Search

Sarco(endo)plasmic reticulum Ca

Background: currently, there is no US Food and Drug Administration approved therapy for patients with pleural mesothelioma who have relapsed following platinum-doublet based chemotherapy. Vinorelbine has demonstrated useful clinical activity in mesothelioma, however its efficacy has not been formally evaluated in a randomised setting. BRCA1 expression is required for vinorelbine induced apoptosis in preclinical models. Loss of expression may therefore correlate with vinorelbine resistance.Methods: in this randomised, phase 2 trial, patients were eligible if they met the following criteria: age ≥ 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, histologically confirmed pleural mesothelioma, post platinum-based chemotherapy, and radiological evidence of disease progression. Consented patients were randomised 2:1 to either active symptom control with oral vinorelbine versus active symptom control (ASC) every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal at an initial dose of 60 mg/m2 increasing to 80 mg/m2 post-cycle 1. Randomisation was stratified by histological subtype, white cell count, gender, ECOG performance status and best response during first-line therapy. The study was open label. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), measured from randomisation to time of event (or censoring). Analyses were carried out according to intention-to-treat (ITT) principles. Recruitment and trial follow-up are complete. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02139904.Findings: between June 1, 2016 and Oct 31, 2018, we performed a randomised phase 2 trial in 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom. 225 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 154 were randomly assigned to receive either ASC + vinorelbine (n = 98) or ASC (n = 56). PFS was significantly longer for ASC+vinorelbine compared with ASC alone; 4.2 months (interquartile range (IQR) 2.2–8.0) versus 2.8 months (IQR 1.4–4.1) for ASC, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·60 (80% CI upper limit 0.7, one-sided unadjusted log rank test p = 0.002); adjusted HR 0.6 (80% CI upper limit 0.7, one-sided adjusted log rank test p < 0.001). BRCA1 did not predict resistance to ASC+vinorelbine. Neutropenia was the most common grades 3, 4 adverse events in the ASC +vinorelbine arm.Interpretation: vinorelbine plus ASC confers clinical benefit to patients with relapsed pleural mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based doublet chemotherapy.Funding: this study was funded by Cancer Research UK (grant CRUK A15569).

8507 Background: All patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) eventually relapse following standard chemotherapy. However, there is no standard treatment option in this setting. Vinorelbine, exhibits useful clinical activity but has not been formally evaluated in a randomised clinical trial, despite its widespread off-label use worldwide. BRCA1 regulates spindle assembly checkpoint in MPM and predicts vinorelbine sensitivity in preclinical models [1,2], suggesting that BRCA1 negative patients may be chemoresistant. Methods: VIM, a Cancer Research UK funded, investigator-initiated randomised controlled phase 2 multi-centre UK trial, enrolled patients with MPM who had progressed after first-line chemotherapy. Pts were randomised 2:1 to either vinorelbine (60mg/m2 weekly Q21d escalating to 80mg/m2 from cycle 2) + active supportive care (ASC) versus ASC until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary outcome was progression free survival (PFS) defined as the time from randomisation to any progression (based on Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma) or death. The trial had 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.65 at the one-sided 20% significance level. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), tolerability and safety. Results: Between May 2016 and Oct 2018, 154 patients were recruited from 10 UK sites and randomised to vinorelbine + ASC (n=98) or ASC alone (n=56). In the Intention-to-treat analysis, after 129 events, median PFS was 4.2 months (m) for vinorelbine + ASC compared to 2.8m for ASC alone (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.59; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.85; one-sided p = 0.0017). 108 deaths were reported. Median OS was 9.3m for vinorelbine + ASC compared to 9.1m for ASC alone (HR=0.79; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.17; two-sided p = 0.24). Toxicity data and subgroup analyses including the impact of BRCA1 deficiency will be presented. Conclusion: The trial met its primary endpoint. Vinorelbine demonstrates useful clinical efficacy in relapsed MPM, supporting its off-label use, as a treatment option for patients with relapsed MPM.[1] Busacca et al, J Pathol 2012, 227(2), 200. [2] Busacca et al, Mol Cancer Res, 2021, 20(2) 379. Clinical trial information: NCT02139904.

e21649 Background: Impaired DNA damage response (DDR) is a common feature of cancer, however therapeutic exploitation has been limited to cancers harbouring somatic inactivation of BRCA1/2 which causes homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). We hypothesized that patients (pts) with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer responding to platinum doublet based chemotherapy, might enrich for impaired DDR encompassing HRD, rendering these tumours more sensitive to inhibition of poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibition by olaparib. Methods: PIN was a multicentre double-blind placebo controlled randomised phase II screening trial (alpha and beta = 0.2). Chemonaive pts had advanced (stage IIB/IV) squamous (Sq) or non-sq (NS) NSCLC, ECOG performance status 0-1, no EGFR nor ALK mutation. Prior immunotherapy with a PD1/ PDL1 inhibitor was allowed. If tumour shrinkage was observed after 3 cycles of platinum chemotherapy, pts were randomised 1:1 to olaparib (O, 300mg po bd q21) or placebo (P), which was continued until disease progression or withdrawal. Primary end point was progression free survival (PFS), with a one-sided test for significance. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), response (RECIST v1.1) and safety (CTCAE4.0). Results: 70 pts were randomised to O (32) or P (38) between Aug 2014 and Nov 2017. There was no difference in median dose intensity (% (IQR), O vs P) was 86.4 (64.3-95.7) vs 93.3 (80.2-97.6). Pts receiving O had a longer, but not statistically significant median PFS (weeks (IQR) was O 16.6 (7.1-21.7) vs P 12 (5.6-18.7)); and hazard ratio (HR) was 0.83 (80% CI 0.6-1.15, p = 0.23), using intention to treat (ITT) unadjusted analysis. However, the ITT Cox model, adjusted for smoking history and histology, showed a significantly longer PFS for pts receiving O (HR 0.73 (80% CI 0.52-1.02, p = 0.11)). Pts receiving O also had greater, but not statistically significant OS: median (weeks (IQR) was O 59.4 (38.7-67.9) vs P 31.3 (22.4-58.6)). OS HR was 0.68 (95% CI 0.37-1.26; two-sided p = 0.22). 3 patients were completely withdrawn prior to progression. No complete responses were observed and treatment was well tolerated. Conclusions: Design parameters justifying a Phase III trial (p < 0.2) were met in the adjusted, but not unadjusted PFS analysis, with a trend towards longer PFS and OS in the O arm. We speculate that this signal may be driven by a DDR deficient molecular subgroup. Translational studies are warranted to investigate these possibilities. Clinical trial information: NCT01788332.