Search

Infusion reactions (IRs) to anti-neoplastic agents require prompt recognition and immediate treatment to avert significant complications. We conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of consecutive patients who received anti-neoplastic therapy in the outpatient treatment center of the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics from January 1, 2013 to November 30, 2013. Of the 597 patients who received treatment, 9 (1.5 %) had IRs (all ≤ grade 2). The most common IRs observed on first occurrence were chills (n = 5), itching, rash, and facial flushing (n = 3 each). There were no IR-related deaths. All the IRs were reversible with appropriate symptomatic treatment and the therapy was completed after temporary cessation of infusion in 7 of the 9 patients. The infusion was stopped in 2 patients due to symptoms suggestive of IgE-mediated allergic reaction and cytokine storm. Five of the 8 patients who were re-challenged with the same therapy developed a similar reaction. However, the infusion was completed in 4 of the 5 patients after administration of intravenous diphenhydramine and/or hydrocortisone, or slowing the rate of infusion. And, subsequent cycles with the same agents were uneventful. IRs to anti-neoplastic agents are rare. Though the clinical presentations are overlapping, most IRs are not IgE-mediated allergic reactions. Appropriate premedication and slow rate of infusion facilitates uneventful administration of the anti-neoplastic agents in subsequent cycles. Further study in a larger cohort of patients to identify biomarkers of hypersensitivity is warranted.

TP53 tumor-suppressor gene mutations are among the most frequent abnormalities in cancer, affecting approximately 40% of patients. Yet, there is no accepted way to target these alterations in the clinic. At the same time, antagonists of VEGFR or its ligand are best-selling oncology drugs, with multiple, expensive compounds approved. Although only a subset of patients benefit from these antiangiogenesis agents, no relevant biomarker has been identified. Interestingly, TP53 mutations upregulate VEGF-A and VEGFR2. We prospectively enrolled 500 patients, to be interrogated by comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) (next-generation sequencing, 236 genes), and to be matched, whenever possible, with targeted agents. Herein, we analyze outcomes based on VEGF/VEGFR inhibitor treatment and presence of TP53 mutations. Of the 500 patients, 188 (37.6%; with ≥1 alteration) were treated; 106 (56% of 188) had tumors that harbored TP53 mutations. VEGF/VEGFR inhibitor therapy was independently associated with improvement in all outcome parameters [rate of stable disease (SD) ≥6 months/partial and complete remission (PR/CR); (31% versus 7%; TP53-mutant patients (who received no other molecular-matched agents) treated with versus without VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors), time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival (multivariate analysis: all P ≤ 0.01)] for the patients harboring TP53-mutant cancers, but improvement was not seen in any of these parameters for patients with TP53 wild-type neoplasms. We conclude that TP53 mutations predict sensitivity to VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors in the clinic. TP53 alterations may therefore be a ready biomarker for treatment with antiangiogenesis agents, a finding of seminal importance across the cancer field. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(10); 2475-85. ©2016 AACR., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: Blocking the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1) signal on tumor-associated macrophages can lead to an upregulation of checkpoint molecules, such as programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), thus causing resistance to this blockade. Combining spartalizumab (PDR001), a high-affinity, ligand-blocking, humanized anti– PD-1 immunoglobulin G4 antibody, with lacnotuzumab (MCS110), a high-affinity, humanized monoclonal antibody directed against human CSF-1 can potentially overcome this resistance. Methods: This was a multicenter, phase Ib/II trial using a combination of spartalizumab with lacnotuzumab in patients with advanced cancers, including anti–PD-1/PD-L1 treatment-resistant melanoma, and anti–PD-1/PD-L1 treatment-naı¨ve triplenegative breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, and endometrial cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02807844). The primary objective of dose escalation phase Ib was to assess safety, tolerability, and recommended phase II dose. The primary objective of the phase II expansion study was to assess the combination’s antitumor activity, including objective response rate and clinical benefit rate. Results: A total of eight patients (five in phase Ib and three in phase II) were evaluable for adverse events (AEs) at our study site. All eight patients experienced at least grade 1 AE. The most common treatment-related AEs were increased serum aspartate aminotransferase (38%), fatigue (38%), anemia (25%), increased alkaline phosphatase (25%), hyperbilirubinemia (25%), hypocalcemia (25%), and hypoalbuminemia (25%). Most of these AEs were grade 1 or 2. None of the patients experienced grade 4 AEs and no drug-related fatal AEs were reported among the eight patients treated in the study. One (13%) patient had stable disease (SD) (captured as unknown by the study sponsor because the evaluation criteria set per protocol was not met) and three (38%) patients had progressive disease. Four (50%) patients developed clinical disease progression based on investigator evaluation. One patient with pancreatic cancer achieved immune-related SD for 26 months while on the study treatments. Conclusion: The study completed phase Ib dose escalation and phase II. However, gating criteria for efficacy were not met for expansion beyond 80 patients in phase II and the sponsor did not continue development of the combination of spartalizumab and lacnotuzumab for oncology indications. The potential signal of activity in pancreatic cancer should be further explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeSingle-agent EGFR inhibitor therapy is effective mainly in patients with lung cancer and EGFR mutations. Treating patients who develop resistance, or who are insensitive from the outset, often because of resistant mutations, other aberrations or the lack of an EGFR mutation, probably requires rational combinations. We therefore investigated the outcome of EGFR inhibitor-based combination regimens in patients with heavily-pretreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) referred to a Phase I Clinic.MethodsWe reviewed the electronic records of patients with NSCLC treated with an EGFR inhibitor-based combination regimen: erlotinib and cetuximab; erlotinib, cetuximab and bevacizumab; erlotinib and dasatinib; erlotinib and bortezomib; or cetuximab and sirolimus.ResultsEGFR mutations were detected in 16% of patients (21/131). EGFR inhibitor-based combination regimens were administered to 15 patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC and 24 with EGFR wild-type disease. Stable disease (SD) ≥6 months/partial remission (PR) was attained in 20% of EGFR-mutant patients (3/15; two with sensitive mutations and secondary resistance to prior erlotinib, and one with a resistant mutation), as well as 26% of evaluable patients (5/19) with wild-type disease. One of three evaluable patients with squamous cell histology achieved SD for 26.5 months (EGFR wild-type, TP53-mutant, regimen=erlotinib, cetuximab and bevacizumab).ConclusionsEight of 34 evaluable patients (24%) with advanced, refractory NSCLC evaluable for response achieved SD ≥6 months/PR (PR=3; SD ≥6 months=5) on EGFR inhibitor-based combination regimens (erlotinib, cetuximab; erlotinib, cetuximab and bevacizumab; and, erlotinib, bortezomib), including patients with secondary resistance to single-agent EGFR inhibitors, resistant mutations, wild-type disease, and, squamous histology.

Simple Summary: Renal medullary carcinoma (RMC) is an aggressive type of kidney cancer. Traditional treatments have limited effectiveness, so new strategies are needed. Studies of RMC tissues found signs of inflammation, suggesting that immune checkpoint therapies could be a potential treatment option. In this study, we tested the effectiveness of pembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor in a group of patients with RMC. Unfortunately, the results showed that pembrolizumab did not stop tumor growth. All the patients experienced rapid disease progression. One patient had such rapid progression that they had to stop the treatment less than a week after receiving pembrolizumab. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that pembrolizumab did not show any clinical benefits in patients with RMC. Background. Renal medullary carcinoma (RMC) is one of most aggressive renal cell carcinomas and novel therapeutic strategies are therefore needed. Recent comprehensive molecular and immune profiling of RMC tissues revealed a highly inflamed phenotype, suggesting the potential therapeutic role for immune checkpoint therapies. We present the first prospective evaluation of an immune checkpoint inhibitor in a cohort of patients with RMC. Methods. A cohort of patients with locally advanced or metastatic RMC was treated with pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 21 days in a phase II basket trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02721732). Responses were assessed by irRECIST. Tumor tissues were evaluated for PD-L1 expression and for tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) levels. Somatic mutations were assessed by targeted next-generation sequencing. Results. A total of five patients were treated. All patients had advanced disease, with the majority of patients (60%) having metastatic disease at diagnosis. All patients had rapid disease progression despite pembrolizumab treatment, with a median time to progression of 8.7 weeks. One patient (patient 5) experienced sudden clinical progression immediately after treatment initiation and was thus taken off trial less than one week after receiving pembrolizumab. Conclusions. This prospective evaluation showed no evidence of clinical activity for pembrolizumab in patients with RMC, irrespective of PD-L1 or TIL levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: There is a crucial need to improve treatment regimens in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer. Although immunotherapy treatments have shown impressive benefit in microsatellite instability-high endometrial cancer, they have been less predictable in the majority of endometrial cancers, which are microsatellite stable. Our aim was to characterize clinical outcomes in patients with recurrent microsatellite stable endometrial cancer treated in early-phase immunotherapy clinical trials in order unravel treatment regimens that would improve response and survival. Our findings suggest that utilizing immunotherapy in combination with other non-immunotherapy agents resulted in greater duration of disease control and improved survival outcomes compared to immunotherapy only (monotherapy) or in combination with other immunotherapy agents. Future studies are needed to validate these findings. Recurrent microsatellite stable (MSS) endometrial cancer has poor response to conventional therapy and limited efficacy with immune checkpoint monotherapy. We conducted a retrospective study of recurrent MSS endometrial cancer patients enrolled in immunotherapy-based clinical trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. Patients were evaluated for radiologic response using RECIST 1.1 criteria, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Thirty-five patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: 8 with monotherapy, 17 with immunotherapy (IO) in combination with another IO-only, and 10 with IO in combination with non-IO therapy. Among those treated with combination IO plus non-IO therapy, one had a partial response but 50% had clinical benefit. Patients who received combination IO plus non-IO therapy had improved PFS compared to those who received monotherapy (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33–0.97; p = 0.037) or combination IO-only therapy (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15–0.90; p = 0.028) and had improved OS when compared to monotherapy after adjusting for prior lines of therapy (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27–0.95; p = 0.036). The potential beneficial clinical outcomes of combination IO plus non-IO therapy in MSS endometrial cancer should be validated in a larger study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Combining agents that block both the VEGF and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways may be synergistic. We explored a novel dosing schedule to assess safety, toxicity and activity in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods Patients with refractory solid tumors were enrolled in a modified 3 + 3 Phase I dose escalation study to determine dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a combination of everolimus (mTOR inhibitor) and pazopanib (tyrosine kinase inhibitor with anti-VEGF activity). An expansion cohort selected for patients with molecular alterations in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. Results Sixty-two patients were enrolled; median age was 60 years; 29 were women. The MTD was pazopanib 600 mg every other day (QOD) alternating with everolimus 10 mg PO QOD. DLTs were grade 3 thrombocytopenia and creatinine elevation. Most common toxicities of any grade were thrombocytopenia, transaminitis, leukopenia/neutropenia and lipid abnormalities. Among 52 patients evaluable for response, the clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 27 % (14/52) including four partial responses (PR), and 10 stable disease (SD) ≥6 months. 26 of 45 patients evaluated for molecular alterations had at least one alteration in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. CBR in patients with a matched alteration was 27 % (7/26) versus 26 % (5/19) for patients without an alteration ( p = 0.764). However, 64% of those with CBR and molecular testing done for alteration in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway were positive. Conclusion Combination treatment with pazopanib and everolimus was well tolerated and demonstrated activity in solid tumors. Further exploration of this combination and molecular correlation with treatment outcomes is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]