Search

Drug-drug interactions can have a major impact on treatment outcome in cancer patients. These patients are at high risk of such interactions, because they are treated with combinations of multiple cytotoxic anticancer drugs or hormonal agents often co-administered with prophylactic antiemetics and analgesics to provide palliation. Interactions between drugs can affect the pharmacokinetics of concomitantly administered chemotherapeutic agents. Especially, due to the specific properties of anticancer drugs, such as a narrow therapeutic index and steep dose-toxicity curve, small pharmacokinetic changes can have significant clinical consequences like decreased therapeutic efficacy or increased toxicity. An important mechanism that underlies these interactions is the induction of enzymes or efflux transporters involved in the biotransformation and clearance of anticancer drugs. Several nuclear receptors, like the pregnane X receptor (PXR), constitutively androstane receptor (CAR), have been shown to regulate induction. Activation of these receptors will lead to induction of important enzymes like cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), which is involved in the biotransformation of more than 50% of all clinically used drugs. Therefore, concomitant administration of agents that activate PXR will affect the pharmacokinetics of drugs that are substrate for PXRs target genes, which include CYP3A4 and MDR-1. Understanding of the molecular mechanisms that underlie enzyme induction and the identification of (new) drugs involved in pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions may contribute to the predictability of drug-drug interactions and eventually help to develop safer anticancer regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gefitinib (Iressa(R)); AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, DE, http://www.astrazeneca-us.com) and erlotinib (Tarceva(R)); OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Melville, NY, http://www.osip.com) are so-called small molecules that selectively inhibit epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase activity. Both drugs received registration approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the second- and third-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the failure of gefitinib to show a survival advantage over placebo has resulted in a discussion about the registration of gefitinib. Recently published results have revealed that mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of EGFR are strongly associated with increased gefitinib and erlotinib sensitivity in patients with advanced NSCLC. Here, we present the current knowledge and the future directions of the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Farnesyl transferase inhibitors are a new class of biologically active anticancer drugs. The exact mechanism of action of this class of agents is, however, currently unknown. The drugs inhibit farnesylation of a wide range of target proteins, including Ras. It is thought that these agents block Ras activation through inhibition of the enzyme farnesyl transferase, ultimately resulting in cell growth arrest. In preclinical models, the farnesyl transferase inhibitors showed great potency against tumor cells; yet in clinical studies, their activity was far less than anticipated. Reasons for this disappointing clinical outcome might be found in the drug-development process. In this paper, we outline an algorithm that is potentially useful for the development of biologically active anticancer drugs. The development of farnesyl transferase inhibitors, from discovery to clinical trials, is reviewed on the basis of this algorithm. We found that two important steps of this algorithm were underestimated. First, understanding of the molecular biology of the defective pathway has mainly been focused on H-Ras activation, whereas activation of K-Ras or other farnesylated proteins is probably more important in tumorigenesis. Inhibition of farnesylation is possibly not sufficient, because geranylgeranylation might activate K-Ras and suppress the effect of farnesyl transferase inhibitors. Furthermore, a well-defined proof of concept in preclinical and clinical studies has not been achieved. Integrating the proposed algorithm in future studies of newly developed biologically active anti-cancer drugs might increase the rate of success of these compounds in patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug interactions are an ongoing concern in treatment of cancer, especially when cytotoxic drugs are being used. However, the clinical relevance of these interactions is not always investigated. Drug interactions can be pharmaceutical, pharmacokinetic, or pharmacodynamic. They can also be wanted (eg, use of ciclosporin to enhance the oral bioavailability of paclitaxel); unwanted (eg, combination of the antiviral agent sorivudine and oral fluorouracil analogues can lead to fatal complications); between cytotoxic drugs, cytotoxic drugs and non-cytotoxic drugs; or with pharmaceutical vehicles. Potential interactions between anticancer drugs and over-the-counter or alternative medicines and herbs should not be underestimated. More attention should be given to the recognition of potential drug interactions in the preclinical and early clinical development phase of a new anticancer drug. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of drug interactions, with selected examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities, and pharmacokinetics of topotecan administered as a 30-min intravenous (i.v.) infusion over 5 days in combination with a 1-h i.v. infusion of ifosfamide (IF) for 3 consecutive days every 3 weeks. Patients with advanced malignancies refractory to standard therapy were entered into the study. The starting dose of topotecan was 0.4?mg?m-2?day-1 × 5 days. Ifosfamide was administered at a fixed dose of 1.2?g?m-2?day-1 × 3 days. In all, 36 patients received 144 treatment courses. Owing to toxicities, the schedule of topotecan administration was reduced from 5 to 3 days. The MTD was reached at topotecan 1.2?mg?m-2?day-1 × 3 days with IF 1.2?g?m-2?day-1 × 3 days. Haematological toxicities were dose limiting. Neutropenia was the major toxicity. Thrombocytopenia and anaemia were rare. Nonhaematological toxicities were relatively mild. Partial responses were documented in three patients with ovarian cancer dosed below the MTD. Topotecan and IF did not appear to interact pharmacokinetically. The relationships between the exposure to topotecan lactone and total topotecan, and the decrease in absolute neutrophil count and the decrease in thrombocytes, were described with sigmoidal-Emax models. The combination of 1.0?mg?m-2?day-1 topotecan administered as a 30-min i.v. infusion daily times three with 1.2?g?m-2?day-1 IF administered as a 1-h i.v. infusion daily times three every 3 weeks was feasible. However, the combination schedule of topotecan and IF did result in considerable haematological toxicity and in conjunction with previously reported pronounced nonhaematological toxicities and treatment related deaths, it may be concluded that this is not a favourable combination.British Journal of Cancer (2004) 90, 2268-2277. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601861 www.bjcancer.com Published online 11 May 2004 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Alpe-DPD study (NCT02324452) demonstrated that prospective genotyping and dose-individualization using four alleles in DPYD (DPYD*2A/rs3918290, c.1236G > A/rs75017182, c.2846A > T/rs67376798 and c.1679 T > G/rs56038477) can mitigate the risk of severe fluoropyrimidine toxicity. However, this could not prevent all toxicities. The goal of this study was to identify additional genetic variants, both inside and outside DPYD, that may contribute to fluoropyrimidine toxicity., Methods: Biospecimens and data from the Alpe-DPD study were used. Exon sequencing was performed to identify risk variants inside DPYD. In silico and in vitro analyses were used to classify DPYD variants. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) with severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity was performed to identify variants outside DPYD. Association with severe toxicity was assessed using matched-pair analyses for the exon sequencing and logistic, Cox, and ordinal regression analyses for GWAS., Results: Twenty-four non-synonymous, frameshift, and splice site DPYD variants were detected in ten of 986 patients. Seven of these variants (c.1670C > T, c.1913 T > C, c.1925 T > C, c.506delC, c.731A > C, c.1740 + 1G > T, c.763 - 2A > G) were predicted to be deleterious. The carriers of either of these variants showed a trend towards a 2.14-fold (95% CI, 0.41-11.3, P = 0.388) increased risk of severe toxicity compared to matched controls (N = 30). After GWAS of 942 patients, no individual single nucleotide polymorphisms achieved genome-wide significance (P ≤ 5 × 10 -8 ), however, five variants were suggestive of association (P < 5 × 10 -6 ) with severe toxicity., Conclusions: Results from DPYD exon sequencing and GWAS analysis did not identify additional genetic variants associated with severe toxicity, which suggests that testing for single markers at a population level currently has limited clinical value. Identifying additional variants on an individual level is still promising to explain fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity. In addition, studies with larger samples sizes, in more diverse cohorts are needed to identify potential clinically relevant genetic variants related to severe fluoropyrimidine toxicity., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The development of resistance limits the clinical benefit of BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAFi/MEKi) in BRAFV600-mutated melanoma. It has been shown that short-term treatment (14 days) with vorinostat was able to initiate apoptosis of resistant tumor cells. We aimed to assess the antitumor activity of sequential treatment with vorinostat following BRAFi/MEKi in patients with BRAFV600-mutated melanoma who progressed after initial response to BRAFi/MEKi., Patients and Methods: Patients with BRAFi/MEKi-resistant BRAFV600-mutated melanoma were treated with vorinostat 360 mg once daily for 14 days followed by BRAFi/MEKi. The primary endpoint was an objective response rate of progressive lesions of at least 30% according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics of vorinostat, and translational molecular analyses using ctDNA and tumor biopsies., Results: Of the 26 patients with progressive BRAFi/MEKi-resistant BRAFV600-mutated melanoma receiving treatment with vorinostat, 22 patients were evaluable for response. The objective response rate was 9%, with one complete response for 31.2 months and one partial response for 14.9 months. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.4 and 5.4 months, respectively. Common adverse events were fatigue (23%) and nausea (19%). ctDNA analysis showed emerging secondary mutations in NRAS and MEK in eight patients at the time of BRAFi/MEKi resistance. Elimination of these mutations by vorinostat treatment was observed in three patients., Conclusions: Intermittent treatment with vorinostat in patients with BRAFi/MEKi-resistant BRAFV600-mutated melanoma is well tolerated. Although the primary endpoint of this study was not met, durable antitumor responses were observed in a minority of patients (9%)., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is the main known cause of life-threatening fluoropyrimidine (FP)-induced toxicities. We conducted a meta-analysis on individual patient data to assess the contribution of deleterious DPYD variants *2A/D949V/*13/HapB3 (recommended by EMA) and clinical factors, for predicting G4-5 toxicity., Methods: Study eligibility criteria included recruitment of Caucasian patients without DPD-based FP-dose adjustment. Main endpoint was 12-week haematological or digestive G4-5 toxicity. The value of DPYD variants *2A/p.D949V/*13 merged, HapB3, and MIR27A rs895819 was evaluated using multivariable logistic models (AUC)., Results: Among 25 eligible studies, complete clinical variables and primary endpoint were available in 15 studies (8733 patients). Twelve-week G4-5 toxicity prevalence was 7.3% (641 events). The clinical model included age, sex, body mass index, schedule of FP-administration, concomitant anticancer drugs. Adding *2A/p.D949V/*13 variants (at least one allele, prevalence 2.2%, OR 9.5 [95%CI 6.7-13.5]) significantly improved the model (p < 0.0001). The addition of HapB3 (prevalence 4.0%, 98.6% heterozygous), in spite of significant association with toxicity (OR 1.8 [95%CI 1.2-2.7]), did not improve the model. MIR27A rs895819 was not associated with toxicity, irrespective of DPYD variants., Conclusions: FUSAFE meta-analysis highlights the major relevance of DPYD *2A/p.D949V/*13 combined with clinical variables to identify patients at risk of very severe FP-related toxicity., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

DPYD-guided dosing has improved the safety of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in recent years. However, severe toxicity remains in ~ 23% of patients not carrying DPYD variant alleles treated with capecitabine. Therefore, we developed a predictive model based on patient-related and treatment-related factors aimed at estimating the risk of developing severe capecitabine-related toxicity. The nomogram was developed using data from two large clinical trials (NCT00838370 and NCT02324452). Patients with cancer carrying a DPYD variant allele (DPYD*2A, c.1236G>A, c.2846A>T, and c.1679T>G) were excluded. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression using predetermined predictors based on previous findings, including age, sex, body surface area, type of treatment regimen, and creatinine levels were used to develop the nomogram. The developed model was internally validated using bootstrap resampling and cross-validation. This model was not externally or clinically validated. A total of 2,147 DPYD wild-type patients with cancer treated with capecitabine-based chemotherapy regimens were included of which complete data of 1,745 patients were available and used for the development of the nomogram. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression showed that age, sex, and type of treatment regimen were strong predictors of severe capecitabine-related toxicity in DPYD wild-type patients. Internal validation demonstrated a concordance index of 0.68 which indicates a good discriminative ability for prediction of severe capecitabine-related toxicity. The developed nomogram includes readily available parameters and may be a helpful tool for clinicians to assess the risk of developing severe capecitabine-related toxicity in patients without known risk DPYD variant alleles treated with capecitabine-based anticancer regimens., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2023 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Purpose: DPYD -guided fluoropyrimidine dosing improves patient safety in carriers of DPYD variant alleles. However, the impact on treatment outcome in these patients is largely unknown. Therefore, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between DPYD variant carriers treated with a reduced dose and DPYD wild-type controls receiving a full fluoropyrimidine dose in a retrospective matched-pair survival analysis., Methods: Data from a prospective multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02324452) in which DPYD variant carriers received a 25% (c.1236G>A and c.2846A>T) or 50% ( DPYD *2A and c.1679T>G) reduced dose and data from DPYD variant carriers treated with a similarly reduced dose of fluoropyrimidines identified during routine clinical care were obtained. Each DPYD variant carrier was matched to three DPYD wild-type controls treated with a standard dose. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression., Results: In total, 156 DPYD variant carriers and 775 DPYD wild-type controls were available for analysis. Sixty-one c.1236G>A, 25 DPYD *2A, 13 c.2846A>T, and-when pooled-93 DPYD variant carriers could each be matched to three unique DPYD wild-type controls. For pooled DPYD variant carriers, PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.51; P = .053) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.51; P = .698) were not negatively affected by DPYD -guided dose individualization. In the subgroup analyses, a shorter PFS (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.86; P = .007) was found in c.1236G>A variant carriers, whereas no differences were found for DPYD *2A and c.2846A>T carriers., Conclusion: In this exploratory analysis, DPYD -guided fluoropyrimidine dosing does not negatively affect PFS and OS in pooled DPYD variant carriers. Close monitoring with early dose modifications based on toxicity is recommended, especially for c.1236G>A carriers receiving a reduced starting dose.

BRAFV600E alterations are prevalent across multiple tumors. Here we present final efficacy and safety results of a phase 2 basket trial of dabrafenib (BRAF kinase inhibitor) plus trametinib (MEK inhibitor) in eight cohorts of patients with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced rare cancers: anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (n = 36), biliary tract cancer (n = 43), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 1), adenocarcinoma of the small intestine (n = 3), low-grade glioma (n = 13), high-grade glioma (n = 45), hairy cell leukemia (n = 55) and multiple myeloma (n = 19). The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed overall response rate in these cohorts was 56%, 53%, 0%, 67%, 54%, 33%, 89% and 50%, respectively. Secondary endpoints were median duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Median DoR was 14.4 months, 8.9 months, not reached, 7.7 months, not reached, 31.2 months, not reached and 11.1 months, respectively. Median PFS was 6.7 months, 9.0 months, not reached, not evaluable, 9.5 months, 5.5 months, not evaluable and 6.3 months, respectively. Median OS was 14.5 months, 13.5 months, not reached, 21.8 months, not evaluable, 17.6 months, not evaluable and 33.9 months, respectively. The most frequent (≥20% of patients) treatment-related adverse events were pyrexia (40.8%), fatigue (25.7%), chills (25.7%), nausea (23.8%) and rash (20.4%). The encouraging tumor-agnostic activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib suggests that this could be a promising treatment approach for some patients with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced rare cancers. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02034110 ., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The phase I first-in-human study ENGAGE-1 evaluated the humanized IgG1 OX40 agonistic monoclonal antibody GSK3174998 alone (Part 1 (P1)) or in combination with pembrolizumab (Part 2 (P2)) in patients with advanced solid tumors., Methods: GSK3174998 (0.003-10 mg/kg) ± pembrolizumab (200 mg) was administered intravenously every 3 weeks using a continuous reassessment method for dose escalation. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability; secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity., Results: 138 patients were enrolled (45 (P1) and 96 (P2, including 3 crossovers)). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 51% (P1) and 64% (P2) of patients, fatigue being the most common (11% and 24%, respectively). No dose-toxicity relationship was observed, and maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. Dose-limiting toxicities (P2) included Grade 3 (G3) pleural effusion and G1 myocarditis with G3 increased troponin. GSK3174998 ≥0.3 mg/kg demonstrated pharmacokinetic linearity and >80% receptor occupancy on circulating T cells; 0.3 mg/kg was selected for further evaluation. Limited clinical activity was observed for GSK3174998 (P1: disease control rate (DCR) ≥24 weeks 9%) and was not greater than that expected for pembrolizumab alone (P2: overall response rate 8%, DCR ≥24 weeks 28%). Multiplexed immunofluorescence data from paired biopsies suggested that increased infiltration of natural killer (NK)/natural killer T (NKT) cells and decreased regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment may contribute to clinical responses: CD16+CD56-CD134+ NK /NKT cells and CD3+CD4+FOXP3+CD134+ Tregs exhibited the largest magnitude of change on treatment, whereas CD3+CD8+granzyme B+PD-1+CD134+ cytotoxic T cells were the least variable. Tumor gene expression profiling revealed an upregulation of inflammatory responses, T-cell proliferation, and NK cell function on treatment with some inflammatory cytokines upregulated in peripheral blood. However, target engagement, evidenced by pharmacologic activity in peripheral blood and tumor tissue, did not correlate with clinical efficacy. The low number of responses precluded identifying a robust biomarker signature predictive of response., Conclusions: GSK3174998±pembrolizumab was well tolerated over the dose range tested and demonstrated target engagement. Limited clinical activity does not support further development of GSK3174998±pembrolizumab in advanced cancers., Trial Registration Number: NCT02528357., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SP-V is a principal/subinvestigator of clinical trials for AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argenx BVBA, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca A, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare AG, BBB Technologies BV, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Bioalliance Pharma, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, GamaMabs, Genentech, GSK, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche AG, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma AS, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merus, Molecular Partners AG, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology NV, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Onyx Therapeutics, Orion Pharma, Oryzon Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Plexxikon, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Turning Point Therapeutics, and Xencor outside the submitted work; non-financial support (drug supplied) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, Roche; research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Merck KGaA for projects unrelated to this manuscript. VL reports consulting for Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health; research funding from GSK, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Seattle Genetics. WR reports nothing to disclose. TMB reports consulting for Guardant Health, Loxo Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Exelixis, Blueprint Medicines, Foundation Medicine, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Ignyta, Moderna Therapeutics, Pfizer. Speakers Bureau: Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Lilly; research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Medpacto, Inc., Incyte, Mirati Therapeutics, MedImmune, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Leap Therapeutics, MabVax, Stemline Therapeutics, Merck, Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Deciphera, Merrimack, Immunogen, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Ignyta, Calithera Biosciences, Kolltan Pharmaceuticals, Principa Biopharma, Peleton, Immunocore, Aileron Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Moderna Therapeutics, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas Pharma, Five Prime Therapeutics, Jacobio, Top Alliance BioScience, Loxo, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, Takeda, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Onyx, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Foundation Medicine, and ARMO BioScience; personal expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, EMD Serono, Genentech, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, Sysmex, and Pfizer. AHa reports research funding from Genentech/Roche, Merck, GSK, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca/Medimmune Eisai; personal fees from Merck and GSK. DCC is a consultant for Nektar, Pfizer, Werewolf, and HUYA. FSH reports research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis; receives personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, Surface, Compass Therapeutics, Apricity, Sanofi, Pionyr, Torque, Bicara, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Bioentre, Gossamer, Iovance, Trillium, Catalym, Immunocore, Amgen, Kairos, Eisai, and Rheos. JHMS is a shareholder and part-time employee of Modra Pharmaceuticals BV and patent holder of oral taxanes; reports consulting for Debiopharm. JKL reports other from GSK, Novartis, Medivation/Pfizer, Genentech, EMD-Serono, AstraZeneca, Medimmune, Zenith, Ayala, UpToDate review panels for NCCN, ASCO, NIH PDQ, Medlearning, Physicians Education Resource, Prime Oncology, Medscape, Clinical Care Options, Medpage. SA reports advisory board participation for MSD, Sanofi, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer; research support from Sanofi. KAA reports research funding (to institution) from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Trishula, GSK, Merck, and Eli Lilly. FO is a principal/subinvestigator of clinical trials for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Cytovation, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Revmed, Incyte, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Exelexis, Relay, and InterRNA. MM reports research funding from Alpine Immune Sciences, Arcus Biosciences, Arvinas, Ascentage Pharma Group, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, BioMed Valley Discoveries, BioNTech, Dragonfly Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Erasca, Exelixis, Foghorn Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, IDEAYA Biosciences, Ikena Oncology, ImmVira Pharma, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Jacobio Pharmaceuticals, Kechow Pharma, Kezar Life Sciences, Kinnate BioPharma, MedImmune, Mereo BioPharma, Metabomed, Moderna, NBE Therapeutics, Nektar, Novartis, Oncorus, PACT Pharma, Pfizer, Plexxikon, Prelude Therapeutics, Pyramid Biosciences, Regeneron, Sapience Therapeutics, Scholar Rock Seattle Genetics, Synthrox, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Teneobio, Tempest Therapeutics, Tizona Therapeutics, TMUNITY Therapeutics, TopAlliance Biosciences, and Xilio. M; consulting/advisory role for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BicycleTX Limited, Castle Biosciences, Eisai, Ideaya Biosciences, iTeos, Pfizer, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. NS reports consulting/advisory role for Deciphera, AADi, Blueprint Medicines, Bayer, Epizyme, and Boehringer Ingelheim; research funding from GSK, Karyopharm, Deciphera, Ascentage Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, and AstraZeneca/MedImmune. SC is the principal/subinvestigator of clinical trials for AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Astex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca AB, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare AG, BBB Technologies BV, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Casi Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Celgene Corporation (a Bristol-Myers Squibb company), Cellcentric, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Cytovasion, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, GamaMabs, Genentech, GSK, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche AG, Imcheck Therapeutics, Incyte Corporation, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Janssen R&D LLC, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Molecular Partners AG, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology NV, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Relay Therapeutics, Inc, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Transgene SA, Turning Point Therapeutics, and Xencor; reports research grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, INCA, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; reports non-financial support (drug supplied) from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, and Roche; reports honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, Novartis and Roche; reports participation in advisory boards for Alderaan Biotechnology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Avacta, Ellipses Pharma, Oncovita, Seagen, UltraHuman8; reports travel and congress support from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Ose Pharma, Roche, Sotio. MA reports research funding (to institution) from Genentech, Nektar Therapeutics, Merck, GSK, Novartis, Jounce Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Adaptimmune, Shattuck Lab, and Gilead. Advisory boards: GSK, Shattuck Lab, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca; reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca, and Nektar Therapeutics. AS reports participation in advisory boards for Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Oncorus, Janssen, Medison, and Immunocore; reports research support: Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Symphogen AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Merck, Bayer, Surface Oncology, Northern Biologics, Janssen Oncology/Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Regeneron, Alkermes, Array Biopharma/Pfizer, GSK, Treadwell, and Amgen. OR reports employment with AstraZeneca; reports research funding from Merck; reports speaker for activities supported by educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck; reports consulting for Merck, Celgene, Five Prime, GSK, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, Puretech, Imvax, Sobi, Boehringer Ingelheim; reports pending patent for “Methods of using pembrolizumab and trebananib”. EMP, CMA, HZ, HS, SAG, MW, KMY, NY, and AHo report employment with GSK. MJC is an employee of Merck and owns stock. EVS is an employee of Merck. AM has been a principal or coinvestigator of clinical trials using OX40-targeted agents and/or has provided consulting services for Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, HiFiBiO, Bristol Myers Squibb, Shattuck Labs. JW reports consulting for Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Nektar, Celldex, Incyte, Biond, ImCheck, Sellas, Evaxion and EMD Serono; reports participation in advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb (compensated), CytoMx, Incyte, ImCheck, Biond, Sellas, Instil Bio, OncoC4, and Neximmune; reports equity holdings in Biond, Evaxion, Instil Bio, OncoC4, and Neximmune; reports research support (to institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, GSK, Moderna, Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca, Moffitt Cancer Center; reports patent for ipilimumab biomarker and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes preparation and a PD-1 patent (Biodesix). JVH reports other from GSK, AstraZeneca, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Brightpath Biotherapeutics, Eli Lilly & Co, Kairos Venture Investments, Triptych Health Partners; reports patent with Spectrum Pharmaceuticals., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Despite the clinical efficacy of enzalutamide monotherapy in patients with advanced prostate cancer, therapeutic resistance and disease progression are inevitable. We proposed a study to evaluate NLG207, a nanoparticle-drug conjugate (NDC) of the potent topoisomerase I inhibitor camptothecin, in combination with enzalutamide, in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following progression on enzalutamide., Methods: This was a single-arm, optimal two-stage, phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of NLG207 in combination with enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC who received prior enzalutamide. A lead-in dose escalation evaluated the recommended phase 2 dose of NLG207 in combination with enzalutamide. Patients received NLG207 via IV infusion every 2 weeks and enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily., Results: Between March 2019 and June 2021, four patients were accrued to the lead-in dose escalation. Two of the four patients were evaluable and both experienced DLTs at the NLG207 12 mg/m2 dose level; one DLT was related to a dose delay for noninfective cystitis and myelosuppression, the other a grade 3 noninfective cystitis. Further evaluation of NLG207 in combination with enzalutamide was halted and the study was ultimately terminated. PSA declines from baseline were observed in two patients., Conclusion: NLG207 12 mg/m2 in combination with enzalutamide was not well tolerated in patients with mCRPC following several lines of the standard of care therapy., Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03531827., (Published by Oxford University Press 2022. The data published online to support this summary are the property of the authors. Please contact the authors about reuse rights of the original data.)

In clinical practice, 25-30% of the patients treated with fluoropyrimidines experience severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. Extensively clinically validated DPYD genotyping tests are available to identify patients at risk of severe toxicity due to decreased activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the rate limiting enzyme in fluoropyrimidine metabolism. In April 2020, the European Medicines Agency recommended that, as an alternative for DPYD genotype-based testing for DPD deficiency, also phenotype testing based on pretreatment plasma uracil levels is a suitable method to identify patients with DPD deficiency. Although the evidence for genotype-directed dosing of fluoropyrimidines is substantial, the level of evidence supporting plasma uracil levels to predict DPD activity in clinical practice is limited. Notwithstanding this, uracil-based phenotyping is now used in clinical practice in various countries in Europe. We aimed to determine the value of pretreatment uracil levels in predicting DPD deficiency and severe treatment-related toxicity. To this end, we determined pretreatment uracil levels in 955 patients with cancer, and assessed the correlation with DPD activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity. We identified substantial issues concerning the use of pretreatment uracil in clinical practice, including large between-center study differences in measured pretreatment uracil levels, most likely as a result of pre-analytical factors. Importantly, we were not able to correlate pretreatment uracil levels with DPD activity nor were uracil levels predictive of severe treatment-related toxicity. We urge that robust clinical validation should first be performed before pretreatment plasma uracil levels are used in clinical practice as part of a dosing strategy for fluoropyrimidines., (© 2022 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Lurbinectedin is a novel and potent selective inhibitor of active transcription of protein-coding genes, triggering apoptosis of cancerous cells. It has been approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Studies exploring the disposition and metabolism of lurbinectedin were performed in vitro and in vivo (by intravenous administration of lurbinectedin). Low blood cell partitioning for lurbinectedin in rats, nonhuman primates (NHP), and humans was determined as 23.4%, 29.8%, and 9.8%, respectively. Protein binding was very high (>95%) in total plasma (rat, NHP, and human), albumin, and α -1-acid glycoprotein (both human). In vitro, lurbinectedin underwent intense liver microsome-mediated metabolism-in 10 minutes, 80% of the compound is metabolized in human-with CYP3A4 being the isoform involved in that metabolism. Results also showed NHPs being the nonclinical species which, metabolically, most closely resembles humans. Mass balance studies performed in rats (both genders), NHPs (male only), and patients (both genders) demonstrated that the principal route of excretion of 14 C-lurbinectedin-related radioactivity was through the feces (88.7% ± 10.1% in patients), with only a minor fraction recovered from the urine (5.6% ± 2.0% in patients). In plasma samples, the majority of lurbinectedin-related radioactivity was attributed to unchanged compound (95% ± 3.1% and 70.2% ± 10.9% in NHPs and humans, respectively). Plasma metabolic profiling demonstrated the major (% compared with unchanged compound) circulating metabolites were N -Desmethyl-lurbinectedin (0.4% ± 0.2% and 10.4% ± 2.2% in NHPs and patients, respectively) and 1',3'-Desmethylene-lurbinectedin (0.9% ± 0.7% and 14.3% ± 10.4% in NHP and patients, respectively). SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Lurbinectedin is a novel and potent selective inhibitor of active transcription of protein-coding genes, triggering apoptosis of cancerous cells, and was recently approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic small-cell lung cancer with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. The present study provides a complete set of information on the pharmacokinetics, biotransformation, and elimination of 14 C-lurbinectedin and its metabolites, following a single intravenous administration to nonclinical species (rats and nonhuman primates) and patients., (Copyright © 2022 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.)

Background: GSK2849330, an anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody that blocks HER3/Neuregulin 1 (NRG1) signaling in cancer cells, is engineered for enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and complement-dependent cytotoxicity. This phase I, first-in-human, open-label study assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and preliminary activity of GSK2849330 in patients with HER3-expressing advanced solid tumors., Patients and Methods: Patients with various tumor types were prospectively selected for HER3 expression by immunohistochemistry; a subset was also screened for NRG1 mRNA expression. In the dose-escalation phase, patients received GSK2849330 1.4-30 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or 3 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg weekly, intravenously (IV). In the dose-expansion phase, patients received 30 mg/kg GSK2849330 IV weekly., Results: Twenty-nine patients with HER3-expressing cancers, of whom two expressed NRG1, received GSK2849330 (dose escalation: n = 18, dose expansion: n = 11). GSK2849330 was well tolerated. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The highest dose, of 30 mg/kg weekly, expected to provide full target engagement, was selected for dose expansion. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were mostly grade 1 or 2. The most common AEs were diarrhea (66%), fatigue (62%), and decreased appetite (31%). Dose-proportional plasma exposures were achieved, with evidence of HER3 inhibition in paired tissue biopsies. Of 29 patients, only 1 confirmed partial response, lasting 19 months, was noted in a patient with CD74-NRG1-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Conclusion: GSK2849330 demonstrated a favorable safety profile, dose-proportional PK, and evidence of target engagement, but limited antitumor activity in HER3-expressing cancers. The exceptional response seen in a patient with CD74-NRG1-rearranged NSCLC suggests further exploration in NRG1-fusion-positive cancers., Implications for Practice: This first-in-human study confirms that GSK2849330 is well tolerated. Importantly, across a variety of HER3-expressing advanced tumors, prospective selection by HER3/NRG1 expression alone was insufficient to identify patients who could benefit from treatment with this antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity- and complement-dependent cytotoxicity-enhanced anti-HER3 antibody. The only confirmed durable response achieved was in a patient with CD74-NRG1-rearranged lung cancer. This highlights the potential utility of screening for NRG1 fusions prospectively across tumor types to enrich potential responders to anti-HER3 agents in ongoing trials., (© 2021 GlaxoSmithKline. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Preclinical studies have shown synergistic effects when combining PARP1/2 inhibitors and platinum drugs in BRCA1/2 mutated cancer cell models. After a formulation change of olaparib from capsules to tablets, we initiated a dose finding study of olaparib tablets bidaily (BID) continuously with carboplatin to prepare comparative studies in this patient group. Patients were included in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation schedule: olaparib 25 mg BID and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 3 mg*min/mL d1/d22, olaparib 25 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL d1/d22, followed by increasing dose-levels of olaparib from 50 mg BID, 75 mg BID, to 100 mg BID with carboplatin at AUC 4 mg*min/mL d1/d22. After two cycles, patients continued olaparib 300 mg BID as monotherapy. Primary objective was to assess the maximum tolerable dose (MTD). Twenty-four patients with a confirmed diagnosis of advanced cancer were included. Most common adverse events were nausea (46%), fatigue (33%) and platelet count decrease (33%). Dose-level 3 (olaparib 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL; n = 6) was defined as MTD. Fourteen out of 24 patients (56%) had a partial response as best response (RECIST 1.1). Systemic exposure of the olaparib tablet formulation appeared comparable to the previous capsule formulation with olaparib tablet AUC 0-12 of 16.3 μg/mL*h at MTD. Polymers of ADP-ribose levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were reduced by 98.7% ± 0.14% at Day 8 compared to Day 1 for dose-level 3. Olaparib tablets 75 mg BID and carboplatin AUC 4 mg*min/mL for two cycles preceding olaparib monotherapy 300 mg is a feasible and tolerable treatment schedule for patients with advanced cancer., (© 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Objectives: To determine safety, feasibility, and preliminary activity of transtympanic injection of sodium thiosulfate (STS) against cisplatin-induced hearing loss (CIHL).DESIGN Randomized controlled trial.SETTING Tertiary cancer hospital.PATIENTS Adults to be treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥ 75 mg/m2).INTERVENTION Selected by randomization, 0.1 M STS gel on one side and placebo gel on the other side was transtympanically applied to the middle ear 3 hours before cisplatin administration. After amendment, the placebo ear was left untreated., Main Outcome Measure: Primary outcome was safety and feasibility. Secondary outcomes included pharmacokinetic analysis of systemic cisplatin and preliminary activity of STS. Clinically relevant CIHL was defined as a ≥ 10 dB threshold shift at pure-tone average 8-10-12.5 kHz (PTA8-12.5). Response to STS was defined as a threshold shift at PTA8-12.5 in the STS-treated ear of ≥ 10 dB smaller than the untreated ear., Results: Twelve patients were treated. Average CIHL at PTA8-12.5 was 12.7 dB in untreated ears and 8.8 dB SPL in STS-treated ears (p = 0.403). Four patients did not develop CIHL. Four out of eight patients with CIHL responded to STS: CIHL at PTA8-12.5 in STS-treated ears was 18.4 dB less compared to untreated ears (p = 0.068). Grade 1 adverse events were reported. Pharmacokinetic results were available for 11 patients., Conclusion: Transtympanic application of STS was safe and feasible. Based on our pharmacokinetic analysis, we postulate that transtympanic STS does not interfere with the systemically available cisplatin. Our results provide a preliminary proof of concept for transtympanic application of STS in preventing CIHL and warrants further evaluation on a larger scale., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.)

Purpose: To identify an MTD of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, in combination with loco-regional radiotherapy with/without cisplatin for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Olaparib dose was escalated in two groups: radiotherapy (66 Gy/24 fractions in 2.75 Gy/fraction) with and without daily cisplatin (6 mg/m 2 ), using time-to-event continual reassessment method with a 1-year dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period. The highest dose level with a DLT probability <15% was defined as MTD. Poly ADP-ribose (PAR) inhibition and radiation-induced PAR-ribosylation (PARylation) were determined in peripheral blood mononuclear cells., Results: Twenty-eight patients with loco-regional or oligometastatic disease (39%) were treated: 11 at olaparib 25 mg twice daily and 17 at 25 mg once daily. The lowest dose level with cisplatin was above the MTD due to hematologic and late esophageal DLT. The MTD without cisplatin was olaparib 25 mg once daily. At a latency of 1-2.8 years, severe pulmonary adverse events (AE) were observed in 5 patients across all dose levels, resulting in 18% grade 5 pulmonary AEs. Exploratory analyses indicate an association with the radiation dose to the lungs. At the MTD, olaparib reduced PAR levels by more than 95% and abolished radiation-induced PARylation. Median follow-up of survivors was 4.1 years. Two-year loco-regional control was 84%, median overall survival in patients with locally advanced NSCLC was 28 months., Conclusions: Combined mildly hypofractionated radiotherapy and low-dose daily cisplatin and olaparib was not tolerable due to esophageal and hematologic toxicity. Severe pulmonary toxicity was observed as well, even without cisplatin. More conformal radiotherapy schedules with improved pulmonary and esophageal sparing should be explored., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

In the PERISCOPE I study, gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination were treated with systemic chemotherapy followed by (sub)total gastrectomy, cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with 460 mg/m 2 hyperthermic oxaliplatin followed by normothermic docetaxel in escalating doses (0, 50, 75 mg/m 2 ). In total, 25 patients completed the study protocol. Plasma samples were collected before the start of the HIPEC procedure, after oxaliplatin washing, after docetaxel washing and the following morning. Median peak plasma concentrations were 5.5∗10 -3  mg/ml for oxaliplatin, 89∗10 -6  mg/ml for docetaxel (dose 50 mg/m 2 ) and 113∗10 -6  mg/ml for docetacel (dose 75 mg/m2). The following morning median plasma concentrations were 32% and 4% of the measured peak concentrations for oxaliplatin and docetaxel, respectively. For both cytostatic agents, no correlation was found between intraperitoneal fluid concentration and peak plasma concentration. High doses oxaliplatin and docetaxel can be given intraperitoneally without causing potentially toxic systemic concentrations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We studied EGFR mutations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and explored their role in predicting the progression-free survival (PFS) of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with erlotinib or gefitinib., Methods: The L858R, T790M mutations and exon 19 deletions were quantified in plasma using digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR). The dynamics of ctDNA mutations over time and relationships with PFS were explored., Results: In total, 249 plasma samples (1-13 per patient) were available from 68 NSCLC patients. The T790M and L858R or exon 19 deletion were found in the ctDNA of 49 and 56% patients, respectively. The median (range) concentration in these samples were 7.3 (5.1-3688.7), 11.7 (5.1-12,393.3) and 27.9 (5.9-2896.7) copies/mL, respectively. Using local polynomial regression, the number of copies of EGFR mutations per mL increased several months prior to progression on standard response evaluation., Conclusion: This change was more pronounced for the driver mutations than for the resistance mutations. In conclusion, quantification of EGFR mutations in plasma ctDNA was predictive of treatment outcomes in NSCLC patients. In particular, an increase in driver mutation copy number could predict disease progression.

Background: This open-label, phase 1 trial (NCT02316197) aimed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of peposertib (formerly M3814), a DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK) inhibitor in patients with advanced solid tumours. Secondary/exploratory objectives included safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles and clinical activity., Methods: Adult patients with advanced solid tumours received peposertib 100-200 mg once daily or 150-400 mg twice daily (BID) in 21-day cycles., Results: Thirty-one patients were included (median age 66 years, 61% male). One dose-limiting toxicity, consisting of mainly gastrointestinal, non-serious adverse events (AEs) and long recovery duration, was reported at 300 mg BID. The most common peposertib-related AEs were nausea, vomiting, fatigue and pyrexia. The most common peposertib-related Grade 3 AEs were maculopapular rash and nausea. Peposertib was quickly absorbed systemically (median T max 1.1-2.5 h). The p-DNA-PK/t-DNA-PK ratio decreased consistently in peripheral blood mononuclear cells 3-6 h after doses ≥100 mg. The best overall response was stable disease (12 patients), lasting for ≥12 weeks in seven patients., Conclusions: Peposertib was well-tolerated and demonstrated modest efficacy in unselected tumours. The MTD was not reached; the RP2D was declared as 400 mg BID. Further studies, mainly with peposertib/chemo-radiation, are ongoing., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02316197.

Background: The Ras/Raf/mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (Ras/Raf/MEK/ERK) signaling cascade is frequently constitutively activated in human cancers. Pimasertib is a selective and potent adenosine triphosphate non-competitive MEK1/2 inhibitor., Objective: Our objectives were to describe the results of a phase I, first-in-human, dose-escalation trial of pimasertib that investigated the maximum tolerated dose, recommended phase II dose, and safety, as well as other endpoints., Patients and Methods: Four dosing schedules of pimasertib (once daily [qd], 5 days on, 2 days off; qd, 15 days on, 6 days off; continuous qd; continuous twice daily [bid]) were evaluated in patients with advanced solid tumors. Each treatment cycle lasted 21 days. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) evaluated during cycle 1, and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives included safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity., Results: Overall, 180 patients received pimasertib (dose range 1-255 mg/day). DLTs were mainly observed at doses ≥ 120 mg/day and included skin rash/acneiform dermatitis and ocular events, such as serous retinal detachment. The most common drug-related adverse events were consistent with class effects, including diarrhea, skin disorders, ocular disorders, asthenia/fatigue, and peripheral edema. The median time to maximum pimasertib concentration was 1.5 h across dosing schedules, and the apparent terminal half-life was 5 h across qd dosing schedules. Pimasertib decreased ERK phosphorylation within 2 h of administration, which was maintained for up to 8 h at higher doses and prolonged with bid dosing., Conclusions: Based on the safety profile and efficacy signals, a continuous bid regimen was the preferred dosing schedule and the RP2D was defined as 60 mg bid., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00982865.

Background: Pimasertib is a selective, potent mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor., Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the efficacy, safety, and pharmacodynamics of pimasertib at pharmacologically active doses in a cohort of patients with locally advanced/metastatic melanoma from a first-in-human study of pimasertib., Methods: This was a phase I, open-label, two-part, dose-escalation study. Part 1 was conducted in patients with solid tumors and identified the maximum tolerated dose, while Part 2 was restricted to patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma. Endpoints included safety, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity. We present data for patients with melanoma only from both parts of the study., Results: In total, 93 patients with melanoma received pimasertib, 89 of whom received pharmacologically active doses (28-255 mg/day) across four dose regimens in the two parts of the study. The objective response rate was 12.4% (11/89): complete response (n = 1) and partial response (PR; n = 10). Six patients responded for > 24 weeks. Nine of the 11 responders had tumors with B-Raf Proto-Oncogene, Serine/Threonine Kinase (BRAF; n = 6) and/or NRAS Proto-Oncogene, GTPase (NRAS; n = 3) mutations. Forty-six patients had stable disease (SD). In patients with ocular melanoma (n = 13), best overall response was PR (n = 1), SD (n = 11), and disease progression (n = 1). Phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (pERK) levels were substantially reduced within 2 h of treatment and inhibition was sustained with continuous twice-daily dosing. Treatment-related, recurrent, grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in eight patients, including diarrhea, and skin and ocular events., Conclusion: Results from this phase I study indicate that pimasertib has clinical activity in patients with locally advanced/metastatic melanoma, particularly BRAF- and NRAS-mutated tumors, at clinically relevant doses associated with pERK inhibition in peripheral blood mononuclear cells., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00982865.

Microdose studies are exploratory trials to determine early drug pharmacokinetics in humans. In this trial we examined whether the pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine at a therapeutic dose could be predicted from the pharmacokinetics of a microdose. In this prospective, open-label microdosing study, a gemcitabine microdose (100 µg) was given intravenously to participants on day 1, followed by a therapeutic dose (1250 mg/m 2 ) on day 2. Gemcitabine and its metabolite 2',2'-difluorodeoxyuracil (dFdU) were quantified in plasma and intracellularly by using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry). Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis was performed. Ten patients participated in this study. The mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC 0-8 ) of gemcitabine after microdosing was 0.00074 h·mg/L and after therapeutic dosing was 16 h·mg/L. The mean AUC 0-8 of dFdU following the microdose and therapeutic dose were 0.022 h·mg/L and 169 h·mg/L, respectively. Exposure to gemcitabine after the therapeutic dose was within 2-fold of the exposure following a microdose, when linearly extrapolated to 1250 mg/m 2 . However, the shape of the concentration-time curve was different, as reflected by poor scalability in volume of distribution (939 L versus 222 L). Furthermore, intracellularly phosphorylated gemcitabine and phosphorylated dFdU levels could not be predicted from the microdose. The AUC 0-8 of gemcitabine at therapeutic dose was accurately predicted by the pharmacokinetics of a microdose, when linearly extrapolated to 1250 mg/m 2 . Volume of distribution, elimination rate constant, and intracellular pharmacokinetics of the therapeutic dose could not be predicted from the microdose, which demonstrates limitations of the microdose approach in this case., (© 2020, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Introduction Oral formulations of docetaxel have successfully been developed as an alternative for intravenous administration. Co-administration with the enzyme inhibitor ritonavir boosts the docetaxel plasma exposure. In dose-escalation trials, the maximum tolerated doses for two different dosing regimens were established and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were recorded. The aim of current analysis was to develop a pharmacokinetic (PK)-toxicodynamic (TOX) model to quantify the relationship between docetaxel plasma exposure and DLTs. Methods A total of 85 patients was included in the current analysis, 18 patients showed a DLT in the four-week observation period. A PK-TOX model was developed and simulations based on the PK-TOX model were performed. Results The final PK-TOX model was characterized by an effect compartment representing the toxic effect of docetaxel, which was linked to the probability of developing a DLT. Simulations of once-weekly, once-daily 60 mg and once-weekly, twice-daily 30 mg followed by 20 mg of oral docetaxel suggested that 14% and 34% of patients, respectively, would have a probability >25% to develop a DLT in a four-week period. Conclusions A PK-TOX model was successfully developed. This model can be used to evaluate the probability of developing a DLT following treatment with oral docetaxel and ritonavir in different dosing regimens.

Background: The role of cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in gastric cancer is unknown. This non-randomized dose-finding phase I-II study was designed to assess the safety and feasibility of HIPEC, following systemic chemotherapy, in patients with gastric cancer and limited peritoneal dissemination. The maximum tolerated dose of normothermic intraperitoneal docetaxel in combination with a fixed dose of intraperitoneal oxaliplatin was also explored., Methods: Patients with resectable cT3-cT4a gastric adenocarcinoma with limited peritoneal metastases and/or tumour-positive peritoneal cytology were included. An open HIPEC technique was used with 460 mg/m 2 hyperthermic oxaliplatin for 30 min followed by normothermic docetaxel for 90 min in escalating doses (0, 50, 75 mg/m 2 )., Results: Between 2014 and 2017, 37 patients were included. Of 25 patients who completed the full study protocol, four were treated at dose level 1 (0 mg/m 2 docetaxel), six at dose level 2 (50 mg/m 2 ) and four at dose level 3 (75 mg/m 2 ). At dose level 3, two dose-limiting toxicities occurred, both associated with postoperative ileus. Thereafter, another 11 patients were treated at dose level 2, with no more dose-limiting toxicities. Based on this, the maximum tolerated dose was 50 mg/m 2 intraperitoneal docetaxel. Serious adverse events were scored in 17 of 25 patients. The reoperation rate was 16 per cent (4 of 25) and the treatment-related mortality rate was 8 per cent (2 patients, both in dose level 3)., Conclusion: Gastrectomy combined with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC was feasible using 460 mg/m 2 oxaliplatin and 50 mg/m 2 normothermic docetaxel., (© 2020 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has four expedited programs, including the breakthrough therapy designation (BTD). Recently, this program has been criticized. In this feature, we determine whether BTD oncology drugs were truly a breakthrough, based on the outcome of a validated instrument to measure clinical benefit. We find that only a few drugs were likely a breakthrough, indicating that the success rate of the BTD program is somewhat low. Despite this, we believe that programs for fast drug approval do have a place in the current regulatory practice and that the necessary efforts for their improvement should be further explored, especially considering the remaining unmet medical need for patients with cancer., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Effective treatments for patients with cholangiocarcinoma after progression on gemcitabine-based chemotherapy are urgently needed. Mutations in the BRAF gene have been found in 5% of biliary tract tumours. The combination of dabrafenib and trametinib has shown activity in several BRAF V600E -mutated cancers. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy in patients with BRAF V600E -mutated biliary tract cancer., Methods: This study is part of an ongoing, phase 2, open-label, single-arm, multicentre, Rare Oncology Agnostic Research (ROAR) basket trial in patients with BRAF V600E -mutated rare cancers. Patients were eligible for the biliary tract cancer cohort if they were aged 18 years or older, had BRAF V600E -mutated, unresectable, metastatic, locally advanced, or recurrent biliary tract cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had received previous systemic treatment. All patients were treated with oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily and oral trametinib 2 mg once daily until disease progression or intolerance of treatment. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate, which was determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat evaluable population, which comprised all enrolled patients regardless of receiving treatment who were evaluable (ie, had progression, began a new anticancer treatment, withdrew consent, died, had stable disease for 6 weeks or longer, or had two or more post-baseline assessments). The ROAR trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02034110. These results are based on an interim analysis; the study is active but not recruiting., Findings: Between March 12, 2014, and July 18, 2018, 43 patients with BRAF V600E -mutated biliary tract cancer were enrolled to the study and were evaluable. Median follow-up was 10 months (IQR 6-15). An investigator-assessed overall response was achieved by 22 (51%, 95% CI 36-67) of 43 patients. An independent reviewer-assessed overall response was achieved by 20 (47%, 95% CI 31-62) of 43 patients. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse event was increased γ-glutamyltransferase in five (12%) patients. 17 (40%) patients had serious adverse events and nine (21%) had treatment-related serious adverse events, the most frequent of which was pyrexia (eight [19%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported., Interpretation: Dabrafenib plus trametinib combination treatment showed promising activity in patients with BRAF V600E -mutated biliary tract cancer, with a manageable safety profile. Routine testing for BRAF V600E mutations should be considered in patients with biliary tract cancer., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, is partially hepatically cleared. We investigated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of olaparib in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment to provide dosing recommendations., Methods: This Phase I open-label study assessed the PK, safety and tolerability of single doses of olaparib 300-mg tablets in patients with advanced solid tumours. Patients had normal hepatic function (NHF), or mild (MiHI; Child-Pugh class A) or moderate (MoHI; Child-Pugh class B) hepatic impairment. Blood was collected for PK assessments for 96 hours. Patients could continue taking olaparib 300 mg twice daily for long-term safety assessment., Results: Thirty-one patients received ≥1 dose of olaparib and 30 were included in the PK assessment. Patients with MiHI had an area under the curve geometric least-squares mean (GLSmean) ratio of 1.15 (90% confidence interval 0.72, 1.83) and a GLSmean maximum plasma concentration ratio of 1.13 (0.82, 1.56) vs those with NHF. In patients with MoHI, GLSmean ratio for area under the curve was 1.08 (0.66, 1.74) and for maximum plasma concentration was 0.87 (0.63, 1.22) vs those with NHF. For patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, no new safety signals were detected., Conclusion: Patients with MiHI or MoHI had no clinically significant changes in exposure to olaparib compared with patients with NHF. The safety profile of olaparib did not differ from a clinically relevant extent between cohorts. No olaparib tablet or capsule dose reductions are required for patients with MiHI or MoHI., (© 2020 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Background The PARP inhibitor olaparib has shown acceptable toxicity at doses of up to 400 mg twice daily (bid; capsule formulation) with encouraging signs of antitumor activity. Based on its mode of action, olaparib may sensitize tumor cells to DNA-damaging agents. This Phase I trial (NCT00516724) evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary efficacy of olaparib combined with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors received olaparib (capsule bid) plus carboplatin (Part A), carboplatin and paclitaxel (Part B), or paclitaxel (Part C). In each part of the study, different drug doses were given to define the most appropriate dose/drug combination to use in further studies. Safety assessments included evaluation of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; cycle 1 only), adverse events (AEs) and physical examinations. PK assessments of olaparib, carboplatin and paclitaxel were performed. Tumor responses (RECIST) were assessed every two cycles. Results Fifty-seven patients received treatment. DLTs were reported in two patients (both receiving olaparib 100 mg bid and carboplatin AUC 4; Part A, cohort 2): grade 1 thrombocytopenia with grade 2 neutropenia lasting for 16 days, and grade 2 neutropenia lasting for 7 days. Non-hematologic AEs were predominantly grade 1-2 and included fatigue (70%) and nausea (40%). Bone marrow suppression, mainly neutropenia (51%) and thrombocytopenia (25%), frequently led to dose modifications. Conclusions Olaparib in combination with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel resulted in increased hematologic toxicities, making it challenging to establish a dosing regimen that could be tolerated for multiple cycles without dose modifications.

Background In the first part of this extensive phase I study (NCT00516724), continuous olaparib twice daily (bid) with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel resulted in myelosuppression and dose modifications. Here, we report the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of intermittent olaparib dosing combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors (part D) and enriched for ovarian and breast cancer (part E) received olaparib (capsule and tablet formulations) using intermittent schedules (2 to 10 days of a 21-day cycle) combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel. Safety assessments included evaluation of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; cycle 1 only), adverse events (AEs), and physical examinations. Pharmacokinetic assessments of olaparib capsule and tablet combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel were performed. Tumor responses (RECIST) were assessed every 2 cycles. Results In total, 132 heavily pre-treated patients were included. One DLT of grade 3 elevated alanine aminotransferase lasting for 8 days was reported (olaparib tablet 100 mg bid days 3-12, carboplatin area under the curve 4 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 ). The most common hematological AEs were neutropenia (47%) and thrombocytopenia (39%), which frequently led to dose modifications. Non-hematological AEs were predominantly grade 1-2, including alopecia (89%) and fatigue (84%). Overall objective response rate was 46%. Conclusions Discontinuous dosing of olaparib resulted in significant myelosuppression leading to dose interruptions and/or delays. Anti-tumor activity was encouraging in patients enriched with BRCA-mutated breast and ovarian cancer. The most appropriate olaparib tablet dose for use in further studies evaluating olaparib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is 50 mg bid (days 1-5).

Oral administration of docetaxel in combination with the CYP3A4 inhibitor ritonavir is used in clinical trials to improve oral bioavailability of docetaxel. Diarrhea was the most commonly observed and dose-limiting toxicity. This study combined preclinical and clinical data and investigated incidence, severity and cause of oral docetaxel-induced diarrhea. In this study, incidence and severity of diarrhea in patients were compared to exposure to orally administered docetaxel. Intestinal toxicity after oral or intraperitoneal administration of docetaxel was further explored in mice lacking Cyp3a and mice lacking both Cyp3a and P-glycoprotein. In patients, severity of diarrhea increased significantly with an increase in AUC and C max (P = .035 and P = .025, respectively), but not with an increase in the orally administered dose (P = .11). Furthermore, incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea after oral docetaxel administration was similar as reported after intravenous docetaxel administration. Intestinal toxicity in mice was only observed at high systemic exposure to docetaxel and was similar after oral and intraperitoneal administration of docetaxel. In conclusion, our data show that the onset of severe diarrhea after oral administration of docetaxel in humans is similar after oral and intravenous administration of docetaxel and is caused by the concentration of docetaxel in the systemic blood circulation. Mouse experiments confirmed that intestinal toxicity is caused by a high systemic exposure and not by local intestinal exposure. Severe diarrhea in patients after oral docetaxel is reversible and is not related to the route of administration of docetaxel., (© 2020 The Authors. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives published by British Pharmacological Society and American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Objectives: MCLA-128 is a bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting the HER2 and HER3 receptors and is in development to overcome HER3-mediated resistance to anti-HER2 therapies. The aims of this analysis were to characterize the population pharmacokinetics of MCLA-128 in patients with various solid tumors, to evaluate patient-related factors that affect the disposition of MCLA-128, and to assess whether flat dosing is appropriate., Methods: MCLA-128 concentration data following intravenous administration were collected in a phase I/II clinical trial. Pharmacokinetic data were analyzed using non-linear mixed-effects modeling. Different compartmental models were evaluated. Various body size parameters including body weight, body surface area, and fat-free mass were evaluated as covariates in addition to age, sex, HER2 status, and tumor burden., Results: In total, 1115 serum concentration measurements were available from 116 patients. The pharmacokinetics of MCLA-128 was best described by a two-compartment model with linear and non-linear (Michaelis-Menten) clearance. Fat-free mass significantly affected the linear clearance and volume of distribution of the central compartment of MCLA-128, explaining 8.4% and 5.6% of inter-individual variability, respectively. Tumor burden significantly affected the non-linear clearance capacity. Simulations demonstrated that dosing based on body size parameters resulted in similar area under the plasma concentration-time curve for a dosing interval (AUC 0-τ ), maximum and trough concentrations of MCLA-128, compared to flat dosing., Conclusions: This analysis demonstrated that the pharmacokinetics of MCLA-128 exhibits similar disposition characteristics to other therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and that a flat dose of MCLA-128 in patients with various solid tumors is appropriate.

Background: Despite a protracted disease course and multiple available therapies, patients with well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) inevitably experience disease progression. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) has been associated with NET progression and prognosis. The multicohort, phase 1 KEYNOTE-028 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02054806) evaluated the activity and safety of the anti-programmed cell death protein 1 immunotherapy pembrolizumab in patients with well-differentiated or moderately-differentiated NETs., Methods: Patients with PD-L1-positive, locally advanced or metastatic carcinoid or well-differentiated or moderately-differentiated pancreatic NETs (pNETs) were enrolled into separate cohorts and received pembrolizumab at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. The objective response rate was the primary endpoint (as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, by investigator review). Safety was a secondary endpoint., Results: Of 170 and 106 patients, respectively, who had evaluable samples among those screened for the carcinoid and pNET cohorts, 21% and 25%, respectively, had PD-L1-positive tumors; of these, 25 and 16 patients, respectively, were eligible and treated. The median follow-up was 20 months (range, 2-35 months) and 21 months (range, 5-32 months), respectively. The objective response rate was 12.0% (95% CI, 2.5%-31.2%) and 6.3% (95% CI, 0.2%-30.2%), respectively; 3 partial responses occurred among the carcinoid cohort and 1 among the pNET cohort. The median duration of response in the carcinoid cohort was 9.2 months (range, 6.9-11.1 months), and was not reached in the pNET cohort. No complete responses occurred. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 68% and 69% of patients, respectively, most often diarrhea (7 patients in the carcinoid cohort and 4 patients in the pNET cohort) and fatigue (6 patients in each cohort). Hypothyroidism was the most common immune-mediated adverse event (5 patients in the carcinoid cohort and 2 patients in the pNET cohort)., Conclusions: Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity in a subset of patients with NETs and was well-tolerated., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: The influence of the transcriptional and immunologic context of mutations on therapeutic outcomes with targeted therapy in cancer has not been well defined. BRAF V600E-mutant (BM) colorectal cancer comprises two main transcriptional subtypes, BM1 and BM2. We sought to determine the impact of BM subtype, as well as distinct biological features of those subtypes, on response to BRAF/MEK/EGFR inhibition in patients with colorectal cancer., Patients and Methods: Paired fresh tumor biopsies were acquired at baseline and on day 15 of treatment from all consenting patients with BM colorectal cancer enrolled in a phase II clinical trial of dabrafenib, trametinib, and panitumumab. For each sample, BM subtype, cell cycle, and immune gene signature expression were determined using RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq), and a Cox proportional hazards model was applied to determine association with progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Confirmed response rates, median PFS, and median overall survival (OS) were higher in BM1 subtype patients compared with BM2 subtype patients. Evaluation of immune contexture identified greater immune reactivity in BM1, whereas cell-cycle signatures were more highly expressed in BM2. A multivariate model of PFS incorporating BM subtype plus immune and cell-cycle signatures revealed that BM subtype encompasses the majority of the effect., Conclusions: BM subtype is significantly associated with the outcome of combination dabrafenib, trametinib, and panitumumab therapy and may serve as a standalone predictive biomarker beyond mutational status. Our findings support a more nuanced approach to targeted therapeutic decisions that incorporates assessment of transcriptional context., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)