Search

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

mRNA-4157 (V940) is an individualized neoantigen therapy targeting up to 34 patient-specific tumor neoantigens to induce T-cell responses and potentiate antitumor activity. We report mechanistic insights into the immunogenicity of mRNA-4157 via characterization of T-cell responses to neoantigens from the first-in-human, phase 1, KEYNOTE-603 study (NCT03313778) in patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (Part A: 1-mg mRNA-4157, n = 4) or resected cutaneous melanoma (Part D: 1-mg mRNA-4157 + 200-mg pembrolizumab, n = 12). Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were assessed. All patients experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event; there were no grade 4/5 adverse events or dose-limiting toxicities. mRNA-4157 alone induced consistent de novo and strengthened preexisting T-cell responses to targeted neoantigens. Following combination therapy, sustained mRNA-4157-induced neoantigen-specific T-cell responses and expansion of cytotoxic CD8 and CD4 T cells were observed. These findings show the potential of a novel mRNA individualized neoantigen therapy approach in oncology. Significance: The safety and immunogenicity results from this phase 1 study of mRNA-4157 as adjuvant monotherapy or combination therapy with pembrolizumab show generation of de novo and enhancement of existing neoantigen-specific T-cell responses and provide mechanistic proof of concept to support further development of mRNA-4157 for patients with resected solid tumors. See related commentary by Berraondo et al., p. 2021., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Tumor-agnostic therapies represent a paradigm shift in oncology by altering the traditional means of characterizing tumors based on their origin or location. Instead, they zero in on specific genetic anomalies responsible for fueling malignant growth. The watershed moment for tumor-agnostic therapies arrived in 2017, with the US Food and Drug Administration's historic approval of pembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor. This milestone marked the marriage of genomics and immunology fields, as an immunotherapeutic agent gained approval based on genomic biomarkers, specifically, microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR). Subsequently, the approval of NTRK inhibitors, designed to combat NTRK gene fusions prevalent in various tumor types, including pediatric cancers and adult solid tumors, further underscored the potential of tumor-agnostic therapies. The US Food and Drug Administration approvals of targeted therapies (BRAF V600E, RET fusion), immunotherapies (tumor mutational burden ≥10 mutations per megabase, dMMR) and an antibody-drug conjugate (Her2-positive-immunohistochemistry 3+ expression) with pan-cancer efficacy have continued, offering newfound hope to patients grappling with advanced solid tumors that harbor particular biomarkers. In this comprehensive review, the authors delve into the expansive landscape of tissue-agnostic targets and drugs, shedding light on the rationale underpinning this approach, the hurdles it faces, presently approved therapies, voices from the patient advocacy perspective, and the tantalizing prospects on the horizon. This is a welcome advance in oncology that transcends the boundaries of histology and location to provide personalized options., (© 2024 The Authors. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: In the preplanned interim analysis of the TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin significantly improved overall survival versus placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to report updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1 with additional follow-up and data maturity beyond the interim analysis., Methods: TOPAZ-1 was a phase 3, randomised, double-masked, placebo-controlled, global study done at 105 sites in 17 countries. Participants aged 18 years or older with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin or placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin using a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by disease status and primary tumour location. Participants received durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 ) and cisplatin (25 mg/m 2 ) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, followed by durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Investigators and participants were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. TOPAZ-1 met its primary endpoint at the preplanned interim analysis, and the study is active but no longer recruiting participants. Updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1, with additional follow-up (data cutoff Feb 25, 2022) and data maturity beyond the interim analysis, are reported here. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned participants). Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set (all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment). The TOPAZ-1 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03875235., Findings: From April 16, 2019, to Dec 11, 2020, 914 participants were enrolled, 685 of whom were randomly assigned (341 to the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 344 to the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group). 345 (50%) participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Median follow-up at the updated data cutoff was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-25·2) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 22·4 months (21·4-23·8) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. At the updated data cutoff, 248 (73%) participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 279 (81%) participants in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group had died (median overall survival 12·9 months [95% CI 11·6-14·1] vs 11·3 months [10·1-12·5]; hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·64-0·91]). Kaplan-Meier-estimated 24-month overall survival rates were 23·6% (95% CI 18·7-28·9) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 11·5% (7·6-16·2) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. Maximum grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 250 (74%) of 338 participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 257 (75%) of 342 in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. The most common maximum grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (70 [21%] vs 86 [25%]), anaemia (64 [19%] vs 64 [19%]), and neutropenia (63 [19%] vs 68 [20%])., Interpretation: Durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin showed robust and sustained overall survival benefit with no new safety signals. Findings continue to support the regimen as a standard of care for people with untreated, advanced biliary tract cancer., Funding: AstraZeneca., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests D-YO reports advisory fees from Arcus Biosciences, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Halozyme, IQVIA, Merck Serono, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Turning Point Therapeutics, Yuhan, and Zymeworks; and institutional research funding from Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Handok, MSD, Novartis, and Servier. ARH reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Genentech/Roche; research funding from Genentech and Merck; and speakers bureau fees from Eisai and Bristol Myers Squibb. MB reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD, Roche, and Sirtex Medical; speakers bureau fees from Bayer, Eisai, and Roche; and support for travel and attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Sirtex Medical. TO reports advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mundipharma, Nihon Servier, Nippon Shinyaku, Pfizer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takara Bio; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, MSD, Nihon Servier, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Teijin Pharma, and Yakult Honsha. L-TC reports personal speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, CStone, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Ono Pharmaceutical, Novartis, PharmaEngine, and TTY; fees for medical monitoring for clinical trials for Taivex; fees received as a data and safety monitoring committee member for clinical trials for OBI Pharma; advisory fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, and SynCoreBio; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, HuniLife Biotechnology, Ono Pharmaceutical, ScinoPharm Taiwan, SynCoreBio, and TTY; and research funding from Celgene. MK reports research funding from AbbVie and Takeda; and honoraria from EA Pharma and AstraZeneca. JWK reports research funding from inno.N and Jeil Pharmaceutical; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BeyondBio, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Eisai, GC Cell, MSD Ono, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, and TCUBEit. TS reports speaker fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Baxter, Eli Lilly, Mundipharma (Thailand), Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda; and advisory fees from Novartis and Roche. MI reports grant or research support from Aslan Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiome Bioscience, Chugai Pharma, Delta-Fly Pharma, EA Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, J-Pharma, Merck, Merus NV, Nihon Servier, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Takeda, and Yakult; fees or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, MSD, Nihon Servier, Novartis, Otsuka, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Teijin Pharma, and Yakult; and fees for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, GlaxoSmithKline, Nihon Servier, Novartis, and Takeda. J-SC reports grant or research support from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, MSD Oncology, Oncologie, Ono Pharmaceutical, Roche, Senhwa Biosciences, SynCore, and TTY; and consulting fees from Ono Pharmaceutical. PP reports personal fees for an advisory board from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Servier; personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, and Merck; and being a principal investigator for AstraZeneca and Roche. HAB reports research funding from AbbVie, Agios, Arch Pharmalabs, ARMO BioSciences, Array BioPharma, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BIND Therapeutics, BioAtla, BioMed Valley Discoveries, Biotheryx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CALGB, CicloMed, Coordination Pharmaceuticals, CytomX, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Foundation Medicine, Gossamer Bio, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon Therapeutics, Incyte, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Jounce Therapeutics, Kymab, MacroGenics, MedImmune, Merck, Millennium/Takeda, miRNA Therapeutics, Moderna, NGM Bio, Novartis, Pfizer, Revolution Medicine, Roche/Genentech, Ryvu Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro, TG Therapeutics, Verastem Oncology, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, XBiotech, and Zymeworks; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Forma Therapeutics, Grail, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vincerx Pharma. VO reports grant or research support from Dr Reddy's Laboratories and Zydus Cadila; institutional fees for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Panacea Biotec, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, and Zydus Cadila; travel reimbursement as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca; other institutional financial interests with Alkem Laboratories, Eisai, Intas Pharmaceuticals, and Micro Labs; and non-financial interests with the Indian Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. ST reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, and Roche; speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Novartis; and non-financial interests with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, and Roche. CM reports institutional grant or research support from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, J-Pharma, Hitachi, Merck BioReliance, MSD, Kyowa Kirin, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Yakult Honsha; personal fees for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck BioReliance, MSD, Servier, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Yakult; and personal fees received as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Kyowa Kirin, MSD, Novartis, Servier, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Teijin Pharma, and Yakult Honsha. REZ reports speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Novartis; and travel grants from Pierre Fabre. MGM reports grant or research support from Ipsen, NuCana, and Servier; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Incyte; and honoraria from Advanced Accelerator Applications and AstraZeneca. AA reports research funding from Amgen, Bayer, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Eisai, and MSD. JEC reports advisory fees from MSD; and fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, and Roche. VB reports consulting fees from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Russia, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Russia, and Takeda; and travel expenses from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Russia, MSD, and Roche Russia. BT reports research funding from Adaptimmune, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Exelixis. SS reports grant or research support from Delta-Fly Pharma and Incyte. DT reports personal fees for advisory board participation from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier. LE reports personal fees for advisory board participation from Amgen, Merk, MSD, and Servier. MP reports personal fees for advisory board participation from Roche and Servier; personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Ewopharma, and Takeda; and non-financial interests with AstraZeneca and Sanofi. DBZ reports advisory fees from Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals/Zymeworks, and QED Therapeutics; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lily, Ipsen, Roche/Genentech, Legend Biotech, Merck, and Seagen. VGG holds stock in RPG Life Sciences and Zydus Lifesciences. FD reports grant or research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech, Ipsen, Signatera, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, and Ipsen; and payment or honoraria from Astellas, Eisai, Exelixis, Ipsen, Servier, and Sirtex Medical. JOP reports advisory board fees from Adicet Bio, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene), MediRama, MedPacto, Merck Serono, and Servier; support for travel to meetings from Minneamrita Therapeutics; and grant or research support from ABL Bio, Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene), Eutilex, MedPacto, and Servier. HK, CM, and MŻ are employees of AstraZeneca. JW and NR are employees of and hold stock in AstraZeneca. AV reports speaker fees from BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Imaging Equipment, Incyte, Ipsen, Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; and advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Ipsen, Incyte, Lilly, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sirtex Medical. JWV reports advisory fees from Agios, AstraZeneca, Autem Therapeutics, Baxter, Hutchison MediPharma, Image Equipment, NuCana, QED Therapeutics, Sirtex Medical, Servier, and Zymeworks; speaker fees from Incyte, Ipsen, and Mylan; and research funding from AstraZeneca and Redx. All other authors declare no competing interests., (2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: In the ongoing, randomised, double-blind phase 3 TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was associated with significant improvements in overall survival compared with placebo, gemcitabine, and cisplatin in people with advanced biliary tract cancer at the pre-planned intermin analysis. In this paper, we present patient-reported outcomes from TOPAZ-1., Methods: In TOPAZ-1 (NCT03875235), participants aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and one or more measurable lesions per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to the durvalumab group or the placebo group using a computer-generated randomisation scheme. Participants received 1500 mg durvalumab or matched placebo intravenously every 3 weeks (on day 1 of the cycle) for up to eight cycles in combination with 1000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine and 25 mg/m 2 cisplatin intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. Thereafter, participants received either durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy intravenously every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by disease status (initially unresectable vs recurrent) and primary tumour location (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs gallbladder cancer). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed as a secondary outcome in all participants who completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's 30-item Quality of Life of Cancer Patients questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the 21-item Cholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Quality of Life Module (QLQ-BIL21). We calculated time to deterioration-ie, time from randomisation to an absolute decrease of at least 10 points in a patient-reported outcome that was confirmed at a subsequent visit or the date of death (by any cause) in the absence of deterioration-and adjusted mean change from baseline in patient-reported outcomes., Findings: Between April 16, 2019, and Dec 11, 2020, 685 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned, 341 to the durvalumab group and 344 to the placebo group. Overall, 345 (50%) of participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Data for the QLQ-C30 were available for 318 participants in the durvalumab group and 328 in the placebo group (median follow-up 9·9 months [IQR 6·7 to 14·1]). Data for the QLQ-BIL21 were available for 305 participants in the durvalumab group and 322 in the placebo group (median follow-up 10·2 months [IQR 6·7 to 14·3]). The proportions of participants in both groups who completed questionnaires were high and baseline scores were mostly similar across treatment groups. For global health status or quality of life, functioning, and symptoms, we noted no difference in time to deterioration or adjusted mean changes from baseline were observed between groups. Median time to deterioration of global health status or quality of life was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6 to 8·9) in the durvalumab group and 6·7 months (5·6 to 7·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·69 to 1·12]). The adjusted mean change from baseline was 1·23 (95% CI -0·71 to 3·16) in the durvalumab group and 0·35 (-1·63 to 2·32) in the placebo group., Interpretation: The addition of durvalumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin did not have a detrimental effect on patient-reported outcomes. These results suggest that durvalumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin is a tolerable treatment regimen in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer., Funding: AstraZeneca., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests HABIII reports consulting or advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, FORMA Therapeutics, GRAIL, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vincerx, and and research funding from AbbVie, Agios, Arch, ARMO Biosciences, Array BioPharma, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BIND Therapeutics, BioAtla, BioMed Valley, Biotheryx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cancer and Leukemia Group B, Ciclomed, Coordination Pharmaceuticals, CytomX, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Foundation Medicine, Gossamer Bio, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon Therapeutics, Jiangsu Hengrui, Incyte, Infinity, Janssen, Jounce, Kymab, Lilly, MacroGenics, MedImmune, Merck, Millennium, Takeda, miRNA Therapeutics, Moderna, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Revolution Medicine, Roche, Genentech, Ryvu, Seattle Genetics, TESARO, TG Therapeutics, Verastem, Vertex, XBiotech, and Zymeworks. TO reports honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Nihon Servier, Novartis, ONO, Taiho, Takeda, Teijin, and Yakult; consulting or advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer Yakuhin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Sumitomo, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Incyte, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mundipharma, Nihon Servier, Nippon Shinyaku, Novartis, ONO, Pfizer, Shire, Taiho, Takara Bio, and Takeda; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Sumitomo, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Merck, Sharp, & Dohme, Nano Carrier, Novartis, ONO, Pfizer, Syneos Health, and Taiho. AV reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, British Technology Group, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Imaging Equipment, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sirtex, and Terumo; and consulting or advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, British Technology Group, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Imaging Equipment, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sirtex, and Terumo. HT reports honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Taiho, and Yakult, and research funding from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Taiho. VB reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Russia, Eisai, Merck, Sharp, & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Russia, and Takeda, and travel or accommodation expenses from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Russia, Merck, Sharp, & Dohme, and Roche Russia. J-FB reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, Merck, Sharp, & Dohme, and Roche, and consulting or advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, Merck, Sharp, & Dohme, and Roche. MB reports honoraria for participating in patient advisory boards, review of patient materials, and speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CRC Oncology, EMD Serono, Incyte, Kinnate, Merck, QED Clinical Services, Taiho, and TriSalus. MŻ is an employee of AstraZeneca. JA was an employee of IQVIA at the time of the study and reports consulting or advisory fees from AstraZeneca. NP, JW, MA, NR, and GC are employees of, and hold stock in, AstraZeneca. D-YO reports consulting or advisory fees from ASLAN, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Roche, Halozyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Taiho, Turning Point, Yuhan, and Zymeworks, and research funding from Array, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Handok, Merck, Sharp, & Dohme, Novartis, and Servier. All other others declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Metronomic chemotherapy has the potential to offer tumor control with reduced toxicity when compared to standard dose chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. As metronomic chemotherapy may target the tumor microvasculature, it has the potential for synergistic effects with antiangiogenic agents such as the VEGF-A inhibitor bevacizumab., Methods: In this randomized phase II study, patients with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive metronomic oral cyclophosphamide and methotrexate (CM) combined with bevacizumab (Arm A) or CM alone (Arm B). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability., Results: A total of 55 patients were enrolled, with 34 patients treated on Arm A and 21 patients treated on Arm B. The ORR was modestly higher in Arm A (26%) than in Arm B (10%); neither met the 40% cutoff for further clinical evaluation. The median time to progression (TTP) was 5.52 months (3.22-13.6) on Arm A and 1.82 months (1.54-6.70) on Arm B (log-rank p = 0.008). The median OS was 29.6 months (17.2-NA) on Arm A and 16.2 months (15.7-NA) on Arm B (log-rank p = 0.7). Common all-grade adverse events in both arms included nausea, fatigue, and elevated AST., Conclusion: The combination of metronomic CM with bevacizumab significantly improved PFS over CM alone, although there was no significant difference in OS. Oral metronomic chemotherapy alone has limited activity in advanced breast cancer., Clinicaltrials: gov Identifier: NCT00083031. Date of Registration: May 17, 2004., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

The landscape of cancer therapy has been transformed by advances in clinical next-generation sequencing, genomically targeted therapies, and immunotherapies. Well designed clinical trials and efficient clinical trial conduct are crucial for advancing our understanding of cancer, improving patient outcomes, and identifying personalized treatments. Basket trials have emerged as one of the efficient modern clinical trial designs that evaluate the efficacy of these therapies across multiple cancer types based on specific molecular alterations or biomarkers, irrespective of histology or anatomic location. This review delves into the evolution of basket trials in cancer drug development, highlighting their potential prospects and current obstacles. The design of basket trials involves screening patients for specific molecular alterations or biomarkers and enrolling them in the trial to receive the targeted therapy under investigation. Statistical considerations play a crucial role in the design, analysis, and interpretation of basket trials. Several notable examples of basket trials that have led to US Food and Drug Administration approval for uncommon molecular alterations (e.g., NTRK fusions, BRAF mutations, RET and FGFR1 alterations) are discussed, including LOXO-TRK (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02122913)/SCOUT (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02637687)/NAVIGATE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02576431)/STARTRK (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NT02097810, NT02568267), VE-BASKET (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01524978), ROAR Basket (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02034110), LIBRETTO-001 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03157128), ARROW (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03037385), FIGHT-203 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03011372), and the National Cancer Institute-Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02465060). Basket trials have the potential to revolutionize cancer treatment by identifying effective therapies for patients based on specific molecular alterations or biomarkers rather than traditional histology-based approaches. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: To gain more knowledge about cancer, improve patient outcomes, and discover personalized treatments, it is crucial to conduct clinical trials efficiently. One effective type of clinical trial is called a basket trial. In basket trials, new treatments are tested on various types of cancer, regardless of their location in the body; instead, researchers focus on specific abnormalities in the cancer cells. Basket trials offer hope that we can find personalized treatments that are more effective for each individual battling cancer., (© 2023 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Most patients with advanced pancreas cancer experience pain and must limit their daily activities because of tumor-related symptoms. To date, no treatment has had a significant impact on the disease. In early studies with gemcitabine, patients with pancreas cancer experienced an improvement in disease-related symptoms. Based on those findings, a definitive trial was performed to assess the effectiveness of gemcitabine in patients with newly diagnosed advanced pancreas cancer., Patients and Methods: One hundred twenty-six patients with advanced symptomatic pancreas cancer completed a lead-in period to characterize and stabilize pain and were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 weekly x 7 followed by 1 week of rest, then weekly x 3 every 4 weeks thereafter (63 patients), or to fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m2 once weekly (63 patients). The primary efficacy measure was clinical benefit response, which was a composite of measurements of pain (analgesic consumption and pain intensity), Karnofsky performance status, and weight. Clinical benefit required a sustained (> or = 4 weeks) improvement in at least one parameter without worsening in any others. Other measures of efficacy included response rate, time to progressive disease, and survival., Results: Clinical benefit response was experienced by 23.8% of gemcitabine-treated patients compared with 4.8% of 5-FU-treated patients (P = .0022). The median survival durations were 5.65 and 4.41 months for gemcitabine-treated and 5-FU-treated patients, respectively (P = .0025). The survival rate at 12 months was 18% for gemcitabine patients and 2% for 5-FU patients. Treatment was well tolerated., Conclusion: This study demonstrates that gemcitabine is more effective than 5-FU in alleviation of some disease-related symptoms in patients with advanced, symptomatic pancreas cancer. Gemcitabine also confers a modest survival advantage over treatment with 5-FU.

Background: Xentuzumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody that binds to IGF-1 and IGF-2, neutralising their proliferative activity and restoring inhibition of AKT by everolimus. This study evaluated the addition of xentuzumab to everolimus and exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease., Methods: This double-blind, randomised, Phase II study was undertaken in female patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease who had received prior endocrine therapy with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. Patients received a weekly intravenous infusion of xentuzumab (1000 mg) or placebo in combination with everolimus (10 mg/day orally) and exemestane (25 mg/day orally). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review., Results: A total of 103 patients were randomised and 101 were treated (n = 50 in the xentuzumab arm and n = 51 in the placebo arm). The trial was unblinded early due to high rates of discordance between independent and investigator assessment of PFS. Per independent assessment, median PFS was 12.7 (95% CI 6.8-29.3) months with xentuzumab and 11.0 (7.7-19.5) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.59; p = 0.6534). Per investigator assessment, median PFS was 7.4 (6.8-9.7) months with xentuzumab and 9.2 (5.6-14.4) months with placebo (hazard ratio 1.23; 95% CI 0.69-2.20; p = 0.4800). Tolerability was similar between the arms, with diarrhoea (33.3-56.0%), fatigue (33.3-44.0%) and headache (21.6-40.0%) being the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 hyperglycaemia was similar between the xentuzumab (2.0%) and placebo (5.9%) arms., Conclusions: While this study demonstrated that xentuzumab could be safely combined with everolimus and exemestane in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with non-visceral disease, there was no PFS benefit with the addition of xentuzumab. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03659136. Prospectively registered, September 6, 2018., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

We report an updated analysis from a phase I study of the spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) and FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 inhibitor mivavotinib, presenting data for the overall cohort of lymphoma patients, and the subgroup of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; including an expanded cohort not included in the initial report). Patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma for which no standard treatment was available received mivavotinib 60-120 mg once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. A total of 124 patients with lymphoma, including 89 with DLBCL, were enrolled. Overall response rates (ORR) in response-evaluable patients were 45% (43/95) and 38% (26/69), respectively. Median duration of response was 28.1 months overall and not reached in DLBCL responders. In subgroups with DLBCL of germinal center B-cell (GCB) and non-GCB origin, ORR was 28% (11/40) and 58% (7/12), respectively. Median progression free survival was 2.0 and 1.6 months in the lymphoma and DLBCL cohorts, respectively. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 96% of all lymphoma patients, many of which were limited to asymptomatic laboratory abnormalities; the most common were increased amylase (29%), neutropenia (27%), and hypophosphatemia (26%). These findings support SYK as a potential therapeutic target for the treatment of patients with B-cell lymphomas, including DLBCL. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02000934.

Purpose: Molecular biomarkers informing disease diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment decisions in patients with breast cancer are being uncovered by next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies. In this study, we survey how NGS is used for patients with breast cancer in real-world settings with a focus on physician behaviors and sequencing results., Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with breast cancer who received NGS testing from commercial vendors as part of standard of care from 2014 to 2019. A total of 2,635 NGS reports from 2,316 unique breast cancer patients were assessed. Hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 statuses were abstracted from patient medical records. Comparative gene amplification and mutation frequencies were analyzed using Pearson's correlation and Lin's concordance statistics., Results: The number of physicians ordering NGS tests for patients with breast cancer increased more than six-fold from 2014 to 2019. Tissue- and plasma-based tests were ordered roughly equally by 2019, with plasma-based testing ordered most frequently in hormone receptor-positive subtypes. Patients with triple-negative breast cancer were most likely to receive NGS testing. Gene amplifications including ERBB2 were detected less frequently in our real-world data set as compared to previous genomic landscape studies, whereas the opposite was true for gene mutations including ESR1 . Pathogenic mutations in the PI3K pathway (38.6%) and DNA damage repair pathway (11.0%) were frequently reported. Alterations were also reported across other cellular pathways., Conclusion: Overall, we found that an increasing number of physicians in community settings are adopting NGS in the care of patients with breast cancer. Discrepancies between our real-world NGS data and previous genomic landscape studies are likely owed to the prevalence of plasma-based testing in community oncology clinics, as the reference data were from tissue-based NGS alone., Competing Interests: Emma G. SturgillEmployment: HCA/Sarah CannonStock and Other Ownership Interests: HCA Healthcare Rebecca LachsEmployment: Sarah Cannon Research InstituteTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sarah Cannon Research Institute Carissa C. JonesEmployment: HCA/Sarah Cannon Dan SchlauchEmployment: Sarah Cannon Research InstituteStock and Other Ownership Interests: HCA Healthcare Suzanne F. JonesEmployment: HCA/Sarah CannonStock and Other Ownership Interests: HCA HealthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen Mythili ShastryEmployment: Sarah Cannon Research Institute Denise A. YardleyConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Biotheranostics, Bristol Myers Squibb, G1 Therapeutics, Athenex, Immunomedics, Sanofi/Aventis, R-Pharm, LillySpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, MedImmune, Lilly, Medivation, Pfizer, Tesaro, Macrogenics, AbbVie, Merck, Clovis Oncology, Amgen, Biomarin, Biothera, Dana Farber Cancer Hospital, Incyte, Innocrin Pharma, Nektar, NSABP Foundation, Odonate Therapeutics, PolyphorTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Genentech/Roche Howard A. Burris IIIEmployment: HCA HealthcareLeadership: HCA HealthcareStock and Other Ownership Interests: HCA HealthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, FORMA Therapeutics, Celgene, Incyte, NovartisResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Macrogenics, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Agios, Jounce Therapeutics, Moderna Therapeutics, CytomX Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem, Tesaro, BioMed Valley Discoveries, TG Therapeutics, Vertex, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Janssen, Gilead Sciences, BioAtla, CicloMed, Harpoon therapeutics, Archer, Arvinas, Revolution Medicines, Array BioPharma, Bayer, BIND Therapeutics, Kymab, miRNA Therapeutics, Pfizer, Takeda/Millennium, Foundation Medicine, EMD SeronoExpert Testimony: NovartisUncompensated Relationships: Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Bayer, GRAIL, Novartis, Vincerx PharmaOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/201030/summary David R. SpigelLeadership: ASCOConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Nektar, Takeda, TRM Oncology, Evelo Therapeutics, Illumina, PharmaMar, Aptitude Health, Bayer, Dracen, EMD Serono, Iksuda Therapeutics, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, TRIPTYCH Health Partners, Amgen, Curio Science, Intellisphere, Ipsen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Puma Biotechnology, Sanofi/Aventis, Exelixis, Novocure, RegeneronResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, AstraZeneca, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center—Simmons Cancer Center, Merck, G1 Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics, Takeda, Nektar, Celldex, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Astellas Pharma, GRAIL, Transgene, Aeglea Biotherapeutics, Ipsen, BIND Therapeutics, Eisai, ImClone Systems, Immunogen, Janssen Oncology, MedImmune, Molecular Partners, Agios, GlaxoSmithKline, Tesaro, Cyteir, Apollomics, Novocure, Elevation Oncology, Calithera BiosciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis Erika P. HamiltonConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Puma Biotechnology, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Silverback Therapeutics, Black Diamond Therapeutics, CytomX Therapeutics, Dantari, H3 Biomedicine, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Eisai, Deciphera, ArvinasResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Mersana, Millennium, TapImmune Inc, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Takeda, Macrogenics, AbbVie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceutical, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, ArQule, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, InventisBio, Deciphera, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Sutro Biopharma, Zenith Epigenetics, Arvinas, Torque, Harpoon, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Silverback Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Compugen, G1 Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Torque, Dana Farber Cancer Hospital, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Onconova Therapeutics, Shattuck Labs, Merck, PharmaMar, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Polyphor, Immunogen, Plexxikon, Amgen, AkesobioNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing is being incorporated into routine standard of care for patients with cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are approved for use in both tumor-specific and tumor-agnostic indications. We sought to determine tumor type-specific or tumor-agnostic correlations between mutations detected by NGS and response to CPIs., Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 26,004 patient records with NGS data available was conducted. Time to treatment failure and overall survival analyses were performed. Hazard ratios and associated statistics were computed in the R programming language. The study was considered exempt from internal review board review and data were considered nonhuman subjects., Results: Response to CPIs varied between tumor types with melanoma and lung cancer performing relatively better on CPIs than other tumor types. Within tumor types, response to CPIs was stratified by mutations in specific genes. Tumor-agnostic markers including high tumor mutation burden and microsatellite instability-high were also associated with longer time to treatment failure on CPIs. Importantly, within the high tumor mutation burden and microsatellite instability-high groups, mutations in individual genes correlate with response to CPIs., Conclusion: The results from commercial NGS panels may be used to stratify patients for response to CPIs. In tumors where CPIs show relatively low efficacy, there may be distinct patient populations-based on gene mutation status-that are predicted to have better response to CPIs. Likewise, there may be distinct patient populations who do relatively worse on CPIs within tumor types known to respond well to CPIs., Competing Interests: Daniel SchlauchEmployment: Sarah Cannon Research InstituteStock and Other Ownership Interests: HCA Healthcare Xiaotong FuEmployment: Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Genospace Suzanne F. JonesEmployment: HCA/Sarah CannonStock and Other Ownership Interests: HCA HealthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen Howard A. Burris IIIEmployment: HCA HealthcareLeadership: HCA HealthcareStock and Other Ownership Interests: HCA HealthcareResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Macrogenics, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Agios, Jounce Therapeutics, Moderna Therapeutics, CytomX Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem, Tesaro, BioMed Valley Discoveries, TG Therapeutics, Vertex, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Janssen, Gilead Sciences, BioAtla, CicloMed, Harpoon therapeutics, Archer, Arvinas, Revolution Medicines, Array BioPharma, Bayer, BIND Therapeutics, miRNA Therapeutics, Pfizer, Takeda/Millennium, Foundation Medicine, EMD Serono, ARMO BioSciences, CALGB, Hengrui Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, XBiotech, Zymeworks, Coordination Pharmaceuticals, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Gossamer Bio, Ryvu Therapeutics, BioTheryX, AbbVie David R. SpigelLeadership: ASCOConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Nektar, Takeda, TRM Oncology, Evelo Therapeutics, Illumina, PharmaMar, Aptitude Health, Bayer, Dracen, EMD Serono, Iksuda Therapeutics, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, TRIPTYCH Health Partners, Amgen, Curio Science, Intellisphere, Ipsen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Puma Biotechnology, Sanofi/Aventis, Exelixis, Novocure, RegeneronResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, AstraZeneca, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center - Simmons Cancer Center, Merck, G1 Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics, Takeda, Nektar, Celldex, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Astellas Pharma, GRAIL, Transgene, Aeglea Biotherapeutics, Ipsen, BIND Therapeutics, Eisai, ImClone Systems, Immunogen, Janssen Oncology, MedImmune, Molecular Partners, Agios, GlaxoSmithKline, Tesaro, Cyteir, Apollomics, Novocure, Elevation Oncology, Calithera BiosciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis James ReevesConsulting or Advisory Role: Karyopharm TherapeuticsSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen Oncology, EisaiResearch Funding: Sarah Cannon Research Institute Andrew J. McKenzieEmployment: HCA HealthcareStock and Other Ownership Interests: HCA HealthcareNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

BACKGROUNDEvidence supporting convalescent plasma (CP), one of the first investigational treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been inconclusive, leading to conflicting recommendations. The primary objective was to perform a comparative effectiveness study of CP for all-cause, in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19.METHODSThe multicenter, electronic health records-based, retrospective study included 44,770 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in one of 176 HCA Healthcare-affiliated community hospitals. Coarsened exact matching (1:k) was employed, resulting in a sample of 3774 CP and 10,687 comparison patients.RESULTSExamination of mortality using a shared frailty model, controlling for concomitant medications, date of admission, and days from admission to transfusion, demonstrated a significant association of CP with lower mortality risk relative to the comparison group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.86; P < 0.001). Examination of patient risk trajectories, represented by 400 clinico-demographic features from our real-time risk model (RTRM), indicated that patients who received CP recovered more quickly. The stratification of days to transfusion revealed that CP within 3 days after admission, but not within 4 to 7 days, was associated with a significantly lower mortality risk (aHR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.47-0.60; P < 0.001). CP serology level was inversely associated with mortality when controlling for its interaction with days to transfusion (HR = 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.999; P = 0.013), yet it did not reach univariable significance.CONCLUSIONSThis large, diverse, multicenter cohort study demonstrated that CP, compared with matched controls, is significantly associated with reduced risk of in-hospital mortality. These observations highlight the utility of real-world evidence and suggest the need for further evaluation prior to abandoning CP as a viable therapy for COVID-19.FUNDINGThis research was supported in whole by HCA Healthcare and/or an HCA Healthcare-affiliated entity, including Sarah Cannon and Genospace.

Purpose: Lower grade gliomas (LGGs) are malignant brain tumors. Current therapy is associated with short- and long-term toxicity. Progression to higher tumor grade is associated with contrast enhancement on MRI. The majority of LGGs harbor mutations in the genes encoding isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 ( IDH1/IDH2 ). Vorasidenib (AG-881) is a first-in-class, brain-penetrant, dual inhibitor of the mutant IDH1 and mutant IDH2 enzymes., Patients and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase I, dose-escalation study of vorasidenib in 93 patients with mutant IDH1/2 (m IDH1/2 ) solid tumors, including 52 patients with glioma that had recurred or progressed following standard therapy. Vorasidenib was administered orally, once daily, in 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Enrollment is complete; this trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02481154., Results: Vorasidenib showed a favorable safety profile in the glioma cohort. Dose-limiting toxicities of elevated transaminases occurred at doses ≥100 mg and were reversible. The protocol-defined objective response rate per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria for LGG in patients with nonenhancing glioma was 18% (one partial response, three minor responses). The median progression-free survival was 36.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.2-40.8] for patients with nonenhancing glioma and 3.6 months (95% CI, 1.8-6.5) for patients with enhancing glioma. Exploratory evaluation of tumor volumes in patients with nonenhancing glioma showed sustained tumor shrinkage in multiple patients., Conclusions: Vorasidenib was well tolerated and showed preliminary antitumor activity in patients with recurrent or progressive nonenhancing m IDH LGG., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

Background: This Phase 1 dose-escalation/expansion study assessed safety/tolerability of sapanisertib, an oral, highly selective inhibitor of mTORC1/mTORC2, in advanced solid tumours., Methods: Eligible patients received increasing sapanisertib doses once daily (QD; 31 patients), once weekly (QW; 30 patients), QD for 3 days on/4 days off QW (QD × 3dQW; 33 patients) or QD for 5 days on/2 days off QW (QD × 5dQW; 22 patients). In expansion cohorts, 82 patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), endometrial or bladder cancer received sapanisertib 5 mg QD (39 patients), 40 mg QW (26 patients) or 30 mg QW (17 patients)., Results: Maximum tolerated doses of sapanisertib were 6 mg QD, 40 mg QW, 9 mg QD × 3dQW and 7 mg QD × 5dQW. Frequent dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included hyperglycaemia, maculo-papular rash (QD), asthenia and stomatitis (QD × 3dQW/QD × 5dQW); expansion phase doses of 5 mg QD and 30 mg QW were selected based on tolerability beyond the DLT evaluation period. One patient with RCC achieved complete response; nine experienced partial responses (RCC: seven patients; carcinoid tumour/endometrial cancer: one patient each). Sapanisertib pharmacokinetics were time-linear and supported multiple dosing. Pharmacodynamic findings demonstrated treatment-related reductions in TORC1/2 biomarkers., Conclusions: Sapanisertib demonstrated a manageable safety profile, with preliminary antitumour activity observed in RCC and endometrial cancer., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01058707.

Purpose: TAK-659 is an investigational, dual SYK/FLT3 inhibitor with preclinical activity in B-cell malignancy models. This first-in-human, dose-escalation/expansion study aimed to determine the safety, tolerability, MTD/recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and preliminary efficacy of TAK-659 in relapsed/refractory solid tumors and B-cell lymphomas., Patients and Methods: Patients received continuous, once-daily oral TAK-659, 60-120 mg in 28-day cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The study applied an accelerated dose-escalation design to determine the MTD and RP2D. In the expansion phase, patients with lymphoma were enrolled in five disease cohorts at the MTD., Results: Overall, 105 patients were enrolled [dose escalation, n = 36 (solid tumors, n = 19; lymphoma, n = 17); expansion, n = 69]. The MTD was 100 mg once daily. TAK-659 absorption was fast ( T max ∼2 hours) with a long terminal half-life (∼37 hours). Exposure generally increased with dose (60-120 mg), with moderate variability. The most common treatment-related adverse events were generally asymptomatic and reversible elevations in clinical laboratory values. Among 43 response-evaluable patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 8 (19%) achieved a complete response (CR) with an overall response rate (ORR) of 28% [23% intent-to-treat (ITT)]. Responses were seen in both de novo and transformed disease and appeared independent of cell-of-origin classification. Among 9 response-evaluable patients with follicular lymphoma, 2 (22%) achieved CR with an ORR of 89% (57% ITT)., Conclusions: TAK-659 has single-agent activity in patients with B-cell lymphoma. Further studies of the drug in combination, including an evaluation of the biologically optimal and safest long-term dose and schedule, are warranted., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Therapies targeting estrogen receptor signaling are standard for patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive (HR + ) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Dysregulation of the phosphoinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT)/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway is associated with treatment resistance. Addition of the mTOR inhibitor, everolimus, to exemestane doubled progression-free survival (PFS) in HR + /HER2 - MBC patients whose disease had previously progressed during endocrine therapy. In this phase II study, we used everolimus in addition to the most recent endocrine therapy during which a patient's disease progressed, in an attempt to restore and extend the benefit of the antiestrogen therapy in patients with HR + /HER2 - MBC., Patients and Methods: Patients with HR + MBC who progressed on antiestrogen therapy received everolimus (10 mg orally daily) in combination with the antiestrogen therapy most recently administered. Treatment was administered in 4-week cycles and continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Blood and archival tumor specimens were collected for VeriStrat (Biodesix, Inc) and Foundation One (Foundation Medicine) assays, respectively. Accrual of 42 evaluable patients allowed detection of improvement in median PFS from 2.8 months (expected with hormonal treatment alone) to 5 months (power 80%, α = 5%)., Results: Forty-seven patients were enrolled and treated. After a median follow-up of 22.2 months, median PFS was 6.6 months. Secondary efficacy end points included: overall response rate, 6%; clinical benefit rate, 40%; and median overall survival, 21.1 months. No unexpected toxicity was observed. Efficacy could not be correlated with PI3K/AKT/mTOR alterations or VeriStrat (Biodesix, Inc) prognostic signatures., Conclusion: After progression during antiestrogen therapy, the addition of everolimus, without changing the hormonal therapy, resulted in a median PFS of 6.6 months, suggesting efficacy in patients with HR + /HER2 - MBC., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: This phase I trial assessed the safety, tolerability, and preliminary antitumor activity of lifastuzumab vedotin (LIFA), an antibody-drug conjugate of anti-NaPi2b mAb (MNIB2126A) and a potent antimitotic agent (monomethyl auristatin E)., Patients and Methods: LIFA was administered to patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC), once every 3 weeks, by intravenous infusion. The starting dose was 0.2 mg/kg in this 3+3 dose-escalation design, followed by cohort expansion at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D)., Results: Overall, 87 patients were treated at doses between 0.2 and 2.8 mg/kg. The MTD was not reached; 2.4 mg/kg once every 3 weeks was selected as the RP2D based on overall tolerability profile. The most common adverse events of any grade and regardless of relationship to study drug were fatigue (59%), nausea (49%), decreased appetite (37%), vomiting (32%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (29%). Most common treatment-related grade ≥3 toxicities among patients treated at the RP2D ( n = 63) were neutropenia (10%), anemia (3%), and pneumonia (3%). The pharmacokinetic profile was dose proportional. At active doses ≥1.8 mg/kg, partial responses were observed in four of 51 (8%) patients with NSCLC and 11 of 24 (46%) patients with PROC per RECIST. All RECIST responses occurred in patients with NaPi2b-high by IHC. The CA-125 biomarker assessed for patients with PROC dosed at ≥1.8 mg/kg showed 13 of 24 (54%) had responses (≥50% decline from baseline)., Conclusions: LIFA exhibited dose-proportional pharmacokinetics and an acceptable safety profile, with encouraging activity in patients with PROC at the single-agent RP2D of 2.4 mg/kg., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and pemetrexed plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein (Hsp) 27 mRNA, or placebo in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to Arm A (carboplatin/pemetrexed plus apatorsen) or Arm B (carboplatin/pemetrexed plus placebo). Treatment was administered in 21-day cycles, with restaging every two cycles, until progression or intolerable toxicity. Serum Hsp27 levels were analyzed at baseline and during treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and toxicity., Results: The trial enrolled 155 patients (median age 66 years; 44% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0). Toxicities were similar in the 2 treatment arms; cytopenias, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events. Median PFS and OS were 6.0 and 10.8 months, respectively, for Arm A, and 4.9 and 11.8 months for Arm B (differences not statistically significant). Overall response rates were 27% for Arm A and 32% for Arm B. Sixteen patients (12%) had high serum levels of Hsp27 at baseline. In this small group, patients who received apatorsen had median PFS of 10.8 months, and those who received placebo had median PFS 4.8 months., Conclusion: The addition of apatorsen to carboplatin and pemetrexed was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC cancer in the first-line setting., Implications for Practice: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and pemetrexed plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein 27 mRNA, or placebo in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The addition of apatorsen to carboplatin and pemetrexed was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC cancer in the first-line setting., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

Background: In the phase 3 MARIANNE trial, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with or without pertuzumab showed noninferior progression-free survival and better tolerability than trastuzumab plus a taxane (HT) for the first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer. This article reports the final descriptive overall survival (OS) analysis, updated safety data, and additional patient-reported outcomes and biomarker analyses., Methods: OS was assessed in 1095 patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and no prior therapy for advanced disease who had been randomized to HT, T-DM1 plus a placebo (hereafter T-DM1), or T-DM1 plus pertuzumab (T-DM1+pertuzumab). A post hoc exploratory landmark analysis of OS, baseline patient and disease characteristics, and tumor biomarkers in patients with and without an objective tumor response (OR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors within 6.5 months of randomization was conducted., Results: The median OS was similar across groups (50.9, 53.7, and 51.8 months for the HT, T-DM1, and T-DM1+pertuzumab groups, respectively). Among patients with an OR, the median OS was longer with T-DM1 (64.4 months) and T-DM1+pertuzumab (not reached) versus HT (56.3 months). No baseline characteristics or biomarkers were strongly associated with OR. The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was greater with HT (55.8%) than T-DM1 (47.1%) or T-DM1+pertuzumab (48.6%). The median time to clinically meaningful deterioration (a 3-point or greater change) in neurotoxicity symptoms was shorter with HT (2.1 months) and T-DM1+pertuzumab (4.2 months) than T-DM1 (6.2 months). Fewer patients reported alopecia and diarrhea and were bothered by treatment side effects in the T-DM1 arm., Conclusions: These results support T-DM1 as a first-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who are deemed unsuitable for taxane-based therapy., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

PF-06647263, a novel antibody-drug conjugate consisting of an anti-EFNA4 antibody linked to a calicheamicin payload, has shown potent antitumor activity in human xenograft tumor models, including triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In the dose-escalation part 1 of this multicenter, open-label, phase I study (NCT02078752), successive cohorts of patients (n, 48) with advanced solid tumors and no available standard therapy received PF-06647263 every 3 weeks (Q3W) or every week (QW), following a modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) method (initial dosing: 0.015 mg/kg Q3W). Primary objective in part 1 was to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and select the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). In part 2 (dose-expansion cohort), 12 patients with pretreated, metastatic TNBC received PF-06647263 at the RP2D to further evaluate tumor response and overall safety. PF-06647263 QW administration (n, 23) was better tolerated than the Q3W regimen (n, 25) with only 1 DLT reported (thrombocytopenia). The most common AEs with the QW regimen (fatigue, nausea, vomiting, mucosal inflammation, thrombocytopenia, and diarrhea) were mostly mild to moderate in severity. The MTD was not estimated. PF-06647263 exposures increased in a dose-related manner across the doses evaluated. The RP2D was determined to be 0.015 mg/kg QW. Six (10%) patients achieved a confirmed partial response and 22 (36.7%) patients had stable disease. No correlations were observed between tumor responses and EFNA4 expression levels. Study findings showed manageable safety and favorable PK for PF-06647263 administered QW at the RP2D, with preliminary evidence of limited antitumor activity in patients with TNBC and ovarian cancer., (© 2019 UICC.)

Background: Isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH1) is mutated in up to 25% of cholangiocarcinomas, especially intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Ivosidenib is an oral, targeted inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (mIDH1) approved in the USA for the treatment of mIDH1 acute myeloid leukaemia in newly diagnosed patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and patients with relapsed or refractory disease. Ivosidenib is under clinical evaluation in a phase 1 study that aims to assess its safety and tolerability in patients with mIDH1 solid tumours. Here we report data for the mIDH1-cholangiocarcinoma cohort., Methods: We did a phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study of ivosidenib monotherapy in mIDH1 solid tumours at 12 clinical sites in the USA and one in France. The primary outcomes were safety, tolerability, maximum tolerated dose, and recommended phase 2 dose. Eligible patients had a documented mIDH1 tumour based on local testing, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, one or more previous lines of therapy, and evaluable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. During dose escalation, ivosidenib was administered orally at 200-1200 mg daily in 28-day cycles in a standard 3 + 3 design; during expansion, patients received the selected dose on the basis of pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, safety, and activity data from dose escalation. Safety and clinical activity analyses were reported for all patients with mIDH1-cholangiocarcinoma who were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment. Enrolment is complete, and the study is ongoing. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02073994., Findings: Between March 14, 2014 and May 12, 2017, 73 patients with mIDH1-cholangiocarcinoma were enrolled and received ivosidenib. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported and maximum tolerated dose was not reached; 500 mg daily was selected for expansion. Common (≥20%) adverse events, regardless of cause, were fatigue (31 [42%]; two [3%] grade ≥3), nausea (25 [34%]; one [1%] grade ≥3), diarrhoea (23 [32%]), abdominal pain (20 [27%]; two [3%] grade ≥3), decreased appetite (20 [27%]; one [1%] grade ≥3), and vomiting (17 [23%]). Common grade 3 or worse adverse events were ascites (four [5%]) and anaemia (three [4%]); the only treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse event in more than one patient was fatigue (two [3%]). Two (3%) patients had serious adverse events leading to on-treatment death (Clostridioides difficile infection and procedural haemorrhage); neither was assessed by the investigator as related to treatment. 46 (63%) patients had adverse events deemed related to ivosidenib, of which four (5%) were grade 3 or higher (two [3%] for fatigue; one [1%] each for decreased blood phosphorus and increased blood alkaline phosphatase). One serious adverse event was considered possibly related to treatment (grade 2 supraventricular extrasystoles). Four (5%; 95% CI 1·5-13·4) patients had a partial response. Median progression-free survival was 3·8 months (95% CI 3·6-7·3), 6-month progression-free survival was 40·1% (28·4-51·6), and 12-month progression-free survival was 21·8% (12·3-33·0). Median overall survival was 13·8 months (95% CI 11·1-29·3); however, data were censored for 48 patients (66%)., Interpretation: Ivosidenib might offer a well tolerated option for patients with mIDH1-cholangiocarcinoma. An ongoing, global phase 3 study is evaluating ivosidenib versus placebo in patients with previously treated nonresectable or metastatic mIDH1-cholangiocarcinoma., Funding: Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current bevacizumab-based regimens have failed to improve survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. To improve treatment efficacy, we evaluated bevacizumab + BKM120, an oral pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, in this patient population., Methods: A brief phase I study established the optimal BKM120 dose to administer with standard-dose bevacizumab. BKM120 60 mg PO daily + bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks in 28-day cycles was then administered to patients with relapsed/refractory glioblastoma in the phase II portion., Results: Eighty-eight patients enrolled (phase I, 12; phase II, 76). In phase I, BKM120 80 mg PO daily produced dose limiting toxicity in 3 of 6 patients; a BKM120 dose of 60 mg PO daily was established as the maximum tolerated dose. In phase II, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.4, 5.4), PFS at 6 months was 36.5%, and the overall response rate was 26%. Forty-two patients (57%) experienced one or more serious treatment related toxicities. The most common CNS toxicities included mood alteration (17%) and confusion (12%); however, these were often difficult to classify as treatment- versus tumor-related., Conclusions: The efficacy seen in this study is similar to the efficacy previously reported with single-agent bevacizumab. This regimen was poorly tolerated, despite the low daily dose of BKM120. Further development of this combination for the treatment of glioblastoma is not recommended.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported the following errors in the article.

Background: The phase III EMILIA and TH3RESA trials demonstrated clinical benefits of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) therapy in patients with previously treated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Data from these and other trials showed that T-DM1-associated survival benefits were observed across biomarker subgroups tested in these trials. Prespecified, exploratory analyses of the phase III MARIANNE study examined the effects of HER2-related biomarkers on PFS in patients administered T-DM1 in the first-line MBC setting., Methods: In MARIANNE, patients with previously untreated HER2-positive MBC were randomized (1:1:1) to trastuzumab plus taxane, T-DM1 plus placebo, or T-DM1 plus pertuzumab. Biomarker subgroups included HER2 and HER3 mRNA expression levels (≤median vs. >median), HER2 staining intensity (IHC 3+ vs. 2+ vs. 0/1+), PIK3CA status (mutated vs. non-mutated), PTEN H-score (≤median vs. >median), and PTEN protein expression level (0 vs. 1+ vs. 2+ vs. 3+ vs. 4+). PFS was analyzed descriptively for each subgroup using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Additional exploratory post-hoc analyses evaluated the effects of HER2 heterogeneity. Multivariate analyses were also performed., Results: Median PFS was numerically longer for patients with HER2 mRNA levels >median versus ≤median across treatment arms. In general, there were no predictive biomarkers of benefit for either T-DM1 treatment arm; most hazard ratios were close to 1 with wide confidence intervals that included the value 1. Focal HER2 expression (IHC 3+ or IHC 2+) was present in 3.8% of patients and was associated with numerically shorter PFS in the T-DM1-containing treatment arms versus trastuzumab plus taxane. Compared with non-mutated PIK3CA, mutated PIK3CA was associated with numerically shorter median PFS across treatment groups. Post-hoc multivariate analysis showed HER2 mRNA expression and mutated PIK3CA were prognostic for PFS (P ≤ 0.001 for both biomarkers)., Conclusions: In MARIANNE, biomarkers related to the HER2 pathway did not have predictive value for PFS when comparing T-DM1 (with or without pertuzumab) with trastuzumab plus taxane. However, HER2 mRNA level and PIK3CA mutation status showed prognostic value. Evaluation of other potential biomarkers, including immune markers, is ongoing., Trial Registration: Registration number: NCT01120184 . Date of registration: April 28, 2010 (registered prospectively).

Background: NTRK1, NTRK2 and NTRK3 gene fusions (NTRK gene fusions) occur in a range of adult cancers. Larotrectinib is a potent and highly selective ATP-competitive inhibitor of TRK kinases and has demonstrated activity in patients with tumours harbouring NTRK gene fusions., Patients and Methods: This multi-centre, phase I dose escalation study enrolled adults with metastatic solid tumours, regardless of NTRK gene fusion status. Key inclusion criteria included evaluable and/or measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate organ function. Larotrectinib was administered orally once or twice daily, on a continuous 28-day schedule, in increasing dose levels according to a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation scheme. The primary end point was the safety of larotrectinib, including dose-limiting toxicity., Results: Seventy patients (8 with tumours with NTRK gene fusions; 62 with tumours without a documented NTRK gene fusion) were enrolled to 6 dose cohorts. There were four dose-limiting toxicities; none led to study drug discontinuation. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Larotrectinib-related adverse events were predominantly grade 1; none were grade 4 or 5. The most common grade 3 larotrectinib-related adverse event was anaemia [4 (6%) of 70 patients]. A dose of 100 mg twice daily was recommended for phase II studies based on tolerability and antitumour activity. In patients with evaluable TRK fusion cancer, the objective response rate by independent review was 100% (eight of the eight patients). Eight (12%) of the 67 assessable patients overall had an objective response by investigator assessment. Median duration of response was not reached. Larotrectinib had limited activity in tumours with NTRK mutations or amplifications. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed exposure was generally proportional to administered dose., Conclusions: Larotrectinib was well tolerated, demonstrated activity in all patients with tumours harbouring NTRK gene fusions, and represents a new treatment option for such patients., Clincaltrials.gov Number: NCT02122913., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

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.

Purpose: Prexasertib, a checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor, demonstrated single-agent activity in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in the dose-escalation portion of a phase I study (NCT01115790). Monotherapy prexasertib was further evaluated in patients with advanced SCC. Patients and Methods: Patients were given prexasertib 105 mg/m 2 as a 1-hour infusion on day 1 of a 14-day cycle. Expansion cohorts were defined by tumor and treatment line. Safety, tolerability, efficacy, and exploratory biomarkers were analyzed. Results: Prexasertib was given to 101 patients, including 26 with SCC of the anus, 57 with SCC of the head and neck (SCCHN), and 16 with squamous cell non-small cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC). Patients were heavily pretreated (49% ≥3 prior regimens). The most common treatment-related adverse event was grade 4 neutropenia (71%); 12% of patients had febrile neutropenia. Median progression-free survival was 2.8 months [90% confidence interval (CI), 1.9-4.2] for SCC of the anus, 1.6 months (90% CI, 1.4-2.8) for SCCHN, and 3.0 months (90% CI, 1.4-3.9) for sqNSCLC. The clinical benefit rate at 3 months (complete response + partial response + stable disease) across tumors was 29% (23% SCC of the anus, 28% SCCHN, 44% sqNSCLC). Four patients with SCC of the anus had partial or complete response [overall response rate (ORR) = 15%], and three patients with SCCHN had partial response (ORR = 5%). Biomarker analyses focused on genes that altered DNA damage response or increased replication stress. Conclusions: Prexasertib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and single-agent activity in patients with advanced SCC. The prexasertib maximum-tolerated dose of 105 mg/m 2 was confirmed as the recommended phase II dose. Clin Cancer Res; 24(14); 3263-72. ©2018 AACR ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)