Search

Molecular testing for genomic variants is recommended in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Standard tissue biopsy is sometimes infeasible, procedurally risky, or insufficient in tumor tissue quantity. We present the analytical validation and concordance study of EGFR variants using a new 17-gene liquid biopsy assay (NCT02762877). Of 144 patients enrolled with newly diagnosed or progressive stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC, 140 (97%) had liquid assay results, and 117 (81%) had both EGFR blood and tissue results. Alterations were detected in 58% of liquid samples. Overall tissue-liquid concordance for EGFR alterations was 94.0% (95% CI 88.1%, 97.6%) with positive percent agreement of 76.7% (57.7%, 90.1%) and negative percent agreement of 100% (95.8%, 100%). Concordance for ALK structural variants was 95.7% (90.1%, 98.6%). This assay detected alterations in other therapeutically relevant genes at a rate similar to tissue analysis. These results demonstrate the analytical and clinical validity of this 17-gene assay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Tissue factor overexpression is associated with tumor progression, venous thromboembolism, and worsened survival in patients with cancer. Tissue factor and activated factor VII (FVIIa) complex may contribute to tumor invasiveness by promoting cell migration and angiogenesis. The study objective was to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of PCI-27483, a selective FVIIa inhibitor. Methods: This was an open-label, multicenter phase 2 trial of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Part A of the study was an intrapatient dose escalation lead-in portion in patients concurrently receiving gemcitabine, and in part B, patients were randomized 1: 1 to the recommended phase 2 dose combination PCI-27483–gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone. Results: Target international normalized ratio (between 2.0–3.0) was achieved following PCI-27483 treatment. Overall safety of PCI-27483–gemcitabine (n = 26) was similar to gemcitabine alone (n = 16), with a higher incidence of mostly low-grade bleeding events (65% vs. 19%). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between patients treated with PCI-27483–gemcitabine (PFS: 3.7 months, OS: 5.7 months) and those treated with gemcitabine alone (PFS: 1.9 months, OS: 5.6 months). Conclusions: Targeted inhibition of the coagulation cascade was achieved by administering PCI-27483. PCI-27483–gemcitabine was well tolerated, but superiority to single agent gemcitabine was not demonstrated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Seviteronel (INO-464) is an oral, selective cytochrome P450c17a (CYP17) 17,20-lyase (lyase) and androgen receptor inhibitor with in vitro and in vivo anti-tumor activity. This open-label phase 1 clinical study evaluated safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and activity of once-daily (QD) seviteronel in women with locally advanced or metastatic TNBC or ER+ breast cancer.Methods: Seviteronel was administered in de-escalating 750, 600, and 450 mg QD 6-subject cohorts. The 750 mg QD start dose was a phase 2 dose determined for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer in (Shore et al. J Clin Oncol 34, 2016). Enrollment at lower doses was initiated in the presence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The primary objective of this study was to determine seviteronel safety, tolerability, and MTD. The secondary objectives included description of its PK in women and its initial activity, including clinical benefit rate at 4 (CBR16) and 6 months (CBR24).Results: Nineteen women were enrolled. A majority of adverse events (AEs) were Grade (Gr) 1/2, independent of relationship; the most common were tremor (42%), nausea (42%), vomiting (37%), and fatigue (37%). Four Gr 3/4 AEs (anemia, delirium, mental status change, and confusional state) deemed possibly related to seviteronel occurred in four subjects. DLTs were observed at 750 mg (Gr 3 confusional state with paranoia) and 600 mg (Gr 3 mental status change and Gr 3 delirium) QD, with none at 450 mg QD. The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was 450 mg QD, and at the RP2D, 4 of 7 subjects reached at least CBR16 (2 TNBC subjects and 2 ER+ subjects achieved CBR16 and CBR24, respectively); no objective tumor responses were reported.Conclusions: Once-daily seviteronel was generally well tolerated in women with and 450 mg QD was chosen as the RP2D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of mocetinostat (a Class I/IV HDAC inhibitor) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with solid tumors, including pancreatic cancer.Methods: In this open-label, non-randomized Phase I/II study (NCT00372437) sequential cohorts of patients with solid tumors received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, day 1 of three consecutive weeks, 4-week cycles) and oral mocetinostat [50-110 mg, three times per week (TIW)]. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) was determined based on dose-limiting toxicities in Cycle 1 (Phase I study). The MTD/RP2D was further evaluated in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (Phase II study) using a two-stage design. The Phase II primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR).Results: Forty-eight patients were enrolled into the Phase I (n = 25) and Phase II (n = 23) studies. In the Phase I study, the MTD/RP2D was mocetinostat 90 mg TIW + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported by 81% of all patients, the most frequent being fatigue (38%) and thrombocytopenia (19%). The ORR was 11% in the Phase I study (n = 2 patients with pancreatic cancer, responses lasting for 16.8 and 4.0 months, respectively). As no responses were seen in the Phase II cohort, the study was terminated.Conclusions: Mocetinostat TIW in combination with gemcitabine was associated with significant toxicities in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The level of clinical activity of this treatment combination was not considered high enough to merit further testing in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: APF530, a novel extended-release granisetron injection, was superior to ondansetron in a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen in preventing delayed-phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in the double-blind Phase III Modified Absorption of Granisetron In the prevention of CINV (MAGIC) trial. Patients and methods: This MAGIC post hoc analysis evaluated CINV prevention efficacy and safety of APF530 versus ondansetron, each with fosaprepitant and dexamethasone, in patient subgroup receiving an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen. Patients were randomized 1:1 to APF530 500 mg subcutaneously (granisetron 10 mg) or ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously (IV) (≤16 mg); stratification was by planned cisplatin ≥50 mg/m2 (yes/no). Patients were to receive fosaprepitant 150 mg IV and dexamethasone 12 mg IV on day 1, then dexamethasone 8 mg orally once daily on day 2 and twice daily on days 3 and 4. Patients were mostly younger females (APF530 arm, mean age 54.1 years, female, 99.3%; ondansetron arm, 53.8 years, female 98.3%). The primary end point was delayed-phase (>24-120 hours) complete response (CR). Results: APF530 versus ondansetron regimens achieved numerically better CINV control in delayed and overall (0-120 hours) phases for CR, complete control, total response, rescue medication use, and proportion with no nausea. APF530 trends are consistent with the overall population, although not statistically superior given the underpowered AC subgroup analysis. The APF530 regimen in this population was generally well tolerated, with safety comparable to that of the overall population. Conclusion: APF530 plus fosaprepitant and dexamethasone effectively prevented CINV among patients receiving AC-based HEC, a large subgroup in whom CINV control has traditionally been challenging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Pralatrexate is a folate analogue indicated for the treatment of relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma. It has not been formally tested in patients with renal impairment. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of pralatrexate in patients with renal impairment and with relapsed/refractory advanced solid tumors and lymphoma.Methods: This was an open-label, nonrandomized, phase 1 study. Eligible patients received pralatrexate administered as an IV push over 3-5 min once weekly for 6 weeks in 7-week cycles until progressive disease or intolerable toxicity. Four cohorts of 6 patients were planned for a total of 24 patients. Patients with normal renal function (Cohort A), mild (Cohort B), and moderate renal impairment (Cohort C) received 30 mg/m2 pralatrexate once weekly for 6 weeks in 7-week cycles, and patients with severe renal impairment (Cohort D) were to be administered 20 mg/m2 once weekly for 6 weeks. Plasma and urine samples were collected at pre-specified time points to determine the PK profile of pralatrexate in each treatment cohort. Patients were followed for safety and tolerability.Results: A total of 29 patients were enrolled and 27 patients (14 male) received at least 1 dose of pralatrexate. Because of a qualifying toxicity in Cohort C, the starting dose for Cohort D was reduced to 15 mg/m2. Chronic renal impairment led to a decrease in renal clearance of the pralatrexate diastereomers, PDX-10a and PDX-10b, but systemic exposure to these diastereomers was not dramatically affected by renal impairment. Pralatrexate exposure in Cohort D (15 mg/m2) was similar to the exposure in other cohorts (30 mg/m2). No apparent difference in toxicity between the four treatment cohorts was observed, except for an increase in cytopenias in patients with severe renal impairment.Conclusion: Pralatrexate exposure, at a dose of 30 mg/m2, in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment was similar to the exposure in patients with normal renal function. For patients with severe renal impairment only, a pralatrexate dose of 15 mg/m2 is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Combretastatin A4-phosphate, fosbretabulin tromethamine (CA4P) is a vascular disrupting agent that targets tumor vasculature. This study evaluated the safety of CA4P when combined with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab in chemotherapy-naïve subjects with advanced nonsquamous, non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: Adult subjects with confirmed American Joint Committee on Cancer six stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1 were randomized to receive six cycles (treatment phase) of paclitaxel (200 mg/m2), carboplatin (area under the concentration versus time curve 6), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) on day 1 and repeated every 21 days, or this regimen plus CA4P (60 mg/m2) on days 7, 14, and 21 of each cycle. Subjects could then receive additional maintenance treatment (excluding carboplatin and paclitaxel) for up to 1 year. Results: Sixty-three subjects were randomized, 31 to control and 32 to CA4P, and 19 (61.3%) and 17 (53.1%), respectively, completed the treatment phase. Exposure to study treatment and dose modifications were comparable between the randomized groups. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between groups, with increased neutropenia, leukopenia, and hypertension in the CA4P group. Deaths, serious adverse events, and early discontinuations from treatment were comparable between the randomized treatment groups. The overall tumor response rate with CA4P was 50% versus 32% in controls. Overall and progression-free survival rates were comparable between the groups. Conclusion: CA4P plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab appears to be a tolerable regimen with an acceptable toxicity profile in subjects with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Sotatercept may represent a novel approach to the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). We report the results from two phase 2 randomized studies examining the use of sotatercept for the treatment of CIA in patients with metastatic cancer.Methods: In study A011-08, patients with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to 2:2:2:1 to receive sotatercept 0.1, 0.3, or 0.5 mg/kg, or placebo, respectively, every 28 days. In study ACE-011-NSCL-001, patients with solid tumors treated with platinum-based chemotherapy received sotatercept 15 or 30 mg every 42 days. The primary endpoint for both studies was hematopoietic response, defined as a hemoglobin (Hb) increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline.Results: Both studies were terminated early due to slow patient accrual. Among patients treated with sotatercept in the A011-08 and ACE-011-NSCL-001 studies, more patients achieved a mean Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL in the combined sotatercept 0.3 mg/kg and 15 mg (66.7 %) group and sotatercept 0.5 mg/kg and 30 mg (38.9 %) group versus the sotatercept 0.1 mg/kg (0 %) group. No patients achieved a mean Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL in the placebo group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was low in both studies, and treatment discontinuations due to AEs were uncommon.Conclusions: Although both studies were terminated early, these results indicate that sotatercept is active and has an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of CIA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite advances with new therapies, a significant proportion of patients (>30%) suffer delayed-onset chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) despite use of antiemetics. APF530 is a sustained-release subcutaneous (SC) formulation of granisetron for preventing CINV. APF530 pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy were studied in two openlabel, single-dose Phase II trials (C2005-01 and C2007-01, respectively) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods: In C2005-01, 45 patients received APF530 250, 500, or 750 mg SC (granisetron 5, 10, or 15 mg, respectively). In C2007-01, 35 patients were randomized to APF530 250 or 500 mg SC. Injections were given 30 to 60 minutes before single-day moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Plasma granisetron was measured from predose to 168 hours after study drug administration. Safety and efficacy were also evaluated. Results: APF530 pharmacokinetics were dose proportional, with slow absorption and elimination of granisetron after a single SC dose. Median time to maximum plasma concentration and half-life were similar for APF530 250 and 500 mg in both trials, with no differences between the groups receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Exposure to granisetron was maintained at a therapeutic level over the delayed-onset phase, at least 168 hours. Adverse events in both trials were as expected for granisetron; injection site reactions (eg, erythema and induration) were predominantly mild and seen in ≤20% of patients. Complete responses (no emesis, with no rescue medication) were obtained in the acute, delayed, and overall phases in ≥80% and ≥75% of patients in both trials with the 250 and 500 mg doses, respectively. Conclusion: After a single injection of APF530, there were dose-proportional pharmacokinetics and sustained concentrations of granisetron over 168 hours. The 250 and 500 mg doses were well tolerated and maintained therapeutic granisetron levels for ≥5 days. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Subcutaneous APF530 provides controlled sustained release of granisetron to prevent acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial compared APF530 and palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).Methods: Patients receiving single-day MEC or HEC received single-dose APF530 250 or 500 mg subcutaneously (SC) (granisetron 5 or 10 mg) or intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg. Primary objectives were to establish APF530 noninferiority to palonosetron for preventing acute CINV following MEC or HEC and delayed CINV following MEC and to determine APF530 superiority to palonosetron for preventing delayed CINV following HEC. The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR [using CI difference for APF530-palonosetron]). A lower confidence bound greater than -15 % indicated noninferiority.Results: In the modified intent-to-treat population (MEC = 634; HEC = 707), both APF530 doses were noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute CINV after MEC (CRs 74.8 % [-9.8, 9.3] and 76.9 % [-7.5, 11.4], respectively, vs. 75.0 % palonosetron) and after HEC (CRs 77.7 % [-11.5, 5.5] and 81.3 % [-7.7, 8.7], respectively, vs. 80.7 % palonosetron). APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron in preventing delayed CINV after MEC (CR 58.5 % [-9.5, 12.1] vs. 57.2 % palonosetron) but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Adverse events were generally mild and unrelated to treatment, the most common (excluding injection-site reactions) being constipation.Conclusions: A single subcutaneous APF530 injection offers a convenient alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Subcutaneous APF530 provides controlled sustained release of granisetron to prevent acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial compared APF530 and palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: Patients receiving single-day MEC or HEC received single-dose APF530 250 or 500 mg subcutaneously (SC) (granisetron 5 or 10 mg) or intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg. Primary objectives were to establish APF530 noninferiority to palonosetron for preventing acute CINV following MEC or HEC and delayed CINV following MEC and to determine APF530 superiority to palonosetron for preventing delayed CINV following HEC. The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR [using CI difference for APF530 − palonosetron]). A lower confidence bound greater than −15 % indicated noninferiority. Results: In the modified intent-to-treat population (MEC = 634; HEC = 707), both APF530 doses were noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute CINV after MEC (CRs 74.8 % [−9.8, 9.3] and 76.9 % [−7.5, 11.4], respectively, vs. 75.0 % palonosetron) and after HEC (CRs 77.7 % [−11.5, 5.5] and 81.3 % [-7.7, 8.7], respectively, vs. 80.7 % palonosetron). APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron in preventing delayed CINV after MEC (CR 58.5 % [−9.5, 12.1] vs. 57.2 % palonosetron) but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Adverse events were generally mild and unrelated to treatment, the most common (excluding injection-site reactions) being constipation. Conclusions: A single subcutaneous APF530 injection offers a convenient alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective To assess the dose proportionality of azacitidine pharmacokinetics ( PK) after single subcutaneous ( SC) doses of 25-100 mg/m2, and determine the effect of renal impairment on PK after single and multiple 75 mg/m2 SC azacitidine doses. Design Multicenter, phase I, open-label, parallel group study. Setting Community clinics and major academic centers. Patients Twenty-seven patients with solid or hematologic malignancies. Interventions Part 1 evaluated azacitidine dose proportionality in patients with normal renal function randomized to single 25, 50, 75, or 100 mg/m2 SC doses. The 75 mg/m2 dosing group received 4 additional days of SC azacitidine. In Part 2, patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 Cockcroft-Gault adjusted) received azacitidine 75 mg/m2 for 5 consecutive days. Measurements and Main Results PK parameters were determined using noncompartmental methods. In patients with normal renal function (n=21), azacitidine area under the plasma-time curve ( AUC0-∞) and maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) were dose proportional within the 25-100 mg/m2 range. Concentration versus time profiles after single and multiple azacitidine 75 mg/m2 doses were similar in shape for patients with normal (n=6) or impaired renal function (n=6), with higher mean concentrations in the latter group. Higher mean exposures ( AUC0-∞ and Cmax) in renally impaired patients were observed; however, individual exposure values were, with few exceptions, within the same range in both groups. No drug accumulation after multiple doses was observed in either group. Terminal half-life and time to maximum plasma concentration were comparable between groups. Azacitidine tolerability was similar in patients with normal or impaired renal function. Conclusion Azacitidine is dose proportional over the 25-100 mg/m2 dosing range. Overall, renal impairment had no important effect on azacitidine PK. Therefore, no initial azacitidine dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The attenuated vaccinia virus, modified vaccinia Ankara, has been engineered to deliver the tumor antigen 5T4 (TroVax). Here, we report results from a randomized open-label phase II trial in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients in which TroVax was administered in combination with docetaxel and compared against docetaxel alone. The aim was to recruit 80 patients (40 per arm), but the study was terminated early due to recruitment challenges. Therefore, this paper reports the comparative safety and immunological and clinical efficacy in 25 patients, 12 of whom were treated with TroVax plus docetaxel and 13 with docetaxel alone. 5T4-specific immune responses were monitored throughout the study. Clinical responses were assessed by measuring changes in tumor burden by CT and bone scan and by quantifying PSA concentrations. TroVax was well tolerated in all patients. Of 10 immunologically evaluable patients, 6 mounted 5T4-specific antibody responses. Patients treated with TroVax plus docetaxel showed a greater median progression-free survival of 9.67 months compared with 5.10 months for patients on the docetaxel alone arm ( P = 0.097; HR = 0.31; 95 % CI 0.08-1.24). Importantly, a pre-treatment biomarker previously demonstrated to predict 5T4 immune response and treatment benefit showed a strong association with 5T4 antibody response and a statistically significant association with progression-free survival in patients treated with TroVax plus docetaxel, but not docetaxel alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: Bortezomib, an antineoplastic for the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma, undergoes metabolism through oxidative deboronation by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, primarily CYP3A4 and CYP2C19. Omeprazole, a proton-pump inhibitor, is primarily metabolized by and demonstrates high affinity for CYP2C19. This study investigated whether coadministration of omeprazole affected the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profile of bortezomib in patients with advanced cancer. The variability of bortezomib pharmacokinetics with CYP enzyme polymorphism was also investigated. Patients and methods: This open-label, crossover, pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction study was conducted at seven institutions in the US and Europe between January 2005 and August 2006. Patients who had advanced solid tumours, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or multiple myeloma, were aged ≥18 years, weighed ≥50 kg and had a life expectancy of ≥3 months were eligible. Patients received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4,8 and 11 for two 21-day cycles, plus omeprazole 40 mg in the morning of days 6-10 and in the evening of day 8 in either cycle 1 (sequence 1) or cycle 2 (sequence 2). On day 21 of cycle 2, patients benefiting from therapy could continue to receive bortezomib for six additional cycles. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic evaluation were collected prior to and at various timepoints after bortezomib administration on day 8 of cycles 1 and 2. Blood samples for pharmacogenomics were also collected. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated by noncompartmental analysis of plasma concentration-time data for bortezomib administration on day 8 of cycles 1 and 2, using WinNonlin™ version 4.0.1.a software. The pharmacodynamic profile was assessed using a whole-blood 20S proteasome inhibition assay. Results: Twenty-seven patients (median age 64 years) were enrolled, 12 in sequence 1 and 15 in sequence 2, including eight and nine pharmacokinetic-evaluable patients, respectively. Bortezomib pharmacokinetic parameters were similar when bortezomib was administered alone or with omeprazole (maximum plasma concentration 120 vs 123 ng/mL; area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 72 hours 129 vs 135 ng • h/mL). The pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar (maximum effect 85.8% vs 93.7%; area under the percent inhibition-time curve over 72 hours 4052 vs 3910 %×h); the differences were not statistically significant. Pharmacogenomic analysis revealed no meaningful relationships between CYP enzyme polymorphisms and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters. Toxicities were generally similar between patients in sequence 1 and sequence 2, and between cycle 1 and cycle 2 in both treatment sequences. Among 26 evaluable patients, 13 (50%) were assessed as benefiting from bortezomib at the end of cycle 2 and continued to receive treatment. Conclusions: No impact on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profile of bortezomib was seen with coadministration of omeprazole. Concomitant administration of bortezomib and omeprazole is unlikely to cause clinically significant drug-drug interactions and is unlikely to have an impact on the efficacy or safety of bortezomib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]