Phase I, first-in-human study of MSC-1 (AZD0171), a humanized anti-leukemia inhibitory factor monoclonal antibody, for advanced solid tumors

Leukemia inhibitory factor; Safety; Solid tumorsFactor inhibidor de la leucemia; Seguridad; Tumores sólidosFactor inhibidor de la leucèmia; Seguretat; Tumors sòlidsBackground Activation of leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) is linked to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME), with a strong association between LIF expression and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). MSC-1 (AZD0171) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to LIF, promoting antitumor inflammation through TAM modulation and cancer stem cell inhibition, slowing tumor growth. In this phase I, first-in-human, open-label, dose-escalation study, MSC-1 monotherapy was assessed in patients with advanced, unresectable solid tumors. Materials and methods Using accelerated-titration dose escalation followed by a 3 + 3 design, MSC-1 doses of 75-1500 mg were administered intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W) until progression or unmanageable toxicity. Additional patients were enrolled in selected cohorts to further evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics after escalation to the next dose had been approved. The primary objective was characterizing safety and determining the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Evaluating antitumor activity and progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1, PK and immunogenicity were secondary objectives. Exploratory objectives included pharmacodynamic effects on circulating LIF and TME immune markers. Results Forty-one patients received treatment. MSC-1 monotherapy was safe and well tolerated at all doses, with no dose-limiting toxicities. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached and the RP2D was determined to be 1500 mg Q3W. Almost half of the patients had treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with no apparent trends across doses; no patients withdrew due to TRAEs. There were no objective responses; 23.7% had stable disease for ≥2 consecutive tumor assessments. Median PFS was 5.9 weeks; 23.7% had PFS >16 weeks. On-treatment changes in circulating LIF and TME signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 signaling, M1:M2 macrophage populations, and CD8+ T-cell infiltration were consistent with the hypothesized mechanism of action. Conclusions MSC-1 was very well tolerated across doses, with prolonged PFS in some patients. Biomarker and preclinical data suggest potential synergy with checkpoint inhibitors.This work was supported by Northern Biologics (no grant number). Medical writing support for the development of this manuscript, under the direction of the authors, was provided by Carole Mongin-Bulewski, PhD, of Ashfield MedComms (Manchester, UK), an Ashfield Health company, and was funded by AstraZeneca (no grant number)

tumor infiltrating lymphocytes tils and pdl1 expression as prescreening enrichment biomarkers of clinical benefit to immune checkpoint inhibitors ci in early clinical trials ect

n/

A multimarker panel for circulating tumor cells detection predicts patient outcome and therapy response in metastatic colorectal cancer

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs), proposed as major players in cancer dissemination, have demonstrated clinical prognostic significance in several cancer types. However, their predictive value remains unclear. Here we evaluated the clinical utility of six CTC markers (tissue specific and epithelial to mesenchymal transition transcripts) both as prognostic and predictive tools in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. CTCs were immunoisolated from blood in 50 mCRC patients at baseline and at 4 and 16 weeks after treatment onset. Expression levels of GAPDH, VIL1, CLU, TIMP1, LOXL3 and ZEB2 were determined by qualitative polymerase chain reaction and normalized to the unspecific cell isolation marker CD45. At baseline, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with high CTC markers were 6.3 and 12.7 months, respectively, versus 12.7 and 24.2 for patients with low CTC markers (PFS; p = 0.0003; OS; p = 0.044). Concerning response to therapy, PFS and OS for patients with increased CTC markers along treatment were, respectively, 6.6 and 13.1 months, compared with 12.7 and 24.3 for patients presenting CTC markers reduction (PFS; p = 0.004; OS; p = 0.007). Of note, CTC markers identified therapy-refractory patients not detected by standard image techniques. Patients with increased CTC markers along treatment, but classified as responders by computed tomography, showed significantly shorter survival times (PFS: 7.8 vs. 13.2; OS: 14.4 vs. 24.4; months). In conclusion, we have generated a CTC marker panel for prognosis evaluation and the identification of patients benefiting or not from therapy in mCRC. Our methodology efficiently classified patients earlier than routine computed tomography and from a minimally invasive liquid biopsy