Phase 2 Study of Palbociclib in Patients with Tumors with CDK4 or CDK6 Amplification: Results from the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial (EAY131) Sub-protocol Z1C.

PURPOSE: Amplification of CDK4 and CDK6 is a feature of a variety of malignancies, and preclinical evidence suggests inhibition of CDK4/6 is a plausible treatment strategy in these tumors. Subprotocol Z1C of the NCI-MATCH trial was designed to evaluate the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in CDK4- or CDK6-amplified tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had a solid malignancy with progression on at least one systemic therapy for advanced disease. Tumors with ≥ 7 copies of CDK4 or CDK6 were considered amplified and molecularly eligible. Enrolled patients were treated with palbociclib 125 mg daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was ORR. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were enrolled on subprotocol Z1C, and 38 patients were deemed eligible, treated, and included in analyses; 25 patients were eligible, treated, and centrally confirmed to have CDK4 or CDK6 amplification and comprised the primary analysis cohort for ORR endpoint. Among the 25 patients in the primary cohort, one patient had a PR, 4 patients had SD, and 16 patients had PD as best response. Four patients were not evaluable due to lack of follow-up scans. Among the 38 evaluable patients, one patient had a PR, 10 patients had SD, and 21 patients had PD as best response. Partial response and stable disease were only seen in patients with CDK4 amplification. Median progression-free survival was 2.0 months, and median overall survival was 8.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: Palbociclib showed limited activity in histology-agnostic CDK4- or CDK6-amplified tumors, though CNS tumors may be worthy of future investigation.

Trametinib in Patients With NF1-, GNAQ-, or GNA11-Mutant Tumors: Results From the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial (EAY131) Subprotocols S1 and S2.

PURPOSE: NCI-MATCH is a precision medicine trial using genomic testing to allocate patients with advanced malignancies to targeted treatment subprotocols. This report combines two subprotocols evaluating trametinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with Neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1[S1] or GNA11/Q [S2]) altered tumors. METHODS: Eligible patients had tumors with deleterious inactivating NF1 or GNA11/Q mutations by the customized Oncomine AmpliSeq panel. Prior MEK inhibitor treatment was excluded. Glioblastomas (GBMs) were permitted, including malignancies associated with germline NF1 mutations (S1 only). Trametinib was administered at 2 mg once daily over 28-day cycles until toxicity or disease progression. Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months, PFS, and overall survival. Exploratory analyses included co-occurring genomic alterations and PTEN loss. RESULTS: Fifty patients were eligible and started therapy: 46 with NF1 mutations (S1) and four with GNA11 mutations (S2). In the NF1 cohort, nonsense single-nucleotide variants were identified in 29 and frameshift deletions in 17 tumors. All in S2 had nonuveal melanoma and GNA11 Q209L variant. Two partial responses (PR) were noted in S1, one patient each with advanced lung cancer and GBM for an ORR of 4.3% (90% CI, 0.8 to 13.1). One patient with melanoma in S2 had a PR (ORR, 25%; 90% CI, 1.3 to 75.1). Prolonged stable disease (SD) was also noted in five patients (four in S1 and one in S2) with additional rare histologies. Adverse events were as previously described with trametinib. Comutations in TP53 and PIK3CA were common. CONCLUSION: Although these subprotocols did not meet the primary end point for ORR, significant responses or prolonged SD noted in some disease subtypes warrants further investigation.

Molecular Profiling-Based Assignment of Cancer Therapy (NCI-MPACT): A Randomized Multicenter Phase II Trial.

This trial assessed the utility of applying tumor DNA sequencing to treatment selection for patients with advanced, refractory cancer and somatic mutations in one of four signaling pathways by comparing the efficacy of four study regimens that were either matched to the patient's aberrant pathway (experimental arm) or not matched to that pathway (control arm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with an actionable mutation of interest were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either (1) a study regimen identified to target the aberrant pathway found in their tumor (veliparib with temozolomide or adavosertib with carboplatin [DNA repair pathway], everolimus [PI3K pathway], or trametinib [RAS/RAF/MEK pathway]), or (2) one of the same four regimens, but chosen from among those not targeting that pathway. RESULTS: Among 49 patients treated in the experimental arm, the objective response rate was 2% (95% CI, 0% to 10.9%). One of 20 patients (5%) in the experimental trametinib cohort had a partial response. There were no responses in the other cohorts. Although patients and physicians were blinded to the sequencing and random assignment results, a higher pretreatment dropout rate was observed in the control arm (22%) compared with the experimental arm (6%; P = .038), suggesting that some patients may have had prior tumor mutation profiling performed that led to a lack of participation in the control arm. CONCLUSION: Further investigation, better annotation of predictive biomarkers, and the development of more effective agents are necessary to inform treatment decisions in an era of precision cancer medicine. Increasing prevalence of tumor mutation profiling and preference for targeted therapy make it difficult to use a randomized phase II design to evaluate targeted therapy efficacy in an advanced disease setting.

What Can Be Done to Improve Research Biopsy Quality in Oncology Clinical Trials?

PURPOSE:: Research biopsy specimens collected in clinical trials often present requirements beyond those of tumor biopsy specimens collected for diagnostic purposes. Research biopsies underpin hypothesis-driven drug development, pharmacodynamic assessment of molecularly targeted anticancer agents, and, increasingly, genomic assessment for precision medicine; insufficient biopsy specimen quality or quantity therefore compromises the scientific value of a study and the resources devoted to it, as well as each patient's contribution to and potential benefit from a clinical trial. METHODS:: To improve research biopsy specimen quality, we consulted with other translational oncology teams and reviewed current best practices. RESULTS:: Among the recommendations were improving communication between oncologists and interventional radiologists, providing feedback on specimen sufficiency, increasing academic recognition and financial support for the time investment required by radiologists to collect and preserve research biopsy specimens, and improving real-time assessment of tissue quality. CONCLUSION:: Implementing these recommendations at the National Cancer Institute's Developmental Therapeutics Clinic has demonstrably improved the quality of biopsy specimens collected; more widespread dissemination of these recommendations beyond large clinical cancer centers is possible and will be of value to the community in improving clinical research and, ultimately, patient care.

Design issues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials.

Future progress in improving cancer therapy can be expedited by better prioritization of new treatments for phase III evaluation. Historically, phase II trials have been key components in the prioritization process. There has been a long-standing interest in using phase II trials with randomization against a standard-treatment control arm or an additional experimental arm to provide greater assurance than afforded by comparison to historic controls that the new agent or regimen is promising and warrants further evaluation. Relevant trial designs that have been developed and utilized include phase II selection designs, randomized phase II designs that include a reference standard-treatment control arm, and phase II/III designs. We present our own explorations into the possibilities of developing "phase II screening trials," in which preliminary and nondefinitive randomized comparisons of experimental regimens to standard treatments are made (preferably using an intermediate end point) by carefully adjusting the false-positive error rates (alpha or type I error) and false-negative error rates (beta or type II error), so that the targeted treatment benefit may be appropriate while the sample size remains restricted. If the ability to conduct a definitive phase III trial can be protected, and if investigators feel that by judicious choice of false-positive probability and false-negative probability and magnitude of targeted treatment effect they can appropriately balance the conflicting demands of screening out useless regimens versus reliably detecting useful ones, the phase II screening trial design may be appropriate to apply.

Analytical Validation and Application of a Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Mutation-Detection Assay for Use in Treatment Assignment in the NCI-MPACT Trial.

Robust and analytically validated assays are essential for clinical studies. We outline an analytical validation study of a targeted next-generation sequencing mutation-detection assay used for patient selection in the National Cancer Institute Molecular Profiling-Based Assignment of Cancer Therapy (NCI-MPACT) trial (NCT01827384). Using DNA samples from normal or tumor cell lines and xenografts with known variants, we assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of the NCI-MPACT assay in five variant types: single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), SNVs at homopolymeric (HP) regions (≥3 identical bases), small insertions/deletions (indels), large indels (gap ≥4 bp), and indels at HP regions. The assay achieved sensitivities of 100% for 64 SNVs, nine SNVs at HP regions, and 11 large indels, 83.33% for six indels, and 93.33% for 15 indels at HP regions. Zero false positives (100% specificity) were found in 380 actionable mutation loci in 96 runs of haplotype map cells. Reproducibility analysis showed 96.3% to 100% intraoperator and 98.1% to 100% interoperator mean concordance in detected variants and 100% reproducibility in treatment selection. To date, 38 tumors have been screened, 34 passed preanalytical quality control, and 18 had actionable mutations for treatment assignment. The NCI-MPACT assay is well suited for its intended investigational use and can serve as a template for developing next-generation sequencing assays for other cancer clinical trial applications.

GeneMed: An Informatics Hub for the Coordination of Next-Generation Sequencing Studies that Support Precision Oncology Clinical Trials.

We have developed an informatics system, GeneMed, for the National Cancer Institute (NCI) molecular profiling-based assignment of cancer therapy (MPACT) clinical trial (NCT01827384) being conducted in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center. This trial is one of the first to use a randomized design to examine whether assigning treatment based on genomic tumor screening can improve the rate and duration of response in patients with advanced solid tumors. An analytically validated next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay is applied to DNA from patients' tumors to identify mutations in a panel of genes that are thought likely to affect the utility of targeted therapies available for use in the clinical trial. The patients are randomized to a treatment selected to target a somatic mutation in the tumor or with a control treatment. The GeneMed system streamlines the workflow of the clinical trial and serves as a communications hub among the sequencing lab, the treatment selection team, and clinical personnel. It automates the annotation of the genomic variants identified by sequencing, predicts the functional impact of mutations, identifies the actionable mutations, and facilitates quality control by the molecular characterization lab in the review of variants. The GeneMed system collects baseline information about the patients from the clinic team to determine eligibility for the panel of drugs available. The system performs randomized treatment assignments under the oversight of a supervising treatment selection team and generates a patient report containing detected genomic alterations. NCI is planning to expand the MPACT trial to multiple cancer centers soon. In summary, the GeneMed system has been proven to be an efficient and successful informatics hub for coordinating the reliable application of NGS to precision medicine studies.

Similar efficacy for phase I trials in comparison with DTIC for advanced malignant melanoma: an analysis of melanoma outcomes in CTEP-sponsored phase I trials 1995-2011.

After ipilimumab, vemurafenib, and interleukin-2, standard of care chemotherapy for melanoma remains dacarbazine (response rate ∼9%). Despite this, many physicians hesitate to refer patients to phase I protocols given a perceived lack of clinical benefit and potential for harm. To better understand the validity of these perceptions, the experience of all patients with melanoma treated on phase I trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute-Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (NCI-CTEP) from 1995 to 2011 were analyzed and compared with the pooled results of six contemporary phase III trials of dacarbazine. A total of 937 patients with melanoma were treated in 148 CTEP phase I trials. The majority were men with a median of two prior therapies (46% receiving prior dacarbazine). Response and clinical benefit rates in these trials were not clinically different from those of dacarbazine (phase I: 6.3 and 26.8% vs. dacarbazine: 8.8 and 27.9%) although grades 3 and 4 toxicity was significantly higher (54 vs. 28%). Efficacy and toxicity were generally consistent within phase I subgroups (targeted agents, immunotherapies, or chemotherapeutics) though targeted therapy was associated with a lower response rate, immunotherapy with lower clinical benefit rate, and chemotherapy with higher incidence of grade 4 toxicity. Thus, the perception of limited efficacy of phase I trials for patients with melanoma was disproven, whereas the perception of toxicity was observed. However, this difference in toxicity may have been largely because of the nature of phase I vs. phase III trials (i.e. more heavily pretreated) and because of the phase I trials often being multiagent as opposed to dacarbazine alone.

Blinded independent central review of progression-free survival in phase III clinical trials: important design element or unnecessary expense?

Progression-free survival is an important end point in advanced disease settings. Blinded independent central review (BICR) of progression in randomized clinical trials has been advocated to control bias that might result from errors in progression assessments. However, although BICR lessens some potential biases, it does not remove all biases from evaluations of treatment effectiveness. In fact, as typically conducted, BICRs may introduce bias because of informative censoring, which results from having to censor unconfirmed locally determined progressions. In this article, we discuss the rationale for BICR and different ways of implementing independent review. We discuss the limitations of these approaches and review published trials that report implementing BICR. We demonstrate the existence of informative censoring using data from a randomized phase II trial. We conclude that double-blinded trials with consistent application of measurement criteria are the best means of ensuring unbiased trial results. When such designs are not practical, BICR is not recommended as a general strategy for reducing bias. However, BICR may be useful as an auditing tool to assess the reliability of marginally positive results.

Dose escalation trial designs based on a molecularly targeted endpoint.

Traditional phase I dose-finding studies for chemotoxic agents base dose escalation on toxicity, with escalation continuing until unacceptable toxicity is observed. Recent development of molecularly targeted agents that have little or no toxicity in the therapeutic dose range has raised questions over the best study designs for phase I studies. Two types of designs are proposed and evaluated in this paper. In these designs, escalation is based on a binary response that indicates whether or not the agent has had the desired effect on the molecular target. One design is developed to ensure that if the true target response rate is low there will be a high probability of escalating and if the true target response rate is high there will be a low probability of escalating. The other design is developed to continue to escalate as long as the true response rate is increasing and to stop escalating when the response rate plateaus or decreases. A limited simulation study is performed and the designs are compared with respect to the dose level at the end of escalation and the number of patients treated on study.