Phase I study of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in combination with the histone deacetylase inhibitor panobinostat in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Background: Preclinical studies suggested synergistic anti-tumor activity when pairing mTOR inhibitors with histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors. We completed a phase I, dose-finding trial for the mTOR inhibitor everolimus combined with the HDAC inhibitor panobinostat in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) patients. We additionally investigated expression of microRNA 605 (miR-605) in serum samples obtained from trial participants. Patients and Methods: Twenty-one patients completed our single institution, non-randomized, open-label, dose-escalation phase 1 trial. miR-605 levels were measured at cycle 1/day 1 (C1D1) and C2D1. Delta Ct method was utilized to evaluate miR-605 expression using U6B as an endogenous control. Results: There were 3 dosing-limiting toxicities (DLTs): grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n = 1), grade 3 thrombocytopenia (n = 1), and grade 3 neutropenia (n = 1). Everolimus 5 mg PO daily and panobinostat 10 mg PO 3 times weekly (weeks 1 and 2) given in 21-day cycles was the recommended phase II dosing based on their maximum tolerated dose. The 6-month progression-free survival was 31% with a median of 4.1 months (95% confidence internal; 2.0-7.1). There was higher baseline expression of miR-605 in patients with progressive disease (PD) vs those with stable disease (SD) (p = 0.0112). PD patients' miR-605 levels decreased after the 1st cycle (p = 0.0245), whereas SD patients' miR-605 levels increased (p = 0.0179). Conclusion: A safe and tolerable dosing regimen was established for combination everolimus/panobinostat therapy with myelosuppression as the major DLT. This therapeutic pairing did not appear to improve clinical outcomes in our group of patients with advanced ccRCC. There was differential expression of miR-605 that correlated with treatment response

Selenomethionine and methyl selenocysteine: multiple-dose pharmacokinetics in selenium-replete men

According to the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer (NPC) trial, a selenized yeast supplement containing selenium, 200 mcg/day, decreased the incidence of total cancer, cancers of the prostate, colon and lung, and cancer mortality. The active agent in the selenized yeast supplement was assumed to be selenomethionine (SEMET), although the supplement had not been well speciated. The SELECT study, largely motivated by the NPC trial, enrolling nearly 40 times as many subjects, showed unequivocally that selenium 200 mcg/day, with selenium in the form of SEMET, does not protect selenium-replete men against prostate or other major cancer. The agent tested by SELECT, pure SEMET, could have been different from the selenized yeast tested in NPC. One of the selenium forms suspected of having chemopreventive effects, and which may have been present in the NPC agent, is methyl selenocysteine (MSC). This study, with 29 selenium-replete patients enrolled in a randomized, double-blind trial, compared the multiple-dose toxicity, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of MSC and SEMET. Patients were on trial for 84 days. No toxicity was observed. Although SEMET supplementation increased blood selenium concentration more than MSC did, neither form had a more than minimal impact on the two major selenoproteins: selenoprotein P(SEPP1) and glutathione peroxidase(GPX)

Clinical Correlates of Benefit From Radium‐223 Therapy in Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136309/1/pros23286.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136309/2/pros23286_am.pd

Phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of tivantinib in men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)

Background Tivantinib is a non-ATP competitive inhibitor of c-MET receptor tyrosine kinase that may have additional cytotoxic mechanisms including tubulin inhibition. Prostate cancer demonstrates higher c-MET expression as the disease progresses to more advanced stages and to a castration resistant state. Methods 80 patients (pts) with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC were assigned (2:1) to either tivantinib 360 mg PO BID or placebo (P). The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Results Of the 80 pts. enrolled, 78 (52 tivantinib, 26 P) received treatment and were evaluable. Median follow up is 8.9 months (range: 2.3 to 19.6 months). Patients treated with tivantinib had significantly better PFS vs. those treated with placebo (medians: 5.5 mo vs 3.7 mo, respectively; HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.90; p = 0.02). Grade 3 febrile neutropenia was seen in 1 patient on tivantinib while grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was recorded in 1 patient each on tivantinib and placebo. Grade 3 sinus bradycardia was recorded in two men on the tivantinib arm. Conclusions Tivantinib has mild toxicity and improved PFS in men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC

Cabozantinib Versus Mitoxantrone-prednisone in Symptomatic Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial with a Primary Pain Endpoint

Background: Bone metastases in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are associated with debilitating pain and functional compromise. Objective: To compare pain palliation as the primary endpoint for cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone in men with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases using patient-reported outcome measures. Design, setting, and participants: A randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial (COMET-2; NCT01522443) in men with mCRPC and narcotic-dependent pain from bone metastases who had progressed after treatment with docetaxel and either abiraterone or enzalutamide. Intervention: Cabozantinib 60 mg once daily orally versus mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 every 3 wk plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily orally. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was pain response at week 6 confirmed at week 12 (≥30% decrease from baseline in patient-reported average daily worst pain score via the Brief Pain Inventory without increased narcotic use). The planned sample size was 246 to achieve ≥90% power. Results and limitations: Enrollment was terminated early because cabozantinib did not demonstrate any survival benefit in the companion COMET-1 trial. At study closure, 119 participants were randomized (cabozantinib: N =61; mitoxantrone-prednisone: N = 58). Complete pain and narcotic use data were available at baseline, week 6, and week 12 for 73/106 (69%) patients. There was no significant difference in the pain response with cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone: the proportions of responders were 15%versus 17%,a −2%difference(95%confidenceinterval:−16%to11%, p = 0.8). Barriers to accrual included pretreatment requirements for a washout period of prior anticancer therapy and a narcotic optimization period to maximize analgesic dosing. Conclusions: Cabozantinib treatment did not demonstrate better pain palliation than mitoxantrone-prednisone in heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases. Future pain-palliation trials should incorporate briefer timelines from enrollment to treatment initiation. Patient summary: Cabozantinib was not better than mitoxantrone-prednisone for pain relief in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and debilitating pain from bone metastases

Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

This randomised phase III trial compared standard of care Everolimus with the anti-PD1 monoclonal antibody Nivolumab in previously treated patients with locally advanced inoperable or metastatic clear cell renal cancer. 810 patients were randomised to receive either Everolimus 10 mg orally daily or 3 mg/kg of Nivolumab intravenously every two weeks. Patients were treated until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Patients could be treated beyond progression if the investigator believed that the patient was gaining clinical benefit. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The median survival was 25 months for Nivolumab and 19.8 months for Everolimus (p=0.002). The objective response rate was higher for Nivolumab (25 versus 5%; p=<0.001).The median progression free survivals were 4.6 & 4.4 months (p=0.11). Grade 3 & 4 treatment related toxicities were observed in 19 & 37% of patients on Nivolumab or Everolimus respectively. In patients with previously treated renal cell carcinoma Nivolumab produced superior survival and more tolerable treatment than Everolimus

Towards long-term standardised carbon and greenhouse gas observations for monitoring Europe's terrestrial ecosystems : a review

Research infrastructures play a key role in launching a new generation of integrated long-term, geographically distributed observation programmes designed to monitor climate change, better understand its impacts on global ecosystems, and evaluate possible mitigation and adaptation strategies. The pan-European Integrated Carbon Observation System combines carbon and greenhouse gas (GHG; CO2, CH4, N2O, H2O) observations within the atmosphere, terrestrial ecosystems and oceans. High-precision measurements are obtained using standardised methodologies, are centrally processed and openly available in a traceable and verifiable fashion in combination with detailed metadata. The Integrated Carbon Observation System ecosystem station network aims to sample climate and land-cover variability across Europe. In addition to GHG flux measurements, a large set of complementary data (including management practices, vegetation and soil characteristics) is collected to support the interpretation, spatial upscaling and modelling of observed ecosystem carbon and GHG dynamics. The applied sampling design was developed and formulated in protocols by the scientific community, representing a trade-off between an ideal dataset and practical feasibility. The use of open-access, high-quality and multi-level data products by different user communities is crucial for the Integrated Carbon Observation System in order to achieve its scientific potential and societal value.Peer reviewe