Search

Maen Hussein,1 Marina Maglakelidze,2 Donald A Richards,3 Marielle Sabatini,4 Todd A Gersten,5 Keith Lerro,6 Ivan Sinielnikov,7 Alexander Spira,8,9 Yili Pritchett,10 Joyce M Antal,10 Rajesh Malik,10 J Thaddeus Beck11 1Florida Cancer Specialists, Leesburg, FL, USA; 2LLC Arensia Exploratory Medicine, Tbilisi, Georgia; 3Texas Oncology-Tyler, US Oncology Research, Tyler, TX, USA; 4Saint Leon Hospital, Bayonne, France; 5Florida Cancer Specialists, West Palm Beach, FL, USA; 6Regional Medical Oncology Center, Wilson, NC, USA; 7Volyn Regional Oncology Center, Lutsk, Ukraine; 8Virginia Cancer Specialists, Fairfax, VA, USA; 9US Oncology Research, The Woodlands, TX, USA; 10G1 Therapeutics, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; 11Highlands Oncology Group, Fayetteville, AR, USACorrespondence: Maen HusseinFlorida Cancer Specialists, Leesburg, FL, USATel +1 352-787-9448Email mhussein@flcancer.comPurpose: Trilaciclib is an intravenous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor indicated to decrease the incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM) by protecting hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and immune system function from chemotherapy-induced damage (myeloprotection). Here, we investigated the myeloprotective effects of trilaciclib among patients at increased risk of CIM.Patients and Methods: Data were pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 clinical studies of trilaciclib administered prior to chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Myeloprotective outcomes were evaluated in patient subgroups based on age (< 65 or ≥ 65 years), risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), and risk of anemia or red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. For the FN and anemia analyses, risk factors were identified from published literature and used to classify patients into FN and anemia risk categories. Subgroup analysis based on age was also performed on patient reported outcome (PRO) measures.Results: In total, 123 patients received trilaciclib and 119 patients received placebo. Myeloprotective benefits of trilaciclib were observed regardless of age, with greater effects observed among patients aged ≥ 65 years. Across FN risk factors and categories, trilaciclib had beneficial effects on neutrophil-related endpoints vs placebo, with greater effects observed in patients at higher risk of FN. Effects on RBC-related endpoints favored trilaciclib vs placebo, regardless of anemia risk factors and categories. Improvements in PROs with trilaciclib were observed irrespective of age group, but with greater improvements and less deterioration from baseline observed in older patients.Conclusion: By both decreasing the incidence of CIM and improving quality of life, trilaciclib has the potential to allow patients receiving chemotherapy for ES-SCLC, including patients who are older or more vulnerable to CIM, to receive chemotherapy on schedule and at standard-of-care doses, and to improve the experience for patients receiving chemotherapy to treat ES-SCLC.Clinical Trial Numbers: NCT02499770; NCT03041311; NCT02514447.Keywords: trilaciclib, myelosuppression, myeloprotection, myelopreservation, chemotherapy, small cell lung cancer

Background: Resistance to endocrine therapy in breast cancer is associated with activation of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) intracellular signaling pathway. In early studies, the mTOR inhibitor everolimus added to endocrine therapy showed antitumor activity.Methods: In this phase 3, randomized trial, we compared everolimus and exemestane versus exemestane and placebo (randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio) in 724 patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who had recurrence or progression while receiving previous therapy with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in the adjuvant setting or to treat advanced disease (or both). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included survival, response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed by an independent data and safety monitoring committee after 359 progression-free survival events were observed.Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two study groups. The median age was 62 years, 56% had visceral involvement, and 84% had hormone-sensitive disease. Previous therapy included letrozole or anastrozole (100%), tamoxifen (48%), fulvestrant (16%), and chemotherapy (68%). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were stomatitis (8% in the everolimus-plus-exemestane group vs. 1% in the placebo-plus-exemestane group), anemia (6% vs. <1%), dyspnea (4% vs. 1%), hyperglycemia (4% vs. <1%), fatigue (4% vs. 1%), and pneumonitis (3% vs. 0%). At the interim analysis, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months with everolimus plus exemestane and 2.8 months with placebo plus exemestane, according to assessments by local investigators (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.54; P<0.001). Median progression-free survival was 10.6 months and 4.1 months, respectively, according to central assessment (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.47; P<0.001).Conclusions: Everolimus combined with an aromatase inhibitor improved progression-free survival in patients with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer previously treated with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. (Funded by Novartis; BOLERO-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00863655.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Imlunestrant is a next-generation oral selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader designed to deliver continuous ER target inhibition, including in ESR1- mutant breast cancer. This phase Ia/b trial determined the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of imlunestrant, as monotherapy and in combination with targeted therapy, in ER-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer (ABC) and endometrial endometrioid cancer. The ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) ABC experience is reported here., Methods: An i3+3 dose-escalation design was used, followed by dose expansions of imlunestrant as monotherapy or in combination with abemaciclib with or without aromatase inhibitor (AI), everolimus, or alpelisib. Imlunestrant was administered orally once daily and with the combination partner per label., Results: Overall, 262 patients with ER+/HER2- ABC were treated (phase Ia, n = 74; phase Ib, n = 188). Among patients who received imlunestrant monotherapy (n = 114), no dose-limiting toxicities or discontinuations occurred. At the RP2D (400 mg once daily), patients (n = 51) reported grade 1-2 nausea (39.2%), fatigue (39.2%), and diarrhea (29.4%). Patients at RP2D had received previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i; 92.2%), fulvestrant (41.2%), and chemotherapy (29.4%) for ABC and achieved a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 7.2 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 8.3). Among patients who received imlunestrant + abemaciclib (n = 42) and imlunestrant + abemaciclib + AI (n = 43), most (69.4%) were treatment-naïve for ABC; all were CDK4/6i-naïve. Patients treated with imlunestrant + everolimus (n = 42)/alpelisib (n = 21) had received previous CDK4/6i (100%), fulvestrant (34.9%), and chemotherapy (17.5%) for ABC. No new safety signals or interactions with partnered drugs were observed. The mPFS was 19.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to not available) for imlunestrant + abemaciclib and was not reached for imlunestrant + abemaciclib + AI. The mPFS with imlunestrant + everolimus/alpelisib was 15.9 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 19.1)/9.2 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 11.1). Antitumor activity was evident regardless of ESR1 mutation status., Conclusion: Imlunestrant, as monotherapy or in combination with targeted therapy, had a manageable safety profile with evidence of preliminary antitumor activity in ER+/HER2- ABC.

RAF inhibitors have transformed treatment for patients with BRAFV600-mutant cancers, but clinical benefit is limited by adaptive induction of ERK signaling, genetic alterations that induce BRAFV600 dimerization, and poor brain penetration. Next-generation pan-RAF dimer inhibitors are limited by a narrow therapeutic index. PF-07799933 (ARRY-440) is a brain-penetrant, selective, pan-mutant BRAF inhibitor. PF-07799933 inhibited signaling in vitro, disrupted endogenous mutant-BRAF:wild-type-CRAF dimers, and spared wild-type ERK signaling. PF-07799933 ± binimetinib inhibited growth of mouse xenograft tumors driven by mutant BRAF that functions as dimers and by BRAFV600E with acquired resistance to current RAF inhibitors. We treated patients with treatment-refractory BRAF-mutant solid tumors in a first-in-human clinical trial (NCT05355701) that utilized a novel, flexible, pharmacokinetics-informed dose escalation design that allowed rapid achievement of PF-07799933 efficacious concentrations. PF-07799933 ± binimetinib was well-tolerated and resulted in multiple confirmed responses, systemically and in the brain, in patients with BRAF-mutant cancer who were refractory to approved RAF inhibitors. Significance: PF-07799933 treatment was associated with antitumor activity against BRAFV600- and non-V600-mutant cancers preclinically and in treatment-refractory patients, and PF-07799933 could be safely combined with a MEK inhibitor. The novel, rapid pharmacokinetics (PK)-informed dose escalation design provides a new paradigm for accelerating the testing of next-generation targeted therapies early in clinical development., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Talazoparib monotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated, early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) showed activity in the neoadjuvant setting in the phase II NEOTALA study (NCT03499353). These biomarker analyses further assessed the mutational landscape of the patients enrolled in the NEOTALA study., Methods: Baseline tumor tissue from the NEOTALA study was tested retrospectively using FoundationOne ® CDx. To further hypothesis-driven correlative analyses, agnostic heat-map visualizations of the FoundationOne ® CDx tumor dataset were used to assess overall mutational landscape and identify additional candidate predictive biomarkers of response., Results: All patients enrolled (N = 61) had TNBC. In the biomarker analysis population, 75.0% (39/52) and 25.0% (13/52) of patients exhibited BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively. Strong concordance (97.8%) was observed between tumor BRCA and germline BRCA mutations, and 90.5% (38/42) of patients with tumor BRCA mutations evaluable for somatic-germline-zygosity were predicted to exhibit BRCA loss of heterozygosity (LOH). No patients had non-BRCA germline DNA damage response (DDR) gene variants with known/likely pathogenicity, based on a panel of 14 non-BRCA DDR genes. Ninety-eight percent of patients had TP53 mutations. Genomic LOH, assessed continuously or categorically, was not associated with response., Conclusion: The results from this exploratory biomarker analysis support the central role of BRCA and TP53 mutations in tumor pathobiology. Furthermore, these data support assessing germline BRCA mutational status for molecular eligibility for talazoparib in patients with TNBC., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Low-dose CT (LDCT) is underused in Arkansas for lung cancer screening, a rural state with a high incidence of lung cancer. The objective was to determine whether offering free LDCT increased the number of high-risk individuals screened in a rural catchment area., Methods: There were 5,402 patients enrolled in screening at Highlands Oncology, a community oncology clinic in Northwest Arkansas, from 2013 to 2020. Screenings were separated into time periods: period 1 (10 months for-fee), period 2 (10 months free with targeted advertisements and primary care outreach), and period 3 (62 months free with only primary care outreach). In all, 5,035 high-risk participants were eligible for analysis based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Enrollment rates, incidence densities (IDs), Cox proportional hazard models, and Kaplan-Meier curves were performed to investigate differences between enrollment periods and high-risk groups., Results: Patient volume increased drastically once screenings were offered free of charge (period 1 = 4.6 versus period 2 = 66.0 and period 3 = 69.8 average patients per month). Incidence density per 1,000 person-years increased through each period (ID Period 1  = 17.2; ID Period 2  = 20.8; ID Period 3  = 25.5 cases). Cox models revealed significant differences in lung cancer risk between high-risk groups (P = .012) but not enrollment periods (P = .19). Kaplan-Meier lung cancer-free probabilities differed significantly between high-risk groups (log-rank P = .00068) but not enrollment periods (log-rank P = .18)., Conclusions: This study suggests that eligible patients are more receptive to free LDCT screening, despite most insurances not having a required copay for eligible patients., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The undetermined efficacy of the current standard-of-care neoadjuvant treatment, anthracycline/platinum-based chemotherapy, in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and germline BRCA mutations emphasizes the need for biomarker-targeted treatment, such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, in this setting. This phase II, single-arm, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant talazoparib in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated early-stage TNBC., Patients and Methods: Patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated early-stage TNBC received talazoparib 1 mg once daily for 24 weeks (0.75 mg for moderate renal impairment) followed by surgery. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) by independent central review (ICR). Secondary endpoints included residual cancer burden (RCB) by ICR. Safety and tolerability of talazoparib and patient-reported outcomes were assessed., Results: Of 61 patients, 48 received ≥80% talazoparib doses, underwent surgery, and were assessed for pCR or progressed before pCR assessment and considered nonresponders. pCR rate was 45.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.0%-60.6%) and 49.2% (95% CI, 36.7%-61.6%) in the evaluable and intent-to-treat (ITT) population, respectively. RCB 0/I rate was 45.8% (95% CI, 29.4%-63.2%) and 50.8% (95% CI, 35.5%-66.0%) in the evaluable and ITT population, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were reported in 58 (95.1%) patients. Most common grade 3 and 4 TRAEs were anemia (39.3%) and neutropenia (9.8%). There was no clinically meaningful detriment in quality of life. No deaths occurred during the reporting period; 2 deaths due to progressive disease occurred during long-term follow-up (>400 days after first dose)., Conclusions: Neoadjuvant talazoparib monotherapy was active despite pCR rates not meeting the prespecified threshold; these rates were comparable to those observed with combination anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy regimens. Talazoparib was generally well tolerated., Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03499353., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: The phase III MONALEESA-3 trial included first- (1L) and second-line (2L) patients and demonstrated a significant overall survival (OS) benefit for ribociclib + fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) in the final protocol-specified and exploratory (longer follow-up) OS analyses. At the time of these analyses, the full OS benefit of 1L ribociclib was not completely characterized because the median OS (mOS) was not reached. As CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) + endocrine therapy (ET) is now a preferred option for 1L HR+/HER2- ABC, we report an exploratory analysis (median follow-up, 70.8 months; 14.5 months longer than the prior analysis) to fully elucidate the OS benefit in the MONALEESA-3 1L population., Methods: Postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC were randomized 2:1 to 1L/2L fulvestrant + ribociclib or placebo. OS in 1L patients (de novo disease or relapse > 12 months from completion of [neo]adjuvant ET) was assessed by Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier methods. Progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) and chemotherapy-free survival (CFS) were analyzed. MONALEESA-3 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02422615)., Results: At data cutoff (January 12, 2022; median follow-up time, 70.8 months), mOS was 67.6 versus 51.8 months with 1L ribociclib versus placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.90); 16.5% and 8.6% of ribociclib and placebo patients, respectively, were still receiving treatment. PFS2 (HR 0.64) and CFS (HR 0.62) favored ribociclib versus placebo. Among those who discontinued treatment, 16.7% and 35.0% on ribociclib or placebo, respectively, received a subsequent CDK4/6i. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: This analysis of MONALEESA-3 reports the longest mOS thus far (67.6 months) for 1L patients in a phase III ABC trial. These results in a 1L population show that the OS benefit of ribociclib was maintained through extended follow-up, further supporting its use in HR+/HER2- ABC., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Combinations of avelumab [anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1)] or talazoparib [poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor] with binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) were expected to result in additive or synergistic antitumor activity relative to each drug administered alone. Here, we report phase Ib results from JAVELIN PARP MEKi, which investigated avelumab or talazoparib combined with binimetinib in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with mPDAC that had progressed with prior treatment received avelumab 800 mg every 2 weeks plus binimetinib 45 mg or 30 mg two times daily (continuous), or talazoparib 0.75 mg daily plus binimetinib 45 mg or 30 mg two times daily (7 days on/7 days off). The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT)., Results: A total of 22 patients received avelumab plus binimetinib 45 mg (n = 12) or 30 mg (n = 10). Among DLT-evaluable patients, DLT occurred in five of 11 patients (45.5%) at the 45-mg dose, necessitating de-escalation to 30 mg; DLT occurred in three of 10 patients (30.0%) at the 30-mg dose. Among patients treated at the 45-mg dose, one (8.3%) had a best overall response of partial response. Thirteen patients received talazoparib plus binimetinib 45 mg (n = 6) or 30 mg (n = 7). Among DLT-evaluable patients, DLT occurred in two of five patients (40.0%) at the 45-mg dose, necessitating de-escalation to 30 mg; DLT occurred in two of six patients (33.3%) at the 30-mg dose. No objective responses were observed., Conclusions: Combinations of avelumab or talazoparib plus binimetinib resulted in higher-than-expected DLT rates. However, most DLTs were single occurrences, and the overall safety profiles were generally consistent with those reported for the single agents., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT03637491; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03637491., Competing Interests: Disclosure JRA reports nonfinancial support and reasonable reimbursement for travel from the European Society for Medical Oncology; has received travel and accommodation expenses from Ellipses Pharma, IONCTURA, Kelun Pharmaceuticals/KLUS Pharma, Molecular Partners, and Peptomyc; has served in consulting or advisory roles for Boxer Capital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Ellipses Pharma, IONCTURA (including serving on a scientific advisory board), Kelun Pharmaceuticals/KLUS Pharma, Molecular Partners, Peptomyc, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology/Ministerio De Empleo Y Seguridad Social, and Tang Advisors; has received research funding from Black Diamond Therapeutics, Blueprint Medicines, Hummingbird, MSD, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology/Cancer Core Europe, and Yingli; and has served as investigator in clinical trials with Aadi Bioscience, Amgen, Bayer, BioAtla, BioMed Valley Discoveries, Bicycle Therapeutics, Cancer Core Europe, Cellestia, Curis, CytomX, Deciphera, Fore Biotherapeutics, Genmab, GSK, Hummingbird, Hutchison MediPharma, IDEAYA, Kelun-Biotech, Loxo Oncology, Merus, Mirati Linnaeus Therapeutics, Novartis, Nuvation, Pfizer, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, Taiho, Takeda-Millennium, Tango Therapeutics, and Yingli. DSWT has received institutional research funding from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Novartis; has received honoraria from BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; has served in consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Loxo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and has received travel and accommodation expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Roche. IGL has served in consulting or advisory roles for Array BioPharma, Eisai, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kanaph, OncXerna, SOTIO, and Sumitomo; and has received institutional research funding from ARMO BioSciences, Bayer, BMS, BridgeBio, GSK, Glenmark, Halozyme, Ignyta, Incyte, Lilly, MedImmune, NewLink Genetics, Novartis, OncoMed, and Pfizer. WH has received research funding from AI Therapeutics. JTB has received research funding from Novartis and Pfizer. NB has served in consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, and Exelixis. ZZ reports stock and other ownership interests in and was employed by Pfizer at the time of study. SD, KK, CW, and RJL report employment by and stock and other ownership interests in Pfizer. NP reports stock and other ownership interests in and was employed by Pfizer at the time of study. WAM has served in consulting or advisory roles for Five Prime Therapeutics (DMSC), Zymeworks (DMSC), and QED Therapeutics (DMSC); and has received institutional research funding from ALX Oncology, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, EDDC/D3, Exelixis, Fate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda. AB, SR, NK have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing Upon request, and subject to review, Pfizer will provide the data that support the findings of this study. Subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions, Pfizer may also provide access to the related individual deidentified participant data. See https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/trial-data-and-results for more information. Ethics approval and consent to participate The trial was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Council for Harmonisation Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, and the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. All patients provided written informed consent before enrollment. The protocol, amendments, and informed consent forms were approved by the institutional review board or independent ethics committee at each center., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adavosertib (AZD1775) is a first-in-class, selective, small-molecule inhibitor of Wee1., Objective: The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of adavosertib monotherapy were evaluated in patients with various solid-tumor types and molecular profiles., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had the following: confirmed diagnosis of ovarian cancer (OC), triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), or small-cell lung cancer (SCLC); previous treatment for metastatic/recurrent disease; and measurable disease. Patients were grouped into six matched cohorts based on tumor type and presence/absence of biomarkers and received oral adavosertib 175 mg twice a day on days 1-3 and 8-10 of a 21-day treatment cycle., Results: Eighty patients received treatment in the expansion phase; median total treatment duration was 2.4 months. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (56.3%), nausea (42.5%), fatigue (36.3%), vomiting (18.8%), and decreased appetite (12.5%). Treatment-related grade ≥ 3 AEs and serious AEs were reported in 32.5% and 10.0% of patients, respectively. AEs led to dose interruptions in 22.5%, reductions in 11.3%, and discontinuations in 16.3% of patients. One patient died following serious AEs of deep vein thrombosis (treatment related) and respiratory failure (not treatment related). Objective response rate, disease control rate, and progression-free survival were as follows: 6.3%, 68.8%, 4.5 months (OC BRCA wild type); 3.3%, 76.7%, 3.9 months (OC BRCA mutation); 0%, 69.2%, 3.1 months (TNBC biomarker [CCNE1/MYC/MYCL1/MYCN] non-amplified [NA]); 0%, 50%, 2 months (TNBC biomarker amplified); 8.3%, 33.3%, 1.3 months (SCLC biomarker NA); and 0%, 33.3%, 1.2 months (SCLC biomarker amplified)., Conclusion: Adavosertib monotherapy was tolerated and demonstrated some antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02482311; registered June 2015., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Importance: Preclinical data suggest that poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have synergistic activity when combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); however, it is unknown which tumor types or molecular subtypes may benefit from this combination., Objective: To investigate responses associated with the combination of avelumab and talazoparib in different tumor types and/or molecular subtypes., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this phase 1b and 2 basket nonrandomized controlled trial, patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in the following cohorts: non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); DNA damage response (DDR)-positive NSCLC; triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC); hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-negative, DDR-positive breast cancer; recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (OC); recurrent, platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2-altered OC; urothelial cancer; metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); DDR-positive mCRPC; and BRCA1/2- or ATM-altered solid tumors. Data were analyzed between June 17, 2021, and August 6, 2021., Interventions: All patients in phases 1b and 2 received avelumab plus talazoparib., Main Outcomes and Measures: The phase 1b primary end point was dose-limiting toxic effects. The phase 2 primary end point was objective response, measured as objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included safety, time to response, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, time to prostate-specific antigen progression and PSA response of 50% or greater (for mCRPC), cancer antigen 125 response (for OC), pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and biomarkers., Results: A total of 223 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.2 [11.0] years; 117 [52.5%] men) were treated, including 12 patients in phase 1b and 211 patients in phase 2. The recommended phase 2 dose was avelumab 800 mg every 2 weeks plus talazoparib 1 mg once daily. In phase 2, the ORR was 18.2% (95% CI, 5.2%-40.3%) in patients with TNBC; 34.8% (95% CI, 16.4%-57.3%) in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and DDR-positive BC; and 63.6% (95% CI, 30.8%-89.1%) in patients with platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2-altered OC. Responses occurred more frequently in patients with BRCA1/2-altered tumors. Durable responses were observed in patients with TNBC (median [range] DOR, 11.1 [3.4-20.4] months); HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and DDR-positive BC (median [range] DOR, 15.7 [3.9 to ≥20.6] months); and BRCA1/2-altered OC (median DOR not reached; range, 5.6 to ≥18.4 months). The most common grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events were anemia (75 patients [33.6%]), thrombocytopenia (48 patients [21.5%]), and neutropenia (31 patients [13.9%])., Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized controlled trial found that ORRs for avelumab plus talazoparib were comparable with those with PARP inhibitor or ICI monotherapy. Prolonged DOR in patients with TNBC; HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, and DDR-positive BC; and BRCA1/2-altered OC warrant further investigation in randomized clinical trials. These data highlight the importance of prospective patient selection in future studies of ICI and PARP-inhibitor combinations., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03330405.

This nonrandomized, open-label, multi-cohort Phase 1b study (NCT02779751) investigated the safety and efficacy of abemaciclib plus pembrolizumab with/without anastrozole in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) without prior CDK4 and 6 inhibitor exposure. Patients were divided into two cohorts: treatment naïve (cohort 1) and pretreated (cohort 2). Patients received abemaciclib plus pembrolizumab with (cohort 1) or without (cohort 2) anastrozole over 21-day cycles. The primary objective was safety, and secondary objectives included efficacy and pharmacokinetics (PK). Cohort 1/2 enrolled 26/28 patients, respectively. Neutropenia (30.8/28.6%), AST increase (34.6/17.9%), ALT increase (42.3/10.7%), and diarrhea (3.8/10.7%) were the most frequent grade ≥3 adverse events in cohort 1/2, respectively. A total of two deaths occurred, which investigators attributed to treatment-related adverse events (AEs), both in cohort 1. Higher rates of all grade and grade ≥3 interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis were observed compared to previously reported with abemaciclib and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The PK profiles were consistent between cohorts and with previous monotherapy studies. In cohorts 1/2, the overall response rate and disease control rate were 23.1/28.6% and 84.6/82.1%, respectively. Median progression-free survival and overall survivals were 8.9 (95% CI: 3.9-11.1) and 26.3 months (95% CI: 20.0-31.0) for cohort 2; cohort 1 data are immature. Abemaciclib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity, but high rates of ILD/pneumonitis and severe transaminase elevations occurred with/without anastrozole compared to the previous reporting. Benefit/risk analysis does not support further evaluation of this combination in the treatment of HR+, HER2- MBC., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Dostarlimab is an anti-programmed cell death protein-1 antibody being evaluated in recurrent/advanced solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in the ongoing Phase I, multi-center, open-label, 2-part (dose escalation and cohort expansion) GARNET study (NCT02715284)., Materials and Methods: Here, we report an interim analysis of patients with recurrent/advanced NSCLC who progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients received dostarlimab (500 mg IV every 3 weeks [Q3W] for Cycles 1-4, then 1000 mg Q6W) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for > 2 years. The primary endpoints were immune-related objective response rate (irORR) per investigator-assessed irRECIST and safety., Results: As of 8, July 2019, 67 patients with recurrent/advanced NSCLC were enrolled and treated with dostarlimab; the majority had programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) < 1% (35.8% of patients) or PD-L1 TPS 1%-49% (29.9% of patients); 7.5% had PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%, and 26.9% had unknown PD-L1 TPS status. Median follow-up was 13.8 months (range: 0.0-22.6). irORR was 26.9%, including 2 complete and 16 partial responses. The median duration of response of 11.6 months (range: 2.8-19.4). Responses were observed in 2 of 24 (16.7%) patients with PD-L1 TPS < 1%, 4 of 20 (20.0%) patients with PD-L1 TPS 1%-49% and 2 of 5 (40.0%) patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%. Fatigue (4.5%) was the most common Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event (TRAE). Immune-related TRAEs (any grade) were observed in 28.4% of patients., Conclusion: Dostarlimab demonstrated promising antitumor activity in advanced/recurrent NSCLC that progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy, including across all PD-L1 subgroups, and has an acceptable safety profile., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: MONALEESA-3 demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for ribociclib plus fulvestrant (R+F) in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2 negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study estimated quality-adjusted (QA) survival outcomes for patients receiving R+F vs. placebo (P)+F in MONALEESA-3., Methods: Kaplan-Meier OS was partitioned into health states: (1) toxicity (TOX)=time spent with grade 3 -4 adverse events before progression (DP); (2) progression (PROG)=time between DP and death; and (3) time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST)=time not in TOX or PROG. QA time was calculated by combining estimated mean time in each health state with treatment-group specific health-state utility values estimated using EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Outcomes included QA progression-free survival (QAPFS), QAOS, and QA TWiST (Q-TWiST). Q-TWiST was calculated with health-state utility values for TOX and PROG defined relative to TWiST., Results: Mean PFS and OS were significantly greater with R+F vs. P+F (difference 0.56 and 0.19 years). Mean time in TOX and TWiST were greater with R+F; mean time in PROG was greater with P+F. QAPFS was 0.45 years (95% CI 0.27 -0.63) greater with R+F than P+F (P <.001). QAOS was numerically greater with R+F vs. P+F (0.16 years, 95% CI 0.07 -0.45, P = .0569). Q-TWiST was 0.23 years greater with R+F (95% CI 0.07 -0.45, P = .0069). In a sensitivity analysis using an estimate of disutility for PROG, the difference in QAOS was 0.23 years (95% CI 0.08 -0.41, P = .0022)., Conclusion: R+F in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC improves QAPFS, resulting in clinically important improvements in Q-TWiST and may improve QAOS., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK) 4 and 6 regulate G1 to S cell cycle progression and are often altered in cancers. Abemaciclib is a selective inhibitor of CDK4 and CDK6 approved for administration on a continuous dosing schedule as monotherapy or as combination therapy with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer. This Phase 1b study evaluated the safety and tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of abemaciclib in combination with endocrine therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), including aromatase inhibitors (letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane) or tamoxifen., Patients and Methods: Women ≥18 years old with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) MBC were eligible for enrollment. Eligibility included measurable disease or non-measurable but evaluable bone disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v1.1, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Adverse events were graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 and tumor response were assessed by RECIST v1.1., Results: Sixty-seven patients were enrolled and received abemaciclib 200 mg every 12 hours in combination with letrozole (Part A, n=20), anastrozole (Part B, n=16), tamoxifen (Part C, n=16), or exemestane (Part D, n=15). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and abdominal pain. Grade 4 TEAEs were reported in five patients (one each with hyperglycemia, hypertension, neutropenia, procedural hemorrhage, and sepsis). There was no effect of abemaciclib or endocrine therapy on the pharmacokinetics of any combination study drug. Across all treated patients, the median progression-free survival was 25.4 months (95% confidence interval: 18.0, 35.8). The objective response rate was 38.9% in 36 patients with measurable disease., Conclusions: Abemaciclib in combination with multiple endocrine therapy options exhibited manageable safety and promising antitumor activity in patients with HR+, HER2- MBC., Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT02057133., Competing Interests: Authors AMM, AL, GLP, SCC and LML were employed by Eli Lilly and Company. SMT received research grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cyclacel, Eisai, Eli Lilly (outside submitted work), Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Merck, Nektar, Nanostring, Odonate, Pfizer, Puma, Sanofi; and personal fees from 4D Pharma, Athenex, BeyondSpring Pharma, Certara, Chugai Pharma, CytomX, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ellipses Pharma, G1 Therapeutics, Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceuticals, Mersana Therapeutics, OncoPep, OncoSec, OncXerna, Infinity Therapeutics, Samsung Bioepsis Inc., Seattle Genetics, Zentalis, and Zymeworks. MB received honoraria or research funding paid to the institution from Agios, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Merrimack, Mersana, Puma Biotechnology, Phoenix Molecular Designs, Zymerworks; Speaker’s Bureau paid to the institution from Bristol-Meyer-Squib, Genentech, and Merck; and travel expenses from Genentech and Merck. Consulting or advisory role payment was paid to an immediate family member from Bayer, Merck, Novartis and Seattle Genetics. ECD acted in a consulting or advisory role for Novartis, Strata Oncology, G1 Therapeutics, received research funding from Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, H3 Biomedicine, Meryx Pharmaceuticals, and received reimbursement for travel expenses from G1 Therapeutics. HAB received research grants paid to the institution from Abbvie, Agios, Arch Oncology, ARMO Biosciences, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BioAtla, BioMed Valley Discoveries, BioTheryX, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CALGB, CicloMed, Coordination Pharmaceuticals, CytomX, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Foundation Medicine, Gossamer Bio, Lilly, EMD Serono, Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon, Hengrui Therapeutics, Incyte, Janssen, Jounce, Kymab, MacroGenics, MedImmune, Merck, Millennium, Moderna, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Revolution Medicine, Ryvu Therapeutics, SeaGen, Tesaro, TG Therapeutics, Verastem, Vertex, XBiotech, Zymeworks; uncompensated consulting for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GRAIL, Incyte, Novartis, Vincerx Pharma; and is employed by HCA Healthcare/Sarah Cannon and has Stock ownership with HCA Healthcare/Sarah Cannon. MPG received research grants paid to the institution: Biovica, Context Pharm, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Sermonix; grants to the institution from Eli Lilly and Pfizer; and personal feed from Genentech Health. KNM served on advisory boards for Astra Zeneca, Aravive, Alkemeres, Blueprint Pharma, Eisai/Serono, Genentech/Roche, GSK/Tesoro, Hengrui, Immunogen, Inxmed, IMab, Lilly, Mereo, Merck, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Onconova, OncXerna, Tarveda, vBL Therapeutics. I am on SC for Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, Mersana and VBL Therapeutics. KK acted in a consulting or advisory role for 4D Pharma, AstraZeneca, Cyclocel, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunomedics, Merck, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Puma, and Seattle Genetics; and spouse has stock for Array BioPharma, Grail, and Pfizer. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors declare that this study received funding from Eli Lilly and Company. The funder had the following involvement with the study: at the time of the study AMM, AL, GLP, LML, and SCC were employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2022 Tolaney, Beeram, Beck, Conlin, Dees, Puhalla, Rexer, Burris, Jhaveri, Helsten, Becerra, Kalinsky, Moore, Manuel, Lithio, Price, Chapman, Litchfield and Goetz.)

Purpose: This phase II study determined the efficacy of lacnotuzumab added to gemcitabine plus carboplatin (gem-carbo) in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC)., Patients and Methods: Female patients with advanced TNBC, with high levels of tumor-associated macrophages not amenable to curative treatment by surgery or radiotherapy were enrolled. Lacnotuzumab was dosed at 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks, ± a dose on cycle 1, day 8. Gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 ) and carboplatin (dose in mg calculated by area under the curve [mg/mL/min] × (glomerular filtration rate [mL/min] + 25 [mL/min]) were dosed every 3 weeks. Treatment continued until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or discontinuation by physician/patient., Results: Patients received lacnotuzumab + gem-carbo ( n = 34) or gem-carbo ( n = 15). Enrollment was halted due to recruitment challenges owing to rapid evolution of the therapeutic landscape; formal hypothesis testing of the primary endpoint was therefore not performed. Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months [90% confidence interval (CI), 4.47-8.64] in the lacnotuzumab + gem-carbo arm and 5.5 months (90% CI, 3.45-7.46) in the gem-carbo arm. Hematologic adverse events were common in both treatment arms; however, patients treated with lacnotuzumab experienced more frequent aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and creatine kinase elevations. Pharmacokinetic results showed that free lacnotuzumab at 10 mg/kg exhibited a typical IgG pharmacokinetic profile and target engagement of circulating colony-stimulating factor 1 ligand., Conclusions: Despite successful target engagement and anticipated pharmacokinetic profile, lacnotuzumab + gem-carbo showed comparable antitumor activity to gem-carbo alone, with slightly poorer tolerability. However, the data presented in this article would be informative for future studies testing agents targeting the CSF1-CSF1 receptor pathway in TNBC., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Breast cancer patients diagnosed with HR+/HER2- tumors face a persistent risk of distant recurrence long after completion of their treatment. Strategies to induce anti-tumor immune responses could complement standard-of-care therapies for these patients. The current study was performed to examine the feasibility, safety and immunogenicity of adding P10s-PADRE to standard-of-care chemotherapy in HR+/HER2- early-stage breast cancer patients. Twenty-five subjects were treated in a single-arm Phase Ib clinical trial. Five different immunization schedules were considered to evaluate the feasibility of eliciting an immune response. The primary immunogenicity endpoint was antibody titer. The expression of several activation markers on natural killer (NK) cells and serum concentrations of Th1/Th2 cytokines were also examined. The percentage of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) was determined. Antibody response was superior in schedule C where 3 weekly immunizations preceded the first dose of chemotherapy. A significant change in CD16, NKp46 and CD94 expression levels on NK cells and a rise in serum content of IFN-γ was observed after treatment. Schedule C showed an increase in TILs in residual lesions. The combination therapy is safe and immunogenic with treatment schedule C being immunologically promising. Randomized trials focused on long-term survival outcomes are needed to evaluate clinical benefits., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TKE and BMK are named as inventors on an institutional patent application filed by UAMS that is related to the content of this manuscript. Therefore, Drs. Kieber-Emmons, Monzavi-Karbassi, and UAMS have a potential financial interest in the vaccine used in this clinical trial. No financial or other support of any kind has resulted from this patent application. These financial interests have been reviewed and the clinical trial was performed by approved supervision in accordance with the UAMS conflict of interest policies. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright: © 2021 Makhoul et al.)

Background: Most patients with advanced melanomas relapse after checkpoint blockade therapy. Thus, immunotherapies are needed that can be applied safely early, in the adjuvant setting. Seviprotimut-L is a vaccine containing human melanoma antigens, plus alum. To assess the efficacy of seviprotimut-L, the Melanoma Antigen Vaccine Immunotherapy Study (MAVIS) was initiated as a three-part multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Results from part B1 are reported here., Methods: Patients with AJCC V.7 stage IIB-III cutaneous melanoma after resection were randomized 2:1, with stage stratification (IIB/C, IIIA, IIIB/C), to seviprotimut-L 40 mcg or placebo. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was the primary endpoint. For an hypothesized HR of 0.625, one-sided alpha of 0.10, and power 80%, target enrollment was 325 patients., Results: For randomized patients (n=347), arms were well-balanced, and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar for seviprotimut-L and placebo. For the primary intent-to-treat endpoint of RFS, the estimated HR was 0.881 (95% CI: 0.629 to 1.233), with stratified logrank p=0.46. However, estimated HRs were not uniform over the stage randomized strata, with HRs (95% CIs) for stages IIB/IIC, IIIA, IIIB/IIIC of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.37 to 1.19), 0.72 (95% CI: 0.35 to 1.50), and 1.19 (95% CI: 0.72 to 1.97), respectively. In the stage IIB/IIC stratum, the effect on RFS was greatest for patients <60 years old (HR=0.324 (95% CI: 0.121 to 0.864)) and those with ulcerated primary melanomas (HR=0.493 (95% CI: 0.255 to 0.952))., Conclusions: Seviprotimut-L is very well tolerated. Exploratory efficacy model estimation supports further study in stage IIB/IIC patients, especially younger patients and those with ulcerated melanomas., Trial Registration Number: NCT01546571., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CLS discloses research funding to his University from Merck, Celldex, and GlaxoSmithKline; research support in kind to his University from Theraclion, 3M, Merck, and Celldex; Scientific Advisory Board role with Immatics (prior), and Curevac; principal investigator role for Polynoma with compensation to his university, related to this manuscript; and patent royalties as co-inventor of peptides for use in cancer vaccines (patents held by the UVA Licensing and Ventures Group). KDL received research funding from Polynoma. JH served on an advisory board for Nektar and BMS in 2020. SNM has received research grants from BMS and from Sorrento Pharma. TB is receiving time and effort support from Genentech for a melanoma prevention study and is the principal investigator for melanoma clinical studies sponsored by Genentech, Amgen, and Replimune. JC serves as consultant/speaker for Amgen, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. SGH serves as an advisor to Incyte. BC has received honoraria from Merck (DSMB member), Clinigen (Ad board), Nektar (Ad Board), research support from Galectin Therapeutics, Clinigen. BMS (to Institution) and AstraZeneca (to Institution). MOB discloses roles on Advisory boards (Merck, BMS, Novartis, EMD Serono, Sanofi, Pfizer, Immunocore, GSK); safety Review Committees (GSK, Adaptimmune), and research funding from Merck and Takara Bio. JL has received research funding to his institution from BMS, Immunocore, Polynoma, Iovance and has participated in advisory boards from Regeneron and Array. DM directly is on speaker’s bureaus for Pfizer, Merck, Astellas, and SeaGen. TS serves on Advisory boards for Immunocore and Castle Biosciences. EH is on the speakers’ bureaus for Amgen and Castle Biosciences. SK is on the speakers’ bureau for Janssen, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca. RW is on a Speaker’s bureau for AstraZeneca. ABe has served as an advisor to Cardinal Health and Castle Biosciences. ABa is a consultant/speaker for Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and receives research funding to her institution from Polynoma, Castle Biosciences, Pellepharm. CM has received grants, ad board and speaker fees from Novartis, BMS, Merck and Pfizer. VG is an investor in Medocity. DB: Research support- Natera; served on advisory boards for Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Oncocyte; speaker’s bureau-Janssen, Guardant. JJP is a paid consultant for Polynoma., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Abemaciclib is an oral, selective small-molecule CDK 4 and 6 inhibitor. In preclinical models, abemaciclib synergized with programmed cell death protein-1 blockade to enhance antitumor efficacy. Here, we report the safety and anticancer activity of abemaciclib plus pembrolizumab in two cohorts with NSCLC., Methods: This nonrandomized, open-label, phase 1b study included patients with previously untreated programmed death-ligand 1-positive, KRAS -mutant nonsquamous metastatic NSCLC (cohort A); squamous NSCLC after one previous platinum-containing chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease (cohort B); and two breast cancer cohorts (disclosed separately). Patients received 150 mg abemaciclib every 12 hours plus 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously on day 1 every 21 days. The primary objective was safety; secondary objectives included objective response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Clinical Trial Number: NCT02779751., Results: Each cohort enrolled 25 patients. Grades greater than or equal to 3 treatment-emergent adverse events in cohorts A and B were reported by 20 (80%) and 19 patients (76%), respectively. Six patients in cohort A (24.0%) and two patients in cohort B (8.0%) had a confirmed partial response; disease control rate was 56% and 64%, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 7.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-not estimable) and 3.3 months (95% CI: 1.4-5.2); median overall survival was 27.8 months (95% CI: 9.9-not estimable) and 6.0 months (95% CI: 3.7-13.1) in cohorts A and B, respectively., Conclusions: The combination of abemaciclib and pembrolizumab in stage IV NSCLC resulted in greater toxicity compared with that previously reported for each individual treatment. Risk-benefit profile does not warrant further evaluation of the combination in this population., (© 2021 THE AUTHORS.)

Background: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here we present a new landmark in survival follow-up for a phase III cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitor clinical trial in patients with ABC (median, 56.3 months)., Patients and Methods: This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 174 sites (30 countries). Patients were men and postmenopausal women (age ≥18 years) with histologically/cytologically confirmed HR+/HER2- ABC. Patients could have received ≤1 line of endocrine therapy (ET) but no chemotherapy for ABC. Patients, assigned 2:1, were stratified by the presence/absence of liver/lung metastases and previous ET. Patients received intramuscular fulvestrant (500 mg, day 1 of each 28-day cycle plus day 15 of cycle 1) with oral ribociclib (600 mg/day, 3 weeks on, 1 week off) or placebo. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in patients receiving ≥1 dose study treatment. OS was a secondary endpoint. MONALEESA-3 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02422615; no longer enrolling)., Results: Between 18 June 2015 and 10 June 2016, 726 patients were randomly assigned (484, ribociclib; 242, placebo). At data cut-off (30 October 2020), median OS (mOS) was 53.7 months (ribociclib) versus 41.5 months (placebo) [hazard ratio (HR), 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59-0.90]. Subgroup analyses were consistent with overall population. In the first-line setting, most patients in the ribociclib arm (∼60%) lived longer than median follow-up; mOS was 51.8 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.64; 95% CI 0.46-0.88). In the second-line setting, mOS was 39.7 months (ribociclib) versus 33.7 months (placebo) (HR, 0.78; 95% CI 0.59-1.04). No apparent drug-drug interaction between ribociclib and fulvestrant or new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: This analysis reported extended OS follow-up in MONALEESA-3. mOS was ∼12 months longer in patients with HR+/HER2- ABC treated with ribociclib plus fulvestrant compared with fulvestrant monotherapy., Competing Interests: Disclosure DJS reports board of directors (stock) and travel expenses from BioMarin; stock ownership, research funding, and travel expenses from Pfizer; advisory board, consulting, research funding, and travel expenses from Novartis; consulting from Eli Lilly; and stock ownership from Amgen and Seattle Genetics. SC reports that his institution received grants and personal fees for advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. GJ reports personal fees from Novartis, during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Novartis, Roche, and Pfizer; personal fees and non-financial support from Lilly, Amgen, BMS, and AstraZeneca; personal fees from AbbVie and Daiichi-Sankyo; and non-financial support from Med-immune and Merck KGaA, outside the submitted work. MDL reports personal fees for speaker honoraria and advisory board honoraria from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. SI reports grants from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eisai, and Daewoong; advisory and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hanmi, Pfizer, Eisai, Amgen, MediPacto, Roche, Eli Lilly, MSD, and GlaxoSmithKline; and non-financial support from Novartis. KP reports personal fees for advisory board from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, and BMS, outside the submitted work. GVB reports personal fees for advisory board from Novartis and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. MM reports personal fees for speaker honoraria and honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Lilly and Pfizer; honoraria for participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pharmamar, and Taiho Oncology; and research grants and honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Novartis and Roche-Genentech, outside the submitted work. AN reports consulting/advisory role, travel/accommodation/expenses, and research funding from Novartis and consulting/advisory role from Amgen during the conduct of the study. GSS reports institutional reimbursement for patient accrual and education and steering committee activities from Novartis and institutional research support from Merck, AstraZeneca, and Roche, outside the submitted work. LDLC-M reports personal fees for consultant/advisory role, research funding, and speaking engagements from MSD-Merck; consultant/advisory role, research funding, speaking engagements, and grant support from Roche Farma; consultant/advisory role, speaking engagements, and grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb; consultant/advisory role from Novartis and Pierre Fabre; consultant/advisory role and speaking engagements from Amgen; and research funding from Celgene, outside the submitted work. JTB reports grants for institutional funding for doing research from AbbVie, Alliance, Amgen, Ascentage Pharma Group, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Biomedial, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech-Roche, Hutchison, Immunomedics, Janssen, MT Group, Nektar, Pfizer, Polynoma, Seattle Genetics, Serono-EMD, Tesaro, TG Therapeutics, Biodesix, Exact Sciences, Boehringer Ingleheim, Laekna, Novocure, Daiichi-Sankyo, Mirati Therapeutics, and Tarveda Therapeutics, during the conduct of the study. YJ, CW, UD, AC, JPZ, and TT report employment and stock ownership from Novartis. PAF reports personal fees for advisory board from Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Macrogenics, Eisai, Puma, Lilly, and AstraZeneca; lectures from Daiichi-Sankyo, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Lilly; and research support from Cepheid and Novartis, outside the submitted work. PN has declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing Novartis made the study protocols available for MONALEESA-3 at the time of primary publications. Individual participant data will not be made available., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Combined mTORC1 inhibition with everolimus (EVE) and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase catalytic subunit p110α blockade with alpelisib (ALP) has demonstrated synergistic efficacy in preclinical models and supports testing the combination of ALP and EVE in the clinical setting. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of ALP in combination with EVE and in combination with EVE and exemestane (EXE) and subsequently assess safety, preliminary efficacy and effect of ALP on the pharmacokinetics of EVE and determine the magnitude of the drug-drug interaction., Patients and Methods: Dose escalation phases were conducted in patients with advanced solid tumours and in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). The dose expansion phase was conducted in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (both mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitor [mTORi]-naive), in patients with mTORi-pretreated solid tumours and in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC., Results: During the doublet escalation phase, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported in 5 of 10 (50%) patients: one patient had grade (Gr) 2 hyperglycemia and one patient had Gr 3 diarrhoea in the 300 mg dose group, one patient had Gr 2 hyperglycemia and one patient had Gr 4 hypocalcaemia in the 250 mg dose group, and one patient in the 200 mg dose group had Gr 3 diarrhoea and Gr 3 stomatitis. The combination of ALP 250 mg + EVE 2.5 mg was declared as the MTD/RDE in subjects with advanced solid tumours. In the triplet escalation phase, one patient who received ALP 200 mg + EVE 2.5 mg + EXE 25 mg had a DLT of Gr 3 acute kidney injury. This dose combination was declared as the MTD and RDE in subjects with advanced HR-positive HER2-negative BC. The common adverse events (≥30% patients), occurring across all phases, were hyperglycaemia, stomatitis, diarrhoea, nausea, asthenia, decreased appetite and fatigue. The sixteen-week progression-free survival rate was 52.4% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 32.8, 71.4) in the RCC cohort, 35.3% (90% CI: 16.6, 58.0) in the prior pNET cohort and 30.0% (90% CI: 8.7, 60.7) in the prior mTORi cohort. The pharmacokinetics of 2.5 mg of EVE was largely unchanged in the presence of ALP, independent of the dose (250 mg or 300 mg). There were no clinically relevant drug-drug interactions observed between ALP and EVE., Conclusion: The overall safety profile of ALP with EVE and EXE is manageable and reversible; no unexpected safety signals were noted compared with the individual safety profiles. Pharmacokinetics of ALP, EVE and EXE was largely unchanged in combination with each other., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement G.C. reports personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Seagen, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from AstraZeneca and personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, outside the submitted work. M.M. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Lilly, grants and personal fees from Puma, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Taiho Oncology, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from PharmaMar and personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, outside the submitted work. K.J. reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, grants and personal fees from ADC Therapeutics, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Jounce Therapeutics, personal fees from Taiho Oncology, grants and personal fees from Genentech, personal fees from Synthon, personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Eisai, grants from Clovis Oncology, grants from AstraZeneca, grants from Novita Pharmaceuticals, grants from Debiopharm, grants from Lilly, grants from Zymeworks, grants from Immunomedics and grants from Puma Biotechnology, outside the submitted work. J.T.B. reports grants from AbbVie, grants from Alliance, grants from Amgen, grants from Ascentage Pharma Group, grants from AstraZeneca, grants from Bayer, grants from Boston Biomedical, grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, grants from Celgene, grants from Eli Lilly, grants from Genentech-Roche, grants from Hutchison, grants from Immunomedics, grants from Janssen, grants from MT Group, grants from Nektar, grants from Pfizer, grants from Polynoma, grants from Seattle Genetics, grants from EMD Serono, grants from Tesaro, grants from TG Therapeutics, grants from Biodesix and grants from Exact Sciences, during the conduct of the study. G.T. declared no conflict of interest. N.F. reports honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Merck, Sanofi-Aventis and Advanced Accelerator Applications; consulting or advisory role in Novartis/Ipsen, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology and Wren Laboratories, Europe; research funding from Novartis (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Ipsen (Inst) and MSD (Inst) and other relationship with Springer and II Pensiero Scientifico Editore. M.M. and R.A.H. declared no conflict of interest. H.L. reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Ipsen and personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, during the conduct of the study. V.D. is a Novartis employee and declared no conflict of interest. O.A. is a Novartis employee and declared no conflict of interest. Z.L. is a Novartis employee and declared no conflict of interest. L.B. is a Novartis employee and declared no conflict of interest. F.A. reports grants from Novartis, during the conduct of the study, grants from Pfizer, grants from Roche, grants from Daiichi, grants from Eli Lilly and grants from Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The CLASSICAL-Lung clinical trial tested the combination of pepinemab, an IgG4 humanized mAb targeting semaphorin 4D, with the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab to assess the effects of coupling increased T-cell infiltration and reversal of immune suppression via pepinemab with sustained T-cell activation via checkpoint inhibition., Patients and Methods: This phase Ib/II, single-arm study was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pepinemab in combination with avelumab in 62 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including immunotherapy-naïve (ION) patients and patients whose tumors progressed following anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapy (IOF). The main objectives were to evaluate safety/tolerability, establish a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), obtain a preliminary evaluation of antitumor activity, and investigate candidate biomarker activity., Results: The combination was well tolerated with no major safety signals identified. Pepinemab, 10 mg/kg with avelumab, 10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks, was selected as the RP2D. Among 21 evaluable ION patients, 5 patients experienced partial responses (PR), 4 patients evidenced clinical benefit ≥1 year, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 81%. Notably, overall response rate with the combination therapy was higher than previously reported for single-agent avelumab in the PD-L1-negative/low population. Among 29 evaluable IOF patients, the combination resulted in a DCR of 59%, including 2 PR and 7 patients with durable clinical benefit of ≥23 weeks. Biomarker analysis of biopsies demonstrated increased CD8 T-cell density correlating with RECIST response criteria., Conclusions: The combination of pepinemab with avelumab was well tolerated in NSCLC and showed signs of antitumor activity in immunotherapy-resistant and PD-L1-negative/low tumors., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: To investigate patient-reported outcome (PRO) usage in phase I oncology clinical trials, including types of PRO measures and changes over time., Methods: We analyzed ClinicalTrials.gov records of phase I oncology clinical trials completed by December 2019., Results: Of all eligible trials, 2.3% (129/5,515) reported ≥1 PRO, totaling 181 instances of PRO usage. PRO usage increased over time, from 0.6% (trials initiated before 2000) to 3.4% (trials starting between 2015 and 2019). The most common PRO measures were unspecified (29%), tumor-specific (24%), and generic cancer (19%)., Conclusion: Although uncommon in phase I oncology clinical trials, PRO usage is increasing over time. PRO measures were often unspecified on ClinicalTrials.gov, suggesting that more precise reporting and standardization are needed., (© 2021 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: Multilineage myelosuppression is an acute toxicity of cytotoxic chemotherapy, resulting in serious complications and dose modifications. Current therapies are lineage specific and administered after chemotherapy damage has occurred. Trilaciclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor that is administered prior to chemotherapy to preserve hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and immune system function during chemotherapy (myelopreservation)., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with previously treated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) were randomized to receive intravenous trilaciclib 240 mg/m 2 or placebo before topotecan 1.5 mg/m 2 on days 1-5 of each 21-day cycle. Primary endpoints were duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1 and occurrence of severe neutropenia (SN). Additional endpoints were prespecified to further assess the effect of trilaciclib on myelopreservation, safety, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and antitumor efficacy., Results: Thirty-two patients received trilaciclib, and 29 patients received placebo. Compared with placebo, administration of trilaciclib prior to topotecan resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful decreases in DSN in cycle 1 (mean [standard deviation] 2 [3.9] versus 7 [6.2] days; adjusted one-sided P < 0.0001) and occurrence of SN (40.6% versus 75.9%; adjusted one-sided P = 0.016), with numerical improvements in additional neutrophil, red blood cell, and platelet measures. Patients receiving trilaciclib had fewer grade ≥ 3 hematologic adverse events than patients receiving placebo, particularly neutropenia (75.0% versus 85.7%) and anemia (28.1% versus 60.7%). Myelopreservation benefits extended to improvements in PROs, specifically in those related to fatigue. Antitumor efficacy was comparable between treatment arms., Conclusions: Compared with placebo, the addition of trilaciclib prior to topotecan for the treatment of patients with previously treated ES-SCLC improves the patient experience of receiving chemotherapy, as demonstrated by a reduction in chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression, improved safety profile, improved quality of life and no detrimental effects on antitumor efficacy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02514447.

Purpose: In the MONALEESA-3 Phase III trial of patients with hormone receptor-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative advanced breast cancer, ribociclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Here, we present patient-reported outcomes from the trial, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL)., Methods: Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive ribociclib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. Time to definitive 10% deterioration (TTD) from baseline in HRQOL (global health status [GHS] from the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire) and pain (BPI-SF questionnaire) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates; a stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CIs., Results: Deterioration ≥10% in the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS was observed in 33% of patients in the ribociclib group vs 34% of patients in the placebo (reference) group (HR for TTD ≥ 10% = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.62-1.1]). Similar findings were noted for TTD ≥5% (HR = 0.79 [95% CI, 0.61-1.0]) and TTD ≥15% (HR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.60-1.08]). TTD ≥10% in emotional functioning (HR = 0.76 [95% CI, 0.57-1.01]) trended in favor of the ribociclib group, whereas results for fatigue and pain were similar between arms. TTD ≥10% in BPI-SF pain severity index score (HR = 0.77 [95% CI, 0.57-1.05]) and worst pain item score (HR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.58-1.12]) trended in favor of ribociclib vs placebo., Conclusions: In addition to significantly prolonging PFS and OS compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, adding ribociclib to fulvestrant maintains HRQOL., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Fasching has received grants from Novartis, grants from Biontech, personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, TEVA, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Myelo Therapeutics, Macrogenics, Eisai, Puma, grants from Cepheid, outside the submitted work; Dr. Chan has nothing to disclose; Dr. Beck has received grants for his institution from Novartis, outside the submitted work; Dr. De Laurentiis has received personal fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Amgen, MSD, outside the submitted work; Dr. Esteva has received grants and personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, personal fees from Celltrion Healthcare, Seattle Genetics, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work; Dr. Jerusalem has received personal fees from Novartis; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Lilly, Amgen, BMS, Astra-Zeneca, personal fees from Celgene, Puma Technology, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, outside the submitted work; Dr. Neven has nothing to disclose; Dr. Pivot has nothing to disclose; Dr. Bianchi has received personal fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work; Dr. Martin has received personal fees from Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pharmamar, Taiho Oncology, grants and personal fees from Novartis, Roche-Genentech, outside the submitted work; Dr. Chandiwana reports other from Novartis, during the conduct of the study; Dr. Lanoue reports other from Novartis, during the conduct of the study; Dr. Ridolfi reports other from Novartis, during the conduct of the study; Dr. Wang has received personal fees and other from Novartis, outside the submitted work; Dr. Rodriguez Lorenc has received personal fees and other from Novartis, outside the submitted work; Dr. Nusch reports other from Novartis and Amgen, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Most glioblastoma tumours exhibit intrinsic phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation. Preclinical in vitro and in vivo models suggest that buparlisib (an oral pan-PI3K inhibitor) can have an effect on glioblastoma directly and by enhancing the activity of radiation and of temozolomide., Methods: This was a phase I, two-stage, multicentre, open-label, dose-escalation study of buparlisib in combination with temozolomide and radiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. In stage I, patients who completed the concomitant phase of combination of temozolomide and radiation prior to study entry received buparlisib in combination with temozolomide. In stage II, patients received buparlisib in combination with temozolomide and radiotherapy in the concomitant phase and temozolomide in the adjuvant treatment phase. The primary objective was to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of buparlisib when combined with the approved first-line treatment of temozolomide and radiotherapy., Results: The MTD of buparlisib in combination with temozolomide at stage I (adjuvant phase only) was 80 mg/day, which was used as the starting dose in stage II. The MTD of buparlisib in combination with temozolomide and radiotherapy in stage II (concomitant + adjuvant phase) was not determined due to the observed dose-limiting toxicities and treatment discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs). In stage I, the most commonly reported AEs were nausea (72.7%) and fatigue (59.1%). In stage II, the most commonly reported AEs were fatigue and nausea (56.3% each). No on-treatment deaths were reported during the study., Conclusion: Considering that the primary objective of estimating the MTD was not achieved in addition to the observed challenging safety profile of buparlisib in combination with radiotherapy and temozolomide, Novartis decided not to pursue the development of buparlisib in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01473901., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PYW reports research support from Agios, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Eli Lily, Genentech/Roche, Karyopharm, Kazia, MediciNova, Merck, Novartis, Oncoceutics, Sanofi‐Aventis and VBI Vaccines; participated on advisory boards for Abbvie, Agios, AstraZeneca, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Karyopharm, Kiyatec, Puma, Vascular Biogenics, Taiho, Deciphera, VBI Vaccines and Tocagen; speaker for Merck and Prime Oncology. JAR reports grants from Novartis and Bayer; personal fees from Novartis, MSD, PEPTOMYC, Eli Lilly and Bayer outside the submitted work. VD is an employee of Novartis Pharma SAS and holds Novartis stock options. DM is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG and holds Novartis stock options. ME-H is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and holds Novartis stock options. WM, JTB, JDG and MR have nothing to disclose., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Immune response to a given antigen, particularly in cancer patients, is complex and is controlled by various genetic and environmental factors. Identifying biomarkers that can predict robust response to immunization is an urgent need in clinical cancer vaccine development. Given the involvement of DNA methylation in the development of lymphocytes, tumorigenicity and tumor progression, we aimed to analyze pre-vaccination DNA methylation profiles of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from breast cancer subjects vaccinated with a novel peptide-based vaccine referred to as P10s-PADRE. This pilot study was performed to evaluate whether signatures of differentially methylated (DM) loci can be developed as potential predictive biomarkers for prescreening subjects with cancer who will most likely generate an immune response to the vaccine. Genomic DNA was isolated from PBMCs of eight vaccinated subjects, and their DNA methylation profiles were determined using Infinium ® MethylationEPIC BeadChip array from Illumina. A linear regression model was applied to identify loci that were differentially methylated with respect to anti-peptide antibody titers and with IFN-γ production. The data were summarized using unsupervised-learning methods: hierarchical clustering and principal-component analysis. Pathways and networks involved were predicted by Ingenuity Pathway Analysis. We observed that the profile of DM loci separated subjects in regards to the levels of immune responses. Canonical pathways and networks related to metabolic and immunological functions were found to be involved. The data suggest that it is feasible to correlate methylation signatures in pre-treatment PBMCs with immune responses post-treatment in cancer patients going through standard-of-care chemotherapy. Larger and prospective studies that focus on DM loci in PBMCs is warranted to develop pre-screening biomarkers before BC vaccination. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02229084., (Copyright © 2020 Hernandez Puente, Hsu, Rogers, Jousheghany, Siegel, Kadlubar, Beck, Makhoul, Hutchins, Kieber-Emmons and Monzavi-Karbassi.)

Background: In an earlier analysis of this phase 3 trial, ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than fulvestrant alone in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. Here we report the results of a protocol-specified second interim analysis of overall survival., Methods: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either ribociclib or placebo in addition to fulvestrant as first-line or second-line treatment. Survival was evaluated by means of a stratified log-rank test and summarized with the use of Kaplan-Meier methods., Results: This analysis was based on 275 deaths: 167 among 484 patients (34.5%) receiving ribociclib and 108 among 242 (44.6%) receiving placebo. Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant. The estimated overall survival at 42 months was 57.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.0 to 63.2) in the ribociclib group and 45.9% (95% CI, 36.9 to 54.5) in the placebo group, for a 28% difference in the relative risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92; P = 0.00455). The benefit was consistent across most subgroups. In a descriptive update, median progression-free survival among patients receiving first-line treatment was 33.6 months (95% CI, 27.1 to 41.3) in the ribociclib group and 19.2 months (95% CI, 14.9 to 23.6) in the placebo group. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant showed a significant overall survival benefit over placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. (Funded by Novartis; MONALEESA-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02422615.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: Less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in clinical trials, and 1 in 5 trials are stopped for poor accrual. We evaluated an automated clinical trial matching system that uses natural language processing to extract patient and trial characteristics from unstructured sources and machine learning to match patients to clinical trials., Patients and Methods: Medical records from 997 patients with breast cancer were assessed for trial eligibility at Highlands Oncology Group between May and August 2016. System and manual attribute extraction and eligibility determinations were compared using the percentage of agreement for 239 patients and 4 trials. Sensitivity and specificity of system-generated eligibility determinations were measured, and the time required for manual review and system-assisted eligibility determinations were compared., Results: Agreement between system and manual attribute extraction ranged from 64.3% to 94.0%. Agreement between system and manual eligibility determinations was 81%-96%. System eligibility determinations demonstrated specificities between 76% and 99%, with sensitivities between 91% and 95% for 3 trials and 46.7% for the 4th. Manual eligibility screening of 90 patients for 3 trials took 110 minutes; system-assisted eligibility determinations of the same patients for the same trials required 24 minutes., Conclusion: In this study, the clinical trial matching system displayed a promising performance in screening patients with breast cancer for trial eligibility. System-assisted trial eligibility determinations were substantially faster than manual review, and the system reliably excluded ineligible patients for all trials and identified eligible patients for most trials.

Background: Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation plays a key role in tumorigenesis and has been associated with poor prognosis and resistance to multiple therapies in various cancers. Results: There were 146 patients enrolled; common tumor types were colorectal, sarcoma, and ovarian. Tumors had PI3K pathway alterations and a median of four mutations with tissue-specific patterns of mutation burden (lowest: sarcoma [2.5]; highest: esophagus, germ cell tumor, skin non-melanoma, vaginal [7]). The number of prior therapies did not correlate with the number of genetic alterations (Pearson r = -0.037). The clinical benefit rate was 15.1% ( n = 22). An additional patient had an unconfirmed complete response. The most common adverse events were fatigue, nausea, hyperglycemia, decreased appetite, and diarrhea. Patient and Methods: In this phase 2, open-label, single-arm study, patients with solid or hematologic malignancies with PI3K pathway activation and progression on or after standard treatment received buparlisib (100 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate per local investigator assessment (response or stable disease at ≥16 weeks). Conclusions: Buparlisib was well tolerated, however efficacy was limited despite selection of PI3K pathway aberrations. Future studies may provide insight into buparlisib efficacy by refining the molecular selection of different tumor types., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST S.A. Piha-Paul reports receiving research funding for their institution from AbbVie, Curis, Five Prime Therapeutics, Genmab, GSK, Helix Pharma, Incyte, MedImmune, Merck, NewLink Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Pieris, Principia Biopharma, Puma Biotechnology, Tesaro, and XuanZhu Pharma. M.H. Taylor reports receiving honoraria from ArQule, Array Biopharma, Blue Print Medicines, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai Inc., Loxo Oncology, Trillium, and Novartis; consultancy/advisory role for ArQule, Array Biopharma, Blue Print Medicines, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai Inc., Loxo Oncology, and Novartis; speakers’ bureau participation for Bristol-Myers Squibb and Eisai Inc.; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Array Biopharma, Blue Print Medicines, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai Inc., Loxo Oncology, and Novartis. D. Spitz reports research funding from Florida Cancer Specialists/Sarah Cannon Research. L. Schwartzberg reports consulting/advisory role for Helsinn, Heron, Merck, and Tesaro, and research funding from Helsinn. J.T. Beck reports no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. T.M. Bauer reports consultancy/advisory role for Guardant Health, Ignyta, Loxo Oncology, Moderna Therapeutics, and Pfizer; and receiving research funding for their institution from AbbVie, Aileron Therapeutics, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Five Prime Therapeutics, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Ignyta, Immunocore, Immunogen, Incyte, Jacobio, Kolltan Pharmaceuticals, Leap Therapeutics, Lilly, MabVax, MedImmune, Medpacto Inc., Merck, Merrimack, Millennium, Mirati Therapeutics, Moderna Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Principa Biopharma, Peleton, Roche, Sanofi, and Stemline Therapeutics. F. Meric-Bernstam reports consulting role for Aduro BioTech, Dialectica, Jackson Laboratory, OrigiMed, Pieris, Samsung Bioepis, Sumitomo Dianippon, and Xencor; advisory role for Clearlight Diagnostics, Darwin Health, GRAIL, Inflection Biosciences, Mersana, and Spectrum; receiving research funding from AbbVie, Aileron, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Calithera Biosciences, Curis, CytomX, Daiichi Sankyo, eFFECTOR, Guardant Health, Jounce, Novartis, Millennium, Puma Biotechnology, Takeda, and Zymeworks; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Debiopharm Group, Genentech, Pfizer, and Taiho. D. Purkayastha, L. Karpiak, and S. Szpakowski report employment by, and stock ownership of Novartis. S. Szpakowski reports employment of an immediate family member by Compass Therapeutics. F. Braiteh reports receiving honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Incyte, Merck, and Pfizer; consulting/advisory role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, and Pfizer; speakers’ bureau participation for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Lilly, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology; and travel, accommodations, or expenses from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, Incyte, Lilly, Pfizer, and Puma Biotechnology., (Copyright: © 2019 Piha-Paul et al.)

Background: Chemotherapy-induced damage of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPC) causes multi-lineage myelosuppression. Trilaciclib is an intravenous CDK4/6 inhibitor in development to proactively preserve HSPC and immune system function during chemotherapy (myelopreservation). Preclinically, trilaciclib transiently maintains HSPC in G1 arrest and protects them from chemotherapy damage, leading to faster hematopoietic recovery and enhanced antitumor immunity., Patients and Methods: This was a phase Ib (open-label, dose-finding) and phase II (randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled) study of the safety, efficacy and PK of trilaciclib in combination with etoposide/carboplatin (E/P) therapy for treatment-naive extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer patients. Patients received trilaciclib or placebo before E/P on days 1-3 of each cycle. Select end points were prespecified to assess the effect of trilaciclib on myelosuppression and antitumor efficacy., Results: A total of 122 patients were enrolled, with 19 patients in part 1 and 75 patients in part 2 receiving study drug. Improvements were seen with trilaciclib in neutrophil, RBC (red blood cell) and lymphocyte measures. Safety on trilaciclib+E/P was improved with fewer ≥G3 adverse events (AEs) in trilaciclib (50%) versus placebo (83.8%), primarily due to less hematological toxicity. No trilaciclib-related ≥G3 AEs occurred. Antitumor efficacy assessment for trilaciclib versus placebo, respectively, showed: ORR (66.7% versus 56.8%, P = 0.3831); median PFS [6.2 versus 5.0 m; hazard ratio (HR) 0.71; P = 0.1695]; and OS (10.9 versus 10.6 m; HR 0.87; P = 0.6107)., Conclusion: Trilaciclib demonstrated an improvement in the patient's tolerability of chemotherapy as shown by myelopreservation across multiple hematopoietic lineages resulting in fewer supportive care interventions and dose reductions, improved safety profile, and no detriment to antitumor efficacy. These data demonstrate strong proof-of-concept for trilaciclib's myelopreservation benefits., Clinical Trail Number: NCT02499770., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Vemurafenib prolongs survival in patients with BRAF V600 -mutated advanced melanoma. In vitro studies show cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 is involved in vemurafenib metabolism, but the effect of strong inducers or inhibitors of CYP3A4 on vemurafenib exposure in vivo is unknown. This phase 1, open-label, multicenter study evaluated the effect of rifampicin, a CYP3A4 inducer, on the pharmacokinetics of single-dose vemurafenib in 27 patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic malignancy. Patients received a single oral dose of vemurafenib 960 mg on day 1, oral rifampicin 600 mg daily on days 8-16 (period B), and a single oral dose of vemurafenib 960 mg on day 17 and rifampicin 600 mg daily for days 17-23 (period C), with plasma samples obtained up to 168 hours after vemurafenib dosing. The geometric mean ratio (period C/period A) of area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to last measurable concentration time point and area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity for vemurafenib (n = 23 for the pharmacokinetic analysis) was 0.61 (90% confidence interval, 0.48-0.78) and 0.60 (90% confidence interval, 0.47-0.76), respectively, indicating rifampicin significantly decreased vemurafenib plasma exposure by approximately 40%. The geometric mean ratio of the maximum concentration for vemurafenib was 1.1; this slight increase is likely owing to one outlier in period C. Adverse events were consistent with those previously seen for rifampicin and for vemurafenib monotherapy. Caution is advised when dosing vemurafenib concurrently with CYP3A4 inducers., (© 2018, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Background: In the Mammary Oncology Assessment of LEE011's (Ribociclib's) Efficacy and Safety (MONALEESA-2) study, combination treatment with the selective inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 ribociclib with letrozole significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole alone in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive HR + /HER2 - advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein we present results from the subset of US patients enrolled in MONALEESA-2., Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with HR + /HER2 - ABC without previous treatment for advanced disease were randomized (1:1) to ribociclib 600 mg/d (3 weeks on/1 week off) with letrozole 2.5 mg/d (continuous) or placebo with letrozole. The primary end point was locally assessed PFS., Results: Overall, 213 US patients were enrolled in MONALEESA-2 (ribociclib, n = 100; placebo, n = 113). Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups and consistent with the global population. With a median follow-up of 27 months, 38 (38%) and 29 (26%) patients in the ribociclib and placebo groups, respectively, had continued to receive treatment. Median PFS was 27.6 months with ribociclib and 15.0 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.53). The most common all-cause adverse events were neutropenia (ribociclib, 72.0% [n = 72]; placebo, 4.6% [n = 5]), nausea (ribociclib, 69.0% [n = 69]; placebo, 44.0% [n = 48]), and fatigue (ribociclib, 60.0% [n = 60]; placebo, 50.5% [n = 55]). Two patients (ribociclib, 2.0%; placebo, 0%) experienced febrile neutropenia., Conclusion: In the US subset of MONALEESA-2, ribociclib with letrozole showed superior efficacy versus letrozole alone. These findings are consistent with the global population and support first-line use of ribociclib with letrozole in patients with HR + /HER2 - ABC., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: In a prior open-label study, the combination of dalantercept, a novel antiangiogenic targeting activin receptor-like kinase 1 (ALK1), plus axitinib was deemed safe and tolerable with a promising efficacy signal in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC)., Methods: In the current phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with clear cell RCC previously treated with 1 prior angiogenesis inhibitor were randomized 1:1 to receive axitinib plus dalantercept versus axitinib plus placebo. Randomization was stratified by the type of prior therapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were PFS in patients with ≥2 prior lines of anticancer therapy, overall survival, and the objective response rate., Results: Between June 10, 2014, and February 23, 2017, a total of 124 patients were randomly assigned to receive axitinib plus dalantercept (59 patients) or placebo (65 patients). The median PFS was not found to be significantly different between the treatment groups (median, 6.8 months vs 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.71-1.73; P = .670]). Neither group reached the median overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.70-2.77; P = .349]). The objective response rate was 19.0% (11 of 58 patients; 95% CI, 9.9%-31.4%) in the dalantercept plus axitinib group and 24.6% (15 of 61 patients; 95% CI, 14.5%-37.3%) in the placebo plus axitinib group. At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event of ≥grade 3 was observed in 59% of patients (34 of 58 patients) in the dalantercept group and 64% of patients (39 of 61 patients) in the placebo group. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo plus axitinib group., Conclusions: Although well tolerated, the addition of dalantercept to axitinib did not appear to improve treatment-related outcomes in previously treated patients with advanced RCC., (© 2019 American Cancer Society.)

BRAF and RAS are the most frequently mutated mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) genes in melanoma. Binimetinib is a highly selective MAPK kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor with clinical antitumor activity in NRAS - and BRAF V600 -mutant melanoma. We performed a nonrandomized, open-label phase II study, where 183 metastatic melanoma patients received binimetinib 45 mg / 60 mg twice-daily ( BRAF arms), or binimetinib 45 mg twice-daily ( NRAS arm). Biomarker analyses were prespecified as secondary and exploratory objectives. Here we report the extent of MAPK pathway inhibition by binimetinib, genetic pathway alterations of interest, and potential predictive markers for binimetinib efficacy. Twenty-five fresh pre- and post-dose tumor sample pairs were collected for biomarker analyses, which included assessment of binimetinib on MEK/MAPK signaling by pharmacodynamic analysis of pERK and DUSP6 expression in pre- vs post-dose tumor biopsies; identification of pERK and DUSP6 expression/efficacy correlations; assessment of baseline tumor molecular status; and exploration of potential predictive biomarkers of efficacy of binimetinib. The postbaseline pERK and DUSP6 expression decreased across all arms; no association between reduced pERK or DUSP6 levels with clinical efficacy was observed. Genetic aberrations were similar to previously reported data on clinical melanoma samples. Genetic pathway alterations occurred predominantly within CDKN2A/B , PTEN , and TRRAP ( BRAF -mutation) and CDKN2A/B , TP53 , and NOTCH2 ( NRAS -mutation). Several patients with BRAF mutations had amplification of genes on chromosome 7q; these patients tended to have shorter progression-free survival than other patients with BRAF -mutant melanoma. Further analysis of genetic alterations, including amplifications of growth factor genes, will determine utility as biomarkers for efficacy., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST CvH reports grants from Astra Zeneca, Merck, MSD, Novartis outside the submitted work. AH reports grants from Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, GSK, Merck Serono, MSD/Merck, Novartis, Roche, other from Amgen, BMS, MedImmune, MSD/Merck, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Oncosec, Philogen, Provectus, Regeneron, Roche outside the submitted work; CB reports personal fees from Amgen, GSK, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, BMS, and from Roche, personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; DS reports personal fees and other from Amgen, grants, personal fees and other from BMS, personal fees and other from Novartis, Roche, and Array, grants, personal fees and other from Merck/MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work; PAA reports grants and personal fees from BMS, Roche-Genentech, Ventana, and Array, personal fees from Novartis, Amgen, and from Merck Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work; MCH reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from MolecularMD, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Blueprint Medicines, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work; RRP, AD, VA, HN, AZ were employed by Novartis; RD reports research funding from Novartis, MSD, BMS, Roche, GSK, and has consultant or advisory board relationship with Novartis, MSD, BMS, Roche, GSK, and Amgen. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Importance: Current treatment options for progressive ovarian cancer provide limited benefit, particularly in patients whose disease has become resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy., Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of avelumab, an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 agent, in a cohort of patients with previously treated recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: In an expansion cohort of a phase 1b, open-label study (JAVELIN Solid Tumor), 125 patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had received chemotherapy including a platinum agent were enrolled between November 6, 2013, and August 27, 2015. Statistical analysis was performed from December 31, 2016, to October 9, 2018., Intervention: Patients received avelumab, 10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal from the study., Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified end points in this cohort included confirmed best overall response (per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, version 1.1), immune-related best overall response, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, results of programmed death-ligand 1 expression-based analyses, and safety., Results: A total of 125 women (median age, 62.0 years [range, 27-84 years]) who had received a median of 3 prior lines of treatment (range, 0-10) for advanced disease were enrolled in the study. Patients received avelumab for a median of 2.8 months (range, 0.5-27.4 months), with a median follow-up of 26.6 months (range, 16-38 months). A confirmed objective response occurred in 12 patients (9.6%; 95% CI, 5.1%-16.2%), including a complete response in 1 patient (0.8%) and a partial response in 11 patients (8.8%). The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 10.2% (95% CI, 5.4%-16.7%) and median overall survival was 11.2 months (95% CI, 8.7-15.4 months). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 25 patients (20.0%). Other frequent treatment-related adverse events (any grade event occurring in ≥10% of patients) were fatigue (17 [13.6%]), diarrhea (15 [12.0%]), and nausea (14 [11.2%]). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9 patients (7.2%), of which only the level of lipase increased (3 [2.4%]) occurred in more than 1 patient. Twenty-one patients (16.8%) had an immune-related adverse event of any grade. No treatment-related deaths occurred., Conclusions and Relevance: Avelumab demonstrated antitumor activity and acceptable safety in heavily pretreated patients with recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01772004.

Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has low survival rates. We assessed if addition of veliparib, concurrent to FOLFIRI, improves survival in patients with previously untreated mCRC., Methods: This study compared veliparib (200 mg BID for 7 days of each 14-day cycle) to placebo, each with FOLFIRI. Bevacizumab was allowed in both arms. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Patients were randomised to receive veliparib (n = 65) or placebo (n = 65) in combination with FOLFIRI. Median PFS was 12 vs 11 months (veliparib vs placebo) [HR = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.60, 1.48)]. Median OS was 25 vs 27 months [HR = 1.26 (95% CI: 0.74, 2.16)]. Response rate was 57% vs 62%. Median DOR was 11 vs 9 months [HR = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.38, 1.40)]. AEs with significantly higher frequency (p < 0.05) in the veliparib group were anaemia (39% vs 19%, p = 0.019) and neutropenia (66% vs 37%, p = 0.001) for common AEs (≥20%); neutropenia (59% vs 22%, p < 0.001) for common Grade 3/4 AEs (≥5%); none in serious AEs. Haematopoietic cytopenias were more common with veliparib (79% vs 52%, p = 0.003). Fourteen percent of patients on veliparib and 15% on placebo discontinued treatment due to AEs., Conclusion: Veliparib added to FOLFIRI ± bevacizumab demonstrated similar efficacy as FOLFIRI ± bevacizumab in frontline mCRC patients. No unexpected safety concerns occurred.

Purpose: There are currently no targeted therapies approved for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). A tumor necrosis factor α ( TNFα)-based gene expression signature (GS) predictive of sensitivity to LCL161, inhibitor of apoptosis antagonist, was translated into a clinical assay and evaluated in a neoadjuvant trial., Patients and Methods: Women with localized TNBC (T2/N0-2/M0) were prospectively stratified by GS status and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral LCL161 (1,800 mg once per week) and intravenous paclitaxel (80 mg/m 2 once per week; combination arm) or paclitaxel alone (control arm) for 12 weeks, followed by surgery. The primary objective was to determine whether neoadjuvant LCL161 enhances efficacy of paclitaxel, defined by > 7.5% increase in the pathologic complete response (pCR, breast) rate, stratified by GS., Results: Of 209 patients enrolled (207 with valid GS scores), 30.4% had GS-positive TNBC. In the GS-positive group, pCR was higher in the combination versus the control arm (38.2% v 17.2%), with 88.8% posterior probability of > 7.5% increase in pCR. However, in the GS-negative group, the pCR was lower in the combination group (5.6% v 16.4%), with 0% posterior probability of > 7.5% increase in pCR. A higher incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the combination arm included neutropenia (24.5%) and diarrhea (5.7%). Overall, 19 patients (18.1%) in the combination arm discontinued treatment because of adverse events, including pyrexia (n = 5), pneumonia (n = 4), and pneumonitis (n = 4), versus five patients (4.9%) in the control arm., Conclusion: This neoadjuvant trial provides evidence supporting a biomarker-driven targeted therapy approach for selected patients with GS-positive TNBC and demonstrates the utility of a neoadjuvant trial for biomarker validation and drug development, but also highlights toxicity risk. Future neoadjuvant clinical trials should carefully weigh these considerations for targeted therapy development in biomarker-defined TNBC.

Purpose This phase III study evaluated ribociclib plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer who were treatment naïve or had received up to one line of prior endocrine therapy in the advanced setting. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to ribociclib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary end point was locally assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. Results A total of 484 postmenopausal women were randomly assigned to ribociclib plus fulvestrant, and 242 were assigned to placebo plus fulvestrant. Median progression-free survival was significantly improved with ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant: 20.5 months (95% CI, 18.5 to 23.5 months) versus 12.8 months (95% CI, 10.9 to 16.3 months), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.593; 95% CI, 0.480 to 0.732; P < .001). Consistent treatment effects were observed in patients who were treatment naïve in the advanced setting (hazard ratio, 0.577; 95% CI, 0.415 to 0.802), as well as in patients who had received up to one line of prior endocrine therapy for advanced disease (hazard ratio, 0.565; 95% CI, 0.428 to 0.744). Among patients with measurable disease, the overall response rate was 40.9% for the ribociclib plus fulvestrant arm and 28.7% for placebo plus fulvestrant. Grade 3 adverse events reported in ≥ 10% of patients in either arm (ribociclib plus fulvestrant v placebo plus fulvestrant) were neutropenia (46.6% v 0%) and leukopenia (13.5% v 0%); the only grade 4 event reported in ≥ 5% of patients was neutropenia (6.8% v 0%). Conclusion Ribociclib plus fulvestrant might represent a new first- or second-line treatment option in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Crizotinib, an inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), MET, and ROS1, is approved for treatment of patients with ALK-positive or ROS1-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, ALK rearrangements are also implicated in other malignancies, including anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors (IMTs). In this ongoing, multicenter, single-arm, open-label phase 1b study (PROFILE 1013; NCT01121588), patients with ALK-positive advanced malignancies other than NSCLC were to receive a starting dose of crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. Primary endpoints were safety and objective responses based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 or National Cancer Institute International Response Criteria. Forty-four patients were enrolled (lymphoma, n = 18; IMT, n = 9; other tumors, n = 17). The objective response rate was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28-77) for lymphoma, with 8 complete responses (CRs) and 1 partial response (PR); 67% (95% CI, 30-93) for IMTs, with 1 CR and 5 PRs; and 12% (95% CI, 2-36) for other tumors, with 2 PRs in patients affected by colon carcinoma and medullary thyroid cancer, respectively. The median duration of treatment was almost 3 years for patients with lymphoma and IMTs, with 2-year progression-free survival of 63% and 67%, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (45.5%) and vision disorders (45.5%), mostly grade 1. These findings indicate strong and durable activity of crizotinib in ALK-positive lymphomas and IMTs. The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of crizotinib even with long-term treatment., (© 2018 The Authors American Journal of Hematology Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: Determine the efficacy and safety of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole in patients with de novo advanced breast cancer., Methods: Postmenopausal women with HR+ , HER2- advanced breast cancer and no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease were enrolled in the Phase III MONALEESA-2 trial (NCT01958021). Patients were randomized to ribociclib (600 mg/day; 3 weeks-on/1 week-off) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day; continuous) or placebo plus letrozole until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival; predefined subgroup analysis evaluated progression-free survival in patients with de novo advanced breast cancer. Secondary endpoints included safety and overall response rate., Results: Six hundred and sixty-eight patients were enrolled, of whom 227 patients (34%; ribociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole arm: n = 114 vs. n = 113) presented with de novo advanced breast cancer. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the ribociclib plus letrozole arm versus 16.4 months in the placebo plus letrozole arm in patients with de novo advanced breast cancer (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.75). The most common Grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia and leukopenia; incidence rates were similar to those observed in the full MONALEESA-2 population. Ribociclib dose interruptions and reductions in patients with de novo disease occurred at similar frequencies to the overall study population., Conclusions: Ribociclib plus letrozole improved progression-free survival vs placebo plus letrozole and was well tolerated in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- de novo advanced breast cancer.

Purpose: Activin receptor-like kinase 1 (ALK1) is a novel target in angiogenesis. Concurrent targeting of ALK1 and VEGF signaling results in augmented inhibition of tumor growth in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) xenograft models. Dalantercept is an ALK1-receptor fusion protein that acts as a ligand trap for bone morphogenetic proteins 9 and 10. The DART Study evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of dalantercept plus axitinib in patients with advanced RCC and determined the optimal dose for further testing. Experimental Design: Patients received dalantercept 0.6, 0.9, or 1.2 mg/kg subcutaneously every 3 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg by mouth twice daily until disease progression or intolerance. Results: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled in the dose escalation ( n = 15) and expansion ( n = 14) cohorts. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or grade 4/5 treatment-related adverse events. In addition to common VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor effects, such as fatigue and diarrhea, commonly seen treatment-related adverse events were peripheral edema, epistaxis, pericardial effusion, and telangiectasia. The objective response rate by RECIST v1.1 was 25% with responses seen at all dose levels. The overall median progression-free survival was 8.3 months. Conclusions: The combination of dalantercept plus axitinib is well tolerated and associated with clinical activity. On the basis of safety and efficacy results, the 0.9 mg/kg dose level was chosen for further study in a randomized phase II trial of dalantercept plus axitinib versus placebo plus axitinib. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3557-65. ©2016 AACR ., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: RECORD-3 compared everolimus and sunitinib as first-line therapy, and the sequence of everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression compared with the opposite (standard) sequence in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This final overall survival (OS) analysis evaluated mature data for secondary end points., Patients and Methods: Patients received either first-line everolimus followed by second-line sunitinib at progression (n = 238) or first-line sunitinib followed by second-line everolimus (n = 233). Secondary end points were combined first- and second-line progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. The impacts of neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and baseline levels of soluble biomarkers on OS were explored., Results: At final analysis, median duration of exposure was 5.6 months for everolimus and 8.3 months for sunitinib. Median combined PFS was 21.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.1-26.7] with everolimus-sunitinib and 22.2 months (95% CI 16.0-29.8) with sunitinib-everolimus [hazard ratio (HR)EVE-SUN/SUN-EVE, 1.2; 95% CI 0.9-1.6]. Median OS was 22.4 months (95% CI 18.6-33.3) for everolimus-sunitinib and 29.5 months (95% CI 22.8-33.1) for sunitinib-everolimus (HREVE-SUN/SUN-EVE, 1.1; 95% CI 0.9-1.4). The rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events suspected to be related to second-line therapy were 47% with everolimus and 57% with sunitinib. Higher NLR and 12 soluble biomarker levels were identified as prognostic markers for poor OS with the association being largely independent of treatment sequences., Conclusions: Results of this final OS analysis support the sequence of sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression in patients with mRCC. The safety profiles of everolimus and sunitinib were consistent with those previously reported, and there were no unexpected safety signals., Clinical Trials Number: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00903175., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: Stomatitis is a class effect associated with the inhibition of mTOR and is associated with everolimus therapy for breast cancer. Topical steroids might reduce stomatitis incidence and severity, and the need for dose reductions and interruptions of everolimus. Anecdotal use of topical steroid oral prophylaxis has been reported in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to assess dexamethasone-based mouthwash for prevention of stomatitis in patients with breast cancer., Methods: This US-based, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 prevention study enrolled women aged 18 years and older with postmenopausal status who had histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Beginning on day 1 of cycle 1, patients received everolimus 10 mg plus exemestane 25 mg daily, with 10 mL of alcohol-free dexamethasone 0·5 mg per 5 mL oral solution (swish for 2 min and spit, four times daily for 8 weeks). After 8 weeks, dexamethasone mouthwash could be continued for up to eight additional weeks at the discretion of the clinician and patient. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade 2 or worse stomatitis by 8 weeks assessed in the full analysis set (patients who received at least one dose of everolimus and exemestane and at least one confirmed dose of dexamethasone mouthwash) versus historical controls from the BOLERO-2 trial (everolimus and exemestane treatment in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who were not given dexamethasone mouthwash for prevention of stomatitis). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02069093., Findings: Between May 28, 2014, and Oct 8, 2015, we enrolled 92 women; 85 were evaluable for efficacy. By 8 weeks, the incidence of grade 2 or worse stomatitis was two (2%) of 85 patients (95% CI 0·29-8·24), versus 159 (33%) of 482 patients (95% CI 28·8-37·4) for the duration of the BOLERO-2 study. Overall, 83 (90%) of 92 patients had at least one adverse event. The most frequently reported grade 3 and 4 adverse events in the safety set were hyperglycaemia (seven [8%] of 92 patients), rash (four [4%]), and dyspnoea (three [3%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 20 (22%) patients; six (7%) were deemed treatment related, with dyspnoea (three [3%]) and pneumonia (two [2%]) reported most frequently. 12 (13%) of 92 patients had adverse events suspected to be related to treatment that led to discontinuation of everolimus and exemestane (the most common were rash, hyperglycaemia, and stomatitis, which each affected two [2%] patients)., Interpretation: Prophylactic use of dexamethasone oral solution substantially reduced the incidence and severity of stomatitis in patients receiving everolimus and exemestane and could be a new standard of oral care for patients receiving everolimus and exemestane therapy., Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation in preclinical models of breast cancer is associated with tumor growth and resistance to anticancer therapies, including paclitaxel. Effects of the pan-Class I PI3K inhibitor buparlisib (BKM120) appear synergistic with paclitaxel in preclinical and clinical models., Patients and Methods: BELLE-4 was a 1:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive phase II/III study investigating the combination of buparlisib or placebo with paclitaxel in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were stratified by PI3K pathway activation and hormone receptor status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the full and PI3K pathway-activated populations. An adaptive interim analysis was planned following the phase II part of the study, after ≥125 PFS events had occurred in the full population, to decide whether the study would enter phase III (in the full or PI3K pathway-activated population) or be stopped for futility., Results: As of August 2014, 416 patients were randomized to receive buparlisib (207) or placebo (209) with paclitaxel. At adaptive interim analysis, there was no improvement in PFS with buparlisib versus placebo in the full (median PFS 8.0 versus 9.2 months, hazard ratio [HR] 1.18), or PI3K pathway-activated population (median PFS 9.1 versus 9.2 months, HR 1.17). The study met protocol-specified criteria for futility in both populations, and phase III was not initiated. Median duration of study treatment exposure was 3.5 months in the buparlisib arm versus 4.6 months in the placebo arm. The most frequent adverse events with buparlisib plus paclitaxel (≥40% of patients) were diarrhea, alopecia, rash, nausea, and hyperglycemia., Conclusions: Addition of buparlisib to paclitaxel did not improve PFS in the full or PI3K pathway-activated study population. Consequently, the trial was stopped for futility at the end of phase II., (© The Author 2016. 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: As we move away from the traditional chemotherapy era to targeted therapy, the validity of old assessment paradigms associated with therapeutics are being raised in the context of immunotherapy. The old paradigm required elaborating on the toxicity assessment, with no expectation of efficacy in early phase trials. Safety data from Phase 1 and 2 studies with many immunotherapeutics show limited toxicities and draw attention to the need to demonstrate efficacy in the early evaluation of new agents., Methods: Literature searches indicate that molecular oncology mechanistic-based agents are being linked with molecular disease status and clinical benefit. Biomarkers and other endpoints are being employed to accomplish this. Perspectives for a meaningful context of integrating biomarkers and clinical trial design are reviewed., Results: The design and conduct of clinical trials have not been fully adjusted to the new era of personalized oncology, and so we are in transition. A part of this transition is the management of expectations and trial designs that need to be considered relative to preclinical experience in the development of therapeutics. For example, pathological complete response is now considered a surrogate marker for favorable prognosis in breast cancer patients who are treated in the neoadjuvant setting. This surrogate marker is tied to novel agents' mechanistic characteristics with no preclinical counterpart., Conclusion: The old paradigm considers patients equal with similar chances to respond to treatments, but the new paradigm considers patient's heterogeneity, a major fact that informs the design of clinical trials. By linking every treatment to a mechanism of action and to the presence of a specific biomarker, new trials are going to have more subjects who are likely to respond to the treatment., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.org.)