Safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with brain metastases: CheckMate 920.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and safety in patients with previously untreated, advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Although most phase 3 clinical trials exclude patients with brain metastases, the ongoing, multicohort phase 3b/4 CheckMate 920 trial (ClincalTrials.gov identifier NCT02982954) evaluated the safety and efficacy of NIVO + IPI in a cohort that included patients with aRCC and brain metastases, as reported here. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated aRCC and asymptomatic brain metastases received NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks × 4 followed by NIVO 480 mg every 4 weeks. The primary end point was the incidence of grade ≥3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of the last dose of study drug. Key secondary end points were progression-free survival and the objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (both determined by the investigator). Exploratory end points included overall survival, among others. RESULTS: After a minimum follow-up of 24.5 months (N = 28), no grade 5 imAEs occurred. The most common grade 3 and 4 imAEs were diarrhea/colitis (n = 2; 7%) and hypophysitis, rash, hepatitis, and diabetes mellitus (n = 1 each; 4%). The objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 14.9%-53.5%) with a median duration of response of 24.0 months; 4 of 8 responders remained without reported progression. Seven patients (25%) had intracranial progression. The median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 2.9-12.0 months), and the median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 14.1 months to not estimable). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who had previously untreated aRCC and brain metastases-a population with a high unmet medical need that often is underrepresented in clinical trials-the approved regimen of NIVO + IPI followed by NIVO showed encouraging antitumor activity and no new safety signals.

A phase I/II study of the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib in patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Final analysis of second dose-expansion cohort.

The maximum tolerated dose of the panobinostat and carfilzomib combination in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) was not reached in our previous dose-escalation study. We report additional dose levels in the phase I/II, single-arm, multicenter, standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation expansion-cohort study (NCT01496118). Patients with RRMM were treated with panobinostat 30 mg, carfilzomib 20/56 mg/m2 (N = 3), or panobinostat 20 mg, carfilzomib 20/56 mg/m2 (N = 33). Treatment cycles lasted 28 days; panobinostat: days 1, 3, 5, 15, 17, 19; carfilzomib: days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16. For dose level 6 (DL 6), median age was 63 years (range, 49-91 years), 60.6% were male, 42.4% were high risk. Patients received a median of two prior therapies (range 1-7); proteasome inhibitors (PI; 100%), immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMiD; 78.8%), and stem cell transplant (36.4%); 48.5%, 51.1%, and 24.2% were refractory to prior PI or prior IMiD treatment or both, respectively. Patients completed a median of seven (range 1-40) treatment cycles. Overall response rate (primary endpoint) of evaluable patients in the expansion cohort (N = 32): 84.4%; clinical benefit rate: 90.6%. With a median follow-up of 26.1 months (range, 0-72.5 months), median (95% CI) progression-free survival, time-to-progression and overall survival of patients was 10.3 (6.1, 13.9), 11.7 (5.6, 14.5), and 44.6 (20.8, N/A) months, respectively. Common adverse events (AEs) included thrombocytopenia (78.8%), nausea (63.6%), fatigue (63.6%), diarrhea (51.5%), and vomiting (51.5%). Seven patients had serious treatment-related AEs. There was one treatment-related death. In conclusion, panobinostat plus carfilzomib is an effective steroid-sparing regimen for RRMM.

A Phase II Study with Lead-In Safety Cohort of 5-Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, and Lapatinib in Combination with Radiation Therapy as Neoadjuvant Treatment for Patients with Localized HER2-Positive Esophagogastric Adenocarcinomas.

LESSONS LEARNED: Neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and lapatinib in combination with radiation therapy is safe for neoadjuvant treatment for patients with localized human epidermal growth receptor 2-positive esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.Evaluation of this drug combination in a larger patient pool would allow for more accurate analysis of its efficacy. BACKGROUND: The optimal design of neoadjuvant chemoradiation for the treatment of localized esophagogastric cancers is the subject of much debate. In this nonrandomized trial, we evaluated neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin, and lapatinib in combination with radiation therapy as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with localized human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2)-positive esophagogastric adenocarcinomas. METHODS: Patients received neoadjuvant 5-FU (225 mg/m2 continuous intravenous infusion, days 1-42), oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2 intravenously [IV], days 1, 15, and 29), and lapatinib (six patients, 1,000 mg p.o., days 1-42; six patients, 750 mg p.o., days 1-42) plus radiation (1.8 Gy/day Monday through Friday for 50.4 Gy total). Following restaging, eligible patients underwent definitive resection, and pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy was assessed. Planned enrollment was 42 patients. The primary endpoint was the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. RESULTS: Twelve patients (median age 64 years; 67% male) received a median of 5.6 weeks of treatment (range: 1.1-8.4). The pCR rate was 8%; four of the 12 patients underwent tumor resection and one patient had a pCR, with pathologic partial response in the remaining three. The most common lapatinib-related adverse events included (all grades) nausea (67%) and diarrhea (58%), although these were all grade 1 or 2. Enrollment was halted due to low accrual. CONCLUSION: The treatment regimen was determined to be safe. The study was terminated early due to low accrual.

A Phase II Trial Evaluating the Safety of Rapid Infusion of Ofatumumab in Patients with Previously Treated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

LESSONS LEARNED: Ofatumumab infusion reactions can be diminished by escalating the dose rate in individual patients in sequential infusions. BACKGROUND: Ofatumumab (OFA) is a fully humanized, anti-CD20 antibody approved for use in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The recommended administration requires long infusion times. We evaluated an accelerated infusion regimen of 2 hours. METHODS: The first dose of OFA (300 mg) was given on week 1 day 1 starting at 3.6 mg/hour and doubling every 30 minutes until a rate of 240 mg/hour was reached. If tolerated, the second dose (1,000 mg) was given on week 1 day 3 starting at 50 mg/hour and doubling every 30 minutes until a rate of 800 mg/hour was reached. If tolerated, the third dose (2,000 mg) was given on week 2 day 1 at 800 mg/hour over the first 30 minutes and, if tolerated, at 1,068 mg/hour over the next 90 minutes (goal infusion time: 120 minutes). Subsequent OFA infusions were administered weekly in the same manner for 8 weeks, and then monthly for 4 months. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were treated. Most infusion-related reactions occurred during the first and second infusion. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of patients finished the third infusion within 15 minutes of the planned 2 hours and only one had an infusion reaction. CONCLUSION: Using this stepped-up dosing regimen, a rapid infusion of OFA is safe and well tolerated.

TITAN: phase III study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by ixabepilone or paclitaxel in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Ixabepilone is a microtubule stabilizer with activity in taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer and low susceptibility to taxane-resistance mechanisms including multidrug-resistant phenotypes and high ß-III tubulin expression. Since these resistance mechanisms are common in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), ixabepilone may have particular advantages in this patient population. This study evaluated the substitution of ixabepilone for paclitaxel following doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage TNBC. METHODS: Patients with operable TNBC were eligible following definitive breast surgery. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive four cycles of AC followed by either four cycles (12 weeks) of ixabepilone or 12 weekly doses of paclitaxel. RESULTS: 614 patients were randomized: 306 to AC/ixabepilone and 308 to AC/paclitaxel. At a median follow-up of 48 months, 59 patients had relapsed (AC/ixabepilone, 29; AC/paclitaxel, 30). The median time from diagnosis to relapse was 20.8 months. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates of the two groups were similar [HR 0.92; ixabepilone 87.1% (95% CI 82.6-90.5) vs. paclitaxel 84.7% (95% CI 79.7-88.6)]. The estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were also similar [HR 1.1; ixabepilone 89.7% (95% CI 85.5-92.7) vs. paclitaxel 89.6% (95% CI 85.0-92.9)]. Peripheral neuropathy was the most common grade 3/4 event. Dose reductions and treatment discontinuations occurred more frequently during paclitaxel treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with AC/ixabepilone provided similar DFS and OS in patients with operable TNBC when compared to treatment with AC/paclitaxel. The two regimens had similar toxicity, although treatment discontinuation, dose modifications, and overall peripheral neuropathy were more frequent with AC/paclitaxel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier, NCT00789581.

Phase I/II study of the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Patients with multiple myeloma who had relapsed after at least one prior treatment were eligible to participate. In the dose escalation part of the study a standard 3+3 design was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose of four planned dose levels of the combination of carfilzomib and panobinostat. Panobinostat was administered on days 1, 3, 5, 15, 17, and 19. Carfilzomib was administered on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of each 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until progression or intolerable toxicity. Forty-four patients were accrued into the trial, 13 in the phase I part and 31 in the phase II part of the study. The median age of the patients was 66 years and the median number of prior therapies was five. The expansion dose was established as 30 mg panobinostat, 20/45 mg/m(2) carfilzomib. The overall response rate was 67% for all patients, 67% for patients refractory to prior proteasome inhibitor treatment and 75% for patients refractory to prior immune modulating drug treatment. At a median follow up of 17 months, median progression-free survival was 7.7 months, median time to progression was 7.7 months, and median overall survival had not been reached. The regimen was well tolerated, although there were several panobinostat dose reductions. In conclusion, the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib is feasible and effective in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. (Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01496118).

A phase II trial of panobinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, in the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the activity of panobinostat in refractory renal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma who had received previous therapy with at least one angiogenesis inhibitor and one mTOR inhibitor were treated with panobinostat 45 mg orally twice a week, and were reevaluated after 8 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty patients were treated with no objective responses. All patients progressed or stopped treatment prior to the 16-week reevaluation. Panobinostat was generally well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: Panobinostat had no activity in this group of patients with refractory renal carcinoma. Further development of panobinostat in renal carcinoma is not recommended.

A Randomized, Open-Label Phase 2 Study of the CXCR4 Inhibitor LY2510924 in Combination with Sunitinib Versus Sunitinib Alone in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC).

PURPOSE: The chemokine (C-X-C Motif) receptor 4 (CXCR4) and its ligand, stromal-cell derived factor-1 (SDF-1), are frequently overexpressed in a variety of solid tumors, and are believed to play important roles in the regulation of organ-specific metastasis, tumor growth, invasion, and survival. In this randomized Phase 2 trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of LY2510924 (LY), a peptide antagonist of CXCR4, combined with sunitinib (SUN) in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized (2:1) to receive LY (20 mg SC daily) + SUN (50 mg PO daily for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off) or SUN alone. Response was assessed after two cycles; patients continued treatment until tumor progression or intolerable toxicity. The study was powered to detect a 47 % increase in median progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred eight patients were randomized and treated (LY + SUN, 72; SUN, 36); median duration of treatment of five cycles. Observed median PFS was 8.1 months with LY + SUN and 12.3 months with SUN; Bayesian time-to-event HR 1.23; 95 % credible interval: 0.74, 1.96. LY was well tolerated; the toxicity profile was typical of SUN. No efficacy differences were seen between treatments groups when subsets with high versus low levels of CXCR4 tumor expression were compared. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of LY to SUN in the first-line treatment of metastatic RCC was well tolerated, but did not improve the PFS or overall survival (OS) vs. SUN alone. CXCR4 remains an unproven therapeutic target for the treatment of RCC. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01391130.

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas: clinical features and prognostic factors of 92 cases defined by the revised European American lymphoma classification.

The purpose of this study was to better define the clinical features and natural history of peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) entities included in the Revised European American lymphoma (REAL) classification. Cases of PTCL were retrieved from the records of the Department of Pathology and classified according to the REAL classification. In addition, cases of anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) were divided into classical, small cell, and primary cutaneous subtypes, and immunostaining for the anaplastic large-cell kinase (ALK) protein was performed on all cases of ALCL. Clinical features, response to therapy and survival were abstracted. Ninety-two cases of PTCL with adequate clinical information were retrieved. There were 40 cases of ALCL (30 classical, 7 small cell variant, 3 primary cutaneous), 28 PTCL, unspecified, 13 angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma and 11 with other entities. The patients had a median age of 48 years with a range of 6-84 and had an estimated overall survival (OS) of 49% and progression-free survival (PFS) of 22% at 5 years. The International Prognostic Index (IPI) was a significant prognostic factor for both progression-free and OS. Histology was a significant predictor of PFS with anaplastic large cell having the best prognosis. ALK expression was not associated with an improved progression-free or overall-survival in patients with systemic T-cell ALCL. In conclusion, the REAL classification describes distinct PTCL entities. The IPI is the most important predictor of progression-free and OS in patients with PTCL. ALK expression may not provide prognostic information for systemic ALCL.

Pazopanib as second-line treatment after sunitinib or bevacizumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: This phase II trial examined the activity and toxicity of second-line treatment with pazopanib after failure of first-line single-agent treatment with sunitinib or bevacizumab in patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-five patients with metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma who had previously received first-line treatment with sunitinib (39 patients) or bevacizumab (16 patients) were enrolled. Patients received pazopanib 800 mg orally daily and were evaluated for response after 8 weeks of treatment. Responses were measured using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.0, and confirmed with repeated scans after 8 weeks. Patients with objective response or stable disease continued treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: Fifteen of 55 patients (27%) had objective response to pazopanib. An additional 27 patients (49%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 76%. After a median follow-up of 16.7 months, the median progression-free survival for the entire group was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval, 5.4-9.4 months). Similar progression-free survival was observed regardless of whether previous treatment was with sunitinib or bevacizumab. The estimated overall survival rate for the entire group at 24 months was 43%. CONCLUSION: Pazopanib is an active agent for the treatment of advanced clear cell renal carcinoma, even after failure of sunitinib or bevacizumab. Treatment with pazopanib should be considered early in the sequence of therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

High-dose bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma: a phase II trial of the Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The dose of bevacizumab necessary to optimally inhibit tumor angiogenesis in advanced renal cell carcinoma is unknown. In this phase II trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of 2 escalated doses of bevacizumab in patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic or locally advanced unresectable clear cell renal carcinoma. Patients who were previously untreated or who had previously received vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy were eligible and were considered separately in the efficacy evaluation. Two doses of bevacizumab were evaluated in sequential cohorts: 15 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 15 mg/kg weekly. The initial reevaluation was at 8 weeks; responding and stable patients continued treatment, with reevaluations every 8 weeks until tumor progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen eligible patients were enrolled and received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 61) or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg weekly (n = 58). Seventy patients were previously untreated with VEGFR-targeted therapy. In previously untreated patients, the overall response rate was 19%, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.8 months. Less activity was seen in patients previously treated with VEGFR-targeted agents (overall response rate, 4%; median PFS, 3.7 months). There was no suggestion of any difference in efficacy between the 2 dose levels tested. Both dose levels were tolerated well by most patients, with a spectrum of toxicity typical for bevacizumab. Grade 3/4 proteinuria was more frequent with both of these escalated doses, particularly with 15 mg/kg weekly. CONCLUSION: Although administration of escalated doses of bevacizumab was feasible in patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma, there was no suggestion that these doses were more efficacious than bevacizumab administered at the standard dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks.

Everolimus in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with metastatic melanoma: a phase II trial of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute Oncology Research Consortium.

This phase II trial examined the efficacy and toxicity of first-line treatment with everolimus, paclitaxel, and carboplatin in patients with advanced melanoma. Seventy patients with metastatic or locally advanced unresectable melanoma who had been untreated previously with chemotherapy or targeted agents received first-line treatment with everolimus (5 mg, orally, daily), paclitaxel (175 mg/m, intravenous, every 3 weeks), and carboplatin (area under the curve 6.0, intravenous, every 3 weeks). Response to treatment was assessed every 6 weeks; responding and stable patients received six cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin, and subsequently continued single-agent everolimus until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Twelve patients (17%) showed objective responses (all partial); an additional 27 patients showed measurable tumor shrinkage. After a median follow-up of 15 months, the median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% confidence interval 2.8-5.0 months); the median survival for the entire group was 10.1 months. Myelosuppression was the most common grade 3/4 toxicity; 70% of patients experienced at least one episode of grade 3/4 toxicity while on study. Although this regimen was active in the first-line treatment of advanced melanoma, there was no suggestion of improved efficacy when compared with previous results with paclitaxel/carboplatin alone. Further study of this combination is not recommended.

Phase II study of everolimus in patients with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma previously treated with bevacizumab-, fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based regimens.

PURPOSE: Dysregulation of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mTOR pathway is seen in 40% to 60% of patients with colorectal cancer. Everolimus, an oral inhibitor of mTOR, showed efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancers in phase I studies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In sequential phase II studies assessing two dosing schedules, patients with metastatic colorectal cancers refractory to bevacizumab-, fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based regimens received everolimus 70 mg/wk (n = 99) or 10 mg/d (n = 100). Primary endpoints were disease control rate (DCR) and objective response rate; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and duration of response or stable disease (SD). Tumor tissue was collected from all patients for predefined exploratory biomarker analyses. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were included in the per-protocol set for each cohort. DCRs of 31.0% and 32.4% (all SD) were seen in the weekly and daily schedules, respectively. Median duration of SD was 3.9 months in each cohort. Median PFS and OS were 1.8 and 4.9 months and 1.8 and 5.9 months, respectively, for the weekly and daily schedules. Among patients receiving daily everolimus, those with a KRAS mutation experienced significantly shorter median OS (P = 0.008) and lower DCR (P = 0.035) compared with those with wild-type KRAS in exploratory biomarker analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus 70 mg/wk or 10 mg/d was well tolerated but did not confer meaningful efficacy in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancers. Future studies may consider evaluating everolimus in combination with other agents or in patients with dysregulation of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway.

A phase II study of higher dose weekly topotecan in relapsed small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Five-day topotecan is approved by the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) for sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). We previously found that 4 mg/m(2) intravenous (I.V.) weekly dosing resulted in low-grade 3/4 toxicity but an overall response rate (ORR) < 10%. We hypothesized that higher topotecan dosing could improve ORR without significantly increasing toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter phase II trial sought a 25% ORR (α = 0.04; ß = 0.20). Eligible patients (sensitive or refractory relapsed SCLC; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status [PS] 0-1; measurable disease) received weekly topotecan (6 mg/m(2) I.V. for 6 weeks) and were restaged every 8 weeks. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were N = 38, enrolled 5/2006-10/2007; median age 64 years (range, 35-82), 47% female, 74% ECOG PS 1, 50% refractory relapsed SCLC. The median follow-up was 15 months (range, 12-24 months). No patients received all planned therapy; only 1 patient was able to receive all planned treatment in cycle 1 because of hematologic toxicity and progressive disease (PD). Among all patients, ORR was 8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2%-21%), 24% had stable disease, and disease in 47% progressed. Among sensitive relapsed patients ORR was 16% (95% CI, 3%-40%) with no complete responses; median response duration was 3.3 months. Five (26%) patients had stable disease; 8 (42%) patients had PD. Among sensitive relapsed patients, the median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) was 2.5 months and 8.6 months, respectively. Among refractory relapsed patients there were no ORRs, and median TTP and OS were 1.5 months and 3.7 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities (> 10%) included neutropenia (53%), leukopenia (42%), thrombocytopenia (37%), anemia (13%), fatigue (13%), and pain (13%). There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Weekly topotecan (6 mg/m(2) I.V.) is not feasible because of hematologic toxicity and does not improve efficacy in patients with relapsed SCLC.