Search

Background: Adagrasib, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of mutant KRAS G12C protein, has shown clinical activity in pretreated patients with several tumor types, including colorectal cancer. Preclinical studies suggest that combining a KRAS G12C inhibitor with an epidermal growth factor receptor antibody could be an effective clinical strategy., Methods: In this phase 1-2, open-label, nonrandomized clinical trial, we assigned heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with mutant KRAS G12C to receive adagrasib monotherapy (600 mg orally twice daily) or adagrasib (at the same dose) in combination with intravenous cetuximab once a week (with an initial loading dose of 400 mg per square meter of body-surface area, followed by a dose of 250 mg per square meter) or every 2 weeks (with a dose of 500 mg per square meter). The primary end points were objective response (complete or partial response) and safety., Results: As of June 16, 2022, a total of 44 patients had received adagrasib, and 32 had received combination therapy with adagrasib and cetuximab, with a median follow-up of 20.1 months and 17.5 months, respectively. In the monotherapy group (43 evaluable patients), a response was reported in 19% of the patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 8 to 33). The median response duration was 4.3 months (95% CI, 2.3 to 8.3), and the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 8.3). In the combination-therapy group (28 evaluable patients), the response was 46% (95% CI, 28 to 66). The median response duration was 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.7 to not estimable), and the median progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 8.1). The percentage of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 34% in the monotherapy group and 16% in the combination-therapy group. No grade 5 adverse events were observed., Conclusions: Adagrasib had antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with mutant KRAS G12C, both as oral monotherapy and in combination with cetuximab. The median response duration was more than 6 months in the combination-therapy group. Reversible adverse events were common in the two groups. (Funded by Mirati Therapeutics; KRYSTAL-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03785249.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Heightened signaling by mesenchymal epithelial transition factor (MET) is implicated in tumorigenesis. Glesatinib is an investigational, oral inhibitor of MET and AXL., Objective: This phase I study determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and safety profile of glesatinib in patients with advanced or unresectable solid tumors. Antitumor activity and pharmacokinetics (PK) were secondary objectives., Patients and Methods: Four formulations of glesatinib glycolate salt (capsule, unmicronized, micronized, and micronized version 2 [V2] tablets) and two free-base formulations (free-base suspension [FBS] capsule and spray-dried dispersion [SDD] tablet), developed to enhance drug exposure and optimize manufacturing processes, were evaluated in patients with genetically unselected advanced/unresectable solid tumors. MTD, based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) observed during the first 21-day treatment cycle, was further evaluated in dose-expansion cohorts comprising patients with overexpression of MET and/or AXL, MET/AXL amplification, MET-activating mutations, or MET/AXL rearrangements for confirmation as the RP2D., Results: Glesatinib was evaluated across 27 dose-escalation cohorts (n = 108). Due to suboptimal exposure with glesatinib glycolate salt formulations in the initial cohorts, investigations subsequently focused on the FBS capsule and SDD tablet; for these formulations, MTD was identified as 1050 mg twice daily and 750 mg twice daily, respectively. An additional 71 patients received glesatinib in the FBS and SDD dose-expansion cohorts. At MTDs, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (FBS, 83.3%; SDD, 75.0%), nausea (57.1%, 30.6%), vomiting (45.2%, 25.0%), increased alanine aminotransferase (45.2%, 30.6%), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (47.6%, 27.8%). Exploratory pharmacodynamic analyses indicated target engagement and inhibition of MET by glesatinib. Antitumor activity was observed with glesatinib FBS 1050 mg twice daily and SDD 750 mg twice daily in tumors harboring MET/AXL alteration or aberrant protein expression, particularly in patients with non--small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In patients with NSCLC, the objective response rate was 25.9% in those with MET/AXL mutation or amplification and 30.0% in a subset with MET-activating mutations. All six partial responses occurred in patients with tumors carrying MET exon 14 deletion mutations., Conclusions: The safety profile of single-agent glesatinib was acceptable. SDD 750 mg twice daily was selected as the preferred glesatinib formulation and dose based on clinical activity, safety, and PK data. Observations from this study led to initiation of a phase II study of glesatinib in patients with NSCLC stratified by type of MET alteration (NCT02544633)., Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00697632; June 2008., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Adagrasib, a KRAS G12C inhibitor, irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS G12C , locking it in its inactive state. Adagrasib showed clinical activity and had an acceptable adverse-event profile in the phase 1-1b part of the KRYSTAL-1 phase 1-2 study., Methods: In a registrational phase 2 cohort, we evaluated adagrasib (600 mg orally twice daily) in patients with KRAS G12C -mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and anti-programmed death 1 or programmed death ligand 1 therapy. The primary end point was objective response assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included the duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety., Results: As of October 15, 2021, a total of 116 patients with KRAS G12C -mutated NSCLC had been treated (median follow-up, 12.9 months); 98.3% had previously received both chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Of 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline, 48 (42.9%) had a confirmed objective response. The median duration of response was 8.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2 to 13.8), and the median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 8.4). As of January 15, 2022 (median follow-up, 15.6 months), the median overall survival was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 19.2). Among 33 patients with previously treated, stable central nervous system metastases, the intracranial confirmed objective response rate was 33.3% (95% CI, 18.0 to 51.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 97.4% of the patients - grade 1 or 2 in 52.6% and grade 3 or higher in 44.8% (including two grade 5 events) - and resulted in drug discontinuation in 6.9% of patients., Conclusions: In patients with previously treated KRAS G12C -mutated NSCLC, adagrasib showed clinical efficacy without new safety signals. (Funded by Mirati Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03785249.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Cancer is a physically disabling condition. Functional disability, defined as an inability or impaired ability to perform simple tasks of daily life, afflicts a large majority of the cancer population and dramatically impacts patient well-being, negatively affecting treatment decisions, quality of life, and clinical outcomes. Our current understanding of the fundamental mechanisms underlying physical disability in cancer patients, however, is limited. This review will evaluate how cancer and cancer treatments and their pathological sequelae alter skeletal muscle structure and function to promote functional disability. Briefly, factors associated with cancer and its treatment can diminish skeletal muscle size and contractile function, which lead to a reduced physiological capacity for work and, in turn, functional disability. We outline the clinical evidence for the involvement of each of these factors in disability in cancer patients and then review structural and functional evidence at various anatomic levels to explore the tissue, cellular, and molecular mechanisms underlying cancer-related disability.