Outcomes of patients with advanced cancer and KRAS mutations in phase I clinical trials.

BackgroundKRAS mutation is common in human cancer. We assessed the clinical factors, including type of KRAS mutation and treatment, of patients with advanced cancer and tumor KRAS mutations and their association with treatment outcomes.MethodsPatients referred to the Phase I Clinic for treatment who underwent testing for KRAS mutations were analyzed.ResultsOf 1,781 patients, 365 (21%) had a KRAS mutation. The G12D mutation was the most common mutation (29%). PIK3CA mutations were found in 24% and 10% of patients with and without KRAS mutations (p<0.0001). Of 223 patients with a KRAS mutation who were evaluable for response, 56 were treated with a MEK inhibitor-containing therapy and 167 with other therapies. The clinical benefit (partial response and stable disease lasting ≥6 months) rates were 23% and 9%, respectively, for the MEK inhibitor versus other therapies (p=0.005). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.3 and 2.2 months, respectively (p=0.09). The respective median overall survival was 8.4 and 7.0 months (p=0.38). Of 66 patients with a KRAS mutation and additional alterations, higher rates of clinical benefit (p=0.04), PFS (p=0.045), and overall survival (p=0.02) were noted in patients treated with MEK inhibitor-containing therapy (n=9) compared to those treated with targeted therapy matched to the additional alterations (n=24) or other therapy (n=33).ConclusionsMEK inhibitors in patients with KRAS-mutated advanced cancer were associated with higher clinical benefit rates compared to other therapies. Therapeutic strategies that include MEK inhibitors or novel agents combined with other targeted therapies or chemotherapy need further investigation

Common cardiovascular medications in cancer therapeutics

Cardiac glycosides, statins, β-blockers, angiotensin-I converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used cardiovascular medications with pleiotropic properties. Many of these medications have been investigated in other diseases, including cancer. Cardiac glycosides and statins have advanced to clinical trial testing in cancer therapeutics, with variable success. Early observations in breast cancer were consistent with a more benign histologic phenotype among women taking digitalis compared to their counterparts who did not receive cardiac glycosides. Cardiac glycosides can induce apoptosis in cancer cells through various mechanisms and sensitize them to the effects of antitumor therapy. By blocking the generation of prenyl units, statins impair prenylation, an important posttranslational modification of proteins whose function depends on membrane anchoring. Statins also impair protein folding and N-glycosylation and inhibit the upregulation of cholesterol synthesis associated with chemotherapy resistance. Stress and catecholamine release promote tumor growth and angiogenesis, effects that can be mitigated by β-blockers. Components of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system are expressed in various cancers and are involved in carcinogenesis and tumor progression. Angiotensin II has potent mitogenic and angiogenic properties that can be blocked with ACEIs and ARBs. Although it is unclear whether the promising preclinical activity of many cardiovascular medications has clinically meaningful implications beyond the benefit in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, the prevention or improvement of prognosis of common malignancies with medications known to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is encouraging and deserves further clinical investigation

Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapies and Cardiovascular Toxicity: What Are the Important Clinical Markers to Target?

This review focuses on the potential cardiovascular toxicities associated with the use of bevacizumab, sunitinib, and sorafenib in order to increase awareness about these complications and to discuss their clinical significance and therapeutic interventions

A Phase I Study of Fludarabine, Cytarabine, and Oxaliplatin Therapy in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia

PurposeThe combination of cytarabine and fludarabine was associated with superior clinical outcomes compared with those of high-dose cytarabine in relapse acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We conducted a phase I study combining oxaliplatin with cytarabine and fludarabine therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory AML.Patients and methodsBetween January 2008 and November 2009, 27 patients were registered in the study. Patients had histologically confirmed disease, performance status 0 to 2, and adequate organ function. The treatment regimen consisted of increasing doses of oxaliplatin (25, 30, or 35 mg/m(2)/d) on days 1 to 4 (escalation phase), and fludarabine (30 mg/m²) and cytarabine (500 mg/m²) on days 2 to 6, every 28 days for ≤ 6 cycles. The dose-limiting toxicity was defined as any symptomatic grade ≥ 3 nonhematologic toxicity lasting ≥ 3 days and involving a major organ system.ResultsOf 27 patients, 12 were treated in the dose-escalation phase and 15 at the maximum tolerated dose for oxaliplatin (30 mg/m²; expansion phase). All patients were evaluable for toxicity and response. Only 1 patient received the second cycle; the remaining patients received no further study treatment, owing to slow recovery from toxicities or physician decision. Grade 3-4 drug-related toxicities included diarrhea (grade 4) and elevated levels of bilirubin (grade 3) and aspartate transaminase (grade 3). In all, 3 patients had a complete remission and 2 patients complete response without platelet recovery.ConclusionOxaliplatin, cytarabine, and fludarabine therapy had antileukemic activity in patients with poor-risk AML, but it was associated with toxicity. Different schedules and doses may be better tolerated

Ipilimumab, Pembrolizumab, or Nivolumab in Combination with BBI608 in Patients with Advanced Cancers Treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center

Background: BBI608 is an investigational reactive oxygen species generator that affects several molecular pathways. We investigated BBI608 combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced cancers. Methods: BBI608 (orally twice daily) was combined with ipilimumab (3 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks); pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks); or nivolumab (3 mg/kg IV every 4 weeks). We assessed the safety, antitumor activity and the pharmacokinetic profile of BBI combined with immunotherapy. Results: From 1/2017 to 3/2017, 12 patients were treated (median age, 54 years; range, 31–78; 6 men). Treatment was overall well tolerated. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed. The most common adverse events were diarrhea (5 patients: grade (G)1–2, n = 3; G3, n = 2) and nausea (4 patients, all G1). Prolonged disease stabilization was noted in five patients treated with BBI608/nivolumab lasting for 12.1, 10.1, 8.0, 7.7 and 7.4 months. The median progression-free survival was 2.73 months. The median overall survival was 7.56 months. Four patients had prolonged overall survival (53.0, 48.7, 51.9 and 48.2 months). Conclusions: Checkpoint inhibitors combined with BBI608 were well tolerated. Several patients had prolonged disease stabilization and overall survival. Prospective studies to elucidate the mechanisms of response and resistance to BBI608 are warranted