A Phase 1/2A trial of idroxioleic acid: first-in-class sphingolipid regulator and glioma cell autophagy inducer with antitumor activity in refractory glioma

Cancer therapy; Phase I trialsTeràpia del càncer; Assajos de fase ITerapia del cáncer; Ensayos de fase IBackground The first-in-class brain-penetrating synthetic hydroxylated lipid idroxioleic acid (2-OHOA; sodium 2-hydroxyoleate), activates sphingomyelin synthase expression and regulates membrane-lipid composition and mitochondrial energy production, inducing cancer cell autophagy. We report the findings of a multicentric first-in-human Phase 1/2A trial (NCT01792310) of 2-OHOA, identifying the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and assessing safety and preliminary efficacy. Methods We performed an open-label, non-randomised trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and anti-tumour activity of daily oral treatment with 2-OHOA monotherapy (BID/TID) in 54 patients with glioma and other advanced solid tumours. A dose-escalation phase using a standard 3 + 3 design was performed to determine safety and tolerability. This was followed by two expansion cohorts at the MTD to determine the recommended Phase-2 dose (RP2D). Results In total, 32 recurrent patients were enrolled in the dose-escalation phase (500–16,000 mg/daily). 2-OHOA was rapidly absorbed with dose-proportional exposure. Treatment was well-tolerated overall, with reversible grade 1–2 nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea as the most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Four patients had gastrointestinal dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea (three patients at 16,000 mg and one patient at 12,000 mg), establishing an RP2D at 12,000 mg/daily. Potential activity was seen in patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas (HGG). Of the 21 patients with HGG treated across the dose escalation and expansion, 5 (24%) had the clinical benefit (RANO CR, PR and SD >6 cycles) with one exceptional response lasting >2.5 years. Conclusions 2-OHOA demonstrated a good safety profile and encouraging activity in this difficult-to-treat malignant brain-tumour patient population, placing it as an ideal potential candidate for the treatment of glioma and other solid tumour malignancies. Clinical trial registration EudraCT registration number: 2012-001527-13; Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT01792310.This study was supported in part by Laminar Pharmaceuticals. Financial support was also provided by the Govern de les Illes Balears i del Fons Social Europeu (ES01/TCAI/53_2016, ES01/TCAI/21_2017, ES01/TCAI/24_2018 and PROCOE/5/2017), the European Commission (H2020 Framework Programmes Project CLINGLIO 755179), Cancer Research UK (C9380/A25138) and the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre Network (C9380/A25169). VL was supported by a Torres-Quevedo Research contract from the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (PTQ-17-09056), co-funded by the FSE

A phase I study of the safety and pharmacokinetics of the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat administered in combination with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel in patients with solid tumours

BACKGROUND: This phase I study assessed the maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and pharmacokinetics of belinostat with carboplatin and paclitaxel and the anti-tumour activity of the combination in solid tumours. METHODS: Cohorts of three to six patients were treated with escalating doses of belinostat administered intravenously once daily, days 1-5 q21 days; on day 3, carboplatin (area under the curve (AUC) 5) and/or paclitaxel (175 mgm(-2)) were administered 2-3 h after the end of the belinostat infusion. RESULTS: In all 23 patients received 600-1000 mgm(-2) per day of belinostat with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel. No DLT was observed. The maximal administered dose of belinostat was 1000 mgm(-2) per day for days 1-5, with paclitaxel (175 mgm-2) and carboplatin AUC 5 administered on day 3. Grade III/IV adverse events were (n; %): leucopenia (5; 22%), neutropenia (7; 30%), thrombocytopenia (3; 13%) anaemia (1; 4%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (2; 9%), fatigue (1; 4%), vomiting (1; 4%) and myalgia (1; 4%). The pharmacokinetics of belinostat, paclitaxel and carboplatin were unaltered by the concurrent administration. There were two partial responses (one rectal cancer and one pancreatic cancer). A third patient (mixed mullerian tumour of ovarian origin) showed a complete CA-125 response. In addition, six patients showed a stable disease lasting >= 6 months. CONCLUSION: The combination was well tolerated, with no evidence of pharmacokinetic interaction. Further evaluation of anti-tumour activity is warranted. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 103, 12-17. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605726 www.bjcancer.com Published online 15 June 2010 (C) 2010 Cancer Research U

A phase I trial of ispinesib, a kinesin spindle protein inhibitor, with docetaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours

The aim of this study is to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics (PKs) and efficacy of ispinesib (SB-715992) in combination with docetaxel. Patients with advanced solid tumours were treated with ispinesib (6–12 mg m−2) and docetaxel (50–75 mg m−2). Docetaxel was administered over 1 h followed by a 1-h infusion of ispinesib on day 1 of a 21-day schedule. At least three patients were treated at each dose level. Blood samples were collected during cycle 1 for PK analysis. Clinical response assessments were performed every two cycles using RECIST guidelines. Twenty-four patients were treated at four dose levels. Prolonged neutropaenia and febrile neutropaenia were dose limiting in six and two patients, respectively. The MTD was ispinesib 10 mg m−2 with docetaxel 60 mg m−2. Pharmacokinetic assessment demonstrated concentrations of ispinesib and docetaxel, consistent with published data from single agent studies of the drugs. Seven patients (six hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC), one renal cancer) had a best response of stable disease (⩾18 weeks). One patient with HRPC had a confirmed >50% prostatic-specific antigen decrease. The MTD for ispinesib and docetaxel was defined and the combination demonstrated an acceptable toxicity profile. Preliminary PK data suggest no interaction between ispinesib and docetaxel

Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of interferon-alpha in malignant melanoma: results from randomised trial

A definitive conclusion regarding the value of low-dose extended duration adjuvant interferon-alpha therapy in the treatment of malignant melanoma is only possible once data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and costs have been considered. This trial randomised 674 patients to interferon alpha-2a (3 megaunits three times per week for 2 years or until recurrence) or placebo. Health-related quality of life (QoL) was to be assessed up to 60 months using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30. Data for the economic analysis, including cost information and the EQ-5D were also collected. Patients in the observation (OBS) group had significantly better mean follow-up quality of on five dimensions of the EORTC QLQ-C30 functional scales: role functioning (P=0.033), emotional functioning (P=0.003), cognitive functioning (P=0.001), social functioning (P=0.003) and global health status (P=0.001). Patients in the OBS group had significantly better mean follow-up symptom scores on seven dimensions of the EORTC QLQ-C30 V1 symptom scales. Economic data showed that costs were £3066 higher in the interferon group and produces an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year of £41 432 at 5 years. The results show that interferon has significant effects on QoL and symptomatology and is unlikely to be cost-effective in this patient group in the UK

Phase 1/2a trial of intravenous BAL101553, a novel controller of the spindle assembly checkpoint, in advanced solid tumours

Background: BAL101553 (lisavanbulin), the lysine prodrug of BAL27862 (avanbulin), exhibits broad anti-proliferative activity in human cancer models refractory to clinically relevant microtubule-targeting agents. Methods: This two-part, open-label, phase 1/2a study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of 2-h infusion of BAL101553 in adults with advanced or recurrent solid tumours. The MTD was determined using a modified accelerated titration design in phase I. Patients received BAL101553 at the MTD and at lower doses in the phase 2a expansion to characterise safety and efficacy and to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Results: Seventy-three patients received BAL101553 at doses of 15–80 mg/m2 (phase 1, n = 24; phase 2a, n = 49). The MTD was 60 mg/m2; DLTs observed at doses ≥60 mg/m2 were reversible Grade 2–3 gait disturbance with Grade 2 peripheral sensory neuropathy. In phase 2a, asymptomatic myocardial injury was observed at doses ≥45 mg/m2. The RP2D for 2-h intravenous infusion was 30 mg/m2. The overall disease control rate was 26.3% in the efficacy population. Conclusions: The RP2D for 2-h infusion of BAL101553 was well tolerated. Dose-limiting neurological and myocardial side effects were consistent with the agent’s vascular-disrupting properties. Clinical trial registration: EudraCT: 2010-024237-23

Phase 1 dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study of eribulin-liposomal formulation in patients with solid tumours

Background: This phase 1 study examined the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of eribulin-liposomal formulation (eribulin-LF) in patients with advanced solid tumours. Methods:\ud Eligible patients with ECOG PS 0–1 were treated with eribulin-LF either on day 1 every 21 days (Schedule 1), or on days 1 and 15 every 28 days (Schedule 2). Doses ranged from 1.0 to 3.5 mg/m2, with dose escalation in a 3 + 3 design. The dose-expansion phase evaluated eribulin-LF in select tumour types. Primary objectives: maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended dose/schedule of eribulin-LF. Results: Totally, 58 patients were enroled (median age = 62 years). The MTD was 1.4 mg/m2 (Schedule 1) or 1.5 mg/m2 (Schedule 2), the latter dose selected for the dose-expansion phase. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLTs) in Schedule 1: hypophosphatemia and increased transaminase levels. DLTs in Schedule 2: stomatitis, increased alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. The pharmacokinetic profile of eribulin-LF showed a similar half-life to that of eribulin (~30 h), but with a 5-fold greater maximum serum concentration and a 40-fold greater area-under-the-curve. Eribulin-LF demonstrated clinical activity with approximately 10% of patients in both schedules achieving partial responses. Conclusions: Eribulin-LF was well tolerated with a favourable pharmacokinetic profile. Preliminary evidence of clinical activity in solid tumours was observed

Subsequent therapy following pembrolizumab + axitinib or sunitinib treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the phase III KEYNOTE-426 study

Background: In the phase III KEYNOTE-426 study, pembrolizumab + axitinib showed significant improvement in OS, PFS, and ORR vs sunitinib in patients with RCC. This analysis assessed subsequent treatment in patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-426. Methods: Treatment-naive patients with clear cell RCC, KPS score �70%, and measurable disease (RECIST v1.1) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks for up to 35 doses + axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily or sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) until progression, toxicity, or withdrawal. Type of and time to subsequent therapy were assessed. Results: Of patients in the pembrolizumab + axitinib arm and in the sunitinib arm, 81.4% (349/432) and 90.6% of patients (385/429), respectively, discontinued treatment; radiologic or clinical PD was the most common reason for discontinuation in both (pembrolizumab + axitinib: 65.0% [227/349]; sunitinib: 68.1% [262/385]). Of patients who discontinued, 58.5% of patients (204/349) in the pembrolizumab + axitinib arm and 73.0% (281/385) in the sunitinib arm received subsequent therapy (Table). Although a similar proportion of patients in both arms received subsequent therapy with a VEGF/VEGFR inhibitor (pembrolizumab + axitinib: 88.2% [180/204]; sunitinib: 68.7% [193/281]), a greater proportion of patients in the sunitinib arm (74.4% [209/281]) received subsequent PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy than in the pembrolizumab + axitinib arm (21.6% [44/204]). Of patients in the pembrolizumab + axitinib arm and the sunitinib arm, 32.4% (66/204) and 22.8% (64/281), respectively, received other therapies

Improving the outcome of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer through rational drug development

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is now the second most common cause of male cancer-related mortality. Although docetaxel has recently been shown to extend the survival of patients with CRPC in two large randomised phase III studies, subsequent treatment options remain limited for these patients. A greater understanding of the molecular causes of castration resistance is allowing a more rational approach to the development of new drugs and many new agents are now in clinical development. Therapeutic targets include the adrenal steroid synthesis pathway, androgen receptor signalling, the epidermal growth factor receptor family, insulin growth factor-1 receptor, histone deacetylase, heat shock protein 90 and the tumour vasculature. Drugs against these targets are giving an insight into the molecular pathogenesis of this disease and promise to improve patient quality of life and survival. Finally, the recent discovery of chromosomal translocations resulting in the upregulation of one of at least 3 ETS genes (ERG, ETV1, ETV4) may lead to novel agents for the treatment of this disease

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-426): extended follow-up from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Background The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-426 study showed superior efficacy of pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive, advanced renal cell carcinoma. The exploratory analysis with extended follow-up reported here aims to assess long-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Methods In the ongoing, randomised, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study, adults (≥18 years old) with treatmentnaive, advanced renal cell carcinoma with clear cell histology were enrolled in 129 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily or 50 mg sunitinib monotherapy orally once daily for 4 weeks per 6-week cycle. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system, and was stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intentionto-treat population. Since the primary endpoints were met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported with nominal p values. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02853331. Findings Between Oct 24, 2016, and Jan 24, 2018, 861 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus axitinib (n=432) or sunitinib monotherapy (n=429). With a median follow-up of 30·6 months (IQR 27·2–34·2), continued clinical benefit was observed with pembrolizumab plus axitinib over sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached with pembrolizumab and axitinib vs 35·7 months [95% CI 33·3–not reached] with sunitinib); hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·55–0·85], p=0·0003) and progression-free survival (median 15·4 months [12·7–18·9] vs 11·1 months [9·1–12·5]; 0·71 [0·60–0·84], p<0·0001). The most frequent (≥10% patients in either group) treatmentrelated grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (95 [22%] of 429 patients in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib group vs 84 [20%] of 425 patients in the sunitinib group), alanine aminotransferase increase (54 [13%] vs 11 [3%]), and diarrhoea (46 [11%] vs 23 [5%]). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the first interim analysis. Interpretation With extended study follow-up, results from KEYNOTE-426 show that pembrolizumab plus axitinib continues to have superior clinical outcomes over sunitinib. These results continue to support the first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as the standard of care of advanced renal cell carcinoma

Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus axitinib (axi) versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC): Results from 42-month follow-up of KEYNOTE-426

https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.450