Search

Background: Teclistamab (JNJ-64007957), a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody, displayed potent T-cell–mediated cytotoxicity of multiple myeloma cells in preclinical studies. Objective: A first-in-human, Phase I, dose escalation study (MajesTEC-1) is evaluating teclistamab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Patients and Methods: To estimate the efficacious therapeutic dosing range of teclistamab, pharmacokinetic (PK) data following the first cycle doses in the low-dose cohorts in the Phase I study were modeled using a 2-compartment model and simulated to predict the doses that would have average and trough serum teclistamab concentrations in the expected therapeutic range (between EC50 and EC90 values from an ex vivo cytotoxicity assay). Results: The doses predicted to have average serum concentrations between the EC50 and EC90 range were validated. In addition, simulations showed that weekly intravenous and subcutaneous doses of 0.70 mg/kg and 0.72 mg/kg, respectively, resulted in mean trough levels comparable to the maximum EC90. The most active doses in the Phase I study were weekly intravenous doses of 0.27 and 0.72 mg/kg and weekly subcutaneous doses of 0.72 and 1.5 mg/kg, with the weekly 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneous doses selected as the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D). With active doses, exposure was maintained above the mean EC90. All patients who responded to the RP2D of teclistamab had exposure above the maximum EC90 in both serum and bone marrow on cycle 3, Day 1 of treatment. Conclusions: Our findings show that PK simulations of early clinical data together with ex vivo cytotoxicity estimates can inform the identification of a bispecific antibody's therapeutic range. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03145181, date of registration: May 9, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of perifosine (NSC 639966), an alkylphospholipid modulator of signal transduction, using different oral loading and maintenance regimens in an effort to avoid gastrointestinal toxicity while seeking maximal sustained plasma concentrations. Methods: Thirty-one patients with advanced neoplasms were treated with monthly cycles of perifosine loading doses of 300, 600, 900, 1,200 and 1,500 mg (dose levels 1 through 5, respectively) on days 1-2 depending on the actual dose of the initial cycle. For subsequent cycles, perifosine loading doses were reduced to 100, 200, 300, 400 and 1,000 mg at the respective corresponding dose levels. Daily perifosine 'maintenance' doses of 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 mg for levels 1 through 5, respectively, commenced on days 2 or 3 and continued for a total of 21 days. No treatment was given for days 22-27. The pharmacokinetics of perifosine with these schedules was characterized. Results: Dose-limiting diarrhea developed at or above dose level 4. The MTD and recommended phase II dose was dose level 3B, with a loading dose of 900 mg on day 1 divided into two doses of 450 mg administered 6 h apart and a maintenance dose of 150 mg on day 2 through 21. On subsequent cycles, the loading dose was reduced to 300 mg. Non-gastrointestinal toxicities included three episodes of gout or gout-like syndromes observed at doses above the MTD. The median peak plasma concentration of perifosine achieved at the MTD was approximately 8.3 µg/mL. Four patients had stable disease ranging from 167 to 735 days. Conclusions: Perifosine given according to a loading and maintenance schedule can safely sustain concentrations of drug, approaching concentrations achieved in preclinical models with evidence of anti-tumor effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The randomized phase 3 LYM3001 trial in relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) demonstrated higher overall (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. We report findings in high-risk patients (FL International Prognostic Index [FLIPI] score ≥ 3, and high tumor burden by modified Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomas Folliculaires [GELF] criteria). Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with grade 1/2 FL, ≥1 measurable lesion, and documented relapse or progression following prior therapy, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive, were enrolled at 164 centers in 29 countries across Europe, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific. Patients were randomized (1:1) to five 5-week cycles of bortezomib-rituximab (bortezomib 1.6 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, all cycles; rituximab 375 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, cycle 1, and day 1, cycles 2.5; N=336) or rituximab alone (N=340). Randomization was stratified by FLIPI score, prior rituximab, time since last dose of anti-lymphoma therapy, and geographical region. The primary endpoint of the study was PFS. Results: 103 bortezomib-rituximab and 98 rituximab patients had high-risk FL. The ORR was 59% versus 37% (p=0.002), the CR/CRu rate was 13% versus 6% (p=0.145), and the durable response rate was 45% versus 26% (p=0.008) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. Median PFS was 9.5 versus 6.7 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.667, p=0.012) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab; median time to progression was 10.9 versus 6.8 months (HR 0.656, p=0.009); median time to next anti-lymphoma treatment was 14.8 versus 9.1 months (HR 0.762, p=0.103); and the 1-year Overall Survival rate was 83.1% versus 76.6%. Overall, 51% of bortezomib-rituximab and 32% of rituximab patients reported grade ≥3 adverse events, including neutropenia (18%, 6%), anemia (4%, 5%), diarrhea (8%, 0%), thrombocytopenia (5%, 2%), and sensory neuropathy (1%, 0%). Conclusions: High-risk FL patients treated with bortezomib-rituximab had significantly higher ORR and longer PFS than patients receiving rituximab alone, with greater clinical benefit than in the overall study population; additional toxicity was acceptable and did not affect treatment feasibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of trabectedin plus gemcitabine administered on a weekly schedule in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients with ECOG performance status 0–1 and adequate organ function were enrolled. On days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle, patients received gemcitabine (starting dose, 800 mg/m2) followed by trabectedin (starting dose, 0.3 mg/m2). Strict liver function test treatment criteria were employed to avoid hepatic toxicity seen in previous trabectedin studies. Plasma samples were collected during cycles 1 and 2 for pharmacokinetic analyses. Fifteen patients received ≥1 dose, with a median of two treatment cycles (range 1–10). The most common drug-related toxicity was hepatic. Dose reductions were required for trabectedin in four (27%) patients and gemcitabine in six (40%) patients. Cycle delays/dose holds were required in 11 (73%) patients and doses above trabectedin 0.4 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2, which is the recommended phase II dose, were not feasible. Seven patients maintained stable disease after two cycles. Gemcitabine and trabectedin pharmacokinetics were not altered substantially with concomitant administration. Given the lack of pharmacokinetic interaction and potential efficacy of trabectedin and gemcitabine combination therapy, further study is warranted with alternate schedules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pathogenic mechanisms giving rise to cancer frequently involve altered signal transduction pathways. Therefore therapeutic agents that directly address signal transduction molecules are being explored as cancer treatments. Inhibitors of protein tyrosine and threonine kinases including STI-571, ZD-1839, OSI-774, and flavopiridol are ATP-site antagonists that have completed initial phase I and phase II evaluations. Herceptin and C225 are monoclonal antibodies also directed against signaling targets. Numerous other kinase antagonists are in clinical evaluation, including UCN-01 and PD184352. Alternative strategies to downmodulate kinase-driven signaling include 17-allyl-amino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin and rapamycin derivatives, and phospholipase-directed signaling may be modulated by alkylphospholipids. Farnesyltransferase inhibitors were originally developed as inhibitors of ras-driven signals but may have activity by affecting other or additional targets. Signal transduction will remain a fertile basis for suggesting cancer treatments of the future, the evaluation of which should include monitoring effects of the drugs on their intended target signaling molecules in preclinical and early clinical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]