The spliceosome as target for anticancer treatment

The spliceosome is a ribonucleoprotein complex involved in RNA splicing, that is, the removal of non-coding introns from precursor messenger RNA. (Alternative) Splicing events may play an essential role in tumourigenesis. The recent discovery that the spliceosome is a target for novel compounds with anticancer activity opens up new therapeutic avenues

A randomized multi-center phase II trial of the angiogenesis inhibitor Cilengitide (EMD 121974) and gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND: Anti-angiogenic treatment is believed to have at least cystostatic effects in highly vascularized tumours like pancreatic cancer. In this study, the treatment effects of the angiogenesis inhibitor Cilengitide and gemcitabine were compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A multi-national, open-label, controlled, randomized, parallel-group, phase II pilot study was conducted in 20 centers in 7 countries. Cilengitide was administered at 600 mg/m(2 )twice weekly for 4 weeks per cycle and gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m(2 )for 3 weeks followed by a week of rest per cycle. The planned treatment period was 6 four-week cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, quality of life (QoL), effects on biological markers of disease (CA 19.9) and angiogenesis (vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor), and safety. An ancillary study investigated the pharmacokinetics of both drugs in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were randomized. The median overall survival was 6.7 months for Cilengitide and gemcitabine and 7.7 months for gemcitabine alone. The median PFS times were 3.6 months and 3.8 months, respectively. The overall response rates were 17% and 14%, and the tumor growth control rates were 54% and 56%, respectively. Changes in the levels of CA 19.9 went in line with the clinical course of the disease, but no apparent relationships were seen with the biological markers of angiogenesis. QoL and safety evaluations were comparable between treatment groups. Pharmacokinetic studies showed no influence of gemcitabine on the pharmacokinetic parameters of Cilengitide and vice versa. CONCLUSION: There were no clinically important differences observed regarding efficacy, safety and QoL between the groups. The observations lay in the range of other clinical studies in this setting. The combination regimen was well tolerated with no adverse effects on the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of either agent

A phase I dose escalation study of BIBW 2992, an irreversible dual inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor 1 (EGFR) and 2 (HER2) tyrosine kinase in a 2-week on, 2-week off schedule in patients with advanced solid tumours

To assess tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and clinical activity of the dual epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) 1 and 2 (HER2) tyrosine kinase inhibitor BIBW 2992. An escalating schedule of once-daily (OD) BIBW 2992 for 14 days followed by 14 days off medication was explored. Thirty-eight patients were enrolled. Dose levels were 10, 20, 30, 45, 70, 85, and 100 mg. At 100 mg dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) (common toxicity criteria grade 3 skin rash and grade 3 diarrhoea despite treatment with loperamide) occurred in two patients. In the next-lower dose of 70 mg, DLT (grade 3 fatigue and ALAT elevation) occurred in one of six patients. An intermediate dose level of 85 mg was studied. Here DLT occurred in two patients (grade 3 diarrhoea despite treatment and grade 2 diarrhoea lasting more than 7 days despite treatment). An additional 12 patients were treated at 70 mg. BIBW 2992 PK after single and multiple doses revealed moderately fast absorption, and no deviation from dose proportionality. Pharmacodynamics analysis in skin biopsies did not show significant changes in EGFR-associated biomarkers. However, a significant inhibitory effect on the proliferation index of epidermal keratinocytes was observed. No partial or complete responses were observed, stable disease lasting more than four cycles was seen in seven patients. The recommended dose for studies with BIBW 2992 for 14 days followed by 14 days off medication is 70 mg OD

Improved survival prediction and comparison of prognostic models for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib

BACKGROUND: The 'Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib-treated HCC' (PROSASH) model addressed the heterogeneous survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib in clinical trials, but requires validation in daily clinical practice. This study aimed to validate, compare and optimize this model for survival prediction. METHODS: Patients treated with sorafenib for HCC at 5 tertiary European centres were retrospectively staged according to the PROSASH model. In addition, the optimized PROSASH-II model was developed using the data of 4 centres (training set) and tested in an independent dataset. These models for overall survival (OS) were then compared with existing prognostic models. RESULTS: The PROSASH model was validated in 445 patients, showing clear differences between the 4 risk groups (OS 16.9-4.6 months). A total of 920 patients (n=615 in training set, n=305 in validation set) were available to develop PROSASH-II. This optimized model incorporated fewer and less subjective parameters: the serum albumin, bilirubin and alpha-fetoprotein, and macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread and largest tumour size on imaging. Both PROSASH and PROSASH-II showed improved discrimination (C-index 0.62 and 0.63, respectively) compared with existing prognostic scores (C-index ≤0.59). CONCLUSIONS: In HCC patients treated with sorafenib, individualized prediction of survival and risk group stratification using baseline prognostic and predictive parameters with the PROSASH model was validated. The refined PROSASH-II model performed at least as good with fewer and more objective parameters. PROSASH-II can be used as a tool for tailored treatment of HCC in daily practice and to define pre-planned subgroups for future studies

Prognostic factors for survival in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer treated with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy

The objective of this study was to identify prognostic factors for survival in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer, who are treated with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. We analysed the baseline characteristics of 350 patients who were treated in six consecutive prospective trials with one of the following regimens: cisplatin/etoposide, cisplatin/etoposide/5-fluorouracil, cisplatin/paclitaxel (weekly) and cisplatin/paclitaxel (biweekly). Predictive factors in univariate analyses were further evaluated using multivariate analysis (Cox regression). The median survival of all patients was 9 months. The 1, 2 and 5-year survival rates were 33, 12 and 4%, respectively. The main prognostic factors were found to be WHO performance status (0 or 1 vs 2), lactate dehydrogenase (normal vs elevated), extent of disease (limited disease defined as locoregional irresectable disease or lymph node metastases confined to either the supraclavicular or celiac region vs extensively disseminated disease) in addition to the type of treatment (weekly or biweekly cisplatin/paclitaxel regimen vs 4-weekly cisplatin/etoposide with or without 5-fluorouracil). Although weight loss, liver metastases and alkaline phosphatase were significant prognostic factors in univariate analyses, these factors lost their significance in multivariate analyses. The median survival for patients without any risk factors was 12 months, compared to only 4 months in patients with WHO 2 plus elevated LDH and extensive disease. The performance status, extent of disease, LDH and the addition of paclitaxel to cisplatin are independent prognostic factors in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer, who are treated with cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy

CX-072 (pacmilimab), a Probody® PD-L1 inhibitor, in advanced or recurrent solid tumors (PROCLAIM-CX-072): an open-label dose-finding and first-in-human study

Background: Probody® therapeutics are antibody prodrugs that are activated in the tumor microenvironment by tumor-associated proteases, thereby restricting the activity to the tumor microenvironment and minimizing ‘off-tumor’ toxicity. We report dose-escalation and single-agent expansion phase data from the first-in-human study of CX-072 (pacmilimab), a Probody checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). / Methods: In the dose-escalation phase of this multicenter, open-label study (NCT03013491), adults with advanced solid tumors (naive to programmed-death-1/PD-L1 or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitors) were enrolled into one of seven dose-escalation cohorts, with pacmilimab administered intravenously every 14 days. The primary endpoints were safety and determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). In the expansion phase, patients with one of six prespecified malignancies (triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]; anal squamous cell carcinoma [aSCC]; cutaneous SCC [cSCC]; undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma [UPS]; small bowel adenocarcinoma [SBA]; and thymic epithelial tumor [TET]); or high tumor mutational burden (hTMB) tumors were enrolled. The primary endpoint was objective response (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v.1.1). / Results: An MTD was not reached with doses up to 30 mg/kg. A recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of 10 mg/kg was chosen based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic findings in the expansion phase. Ninety-eight patients enrolled in the expansion phase: TNBC (n=14), aSCC (n=14), cSCC (n=14), UPS (n=20), SBA (n=14), TET (n=8), and hTMB tumors (n=14). Of 114 patients receiving pacmilimab at the RP2D, grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 10 patients (9%), serious TRAEs in six patients (5%), and treatment discontinuation due to TRAEs in two patients (2%). Grade ≥3 immune-related AEs occurred in two patients (rash, myocarditis). High PD-L1 expression (ie, >50% Tumor Proportion Score) was observed in 22/144 (19%) patients. Confirmed objective responses were observed in patients with cSCC (n=5, including one complete response), hTMB (n=4, including one complete response), aSCC (n=2), TNBC (n=1), UPS (n=1), and anaplastic thyroid cancer (n=1). / Conclusions: Pacmilimab can be administered safely at the RP2D of 10 mg/kg every 14 days. At this dose, pacmilimab had a low rate of immune-mediated toxicity and showed signs of antitumor activity in patients not selected for high PD-L1 expression. / Trial registration number: NCT03013491

Pharmacogenetics of telatinib, a VEGFR-2 and VEGFR-3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, used in patients with solid tumors

Purpose Telatinib is an orally active small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of kinase insert domain receptor (KDR; VEGFR-2) and fms-related tyrosine kinase 4 (FLT4; VEGFR-3). This study aims at the identification of relationships between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes encoding for transporter proteins and pharmacokinetic parameters in order to clarify the significant interpatient variability in drug exposure. In addition, the potential relationship between target receptor polymorphisms and toxicity of telatinib is explored. Methods Blood samples from 33 patients enrolled in a phase I dose-escalation study of telatinib were analyzed. For correlation with dose normalized AUC(0–12), ATP-binding cassette (ABC) B1 (ABCB1), ABCC1, and ABCG2 were the genes selected. For correlation with telatinib toxicity, selected genes were the drug target genes KDR and FLT4. Results No association between dose normalized AUC(0–12) and drug transporter protein polymorphisms was observed. In addition, no association between toxicity and KDR or FLT4 genotype or haplotype was seen. Conclusions Our pharmacogenetic analysis could not reveal a correlation between relevant gene polymorphisms and clinical and pharmacokinetic observations of telatinib

A Phase Ib dose-escalation study to evaluate safety and tolerability of the addition of the aminopeptidase inhibitor tosedostat (CHR-2797) to paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours

Contains fulltext : 89517timmer-bonte.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: This Phase Ib dose-escalating study investigated safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), pharmacokinetics (PK) and clinical antitumour activity of tosedostat (CHR-2797), an orally bioavailable aminopeptidase inhibitor, in combination with paclitaxel. METHODS: A total of 22 patients received paclitaxel (135-175 mg m(-2)) intravenously, administered once every three weeks for up to six cycles, with oral tosedostat (90-240 mg) daily. RESULTS: One DLT (grade 3 dyspnoea) was observed in one patient with tosedostat 180 mg combined with paclitaxel 175 mg m(-2). A high number of paclitaxel infusion reactions was noted during the second administration (59%) and this prompted interruption of tosedostat dosing for 5 days around every second and subsequent paclitaxel infusion. No formal MTD was determined because of the high frequency of paclitaxel infusion reactions that may have been influenced by tosedostat. Most frequently observed drug-related adverse events were alopecia, fatigue (95% each), peripheral sensory neuropathy (59%), paclitaxel hypersensitivity (59%) and rash (55%). One patient died because of eosinophilic myocarditis, possibly related to study medication. There was no PK interaction between tosedostat and paclitaxel. In all, 3 patients had a partial response and 12 patients had stable disease lasting >3 months. CONCLUSION: The combination of tosedostat with paclitaxel was well tolerated except for the high incidence of paclitaxel-related infusion reactions

Angiogenesis inhibitors in clinical development; where are we now and where are we going?

Angiogenesis is crucial for tumour growth and the formation of metastases. Various classes of angiogenesis inhibitors that are each able to inhibit one of the various steps of this complex process can be distinguished. Results from clinical studies with these agents are summarised. In general, it has been shown that most angiogenesis inhibitors can be safely administered, but that tumour regressions are rare. Combining angiogenesis inhibitors with cytotoxic chemotherapy can enhance anticancer activity. Recently, some promising data with regard to clinical efficacy have been presented. While performing clinical studies with angiogenesis inhibitors, defining biological activity is crucial, but thus far no validated techniques are available. It is conceivable that in the near future various classes of angiogenesis inhibitors will be combined in an attempt to further improve antiangiogenic and anticancer activity

First-line treatment with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal cancer: a phase II study

This phase II study assessed the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin and capecitabine in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer. Fifty-one eligible patients received oxaliplatin 130 mg m−2 intravenously on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg m−2 orally twice daily on days 1 to 14 in a 21-day treatment cycle as first-line treatment for advanced oesophageal cancer. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in one patient and anaemia in another patient. No grade 4 haematological toxicities were observed. Grade 4 non-haematological toxicity (lethargy) occurred in one patient (2%). Grade 3 non-haematological toxicity was seen in 14 (27%) patients (vomiting and polyneuropathy (8%); nausea (6%); lethargy and hand–foot syndrome (4%); and anorexia, diarrhoea, and hyperbilirubinaemia (each in one patient)). In 22% of the patients, toxicity was the reason for stopping the treatment. The overall response rate was 39%. The median overall survival was 8 months; the 1-year survival rate was 26%. In the quality of life (QoL) analysis, the emotional well-being improved during treatment, but the physical functioning scores declined. The fatigue score on the symptom scales increased. Overall, the global QoL score did not change during treatment. In conclusion, the activity of oxaliplatin and capecitabine is comparable with other chemotherapy regimens in advanced oesophageal cancer with a low frequency of grade 3/4 toxicity. Because this treatment can be given on an outpatient basis, it is probably less toxic than cisplatin-based therapy and preserves QoL during treatment, it is a viable treatment option in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer