Pharmacokinetic (Pk) Activity of Cabazitaxel (Cbz) in Patients (Pts) with Renal Impairment (Ri)

n/

Cisplatin and fluorouracil with or without panitumumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SPECTRUM): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial

Background: Previous trials have shown that anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies can improve clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab combined with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line treatment for these patients. Methods: This open-label phase 3 randomised trial was done at 126 sites in 26 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years; had histologically or cytologically confi rmed SCCHN; had distant metastatic or locoregionally recurrent disease, or both, that was deemed to be incurable by surgery or radiotherapy; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less; and had adequate haematological, renal, hepatic, and cardiac function. Patients were randomly assigned according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence (1:1; stratifi ed by previous treatment, primary tumour site, and performance status) to one of two groups. Patients in both groups received up to six 3-week cycles of intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle) and fl uorouracil (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1-4 of each cycle); those in the experimental group also received intravenous panitumumab (9 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle). Patients in the experimental group could choose to continue maintenance panitumumab every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival and was analysed by intention to treat. In a prospectively defi ned retrospective analysis, we assessed tumour human papillomavirus (HPV) status as a potential predictive biomarker of outcomes with a validated p16-INK4A (henceforth, p16) immunohistochemical assay. Patients and investigators were aware of group assignment; study statisticians were masked until primary analysis; and the central laboratory assessing p16 status was masked to identifi cation of patients and treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT00460265. Findings: Between May 15, 2007, and March 10, 2009, we randomly assigned 657 patients: 327 to the panitumumab group and 330 to the control group. Median overall survival was 11.1 months (95% CI 9.8-12.2) in the panitumumab group and 9.0 months (8.1-11.2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.873, 95% CI 0.729-1.046; p = 0.1403). Median progression-free survival was 5.8 months (95% CI 5.6-6.6) in the panitumumab group and 4.6 months (4.1-5.4) in the control group (HR 0.780, 95% CI 0.659-0.922; p = 0.0036). Several grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent in the panitumumab group than in the control group: skin or eye toxicity (62 [19%] of 325 included in safety analyses vs six [2%] of 325), diarrhoea (15 [5%] vs four [1%]), hypomagnesaemia (40 [12%] vs 12 [4%]), hypokalaemia (33 [10%] vs 23 [7%]), and dehydration (16 [5%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 14 patients (4%) in the panitumumab group and eight (2%) in the control group. Five (2%) of the fatal adverse events in the panitumumab group were attributed to the experimental agent. We had appropriate samples to assess p16 status for 443 (67%) patients, of whom 99 (22%) were p16 positive. Median overall survival in patients with p16-negative tumours was longer in the panitumumab group than in the control group (11.7 months [95% CI 9.7-13.7] vs 8.6 months [6.9-11.1]; HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.58-0.93]; p = 0.0115), but this difference was not shown for p16-positive patients (11.0 months [7.3-12.9] vs 12.6 months [7.7-17.4]; 1.00 [0.62-1.61]; p = 0.998). In the control group, p16-positive patients had numerically, but not statistically, longer overall survival than did p16-negative patients (HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.47-1.04]). Interpretation: Although the addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival in an unselected population of patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN, it improved progression-free survival and had an acceptable toxicity profile. p16 status could be a prognostic and predictive marker in patients treated with panitumumab and chemotherapy. Prospective assessment will be necessary to validate our biomarker findings

Evaluation of EGFR gene copy number as a predictive biomarker for the efficacy of cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: EXTREME study

Background: The phase III EXTREME study demonstrated that combining cetuximab with platinum/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) significantly improved overall survival in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) compared with platinum/5-FU alone. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate elevated tumor EGFR gene copy number as a predictive biomarker in EXTREME study patients

A phase I pharmacokinetic and safety study of cabazitaxel in adult cancer patients with normal and impaired renal function

$\textbf{PURPOSE}$ Limited data are available on cabazitaxel pharmacokinetics in patients with renal impairment. This open-label, multicenter study assessed cabazitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors and normal or impaired renal function. $\textbf{METHODS}$ Cohorts A (normal renal function: creatinine clearance [CrCL] >80 mL/min/1.73 m$^{2}$), B (moderate renal impairment: CrCL 30 to <50 mL/min/1.73 m$^{2}$) and C (severe impairment: CrCL <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) received cabazitaxel 25 mg/m$^{2}$ (A, B) or 20 mg/m(2) (C, could be escalated to 25 mg/m$^{2}$), once every 3 weeks. Pharmacokinetic parameters and cabazitaxel unbound fraction (F$_{U}$) were assessed using linear regression and mixed models. Geometric mean (GM) and GM ratios (GMRs) were determined using mean CrCL intervals (moderate and severe renal impairment: 40 and 15 mL/min/1.73 m$^{2}$) versus a control (90 mL/min/1.73 m$^{2}$). $\textbf{RESULTS}$ Overall, 25 patients received cabazitaxel (median cycles: 3 [range 1-20]; Cohort A: 5 [2-13]; Cohort B: 3 [1-15]; and Cohort C: 5 [1-20]), of which 24 were eligible for pharmacokinetic analysis (eight in each cohort). For moderate and severe renal impairment versus normal renal function, GMR estimates were: clearance normalized to body surface area (CL/BSA) 0.95 (90% CI 0.80-1.13) and 0.89 (0.61-1.32); area under the curve normalized to dose (AUC/dose) 1.06 (0.88-1.27) and 1.14 (0.76-1.71); and F U 0.99 (0.94-1.04) and 0.97 (0.87-1.09), respectively. Estimated slopes of linear regression of log parameters versus log CrCL (renal impairment) were: CL/BSA 0.06 (-0.15 to 0.28); AUC/dose -0.07 (-0.30 to 0.16); and F U 0.02 (-0.05 to 0.08). Cabazitaxel safety profile was consistent with previous reports. $\textbf{CONCLUSIONS}$ Renal impairment had no clinically meaningful effect on cabazitaxel pharmacokinetics.This study was supported by Sanofi. Javier Garcia-Corbacho acknowledges clinical fellowship support from SEOM. Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) funding is also acknowledged for the Cambridge Cancer Centre

A phase 1 study of mTORC1/2 inhibitor BI 860585 as a single agent or with exemestane or paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors

This phase 1 trial (NCT01938846) determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the mTOR serine/threonine kinase inhibitor, BI 860585, as monotherapy and with exemestane or paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors. This 3+3 dose-escalation study assessed BI 860585 monotherapy (5–300 mg/day; Arm A), BI 860585 (40–220 mg/day; Arm B) with 25 mg/day exemestane, and BI 860585 (80–220 mg/day; Arm C) with 60–80 mg/m2 /week paclitaxel, in 28-day cycles. Primary endpoints were the number of patients with dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in cycle 1 and the MTD. Forty-one, 25, and 24 patients were treated (Arms A, B, and C). DLTs were observed in four (rash (n = 2), elevated alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase, diarrhea), four (rash (n = 3), stomatitis, and increased gamma-glutamyl transferase), and two (diarrhea, increased blood creatine phosphokinase) patients in cycle 1. The BI 860585 MTD was 220 mg/day (Arm A) and 160 mg/day (Arms B and C). Nine patients achieved an objective response (Arm B: Four partial responses (PRs); Arm C: Four PRs; one complete response). The disease control rate was 20%, 28%, and 58% (Arms A, B, and C). The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were hyperglycemia (54%) and diarrhea (39%) (Arm A); diarrhea (40%) and stomatitis (40%) (Arm B); fatigue (58%) and diarrhea (58%) (Arm C). The MTD was determined in all arms. Antitumor activity was observed with BI 860585 monotherapy and in combination with exemestane or paclitaxel

A phase 1a/1b trial of CSF-1R inhibitor LY3022855 in combination with durvalumab or tremelimumab in patients with advanced solid tumors

Background LY3022855 is a recombinant, immunoglobulin, human monoclonal antibody targeting the colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor. This phase 1 trial determined the safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of LY3022855 in combination with durvalumab or tremelimumab in patients with advanced solid cancers who had received standard anti-cancer treatments. Methods In Part A (dose-escalation), patients received intravenous (IV) LY3022855 25/50/75/100 mg once weekly (QW) combined with durvalumab 750 mg once every two weeks (Q2W) IV or LY3022855 50 or 100 mg QW IV with tremelimumab 75/225/750 mg once every four weeks. In Part B (dose-expansion), patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or ovarian cancer (OC) received recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of LY3022855 from Part A and durvalumab 750 mg Q2W. Results Seventy-two patients were enrolled (median age 61 years): PartA = 33, Part B = 39. In Part A, maximum tolerated dose was not reached, and LY3022855 100 mg QW and durvalumab 750 mg Q2W was the RP2D. Four dose-limiting equivalent toxicities occurred in two patients from OC cohort. In Part A, maximum concentration, area under the concentration-time curve, and serum concentration showed dose-dependent increase over two cycles of therapy. Overall rates of complete response, partial response, and disease control were 1.4%, 2.8%, and 33.3%. Treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies were observed in 21.2% of patients. Conclusions LY3022855 combined with durvalumab or tremelimumab in patients with advanced NSCLC or OC had limited clinical activity, was well tolerated. The RP2D was LY3022855 100 mg QW with durvalumab 750 mg Q2W

Trastuzumab duocarmazine in locally advanced and metastatic solid tumours and HER2-expressing breast cancer: a phase 1 dose-escalation and dose-expansion study

Background: Trastuzumab duocarmazine is a novel HER2-targeting antibody-drug conjugate comprised of trastuzumab covalently bound to a linker drug containing duocarmycin. Preclinical studies showed promising antitumour activity in various models. In this first-in-human study, we assessed the safety and activity of trastuzumab duocarmazine in patients with advanced solid tumours. Methods: We did a phase 1 dose-escalation and dose-expansion study. The dose-escalation cohort comprised patients aged 18 years or older enrolled from three academic hospitals in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours with variable HER2 status who were refractory to standard cancer treatment. A separate cohort of patients were enrolled to the dose-expansion phase from 15 hospitals in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK. Dose-expansion cohorts included patients aged 18 years or older with breast, gastric, urothelial, or endometrial cancer with at least HER2 immunohistochemistry 1+ expression and measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Trastuzumab duocarmazine was administered intravenously on day 1 of each 3-week cycle. In the dose-escalation phase, trastuzumab duocarmazine was given at doses of 0.3 mg/kg to 2.4 mg/kg (3 + 3 design) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint of the dose-escalation phase was to assess safety and ascertain the recommended phase 2 dose, which would be the dose used in the dose-expansion phase. The primary endpoint of the dose-expansion phase was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (complete response or partial response), as assessed by the investigator using RECIST version 1.1. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02277717, and is fully recruited. Findings: Between Oct 30, 2014, and April 2, 2018, 39 patients were enrolled and treated in the dose-escalation phase and 146 patients were enrolled and treated in the dose-expansion phase. One dose-limiting toxic effect (death from pneumonitis) occurred at the highest administered dose (2.4 mg/kg) in the dose-escalation phase. One further death occurred in the dose-escalation phase (1.5 mg/kg cohort) due to disease progression, which was attributed to general physical health decline. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events reported more than once in the dose-escalation phase were keratitis (n=3) and fatigue (n=2). Based on all available data, the recommended phase 2 dose was set at 1.2 mg/kg. In the dose-expansion phase, treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 16 (11%) of 146 patients, most commonly infusion-related reactions (two [1%]) and dyspnoea (two [1%]). The most common treatment-related adverse events (grades 1-4) were fatigue (48 [33%] of 146 patients), conjunctivitis (45 [31%]), and dry eye (45 [31%]). Most patients (104 [71%] of 146) had at least one ocular adverse event, with grade 3 events reported in ten (7%) of 146 patients. No patients died from treatment-related adverse events and four patients died due to disease progression, which were attributed to hepatic failure (n=1), upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (n=1), neurological decompensation (n=1), and renal failure (n=1). In the breast cancer dose-expansion cohorts, 16 (33%, 95% CI 20.4-48.4) of 48 assessable patients with HER2-positive breast cancer achieved an objective response (all partial responses) according to RECIST. Nine (28%, 95% CI 13.8-46.8) of 32 patients with HER2-low, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and six (40%, 16.3-67.6) of 15 patients with HER2-low, hormone receptor-negative breast cancer achieved an objective response (all partial responses). Partial responses were also observed in one (6%, 95% CI 0.2-30.2) of 16 patients with gastric cancer, four (25%, 7.3-52.4) of 16 patients with urothelial cancer, and five (39%, 13.9-68.4) of 13 patients with endometrial cancer. Interpretation: Trastuzumab duocarmazine shows notable clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with HER2-expressing metastatic cancer, including HER2-positive trastuzumab emtansine-resistant and HER2-low breast cancer, with a manageable safety profile. Further investigation of trastuzumab duocarmazine for HER2-positive breast cancer is ongoing and trials for HER2-low breast cancer and other HER2-expressing cancers are in preparation. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Isatuximab plus atezolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors: results from a phase I/II, open-label, multicenter study

Background: The anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but there are no data on its efficacy in solid tumors. This phase I/II study (NCT03637764) assessed the safety and activity of isatuximab plus atezolizumab (Isa + Atezo), an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in patients with immunotherapy-naive solid tumors: epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), glioblastoma (GBM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Patients and methods: Phase I assessed safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of isatuximab 10 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.) every week for 3 weeks followed by once every 3 weeks + atezolizumab 1200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks. Phase II used a Simon's two-stage design to assess the overall response rate or progression-free survival rate at 6 months (GBM cohort). Interim analysis was carried out at 6 months following first dose of the last enrolled patient in each cohort. Pharmacodynamic biomarkers were tested for CD38, PD-L1, tumor-infiltrating immune cells, and FOXP3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment (TME). Results: Overall, 107 patients were treated (EOC, n = 18; GBM, n = 33; HCC, n = 27; SCCHN, n = 29). In phase I, Isa + Atezo showed an acceptable safety profile, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and RP2D was confirmed. Most patients experienced >= 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with = 3. The most frequent TEAE was infusion reactions. The study did not continue to stage 2 based on prespecified targets. Tumor-infiltrating CD38+ immune cells were reduced and almost cleared after treatment. Isa + Atezo did not significantly modulate Tregs or PD-L1 expression in the TME. Conclusions: Isa + Atezo had acceptable safety and tolerability. Clinical pharmacodynamic evaluation revealed efficient target engagement of isatuximab via treatment-mediated reduction of CD38+ immune cells in the TME. Based on clinical data, CD38 inhibition does not improve responsiveness to PD-L1 blockade in these patients

Oncological care organisation during COVID-19 outbreak

Funding: This work was supported by Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (grant to CEO) and Fondation Léon Fredericq (grant to GJ and CEO).Background: COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA. Methods: A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit. Results: Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres. Conclusion: Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies