Combining tumor deposits with the number of lymph node metastases to improve the prognostic accuracy in stage III colon cancer: a post hoc analysis of the CALGB/SWOG 80702 phase III study (Alliance)☆.

BACKGROUND: In colon cancer, tumor deposits (TD) are considered in assigning prognosis and staging only in the absence of lymph node metastasis (i.e. stage III pN1c tumors). We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the presence and the number of TD in patients with stage III, node-positive colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All participants from the CALGB/SWOG 80702 phase III trial were included in this post hoc analysis. Pathology reports were reviewed for the presence and the number of TD, lymphovascular and perineural invasion. Associations with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated by multivariable Cox models adjusting for sex, treatment arm, T-stage, N-stage, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion and lymph node ratio. RESULTS: Overall, 2028 patients were included with 524 (26%) TD-positive and 1504 (74%) TD-negative tumors. Of the TD-positive patients, 80 (15.4%) were node negative (i.e. pN1c), 239 (46.1%) were pN1a/b (<4 positive lymph nodes) and 200 (38.5%) were pN2 (≥4 positive lymph nodes). The presence of TD was associated with poorer DFS [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.63, 95% CI 1.33-1.98] and OS (aHR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.24-2.04). The negative effect of TD was observed for both pN1a/b and pN2 groups. Among TD-positive patients, the number of TD had a linear negative effect on DFS and OS. Combining TD and the number of lymph node metastases, 104 of 1470 (7.1%) pN1 patients were re-staged as pN2, with worse outcomes than patients confirmed as pN1 (3-year DFS rate: 65.4% versus 80.5%, P = 0.0003; 5-year OS rate: 87.9% versus 69.1%, P = <0.0001). DFS was not different between patients re-staged as pN2 and those initially staged as pN2 (3-year DFS rate: 65.4% versus 62.3%, P = 0.4895). CONCLUSION: Combining the number of TD and the number of lymph node metastases improved the prognostication accuracy of tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging.

Antitumor activity of ipatasertib combined with chemotherapy: results from a phase Ib study in solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: This phase Ib study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of the oral AKT inhibitor ipatasertib and chemotherapy or hormonal therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors to determine combined dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose, and recommended phase II doses and schedules. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical study comprised four combination treatment arms: arm A (with docetaxel), arm B [with mFOLFOX6 (modified leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin)], arm C (with paclitaxel), and arm D (with enzalutamide). Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetics, clinical activity per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1, and prostate-specific antigen levels. RESULTS: In total, 122 patients were enrolled. Common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and fatigue. The safety profiles of the combination regimens were consistent with those of the background regimens, except for diarrhea, hyperglycemia, and rash, which were previously observed with ipatasertib treatment. The only combination DLT across all treatment arms was one event of grade 3 dehydration (ipatasertib 600 mg and paclitaxel). Recommended phase II doses for ipatasertib were 600 mg (and mFOLFOX6) and 400 mg (and paclitaxel), respectively. The maximum assessed dose of ipatasertib 600 mg combined with docetaxel or enzalutamide was well tolerated. Coadministration with enzalutamide (a cytochrome P450 3A inducer) resulted in approximately 50% lower ipatasertib exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Ipatasertib in combination with chemotherapy or hormonal therapy was well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with that of ATP-competitive AKT inhibitors. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01362374.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of istiratumab (MM-141) plus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in front-line metastatic pancreatic cancer (CARRIE).

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data suggest that dual blockade of the insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) and HER3 pathways has superior activity to IGF-1R blockade alone in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We tested whether istiratumab, an IGF-1R- and ErbB3-bispecific antibody, can enhance the efficacy of standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy in patients with metastatic PDAC selected for high IGF-1 serum levels. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CARRIE was an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study for patients with previously untreated metastatic PDAC. In part 1, 10 patients were evaluated for pharmacokinetics and safety. In part 2, patients with high free serum IGF-1 levels were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either istiratumab [2.8 g intravenously (i.v.) every 2 weeks] or placebo combined with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel at approved dose schedule. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with high IGF-1 levels and PFS in patients with both high serum IGF-1 levels and heregulin (HRG)+ tumors. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v.1.1, and adverse events (AEs) rate. RESULTS: A total of 317 patients were screened, with 88 patients randomized in part 2 (experimental arm n = 43; control n = 45). In the high IGF-1 cohort, median PFS was 3.6 and 7.3 months in the experimental versus control arms, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.88, P = 0.027]. In the high IGF-1/HRG+ subgroup (n = 44), median PFS was 4.1 and 7.3 months, respectively (HR = 1.39, P = 0.42). Median OS and ORR for the overall population were similar between two arms. No significant difference in serious or grade ≥3 AEs was observed, although low-grade AEs leading to early discontinuation were higher in the experimental (39.5%) versus control arm (24.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Istiratumab failed to improve the efficacy of SOC chemotherapy in this patient setting. High serum IGF-1 levels did not appear to be an adverse prognostic factor when compared with non-biomarker-selected historic controls. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02399137; EUDRA CT: 2014-004572-34.

Phase Ib study of atezolizumab combined with cobimetinib in patients with solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical evidence suggests that MEK inhibition promotes accumulation and survival of intratumoral tumor-specific T cells and can synergize with immune checkpoint inhibition. We investigated the safety and clinical activity of combining a MEK inhibitor, cobimetinib, and a programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, atezolizumab, in patients with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase I/Ib study treated PD-L1/PD-1-naive patients with solid tumors in a dose-escalation stage and then in multiple, indication-specific dose-expansion cohorts. In most patients, cobimetinib was dosed once daily orally for 21 days on, 7 days off. Atezolizumab was dosed at 800 mg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary objectives were safety and tolerability. Secondary end points included objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Between 27 December 2013 and 9 May 2016, 152 patients were enrolled. As of 4 September 2017, 150 patients received ≥1 dose of atezolizumab, including 14 in the dose-escalation cohorts and 136 in the dose-expansion cohorts. Patients had metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC; n = 84), melanoma (n = 22), non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; n = 28), and other solid tumors (n = 16). The most common all-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (67%), rash (48%), and fatigue (40%), similar to those with single-agent cobimetinib and atezolizumab. One (<1%) treatment-related grade 5 AE occurred (sepsis). Forty-five (30%) and 23 patients (15%) had AEs that led to discontinuation of cobimetinib and atezolizumab, respectively. Confirmed responses were observed in 7 of 84 patients (8%) with mCRC (6 responders were microsatellite low/stable, 1 was microsatellite instable), 9 of 22 patients (41%) with melanoma, and 5 of 28 patients (18%) with NSCLC. Clinical activity was independent of KRAS/BRAF status across diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab plus cobimetinib had manageable safety and clinical activity irrespective of KRAS/BRAF status. Although potential synergistic activity was seen in mCRC, this was not confirmed in a subsequent phase III study. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01988896 (the investigators in the NCT01988896 study are listed in the supplementary Appendix, available at Annals of Oncology online).

Phase 1b investigation of the MEK inhibitor binimetinib in patients with advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer.

Background The MAPK pathway plays a central role in regulation of several cellular processes, and its dysregulation is a hallmark of biliary tract cancer (BTC). Binimetinib (MEK162), a potent, selective oral MEK1/2 inhibitor, was assessed in patients with advanced BTC. Patients and Methods An expansion cohort study in patients who received ≤1 line of therapy for advanced BTC was conducted after determination of the maximum tolerated dose in this Phase 1 trial. Patients received binimetinib 60 mg twice daily. The primary objectives were to characterize the safety profile and pharmacokinetics of binimetinib in advanced BTC. Secondary objectives included assessment of clinical efficacy, changes in weight and lean body mass, and pharmacodynamic effects. Tumor samples were assessed for mutations in relevant genes. Results Twenty-eight patients received binimetinib. Common adverse events (AEs) were mild, with rash (82%) and nausea (54%) being most common. Two patients experienced grade 4 AEs, one generalized edema and the other pulmonary embolism. The pharmacokinetics in this patient population were consistent with those previously reported (Bendell JC et al., Br J Cancer 2017;116:575-583). Twelve patients (43%) experienced stable disease and two had objective responses (1 complete response, 1 partial response) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and stable metabolic disease by positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Most patients (18/25; 72%) did not have KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, PI3KCA, or PTEN mutations, nor was there correlation between mutation status and response. The average non-fluid weight gain was 1.3% for lean muscle and 4.7% for adipose tissue. Conclusion Binimetinib was well tolerated and showed promising evidence of activity in patients with BTC. Correlative studies suggested the potential for binimetinib to promote muscle gain in patients with BTC.

A multicenter, open-label, expanded phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of etirinotecan pegol, a polymer conjugate of irinotecan, in women with recurrent platinum-resistant or refractory ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Etirinotecan pegol (EP) is a novel polyethylene glycol conjugated form of irinotecan with documented activity in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). We report the results of the expanded portion of a phase II study of EP in patients with PROC who received prior pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) or who were unable to receive it. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, phase II study evaluated EP q21d for PROC. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Patient populations evaluated included a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) group consisting of all patients who received at least one dose and with measurable disease and a primary efficacy (pEFF) group (subset of the mITT population who received prior PLD). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine patients were enrolled. Of the 132 patients in the mITT group, 20 achieved an ORR (15.2%; 95% CI 9.5-22.4); median PFS and OS were 4.4 months and 10.2 months, respectively. In the pEFF group (n=104), 15 patients (14.4%; 95% CI 8.3-22.7) achieved an ORR; median PFS and OS were 4.4 months and 10.9 months, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were diarrhea (20%), abdominal pain (17%), vomiting (14%), dehydration (13%), and nausea (13%). Severe diarrhea was reduced to 15% with strict adherence to screening and management guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the activity and safety of single-agent EP in patients with PROC, including patients who received prior PLD. Further evaluation earlier in the disease course and in combination is warranted.

Ramucirumab combined with FOLFOX as front-line therapy for advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, or gastric adenocarcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: We report the first randomized, Phase II trial of ramucirumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 monoclonal antibody, as front-line therapy in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from the USA with advanced esophageal, gastric, or GEJ adenocarcinoma randomly received (1:1) mFOLFOX6 plus ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or mFOLFOX6 plus placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) with 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.71 (one-sided α = 0.15). Secondary end points included evaluation of response and overall survival (OS); an exploratory ramucirumab exposure-response analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Of 168 randomized patients, 52% of tumors were located in the stomach/GEJ and 48% in the esophagus. The trial did not meet the primary end point of PFS [6.4 versus 6.7 months, HR 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.37)] or the secondary end point of OS (11.7 versus 11.5 months) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Objective response rates (45.2% versus 46.4%) were similar between arms. Most Grade ≥3 toxicities did not differ significantly between arms, yet premature discontinuation of FOLFOX and ramucirumab (for reasons other than progressive disease) was more common among ramucirumab- versus placebo-treated patients. In an exploratory analysis that censored for premature discontinuation, the HR for PFS favored the ramucirumab arm (HR 0.76), particularly in patients with gastric/GEJ cancer. An exploratory exposure-response analysis indicated that patients with higher ramucirumab exposure had longer OS. CONCLUSION: The addition of ramucirumab to front-line mFOLFOX6 did not improve PFS in the ITT population. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01246960.

Randomized phase II study of modified FOLFOX-6 in combination with ramucirumab or icrucumab as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after disease progression on first-line irinotecan-based therapy.

BACKGROUND: Icrucumab and ramucirumab are recombinant human IgG1 monoclonal antibodies that bind VEGF receptors 1 and 2 (VEGFR-1 and -2), respectively. This randomized phase II study evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of icrucumab and ramucirumab each in combination with mFOLFOX-6 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after disease progression on first-line therapy with a fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive mFOLFOX-6 alone (mFOLFOX-6) or in combination with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg IV (RAM+mFOLFOX-6) or icrucumab 15 mg/kg IV (ICR+mFOLFOX-6) every 2 weeks. Randomization was stratified by prior bevacizumab therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), tumor response, safety, and PK. RESULTS: In total, 158 patients were randomized, but only 153 received treatment (49 on mFOLFOX-6, 52 on RAM+mFOLFOX-6, and 52 on ICR+mFOLFOX-6). Median PFS was 18.4 weeks on mFOLFOX-6, 21.4 weeks on RAM+mFOLFOX-6, and 15.9 weeks on ICR+mFOLFOX-6 (RAM+mFOLFOX-6 versus mFOLFOX-6, stratified hazard ratio [HR] 1.116 [95% CI 0.713-1.745], P = 0.623; ICR+mFOLFOX-6 versus mFOLFOX-6, stratified HR 1.603 [95% CI 1.011-2.543], P = 0.044). Median survival was 53.6 weeks on mFOLFOX-6, 41.7 weeks on RAM+mFOLFOX-6, and 42.0 weeks on ICR+mFOLFOX-6. The most frequent adverse events reported on the ramucirumab arm (RAM+mFOLFOX-6) were fatigue, nausea, and peripheral sensory neuropathy; those on the icrucumab arm (ICR+mFOLFOX-6) were fatigue, diarrhea, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Grade ≥3 serious adverse events occurred at comparable frequency across arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this study population, combining ramucirumab or icrucumab with mFOLFOX-6 did not achieve the predetermined improvement in PFS. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01111604.

A phase Ib dose-escalation study of the MEK inhibitor trametinib in combination with the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor GSK2126458 in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Introduction This Phase Ib trial investigated the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase 2 dose for the pan-PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, GSK2126458 (GSK458), and trametinib combination when administered to patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors received escalating doses of GSK458 (once or twice daily, and continuous or intermittent) and trametinib following a zone-based 3 + 3 design to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Assessments included monitoring for adverse events and response, and evaluating pharmacokinetic (PK) measures. Archival tissue and circulating free DNA samples were collected to assess biomarkers of response in the PI3K and RAS pathways. Results 57 patients were enrolled onto the continuous dosing cohort and 12 patients onto an intermittent BID dosing cohort. Two MTDs were established for the continuous daily dosing: 2 mg of GSK458 with 1.0 mg of trametinib or 1.0 mg of GSK458 with 1.5 mg of trametinib; no MTD was determined in the intermittent dosing cohort. The most frequent adverse events were rash (74 %) and diarrhea (61 %). Dose interruptions due to adverse events occurred in 42 % of patients. No significant PK interaction was observed. One patient achieved partial response and 12 patients had stable disease >16 weeks. Mutations in RAS/RAF/PI3K were detected in 70 % of patients, but no pattern emerged between response and mutational status. Conclusion GSK458 plus trametinib is poorly tolerated, due to skin and GI-related toxicities. Responses were minimal, despite enrichment for PI3K/RAS pathway driven tumors, which may be due to overlapping toxicities precluding sufficient dose exposure.

Phase I study of olaparib plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumours and comparison with gemcitabine alone in patients with locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib (Lynparza) is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that induces synthetic lethality in cancers with homologous recombination defects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase I, dose-escalation trial, patients with advanced solid tumours received olaparib (50-200 mg capsules b.i.d.) continuously or intermittently (days 1-14, per 28-day cycle) plus gemcitabine [i.v. 600-800 mg/m(2); days 1, 8, 15, and 22 (cycle 1), days 1, 8, and 15 (subsequent cycles)] to establish the maximum tolerated dose. A separate dose-escalation phase evaluated olaparib in tablet formulation (100 mg o.d./b.i.d.; days 1-14) plus gemcitabine (600 mg/m(2)). In an expansion phase, patients with genetically unselected locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomised 2 : 1 to the tolerated olaparib capsule combination dose or gemcitabine alone (1000 mg/m(2)). RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were treated [dose-escalation phase, n = 44 (tablet cohort, n = 12); dose-expansion phase, n = 22 (olaparib plus gemcitabine, n = 15; gemcitabine alone, n = 7)]. In the dose-escalation phase, four patients (6%) experienced dose-limiting toxicities (raised alanine aminotransferase, n = 2; neutropenia, n = 1; febrile neutropenia, n = 1). Grade ≥3 adverse events were reported in 38/47 patients (81%) treated with olaparib capsules plus gemcitabine; most common were haematological toxicities (55%). Tolerated combinations were olaparib 100 mg b.i.d. capsule (intermittently, days 1-14) plus gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) and olaparib 100 mg o.d. tablet (intermittently, days 1-14) plus gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2). There were no differences in efficacy observed during the dose-expansion phase. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib 100 mg b.i.d. (intermittent dosing; capsules) plus gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) is tolerated in advanced solid tumour patients, with no unmanageable/unexpected toxicities. Continuous dosing of olaparib or combination with gemcitabine at doses >600 mg/m(2) was not considered to have an acceptable tolerability profile for further study. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT00515866.

A phase IB trial of the oral MEK inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212) in combination with everolimus in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: This phase Ib trial investigated the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase II dose and schedule of the MEK inhibitor trametinib in combination with the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetic (PK) characterization and evaluation of clinical activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 67 patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in this open-label, single-arm, dose-escalation study. Dose escalation followed a 3 + 3 design. Patients were assigned to one of 10 different cohorts, involving either daily dosing with both agents or daily dosing with trametinib and intermittent everolimus dosing. This included an expansion cohort comprising patients with pancreatic tumors. PKs samples were collected predose, as well as 1, 2, 4, and 6 h post-dose on day 15 of the first treatment cycle. RESULTS: Concurrent treatment with trametinib and everolimus resulted in frequent treatment-related adverse events, including mucosal inflammation (40%), stomatitis (25%), fatigue (54%), and diarrhea (42%). PK assessment did not suggest drug-drug interactions between these two agents. Of the 67 enrolled patients, 5 (7%) achieved partial response (PR) to treatment and 21 (31%) displayed stable disease (SD). Among the 21 patients with pancreatic cancer, PR was observed in 1 patient (5%) and SD in 6 patients (29%). CONCLUSIONS: This study was unable to identify a recommended phase II dose and schedule of trametinib in combination with everolimus that provided an acceptable tolerability and adequate drug exposure.

Intermittent dosing of axitinib combined with chemotherapy is supported by (18)FLT-PET in gastrointestinal tumours.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated week-on/week-off axitinib dosing plus chemotherapy in patients with gastrointestinal tumours, including tumour thymidine uptake by fluorine-18 3'-deoxy-3'-fluorothymidine positron emission tomography ((18)FLT-PET). METHODS: During a lead-in period, patients received twice daily (b.i.d.) axitinib 7 mg (n=3) or 10 mg (n=18) for 7 days followed by a 7-day dosing interruption; serial (18)FLT-PET scans were performed before day 1 and on days 7, 10, and 14. Axitinib plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX was then administered in 2-week cycles; axitinib was interrupted on day 10 of each cycle for 7 days. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated dose of axitinib was 10 mg b.i.d., in a week-on/week-off schedule, combined with FOLFIRI or FOLFOX. Common all-causality grade 3 adverse events were neutropenia (38%), hypertension (33%), and fatigue (29%). Of 21 patients, 2 (10%) had a partial response and 12 (57%) had stable disease. Following 7 days of continuous axitinib dosing, tumour (18)FLT uptake decreased -49% from baseline and recovered to -28% and -17% from baseline, respectively, after 3 and 7 days of axitinib interruption. CONCLUSION: Axitinib administered in a week-on/week-off schedule combined with FOLFIRI or FOLFOX is supported by (18)FLT-PET data and was well tolerated in patients with gastrointestinal tumours.

Phase I study of weekly paclitaxel in combination with pazopanib and lapatinib in advanced solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the maximum tolerated regimen (MTR) and dose-limiting toxicities of pazopanib and lapatinib in combination with weekly paclitaxel, and the effect of pazopanib and lapatinib on paclitaxel pharmacokinetics. METHODS: Patients received intravenous paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle concurrently with daily pazopanib and lapatinib. Dose levels of paclitaxel (mg m(-2))/pazopanib(mg)/lapatinib(mg) were 50/400/1000, 50/800/1000, 80/800/1000, and 80/400/1000. At the MTR, additional patients were enrolled to further evaluate tolerability, and the potential effects of pazopanib and lapatinib, inhibitors of cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4, on the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel, a CYP2C8 and CYP3A4 substrate. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled. Dose-limiting toxicities at the MTR (80/400/1000) included grade 4 thrombosis and grade 3 aspartate aminotransferase elevation. Other toxicities included diarrhoea, neutropenia, fatigue, and liver enzyme elevations. Coadministration of pazopanib 400 mg and lapatinib 1000 mg increased paclitaxel maximum plasma concentration (38%) and area under the curve (37%) relative to paclitaxel alone. One patient with a salivary gland tumour had a partial response; three patients had stable disease (⩾6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib 400 mg per day and lapatinib 1000 mg per day can be combined with paclitaxel 80 mg m(-2) in 28-day cycles. Coadministration of pazopanib and lapatinib, weak inhibitors of CYP2C8 and CYP3A4, had an inhibitory effect on paclitaxel clearance.

A phase I dose escalation study of oral c-MET inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ 197) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Tivantinib (ARQ 197) is an orally available, non-adenosine triphosphate competitive, selective c-MET inhibitor. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability and to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of tivantinib and gemcitabine combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors were treated with escalating doses of tivantinib (120-360 mg capsules) in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 of 4 weeks). Different schedules of administration were tested and modified based on emerging preclinical data. Tivantinib was given continuously, twice a day (b.i.d.) for 2, 3 or 4 weeks of a 28-day cycle or on a 5-day on, 2-day off schedule (the day before and day of gemcitabine administration). RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were treated with gemcitabine and escalating doses of tivantinib: 120 mg b.i.d. (n = 4), 240 mg b.i.d. (n = 6) and 360 mg b.i.d. (n = 19). No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in escalation. The RP2D was 360 mg b.i.d. daily, and 45 additional patients were enrolled in the expansion cohort. Grade ≥3 treatment-related toxicities were observed in 54 of 74 (73%) patients with the most common being neutropenia (43%), anemia (30%), thrombocytopenia (28%) and fatigue (15%). There was one treatment-related death due to neutropenia. Administration of gemcitabine did not affect tivantinib concentration. Fifty-six patients were assessable for response. Eleven (20%) patients achieved a partial response and 26 (46%) had stable disease (SD), including 15 (27%) who achieved SD for over 4 months. Ten of 37 patients with clinical benefit had prior exposure to gemcitabine. CONCLUSION: The combination of tivantinib at its monotherapy dose and standard dose gemcitabine was safe and tolerable. Early signs of antitumor activity may warrant further development of this combination in nonsmall-cell lung cancer, ovarian, pancreatic and cholangiocarcinoma. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00874042.

Estradiol-17 beta stimulates DNA synthesis in rat granulosa cells: action mediated by transforming growth factor-beta.

Estradiol-17 beta is a mitogen in vivo for the proliferation of granulosa cells in the rat ovary. In this study we have shown that estradiol-17 beta acts on cultures of immature rat granulosa cells to stimulate DNA synthesis. DNA synthesis stimulated by estradiol-17 beta was enhanced by FSH. We have shown previously that transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta) stimulates DNA synthesis in rat granulosa cells in vitro and that this effect is augmented by FSH. The mitogenic action of estradiol-17 beta was mediated, at least in part, by a TGF-beta-like factor since in the presence of a neutralizing antibody to TGF-beta, DNA synthesis was attenuated. This conclusion was further supported by the novel finding that estradiol-17 beta stimulated the secretion of a TGF-beta-like factor by rat granulosa cells in culture. In summary, the evidence suggests that the actions of estradiol-17 beta and TGF-beta on DNA synthesis are interrelated, and that a TGF-beta-like factor mediates the mitogenic effects of estradiol-17 beta on rat granulosa cells.

Rat thecal/interstitial cells secrete a transforming growth factor-beta-like factor that promotes growth and differentiation in rat granulosa cells.

Rat granulosa cells respond to transforming growth factor-beta (TGF beta) with increases in DNA synthesis and FSH-stimulated aromatase activity. To determine if the cells surrounding the granulosa cells generate TGF beta-like activity, which influences the growth and differentiation of granulosa cells, we cultured rat ovarian thecal/interstitial cells under serum-free conditions and collected their secretion products. Conditioned medium generated by primary cultures of thecal/interstitial cells over a 6-day collection period stimulated DNA synthesis, suggesting the presence of TGF beta-like bioactivity. At the onset of the collection period extracts of cultured cells contained undetectable levels of TGF beta-like activity, suggesting that the factor was produced and released by thecal/interstitial cells. FSH augmented the actions of both TGF beta and conditioned medium on DNA synthesis. Using an independent assay that relies on the response of the aromatase complex we showed that TGF beta and conditioned medium had parallel effects; TGF beta and conditioned medium alone did not influence the basal levels of aromatase activity, but both treatments augmented FSH-induced aromatase activity. Treatment of the conditioned medium with heat, acid, or alkali resulted in an increase in TGF beta-like bioactivity, suggesting that the TGF beta-like factor could be activated under these conditions. A commercially available antibody known to neutralize the bioactivity of TGF beta blocked the actions of TGF beta on DNA synthesis and blocked the growth-promoting activity of conditioned medium in a dose-dependent manner. Fractionation of the proteins in conditioned medium by elution through a Sephadex G-75 (superfine) column under acidic conditions showed that the growth-promoting activity and the aromatase activator eluted in fractions containing proteins with mol wt 25K. Standard TGF beta eluted in the same fractions. In summary, rat thecal/interstitial cells in culture secrete a TGF beta-like factor. The TGF beta-like factor may act together with FSH to promote growth and activate the aromatase complex of granulosa cells developing in the intrafollicular lumen in close association with the oocyte.

Epidermal growth factor influences growth and differentiation of rat granulosa cells.

The interactions of epidermal growth factor (EGF) with transforming growth factor beta (TGF beta), insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), and FSH in the modulation of DNA synthesis and differentiated functions were examined in cultures of granulosa cells isolated from the ovaries of immature rats primed with diethylstilbestrol. EGF alone or in the presence of FSH had no effect on [3H]thymidine incorporation into the DNA of granulosa cells; however, EGF inhibited FSH plus TGF beta-induced DNA synthesis. In contrast, when FSH was omitted from the culture medium, EGF acted in concert with TGF beta, and TGF beta plus IGF-I, to promote DNA synthesis. EGF therefore has opposing actions on DNA synthesis; it inhibits or stimulates depending upon the presence or absence of FSH and consequently upon the endocrine environment in the follicle. As shown previously EGF alone had no effect on basal aromatase activity. EGF however inhibited FSH-induced and FSH plus IGF-I-induced aromatase activity. In this paper we show that EGF also inhibited the FSH-induced aromatase activity in the presence of TGF beta, which augmented FSH action on this system. The action of EGF on 3 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (3 beta-HSD) was different from the effect of EGF on aromatase. In the absence of FSH, EGF induced 3 beta-HSD activity in the presence or absence of TGF beta. EGF augmented the action of FSH on 3 beta-HSD, and this interaction was further enhanced by TGF beta. These observations emphasize the multifunctional nature of EGF in influencing the growth and differentiation of immature rat granulosa cells. EGF can inhibit or stimulate growth and differentiated functions (aromatase and 3 beta-HSD), the response depending on the context of the signals that the cell receives from its endocrine and microenvironment.