Sotatercept (ACE-011) for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients with metastatic breast cancer or advanced or metastatic solid tumors treated with platinum-based chemotherapeutic regimens: results from two phase 2 studies

PURPOSE: Sotatercept may represent a novel approach to the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). We report the results from two phase 2 randomized studies examining the use of sotatercept for the treatment of CIA in patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS: In study A011-08, patients with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to 2:2:2:1 to receive sotatercept 0.1, 0.3, or 0.5 mg/kg, or placebo, respectively, every 28 days. In study ACE-011-NSCL-001, patients with solid tumors treated with platinum-based chemotherapy received sotatercept 15 or 30 mg every 42 days. The primary endpoint for both studies was hematopoietic response, defined as a hemoglobin (Hb) increase of \u3e/=1 g/dL from baseline. RESULTS: Both studies were terminated early due to slow patient accrual. Among patients treated with sotatercept in the A011-08 and ACE-011-NSCL-001 studies, more patients achieved a mean Hb increase of \u3e/=1 g/dL in the combined sotatercept 0.3 mg/kg and 15 mg (66.7 %) group and sotatercept 0.5 mg/kg and 30 mg (38.9 %) group versus the sotatercept 0.1 mg/kg (0 %) group. No patients achieved a mean Hb increase of \u3e/=1 g/dL in the placebo group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was low in both studies, and treatment discontinuations due to AEs were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Although both studies were terminated early, these results indicate that sotatercept is active and has an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of CIA

A Multicenter, Phase 2 Study of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Trap (Aflibercept) in Platinum- and Erlotinib-Resistant Adenocarcinoma of the Lung

IntroductionAflibercept (vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] trap), a recombinant fusion protein, blocks the activity of VEGF-A and placental growth factor and has demonstrated activity in pretreated patients with lung cancer in a phase I trial. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intravenous aflibercept in patients with platinum- and erlotinib-resistant lung adenocarcinoma.MethodsAn open-label, single arm, multicenter trial was conducted, with the primary end point of response rate (modified RECIST). Additional endpoints included safety, duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Patients with platinum- and erlotinib-resistant lung adenocarcinoma were eligible. Aflibercept 4.0 mg/kg intravenous every 2 weeks was administered until progression of disease or intolerable toxicity.ResultsNinety-eight patients were enrolled; 89 were evaluable for response. Median age was 60 years, 41% were men with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1/2 in 35/55/9% of patients. The overall response rate was 2.0%, (95% confidence interval, 0.2-7.2%). Median progression-free survival was 2.7 months, and overall was survival 6.2 months. Six- and 12-month survival rates were 54 and 29%, respectively. A median of four cycles was administered (range 1-22). Common grade 3/4 toxicities included dyspnea (21%), hypertension (23%), and proteinuria (10%). Two cases of grade 5 hemoptysis were reported, and one case each of tracheoesophageal fistula, decreased cardiac ejection fraction, cerebral ischemia, and reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy.ConclusionsAflibercept has minor single agent activity in heavily pretreated lung adenocarcinoma, and is well tolerated, with no unexpected toxicities. Further studies evaluating aflibercept in lung cancer, in combination with chemotherapy and other targeted therapies, are ongoing

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival

An Open-Label, Phase 1 Study Evaluating the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Pralatrexate in Relapsed/Refractory Advanced Solid Tumors or Advanced Lymphoma/Myeloma Patients with Mild, Moderate, and Severe Renal Impairment

Abstract Introduction: Pralatrexate is a folate analogue indicated for the treatment of relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) that is preferentially taken up in cancer cells through the reduced folate carrier. While 34% of pralatrexate is excreted unchanged in the urine following a single, 30 mg/m2 dose administered as an IV push, a population PK analysis showed that drug clearance decreased with decreasing creatinine clearance. In addition, methotrexate, also a folate analogue, does need to be dose-reduced for patients with moderate or severe renal impairment. Pralatrexate, however, has not been formally tested in patients with renal impairment, and previous studies excluded patients with severe renal impairment. This study was, therefore, conducted to determine the need for pralatrexate dosing adjustments in patients with renal impairment. Methods: This was an open label, nonrandomized, Phase 1 study to determine the PK profile of pralatrexate in patients with relapsed/refractory advanced solid tumors or advanced lymphoma/myeloma with renal impairment. Primary objective of the study was to establish dosing recommendation of pralatrexate in renally compromised patients and to determine the pharmacokinetic profile in these patients. Four cohorts (n=6 per cohort) were planned to be enrolled in this study for a total of 24 patients. Patients with normal renal function (eGFR ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2, Cohort A), mild (eGFR= 60 to <90 mL/min/1.73 m2, Cohort B) and moderate renal function (eGFR = 30 to < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, Cohort C) were dosed with 30 mg/m2 pralatrexate once weekly for 6-weeks in a 7-week cycle. The pralatrexate dose was empirically reduced to 20 mg/m2 in patients with severe renal impairment (eGFR = 15 to < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, Cohort D). Plasma and urine samples were collected at pre-specified time points to determine the PK profile. Patients who continued treatment with pralatrexate were then followed for safety and tolerability. Results: A total of 29 patients (14 male and 13 female) were enrolled in the study with 6 patients in each cohort. There were slightly more male patients (n=14, 52%) than female patients (n=13, 48%) enrolled; fewer males (33%) were in the mild renal impairment group and more males (83%) were in the moderate renal impairment group. The median age was 62.0 years. The majority of patients were White (n=22, 81%); the remaining patients were Black (n=5, 19%). Because of a qualifying toxicity in Cohort C, the starting dose was reduced to 15 mg/m2 in Cohort D. The major effect of chronic renal impairment was to decrease renal clearance of the pralatrexate diastereomers, PDX-10a and PDX-10b, but systemic exposure to these diastereomers was not dramatically affected by renal impairment. Mean total exposures of PDX-10a and PDX-10b were comparable across cohorts, including Cohort D. The empiric dose reduction to 15 mg/m2 in Cohort D was able to match the average exposures for Cohort A (with normal dose of 30 mg/m2). Although Cohorts B and C had elevated mean exposures and higher inter-patient variability than Cohorts A and D, it appears to be a result of non-renal factors. In summary, total exposures of PDX-10a and PDX-10b after a single IV injection of racemic pralatrexate are not dramatically affected by renal impairment. There was no apparent difference in either the incidence or types of TEAEs between the four treatment cohorts, and, therefore, the safety of pralatrexate was not affected by differences in renal function. The most common treatment related AEs were stomatitis (n=23, 83%), nausea (n=10, 37%), anemia (n=7, 26%) and fatigue (n=6, 22%). Conclusion: The pralatrexate exposure in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment is similar to the patients with normal renal function at a dose of 30 mg/m2. For patients with severe renal impairment, a pralatrexate dose of 15 mg/m2 is recommended. Disclosures Gabrail: Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BI: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Edenfield:Celgene: Research Funding. Reddy:spectrum: Employment, Equity Ownership