A phase I dose-escalation study of the immunocytokine EMD 521873 (Selectikine) in patients with advanced solid tumours

n/

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer care and oncology clinical research: an experts' perspective

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic promises to have lasting impacts on cancer clinical trials that could lead to faster patient access to new treatments. In this article, an international panel of oncology experts discusses the lasting impacts of the pandemic on oncology clinical trials and proposes solutions for clinical trial stakeholders, with the support of recent data on worldwide clinical trials collected by IQVIA. These lasting impacts and proposed solutions encompass three topic areas. Firstly, acceleration and implementation of new operational approaches to oncology trials with patient-centric, fully decentralized virtual approaches that include remote assessments via telemedicine and remote devices. Geographical differences in the uptake of remote technology, including telemedicine, are discussed in the article, focusing on the impact of the local adoption of new operational approaches. Secondly, innovative clinical trials. The pandemic has highlighted the need for new trial designs that accelerate research and limit risks and burden for patients while driving optimization of clinical trial objectives and endpoints, while testing is being minimized. Areas of considerations for clinical trial stakeholders are discussed in detail. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the underrepresentation of minority groups in clinical trials; the approach for oncology clinical trials to improve generalizability of efficacy and outcomes data is discussed. Thirdly, a new problem-focused collaborative framework between oncology trial stakeholders, including decision makers, to leverage and further accelerate the innovative approaches in clinical research developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This could shorten timelines for patient access to new treatments by addressing the cultural and technological barriers to adopting new operational approaches and innovative clinical trials. The role of the different stakeholders is described, with the aim of making COVID-19 a catalyst for positive change in oncology clinical research and eventually in cancer care

phase 2 study evaluating intermittent and continuous linsitinib and weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent platinum resistant ovarian epithelial cancer

Abstract Background Linsitinib, an oral, dual inhibitor of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor and insulin receptor, in combination with weekly paclitaxel, may improve clinical outcomes compared with paclitaxel alone in patients with refractory or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Patients and methods This open-label phase 1/2 clinical trial (NCT00889382) randomized patients with refractory or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (1:1:1) to receive either oral intermittent linsitinib (600mg once daily on Days 1–3 per week) combined with paclitaxel (80mg/m 2 on Days 1, 8, and 15; Arm A) or continuous linsitinib (150mg twice daily) in combination with paclitaxel (Arm B), or paclitaxel alone (Arm C). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety/tolerability. Results A total of 152 women were randomized to treatment (n=51 Arm A; n=51 Arm B, n=50 Arm C). In combination with paclitaxel, neither intermittent linsitinib (median PFS 2.8months; 95% confidence interval [CI]:2.5–4.4) nor continuous linsitinib (median PFS 4.2months; 95% CI:2.8–5.1) improved PFS over weekly paclitaxel alone (median PFS 5.6months; 95% CI:3.2–6.9). No improvement in ORR, DCR, or OS in either linsitinib dosing schedule was observed compared with paclitaxel alone. Adverse event (AE) rates, including all-grade and grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs, and treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation, were higher among patients receiving intermittent linsitinib compared with the other treatment arms. Conclusion Addition of intermittent or continuous linsitinib with paclitaxel did not improve outcomes in patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer compared with paclitaxel alone

ESMO management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: gynaecological malignancies

The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and its related disease (COVID-19) has required an immediate and coordinate healthcare response to face the worldwide emergency and define strategies to maintain the continuum of care for the non-COVID-19 diseases while protecting patients and healthcare providers. The dimension of the COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented risk especially for the more vulnerable populations. To manage patients with cancer adequately, maintaining the highest quality of care, a definition of value-based priorities is necessary to define which interventions can be safely postponed without affecting patients’ outcome. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has endorsed a tiered approach across three different levels of priority (high, medium, low) incorporating information on the value-based prioritisation and clinical cogency of the interventions that can be applied for different disease sites. Patients with gynaecological cancer are at particular risk of COVID-19 complications because of their age and prevalence of comorbidities. The definition of priority level should be based on tumour stage and histology, cancer-related symptoms or complications, aim (curative vs palliative) and magnitude of benefit of the oncological intervention, patients’ general condition and preferences. The decision-making process always needs to consider the disease-specific national and international guidelines and the local healthcare system and social resources, and a changing situation in relation to COVID-19 infection. These recommendations aim to provide guidance for the definition of deferrable and undeferrable interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic for ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancers within the context of the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines

Avelumab Alone or in Combination With Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone in Platinum-Resistant or Platinum-Refractory Ovarian Cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 200): An Open-Label, Three-Arm, Randomised, Phase 3 Study

The majority of patients with ovarian cancer will experience relapse and develop platinum-resistant disease after being treated with frontline platinum-based chemotherapy. Treatment options for platinum-resistance or platinum-refractory disease are very limited, usually involving nonplatinum chemotherapy, and they are associated with poor objective response rates and life expectancy

combined pik3ca and fgfr inhibition with alpelisib and infigratinib in patients with pik3ca mutant solid tumors with or without fgfr alterations

PURPOSE Concurrent PIK3CA mutations and fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) alterations occur in multiple cancer types, including estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, bladder cancer, and endometrial cancer. In this first-in-human combination trial, we explored safety and preliminary efficacy of combining the PI3Kα selective inhibitor alpelisib with the FGFR1-4 selective inhibitor infigratinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with PIK3CA-mutant advanced solid tumors, with or without FGFR1-3 alterations, were enrolled in the dose escalation or one of three molecular-defined dose-expansion cohorts. The primary end point was the maximum tolerated dose. Secondary end points included safety, pharmacokinetics, and response. Archival tumor samples were sequenced to explore genomic correlates of response. RESULTS In combination, both agents were escalated to full, single-agent recommended doses (alpelisib, 300 mg per day continuously; infigratinib, 125 mg per day 3 weeks on followed by 1 week off). The toxicity profile of the combination was consistent with the established safety profile of each agent, although 71% of all patients required at least one treatment interruption or dose reduction. Molecularly selected dose expansions in breast cancer and other solid tumors harboring PIK3CA mutations, alone or in combination with FGFR alterations, identified sporadic responses, predominately in tumor types and genotypes previously defined to have sensitivity to these agents. CONCLUSION The combination of alpelisib and infigratinib can be administered at full single-agent doses, although the high rate of dose interruption or reduction suggests long-term tolerability may be challenging. In exploratory signal-seeking cohorts of patients harboring dual PIK3CA and FGFR1-3 alterations, no clear evidence of synergistic activity was observed

Everything Comes with a Price: The Toxicity Profile of DNA-Damage Response Targeting Agents

Targeting the inherent vulnerability of cancer cells with an impaired DNA Damage Repair (DDR) machinery, Poly-ADP-Ribose-Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have yielded significant results in several tumor types, eventually entering clinical practice for the treatment of ovarian, breast, pancreatic and prostate cancer. More recently, inhibitors of other key components of DNA repair, such as ATR, CHK1 and WEE1, have been developed and are currently under investigation in clinical trials. The inhibition of DDR inevitably induces on-target and off-target adverse events. Hematological and gastrointestinal toxicities as well as fatigue are common with all DDR-targeting agents, while other adverse events are drug specific, such as hypertension with niraparib and transaminase elevation with rucaparib. Cases of pneumonitis and secondary hematological malignancies have been reported with PARP inhibitors and, despite being overly rare, they deserve particular attention due to their severity. Safety also represents a crucial issue for the development of combination regimens incorporating DDR-targeting agents with other treatments, such as chemotherapy, anti-angiogenics or immunotherapy. As such, overlapping and cumulative toxicities should be considered, especially when more than two classes of drugs are combined. Here, we review the safety profile of DDR-targeting agents when used as single agents or in combination and we provide principles of toxicity management