3,374 research outputs found

    Phase I clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of ADP-A2M10 SPEAR T cells in patients with MAGE-A10+ advanced non-small cell lung cancer

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: ADP-A2M10 specific peptide enhanced affinity receptor (SPEAR) T cells (ADP-A2M10) are genetically engineered autologous T cells that express a high-affinity melanoma-associated antigen A10 (MAGE-A10)-specific T-cell receptor (TCR) targeting MAGE-A10 METHODS: Eligible patients were HLA-A*02 positive with advanced NSCLC expressing MAGE-A10. Patients underwent apheresis; T cells were isolated, transduced with a lentiviral vector containing the TCR targeting MAGE-A10, and expanded. Patients underwent lymphodepletion with varying doses/schedules of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide prior to receiving ADP-A2M10. ADP-A2M10 were administered at 0.08-0.12×10 RESULTS: Eleven patients (male, n=6; female, n=5) with NSCLC (adenocarcinoma, n=8; squamous cell carcinoma, n=3) were treated. Five, three, and three patients received cells in dose group 1, dose group 2, and dose group 3/expansion, respectively. The most frequently reported grade ≥3 adverse events were lymphopenia (n=11), leukopenia (n=10), neutropenia (n=8), anemia (n=6), thrombocytopenia (n=5), and hyponatremia (n=5). Three patients presented with cytokine release syndrome (grades 1, 2, and 4, respectively). One patient received the highest dose of lymphodepletion (fludarabine 30 mg/m CONCLUSIONS: ADP-A2M10 demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and no evidence of toxicity related to off-target binding or alloreactivity. There was persistence of ADP-A2M10 in peripheral blood as well as ADP-A2M10 trafficking into the tumor. Given the discovery that MAGE-A10 and MAGE-A4 expression frequently overlap, this clinical program closed as trials with SPEAR T cells targeting MAGE-A4 are ongoing

    Outcomes of patients with advanced cancer and KRAS mutations in phase I clinical trials.

    Get PDF
    BackgroundKRAS mutation is common in human cancer. We assessed the clinical factors, including type of KRAS mutation and treatment, of patients with advanced cancer and tumor KRAS mutations and their association with treatment outcomes.MethodsPatients referred to the Phase I Clinic for treatment who underwent testing for KRAS mutations were analyzed.ResultsOf 1,781 patients, 365 (21%) had a KRAS mutation. The G12D mutation was the most common mutation (29%). PIK3CA mutations were found in 24% and 10% of patients with and without KRAS mutations (p<0.0001). Of 223 patients with a KRAS mutation who were evaluable for response, 56 were treated with a MEK inhibitor-containing therapy and 167 with other therapies. The clinical benefit (partial response and stable disease lasting ≥6 months) rates were 23% and 9%, respectively, for the MEK inhibitor versus other therapies (p=0.005). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.3 and 2.2 months, respectively (p=0.09). The respective median overall survival was 8.4 and 7.0 months (p=0.38). Of 66 patients with a KRAS mutation and additional alterations, higher rates of clinical benefit (p=0.04), PFS (p=0.045), and overall survival (p=0.02) were noted in patients treated with MEK inhibitor-containing therapy (n=9) compared to those treated with targeted therapy matched to the additional alterations (n=24) or other therapy (n=33).ConclusionsMEK inhibitors in patients with KRAS-mutated advanced cancer were associated with higher clinical benefit rates compared to other therapies. Therapeutic strategies that include MEK inhibitors or novel agents combined with other targeted therapies or chemotherapy need further investigation

    435 Pegasus HNSCC, a platform study of SAR444245 (THOR-707, a pegylated recombinant non-alpha IL-2) with anti-cancer agents in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

    Get PDF
    BackgroundSAR444245 (THOR-707) is a recombinant human IL-2 molecule that includes a PEG moiety irreversibly bound to a novel amino acid via click chemistry to block the alpha-binding domain while retaining near-native affinity for the beta/gamma subunits. In animal models, SAR444245 showed anti-tumor benefits, but with no severe side effects, both as single agent and when combined with anti-PD1 comparing with historical data from aldeslukin. Preclinical study demonstrated SAR444245 enhances ADCC function of cetuximab. The HAMMER trial, which is the FIH study shows preliminary encouraging clinical results: initial efficacy and safety profile with SAR444245 monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab or with cetuximab support a non-alpha preferential activity, validating preclinical models. The Pegasus Head and Neck Ph 2 study will evaluate the clinical benefit of SAR444245 in combination with other anticancer therapies for the treatment of patients with R/M HNSCC.MethodsThe Pegasus Head and Neck will enroll approximately 272 patients in 4 separate cohorts concurrently. In cohorts A1 & A2, 1L R/M HNSCC patients will receive SAR444245 + pembrolizumab, or SAR444245+ pembrolizumab+ cetuximab respectively. In cohort B1 & B2 patients with 2/3L R/M HNSCC failed a checkpoint based regimen & a platinum containing regimen will receive SAR444245 + pembrolizumab, or SAR444245 + cetuximab. Patients to be enrolled in cohort B2 need to be cetuximab-naïve in R/M setting. SAR444245 is administered intravenously IV at a dose of 24 ug/kg Q3W until disease progression (PD) or completion of 35 cycles. Pembrolizumab is administered at a dose of 200 mg Q3W until PD or completion of 35 cycles. Cetuximab is administered at a dose of 400/250 mg/m2 QW until PD. The study primary objective is to determine the antitumor activity of SAR444245 in combination with other anticancer therapies. Secondary objectives include confirmation of dose and safety profile, assess other indicators of antitumor activity, and assess the pharmacokinetic profile and immunogenicity of SAR444245. The study will be conducted in the US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, South Korea, Spain and Taiwan.AcknowledgementsThe Pegasus Head and Neck study is sponsored by Sanofi

    A Phase I Trial of Bevacizumab and Temsirolimus in Combination With Valproic Acid in Advanced Solid Tumors

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Preclinical models suggest synergy between anti-angiogenesis therapy, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and histone deacetylase inhibitors to promote anticancer activity. METHODS: This phase I study enrolled 47 patients between April 2012 and 2018 and determined safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) when combining bevacizumab, temsirolimus, and valproic acid in patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: Median age of enrolled patients was 56 years. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 4 lines of prior therapy. Forty-five patients (95.7%) experienced one or more treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Grade 3 TRAEs were lymphopenia (14.9%), thrombocytopenia (8.5%), and mucositis (6.4%). Grade 4 TRAEs included lymphopenia (2.1%) and CNS cerebrovascular ischemia (2.1%). Six patients developed DLTs across 10 dose levels with grade 3 infection, rash, mucositis, bowel perforation, elevated lipase, and grade 4 cerebrovascular ischemia. The MTD was dose level 9 (bevacizumab 5 mg/kg days 1 and 15 intravenously (IV) plus temsirolimus 25 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 IV and valproic acid 5 mg/kg on days 1-7 and 15-21 per orally (PO)). Objective response rate (ORR) was 7.9% with confirmed partial response (PRs) in 3 patients (one each in parotid gland, ovarian, and vaginal cancers). Stable disease (SD) ≥+6 months was seen in 5 patients (13.1%). Clinical benefit state (CBR: PR + SD ≥+6 months) was 21%. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with bevacizumab, temsirolimus, and valproic acid was feasible, but there were numerous toxicities, which will require careful management for future clinical development (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01552434)

    Phase I Study of Celecoxib with Concurrent Irinotecan, Cisplatin, and Radiation Therapy for Patients with Unresectable Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

    Get PDF
    Purpose: Preclinical findings suggest that adding targeted therapies to combination radiation-chemotherapy can enhance treatment efficacy; however, this approach may enhance normal tissue toxicity. We investigated the maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicities, and response rate when the selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib is added to concurrent irinotecan, cisplatin, and radiation therapy for patients with inoperable stage II–III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods and Materials: Eighteen patients were analyzed in a phase I clinical dose-escalation trial. Celecoxib was given daily beginning 5 days before radiation followed by maintenance doses for 12 weeks. Toxicity was graded with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V3.0 and response with the World Health Organization system. Primary endpoints were maximum tolerated dose of celecoxib and treatment toxicity; secondary endpoints were response and survival rates. Results: The maximum tolerated dose of celecoxib was not reached, in part owing to discontinuation of the drug supply. At doses of 200 or 400 mg/day, no patients experienced any dose-limiting toxicity (acute grade ≥4 esophagitis or pneumonitis, neutropenic fever or thrombocytopenia requiring transfusion, or acute grade ≥3 diarrhea). Grade 3 toxicities were leukopenia (five patients), fatigue (3), pneumonitis (2), dyspnea (1), pain (1), and esophageal stricture (1). Interestingly, pulmonary fibrosis (a late toxicity) was no more severe in the higher-dose (400-mg) group and may have been less common than in the lower-dose group. The clinical response rate was 100% (8 complete, 10 partial). Two-year rates were: overall survival 65%; local-regional control 69%; distant metastasis-free survival 71%; and disease-free survival 64%. Conclusion: Although preliminary, our results suggest that adding celecoxib to concurrent chemoradiation for inoperable NSCLC is safe and can improve outcome without increasing normal tissue toxicity

    Effect of Dexamethasone on Dyspnoea in Patients With Cancer (Abcd): A Parallel-Group, Double-Blind, Randomised, Controlled Trial

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are commonly prescribed for palliation of dyspnoea in patients with cancer, despite scarce evidence to support their use. We aimed to assess the effect of high-dose dexamethasone versus placebo on cancer-related dyspnoea. METHODS: This double-blind, multi-site, parallel group randomized trial enrolled ambulatory patients with cancer, age ≥18, average dyspnea intensity over the past week ≥4/10 in a 0–10 point numeric rating scale and randomly assigned them to receive dexamethasone 8 mg orally every 12 hours for 7 days followed by 4 mg orally every 12 hours for 7 days or matching placebo capsules. Pharmacists conducted permuted block randomization (block size=6, 2:1) stratified by baseline dyspnea and study site. Patients, research staff and clinicians were blinded. The primary outcome was change in dyspnea intensity assessed with a 0–10 numeric rating scale (0=none, 10=worst) between baseline and day 7. Comparisons between groups were done by modified intention-totreat analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03367156. Enrollment was stopped after second pre-planned interim analysis when futility criterion was met. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2018, and April 23, 2021, we screened 2867 patients, enrolled 149 patients, and randomly assigned 128 to dexamethasone (n=85) or placebo (n=43). The mean change in dyspnoea NRS intensity from baseline to day 7 (±2 days) was -1·6 (95% CI -2·0 to -1·2) in the dexamethasone group and -1·6 (-2·3 to -0·9) in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference (mean 0 [95% CI -0·8 to 0·7]; p=0·48). The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were infections (nine [11%] of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group vs three [7%] of 43 in the placebo group), insomnia (seven [8%] vs one [2%]), and neuropsychiatric symptoms (three [4%] vs none [0%]). Serious adverse events, all resulting in hospital admissions, were reported in 24 (28%) of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group and in three (7%) of 43 patients in the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group. INTERPRETATION: High-dose dexamethasone did not improve dyspnoea in patients with cancer more effectively than placebo and was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events. These data suggest that dexamethasone should not be routinely given to unselected patients with cancer for palliation of dyspnoea. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute

    Brief Report: Clinical Response, Toxicity, and Resistance Mechanisms to Osimertinib Plus MET Inhibitors in Patients With EGFR-Mutant MET-Amplified NSCLC

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION:MET amplification is a known resistance mechanism to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Dual EGFR-MET inhibition has been reported with success in overcoming such resistance and inducing clinical benefit. Resistance mechanisms to dual EGFR-MET inhibition require further investigation and characterization. METHODS: Patients with NSCLC with both MET amplification and EGFR mutation who have received crizotinib, capmatinib, savolitinib, or tepotinib plus osimertinib (OSI) after progression on OSI at MD Anderson Cancer Center were included in this study. Molecular profiling was completed by means of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and next-generation sequencing (NGS). Radiological response was assessed on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS: From March 2016 to March 2022, 23 treatments with dual MET inhibitor and osi were identified with a total of 20 patients included. Three patients received capmatinib plus OSI after progression on crizotinib plus OSI. Median age was 64 (38–89) years old and 75% were female. MET amplification was detected by FISH in 14 patients in the tissue, NGS in 10 patients, and circulating tumor DNA in three patients. Median MET gene copy number was 13.6 (6.4–20). Overall response rate was 34.8% (eight of 23). In assessable patients, tumor shrinkage was observed in 82.4% (14 of 17). Median time on treatment was 27 months. Two of three patients responded to capmatinib plus OSI after progression on crizotinib plus OSI. Dual EGFR-MET inhibition was overall well tolerated. Two patients on crizotinib plus OSI and one pt on capmatinib plus OSI discontinued therapy due to pneumonitis. One pt discontinued crizotinib plus OSI due to gastrointestinal toxicity. Six patients were still on double TKI treatment. At disease progression to dual EGFR-MET inhibition, FISH and NGS on tumor and plasma were completed in six patients. Notable resistance mechanisms observed include acquired MET D1246H (n = 1), acquired EGFR C797S (n = 2), FGFR2 fusion (n = 1, concurrent with C797S), and EGFR G796S (n = 1, concurrent with C797S). Four patients lost MET amplification. CONCLUSIONS: Dual EGFR and MET inhibition yielded high clinical response rate after progression on OSI. Resistance mechanisms to EGFR-MET double TKI inhibition include MET secondary mutation, EGFR secondary mutation, or loss of MET amplification
    corecore