Search

BACKGROUND: Study 10, a four-part Phase 1/2 study, evaluated oral rucaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumours. Here we report the final efficacy and safety results in heavily pretreated patients with ovarian cancer who received rucaparib in Study 10 Parts 2A and 2B. METHODS: Parts 2A and 2B (Phase 2 portions) enrolled patients with relapsed, high-grade, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer who had received 2-4 (Part 2A) or 3-4 (Part 2B) prior chemotherapies. Patients received oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled: 42 in Part 2A (all had platinum-sensitive disease) and 12 in Part 2B (4 with platinum-sensitive disease; 8 with platinum-resistant disease). ORR was 59.3% (95% CI 45.0-72.4%). The median time to onset of the most common nonhaematological treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was typically early (

ObjectiveTo evaluate correlations between rucaparib exposure and selected efficacy and safety endpoints in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma using pooled data from Study 10 and ARIEL2.MethodsEfficacy analyses were limited to patients with carcinomas harboring a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who had received ≥2 prior lines of chemotherapy. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received ≥1 rucaparib dose. Steady-state daily area under the concentration-time curve (AUCss) and maximum concentration (Cmax,ss) for rucaparib were calculated for each patient and averaged by actual dose received over time (AUCavg,ss and Cmax,avg,ss) using a previously developed population pharmacokinetic model.ResultsRucaparib exposure was dose-proportional and not associated with baseline patient weight. In the exposure-efficacy analyses (n = 121), AUCavg,ss was positively associated with independent radiology review-assessed RECIST response in the subgroup of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent disease (n = 75, p = 0.017). In the exposure-safety analyses (n = 393, 40 mg once daily to 840 mg twice daily [BID] starting doses), most patients received a 600 mg BID rucaparib starting dose, with 27% and 21% receiving 1 or ≥2 dose reductions, respectively. Cmax,ss was significantly correlated with grade ≥2 serum creatinine increase, grade ≥3 alanine transaminase/aspartate transaminase increase, platelet decrease, fatigue/asthenia, and maximal hemoglobin decrease (p

PurposeKEYNOTE-158 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02628067) investigated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab across multiple cancers. We present results from patients with previously treated advanced well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NET).Patients and methodsPembrolizumab 200 mg was administered every 3 weeks for 2 years or until progression, intolerable toxicity, or physician/patient decision. Tumor imaging was performed every 9 weeks for the first year and then every 12 weeks. Endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by independent central radiologic review (primary) and duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety (secondary).ResultsA total of 107 patients with NETs of the lung, appendix, small intestine, colon, rectum, or pancreas were treated. Median age was 59.0 years (range, 29-80), 44.9% had ECOG performance status 1, 40.2% had received ≥3 prior therapies for advanced disease, and 15.9% had PD-L1-positive tumors (combined positive score ≥1). Median follow-up was 24.2 months (range, 0.6-33.4). ORR was 3.7% (95% CI, 1.0-9.3), with zero complete responses and four partial responses (three pancreatic and one rectal) all in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors. Median DOR was not reached, with one of four responses ongoing after ≥21 months follow-up. Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.5-5.4); the 6-month PFS rate was 39.3%. Median OS was 24.2 months (95% CI, 15.8-32.5). Treatment-related adverse events (AE) occurred in 75.7% of patients, 21.5% of whom had grade 3-5 AEs.ConclusionsPembrolizumab monotherapy showed limited antitumor activity and manageable safety in patients with previously treated advanced well-differentiated NETs.

Vibostolimab, a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody, blocks the interaction between TIGIT and its ligands, preventing the immunosuppressive effects of TIGIT. The addition of vibostolimab to the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab has shown promising antitumor activity, warranting further exploration of vibostolimab as a potential therapeutic option. The KEYVIBE program consists of nine trials that will evaluate the safety and efficacy of vibostolimab monotherapy and vibostolimab-based combination therapy in advanced solid tumors and hematological malignancies. These studies will also evaluate coformulated immunotherapy addressing issues that occur with the sequential administration of immunotherapy. The KEYVIBE program will provide further insight into the clinical utility of vibostolimab-based therapy across multiple indications and various stages of disease. Tweetable Abstract The KEYVIBE program consisting of nine trials will evaluate the safety and efficacy of the anti-TIGIT antibody vibostolimab across several tumor types. Trial registration: KEYVIBE-001 (NCT02964013); KEYVIBE-002 (NCT04725188); KEYVIBE-003 (NCT04738487); KEYVIBE-004 (NCT05005442); KEYVIBE-005 (NCT05007106); KEYVIBE-006 (NCT05298423); KEYVIBE-007 (NCT05226598); KEYVIBE-008 (NCT05224141); and KEYVIBE-010 (NCT05665595) (ClinicalTrials.gov). Executive summary Over the past decade, promising clinical efficacy has been observed with immune checkpoint inhibitors; however, there remains a subset of patients who do not respond or later develop resistance to treatment and experience tumor relapse. T-cell immunoglobulin and ITIM domain (TIGIT) is an inhibitory receptor that competitively inhibits the binding of the activating receptor CD226 with its ligands and is highly coexpressed with PD-L1. The binding of TIGIT to its ligands on tumor cells may contribute substantively to the suppression of T-cell signaling. Rationale for vibostolimab plus pembrolizumab combination therapy Vibostolimab is a novel humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that blocks TIGIT from interacting with its ligands and engages the Fc-γ receptor on myeloid cells. Vibostolimab and the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab exert their effects through different pathways within the immune response cascade, making the combination an attractive option for further evaluation. KEYVIBE clinical trial program Early clinical data from the NSCLC cohort of the KEYVIBE-001 trial demonstrated promising antitumor activity and a favorable safety profile with sequentially administered vibostolimab plus pembrolizumab, leading to the development of the KEYVIBE program. The KEYVIBE program includes one phase I trial, three phase II trials, and five phase III trials investigating vibostolimab-based therapies in multiple solid tumor types and hematological malignancies and as various lines of therapy. Conclusion The wide selection of patients across the KEYVIBE trials will allow for a broad understanding of the patient populations that are most likely to benefit from vibostolimab and the treatment setting where vibostolimab is most likely to improve patient outcomes. The evaluation of coformulated vibostolimab-based therapy may also provide a solution to the drug administration challenges that arise with combination therapies that require sequential administration or different administration schedules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundConstitutive activation of ERK1/2 occurs in various cancers, and its reactivation is a well-described resistance mechanism to MAPK inhibitors. ERK inhibitors may overcome the limitations of MAPK inhibitor blockade. The dual mechanism inhibitor SCH772984 has shown promising preclinical activity across various BRAFV600/RAS-mutant cancer cell lines and human cancer xenografts.MethodsWe have developed an orally bioavailable ERK inhibitor, MK-8353; conducted preclinical studies to demonstrate activity, pharmacodynamic endpoints, dosing, and schedule; completed a study in healthy volunteers (P07652); and subsequently performed a phase I clinical trial in patients with advanced solid tumors (MK-8353-001). In the P07652 study, MK-8353 was administered as a single dose in 10- to 400-mg dose cohorts, whereas in the MK-8353-001 study, MK-8353 was administered in 100- to 800-mg dose cohorts orally twice daily. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity were analyzed.ResultsMK-8353 exhibited comparable potency with SCH772984 across various preclinical cancer models. Forty-eight patients were enrolled in the P07652 study, and twenty-six patients were enrolled in the MK-8353-001 study. Adverse events included diarrhea (44%), fatigue (40%), nausea (32%), and rash (28%). Dose-limiting toxicity was observed in the 400-mg and 800-mg dose cohorts. Sufficient exposure to MK-8353 was noted that correlated with biological activity in preclinical data. Three of fifteen patients evaluable for treatment response in the MK-8353-001 study had partial response, all with BRAFV600-mutant melanomas.ConclusionMK-8353 was well tolerated up to 400 mg twice daily and exhibited antitumor activity in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma. However, antitumor activity was not particularly correlated with pharmacodynamic parameters.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01358331.FundingMerck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc., and NIH (P01 CA168585 and R35 CA197633).

BackgroundThe PARP inhibitor olaparib was recently granted Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval in patients with advanced BRCA1/2 mutation ovarian cancer. However, antitumor responses are observed in only approximately 40% of patients and the impact of baseline clinical factors on response to treatment remains unclear. Although platinum sensitivity has been suggested as a marker of response to PARP inhibitors, patients with platinum-resistant disease still respond to olaparib.Results108 patients with advanced BRCA1/2 mutation ovarian cancers were included. The interval between the end of the most recent platinum chemotherapy and PARPi (PTPI) was used to predict response to olaparib independent of conventional definition of platinum sensitivity. RECIST complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) rates were 35% in patients with platinum-sensitive versus 13% in platinum-resistant (p

BackgroundPatients with melanoma that progresses on ipilimumab and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both, have few treatment options. We assessed the efficacy and safety of two pembrolizumab doses versus investigator-choice chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma.MethodsWe carried out a randomised phase 2 trial of patients aged 18 years or older from 73 hospitals, clinics, and academic medical centres in 12 countries who had confirmed progressive disease within 24 weeks after two or more ipilimumab doses and, if BRAF(V600) mutant-positive, previous treatment with a BRAF or MEK inhibitor or both. Patients had to have resolution of all ipilimumab-related adverse events to grade 0-1 and prednisone 10 mg/day or less for at least 2 weeks, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and at least one measurable lesion to be eligible. Using a centralised interactive voice response system, we randomly assigned (1:1:1) patients in a block size of six to receive intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks or investigator-choice chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, carboplatin, dacarbazine, or oral temozolomide). Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status, lactate dehydrogenase concentration, and BRAF(V600) mutation status. Individual treatment assignment between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy was open label, but investigators and patients were masked to assignment of the dose of pembrolizumab. We present the primary endpoint at the prespecified second interim analysis of progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01704287. The study is closed to enrolment but continues to follow up and treat patients.FindingsBetween Nov 30, 2012, and Nov 13, 2013, we enrolled 540 patients: 180 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 181 to receive pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 179 to receive chemotherapy. Based on 410 progression-free survival events, progression-free survival was improved in patients assigned to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·45-0·73; p

Background Ameloblastoma is a rare odontogenic neoplasm frequently located in the mandible. Standard treatment involves radical bone resection and immediate reconstruction, causing functional, aesthetic, and psychological impairments. The BRAF V600E mutation is present in approximately 80% of mandible ameloblastomas, and BRAF inhibitors have demonstrated sustained responses in unresectable cases. Methods We identified ameloblastoma patients planned for ablative surgery and screened them for BRAF V600E mutation. Neoadjuvant BRAF inhibitors were offered to facilitate jaw preservation surgery. Retrospective data collection encompassed treatment regimens, tolerability, tumor response, and conversion to mandible preservation surgery. Results Between 2017 and 2022, a total of 11 patients received dabrafenib (n = 6) or dabrafenib with trametinib (n = 5). The median age was 19 (range = 10-83) years. Median treatment duration was 10 (range = 3-20) months. All (100%) patients achieved a radiological response. Ten (91%) patients successfully converted to mandible preservation surgery with residual tumor enucleation. One patient attained complete radiological response, and surgery was not performed. Among the 10 surgically treated patients, all exhibited a pathological response, with 4 achieving near complete response and 6 partial response. At a median follow-up of 14 (range = 7-37) months after surgery, 1 case of recurrence was observed. Grade 1-2 adverse effects were reported in 8 (73%) patients, with a single case of grade 3 (hepatitis). Dose modification was necessary for 3 patients, and 4 experienced treatment interruptions, while 1 patient permanently discontinued therapy. Conclusions Neoadjuvant BRAF inhibition may offer a safe and effective strategy for organ preservation in mandible ameloblastoma treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]