Search

Drug resistance is the major determinant for metastatic disease and fatalities, across all cancers. Depending on the tissue of origin and the therapeutic course, a variety of biological mechanisms can support and sustain drug resistance. Although genetic mutations and gene silencing through epigenetic mechanisms are major culprits in targeted therapy, drug efflux and polyploidization are more global mechanisms that prevail in a broad range of pathologies, in response to a variety of treatments. There is an unmet need to identify patients at risk for polyploidy, understand the mechanisms underlying polyploidization, and to develop strategies to predict, limit, and reverse polyploidy thus enhancing efficacy of standard-of-care therapy that improve better outcomes. This literature review provides an overview of polyploidy in cancer and offers perspective on patient monitoring and actionable therapy., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Novel combination therapies to overcome anti-PD-1 resistance are required. Enadenotucirev, a tumor-selective blood stable adenoviral vector, has demonstrated a manageable safety profile and ability to increase tumor immune-cell infiltration in phase I studies in solid tumors., Methods: We conducted a phase I multicenter study of intravenous enadenotucirev plus nivolumab in patients with advanced/metastatic epithelial cancer not responding to standard therapy. Co-primary objectives were safety/tolerability and maximum tolerated dose and/or maximum feasible dose (MTD/MFD) of enadenotucirev plus nivolumab. Additional endpoints included response rate, cytokine responses, and anti-tumor immune responses., Results: Overall, 51 heavily pre-treated patients were treated, 45/51 (88%) of whom had colorectal cancer (35/35 patients with information available were microsatellite instability-low/microsatellite stable) and 6/51 (12%) had squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. The MTD/MFD of enadenotucirev plus nivolumab was not reached, with the highest dose level tested (1×10 12  vp day 1; 6×10 12  vp days 3 and 5) shown to be tolerable. Overall, 31/51 (61%) patients experienced a grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), most frequently anemia (12%), infusion-related reaction (8%), hyponatremia (6%), and large intestinal obstruction (6%). Seven (14%) patients experienced serious TEAEs related to enadenotucirev; the only serious TEAE related to enadenotucirev occurring in >1 patient was infusion-related reaction (n=2). Among the 47 patients included in efficacy analyses, median progression-free survival was 1.6 months, objective response rate was 2% (one partial response for 10 months), and 45% of patients achieved stable disease. Median overall survival was 16.0 months; 69% of patients were alive at 12 months. Persistent increases in Th1 and related cytokines (IFNγ, IL-12p70, IL-17A) were seen from ~day 15 in two patients, one of whom had a partial response. Among the 14 patients with matching pre-tumor and post-tumor biopsies, 12 had an increase in intra-tumoral CD8 + T-cell infiltration and 7 had increased markers of CD8 T-cell cytolytic activity., Conclusions: Intravenously dosed enadenotucirev plus nivolumab demonstrated manageable tolerability, an encouraging overall survival and induced immune cell infiltration and activation in patients with advanced/metastatic epithelial cancer. Studies of next-generation variants of enadenotucirev (T-SIGn vectors) designed to further re-program the tumor microenvironment by expressing immune-enhancer transgenes are ongoing., Trial Registration Number: NCT02636036., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MF: Honoraria (advisory, speakers bureau): Amgen, Inc. Consulting: AstraZeneca, Bayer Corporation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte Corporation, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Akamis Bio Ltd, Taiho Oncology. Advisory: Bayer Corporation, Roche/Genentech, Xenthera. Advisory board: Mirati Therapeutics Inc., Nouscom. Editorial board: Mirati Therapeutics Inc. Grants to institutions: Bristol Myers Squibb (study-related drugs provided to Institution), Genentech, Verastem. WH: None. DM: Speakers Bureau: Caris Life Sciences and Guardant Health. Steering Committee: Janssen. HB: Consultancy: Myovant, Corea Therapeutics, Novocure, Coherus BioSciences. Speakers Bureau: Guardant360. Research funds: Blue Earth, Novocure, Spirita Oncology. Tumor board: CARIS. Steering Committee/Medical Advisory Board: Novocure, Virogin Biotech, Idera, and JS InnoPharm. JB: Advisory board member: Insmed, Bayer, Mirati, Ipsen, QED, Oxford Biotherapeutics. Data and Safety Monitoring Board: Novocure, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, Karyopharm. Research funding to institution: I-Mab, Dragonfly, Astellas, Atreca, AbbVie, Pfizer, Karyopharm, Boston Biomedical, Akamis Bio Ltd, EMD Serono, BMS; Grants (to Institution): Novartis, Abbvie, Bayer, Lilly, Incyte, EMD Serono, Dragonfly, I-Mab, Incyte, Pfizer, BMS, Transcenta, Totus, Tyra, 23 and me, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma; Advisory board: Bayer, Mirati, Insmed, Oxford Biotherapeutics, Biosapien, EMD Serono, Ipsen, Merck, Merus; Data safety monitoring board: AstraZeneca, Novocure; Scientific and medical advisory board: Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, Debbie’s Dream Foundation; Nominating committee: ASCO. LR: Akamis Bio Ltd: Research Funding to Institution. TL, DK, CC, JC, MPa, LP, MPo: employees and stock options, Akamis Bio Ltd., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR 1-4) are a highly conserved family of receptor tyrosine kinases, involved in several physiological processes. Genetic aberrations of FGFRs and their ligands, fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) are involved in several pathological processes including cancer. The FGF-FGFR axis has emerged as a treatment target in oncology. Because these aberrations drive cancer progression, the development of FGFR targeted therapies have been accelerated., Areas Covered: In this comprehensive review, we evaluate molecular pathology and targeted therapies to FGFRs. We reviewed the evidence for safety and efficacy from preclinical and clinical studies (phase I-III) of FGFR targeted therapies. We also discuss potential challenges in bringing these targeted therapies from bench to bedside and the potential opportunities., Expert Opinion: Despite the challenges of the clinical development of FGFR targeted therapies, two FGFR small-molecule inhibitors, namely Erdafitinib and Pemigatinib, are FDA approved for urothelial cancer and cholangiocarcinoma, respectively. Understanding and detection of FGFR genomic aberrations, protein overexpression and the development of isoform-specific inhibitors are factors in the clinical success of these therapies. An enhanced understanding of patient selection based on a gene signatures or biomarkers is key to success of FGFR targeted therapies.

Introduction : Early phase clinical trials are the first clinical research step to bringing new cancer therapeutics to patients. At this stage, a new drug's safety, dosing, and scheduling profiles are established as the main endpoints. However, excellent responses due to biomarker-guided and immune checkpoint trials in early phase have resulted in direct approvals of new anti-cancer drugs. Despite doubling of the success rate of new drug approvals, many barriers exist to expeditiously bring active new drugs to the clinic. Areas covered : This review covers roles of members of the early phase program and the challenges they face in enrolling advanced cancer patients to trials. Practical solutions are provided from the perspective of the investigators, regulatory, investigational pharmacy, research nurses, clinical research coordinators, budgets, contracts, and data management. Expert opinion : We are witnessing a burgeoning era in drug development with rapid approval of efficacious drugs. This is achieved by a strong collaboration between investigators, academic institutions, pharmaceutical sponsors, scientists, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and community practices. Herein, we discuss some of the challenges faced by early phase clinical trials programs and discuss methods of improvement.

Background Aurora kinase overexpression or amplifications are associated with high proliferation, poor prognosis, and therapeutic resistance in human tumors. AMG 900 is an investigational, oral, selective pan-Aurora kinase inhibitor. Methods This first-in-human trial included dose-escalation and dose-expansion phases ( ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT00858377). Dose escalation evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of AMG 900 in advanced solid tumors and determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) with/without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis. Dose expansion evaluated clinical activity in three tumor types: taxane- and platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, taxane-resistant triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), and castration-resistant and taxane- or cisplatin/etoposide-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). AMG 900 was administered 4 days on/10 days off at 1-50 mg/day during escalation and at the MTD with G-CSF during expansion. Results AMG 900 showed rapid absorption with fast clearance, supporting once-daily dosing. The MTD was 25 mg/day, increasing to 40 mg/day with G-CSF. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia (37%), anemia (23%), leukopenia (14%), and thrombocytopenia (12%). During dose expansion, 3/29 (10.3%, 95% CI: 2.0%-28.0%) evaluable patients with ovarian cancer experienced partial response by central imaging per RECIST 1.1; median duration of response was 24.1 weeks (95% CI: 16.1-34.1). Seven patients (24.1%, 95% CI: 10.3%-43.5%) experienced partial response per Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup criteria; 5/9 patients positive for p53 expression responded to treatment. No objective responses were observed in patients with TNBC or CRPC per RECIST 1.1. Conclusions AMG 900 40 mg/day with G-CSF had manageable toxicity and demonstrated single-agent activity in patients with heavily pretreated, chemotherapy-resistant ovarian cancer.

Introduction: Protein kinases are involved in various cellular functions. About 2% of the human genome encodes for protein kinases. Dysregulation of protein kinases is implicated in various processes of carcinogenesis. The advent of protein kinase inhibitors in cancer therapy has led to a paradigm shift in cancer therapy. Several protein kinase inhibitors have been approved by FDA in the last few decades. Areas covered: This article provides a review of the FDA approved protein kinase inhibitors as of December 2017 for the well-known oncogenic protein kinases. A list of FDA approved protein kinase inhibitors and their FDA approved clinical indications were cataloged. The role of the respective oncogenic protein kinases in carcinogenesis and cancer progression and the relevant landmark clinical trials of respective protein kinase inhibitors leading up to the FDA approval were PubMed searched and discussed. Expert commentary: Further understanding of the molecular origin of various cancers would help identify new targets. Use of biomarker profiling might select the patient population that would benefit better from kinase inhibitors. Clinical trials should be designed to identify the appropriate sequence of the available kinase inhibitors. It would prove to be useful to test these drugs in the adjuvant setting.

Purpose: Recent research has found unrealistic optimism (UO) among patient-subjects in early-phase oncology trials. Our aim was to investigate the cognitive and motivational factors that evoke this bias in this context. We expected perceptions of control to be a strong correlate of unrealistic optimism., Methods: A study of patient-subjects enrolled in early-phase oncology trials was conducted at two sites in the USA. Respondents completed questionnaires designed to assess unrealistic optimism and several risk attribute variables that have been found to evoke the bias in other contexts., Results: One hundred and seventy-one patient-subjects agreed to be interviewed for our study. Significant levels of perceived controllability were found with respect to all nine research-related questions. Perceptions of control were found to predict unrealistic optimism. Two other risk attribute variables, awareness of indicators (p=0.024) and mental image (p=0.022), were correlated with unrealistic optimism. However, in multivariate regression analysis, awareness and mental image dropped out of the model and perceived controllability was the only factor independently associated with unrealistic optimism (p<0.0001)., Conclusion: Patient-subjects reported that they can, at least partially, control the benefits they receive from participating in an early-phase oncology trial. This sense of control may underlie unrealistic optimism about benefiting personally from trial participation. Effective interventions to counteract unrealistic optimism may need to address the psychological factors that give rise to distorted risk/benefit processing., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None decalred., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Research has found that patient-subjects in early phase cancer trials exhibit unrealistic optimism regarding the risks and possible benefits of trial participation. Unrealistic optimism is associated with therapeutic misconception and failures to appreciate research-related information. This is the first study to assess whether those who decline to participate in these trials also exhibit unrealistic optimism. It is also the first study to assess whether there are significant differences in appreciation of research-related risks/benefits and therapeutic misconception between these two groups. We approached 261 patients at two academic medical centers who were offered enrollment in a Phase I, II, or I/II cancer trial (between 2012 and 2016). Two hundred thirty-three patients agreed to enroll in an early phase cancer trial, 171 of whom agreed to be interviewed for the study. Twenty-eight patients declined the offer to enroll, 15 of whom agreed to be interviewed for the study. Subjects participated in a structured face-to-face interview with a research associate trained to administer the study questionnaires. Acceptors demonstrated a significantly higher level of unrealistic optimism than decliners ( p < .05). Decliners had significantly less therapeutic misconception than acceptors (3.37 [ SD = 0.85] vs. 3.79 [ SD = 0.77], p = .042). There was a significant difference on one of the appreciation questions between acceptors and decliners ( p = .009). Comparative assessment of acceptors and decliners to early phase cancer trials casts light on whether unrealistic optimism is consequential for the decision to participate in these trials. The different levels of unrealistic optimism exhibited by these groups suggest that it may be a factor that affects the decision to participate.

Introduction: For several decades' cancer treatment targeting DNA repair pathways incorporated both chemo- and radiotherapy only. However, over the last decade improved knowledge of DNA repair processes has paved the way for the development of novel targeted drugs abrogating DNA repair signaling. Checkpoint kinase inhibitors are exciting molecules and hold promise in the treatment of both solid and hematologic malignancies. Herein, we discuss preclinical and clinical studies with this class of molecules. Areas covered: In this review, we discuss the role of check point kinase 1 (CHK-1) in DNA repair and provide a comprehensive summary of pre-clinical and early phase clinical trials with CHK-1 inhibitors. We also provide molecular structural basis of CHK-1inhibitors binding to CHK-1. Expert opinion: Available data from both pre-clinical and early clinical studies illustrates potential efficacy of this class of molecules when combined with antimetabolites in treating both solid and hematologic malignancies. In addition, there might be an additive role in combining this class of molecules to PARP inhibitors, platinum chemotherapy, or radiation therapy in p53 or BRCA mutated tumors. The safety of the aforementioned combination needs to be closely evaluated in the ongoing clinical trials.

Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator-initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand-alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease-oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs. The Oncologist 2017;22:369-374., (© The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press 2017.)

Background: Prior research has identified unrealistic optimism as a bias that might impair informed consent among patient-subjects in early-phase oncology trials. However, optimism is not a unitary construct; it also can be defined as a general disposition, or what is called dispositional optimism. The authors assessed whether dispositional optimism would be related to high expectations for personal therapeutic benefit reported by patient-subjects in these trials but not to the therapeutic misconception. The authors also assessed how dispositional optimism related to unrealistic optimism., Methods: Patient-subjects completed questionnaires designed to measure expectations for therapeutic benefit, dispositional optimism, unrealistic optimism, and the therapeutic misconception., Results: Dispositional optimism was found to be significantly associated with higher expectations for personal therapeutic benefit (Spearman rank correlation coefficient [r], 0.333; P<.0001), but was not associated with the therapeutic misconception (Spearman r, -0.075; P = .329). Dispositional optimism was found to be weakly associated with unrealistic optimism (Spearman r, 0.215; P = .005). On multivariate analysis, both dispositional optimism (P = .02) and unrealistic optimism (P<.0001) were found to be independently associated with high expectations for personal therapeutic benefit. Unrealistic optimism (P = .0001), but not dispositional optimism, was found to be independently associated with the therapeutic misconception., Conclusions: High expectations for therapeutic benefit among patient-subjects in early-phase oncology trials should not be assumed to result from misunderstanding of specific information regarding the trials. The data from the current study indicate that these expectations are associated with either a dispositionally positive outlook on life or biased expectations concerning specific aspects of trial participation. Not all manifestations of optimism are the same, and different types of optimism likely have different consequences for informed consent in early-phase oncology research., (© 2016 American Cancer Society.)

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a proven effective therapeutic modality in human malignancy. Several mAbs are approved to targets critical in aberrant oncogenic signaling within tumors and their microenvironment. These targets include secreted ligands (e.g., VEGF and HGH), their receptors (e.g., HER2 and VEGFR2), cell surface counter receptors and their receptor-bound ligands (e.g., PD1 and PD1L, respectively). The ability to genetically engineer the structure and/or functions of mAbs has significantly improved their effectiveness. Furthermore, advances in gene expression profiling, proteomics, deep sequencing and deciphering of complex signaling networks have revealed novel therapeutic targets. We review target selection, approved indications and the rationale for mAb utilization in solid and hematologic malignancies. We also discuss novel mAbs in early- and late-phase clinical trials that are likely to change the natural history of disease and improve survival. The future challenge is to design mAb-based novel trial designs for diagnostics and therapeutics for human malignancies.

Background: R1507 is a human IgG1 Mab that binds to the insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) and inhibits IGF-1- or IGF-2-mediated anchorage-independent growth of malignant cells. A phase 1b study evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of R1507 in combination with multiple standard oncology regimens., Methods: R1507 (3, 5, 9, 10 and 16 mg/kg IV, Q2 W or Q3 W) was added to six treatment regimens: gemcitabine + erlotinib (GE); paclitaxel + bevacizumab (PB); carboplatin + etoposide (CE); mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab (FB); capecitabine + trastuzumab (CT); and sorafenib (S). If tolerable, R1507 dose was escalated utilizing a 3 + 3 + 6 and a 3 + 9 design., Results: A total of 104 patients enrolled into regimens 1-6: 93 % were non-recent diagnoses. Eighteen withdrew for safety [one death, 17 adverse events (AEs)]. A total of 1,337 AEs any grade, across regimens and doses were nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. A total of 123 had grade ≥3 AEs (n = 28 dose level 1; n = 95 dose level 1) and in 60 patients were myelosuppression, fatigue and mucosal inflammation. ORR (PR plus SD) of evaluable patients across six regimens was 36 % with five PRs: regimens PB (non-small cell lung cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer), CE (melanoma), FB (colon cancer) and S (GIST). The GIST pt (>4 prior therapies) had a PR for 3 years. Three patients (breast cancer, melanoma and adenoid cystic carcinoma) were on study for >1 year; 76 % of patients had SD or better for 4 months., Conclusions: R1507 added to six standard oncology regimens was well tolerated with an ORR of 36 %.

Objectives: A Phase I study was initiated to investigate fixed dose rate gemcitabine (GEM) combined with epirubicin (EPI) given weekly or every other week, since, GEM given as a standard 30 minute infusion has modest activity. The study was designed based on the hypothesis that prolonged exposure (over 90 minutes) may improve response rates and combination with epirubicin (EPI) is synergistic., Methods: Eligible patients had measurable refractory solid malignancies with adequate bone marrow, renal, and liver functions. Patients received GEM 800, 1000, 1250 mg/m(2) over 90 minutes followed by EPI 10 or 15 mg/m(2) as a 30 minutes infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 or days 1 and 15 of a 28 day cycle., Results: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled and 24 are evaluable for overall toxicities and response rate. Toxicities include neutropenia (Gr 3 of Gr 4, 9 pts), thrombocytopenia (Gr 3 of Gr 4, 3 pts), fatigue (Gr 3 of Gr 4, 4 pts), and myalgia (Gr 3 of Gr 4, 1 pt). Dose limiting toxicity was grade 4 neutropenia. Seven patients experienced stable disease for >16 weeks and 3 patients with pancreatic cancer had partial responses., Conclusions: The maximum tolerated dose is GEM 800 mg/m(2)/EPI 10 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 15 or GEM 1000 mg/m(2)/EPI 15 mg/m(2) days 1, 15 given every 4 weeks. Further studies are warranted with targeted therapies to define the efficacy of this doublet.

ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters are a super family of channel proteins that include multi-drug resistance 1 (MDR1/P-gp) and multi-drug resistance related proteins (MRPs) whose functions include the efflux of ions, nutrients, lipids, amino acids, peptides, proteins and drugs. The three-dimensional structures of bacterial and human ABC transporters demonstrate that these proteins are ATP-dependent molecular machines that scan the inner membrane leaflet for lipids/drugs and flip them to the outer membrane leaflet. In many human cancers, the level of expression of MDR1 is an important independent prognostic factor that determines response to combination chemotherapy. Intrinsic and acquired resistance to chemotherapy exposure are due to a high level of MDR1 expression that enhances drug efflux, with associated poor clinical outcome and lower complete remission (CR) rates. Recent clinical trials in hematological and solid malignancies have shown promise for a prolonged remission and improved overall survival when the MDR1 P-gp is inhibited when combined with chemotherapy. Structure-based homology modeling of these ABC transporters may help design novel drug candidates to both the membrane-spanning domain (MSD) and the nucleotide-binding domain (NBD) located within the cytoplasm. This review will highlight advances in the utilization of homology modeling in the drug discovery process and how this will impact on fundamental insights to the development of novel therapeutics that could alter and/or inhibit their functions.