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

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/m2 or placebo before topotecan 1.5 mg/m2 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

Trilaciclib is an intravenous CDK4/6 inhibitor administered prior to chemotherapy to preserve haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and immune system function from chemotherapy‐induced damage (myelopreservation). The effects of administering trilaciclib prior to carboplatin, etoposide and atezolizumab (E/P/A) were evaluated in a randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled Phase II study in patients with newly diagnosed extensive‐stage small cell lung cancer (ES‐SCLC) (NCT03041311). The primary endpoints were duration of severe neutropenia (SN; defined as absolute neutrophil count

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.

Summary Background Trilaciclib is an intravenous cell-cycle inhibitor that transiently maintains immune cells and haemopoietic stem and progenitor cells in G1 arrest. By protecting the immune cells and bone marrow from chemotherapy-induced damage, trilaciclib has the potential to optimise antitumour activity while minimising myelotoxicity. We report safety and activity data for trilaciclib plus gemcitabine and carboplatin chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Methods In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with evaluable, biopsy-confirmed, locally recurrent or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who had no more than two previous lines of chemotherapy were recruited from 26 sites in the USA, three in Serbia, two in North Macedonia, one in Croatia, and one in Bulgaria; sites were academic and community hospitals. Availability of diagnostic samples of tumour tissue confirming triple-negative breast cancer was a prerequisite for enrolment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by an interactive web-response system, stratified by number of previous lines of systemic therapy and the presence of liver metastases, to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and intravenous carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve 2 μg × h/mL) on days 1 and 8 (group 1), gemcitabine and carboplatin plus intravenous trilaciclib 240 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (group 2), or gemcitabine and carboplatin on days 2 and 9 plus trilaciclib on days 1, 2, 8, and 9 (group 3) of 21-day cycles. Patients continued treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or discontinuation by the investigator. The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of combining trilaciclib with gemcitabine and carboplatin chemotherapy. The primary endpoints were duration of severe neutropenia during cycle 1 and the occurrence of severe neutropenia during the treatment period. Overall survival was included as a key secondary endpoint. Analyses were in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with EudraCT, 2016-004466-26, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02978716 , and is ongoing but closed to accrual. Findings Between Feb 7, 2017, and May 15, 2018, 142 patients were assessed for eligibility and 102 were randomly assigned to group 1 (n=34), group 2 (n=33), or group 3 (n=35). Of all patients, 38 (37%) had received one or two lines of previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Median follow-up was 8·4 months (IQR 3·8–13·6) for group 1, 12·7 months (5·5–17·4) for group 2, and 12·9 months (6·7–16·8) for group 3. Data cutoff for myelosuppression endpoints was July 30, 2018, and for antitumour activity endpoints was May 17, 2019. During cycle 1, mean duration of severe neutropenia was 0·8 day (SD 2·4) in group 1, 1·5 days (3·5) in group 2, and 1·0 day (2·6) in group 3 (group 3 vs group 1 one-sided adjusted p=0·70). Severe neutropenia occurred in nine (26%) of 34 patients in group 1, 12 (36%) of 33 patients in group 2, and eight (23%) of 35 patients in group 3 (p=0·70). Overall survival was 12·6 months (IQR 5·8–15·6) in group 1, 20·1 months (9·4–not reached) in group 2, and 17·8 months (8·8–not reached) in group 3 (group 3 vs group 1 two-sided p=0·0023). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (22 [73%] of 34), neutropenia (21 [70%]), and thrombocytopenia (18 [60%]) in group 1; neutropenia (27 [82%] of 33), thrombocytopenia (18 [55%]) and anaemia (17 [52%]) in group 2; and neutropenia (23 [66%] of 35), thrombocytopenia (22 [63%]), and nausea (17 [49%]) in group 3. There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation No significant differences were observed in myelosuppression endpoints with trilaciclib plus gemcitabine and carboplatin in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer; however, the regimen was generally well tolerated and overall survival results were encouraging. Further studies of trilaciclib in this setting are warranted. Funding G1 Therapeutics.

Background Chemotherapy (chemo)-induced damage of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPC) causes multi-lineage myelosuppression. Current supportive therapies are lineage specific and administered after damage has occurred. T, a highly selective, reversible CDK4/6 inhibitor and first-in-class myelopreservation agent, preserves HSPCs during chemotherapy, improving its safety and tolerability. This trial (NCT03041311) studied the benefits of T in ES-SCLC patients receiving 1L chemo + atezolizumab (A). Methods This placebo (P)-controlled, double-blind, Ph2 study randomized (1:1) chemo-naive ES-SCLC pts with adequate organ function, ECOG 0-2, and no symptomatic brain mets, to T or P with etoposide/carboplatin/A (ECA) for four induction cycles followed by maintenance (A). Prophylactic growth factors were prohibited in cycle 1; otherwise standard supportive care was allowed. Prespecified lineage-specific endpoints assessed the effect of T on myelosuppression. Tumor response was assessed using RECIST v1.1. FACT-L and FACT-An were evaluated. Results T + ECA was well tolerated with fewer ≥ G3 AEs in T (62% overall; 50% any drug related) vs P (87%; 74%), primarily due to less heme toxicity. T improved ANC, RBC measures and SOC interventions (Table). T also delayed time to deterioration in some PRO functioning domains and anemia symptoms. T did not affect chemo efficacy as measured by ORR and PFS; OS will be presented. Table: 1742PD . Parameter, n [1] ECA + P N = 53 ECA + T N = 54 Adjusted 1-sided P- value Mean Duration (d) G4 ANC in Cycle 1[2] 4 0 Pts w G4 ANC* 26 (49%) 1 (2%) Dose reductions (per 100 cycles) ǂ 8.5 2.1 0.0195 Pts w RBC transfusions ≥ week 5* 11 (21%) 7 (13%) 0.1335 Pts w G-CSF Admin* 25 (47%) 16 (30%) 0.0686 [1] Data presented as proportion (*) or event rate (ǂ) [2] Surrogate for febrile neutropenia Conclusions Addition of T improves safety/tolerability of chemo as shown by statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in myelosuppression endpoints, reduction of chemo side effects, and SOC interventions and no detriment to anti-tumor efficacy. These data confirm the myelopreservation benefits of T seen in another 1L ES-SCLC trial (NCT02499770). Clinical trial identification GIT28-05: NCT03041311, EudraCT2017-000358-20. Legal entity responsible for the study G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Funding G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Disclosure D. Daniel: Research grant / Funding (institution): G1 Therapeutics; Research grant / Funding (institution): ER Squibb & sons; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (institution): Boehringer Ingleheim; Research grant / Funding (institution): Genentech; Research grant / Funding (institution): Eli Lilly and Company; Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche. D. Spigel: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Genentech/Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): G1 Therapeutics. J. Jaal: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim. L. Hart: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: G1 Therapeutics. K.D. Koynov: Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Honoraria (institution): Boehringer Ingelheim; Honoraria (institution): servier; Honoraria (institution): Novartis; Honoraria (institution): Merck; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Honoraria (institution): Bayer; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Eli Lilly; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Astelas; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen; Honoraria (institution): Intellect Pharma; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca. Z.(. Yang: Full / Part-time employment: G1 Therapeutics. S.G. Wolfe: Full / Part-time employment: G1 Therapeutics. R. Malik: Full / Part-time employment: G1 Therapeutics. S.R. Morris: Full / Part-time employment: G1 Therapeutics. J.M. Antal: Full / Part-time employment: G1 Therapeutics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and schedule of GSK2141795, an oral pan-AKT kinase inhibitor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with solid tumors were enrolled in the dose-escalation phase. Pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis after a single dose (Cycle 0) informed dose escalation using accelerated dose titration. Once one grade 2 toxicity or dose-limiting toxicity was observed in Cycle 1, the accelerated dose titration was terminated and a 3+3 dose escalation was started. Continuous daily dosing was evaluated along with two intermittent regimens (7 days on/7 days off and 3 times per week). In the expansion phase at RP2D, patients with endometrial or prostate cancer, as well as those with select tumor types with a PIK3CA mutation, AKT mutation or PTEN loss, were enrolled. Patients were evaluated for adverse events (AEs), PK parameters, blood glucose and insulin levels, and tumor response. RESULTS: The RP2D of GSK2141795 for once-daily dosing is 75 mg. The most common (>10%) treatment-related AEs included diarrhea, fatigue, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Most AEs were low grade. The frequency of hyperglycemia increased with dose; however, at the RP2D, grade 3 hyperglycemia was only reported in 4% of patients and no grade 4 events were observed. PK characteristics were favorable, with a prolonged half-life and low peak-to-trough ratio. There were two partial responses at the RP2D in patients with either a PIK3CA mutation or PTEN loss. CONCLUSION: GSK2141795 was safe and well-tolerated, with clinical activity seen as monotherapy at the RP2D of 75 mg daily. NCT00920257

4530Background: PD-L1 expression is a useful biomarker in predicting response to PD-1 and PD-L1 directed immunotherapies in a variety of tumor types. In UC, studies have implicated PD-L1 expression...

Activated microglia surrounding amyloid beta-containing senile plaques synthesize interleukin-1, an inflammatory cytokine that has been postulated to contribute to Alzheimer's disease pathology. Studies have demonstrated that amyloid beta treatment causes increased cytokine release in microglia and related cell cultures. The present work evaluates the specificity of this cellular response by comparing the effects of amyloid beta to that of amylin, another amyloidotic peptide. Both lipopolysaccharide-treated THP-1 monocytes and mouse microglia showed significant increases in mature interleukin-1beta release 48 h following amyloid beta or human amylin treatment, whereas nonfibrillar rat amylin had no effect on interleukin-1beta production by THP-1 cells. Lipopolysaccharide-stimulated THP-1 cells treated with amyloid beta or amylin also showed increased release of the proinflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6, as well as the chemokines interleukin-8 and macrophage inflammatory protein-1alpha and -1beta. THP-1 cells incubated with fibrillar amyloid beta or amylin in the absence of lipopolysaccharide also showed significant increases of both interleukin-1beta and tumor necrosis factor-alpha mRNA. Furthermore, treatment of THP-1 cells with amyloid fibrils resulted in an elevated expression of the immediate-early genes c-fos and junB. These studies provide further evidence that fibrillar amyloid peptides can induce signal transduction pathways that initiate an inflammatory response that is likely to contribute to Alzheimer's disease pathology.

Two studies were conducted in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic or renal impairment and subjects with normal organ function to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of casopitant and to assess its safety in these populations. A total of 26 subjects were enrolled in the hepatic impairment study and 18 subjects in the renal impairment study. All subjects received oral casopitant 100 mg once-daily for 5 days. Casopitant area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) increased 11% and 24% in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, respectively, on Day 1, compared with subjects with normal hepatic function; a similar increase was observed on Day 5. The AUC of the active major metabolite, GSK525060, was reduced 29% and 19% on Days 1 and 5, respectively, in subjects with moderate hepatic impairment, but not altered by mild hepatic impairment. Casopitant AUC increased 34% and 22% on Day 1 in subjects with mild or moderate renal impairment, respectively, and 28% and 11% on Day 5, respectively, compared with subjects with normal renal function. GSK525060 AUC was increased 17% and 24% on Days 1 and 5, respectively, in subjects with mild renal impairment; but did not significantly change in subjects with moderate renal impairment. Further age-adjusted analysis showed no meaningful effect of renal impairment on casopitant or GSK525060 AUC. Plasma protein binding of casopitant and GSK525060 was similar in all subjects. The pharmacokinetics of casopitant is not altered to a clinically significant extent in subjects with mild or moderate, hepatic or renal impairment. The impact of severe hepatic or renal impairment was not evaluated.

Introduction: The pharmacokinetics and safety of casopitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist being developed for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced and post-operative nausea and vomiting, were evaluated in subjects with mild (Child-Pugh score of 5–6) and moderate (Child-Pugh score of 7–9) hepatic impairment; mild (creatinine clearance 50–80 mL/min) and moderate (creatinine clearance 30–49 mL/min) renal impairment; and subjects with normal hepatic and renal function. Experimental Design: Twenty-six subjects were enrolled in the hepatic impairment study (9 mild, 9 moderate and 8 normal subjects) and 18 subjects in the renal impairment study (6 mild, 6 moderate and 6 normal subjects). Subjects with severe hepatic or renal impairment were excluded. All subjects received a once-daily dose of 100 mg oral casopitant for 5 days. Pharmacokinetics and plasma protein binding of casopitant and its major metabolite, GSK525060, were determined on Days 1 and 5. Safety was continuously assessed. Results: Subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment had an increase in casopitant AUC of 11% and 24%, respectively, on Day 1 compared with normal subjects; a similar increase was observed on Day 5. Casopitant Cmax was variable, but similar across all subjects. GSK525060 AUC was not significantly different between normal subjects and subjects with mild hepatic impairment; however, AUC was reduced 29% and 19% on Days 1 and 5, respectively, in subjects with moderate hepatic impairment. The percent bound of casopitant and GSK525060 was similar in all subjects. Casopitant AUC increased 34% and 22% in subjects with mild or moderate renal impairment on Day 1, respectively, and 28% and 11% on Day 5, respectively, when compared with normal subjects. GSK525060 AUC increased 17% and 24% on Days 1 and 5, respectively, in subjects with mild renal impairment, but did not significantly change in subjects with moderate impairment. Further age-adjusted analysis showed no meaningful effect of renal impairment on casopitant or GSK525060 AUC. Cmax and half-life in renal impaired subjects were similar to normal subjects. The plasma protein-binding of casopitant and GSK525060 was similar in all subjects. Casopitant was well tolerated, with no significant difference in the type or frequency of adverse events (AEs) noted between subjects with mild, moderate or no hepatic or renal impairment. Somnolence, flatulence and nausea were the most frequently reported AEs in the hepatic impairment study; whereas constipation and dyspepsia were the most frequently reported events in the renal impairment study. No AEs were reported in subjects with mild renal impairment. Conclusion: The pharmacokinetics of casopitant is not altered to a clinically significant extent in subjects with mild or moderate, hepatic or renal impairment. The impact of severe hepatic or renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics and safety of casopitant was not evaluated. Citation Information: Mol Cancer Ther 2009;8(12 Suppl):C132.