Comparative Oncology Assessment of a Novel Inhibitor of Valosin-Containing Protein in Tumor-Bearing Dogs.

Pet dogs with naturally occurring cancers play an important role in studies of cancer biology and drug development. We assessed tolerability, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships with a first-in-class small molecule inhibitor of valosin-containing protein (VCP/p97), CB-5339, administered to 24 tumor-bearing pet dogs. Tumor types assessed included solid malignancies, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma. Through a stepwise dose and schedule escalation schema, we determined the maximum tolerated dose to be 7.5 mg/kg when administered orally on a 4 days on, 3 days off schedule per week for 3 consecutive weeks. Adverse events were minimal and mainly related to the gastrointestinal system. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data suggest a relationship between exposure and modulation of targets related to induction of the unfolded protein response, but not to tolerability of the agent. An efficacy signal was detected in 33% (2/6) of dogs with multiple myeloma, consistent with a mechanism of action relating to induction of proteotoxic stress in a tumor type with abundant protein production. Clinical trials of CB-5339 in humans with acute myelogenous leukemia and multiple myeloma are ongoing.

Adjuvant Sirolimus Does Not Improve Outcome in Pet Dogs Receiving Standard-of-Care Therapy for Appendicular Osteosarcoma: A Prospective, Randomized Trial of 324 Dogs.

PURPOSE: The mTOR pathway has been identified as a key nutrient signaling hub that participates in metastatic progression of high-grade osteosarcoma. Inhibition of mTOR signaling is biologically achievable with sirolimus, and might slow the outgrowth of distant metastases. In this study, pet dogs with appendicular osteosarcoma were leveraged as high-value biologic models for pediatric osteosarcoma, to assess mTOR inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for attenuating metastatic disease progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 324 pet dogs diagnosed with treatment-naïve appendicular osteosarcoma were randomized into a two-arm, multicenter, parallel superiority trial whereby dogs received amputation of the affected limb, followed by adjuvant carboplatin chemotherapy ± oral sirolimus therapy. The primary outcome measure was disease-free interval (DFI), as assessed by serial physical and radiologic detection of emergent macroscopic metastases; secondary outcomes included overall 1- and 2-year survival rates, and sirolimus pharmacokinetic variables and their correlative relationship to adverse events and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the median DFI or overall survival between the two arms of this trial; the median DFI and survival for standard-of-care (SOC; defined as amputation and carboplatin therapy) dogs was 180 days [95% confidence interval (CI), 144-237] and 282 days (95% CI, 224-383) and for SOC + sirolimus dogs, it was 204 days (95% CI, 157-217) and 280 days (95% CI, 252-332), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a population of pet dogs nongenomically segmented for predicted mTOR inhibition response, sequentially administered adjuvant sirolimus, although well tolerated when added to a backbone of therapy, did not extend DFI or survival in dogs with appendicular osteosarcoma.

Improving human cancer therapy through the evaluation of pet dogs.

Comparative oncology clinical trials play an important and growing role in cancer research and drug development efforts. These trials, typically conducted in companion (pet) dogs, allow assessment of novel anticancer agents and combination therapies in a veterinary clinical setting that supports serial biologic sample collections and exploration of dose, schedule and corresponding pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships. Further, an intact immune system and natural co-evolution of tumour and microenvironment support exploration of novel immunotherapeutic strategies. Substantial improvements in our collective understanding of the molecular landscape of canine cancers have occurred in the past 10 years, facilitating translational research and supporting the inclusion of comparative studies in drug development. The value of the approach is demonstrated in various clinical trial settings, including single-agent or combination response rates, inhibition of metastatic progression and randomized comparison of multiple agents in a head-to-head fashion. Such comparative oncology studies have been purposefully included in the developmental plan for several US FDA-approved and up-and-coming anticancer drugs. Challenges for this field include keeping pace with technology and data dissemination/harmonization, improving annotation of the canine genome and immune system, and generation of canine-specific validated reagents to support integration of correlative biology within clinical trial efforts.

Defining the Value of a Comparative Approach to Cancer Drug Development.

Comparative oncology as a tool in drug development requires a deeper examination of the value of the approach and examples of where this approach can satisfy unmet needs. This review seeks to demonstrate types of drug development questions that are best answered by the comparative oncology approach. We believe common perceived risks of the comparative approach relate to uncertainty of how regulatory bodies will prioritize or react to data generated from these unique studies conducted in diseased animals, and how these new data will affect ongoing human clinical trials. We contend that it is reasonable to consider these data as potentially informative and valuable to cancer drug development, but as supplementary to conventional preclinical studies and human clinical trials particularly as they relate to the identification of drug-associated adverse events. Clin Cancer Res; 22(9); 2133-8. ©2015 AACR.