Effect of lurbinectedin on the QTc interval in patients with advanced solid tumors: an exposure–response analysis

Cardiac repolarization; Lurbinectedin; Plasma concentrationRepolarización cardíaca; Lurbinectedina; Concentración plasmáticaRepolarització cardíaca; Lurbinectedina; Concentració plasmàticaPurpose This study assessed the effect of lurbinectedin, a highly selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription, on the change from baseline in Fridericia’s corrected QT interval (∆QTcF) and electrocardiography (ECG) morphological patterns, and lurbinectedin concentration–∆QTcF (C-∆QTcF) relationship, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods Patients with QTcF ≤ 500 ms, QRS < 110 ms, PR < 200 ms, and normal cardiac conduction and function received lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks. ECGs were collected in triplicate via 12-lead digital recorder in treatment cycle 1 and 2 and analyzed centrally. ECG collection time-matched blood samples were drawn to measure lurbinectedin plasma concentration. No effect on QTc interval was concluded if the upper bound (UB) of the least square (LS) mean two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CI) for ΔQTcF at each time point was < 20 ms. C-∆QTcF was explored using linear mixed-effects analysis. Results A total of 1707 ECGs were collected from 39 patients (females, 22; median age, 56 years). The largest UB of the 90% CI of ΔQTcF was 9.6 ms, thus lower than the more conservative 10 ms threshold established at the ICH E14 guideline for QT studies in healthy volunteers. C-∆QTcF was better fit by an effect compartment model, and the 90% CI of predicted ΔQTcF at Cmax was 7.81 ms, also below the 10 ms threshold of clinical concern. Conclusions ECG parameters and C-ΔQTcF modelling in this prospective study indicate that lurbinectedin was not associated with a clinically relevant effect on cardiac repolarization.This study was funded by Pharma Mar S.A. and partially funded by the Industrial and Technological Development Center–CDTI (IDI-20150006)

Lurbinectedin in patients with pretreated neuroendocrine tumours: Results from a phase II basket study

Lurbinectedin; Neuroendocrine tumours; Small cellLurbinectedina; Tumores neuroendocrinos; Célula pequeñaLurbinectedina; Tumors neuroendocrins; Cèl·lula petitaBackground Patients with neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) need alternative therapies after failure of first-line therapy. Patients and methods This phase II trial evaluated lurbinectedin, a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription, at 3.2 mg/m2 as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in 32 NETs patients treated in the second- or third-line setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1 assessed by the investigators. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results Two of 31 evaluable patients had confirmed partial responses (ORR = 6.5%; 95%CI, 0.8–21.4%). Median DoR was 4.7 months (95% CI, 4.0–5.4 months), median PFS was 1.4 months (95% CI, 1.2–3.0 months) and median OS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.4–16.2 months). Lurbinectedin showed an acceptable, predictable and manageable safety profile. The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (40.6%; grade 4, 12.4%; febrile neutropenia, 3.1%). Conclusions Considering the exploratory aim of this trial that evaluated a heterogeneous population of NETs patients, and the signs of antitumour activity observed (two confirmed partial responses and seven long disease stabilisations), further development of lurbinectedin is warranted in a more selected NETs population

Tumor-targeting Salmonella typhimurium A1-R in combination with doxorubicin eradicate soft tissue sarcoma in a patient-derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) model.

A patient with high grade undifferentiated pleomorphic soft-tissue sarcoma from a striated muscle was grown orthotopically in the right biceps femoris muscle of mice to establish a patient-derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) model. Twenty PDOX mice were divided into 4 groups: G1, control without treatment; G2, Salmonella typhimurium (S. typhimurium)A1-R administered by intratumoral (i.t.) injection once a week for 4 weeks; G3, doxorubicin (DOX) administered by intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection once a week for 4 weeks; G4, S. typhimurium A1-R (i.t.) administered once a week for 2 weeks followed by i.p. doxorubicin once a week for 2 weeks. On day 25 from the initiation of treatment, tumor volume in G2, G3, and G4 was significantly lower than G1. Mice found without gross tumor included one mouse (20%) in G2; one mouse (20%) in G3; and 3 mice (60%) in G4. Body weight loss did not significantly differ between the 3 treated groups or from the untreated control. Histological examination revealed eradication of tumor only in G4 where mice were treated with S. typhimurium A1-R followed by DOX. Our present study indicates future clinical potential of combining S. typhimurium A1-R with chemotherapy such as DOX for soft tissue sarcoma patients

Phase II Study of Sequential Gemcitabine Followed by Docetaxel for Recurrent Ewing Sarcoma, Osteosarcoma, or Unresectable or Locally Recurrent Chondrosarcoma: Results of Sarcoma Alliance for Research Through Collaboration Study 003

Background.Gemcitabine and docetaxel have a broad spectrum of clinical activity in patients with carcinoma. The Sarcoma Alliance for Research Through Collaboration conducted a phase II trial of gemcitabine in combination with docetaxel in children and adults with recurrent Ewing sarcoma (EWS), osteosarcoma (OS), or unresectable or recurrent chondrosarcoma. The primary objective was to determine the objective response rate using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).Methods.Gemcitabine (675 mg/m2 i.v. over 90 minutes on days 1 and 8) was administered in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m2 i.v. over 1 hour on day 8) every 21 days. All patients received filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. A Bayesian formulation was used to determine the probability of achieving the target response rate for each subtype—0.35 for EWS and OS or 0.20 for chondrosarcoma. If the probability of achieving the target response rate was <0.05, the combination was considered inactive. Toxicity was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 3.0.Results.Fifty‐three eligible patients were enrolled in the three subtype groups—OS (n = 14), EWS (n = 14), and chondrosarcoma (n = 25). Toxicities included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, dyspnea, bronchospasm, edema, neuropathy, and liver function abnormalities. Dose modification for toxicity was required for eight patients during cycle 1 and 16 patients in subsequent cycles. Seven patients withdrew from therapy as a result of toxicity. No complete responses were observed. Partial responses were observed in OS (n = 1), EWS (n = 2), and chondrosarcoma (n = 2) patients.Conclusion.Gemcitabine in combination with docetaxel was associated with a probability of reaching the target 35% response rate of <5% in OS patients and 5.6% in EWS patients; the probability of reaching a 20% response rate in chondrosarcoma patients was 14%.摘要背景. 吉西他滨与多西他赛对癌症患者有广谱的临床疗效。 肉瘤研究联盟协作组在复发的尤文肉瘤 （EWS）、 骨肉瘤 （OS）、 不可切除或复发的软骨肉瘤成人和儿童患者中开展了吉西他滨联合多西他赛的 II 期试验。 主要目的为通过实体瘤疗效评估标准 （RECIST） 确定客观缓解率。方法. 吉西他滨 （675 mg/m2， 静脉滴注 90 分钟以上， 第 1 和 8 天） 联合多西他赛 （75 mg/m2， 静脉滴注 1 小时以上， 第 8 天） 每 21 天给药 1 次。 全部患者均同时接受非格司亭或乙二醇化非格司亭。 利用贝叶斯公式来确定各个亚型达到目标缓解率的概率——EWS 和 OS 为 0.35， 软骨肉瘤为 0.20。 如果达到目标缓解率的概率 < 0.05， 则认为联合方案无效。 毒性反应根据不良事件通用术语标准 （CTCAE） 3.0 版来分级。结果. 53 例合格患者入组 3 个亚型组 ： OS （n=14）、 EWS （n=14）、 软骨肉瘤 （n=25）。 毒性反应包括中性粒细胞减少、 血小板减少、 乏力、 呼吸困难、 支气管痉挛、 水肿、 神经病变以及肝功能异常。 第 1 个周期有 8 例患者、 其后周期有 16 例患者因毒性反应而需要剂量调整。 7 例患者因毒性反应而撤出治疗。 未观察到完全缓解。 OS （n=1）、 EWS （n=2） 和软骨肉瘤 （n=2） 组均有患者达到部分缓解。结论. 吉西他滨联合多西他赛在 < 5% 的 OS 患者、 5.6% 的 EWS 患者中达到目标缓解率的概率为 35%； 14% 软骨肉瘤患者中达到目标缓解率的概率为 20%。讨论. 贝叶斯公式能够评估各个亚型在分别进行缓解率评估后预测达到目标缓解率的概率。 通过多角度来看这些数据， 在考量达到目标缓解率的概率以及入组率之后即能发现本研究设计方案阻碍了研究的继续开展。 因为这一设计方案并未设定判断治疗为 “有效” 的规则， 所以并不适合与标准的分 2 阶段进行的 II 期试验设计直接比较。 关闭 EWS 和软骨肉瘤亚组的决定， 某种程度上是基于入组缓慢， 另外达到目标缓解率的概率较低也支持这一决定。 入组率而不是统计设计， 对试验周期有显著影响。The Oncologist 2012;17:321‐e329Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139909/1/onco0321-sup-0002.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139909/2/onco0321-sup-0001.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139909/3/onco0321.pd

Immune and Cell Cycle Checkpoint Inhibitors for Cancer Immunotherapy

The rational design of immunotherapeutic agents has advanced with a fundamental understanding that both innate and adaptive immunity play important roles in cancer surveillance and tumor destruction; given that oncogenesis occurs and cancer progresses through the growth of tumor cells with low immunogenicity in an increasingly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors in the form of monoclonal antibodies that block cancer’s ability to deactivate and evade the immune system have been widely indicated for a variety of tumor types. Through targeting the biological mechanisms and pathways that cancer cells use to interact with and suppress the immune system, immunotherapeutic agents have achieved success in inhibiting tumor growth while eliciting lesser toxicities, compared to treatments with standard chemotherapy. Development of “precise” bio-active tumor-targeted gene vectors, biotechnologies, and reagents has also advanced. This chapter presents ongoing clinical research involving immune checkpoint inhibitors, while addressing the clinical potential for tumor-targeted gene blockade in combination with tumor-targeted cytokine delivery, in patients with advanced metastatic disease, providing strategic clinical approaches to precision cancer immunotherapy

Clinical outcomes of patients with advanced synovial sarcoma or myxoid/round cell liposarcoma treated at major cancer centers in the United States

BACKGROUND: Outcomes data regarding advanced synovial sarcoma (SS) and myxoid/round cell liposarcoma (MRCL) are limited, consisting primarily of retrospective series and post hoc analyses of clinical trials. METHODS: In this multi-center retrospective study, data were abstracted from the medical records of 350 patients from nine sarcoma centers throughout the United States and combined into a registry. Patients with advanced/unresectable or metastatic SS (n = 249) or MRCL (n = 101) who received first-line systemic anticancer therapy and had records of tumor imaging were included. Overall survival (OS), time to next treatment, time to distant metastasis, and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. RESULTS: At start of first-line systemic anticancer therapy, 92.4% of patients with SS and 91.1% of patients with MRCL had metastatic lesions. However, 74.7% of patients with SS and 72.3% of patients with MRCL had ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. Median OS and median PFS from first-line therapy for SS was 24.7 months (95% CI, 20.9-29.4) and 7.5 months, respectively (95% CI, 6.4-8.4). Median OS and median PFS from start of first-line therapy for MRCL was 29.9 months (95% CI, 27-44.6) and 8.9 months (95% CI 4.5-12.0). CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest retrospective study of patients with SS and MRCL. It provides an analysis of real-world clinical outcomes among patients treated at major sarcoma cancer centers and could inform treatment decisions and design of clinical trials. In general, the survival outcomes for this selected population appear more favorable than in published literature

Randomised phase III trial of trabectedin versus doxorubicin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in translocation-related sarcomas

Abstract Aim This randomised phase III trial evaluated first-line trabectedin versus doxorubicin-based chemotherapy (DXCT) in patients with advanced/metastatic translocation-related sarcomas (TRS). Methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive trabectedin 1.5mg/m 2 24-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion every 3weeks (q3wk) ( Arm A ), or doxorubicin 75mg/m 2 i.v. q3wk, or doxorubicin 60mg/m 2 i.v. plus ifosfamide (range, 6–9g/m 2 ) i.v. q3wk ( Arm B ). Progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review was the primary efficacy end-point. Results One hundred and twenty-one patients were randomised; 88 of them had TRS confirmed by central pathology review (efficacy population). Twenty-nine PFS events were assessed by independent review (16 with trabectedin; 13 with DXCT). PFS showed non-significant difference between arms (stratified log rank test, p =0.9573; hazard ratio=0.86, p =0.6992). At the time of this analysis, 63.9% and 58.3% of patients were alive in trabectedin and DXCT arms, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in survival curves. Response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v.1.0 was significantly higher in DXCT arm (27.0% versus 5.9%), but response according to Choi criteria showed fewer differences between treatment arms (45.9% versus 37.3%). Safety profile was as expected for both arms, with higher incidence of severe neutropenia, alopecia and mucositis in the DXCT arm. Conclusion Neither trabectedin nor doxorubicin-based chemotherapy showed significant superiority in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced translocation-related sarcoma

Current status and unanswered questions on the use of Denosumab in giant cell tumor of bone

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody to RANK ligand approved for use in giant cell tumour (GCT) of bone. Due to its efficacy, Denosumab is recommended as the first option in inoperable or metastatic GCT. Denosumab has also been used pre-operatively to downstage tumours with large soft tissue extension to allow for less morbid surgery. The role of Denosumab for conventional limb GCT of bone is yet to be defined. Further studies are required to determine whether local recurrence rates will be decreased with the adjuvant use of Denosumab along with surgery. The long term use and toxicity of this agent is unknown as is the proportion of patients with primary or secondary resistance. It is advised that complicated cases of GCT requiring Denosumab treatment should be referred and followed up at expert centres. Collaborative studies involving further clinical trials and rigorous data collection are strongly recommended to identify the optimum use of this drug

Biomimetic poly(glycerol sebacate)/poly(L-lactic acid) blend scaffolds for adipose tissue engineering

Large three-dimensional poly(glycerol sebacate) (PGS)/poly(l-lactic acid) (PLLA) scaffolds with similar bulk mechanical properties to native low and high stress adapted adipose tissue were fabricated via a freeze-drying and a subsequent curing process. PGS/PLLA scaffolds containing 73 vol.% PGS were prepared using two different organic solvents, resulting in highly interconnected open-pore structures with porosities and pore sizes in the range of 91–92% and 109–141 μm, respectively. Scanning electron microscopic analysis indicated that the scaffolds featured different microstructure characteristics, depending on the organic solvent in use. The PGS/PLLA scaffolds had a tensile Young’s modulus of 0.030 MPa, tensile strength of 0.007 MPa, elongation at the maximum stress of 25% and full shape recovery capability upon release of the compressive load. In vitro degradation tests presented mass losses of 11–16% and 54–55% without and with the presence of lipase enzyme in 31 days, respectively. In vitro cell tests exhibited clear evidence that the PGS/PLLA scaffolds prepared with 1,4-dioxane as the solvent are suitable for culture of adipose derived stem cells. Compared to pristine PLLA scaffolds prepared with the same procedure, these scaffolds provided favourable porous microstructures, good hydrophilic characteristics, and appropriate mechanical properties for soft tissue applications, as well as enhanced scaffold cell penetration and tissue in-growth characteristics. This work demonstrates that the PGS/PLLA scaffolds have potential for applications in adipose tissue engineering