COMPANION-002 A clinical trial of investigational drug CTX-009 plus paclitaxel vs paclitaxel in second line advanced BTC.

Treatment options for patients with biliary tract cancer are limited, and the prognosis is poor. CTX-009, a novel bispecific antibody targeting both DLL4 and VEGF-A, has demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced cancers as both a monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy. In a phase II study of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer who had received one or two prior therapies, CTX-009 with paclitaxel demonstrated a 37.5% overall response rate (ORR). Described here is the design of and rationale for COMPANION-002, a randomized phase II/III study, which will evaluate the safety and efficacy of CTX-009 in combination with paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone as second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. The primary end point is ORR, and crossover is allowed.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05506943 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Looking for new options for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer? Explore COMPANION-002, Compass Therapeutics' phase II/III study of CTX-009 + paclitaxel as a second line treatment.#CMPX #biotech #healthcare #rarecancer.

Open-label, Phase 2 study of roxadustat for the treatment of anemia in patients receiving chemotherapy for non-myeloid malignancies.

Anemia is a common side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy; however, chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) management options are suboptimal. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of roxadustat in this setting. This open-label Phase 2 study included patients with non-myeloid malignancies and CIA (hemoglobin [Hb] ≤10 g/dL) who had planned concurrent myelosuppressive chemotherapy for ≥8 additional weeks. Oral roxadustat was administered for ≤16 weeks (starting dose 2.0 or 2.5 mg/kg, then titrated every 4 weeks). The primary efficacy endpoint was mean maximum change in Hb within 16 weeks of baseline without red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. Patients were assigned to roxadustat 2.0 (n = 31) or 2.5 mg/kg (n = 61) starting doses, and 89 were assessed for efficacy. The mean (standard deviation) maximum Hb change from baseline without RBC transfusion was 2.4 (1.5) and 2.5 (1.5) g/dL in the roxadustat 2.0 and 2.5 mg/kg groups, respectively. Median (range) time to Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL was 71 (57-92) days. Twelve patients (14.5%) had RBC transfusions (Week 5 to the end of treatment). Roxadustat was efficacious regardless of tumor type and chemotherapy regimen. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) occurred in 14 (15.2%) and nine (9.8%) patients, respectively, and three had serious adverse events attributed to roxadustat in the opinion of the investigators (PE: n = 2 [2.2%]; DVT: n = 1 [1.1%]). Roxadustat increased Hb in patients with CIA regardless of tumor type and chemotherapy regimen. Adverse events were consistent with observations in patients with advanced-stage malignancies.

A Phase 2 Study of PCI-27483, a Factor VIIa Inhibitor in Combination with Gemcitabine for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Tissue factor overexpression is associated with tumor progression, venous thromboembolism, and worsened survival in patients with cancer. Tissue factor and activated factor VII (FVIIa) complex may contribute to tumor invasiveness by promoting cell migration and angiogenesis. The study objective was to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of PCI-27483, a selective FVIIa inhibitor. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicenter phase 2 trial of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Part A of the study was an intrapatient dose escalation lead-in portion in patients concurrently receiving gemcitabine, and in part B, patients were randomized 1: 1 to the recommended phase 2 dose combination PCI-27483-gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone. RESULTS: Target international normalized ratio (between 2.0-3.0) was achieved following PCI-27483 treatment. Overall safety of PCI-27483-gemcitabine (n = 26) was similar to gemcitabine alone (n = 16), with a higher incidence of mostly low-grade bleeding events (65% vs. 19%). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between patients treated with PCI-27483-gemcitabine (PFS: 3.7 months, OS: 5.7 months) and those treated with gemcitabine alone (PFS: 1.9 months, OS: 5.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted inhibition of the coagulation cascade was achieved by administering PCI-27483. PCI-27483-gemcitabine was well tolerated, but superiority to single agent gemcitabine was not demonstrated.

APF530 (granisetron injection extended-release) in a three-drug regimen for delayed CINV in highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

AIM: APF530, extended-release granisetron, provides sustained release for ≥5 days for acute- and delayed-phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We compared efficacy and safety of APF530 versus ondansetron for delayed CINV after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), following a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen. METHODS: HEC patients received APF530 500 mg subcutaneously or ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously, with dexamethasone and fosaprepitant. Primary end point was delayed-phase complete response (no emesis or rescue medication). RESULTS: A higher percentage of APF530 versus ondansetron patients had delayed-phase complete response (p = 0.014). APF530 was generally well tolerated; treatment-emergent adverse event incidence was similar across arms, mostly mild-to-moderate injection-site reactions. CONCLUSION: APF530 versus the standard three-drug regimen provided superior control of delayed-phase CINV following HEC. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02106494.

An open-label, single-arm, phase 2 (PX-171-004) study of single-agent carfilzomib in bortezomib-naive patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma.

Carfilzomib is a selective proteasome inhibitor that binds irreversibly to its target. In phase 1 studies, carfilzomib elicited promising responses and an acceptable toxicity profile in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM). In the present phase 2, multicenter, open-label study, 129 bortezomib-naive patients with R/R MM (median of 2 prior therapies) were separated into Cohort 1, scheduled to receive intravenous carfilzomib 20 mg/m(2) for all treatment cycles, and Cohort 2, scheduled to receive 20 mg/m(2) for cycle 1 and then 27 mg/m(2) for all subsequent cycles. The primary end point was an overall response rate (≥ partial response) of 42.4% in Cohort 1 and 52.2% in Cohort 2. The clinical benefit response (overall response rate + minimal response) was 59.3% and 64.2% in Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Median duration of response was 13.1 months and not reached, and median time to progression was 8.3 months and not reached, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (62.0%) and nausea (48.8%). Single-agent carfilzomib elicited a low incidence of peripheral neuropathy-17.1% overall (1 grade 3; no grade 4)-in these pretreated bortezomib-naive patients. The results of the present study support the use of carfilzomib in R/R MM patients. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00530816.

Effects of enobosarm on muscle wasting and physical function in patients with cancer: a double-blind, randomised controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-induced muscle wasting begins early in the course of a patient's malignant disease, resulting in declining physical function and other detrimental clinical consequences. This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of enobosarm, a selective androgen receptor modulator, in patients with cancer. METHODS: We enrolled male (>45 years) and female (postmenopausal) patients with cancer who were not obese and who had at least 2% weight loss in the previous 6 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1 ratio, by computer generated list, block size three, stratified by cancer type) to receive once-daily oral enobosarm 1 mg, 3 mg, or placebo for up to 113 days at US and Argentinian oncology clinics. The sponsor, study personnel, and participants were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was change in total lean body mass from baseline, assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Efficacy analyses were done only in patients who had a baseline and an on-treatment assessment in the protocol-specified window of within 10 days before baseline or first study drug, and within 10 days of day 113 or end of study (evaluable efficacy population). Adverse events and other safety measurements were assessed in the intention-to-treat (safety) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00467844. FINDINGS: Enrolment started on July 3, 2007, and the last patient completed the trial on Aug 1, 2008. 159 patients were analysed for safety (placebo, n=52; enobosarm 1 mg, n=53; enobosarm 3 mg, n=54). The evaluable efficacy population included 100 participants (placebo, n=34; enobosarm 1 mg, n=32; enobosarm 3 mg, n=34). Compared with baseline, significant increases in total lean body mass by day 113 or end of study were noted in both enobosarm groups (enobosarm 1 mg median 1·5 kg, range -2·1 to 12·6, p=0·0012; enodosarm 3 mg 1·0 kg, -4·8 to 11·5, p=0·046). Change in total lean body mass within the placebo group (median 0·02 kg, range -5·8 to 6·7) was not significant (p=0·88). The most common serious adverse events were malignant neoplasm progression (eight of 52 [15%] with placebo vs five of 53 [9%] with enobosarm 1 mg vs seven of 54 [13%] with enobosarm 3 mg), pneumonia (two [4%] vs two [4%] vs three [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (three [6%vs one [2%] vs none). None of these events were deemed related to study drug. INTERPRETATION: Cancer cachexia is an unmet medical need and our data suggest that use of enobosarm might lead to improvements in lean body mass, without the toxic effects associated with androgens and progestational agents. FUNDING: GTx.

Oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (ASCERTAIN): a registrational, randomised, crossover, pharmacokinetics, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The DNA methyltransferase inhibitors azacitidine and decitabine for individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are available in parenteral form. Oral therapy with similar exposure for these diseases would offer potential treatment benefits. We aimed to compare the safety and pharmacokinetics of oral decitabine plus the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine. METHODS: We did a registrational, multicentre, open-label, crossover, phase 3 trial of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and individuals with acute myeloid leukaemia, enrolled as separate cohorts; results for only participants with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are reported here. In 37 academic and community-based clinics in Canada and the USA, we enrolled individuals aged 18 years or older who were candidates to receive intravenous decitabine, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 5 days of oral decitabine-cedazuridine (one tablet once daily containing 35 mg decitabine and 100 mg cedazuridine as a fixed-dose combination) or intravenous decitabine (20 mg/m2 per day by continuous 1-h intravenous infusion) in a 28-day treatment cycle, followed by 5 days of the other formulation in the next treatment cycle. Thereafter, all participants received oral decitabine-cedazuridine from the third cycle on until treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was total decitabine exposure over 5 days with oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for cycles 1 and 2, measured as area under the curve in participants who received the full treatment dose in cycles 1 and 2 and had decitabine daily AUC0-24 for both oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine (ie, paired cycles). On completion of the study, all patients were rolled over to a maintenance study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03306264. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2018, and June 7, 2021, 173 individuals were screened, 138 (80%) participants were randomly assigned to a treatment sequence, and 133 (96%) participants (87 [65%] men and 46 [35%] women; 121 [91%] White, four [3%] Black or African-American, three [2%] Asian, and five [4%] not reported) received treatment. Median follow-up was 966 days (IQR 917-1050). Primary endpoint of total exposure of oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine was 98·93% (90% CI 92·66-105·60), indicating equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure on the basis of area under the curve. The safety profiles of oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine were similar. The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or worse were thrombocytopenia (81 [61%] of 133 participants), neutropenia (76 [57%] participants), and anaemia (67 [50%] participants). The incidence of serious adverse events in cycles 1-2 was 31% (40 of 130 participants) with oral decitabine-cedazuridine and 18% (24 of 132 participants) with intravenous decitabine. There were five treatment-related deaths; two deemed related to oral therapy (sepsis and pneumonia) and three to intravenous treatment (septic shock [n=2] and pneumonia [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Oral decitabine-cedazuridine was pharmacologically and pharmacodynamically equivalent to intravenous decitabine. The results support use of oral decitabine-cedazuridine as a safe and effective alternative to intravenous decitabine for treatment of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals.

A Phase Ib/II Study of Pepinemab in Combination with Avelumab in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The CLASSICAL-Lung clinical trial tested the combination of pepinemab, an IgG4 humanized mAb targeting semaphorin 4D, with the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab to assess the effects of coupling increased T-cell infiltration and reversal of immune suppression via pepinemab with sustained T-cell activation via checkpoint inhibition. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase Ib/II, single-arm study was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pepinemab in combination with avelumab in 62 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including immunotherapy-naïve (ION) patients and patients whose tumors progressed following anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapy (IOF). The main objectives were to evaluate safety/tolerability, establish a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), obtain a preliminary evaluation of antitumor activity, and investigate candidate biomarker activity. RESULTS: The combination was well tolerated with no major safety signals identified. Pepinemab, 10 mg/kg with avelumab, 10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks, was selected as the RP2D. Among 21 evaluable ION patients, 5 patients experienced partial responses (PR), 4 patients evidenced clinical benefit ≥1 year, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 81%. Notably, overall response rate with the combination therapy was higher than previously reported for single-agent avelumab in the PD-L1-negative/low population. Among 29 evaluable IOF patients, the combination resulted in a DCR of 59%, including 2 PR and 7 patients with durable clinical benefit of ≥23 weeks. Biomarker analysis of biopsies demonstrated increased CD8 T-cell density correlating with RECIST response criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of pepinemab with avelumab was well tolerated in NSCLC and showed signs of antitumor activity in immunotherapy-resistant and PD-L1-negative/low tumors.

Real-world effectiveness of palonosetron-based antiemetic regimens: preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Aim: To evaluate real-world effectiveness of guideline-recommended palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy. Patients & methods: This retrospective analysis used records of adults receiving first-line chemotherapy and a three-drug palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for HEC or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for MEC (carboplatin). Results: A total of 1587 records were evaluated. For HEC and MEC, respectively, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) occurred in 40 versus 44% of patient cycles (p = 0.01), and unscheduled iv. antiemetics in 41 versus 35% (p < 0.05). A total of 48% of HEC patients versus 42% of MEC patients had CINV-related clinic visits (p = 0.05). Conclusion: Palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens may provide insufficient CINV control. Alternative regimens may improve patient quality of life and reduce healthcare resource utilization.

A Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of Veliparib Combined with Carboplatin and Etoposide in Patients with Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer and Other Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This study examined safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of veliparib, a PARP inhibitor, combined with carboplatin and etoposide in patients with extensive-stage (ED) small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and other solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 3 + 3 design was used for dose escalation of oral veliparib in combination with carboplatin (AUC 5 on day 1) and etoposide (100 mg/m2 on days 1-3) in 21-day cycles. Veliparib dose was explored from 80 to 240 mg b.i.d. on 7-day, 14-day, or continuous schedules. Patients without disease progression continued on maintenance monotherapy (veliparib 400 mg b.i.d.) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were enrolled to determine the recommended phase II dose of 240 mg veliparib for 14 days combined with carboplatin and etoposide based on long-term tolerability. Dose-limiting toxicity occurred in 1 patient (grade 2 toxic motor polyneuropathy) at veliparib 240 mg b.i.d. for 7 days. Most common adverse events related to veliparib were nausea (39%), fatigue (39%), and hematologic toxicities. Continuous dosing of veliparib 240 mg b.i.d. with carboplatin and etoposide resulted in excessive chemotherapy dose delays due to hematologic toxicity (grade 3/4 neutropenia/thrombocytopenia). Etoposide pharmacokinetics was not affected by veliparib. Confirmed responses occurred in 17 of 39 (44%) and 16 of 25 (64%) of all enrolled and ED SCLC patients, respectively. At the RP2D, confirmed responses occurred in 6 of 13 (46%) and 5 of 6 (83%) of all enrolled and ED SCLC patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Veliparib (240 mg b.i.d. 14 days) plus carboplatin/etoposide can be safely combined. Phase II of this study is ongoing in first-line patients with ED SCLC.

Real-world efficacy: intravenous palonosetron three-drug regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

AIM: Real-world palonosetron effectiveness was evaluated in an antiemetic regimen with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). PATIENTS & METHODS: In this Phase IV, prospective, multicenter observational study, HEC-treated cancer patients received palonosetron, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone. Primary objective was to assess complete response (CR) for acute (≤24 h), delayed and overall (≤120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: Of 159 patients, 65.4% had breast cancer, 64.8% received anthracycline (doxorubicin)-plus-cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy; 155 completed one HEC cycle. CR was 60.0% acute, 39.4% delayed and 34.8% overall, and then increased (all phases) in 69 patients completing four HEC cycles. Anthracycline (doxorubicin) plus cyclophosphamide-receiving patients had especially low CR. CONCLUSION: Even within a recommended three-drug antiemetic regimen, palonosetron may provide suboptimal chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting control with HEC in real-world settings.

Phase I/II study of mocetinostat in combination with gemcitabine for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer and other advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of mocetinostat (a Class I/IV HDAC inhibitor) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with solid tumors, including pancreatic cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, non-randomized Phase I/II study (NCT00372437) sequential cohorts of patients with solid tumors received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, day 1 of three consecutive weeks, 4-week cycles) and oral mocetinostat [50-110 mg, three times per week (TIW)]. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) was determined based on dose-limiting toxicities in Cycle 1 (Phase I study). The MTD/RP2D was further evaluated in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (Phase II study) using a two-stage design. The Phase II primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were enrolled into the Phase I (n = 25) and Phase II (n = 23) studies. In the Phase I study, the MTD/RP2D was mocetinostat 90 mg TIW + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported by 81% of all patients, the most frequent being fatigue (38%) and thrombocytopenia (19%). The ORR was 11% in the Phase I study (n = 2 patients with pancreatic cancer, responses lasting for 16.8 and 4.0 months, respectively). As no responses were seen in the Phase II cohort, the study was terminated. CONCLUSIONS: Mocetinostat TIW in combination with gemcitabine was associated with significant toxicities in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The level of clinical activity of this treatment combination was not considered high enough to merit further testing in this setting.

Voxtalisib (XL765) in patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: an open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia have a poor prognosis. Therapies targeting more than one isoform of PI3K, as well as mTOR, might increase antitumour activity. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of voxtalisib (also known as XL765 or SAR245409), a pan-PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma, or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. METHODS: We did a non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial at 30 oncology clinics in the USA, Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Australia. Patients aged 18 years or older with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (EGOG) performance status score of 2 or lower and relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma were enrolled and treated with voxtalisib 50 mg orally twice daily in 28-day continuous dosing cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in each disease-specific cohort who achieved an overall response, defined as a complete response or partial response. All patients who received more than 4 weeks of treatment and who completed a baseline and at least one post-baseline tumour assessment were analysed for efficacy and all patients were analysed for safety. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01403636, and has been completed. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2011, and July 24, 2013, 167 patients were enrolled (42 with mantle cell lymphoma, 47 with follicular lymphoma, 42 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and 36 with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. The median number of previous anticancer regimens was three (IQR 2-4) for patients with lymphoma and four (2-5) for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. Of 164 patients evaluable for efficacy, 30 (18·3%) achieved an overall response (partial, n=22; complete, n=8); 19 (41·3%) of 46 with follicular lymphoma, five (11·9%) of 42 with mantle cell lymphoma, two (4·9%) of 41 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and four (11·4%) of 35 with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. The safety profile was consistent with that of previous studies of voxtalisib. The most frequently reported adverse events were diarrhoea (in 59 [35%] of 167 patients), fatigue (in 53 [32%]), nausea (in 45 [27%]), pyrexia (in 44 [26%,]), cough (in 40 [24%]), and decreased appetite (in 35 [21%]). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (in 20 [12%] of 167 patients), pneumonia (in 14 [8%]), and thrombocytopenia (in 13 [8%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 97 (58·1%) of 167 patients. INTERPRETATION: Voxtalisib 50 mg given orally twice daily had an acceptable safety profile, with promising efficacy in patients with follicular lymphoma but limited efficacy in patients with mantle cell lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Inhibition of the Nuclear Export Receptor XPO1 as a Therapeutic Target for Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer.

Purpose: The high fatality-to-case ratio of ovarian cancer is directly related to platinum resistance. Exportin-1 (XPO1) is a nuclear exporter that mediates nuclear export of multiple tumor suppressors. We investigated possible clinicopathologic correlations of XPO1 expression levels and evaluated the efficacy of XPO1 inhibition as a therapeutic strategy in platinum-sensitive and -resistant ovarian cancer.Experimental Design: XPO1 expression levels were analyzed to define clinicopathologic correlates using both TCGA/GEO datasets and tissue microarrays (TMA). The effect of XPO1 inhibition, using the small-molecule inhibitors KPT-185 and KPT-330 (selinexor) alone or in combination with a platinum agent on cell viability, apoptosis, and the transcriptome was tested in immortalized and patient-derived ovarian cancer cell lines (PDCL) and platinum-resistant mice (PDX). Seven patients with late-stage, recurrent, and heavily pretreated ovarian cancer were treated with an oral XPO1 inhibitor.Results: XPO1 RNA overexpression and protein nuclear localization were correlated with decreased survival and platinum resistance in ovarian cancer. Targeted XPO1 inhibition decreased cell viability and synergistically restored platinum sensitivity in both immortalized ovarian cancer cells and PDCL. The XPO1 inhibitor-mediated apoptosis occurred through both p53-dependent and p53-independent signaling pathways. Selinexor treatment, alone and in combination with platinum, markedly decreased tumor growth and prolonged survival in platinum-resistant PDX and mice. In selinexor-treated patients, tumor growth was halted in 3 of 5 patients, including one with a partial response, and was safely tolerated by all.Conclusions: Taken together, these results provide evidence that XPO1 inhibition represents a new therapeutic strategy for overcoming platinum resistance in women with ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 23(6); 1552-63. ©2016 AACR.

A multicenter, randomized trial of long-acting octreotide for the optimum prevention of chemotherapy-induced diarrhea: results of the STOP trial.

Diarrhea is a well-recognized side effect of chemotherapy and can result in chemotherapy delay and/or dose reduction, potentially reducing the therapeutic benefit of treatment. Octreotide has been shown to be effective in controlling chemotherapy-induced diarrhea (CID). In this open-label, randomized, multicenter study, designed to asses the effects of two dose levels of octreotide long-acting release (LAR), patients with active or prior CID and scheduled for chemotherapy were randomized to receive up to six doses of either 30 or 40 mg of octreotide LAR. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing severe diarrhea during the trial. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients requiring IV fluids due to diarrhea, unscheduled visits to healthcare professionals due to diarrhea, and changes in primary therapy, as well as treatment satisfaction and quality of life. In total, 147 patients were randomized and received at least 1 dose; 124 patients were efficacy-evaluable. Baseline characters were balanced in the 30-mg and 40-mg groups with the exception of gender. Fewer patients in the 40-mg group compared with those in the 30-mg group experienced severe diarrhea (61.7% vs 48.4%; P = 0.14), required IV fluid (31.7% vs 18.8%; P = 0.10), and had diarrhea-related unscheduled healthcare visits (41.7% vs. 28.1 %; P = 0.11); however, these differences were not statistically significant. No significant differences were observed between the treatment groups in either measured quality of life or treatment satisfaction. Adverse events were balanced between the two groups. No specific recommendations can be made from this trial regarding the use of 30 mg versus 40 mg of octreotide LAR for CID.

A randomized Phase II trial of the tumor vascular disrupting agent CA4P (fosbretabulin tromethamine) with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Combretastatin A4-phosphate, fosbretabulin tromethamine (CA4P) is a vascular disrupting agent that targets tumor vasculature. This study evaluated the safety of CA4P when combined with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab in chemotherapy-naïve subjects with advanced nonsquamous, non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Adult subjects with confirmed American Joint Committee on Cancer six stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1 were randomized to receive six cycles (treatment phase) of paclitaxel (200 mg/m2), carboplatin (area under the concentration versus time curve 6), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) on day 1 and repeated every 21 days, or this regimen plus CA4P (60 mg/m2) on days 7, 14, and 21 of each cycle. Subjects could then receive additional maintenance treatment (excluding carboplatin and paclitaxel) for up to 1 year. RESULTS: Sixty-three subjects were randomized, 31 to control and 32 to CA4P, and 19 (61.3%) and 17 (53.1%), respectively, completed the treatment phase. Exposure to study treatment and dose modifications were comparable between the randomized groups. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between groups, with increased neutropenia, leukopenia, and hypertension in the CA4P group. Deaths, serious adverse events, and early discontinuations from treatment were comparable between the randomized treatment groups. The overall tumor response rate with CA4P was 50% versus 32% in controls. Overall and progression-free survival rates were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSION: CA4P plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab appears to be a tolerable regimen with an acceptable toxicity profile in subjects with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

First-in-Class, First-in-Human Phase I Study of Selinexor, a Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export, in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

Purpose This trial evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of selinexor (KPT-330), a novel, oral small-molecule inhibitor of exportin 1 (XPO1/CRM1), and determined the recommended phase II dose. Patients and Methods In total, 189 patients with advanced solid tumors received selinexor (3 to 85 mg/m2) in 21- or 28-day cycles. Pre- and post-treatment levels of XPO1 mRNA in patient-derived leukocytes were determined by reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and tumor biopsies were examined by immunohistochemistry for changes in markers consistent with XPO1 inhibition. Antitumor response was assessed according Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 guidelines. Results The most common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue (70%), nausea (70%), anorexia (66%), and vomiting (49%), which were generally grade 1 or 2. Most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia (16%), fatigue (15%), and hyponatremia (13%). Clinically significant major organ or cumulative toxicities were rare. The maximum-tolerated dose was defined at 65 mg/m2 using a twice-a-week (days 1 and 3) dosing schedule. The recommended phase II dose of 35 mg/m2 given twice a week was chosen based on better patient tolerability and no demonstrable improvement in radiologic response or disease stabilization compared with higher doses. Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional, with no evidence of drug accumulation. Dose-dependent elevations in XPO1 mRNA in leukocytes were demonstrated up to a dose level of 28 mg/m2 before plateauing, and paired tumor biopsies showed nuclear accumulation of key tumor-suppressor proteins, reduction of cell proliferation, and induction of apoptosis. Among 157 patients evaluable for response, one complete and six partial responses were observed (n = 7, 4%), with 27 patients (17%) achieving stable disease for ≥ 4 months. Conclusion Selinexor is a novel and safe therapeutic with broad antitumor activity. Further interrogation into this class of therapy is warranted.

Establishing the dosage equivalency of oxymorphone extended release and oxycodone controlled release in patients with cancer pain: a randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of oxymorphone extended release (ER) and oxycodone controlled release (CR) in patients with moderate to severe cancer pain. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, 2-period crossover study included adult outpatients (>or= 18 years of age) with moderate or severe cancer pain who were first titrated for 3-10 days with open-label oxymorphone or oxycodone to achieve a stable dose that provided and other efficacy parameters were comparable for adequate analgesia with tolerable adverse events and no requirement for more than 2 doses of rescue medication per day. The subsequent double-blind treatment phase was a 7- to 10-day period of oxycodone CR or oxymorphone ER treatment followed by crossing over to the alternate medication for another 7-10 days. During the treatment phase, up to 2 doses per day of morphine sulfate 15-mg tablets were allowed as rescue. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Assessments included the Brief Pain Inventory, global evaluations, Karnofsky performance status, and clinical laboratory evaluations (serum chemistry profile, complete blood count, urinalysis). Efficacy variables were analyzed using a mixed-effects model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients entered the titration/stabilization phase, 44 received at least 1 dose of study drug, 42 completed the first double-blind phase, and 40 completed the second double-blind phase. Mean pain intensity scores the 2 groups. The mean daily dosage of oxycodone CR (91.9 mg) was twice that of oxymorphone ER (45.9 mg), an equianalgesic dose ratio of 2:1. Rescue medication use was low in both groups (approximately 1 tablet of morphine sulfate 15 mg/day). No significant differences in opioid adverse events were observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients with cancer who were taking oxycodone CR were readily converted to oxymorphone ER and required half the milligram dose to stabilize their pain. Within 72 h, most patients achieved a stable dose that provided adequate relief with similar opioid adverse events.

A phase I study in patients with solid or hematologic malignancies of the dose proportionality of subcutaneous Azacitidine and its pharmacokinetics in patients with severe renal impairment.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the dose proportionality of azacitidine pharmacokinetics (PK) after single subcutaneous (SC) doses of 25-100 mg/m2, and determine the effect of renal impairment on PK after single and multiple 75 mg/m2 SC azacitidine doses. DESIGN: Multicenter, phase I, open-label, parallel group study. SETTING: Community clinics and major academic centers. PATIENTS: Twenty-seven patients with solid or hematologic malignancies. INTERVENTIONS: Part 1 evaluated azacitidine dose proportionality in patients with normal renal function randomized to single 25, 50, 75, or 100 mg/m2 SC doses. The 75 mg/m2 dosing group received 4 additional days of SC azacitidine. In Part 2, patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 Cockcroft-Gault adjusted) received azacitidine 75 mg/m2 for 5 consecutive days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: PK parameters were determined using noncompartmental methods. In patients with normal renal function (n=21), azacitidine area under the plasma-time curve (AUC0-∞) and maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) were dose proportional within the 25-100 mg/m2 range. Concentration versus time profiles after single and multiple azacitidine 75 mg/m2 doses were similar in shape for patients with normal (n=6) or impaired renal function (n=6), with higher mean concentrations in the latter group. Higher mean exposures (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) in renally impaired patients were observed; however, individual exposure values were, with few exceptions, within the same range in both groups. No drug accumulation after multiple doses was observed in either group. Terminal half-life and time to maximum plasma concentration were comparable between groups. Azacitidine tolerability was similar in patients with normal or impaired renal function. CONCLUSION: Azacitidine is dose proportional over the 25-100 mg/m2 dosing range. Overall, renal impairment had no important effect on azacitidine PK. Therefore, no initial azacitidine dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment is required.

PRECEDENT: a randomized phase II trial comparing vintafolide (EC145) and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in combination versus PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: Vintafolide (EC145) is a folic acid-desacetylvinblastine conjugate that binds to the folate receptor (FR), which is expressed on the majority of epithelial ovarian cancers. This randomized phase II trial evaluated vintafolide combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone. The utility of an FR-targeted imaging agent, (99m)Tc-etarfolatide (EC20), in selecting patients likely to benefit from vintafolide was also examined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer who had undergone ≤ two prior cytotoxic regimens were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio to PLD (50 mg/m(2) intravenously [IV] once every 28 days) with or without vintafolide (2.5 mg IV three times per week during weeks 1 and 3). Etarfolatide scanning was optional. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) between the groups. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 149 patients. Median PFS was 5.0 and 2.7 months for the vintafolide plus PLD and PLD-alone arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.96; P = .031). The greatest benefit was observed in patients with 100% of lesions positive for FR, with median PFS of 5.5 compared with 1.5 months for PLD alone (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.85; P = .013). The group of patients with FR-positive disease (10% to 90%) experienced some PFS improvement (HR, 0.873), whereas patients with disease that did not express FR experienced no PFS benefit (HR, 1.806). CONCLUSION: Vintafolide plus PLD is the first combination to demonstrate an improvement over standard therapy in a randomized trial of patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Etarfolatide can identify patients likely to benefit from vintafolide.