A phase I study of the oral gamma secretase inhibitor R04929097 in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors (PHL-078/CTEP 8575)

PURPOSE: To establish the recommended phase II dose of the oral γ-secretase inhibitor RO4929097 (RO) in combination with gemcitabine; secondary objectives include the evaluation of safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, biomarkers of Notch signaling and preliminary anti-tumor activity. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in cohorts of escalating RO dose levels (DLs). Tested RO DLs were 20 mg, 30 mg, 45 mg and 90 mg. RO was administered orally, once daily on days 1-3, 8-10, 15-17, 22-24. Gemcitabine was administered at 1,000 mg/m(2) on d1, 8, and 15 in 28 d cycles. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed by CTCAE v4. Serial plasma was collected for RO (total and unbound) and gemcitabine pharmacokinetic analysis. Biomarkers of Notch signaling were assessed by immunohistochemistry in archival tissue. Antitumor activity was evaluated (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS: A total of 18 patients were enrolled to establish the recommended phase II dose. Of these, 3 patients received 20 mg RO, 7 patients received 30 mg RO, 6 patients received 45 mg RO and 2 patients received 90 mg RO. DLTs were grade 3 transaminitis (30 mg RO), grade 3 transaminitis and maculopapular rash (45 mg RO), and grade 3 transaminitis and failure to receive 75 % of planned RO doses secondary to prolonged neutropenia (90 mg); all were reversible. The maximum tolerated dose was exceeded at 90 mg RO. Pharmacokinetic analysis of both total and free RO confirmed the presence of autoinduction at 45 and 90 mg. Median levels of Notch3 staining were higher in individuals who received fewer than 4 cycles (p = 0.029). Circulating angiogenic factor levels did not correlate with time to progression or ≥ grade 3 adverse events. Best response (RECIST 1.1) was partial response (nasopharyngeal cancer) and stable disease > 4 months was observed in 3 patients (pancreas, tracheal, and breast primary cancers). CONCLUSIONS: RO and gemcitabine can be safely combined. The recommended phase II dose of RO was 30 mg in combination with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2). Although RO exposure was limited by the presence of autoinduction, RO levels achieved exceeded the area under the concentration-time curve for 0-24 h (AUC(0-24)) predicted for efficacy in preclinical models using daily dosing. Evidence of clinical antitumor activity and prolonged stable disease were identified

Selinexor in Advanced, Metastatic Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma: A Multinational, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

PURPOSE Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted. (C) 2022 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog

Phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in patients with advanced solid tumours

Background: Brivanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling. We performed a phase II randomised discontinuation trial of brivanib in 7 tumour types (soft-tissue sarcomas [STS], ovarian cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC], gastric/esophageal cancer and transitional cell carcinoma [TCC]). Patients and methods: During a 12-week open-label lead-in period, patients received brivanib 800 mg daily and were evaluated for FGF2 status by immunohistochemistry. Patients with stable disease at week 12 were randomised to brivanib or placebo. A study steering committee evaluated week 12 response to determine if enrolment in a tumour type would continue. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) for brivanib versus placebo in patients with FGF2-positive tumours. Results: A total of 595 patients were treated, and stable disease was observed at the week 12 randomisation point in all tumour types. Closure decisions were made for breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, NSCLC, gastric cancer and TCC. Criteria for expansion were met for STS and ovarian cancer. In 53 randomised patients with STS and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 2.8 months for brivanib and 1.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.58, p = 0.08). For all randomised patients with sarcomas, the median PFS was 2.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4–4.0) for those treated with brivanib compared with 1.4 months (95% CI: 1.3–1.6) for placebo (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.38–1.07; p = 0.09). In the 36 randomised patients with ovarian cancer and FGF2-positive tumours, the median PFS was 4.0 (95% CI: 2.6–4.2) months for brivanib and 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2–2.7) for placebo (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.26–1.22). For all randomised patients with ovarian cancer, the median PFS in those randomised to brivanib was 4.0 months (95% CI: 2.6–4.2) and was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.2–2.7) in those randomised to placebo (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.25–1.17; p = 0.11). Conclusion: Brivanib demonstrated activity in STS and ovarian cancer with an acceptable safety profile. FGF2 expression, as defined in the protocol, is not a predictive biomarker of the efficacy of brivanib

Efficiency of new dose escalation designs in dose-finding phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents.

BACKGROUND: Statistical simulations have consistently demonstrated that new dose-escalation designs such as accelerated titration design (ATD) and continual reassessment method (CRM)-type designs outperform the standard "3+3" design in phase I cancer clinical trials. METHODS: We evaluated the actual efficiency of different dose escalation methods employed in first-in-human phase I clinical trials of targeted agents administered as single agents published over the last decade. RESULTS: Forty-nine per cent of the 84 retrieved trials used the standard "3+3" design. Newer designs used included ATD in 42%, modified CRM [mCRM] in 7%, and pharmacologically guided dose escalation in 1%. The median numbers of dose levels explored in trials using "3+3", ATD and mCRM designs were 6, 8 and 10, respectively. More strikingly, the mean MTD to starting dose ratio appeared to be at least twice as high for trials using mCRM or ATD designs as for trials using a standard "3+3" design. Despite this, the mean number of patients exposed to a dose below the MTD was similar in trials using "3+3", ATD and mCRM designs. CONCLUSION: Our results support a more extensive implementation of innovative dose escalation designs such as mCRM and ATD in phase I cancer clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents

Trabectedin for inoperable or recurrent soft tissue sarcoma in adult patients: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract Background Trabectedin is an antineoplastic agent used for patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) who fail standard-of-care treatment. Real-world data of its performance is scarce. This study evaluates the safety and effectiveness of trabectedin for patients with advanced STS who were treated at a high-volume sarcoma center. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed on 77 patients treated with trabectedin (24 h infusion q3w) between 01/2005 and 05/2014. Data regarding safety, objective radiological response, progression-free and overall survival were analyzed. Results Median age at treatment onset was 52y [interquartile range (IQR): 45-61y]. Tumors included leiomyosarcoma (41.6 %), liposarcoma (18.2 %), and synovial sarcoma (13 %). Trabectedin was provided as ≥ third-line chemotherapy in 71.4 %. Median number of cycles was 2 (range: 1–17). Dose reduction and treatment delays occurred in 19.5 and 40.3 %, respectively. Toxicities occurred in 78 %, primarily for neutropenia or elevated liver enzymes. Two patients died secondary to trabectedin-induced rhabdomyolysis. Treatment was discontinued because of disease progression (84.7 %), toxicity (10 %), and patient preference (5 %). Partial response or stable disease occurred in 14.1 and 33.8 %, respectively, while 52.1 % developed progressive disease. Median progression-free survival was 1.3 m (IQR: 0.7–3.5 m) and was significantly higher in patients lacking severe toxicities or progressive disease. Median overall survival was 6.7 m (IQR: 2.3–12.7 m) and was significantly higher in patients with leiomyosarcoma or liposarcoma relative to other histologies. Conclusions Trabectedin has an acceptable safety profile as an anti-tumor agent. Our data further suggest there may be some benefit in using trabectedin particularly in patients with leiomyo- or liposarcoma who failed standard-of-care agents

Dose escalation efficiency parameters of first-in-human phase I trials of molecularly targeted agents according to the dose escalation method used.

<p>3+3 = “3+3” dose escalation method; ATD = Accelerated titration design; mCRM = Modified continual reassessment method; PGDE = Pharmacologically guided dose escalation; NS = Not specified; MTD = Maximum tolerated dose; NA = Not applicable.</p