Effect of lurbinectedin on the QTc interval in patients with advanced solid tumors: an exposure–response analysis

Cardiac repolarization; Lurbinectedin; Plasma concentrationRepolarización cardíaca; Lurbinectedina; Concentración plasmáticaRepolarització cardíaca; Lurbinectedina; Concentració plasmàticaPurpose This study assessed the effect of lurbinectedin, a highly selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription, on the change from baseline in Fridericia’s corrected QT interval (∆QTcF) and electrocardiography (ECG) morphological patterns, and lurbinectedin concentration–∆QTcF (C-∆QTcF) relationship, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods Patients with QTcF ≤ 500 ms, QRS < 110 ms, PR < 200 ms, and normal cardiac conduction and function received lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks. ECGs were collected in triplicate via 12-lead digital recorder in treatment cycle 1 and 2 and analyzed centrally. ECG collection time-matched blood samples were drawn to measure lurbinectedin plasma concentration. No effect on QTc interval was concluded if the upper bound (UB) of the least square (LS) mean two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CI) for ΔQTcF at each time point was < 20 ms. C-∆QTcF was explored using linear mixed-effects analysis. Results A total of 1707 ECGs were collected from 39 patients (females, 22; median age, 56 years). The largest UB of the 90% CI of ΔQTcF was 9.6 ms, thus lower than the more conservative 10 ms threshold established at the ICH E14 guideline for QT studies in healthy volunteers. C-∆QTcF was better fit by an effect compartment model, and the 90% CI of predicted ΔQTcF at Cmax was 7.81 ms, also below the 10 ms threshold of clinical concern. Conclusions ECG parameters and C-ΔQTcF modelling in this prospective study indicate that lurbinectedin was not associated with a clinically relevant effect on cardiac repolarization.This study was funded by Pharma Mar S.A. and partially funded by the Industrial and Technological Development Center–CDTI (IDI-20150006)

Lurbinectedin in patients with pretreated neuroendocrine tumours: Results from a phase II basket study

Lurbinectedin; Neuroendocrine tumours; Small cellLurbinectedina; Tumores neuroendocrinos; Célula pequeñaLurbinectedina; Tumors neuroendocrins; Cèl·lula petitaBackground Patients with neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) need alternative therapies after failure of first-line therapy. Patients and methods This phase II trial evaluated lurbinectedin, a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription, at 3.2 mg/m2 as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks in 32 NETs patients treated in the second- or third-line setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1 assessed by the investigators. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results Two of 31 evaluable patients had confirmed partial responses (ORR = 6.5%; 95%CI, 0.8–21.4%). Median DoR was 4.7 months (95% CI, 4.0–5.4 months), median PFS was 1.4 months (95% CI, 1.2–3.0 months) and median OS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.4–16.2 months). Lurbinectedin showed an acceptable, predictable and manageable safety profile. The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (40.6%; grade 4, 12.4%; febrile neutropenia, 3.1%). Conclusions Considering the exploratory aim of this trial that evaluated a heterogeneous population of NETs patients, and the signs of antitumour activity observed (two confirmed partial responses and seven long disease stabilisations), further development of lurbinectedin is warranted in a more selected NETs population

Immune and Cell Cycle Checkpoint Inhibitors for Cancer Immunotherapy

The rational design of immunotherapeutic agents has advanced with a fundamental understanding that both innate and adaptive immunity play important roles in cancer surveillance and tumor destruction; given that oncogenesis occurs and cancer progresses through the growth of tumor cells with low immunogenicity in an increasingly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors in the form of monoclonal antibodies that block cancer’s ability to deactivate and evade the immune system have been widely indicated for a variety of tumor types. Through targeting the biological mechanisms and pathways that cancer cells use to interact with and suppress the immune system, immunotherapeutic agents have achieved success in inhibiting tumor growth while eliciting lesser toxicities, compared to treatments with standard chemotherapy. Development of “precise” bio-active tumor-targeted gene vectors, biotechnologies, and reagents has also advanced. This chapter presents ongoing clinical research involving immune checkpoint inhibitors, while addressing the clinical potential for tumor-targeted gene blockade in combination with tumor-targeted cytokine delivery, in patients with advanced metastatic disease, providing strategic clinical approaches to precision cancer immunotherapy

Randomised phase III trial of trabectedin versus doxorubicin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in translocation-related sarcomas

Abstract Aim This randomised phase III trial evaluated first-line trabectedin versus doxorubicin-based chemotherapy (DXCT) in patients with advanced/metastatic translocation-related sarcomas (TRS). Methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive trabectedin 1.5mg/m 2 24-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion every 3weeks (q3wk) ( Arm A ), or doxorubicin 75mg/m 2 i.v. q3wk, or doxorubicin 60mg/m 2 i.v. plus ifosfamide (range, 6–9g/m 2 ) i.v. q3wk ( Arm B ). Progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review was the primary efficacy end-point. Results One hundred and twenty-one patients were randomised; 88 of them had TRS confirmed by central pathology review (efficacy population). Twenty-nine PFS events were assessed by independent review (16 with trabectedin; 13 with DXCT). PFS showed non-significant difference between arms (stratified log rank test, p =0.9573; hazard ratio=0.86, p =0.6992). At the time of this analysis, 63.9% and 58.3% of patients were alive in trabectedin and DXCT arms, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in survival curves. Response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v.1.0 was significantly higher in DXCT arm (27.0% versus 5.9%), but response according to Choi criteria showed fewer differences between treatment arms (45.9% versus 37.3%). Safety profile was as expected for both arms, with higher incidence of severe neutropenia, alopecia and mucositis in the DXCT arm. Conclusion Neither trabectedin nor doxorubicin-based chemotherapy showed significant superiority in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced translocation-related sarcoma

Clinical outcomes of patients with advanced synovial sarcoma or myxoid/round cell liposarcoma treated at major cancer centers in the United States

BACKGROUND: Outcomes data regarding advanced synovial sarcoma (SS) and myxoid/round cell liposarcoma (MRCL) are limited, consisting primarily of retrospective series and post hoc analyses of clinical trials. METHODS: In this multi-center retrospective study, data were abstracted from the medical records of 350 patients from nine sarcoma centers throughout the United States and combined into a registry. Patients with advanced/unresectable or metastatic SS (n = 249) or MRCL (n = 101) who received first-line systemic anticancer therapy and had records of tumor imaging were included. Overall survival (OS), time to next treatment, time to distant metastasis, and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. RESULTS: At start of first-line systemic anticancer therapy, 92.4% of patients with SS and 91.1% of patients with MRCL had metastatic lesions. However, 74.7% of patients with SS and 72.3% of patients with MRCL had ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. Median OS and median PFS from first-line therapy for SS was 24.7 months (95% CI, 20.9-29.4) and 7.5 months, respectively (95% CI, 6.4-8.4). Median OS and median PFS from start of first-line therapy for MRCL was 29.9 months (95% CI, 27-44.6) and 8.9 months (95% CI 4.5-12.0). CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest retrospective study of patients with SS and MRCL. It provides an analysis of real-world clinical outcomes among patients treated at major sarcoma cancer centers and could inform treatment decisions and design of clinical trials. In general, the survival outcomes for this selected population appear more favorable than in published literature

Current status and unanswered questions on the use of Denosumab in giant cell tumor of bone

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody to RANK ligand approved for use in giant cell tumour (GCT) of bone. Due to its efficacy, Denosumab is recommended as the first option in inoperable or metastatic GCT. Denosumab has also been used pre-operatively to downstage tumours with large soft tissue extension to allow for less morbid surgery. The role of Denosumab for conventional limb GCT of bone is yet to be defined. Further studies are required to determine whether local recurrence rates will be decreased with the adjuvant use of Denosumab along with surgery. The long term use and toxicity of this agent is unknown as is the proportion of patients with primary or secondary resistance. It is advised that complicated cases of GCT requiring Denosumab treatment should be referred and followed up at expert centres. Collaborative studies involving further clinical trials and rigorous data collection are strongly recommended to identify the optimum use of this drug

Advanced Phase I/II Studies of Targeted Gene Delivery In Vivo: Intravenous Rexin-G for Gemcitabine-resistant Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

Rexin-G, a nonreplicative pathology-targeted retroviral vector bearing a cytocidal cyclin G1 construct, was tested in a phase I/II study for gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic cancer. The patients received escalating doses of Rexin-G intravenously from 1 × 1011 colony-forming units (cfu) 2–3× a week (dose 0–1) to 2 × 1011 cfu 3× a week (dose 2) for 4 weeks. Treatment was continued if there was less than or equal to grade 1 toxicity. No dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed, and no vector DNA integration, replication-competent retrovirus (RCR), or vector-neutralizing antibodies were noted. In nine evaluable patients, 3/3 patients had stable disease (SD) at dose 0–1. At dose 2, 1/6 patients had a partial response (PR) and 5/6 patients had SD. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3 months at dose 0–1, and >7.65 months at dose 2. Median overall survival (OS) was 4.3 months at dose 0–1, and 9.2 months at dose 2. One-year survival was 0% at dose 0–1 compared to 28.6% at dose 2, suggesting a dose–response relationship between OS and Rexin-G dosage. Taken together, these data indicate that (i) Rexin-G is safe and well tolerated, and (ii) Rexin-G may help control tumor growth, and may possibly prolong survival in gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic cancer, thus, earning US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) fast-track designation as second-line treatment for pancreatic cancer

Health-related quality of life and pain with selinexor in patients with advanced dedifferentiated liposarcoma

[Objective] Compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of selinexor versus placebo in patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma.[Materials & methods] HRQoL was assessed at baseline and day 1 of each cycle using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire. Results were reported from baseline to day 169 (where exposure to treatment was maximized while maintaining adequate sample size).[Results] Pain scores worsened for placebo versus selinexor across all postbaseline visits, although differences in HRQoL at some visits were not significant. Other domains did not exhibit significant differences between arms; however, scores in both arms deteriorated over time.[Conclusion] Patients treated with selinexor reported lower rates and slower worsening of pain compared with patients who received placebo.This study was funded by Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. M Gounder: reports an institutional research grant from Karyopharm, personal fees from Karyopharm, Epizyme, Springworks, Daiichi, Bayer, Amgen, Tracon, Flatiron, Medscape, Physicians Education Resource, Guidepoint, GLG and UpToDate; and grants from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (P30CA008748) – core grant (CCSG shared resources and core facility). ARA Razak: consulting/Ad board: Merck & Adaptimmune Research support: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Deciphera, Blueprint Medicines, Pfizer, Adaptimmune, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medimmune, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Iterion Therapeutics. AM Gilligan: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. H Leong: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. X Ma: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. N Somaiah: consultant for Deciphera, Blueprint, Bayer Research Support from Ascentage, Astra-Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Karyopharm and GSK. SP Chawla: consultant for Amgen, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, CytRx Corporation, Ignyta, Immune Design, TRACON Pharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SARC: Sarcoma Alliance for Research though Collaboration, Janssen, Advenchen Laboratories, Bayer, NKMax, InhibRx. Grants or contracts from Amgen, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, CytRx Corporation, Ignyta, Immune Design, TRACON Pharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SARC: Sarcoma Alliance for Research though Collaboration, Janssen, Advenchen Laboratories, Bayer, InhibRx, NKMax. G Grignani: consultant for Eli Lilly, Novartis, Glaxo, Pharmamar, EISAI, Bayer, Merck. SM Schuetze: consultant – NanoCarrier, UpToDate. Research funding to institution – Adaptimmune, Amgen, Blueprint, Glaxo-SmithKline, Karyopharm. B Vincenzi: Consultant for Pharmamar Eisai, Lilly, Abbott, Novartis, Accord AJ Wagner: consultant for Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, NovoCarrier, Mundipharma, and Research Support to My Institution from Aadi Bioscience, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Karyopharm and Plexxikon. RL Jones: consultant for Adaptimmune, Athenex, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizyme, Daichii, Deciphera, Immunedesign, Lilly, Merck, Pharmamar, Springworks, Tracon, Upto Date. J Shah: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. S Shacham: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. M Kauffman: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. RF Riedel: ownership - Limbguard, LLC (Spouse); Institutional Clinical Research Support - AADi, AROG, Blueprint, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Glaxo-SmithKline, Karyopharm, Ignyta, Immune Design, NanoCarrier, Oncternal, Philogen, Plexxikon, Roche, Springworks, Tracon; Consultant/Advisor - Bayer, Blueprint, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Ignyta, NanoCarrier. S Attia: reports research funding from Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation and research funding to their institution from: AB Science, TRACON Pharma, Bayer, Novartis, Lilly, Immune Design, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Epizyme, Blueprint Medicines, Genmab, CBA Pharma, Merck, Philogen, Gradalis, Deciphera, Takeda, Incyte, Springworks, Adaptimmune, Advenchen Laboratories, Bavarian Nordic, BTG, PTC Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, FORMA Therapeutics. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.Peer reviewe

A phase I trial of SON-1010, a tumor-targeted, interleukin-12-linked, albumin-binding cytokine, shows favorable pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety in healthy volunteers

BackgroundThe benefits of recombinant interleukin-12 (rIL-12) as a multifunctional cytokine and potential immunotherapy for cancer have been sought for decades based on its efficacy in multiple mouse models. Unexpected toxicity in the first phase 2 study required careful attention to revised dosing strategies. Despite some signs of efficacy since then, most rIL-12 clinical trials have encountered hurdles such as short terminal elimination half-life (T½), limited tumor microenvironment targeting, and substantial systemic toxicity. We developed a strategy to extend the rIL-12 T½ that depends on binding albumin in vivo to target tumor tissue, using single-chain rIL-12 linked to a fully human albumin binding (FHAB) domain (SON-1010). After initiating a dose-escalation trial in patients with cancer (SB101), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-ascending dose (SAD) phase 1 trial in healthy volunteers (SB102) was conducted.MethodsSB102 (NCT05408572) focused on safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic (PK), and pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoints. SON-1010 at 50-300 ng/kg or placebo administered subcutaneously on day 1 was studied at a ratio of 6:2, starting with two sentinels; participants were followed through day 29. Safety was reviewed after day 22, before enrolling the next cohort. A non-compartmental analysis of PK was performed and correlations with the PD results were explored, along with a comparison of the SON-1010 PK profile in SB101.ResultsParticipants receiving SON-1010 at 100 ng/kg or higher tolerated the injection but generally experienced more treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs) than those receiving the lowest dose. All TEAEs were transient and no other dose relationship was noted. As expected with rIL-12, initial decreases in neutrophils and lymphocytes returned to baseline by days 9-11. PK analysis showed two-compartment elimination in SB102 with mean T½ of 104 h, compared with one-compartment elimination in SB101, which correlated with prolonged but controlled and dose-related increases in interferon-gamma (IFNγ). There was no evidence of cytokine release syndrome based on minimal participant symptoms and responses observed with other cytokines.ConclusionSON-1010, a novel presentation for rIL-12, was safe and well-tolerated in healthy volunteers up to 300 ng/kg. Its extended half-life leads to a prolonged but controlled IFNγ response, which may be important for tumor control in patients.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05408572, identifier NCT05408572