 h longer than the half-life of currently marketed PLD. The novel joint parent-metabolite model comprised a one-compartment model with linear release (doxorubicinentrapped), a two-compartment model with linear elimination (doxorubicinfree), and a one-compartment model with linear elimination for doxorubicinol. Body surface area on the volumes of distribution for free doxorubicin was the only significant covariate. CONCLUSION: The population PK of TLD-1, including its release and main metabolite, were successfully characterised using non-compartmental and compartmental analyses. Based on its long half-life, TLD-1 presents a promising candidate for further clinical development. The PK characteristics form the basis to investigate TLD-1 exposure-response (i.e., clinical efficacy) and exposure-toxicity relationships in the future. Once such relationships have been established, the developed population PK model can be further used in model-informed precision dosing strategies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT03387917-January 2, 2018.

T-cell activation by treatment of cancer patients with EMD 521873 (Selectikine), an IL-2/anti-DNA fusion protein.

BACKGROUND: EMD 521873 (Selectikine or NHS-IL2LT) is a fusion protein consisting of modified human IL-2 which binds specifically to the high-affinity IL-2 receptor, and an antibody specific for both single- and double-stranded DNA, designed to facilitate the enrichment of IL-2 in tumor tissue. METHODS: An extensive analysis of pharmacodynamic (PD) markers associated with target modulation was assessed during a first-in-human phase I dose-escalation trial of Selectikine. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with metastatic or locally advanced tumors refractory to standard treatments were treated with increasing doses of Selectikine, and nine further patients received additional cyclophosphamide. PD analysis, assessed during the first two treatment cycles, revealed strong activation of both CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells and only weak NK cell activation. No dose response was observed. As expected, Treg cells responded actively to Selectikine but remained at lower frequency than effector CD4+ T-cells. Interestingly, patient survival correlated positively with both high lymphocyte counts and low levels of activated CD8+ T-cells at baseline, the latter of which was associated with enhanced T-cell responses to the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the selectivity of Selectikine with predominant T-cell and low NK cell activation, supporting follow-up studies assessing the clinical efficacy of Selectikine for cancer patients.

Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of trabectedin and cisplatin given every three weeks in patients with advanced solid tumors.

The aim of this phase I study was to identify a feasible dose and schedule for the combination of cisplatin and trabectedin. The regimen evaluated consisted of cisplatin at a fixed dose of 75 mg/m(2) 1-hour intravenous (i.v.) infusion followed by escalating doses of trabectedin 3-hour i.v. infusion, both administered on day 1 every 3 weeks (q3wks). Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), grade 4 neutropenia longer than 7 days duration and grade 3 vomiting despite standard antiemetic therapy, occurred at the starting dose of trabectedin (0.75 mg/m(2)). The immediately lower dose (trabectedin 0.60 mg/m(2)) was evaluated in a total of 8 patients; no DLTs occurred and this was declared the recommended dose (RD). The safety profile of the combination at this dose and schedule was consistent with the known side effects of each agent alone: nausea, fatigue, transient transaminase elevations and neutropenia. No new or unexpected adverse reactions were observed. Two partial responses were reported at the RD in patients with pretreated ovarian cancer. Comparison with population pharmacokinetic data suggests a PK interaction between trabectedin and cisplatin leading to increased plasma exposure of trabectedin in the first 48 h, lower platinum clearance and longer half-life. In conclusion, although the trabectedin dose achieved with this combination was low (50 % of single-agent when given q3wks), this day 1 q3wks trabectedin plus cisplatin combination showed a feasible administration, a tolerable safety profile and some antitumor activity.

A phase I study of the oral platinum agent satraplatin in combination with oral vinorelbine in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The broad spectrum of antitumor activity of the oral platinum satraplatin (S) and vinorelbine (V) were the rationale for performing a phase I trial to define the maximum tolerated (MTD) and the recommended (RD) dose in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 4 dose levels (DLs) of S (mg/m(2)/day, days 1-5) and V (mg/m(2)/day, days 1, 8, 15, and 22) every 28 days were explored: S60/V60 on days 1, 8 and 15 only; S60/V60; S70/V60; and S80/V60. Subsequently, 3 further DLs were evaluated with V omitted on day 22: S70/V60, S80/V60, and S80/V80. RESULTS: Treating 27 patients, the MTD was S80/V80 on days 1, 8, and 15, with 2 dose-limiting toxicities in 2 patients (nausea and vomiting grade (G) 3 with skipping of V on day 15, and neutropenia G4 with infection). The RD was S80/V60 on days 1, 8, and 15. The most frequent toxicities (any G) were nausea (70%), diarrhea (59%), anorexia (37%), vomiting (33%), asthenia (26%), constipation (26%), and paresthesia (18%). Partial responses were observed in 2 platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients and in 1 prostate cancer patient. CONCLUSION: The combination of S and V is tolerable at a DL of S80/V60 on days 1, 8, and 15; further evaluations in platinum- and V-sensitive tumor types would be of interest.