A Phase II Trial of Prexasertib (LY2606368) in Patients With Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) need improved outcomes in the relapsed/refractory setting. This phase II study evaluated the safety and efficacy of prexasertib, a checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor, in platinum-sensitive and platinum-refractory ED-SCLC. Prexasertib demonstrated response rates of 5.2% in platinum-sensitive and 0% in platinum-refractory ED-SCLC. Prexasertib did not show prespecified efficacy as monotherapy in ED-SCLC. Background: This study assessed the checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor prexasertib in patients with extensive-stage smallcell lung cancer (ED-SCLC).Patients and Methods: This was a parallel-cohort phase II study of 105 mg/m2 prexasertib once every 14 days for patients who progressed after no more than two prior therapies and had platinum-sensitive (Cohort 1) or platinum-resistant/platinum-refractory (Cohort 2) disease. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints included biomarker identification and assessment of an alternative regimen (Cohort 3: 40 mg/m2 days 1-3, 14-day cycle). Results: In Cohort 1 (n = 58), ORR was 5.2%; DCR, 31%; median PFS, 1.41 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.64); and median OS, 5.42 months (95% CI, 3.75-8.51). In Cohort 2 (n = 60), ORR was 0%; DCR, 20%; median PFS, 1.36 months (95% CI, 1.25-1.45); and median OS, 3.15 months (95% CI, 2.27-5.52). The most frequent all-grade, related, treatment-emergent adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (Cohort 1, 69.6%; Cohort 2, 73.3%), decreased platelet count (Cohort 1, 51.8%; Cohort 2, 50.0%), decreased white blood cell count (Cohort 1, 28.6%; Cohort 2, 40.0%), and anemia (Cohort 1, 39.3%; Cohort 2, 28.3%). Eleven patients (19.6%) in Cohort 1 and one patient (1.7%) in Cohort 2 experienced grade ≥3 febrile neutropenia. Prexasertib pharmacokinetics were consistent with prior studies. Cohort 3 outcomes were similar to those of Cohorts 1 and 2. No actionable biomarkers were identified. Conclusion: Prexasertib did not demonstrate activity to warrant future development as monotherapy in ED-SCLC

A phase II study to evaluate LY2603618 in combination with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer patients

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: The aim of this study was to determine whether checkpoint kinase 1 inihibitor (CHK1), LY2603618, and gemcitabine prolong overall survival (OS) compared to gemcitabine alone in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with Stage II-IV locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomized (2:1) to either 230 mg of LY2603618/1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine combined or 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine alone. OS was assessed using both a Bayesian augment control model and traditional frequentist analysis for inference. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [AEs] v 3.0) were also evaluated. Results: Ninety-nine patients (n = 65, LY2603618/gemcitabine; n = 34, gemcitabine) were randomized (intent-to-treat population). The median OS (months) was 7.8 (range, 0.3-18.9) with LY2603618/gemcitabine and 8.3 (range, 0.8-19.1+) with gemcitabine. Similarly, in a Bayesian analysis, the study was not positive since the posterior probability that LY2603618/gemcitabine was superior to gemcitabine in improving OS was 0.3, which did not exceed the prespecified threshold of 0.8. No significant improvements in PFS, ORR, or duration of response were observed. Drug-related treatment-emergent AEs in both arms included nausea, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and neutropenia. The severity of AEs with LY2603618/gemcitabine was comparable to gemcitabine. The LY2603618 exposure targets (AUC(0-∞) ≥21,000 ng·hr/mL and Cmax ≥2000 ng/mL) predicted for maximum pharmacodynamic response were achieved after 230 mg of LY2603618. Conclusions: LY2603618/gemcitabine was not superior to gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer. Trial Registration:NCT00839332. Clinicaltrials.gov. Date of registration: 6 February 2009

Phase III study of selpercatinib versus chemotherapy ± pembrolizumab in untreated RET positive non-small-cell lung cancer

Selpercatinib, a novel, highly selective and potent, inhibitor of RET, demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumor activity with manageable toxicity in heavily pretreated and treatment-naive RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients in a Phase I/II clinical trial. LIBRETTO-431 (NCT04194944) is a randomized, global, multicenter, open-label, Phase III trial, evaluating selpercatinib versus carboplatin or cisplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with locally advanced/metastatic RET fusion-positive nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. The primary end point is progression-free survival by independent review. Key secondary end points include overall survival, response rate, duration of response and progression-free survival. Clinical trial registration: NCT04194944 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

A phase II study to evaluate LY2603618 in combination with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer patients

Background: The aim of this study was to determine whether checkpoint kinase 1 inihibitor (CHK1), LY2603618, and gemcitabine prolong overall survival (OS) compared to gemcitabine alone in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with Stage II-IV locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomized (2: 1) to either 230 mg of LY2603618/1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine combined or 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine alone. OS was assessed using both a Bayesian augment control model and traditional frequentist analysis for inference. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [AEs] v 3.0) were also evaluated. Results: Ninety-nine patients (n = 65, LY2603618/gemcitabine; n = 34, gemcitabine) were randomized (intent-to-treat population). The median OS (months) was 7.8 (range, 0.3-18.9) with LY2603618/gemcitabine and 8.3 (range, 0.8-19.1+) with gemcitabine. Similarly, in a Bayesian analysis, the study was not positive since the posterior probability that LY2603618/gemcitabine was superior to gemcitabine in improving OS was 0.3, which did not exceed the prespecified threshold of 0.8. No significant improvements in PFS, ORR, or duration of response were observed. Drug-related treatment-emergent AEs in both arms included nausea, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and neutropenia. The severity of AEs with LY2603618/gemcitabine was comparable to gemcitabine. The LY2603618 exposure targets (AUC((0-infinity)) >= 21,000 ng hr/mL and C-max >= 2000 ng/mL) predicted for maximum pharmacodynamic response were achieved after 230 mg of LY2603618. Conclusions: LY2603618/gemcitabine was not superior to gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer