Safety, Efficacy, and Biomarker Analyses of Dostarlimab in Patients with Endometrial Cancer: Interim Results of the Phase I GARNET Study

Eficàcia; Biomarcador; Càncer d'endometriEficacia; Biomarcador; Cáncer de endometrioEfficacy; Biomarker; Endometrial cancerPurpose: This interim report of the GARNET phase I trial presents efficacy and safety of dostarlimab in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC), with an analysis of tumor biomarkers as prognostic indicators. Patients and Methods: A total of 153 patients with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) and 161 patients with mismatch repair proficient (MMRp)/microsatellite stable (MSS) EC were enrolled and dosed. Patients received 500 mg dostarlimab every 3 weeks for four cycles, then 1,000 mg every 6 weeks until progression. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). Results: A total of 143 patients with dMMR/MSI-H EC and 156 patients with MMRp/MSS EC were evaluated for efficacy. ORR was 45.5% (n = 65) and 15.4% (n = 24) for dMMR/MSI-H EC and MMRp/MSS EC, respectively. Median DOR for dMMR/MSI-H EC was not met (median follow-up, 27.6 months); median DOR for MMRp/MSS EC was 19.4 months. The ORRs by combined positive score (CPS) ≥1 status were 54.9% and 21.7% for dMMR/MSI-H EC and MMRp/MSS EC, respectively. ORRs by high tumor mutational burden (≥10 mutations/Mb) were 47.8% (43/90) and 45.5% (5/11) for dMMR/MSI-H EC and MMRp/MSS EC, respectively. ORR in TP53mut or POLεmut molecular subgroups was 18.1% (17/94) and 40.0% (2/5), respectively. The safety profile of dostarlimab was consistent with previous reports. Conclusions: Dostarlimab demonstrated durable antitumor activity and safety in patients with dMMR/MSI-H EC. Biomarkers associated with EC may identify patients likely to respond to dostarlimab.The GARNET trial (NCT02715284) was originally designed and funded by Tesaro Inc. (acquired by GSK in 2018) in collaboration with the author

Multiplex glycan bead array for high throughput and high content analyses of glycan binding proteins

Glycan-binding proteins (GBPs) play critical roles in diverse cellular functions such as cell adhesion, signal transduction and immune response. Studies of the interaction between GBPs and glycans have been hampered by the availability of high throughput and high-content technologies. Here we report multiplex glycan bead array (MGBA) that allows simultaneous analyses of 384 samples and up to 500 glycans in a single assay. The specificity, sensitivity and reproducibility of MGBA are evaluated using 39 plant lectins, 13 recombinant anti-glycan antibodies, and mammalian GBPs. We demonstrate the utility of this platform by the analyses of natural anti-glycan IgM and IgG antibodies in 961 human serum samples and the discovery of anti-glycan antibody biomarkers for ovarian cancer. Our data indicate that the MGBA platform is particularly suited for large population-based studies that require the analyses of large numbers of samples and glycans

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study to assess the efficacy/safety of farletuzumab in combination with carboplatin plus paclitaxel or carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in women with low CA-125 platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer

Objectives: The primary objective of this study (MORAb-003-011/ENGOT-ov27) was to determine if farletuzumab (FAR) had superior efficacy compared with placebo (PLB) in improving progression-free survival (PFS) when added to carboplatin (carbo)/paclitaxel (pacli) or carbo/PLD, in subjects with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer in first relapse (platinum-free interval: 6-36 months) with low cancer antigen 125 (CA-125). CA-125 inhibits target cell killing via antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, thereby reducing the efficacy of immunotherapeutic antibodies. Subgroup analysis in a prior randomized Phase III study±FAR suggested that subjects with CA-125 levels ≤3 x upper limit of normal (ULN), showed superior PFS (hazard risk [HR] = 0.49) and overall survival (OS, HR = 0.44) compared with PLB. Methods: Eligibility included age ≥18 years old, CA-125 ≤3 x ULN (105 U/mL), high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer, and previous treatment with debulking surgery and first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Subjects received 6 cycles with either carbo/pacli every 3 weeks or carbo/PLD in combination with either FAR [5 mg/kg weekly] or PLB in a 2:1 ratio. Maintenance treatment with FAR (5 mg/kg weekly) or PLB was given until disease progression. Tumor assessments were every 6 weeks during the Combination Treatment Phase and every 9 weeks during the Maintenance Treatment Phase. The study was designed to detect a PFS HR of 0.667 (33.3% risk reduction) with FAR compared with PLB with approximately 85% power and a 1-sided type I error rate of 0.10. The comparison of PFS between treatment groups was based on the log-rank test. The HR was estimated based on Cox\u27s proportional-hazards model. Results: A total of 214 subjects were randomized and enrolled, 142 with FAR+chemotherapy (FAR-CT) and 72 with placebo+chemotherapy (PLB-CT). The median PFS in the Intent-to-Treat [ITT] Population was not significantly different between treatment groups; 11.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.2, 13.6) versus 10.8 months (95% CI: 9.5, 13.2) for FAR-CT and PLB-CT, respectively (HR = 0.89; 80% CI: 0.71, 1.11). An interim analysis of OS showed no significant difference between treatment groups. The overall response rate (ORR) was 69.6% in 96 subjects treated with FAR-CT versus 73.5% in 50 subjects treated with PLB-CT (p=0.53). No significant differences between treatment groups were observed for any other efficacy parameters. The safety profile of the 2 treatment groups was similar except for an increase in interstitial lung disease among the FAR cohort. Interstitial lung disease occurred in 7 of 141 (5.0%) subjects treated with FAR-CT (1 with Grade 1, 4 with Grade 2, and 2 with Grade 3) and none in subjects treated with PLB-CT. Conclusions: The combination of FAR-CT did not show signals of superior efficacy compared with PLB-CT in improving PFS or other efficacy parameters in subjects with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer in first relapse who had low CA-125 levels. No new safety concerns were identified with the combination of FAR-CT. Since FAR binds to the folate receptor alpha, a novel antibody-drug conjugate has been developed and clinical studies are ongoing to assess the safety/efficacy of this modification. Clinical Trial Registry: NCT02289950

A Randomized Phase II Trial of Epigenetic Priming with Guadecitabine and Carboplatin in Platinum-resistant, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Platinum resistance in ovarian cancer is associated with epigenetic modifications. Hypomethylating agents (HMA) have been studied as carboplatin resensitizing agents in ovarian cancer. This randomized phase II trial compared guadecitabine, a second-generation HMA, and carboplatin (G+C) against second-line chemotherapy in women with measurable or detectable platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received either G+C (guadecitabine 30 mg/m2 s.c. once-daily for 5 days and carboplatin) or treatment of choice (TC; topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine) in 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were RECIST v1.1 and CA-125 response rate, 6-month PFS, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 100 patients treated, 51 received G+C and 49 received TC, of which 27 crossed over to G+C. The study did not meet its primary endpoint as the median PFS was not statistically different between arms (16.3 weeks vs. 9.1 weeks in the G+C and TC groups, respectively; P = 0.07). However, the 6-month PFS rate was significantly higher in the G+C group (37% vs. 11% in TC group; P = 0.003). The incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicity was similar in G+C and TC groups (51% and 49%, respectively), with neutropenia and leukopenia being more frequent in the G+C group. CONCLUSIONS: Although this trial did not show superiority for PFS of G+C versus TC, the 6-month PFS increased in G+C treated patients. Further refinement of this strategy should focus on identification of predictive markers for patient selection

Tisotumab Vedotin in Combination with Carboplatin, Pembrolizumab, or Bevacizumab in Recurrent or Metastatic Cervical Cancer:Results from the innovaTV 205/GOG-3024/ENGOT-cx8 Study

PURPOSE Tissue factor is highly expressed in cervical carcinoma and can be targeted by tisotumab vedotin (TV), an antibody-drug conjugate. This phase Ib/II study evaluated TV in combination with bevacizumab, pembrolizumab, or carboplatin for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC). METHODS This open-label, multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03786081) included dose-escalation arms that assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and identified the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of TV in combination with bevacizumab (arm A), pembrolizumab (arm B), or carboplatin (arm C). The dose-expansion arms evaluated TV antitumor activity and safety at RP2D in combination with carboplatin as first-line (1L) treatment (arm D) or with pembrolizumab as 1L (arm E) or second-/third-line (2L/3L) treatment (arm F). The primary end point of dose expansion was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS A total of 142 patients were enrolled. In dose escalation (n = 41), no DLTs were observed; the RP2D was TV 2 mg/kg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1 once every 3 weeks, pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 once every 3 weeks, or carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1 once every 3 weeks. In dose expansion (n = 101), the ORR was 54.5% (n/N, 18/33; 95% CI, 36.4 to 71.9) with 1L TV + carboplatin (arm D), 40.6% (n/N, 13/32; 95% CI, 23.7 to 59.4) with 1L TV + pembrolizumab (arm E), and 35.3% (12/34; 19.7 to 53.5) with 2L/3L TV + pembrolizumab (arm F). The median duration of response was 8.6 months, not reached, and 14.1 months, in arms D, E, and F, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events (≥15%) were anemia, diarrhea, nausea, and thrombocytopenia in arm D and anemia in arm F (none ≥15%, arm E).CONCLUSION TV in combination with bevacizumab, carboplatin, or pembrolizumab demonstrated manageable safety and encouraging antitumor activity in treatment-naive and previously treated r/mCC.</p

EMR 20006-012: A phase II randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial comparing the combination of pimasertib (MEK inhibitor) with SAR245409 (PI3K inhibitor) to pimasertib alone in patients with previously treated unresectable borderline or low grade ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE: To compare the combination of a MEK inhibitor (pimasertib) and a PI3K inhibitor (SAR245409) to pimasertib alone in recurrent unresectable borderline/low malignant potential (LMP) or low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC), determining whether combination is superior. METHODS: Patients with previously treated, recurrent LMP or LGSOC with measurable disease received either combination of pimasertib (60 mg daily) + SAR245409 (SAR) (70 mg daily) or pimasertib alone (60 mg BID) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1, determining whether combination was superior to pimasertib alone. Secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS), disease control, and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were randomized between September 2012 and December 2014. ORR was 9.4% (80% CI, 3.5 to 19.7) in the combination arm and 12.1% (80% CI, 5.4 to 22.8) in the pimasertib alone arm. Median PFS was 7.23 months (80% CI, 5.06 to -) and 9.99 (80% CI, 7.39 to 10.35) for pimasertib alone and pimasertib + SAR, respectively. Six-month PFS was 63.5% (80% CI, 47.2% to 75.9%) and 70.8% (80% CI, 56.9% to 80.9%). Eighteen (56.3%) patients in the combination arm and 19 (57.6%) patients in the pimasertib alone arm discontinued the trial. The study was terminated early because of low ORR and high rate of discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Response to pimasertib alone (ORR 12%) suggests that MEK inhibition could be used as an alternative treatment method to cytotoxic chemotherapy in this population. The MEK inhibitor alone was as effective as the combination, although the trial was limited by small numbers. Additional studies investigating the role of single agent or combination MEK and PI3K inhibition are warranted to further evaluate the utility of these treatments and describe a standard of care for LGSOC.status: publishe