Search

Background: Combined therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib was approved in several countries for treatment of BRAF V600E-mutant anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) based on an earlier interim analysis of 23 response-assessable patients in the ATC cohort of the phase II Rare Oncology Agnostic Research (ROAR) basket study. We report an updated analysis describing the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in the full ROAR ATC cohort of 36 patients with ∼4 years of additional study follow-up., Patients and Methods: ROAR (NCT02034110) is an open-label, nonrandomized, phase II basket study evaluating dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAF V600E-mutant rare cancers. The ATC cohort comprised 36 patients with unresectable or metastatic ATC who received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg once daily orally until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary endpoints were duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: At data cutoff (14 September 2020), median follow-up was 11.1 months (range, 0.9-76.6 months). The investigator-assessed ORR was 56% (95% confidence interval, 38.1% to 72.1%), including three complete responses; the 12-month DOR rate was 50%. Median PFS and OS were 6.7 and 14.5 months, respectively. The respective 12-month PFS and OS rates were 43.2% and 51.7%, and the 24-month OS rate was 31.5%. No new safety signals were identified with additional follow-up, and adverse events were consistent with the established tolerability of dabrafenib plus trametinib., Conclusions: These updated results confirm the substantial clinical benefit and manageable toxicity of dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAF V600E-mutant ATC. Dabrafenib plus trametinib notably improved long-term survival and represents a meaningful treatment option for this rare, aggressive cancer., Competing Interests: Disclosure VS reports research grants from Novartis, Eli Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, NanoCarrier, VEGENICS, Celgene, Northwest Biotherapeutics, Berg Health, Incyte, Fujifilm, D3, Pfizer, MultiVir, Amgen, AbbVie, Alfasigma, Agensys, Boston Biomedical, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inhibrx, Exelixis, Blueprint Medicines, Altum, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Takeda, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, National Cancer Institute–Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Turning Point Therapeutics, Boston Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar, and MedImmune; an advisory board/consultant position with Eli Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Helsinn, Incyte, QED Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Signant Health, Novartis, Relay Therapeutics, Roche, and MedImmune; travel funds from PharmaMar, Incyte, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and European Society for Medical Oncology; and other support from Medscape. ZAW reports consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Ipsen, Five Prime, Gilead, Arcus, Astellas, Molecular Templates, and Array; support for attending meetings/travel from Daiichi Sankyo; and advisory board participation with Array and Pfizer. JHMS reports stock ownership in and employment with Modra Pharmaceuticals; consulting fees from and advisory board participation with Debiopharm; and a patent on oral taxanes. JCS reports stock in Gritstone Bio and Relay Therapeutics; and employment with Amgen. PYW reports grants from Agios, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, BeiGene, Celgene, Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Kazia, MediciNova, Merck, Nuvation Bio, Oncoceutics, Vascular Biogenics, and VBI Vaccines; and consulting fees from/advisory board participation with Agios, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Pharmaceuticals, CNS Pharmaceuticals, Elevate Bio Immunomic Therapeutics, Imvax, Karyopharm, Merck, Novartis, Nuvation Bio, Vascular Biogenics, VBI Vaccines, Voyager, QED, Celularity, and Sapience. CCZ reports consulting fees from Athenex; payment or honoraria from MSD, Imugene, AstraZeneca, Servier, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck KGaA, Amgen, Takeda, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, and Halozyme; patents with Imugene; and a leadership or fiduciary role with the European Society for Medical Oncology and CECOG. MEC reports grants from Genentech and Merck; payment or honoraria from Exelixis and Lilly; and advisory board participation with Exelixis, Lilly, and Bayer. AB reports stock ownership in and employment with Novartis. IP and TRS report employment with Novartis. PB reports stock ownership in Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline; and employment with Novartis. BK reports research grants from MSD, AstraZeneca, and Ono Pharmaceuticals; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, ABL Bio, Genexine, Handok, CELiD, Trial Informatics, and CBS Bio; and payment or honoraria from MSD and Merck. All authors acknowledge receipt of medical writing support for this manuscript from ArticulateScience, LLC, funded by Novartis. All other authors have declared no additional conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer immunotherapy has changed the standard of care for a subgroup of patients with advanced disease. Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in particular has shown improved survival compared with previous standards of care for several tumor types. Although proven to be successful in more immunogenic tumors, ICB is still largely ineffective in patients with tumors that are not infiltrated by immune cells, the so-called cold tumors., Patients and Methods: This review describes the effects of different chemotherapeutic agents on the immune system and the potential value of these different types of chemotherapy as combination partners with ICB in patients with solid tumors. Both preclinical data and currently ongoing clinical trials were evaluated. In addition, we reviewed findings regarding different dosing schedules, including the effects of an induction phase and applying metronomic doses of chemotherapy., Results: Combining ICB with other treatment modalities may lead to improved immunological conditions in the tumor microenvironment and could thereby enhance the antitumor immune response, even in tumor types that are so far unresponsive to ICB monotherapy. Chemotherapy, that was originally thought to be solely immunosuppressive, can exert immunomodulatory effects which may be beneficial in combination with immunotherapy. Each chemotherapeutic drug impacts the tumor microenvironment differently, and in order to determine the most suitable combination partners for ICB it is crucial to understand these mechanisms., Conclusion: Preclinical studies demonstrate that the majority of chemotherapeutic drugs has been shown to exert immunostimulatory effects, either by inhibiting immunosuppressive cells and/or activating effector cells, or by increasing immunogenicity and increasing T-cell infiltration. However, for certain chemotherapeutic agents timing, dose and sequence of administration of chemotherapeutic agents and ICB is important. Further studies should focus on determining the optimal drug combinations, sequence effects and optimal concentration-time profiles in representative preclinical models., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The fluoropyrimidine anticancer drugs, especially 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine, are frequently prescribed for several types of cancer, including breast, colorectal, head and neck and gastric cancer. In the current drug labels of 5-FU and capecitabine in the European Union and the United States, no adaptive dosing strategies are incorporated for polymorphic metabolism of 5-FU. Although treatment with fluoropyrimidines is generally well tolerated, a major clinical limitation is that a proportion of the treated population experiences severe, sometimes life-threatening, fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. This toxicity is strongly affected by interindividual variability in activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the main metabolic enzyme for inactivation of fluoropyrimidines, with an estimated 3%-8% of the population being partially DPD deficient. A reduced functional or abrogated DPD enzyme is often caused by genetic polymorphisms in DPYD, the gene encoding for DPD, and heterozygous carriers of such DPYD polymorphisms have a partial DPD deficiency. When these partially DPD deficient patients are treated with a full dose of fluoropyrimidines, they are generally exposed to toxic levels of 5-FU and its metabolites, and the risk of developing severe treatment-related toxicity is therefore significantly increased.Currently, functional and clinical validity is well established for four DPYD variants (DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A), as those variants have retrospectively and in a large population study prospectively been shown to be associated with increased risk of fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity. Patient safety of fluoropyrimidine treatment can be significantly improved by pre-emptive screening for DPYD genotype variants and dose reductions in heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers, thereby normalizing 5-FU exposure. Based on the critical appraisal of currently available data, adjusting the labels of capecitabine and 5-FU by including recommendations on pre-emptive screening for DPYD variants and DPYD genotype-guided dose adjustments should be the new standard of care., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Pregnant patients with cancer are increasingly treated with anticancer drugs, although the specific impact of pregnancy-induced physiological changes on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of anticancer drugs and associated implications for optimal dose regimens remains unclear. Our objectives were to quantify changes in PK during pregnancy for four frequently used anticancer agents doxorubicin, epirubicin, docetaxel and paclitaxel, and to determine associated necessary dose adjustments., Patients and Methods: A pooled analysis of PK data was carried out for pregnant (Pr) and nonpregnant (NPr) patients for doxorubicin (n = 16 Pr/59 NPr), epirubicin (n = 14 Pr/57 NPr), docetaxel (n = 3 Pr/32 NPr) and paclitaxel (n = 5 Pr/105 NPr). Compartmental nonlinear mixed effect models were used to describe the PK and gestational effects. Subsequently, we derived optimized dose regimens aiming to match to the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) in nonpregnant patients., Results: The effect of pregnancy on volumes of distribution for doxorubicin, epirubicin, docetaxel and paclitaxel were estimated as fold-change of <1.32, <2.08, <1.37 and <4.21, respectively, with adequate precision [relative standard error (RSE) <37%]. For doxorubicin, no gestational effect could be estimated on clearance (CL). For epirubicin, docetaxel and paclitaxel, a fold-change of 1.1 (RSE 9%), 1.19 (RSE 7%) and 1.92 (RSE 21%) were, respectively, estimated on CL. Calculated dose adjustment requirements for doxorubicin, epirubicin, docetaxel and paclitaxel were +5.5%, +8.0%, +16.9% and +37.8%, respectively. Estimated changes in infusion duration were marginal (<4.2%) except for paclitaxel (-21.4%)., Conclusion: Clinicians should be aware of a decrease in drug exposure during pregnancy and should not a priori reduce dose. The decrease in exposure was most apparent for docetaxel and paclitaxel which is supported by known physiological changes during pregnancy. The suggested dose adaptations should only be implemented after conduct of further confirmatory studies of the PK during pregnancy., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Blocking both receptor and ligand of the vascular endothelial growth factor (receptor) VEGF(R) pathway might be feasible and increase antitumor activity. This phase I study investigated telatinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR-2, combined with bevacizumab, in adults with solid tumors., Patients and Methods: Twenty-six patients were treated in successive cohorts with telatinib (twice-daily continuously, 450-900 mg) or bevacizumab (bi-weekly, starting dose 5 mg/kg). Safety, pharmacokinetics, endothelial (progenitor) cell (E(P)C)/growth factor kinetics and efficacy were assessed., Results: Most frequent adverse events were pain, nausea, voice changes and fatigue. Five dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred: hypertension (cohort I and II), bowel perforation, lipase increase and atrial flutter (cohort III). Cumulative toxicity resulted in a bevacizumab dose reduction to 1 mg/kg (cohort III). Due to three DLTs (n = 14), this cohort represented the best-tolerated dose level. Bevacizumab effectively neutralized plasma VEGF even at 1 mg/kg. Twelve patients had stable disease (clinical benefit 46%). EPC and SDF-1α levels increased during monotherapy telatinib., Conclusions: Telatinib (450 mg b.i.d.) combined with bevacizumab (1 mg/kg bi-weekly) shows antitumor activity, but accumulating constitutional toxicity impedes long-term treatment of patients. Therefore, this combination will not be pursued in a phase II setting.

Background: AZD5438 is an orally bioavailable inhibitor of cyclin E-cdk2, cyclin A-cdk2 and cyclin B-cdk1 complexes. Three phase I studies assessed the clinical safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of AZD5438 when administered in different dosing schedules., Patients and Methods: AZD5438 was administered four times daily, once every 7 days (study 1), for 14 consecutive days followed by 7 days of rest (study 2), or continuously (study 3), to patients with advanced solid tumours. Dose escalation proceeded until the emergence of dose-limiting toxic effects., Results: Sixty-four patients were included across the three studies (19, 17 and 28, respectively). Nausea and vomiting were the most common adverse events. When dosed continuously, 40 mg four times daily was considered intolerable, and due to safety issues, all studies were terminated prematurely. Consequently, no intolerable dose was identified during the weekly schedule. Pharmacokinetics demonstrated dose-proportional exposure, high interpatient variability and accumulation after multiple doses. Skin biopsies indicated reduced retinoblastoma protein phosphorylation at cdk2 phospho-sites; other pharmacodynamic assessments did not reveal consistent trends., Conclusions: AZD5438 was generally well tolerated in a weekly dosing schedule, but not in continuous schedules. The clinical development programme for AZD5438 was discontinued owing to tolerability and exposure data from these studies.