Triplet therapy with palbociclib, taselisib and fulvestrant in PIK3CA mutant breast cancer and doublet palbociclib and taselisib in pathway mutant solid cancers

Cyclin-dependent kinase-4/6 (CDK4/6) and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors synergise in PIK3CA mutant ER-positive HER2-negative breast cancer models. We conducted a phase Ib trial investigating safety and efficacy of doublet CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib plus selective PI3K inhibitor taselisib in advanced solid tumors, and triplet palbociclib plus taselisib plus fulvestrant in 25 patients with PIK3CA mutant, ER-positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The triplet therapy response rate in PIK3CA mutant, ER-positive HER2-negative was 37.5% (95% CI 18.8-59.4). Durable disease control was observed in PIK3CA mutant ER-negative breast cancer and other solid tumors, with doublet therapy. Both combinations were well tolerated at pharmacodynamically active doses. In the triplet group, high baseline cyclin E1 expression associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 4.2, 95% CI 1.3-13.1, p=0.02). Early ctDNA dynamics demonstrated high on-treatment ctDNA association with shorter PFS (HR 5.2, 95% CI 1.4-19.4, p=0.04). Longitudinal plasma ctDNA sequencing provided genomic evolution evidence during triplet therapy

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous intercostal nerve cryoneurolysis for analgesia following traumatic rib fracture -a case series.

BackgruondRib fractures are a common injury in trauma patients and account for significant morbidity and mortality within this population. Local anesthetic-based nerve blocks have been demonstrated to provide significant pain relief and reduce complications. However, the analgesia provided by these blocks is limited to hours for single injection blocks or days for continuous infusions, while the duration of this pain often lasts weeks.CaseThis case series describes five patients with rib fractures whose pain was successfully treated with cryoneurolysis.ConclusionsUltrasound-guided percutaneous cryoneurolysis is a modality that has the potential to provide analgesia matching the duration of pain following rib fractures

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous intercostal nerve cryoneurolysis for analgesia following traumatic rib fracture -a case series.

BackgruondRib fractures are a common injury in trauma patients and account for significant morbidity and mortality within this population. Local anesthetic-based nerve blocks have been demonstrated to provide significant pain relief and reduce complications. However, the analgesia provided by these blocks is limited to hours for single injection blocks or days for continuous infusions, while the duration of this pain often lasts weeks.CaseThis case series describes five patients with rib fractures whose pain was successfully treated with cryoneurolysis.ConclusionsUltrasound-guided percutaneous cryoneurolysis is a modality that has the potential to provide analgesia matching the duration of pain following rib fractures

Wearable, noninvasive, pulsed shortwave (radiofrequency) therapy for analgesia and opioid sparing following outpatient surgery: A proof-of-concept case series.

BackgroundIt is often difficult to concurrently provide adequate analgesia while minimizing opioid requirements following ambulatory surgery. Nonthermal, pulsed shortwave (radiofrequency) fields are a noninvasive treatment used as an adjunct analgesic and wound healing therapy. The devices may be placed by nursing staff in less than a minute, are relatively inexpensive and readily available, theoretically provide analgesia for nearly any anatomic location, and have no systemic side effects-patients cannot detect any sensations from the devices-or significant risks. Here we present a case series to demonstrate the use of pulsed, electromagnetic field devices for outpatient herniorrhaphy and breast surgery.Case reportFollowing moderately painful ambulatory umbilical (n = 3) and inguinal (n = 2) hernia repair as well as bilateral breast surgery (n = 2), patients had taped over their surgical incision(s) 1 or 2 noninvasive, wearable, disposable, pulsed shortwave therapy devices (RecoveryRx, BioElectronics Corporation, Frederick, Maryland) which functioned continuously for 30 days. Average resting pain scores measured on the 0-10 numeric rating scale were a median of 0 during the entire treatment period. Six patients avoided opioid use entirely, while the remaining individual required only 5 mg of oxycodone during the first postoperative day.ConclusionsThese cases demonstrate that the ambulatory use of pulsed shortwave devices is feasible and may be an effective analgesic, possibly obviating opioid requirements following outpatient herniorrhaphy and breast surgery. Considering the lack of any side effects, adverse events, and misuse/dependence/diversion potential, further study with a randomized, controlled trial appears warranted

Dysphagia-optimised intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer (DARS): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most newly diagnosed oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers are treated with chemoradiotherapy with curative intent but at the consequence of adverse effects on quality of life. We aimed to investigate if dysphagia-optimised intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DO-IMRT) reduced radiation dose to the dysphagia and aspiration related structures and improved swallowing function compared with standard IMRT. METHODS: DARS was a parallel-group, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 22 radiotherapy centres in Ireland and the UK. Participants were aged 18 years and older, had T1-4, N0-3, M0 oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer, a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and no pre-existing swallowing dysfunction. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) using a minimisation algorithm (balancing factors: centre, chemotherapy use, tumour type, American Joint Committee on Cancer tumour stage) to receive DO-IMRT or standard IMRT. Participants and speech language therapists were masked to treatment allocation. Radiotherapy was given in 30 fractions over 6 weeks. Dose was 65 Gy to primary and nodal tumour and 54 Gy to remaining pharyngeal subsite and nodal areas at risk of microscopic disease. For DO-IMRT, the volume of the superior and middle pharyngeal constrictor muscle or inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle lying outside the high-dose target volume had a mandatory 50 Gy mean dose constraint. The primary endpoint was MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) composite score 12 months after radiotherapy, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population that included only patients who completed a 12-month assessment; safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one fraction of radiotherapy. The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN25458988, and is complete. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2016, to April 27, 2018, 118 patients were registered, 112 of whom were randomly assigned (56 to each treatment group). 22 (20%) participants were female and 90 (80%) were male; median age was 57 years (IQR 52-62). Median follow-up was 39·5 months (IQR 37·8-50·0). Patients in the DO-IMRT group had significantly higher MDADI composite scores at 12 months than patients in the standard IMRT group (mean score 77·7 [SD 16·1] vs 70·6 [17·3]; mean difference 7·2 [95% CI 0·4-13·9]; p=0·037). 25 serious adverse events (16 serious adverse events assessed as unrelated to study treatment [nine in the DO-IMRT group and seven in the standard IMRT group] and nine serious adverse reactions [two vs seven]) were reported in 23 patients. The most common grade 3-4 late adverse events were hearing impairment (nine [16%] of 55 in the DO-IMRT group vs seven [13%] of 55 in the standard IMRT group), dry mouth (three [5%] vs eight [15%]), and dysphagia (three [5%] vs eight [15%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that DO-IMRT improves patient-reported swallowing function compared with standard IMRT. DO-IMRT should be considered a new standard of care for patients receiving radiotherapy for pharyngeal cancers. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK

Capivasertib in combination with enzalutamide for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel and abiraterone: Results from the randomized phase II RE-AKT trial

Background: PTEN loss and aberrations in PI3K/AKT signaling kinases associate with poorer response to abiraterone acetate (AA) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In this study, we assessed antitumor activity of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib combined with enzalutamide in mCRPC with prior progression on AA and docetaxel. Methods: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial, recruited men ≥ 18 years with progressing mCRPC and performance status 0–2 from 15 UK centers. Randomized participants (1:1) received enzalutamide (160 mg orally, once daily) with capivasertib (400 mg)/ placebo orally, twice daily on an intermittent (4 days on, 3 days off) schedule. Primary endpoint was composite response rate (RR): RECIST 1.1 objective response, ≥ 50 % PSA decrease from baseline, or circulating tumor cell count conversion (from ≥ 5 at baseline to &lt; 5 cells/7.5 mL). Subgroup analyses by PTEN IHC status were pre-planned. Results: Overall, 100 participants were randomized (50:50); 95 were evaluable for primary endpoint (47:48); median follow-up was 43 months. RR were 9/47 (19.1 %) enzalutamide/capivasertib and 9/48 (18.8 %) enzalutamide/placebo (absolute difference 0.4 % 90 %CI −12.8 to 13.6, p = 0.58), with similar results in the PTEN IHC loss subgroup. Irrespective of treatment, OS was significantly worse for PTEN IHC loss (10.1 months [95 %CI: 4.6–13.9] vs 14.8 months [95 %CI: 10.8–18]; p = 0.02). Most common treatment-emergent grade ≥ 3 adverse events for the combination were diarrhea (13 % vs 2 %) and fatigue (10 % vs 6 %). Conclusions: Combined capivasertib/enzalutamide was well tolerated but didn't significantly improve outcomes from abiraterone pre-treated mCRPC.</p

Intermittent schedules of the oral RAF-MEK inhibitor CH5126766/VS-6766 in patients with RAS/RAF-mutant solid tumours and multiple myeloma: a single-centre, open-label, phase 1 dose-escalation and basket dose-expansion study.

BACKGROUND: CH5126766 (also known as VS-6766, and previously named RO5126766), a novel MEK-pan-RAF inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity across various solid tumours; however, its initial development was limited by toxicity. We aimed to investigate the safety and toxicity profile of intermittent dosing schedules of CH5126766, and the antitumour activity of this drug in patients with solid tumours and multiple myeloma harbouring RAS-RAF-MEK pathway mutations. METHODS: We did a single-centre, open-label, phase 1 dose-escalation and basket dose-expansion study at the Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust (London, UK). Patients were eligible for the study if they were aged 18 years or older, had cancers that were refractory to conventional treatment or for which no conventional therapy existed, and if they had a WHO performance status score of 0 or 1. For the dose-escalation phase, eligible patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic solid tumours. For the basket dose-expansion phase, eligible patients had advanced or metastatic solid tumours or multiple myeloma harbouring RAS-RAF-MEK pathway mutations. During the dose-escalation phase, we evaluated three intermittent oral schedules (28-day cycles) in patients with solid tumours: (1) 4·0 mg or 3·2 mg CH5126766 three times per week; (2) 4·0 mg CH5126766 twice per week; and (3) toxicity-guided dose interruption schedule, in which treatment at the recommended phase 2 dose (4·0 mg CH5126766 twice per week) was de-escalated to 3 weeks on followed by 1 week off if patients had prespecified toxic effects (grade 2 or worse diarrhoea, rash, or creatinine phosphokinase elevation). In the basket dose-expansion phase, we evaluated antitumour activity at the recommended phase 2 dose, determined from the dose-escalation phase, in biomarker-selected patients. The primary endpoints were the recommended phase 2 dose at which no more than one out of six patients had a treatment-related dose-limiting toxicity, and the safety and toxicity profile of each dosing schedule. The key secondary endpoint was investigator-assessed response rate in the dose-expansion phase. Patients who received at least one dose of the study drug were evaluable for safety and patients who received one cycle of the study drug and underwent baseline disease assessment were evaluable for response. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02407509. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2013, and Jan 10, 2019, 58 eligible patients were enrolled to the study: 29 patients with solid tumours were included in the dose-escalation cohort and 29 patients with solid tumours or multiple myeloma were included in the basket dose-expansion cohort (12 non-small-cell lung cancer, five gynaecological malignancy, four colorectal cancer, one melanoma, and seven multiple myeloma). Median follow-up at the time of data cutoff was 2·3 months (IQR 1·6-3·5). Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 bilateral retinal pigment epithelial detachment in one patient who received 4·0 mg CH5126766 three times per week, and grade 3 rash (in two patients) and grade 3 creatinine phosphokinase elevation (in one patient) in those who received 3·2 mg CH5126766 three times per week. 4·0 mg CH5126766 twice per week (on Monday and Thursday or Tuesday and Friday) was established as the recommended phase 2 dose. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were rash (11 [19%] patients), creatinine phosphokinase elevation (six [11%]), hypoalbuminaemia (six [11%]), and fatigue (four [7%]). Five (9%) patients had serious treatment-related adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. Eight (14%) of 57 patients died during the trial due to disease progression. Seven (27% [95% CI 11·6-47·8]) of 26 response-evaluable patients in the basket expansion achieved objective responses. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that highly intermittent schedules of a RAF-MEK inhibitor has antitumour activity across various cancers with RAF-RAS-MEK pathway mutations, and that this inhibitor is tolerable. CH5126766 used as a monotherapy and in combination regimens warrants further evaluation. FUNDING: Chugai Pharmaceutical

Capivasertib in combination with enzalutamide for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel and abiraterone: Results from the randomized phase II RE-AKT trial

PTEN loss and aberrations in PI3K/AKT signaling kinases associate with poorer response to abiraterone acetate (AA) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In this study, we assessed antitumor activity of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib combined with enzalutamide in mCRPC with prior progression on AA and docetaxel. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial, recruited men ≥ 18 years with progressing mCRPC and performance status 0-2 from 15 UK centers. Randomized participants (1:1) received enzalutamide (160 mg orally, once daily) with capivasertib (400 mg)/ placebo orally, twice daily on an intermittent (4 days on, 3 days off) schedule. Primary endpoint was composite response rate (RR): RECIST 1.1 objective response, ≥ 50 % PSA decrease from baseline, or circulating tumor cell count conversion (from ≥ 5 at baseline to &lt; 5 cells/7.5 mL). Subgroup analyses by PTEN status were pre-planned. Overall, 100 participants were randomized (50:50); 95 were evaluable for primary endpoint (47:48); median follow-up was 43 months. RR were 9/47 (19.1 %) enzalutamide/capivasertib and 9/48 (18.8 %) enzalutamide/placebo (absolute difference 0.4 % 90 %CI -12.8 to 13.6, p = 0.58), with similar results in the PTEN loss subgroup. Irrespective of treatment, OS was significantly worse for PTEN loss (10.1 months [95 %CI: 4.6-13.9] vs 14.8 months [95 %CI: 10.8-18]; p = 0.02). Most common treatment-emergent grade ≥ 3 adverse events for the combination were diarrhea (13 % vs 2 %) and fatigue (10 % vs 6 %). Combined capivasertib/enzalutamide was well tolerated but didn't significantly improve outcomes from abiraterone pre-treated mCRPC.