Search

PROOF 302 is an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adjuvant phase III trial (NCT04197986) in approximately 218 patients from 120 centers worldwide. Eligibility criteria include post-surgical high-risk muscle-invasive upper tract urothelial cancer (85% of patients) or urothelial bladder cancer (15%), susceptible FGFR3 alterations (activating mutations, gene fusions or rearrangements), ≤120 days following radical surgery and ineligible for/or refusing cisplatin-based (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients receive either oral infigratinib 125 mg or placebo daily on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle for up to 52 weeks or until recurrence, unacceptable toxicity or death. Primary end point: centrally determined disease-free survival (DFS); secondary end points: investigator-assessed DFS, metastasis-free survival, overall survival and safety/tolerability; exploratory end points: correlative biomarker analysis, quality-of-life and infigratinib pharmacokinetics.

Supplementary Tables S1 and S2. Supplementary Table 1. Univariate Cox proportional hazard model analysis using baseline and change in levels of biomarkers with PFS Supplementary Table 2. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard model analysis using baseline and change in levels of biomarkers with PFS

Purpose: This “3+3” phase I study evaluated the safety, biologic, and clinical activity of lenvatinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, in patients with solid tumors.Experimental Design: Ascending doses of lenvatinib were administered per os twice daily in 28-day cycles. Safety and response were assessed for all patients. Angiogenic and apoptotic factors were tested as possible biomarkers in an expanded melanoma cohort.Results: Seventy-seven patients were treated in 3 cohorts: 18 with intermittent twice-daily dosing (7 days on, 7 days off) of 0.1–3.2 mg; 33 with twice-daily dosing of 3.2–12 mg; and 26 with twice-daily dosing of 10 mg (expanded melanoma cohort). Maximum tolerated dose was established at 10 mg per os twice daily. Prominent drug-related toxicities included hypertension (43%), fatigue (42%), proteinuria (39%), and nausea (25%); dose-limiting toxicities included hypertension, fatigue, and proteinuria. Twelve patients (15.6%) achieved partial response (PR, n = 9) or unconfirmed PR (uPR, n = 3), and 19 (24.7%) achieved stable disease (SD) ≥23 weeks. Total PR/uPR/SD ≥23 weeks was 40.3% (n = 31). Responses (PR/uPR) by disease were as follows: melanoma, 5 of 29 patients (includes 1 patient with NRAS mutation); thyroid, 3 of 6 patients; pancreatic, 1 of 2 patients; lung, 1 of 1 patients; renal, 1 of 1 patients; endometrial, 1 of 4 patients; and ovarian, 1 of 5 patients. AUC0–24 and Cmax increased dose proportionally. In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model analyses, increased baseline systolic blood pressure and decreased angiopoietin-1 ratio (2 hours:baseline) were associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) in the expanded melanoma cohort (P = 0.041 and P = 0.03, respectively).Conclusions: The toxicity profile, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of lenvatinib are encouraging. Decreases in the angiopoietin-1 ratio correlated with longer PFS in melanoma patients. Clin Cancer Res; 21(21); 4801–10. ©2015 AACR.

Introduction To describe the efficacy of infigratinib, a potent, selective fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 1-3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, across lines of therapy (LOT) in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). Patients and Methods Eligible patients had mUC and prior platinum-based chemotherapy, unless contraindicated, and activating FGFR3 mutation/fusion. Patients received infigratinib 125 mg orally daily (3 weeks on/1 week off) in a single-arm, open-label study. Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), best overall response (BOR) that included unconfirmed responses, and overall survival (OS) were also assessed. Subgroup analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes by LOT was performed. Results Sixty-seven patients were enrolled; 13 (19.4%) received infigratinib as early-line therapy for mUC due to ineligibility to receive platinum-based chemotherapy. Overall, ORR was 25.4% (95% CI 15.5-37.5) and DCR was 64.2% (95% CI 51.5-75.5). ORR was 30.8% (95% CI 9.1-61.4) with early-line infigratinib and 24.1% (95% CI 13.5-37.6) for ≥2 LOT. DCR was 46.2% (95% CI 19.2-74.9) for early-line and 68.5% (95% CI 54.4-80.5) for ≥2 LOT. PFS and OS appeared similar in both groups. Thirteen of 59 patients with a bladder primary tumor received early-line treatment with an ORR of 30.5% (95% CI 9.1-61.4), and 46 received ≥2 LOT with an ORR of 20.3% (95% CI 9.4-33.9); BOR was 38.5% (95% CI: 13.9-68.4%) and 42.6% (95% CI: 29.2-56.8%) in the early-line and salvage settings, respectively. Eight patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma received salvage therapy (ORR, 50.0%; DCR, 100.0%). No significant differences in toxicities between LOT were observed. Conclusion Infigratinib has notable activity in patients with mUC regardless of LOT. The findings support the evaluation of infigratinib across different settings in mUC.

PROOF 302 is an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adjuvant phase III trial (NCT04197986) in approximately 218 patients from 120 centers worldwide. Eligibility criteria include post-surgical high-risk muscle-invasive upper tract urothelial cancer (85% of patients) or urothelial bladder cancer (15%), susceptibleCancers of the bladder and other parts in the urinary system, especially those that are invasive and grow into the muscle layer, may need extra treatment after surgical removal of the tumor, particularly if there is a high risk of the cancer coming back. Chemotherapy regimens that include cisplatin are often used postoperatively, although some patients are unable to tolerate this treatment or refuse it. FGFR3, a protein that is encoded by the

TPS580 Background: Radical surgery is the mainstay of treatment for muscle-invasive upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) and urothelial bladder cancer (UBC). However, even when surgery is combined with cisplatin‐based (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, recurrence rates are high. Many patients (pts) are ineligible for, do not respond to, or refuse cisplatin-based chemotherapy because of toxicity concerns. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 ( FGFR3) genetic alterations occur in 21–38% of muscle-invasive UTUC, and in approx. 20% of invasive UBC. Infigratinib (BGJ398) is an ATP-competitive FGFR1–3 selective oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has clinical activity and tolerability in pts with advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) harboring susceptible FGFR3 alterations. PROOF 302 was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant infigratinib in pts with high-risk, muscle-invasive UC (85% UTUC) and susceptible FGFR3 alterations. Methods: PROOF 302 is a global, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (NCT04197986). Eligible pts have high-risk, muscle-invasive UTUC (85%) or UBC (15%) with susceptible FGFR3 alterations (mutations, gene fusions or rearrangements) confirmed by FoundationOne CDx test, and are ≤120 days following nephroureterectomy, distal ureterectomy, or cystectomy. The study protocol was amended to include pts with carcinoma in situ at surgical margins and those who refuse cisplatin-based chemotherapy (in addition to pts allowed to enroll if ineligible for perioperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy). Eligible pts are M0 and have either disease stage ≥ypT2 and/or yN+ after cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy or ≥pT2 pN0–2 or pN+ (UTUC); and ≥pT3 or pN+ (UBC) if not treated with cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Pts are randomized 1:1 to receive oral infigratinib 125 mg or placebo QD on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle for up to 52 weeks (13 cycles) or until recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Primary endpoint: centrally reviewed disease-free survival (DFS) analyzed via stratified log-rank test and Cox model (hazard ratio). Secondary endpoints: investigator-reviewed DFS, metastasis-free survival, overall survival, safety/tolerability. Exploratory endpoints: quality of life, pharmacokinetics, determination of the prevalence of genomic alterations and correlation with features of UC, genomic and proteomic assessment of tumor tissue and cell-free DNA samples from baseline and at recurrence to identify the predictive/prognostic value of biomarkers. PROOF 302 is actively enrolling as of Sep 2021. A second Data Monitoring Committee meeting is planned for Dec 2021. The last pt is expected to complete treatment in 2024. Clinical trial information: NCT04197986.

5038 Background: Infigratinib (BGJ398) is a potent and selective FGFR1–3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), previously reported to be effective and well tolerated in patients with locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) bearing FGFR3 alterations [Pal et al. Cancer Discovery 2018]. However, this previous study did not examine differences in infigratinib activity based on number of prior lines of treatment (LOT). TKIs studied in other indications (e.g. VEGFRis in renal cell carcinoma) have shown consistent activity in both the first and later LOT. Given the effect seen with other TKIs, we sought to determine if infigratinib showed consistent treatment responses in patients with mUC according to LOT. Methods: Eligible patients had mUC and prior platinum-based chemotherapy unless contraindicated and activating FGFR3 mutations/fusions. Infigratinib was dosed at 125 mg orally daily (3 weeks on/1 week off). The primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR: partial response [PR] and complete response [CR]) was assessed, as well as disease control rate (DCR: CR + PR + stable disease [SD]). After classification of LOT for each patient, subgroup analysis of response by LOT was performed. Results: 67 patients were enrolled; 81% received ≥1 prior LOT for mUC. 13 patients (19.4%) received infigratinib as 1st LOT for mUC due to ineligibility to receive platinum-based chemotherapy. ORR for the 67 patients was 25% (95% CI 15.5–37.5) and DCR was 64% (95% CI 51.5–75.5). The ORR with 1st-line infigratinib was 31% (95% CI 9.1–61.4) compared with 24% (95% CI 13.5–37.6) for 2nd and later (salvage) LOT. DCR was 46% (95% CI 19.2–74.9) for 1st-line and 69% (95% CI 54.4–80.5) for ≥2 LOT. 13 of the 59 patients with urothelial bladder carcinoma (UBC) received 1st-line treatment with an ORR of 31% (95% CI 9.1–61.4) and 46 patients in ≥2 LOT had an ORR of 20% (95% CI 9.4–33.9). All 8 patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) received salvage therapy, with an ORR of 50% and a DCR of 100%. An analysis of other outcome measures (e.g. PFS, OS) will be presented. Conclusions: These results indicate that infigratinib has activity in patients with mUC regardless of LOT. Additionally, patients with UTUC showed a trend for better ORR and DCR. Taken together, these results support the ongoing adjuvant PROOF 302 study comparing infigratinib with placebo in patients with resected disease, assessing infigratinib in an even earlier setting in a UTUC-enriched population (NCT04197986). Clinical trial information: NCT01004224 .

Purpose Enzalutamide resistance could result from raised androgens and be overcome by combination with abiraterone acetate. PLATO ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01995513) interrogated this hypothesis using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design. Patients and Methods In period one, men with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer received open-label enzalutamide 160 mg daily. Men with no prostate-specific antigen (PSA) increase at weeks 13 and 21 were treated until PSA progression (≥ 25% increase and ≥ 2 ng/mL above nadir), then randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio in period two to abiraterone acetate 1,000 mg daily and prednisone 5 mg twice daily with either enzalutamide or placebo (combination or control group, respectively) until disease progression as defined by the primary end point: progression-free survival (radiographic or unequivocal clinical progression or death during study). Secondary end points included time to PSA progression and PSA response in period two. Results Of 509 patients enrolled in period one, 251 were randomly assigned in period two. Median progression-free survival was 5.7 months in the combination group and 5.6 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.12; P = .22). There was no difference in the secondary end points. Grade 3 hypertension (10% v 2%) and increased ALT (6% v 2%) or AST (2% v 0%) were more frequent in the combination than the control group. Conclusion Combining enzalutamide with abiraterone acetate and prednisone is not indicated after PSA progression during treatment with enzalutamide alone; hypertension and elevated liver enzymes are more frequent with combination therapy.

Purpose: This “3+3” phase I study evaluated the safety, biologic, and clinical activity of lenvatinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, in patients with solid tumors. Experimental Design: Ascending doses of lenvatinib were administered per os twice daily in 28-day cycles. Safety and response were assessed for all patients. Angiogenic and apoptotic factors were tested as possible biomarkers in an expanded melanoma cohort. Results: Seventy-seven patients were treated in 3 cohorts: 18 with intermittent twice-daily dosing (7 days on, 7 days off) of 0.1–3.2 mg; 33 with twice-daily dosing of 3.2–12 mg; and 26 with twice-daily dosing of 10 mg (expanded melanoma cohort). Maximum tolerated dose was established at 10 mg per os twice daily. Prominent drug-related toxicities included hypertension (43%), fatigue (42%), proteinuria (39%), and nausea (25%); dose-limiting toxicities included hypertension, fatigue, and proteinuria. Twelve patients (15.6%) achieved partial response (PR, n = 9) or unconfirmed PR (uPR, n = 3), and 19 (24.7%) achieved stable disease (SD) ≥23 weeks. Total PR/uPR/SD ≥23 weeks was 40.3% (n = 31). Responses (PR/uPR) by disease were as follows: melanoma, 5 of 29 patients (includes 1 patient with NRAS mutation); thyroid, 3 of 6 patients; pancreatic, 1 of 2 patients; lung, 1 of 1 patients; renal, 1 of 1 patients; endometrial, 1 of 4 patients; and ovarian, 1 of 5 patients. AUC0–24 and Cmax increased dose proportionally. In multivariate Cox proportional hazard model analyses, increased baseline systolic blood pressure and decreased angiopoietin-1 ratio (2 hours:baseline) were associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) in the expanded melanoma cohort (P = 0.041 and P = 0.03, respectively). Conclusions: The toxicity profile, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of lenvatinib are encouraging. Decreases in the angiopoietin-1 ratio correlated with longer PFS in melanoma patients. Clin Cancer Res; 21(21); 4801–10. ©2015 AACR.

// David S. Hong 1 , Razelle Kurzrock 1 , Gerald S. Falchook 2 , Corina Andresen 3 , Jennifer Kwak 3 , Min Ren 4 , Lucy Xu 4 , Goldy C. George 1 , Kevin B. Kim 1 , Ly M. Nguyen 1 , James P. O’Brien 3 , John Nemunaitis 5 1 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA 2 Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO, USA 3 Former employees of Eisai Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA 4 Eisai Inc., Oncology, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA 5 Mary Crowley Cancer Research Center, Dallas, TX, USA Correspondence to: David S. Hong, e-mail: dshong@mdanderson.org Keywords: lenvatinib, melanoma, pharmacodynamic, phase 1b, advanced solid tumors Received: July 15, 2015 Accepted: September 19, 2015 Published: October 15, 2015 ABSTRACT Objective and Methods: In this phase 1b study, patients with stage 4 or unresectable stage 3 melanoma were treated with escalating doses of lenvatinib (once daily) and temozolomide (TMZ) (days 1–5) in 28-day cycles, to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination. Dose Level (DL)1: lenvatinib 20 mg, TMZ 100 mg/m 2 ; DL2: lenvatinib 24 mg, TMZ 100 mg/m 2 ; DL3: lenvatinib 24 mg, TMZ 150 mg/m 2 . Adverse events (AEs) were recorded and tumor response assessed per RECIST 1.0. Results: Dose-limiting toxicity occurred in 1 of 32 treated patients (DL1); MTD was not reached. The highest dose administered was lenvatinib 24 mg + TMZ 150 mg/m 2 . Most common treatment-related AEs included fatigue (56.3%), hypertension (53.1%), and proteinuria (46.9%). Overall objective response rate was 18.8% (6 patients), all partial response; (DL1, n = 1; DL3, n = 5). Stable disease (SD) ≥ 16 weeks was observed in 28.1% of patients (DL1 and DL2, n = 1 each; DL3, n = 7); 12.5% of patients had SD ≥ 23 weeks. Single and repeat-dose pharmacokinetics of lenvatinib were comparable across cycles and with concomitant TMZ administration. Conclusion: Lenvatinib 24 mg/day + TMZ 150 mg/m 2 /day (days 1–5) demonstrated modest clinical activity, an acceptable safety profile, and was administered without worsening of either lenvatinib- or TMZ-related toxicities in this patient group.

BACKGROUND Lenvatinib is an oral, multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1 through 3 (VEGFR1‐VEGFR3), fibroblast growth factor receptors 1 through 4 (FGFR1‐FGFR4), platelet‐derived growth factor receptor α (PDGFRα), ret proto‐oncogene (RET), and v‐kit Hardy‐Zuckerman 4 feline sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KIT) signaling networks implicated in tumor angiogenesis. Positive phase 1 results in solid tumors prompted a phase 2 trial in patients with advanced, radioiodine‐refractory, differentiated thyroid cancer (RR‐DTC). METHODS Fifty‐eight patients with RR‐DTC who had disease progression during the previous 12 months received lenvatinib 24 mg once daily in 28‐day cycles until disease progression, unmanageable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. Previous VEGFR‐targeted therapy was permitted. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) based on independent imaging review. Secondary endpoints included progression‐free survival (PFS) and safety. Serum levels of 51 circulating cytokines and angiogenic factors also were assessed. RESULTS After ≥14 months of follow‐up, patients had an ORR of 50% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%‐63%) with only partial responses reported. The median time to response was 3.6 months, the median response duration was 12.7 months, and the median PFS was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.9‐16.1 months). The ORR for patients who had received previous VEGF therapy (n = 17) was 59% (95% CI, 33%‐82%). Lower baseline levels of angiopoietin‐2 were suggestive of tumor response and longer PFS. Grade 3 and 4 treatment‐emergent adverse events, regardless of their relation to treatment, occurred in 72% of patients and most frequently included weight loss (12%), hypertension (10%), proteinuria (10%), and diarrhea (10%). CONCLUSIONS In patients with and without prior exposure to VEGF therapy, the encouraging response rates, median time to response, and PFS for lenvatinib have prompted further investigation in a phase 3 trial. Cancer 2015;121:2749‐2756. © 2015 American Cancer Society, This phase 2 study demonstrates that lenvatinib produces encouraging objective response and progression‐free survival rates in patients with radioiodine‐refractory, differentiated thyroid cancer and also has a well defined safety profile. Lenvatinib also exhibits activity in patients who previously received vascular endothelial growth factor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor‐targeted therapies.

Background The purpose of this investigation was to describe the pharmacodynamic interaction between propofol and remifentanil for probability of no response to shaking and shouting, probability of no response to laryngoscopy, Bispectral Index (BIS), and electroencephalographic approximate entropy (AE). Methods Twenty healthy volunteers received either propofol or remifentanil alone and then concurrently with a fixed concentration of remifentanil or propofol, respectively, via a target-controlled infusion. Responses to shaking and shouting and to laryngoscopy were assessed multiple times after allowing for plasma effect site equilibration. The raw electroencephalogram and BIS were recorded throughout the study, and AE was calculated off-line. Response surfaces were fit to the clinical response data using logistic regression or hierarchical response models. Response surfaces were also estimated for BIS and AE. Surfaces were visualized using three-dimensional rotations. Model parameters were estimated with NONMEM. Results Remifentanil alone had no appreciable effect on response to shaking and shouting or response to laryngoscopy. Propofol could ablate both responses. Modest remifentanil concentrations dramatically reduced the concentrations of propofol required to ablate both responses. The hierarchical response surface described the data better than empirical logistic regression. BIS and AE are more sensitive to propofol than to remifentanil. Conclusions Remifentanil alone is ineffective at ablating response to stimuli but demonstrates potent synergy with propofol. BIS and AE values corresponding to 95% probability of ablating response are influenced by the combination of propofol and remifentanil to achieve this endpoint, with higher propofol concentrations producing lower values for BIS and AE.

Background Despite the ubiquitous use of propofol for anesthesia and conscious sedation and numerous publications about its effect, a pharmacodynamic model for propofol-induced ventilatory depression in the non-steady state has not been described. To investigate propofol-induced ventilatory depression in the clinically important range (at and below the metabolic hyperbola while carbon dioxide is accumulating because of drug-induced ventilatory depression), the authors applied indirect effect modeling to Paco2 data at a fraction of inspired carbon dioxide of 0 during and after administration of propofol. Methods Ten volunteers underwent determination of their carbon dioxide responsiveness by a rebreathing design. The parameters of a power function were fitted to the end-expiratory carbon dioxide and minute ventilation data. The volunteers then received propofol in a stepwise ascending pattern with use of a target-controlled infusion pump until significant ventilatory depression occurred (end-tidal pressure of carbon dioxide > 65 mmHg and/or imminent apnea). Thereafter, the concentration was reduced to 1 microg/ml. Propofol pharmacokinetics and the Paco2 were determined from frequent arterial blood samples. An indirect response model with Bayesian estimates of the pharmacokinetics and carbon dioxide responsiveness in the absence of drug was used to describe the Paco2 time course. Because propofol reduces oxygen requirements and carbon dioxide production, a correction factor for propofol-induced decreasing of carbon dioxide production was included. Results The following pharmacodynamic parameters were found to describe the time course of hypercapnia after administration of propofol (population mean and interindividual variability expressed as coefficients of variation): F (gain of the carbon dioxide response), 4.37 +/- 36.7%; ke0, CO2, 0.95 min-1 +/- 59.8%; baseline Paco2, 40.9 mmHg +/- 12.8%; baseline minute ventilation, 6.45 l/min +/- 36.3%; kel, CO2, 0.11 min-1 +/- 34.2%; C50,propofol, 1.33 microg/ml +/- 49.6%; gamma, 1.68 +/- 21.3%. Conclusion Propofol at common clinical concentrations is a potent ventilatory depressant. An indirect response model accurately described the magnitude and time course of propofol-induced ventilatory depression. The indirect response model can be used to optimize propofol administration to reduce the risk of significant ventilatory depression.

Background The C50 of remifentanil for ventilatory depression has been previously determined using inspired carbon dioxide and stimulated ventilation, which may not describe the clinically relevant situation in which ventilatory depression occurs in the absence of inspired carbon dioxide. The authors applied indirect effect modeling to non-steady state Paco2 data in the absence of inspired carbon dioxide during and after administration of remifentanil. Methods Ten volunteers underwent determination of carbon dioxide responsiveness using a rebreathing design, and a model was fit to the end-expiratory carbon dioxide and minute ventilation. Afterwards, the volunteers received remifentanil in a stepwise ascending pattern using a computer-controlled infusion pump until significant ventilatory depression occurred (end-tidal carbon dioxide [Peco2] > 65 mmHg and/or imminent apnea). Thereafter, the concentration was reduced to 1 ng/ml. Remifentanil pharmacokinetics and Paco2 were determined from frequent arterial blood samples. An indirect response model was used to describe the Paco2 time course as a function of remifentanil concentration. Results The time course of hypercarbia after administration of remifentanil was well described by the following pharmacodynamic parameters: F (gain of the carbon dioxide response), 4.30; ke0 carbon dioxide, 0.92 min-1; baseline Paco2, 42.4 mmHg; baseline minute ventilation, 7.06 l/min; kel,CO2, 0.08 min-1; C50 for ventilatory depression, 0.92 ng/ml; Hill coefficient, 1.25. Conclusion Remifentanil is a potent ventilatory depressant. Simulations demonstrated that remifentanil concentrations well tolerated in the steady state will cause a clinically significant hypoventilation following bolus administration, confirming the acute risk of bolus administration of fast-acting opioids in spontaneously breathing patients.

5004 Background: We hypothesized resistance to the androgen receptor inhibitor ENZA is due to increases in androgens and can be overcome by combination with the androgen synthesis inhibitor abiraterone (abi). The phase 4 PLATO trial (NCT01995513) is evaluating the safety and efficacy of continued ENZA + abi/prednisone (abi/P) vs PBO + abi/P after PSA progression on ENZA. Methods: In Period (P) 1, men with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC received ENZA (160 mg); men with no PSA increase from baseline at wk 13 and 21 continued treatment until PSA progression (≥ 25% increase and ≥ 2 ng/mL above nadir). Eligible men were then randomized 1:1 in P2 to ENZA + abi/P (1000 mg/10 mg) or PBO + abi/P. The primary endpoint (EP) was progression-free survival (PFS; radiographic or unequivocal clinical progression, or death on study) in P2, with a prespecified sensitivity analysis of radiographic PFS (rPFS); protected secondary EPs were time to PSA progression (TTPP) and PSA response ≥ 50% in P2. Results: 509 men enrolled in P1. At data cutoff (Oct 7, 2016), 84 were active, 174 discontinued, and 251 were randomized in P2 (ENZA + abi/P, n = 126; PBO + abi/P, n = 125). Median treatment duration in P2 was 5.6 mo for both arms. PFS event by radiographic/clinical/death was 38%/25%/2% for ENZA + abi/P and 55%/18%/1% for PBO + abi/P. Median PFS was 5.7 mo for ENZA + abi/P and 5.6 mo for PBO + abi/P (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61, 1.12; P = 0.22). Median TTPP was 2.8 mo for both arms (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62, 1.24; P = 0.45). PSA response rate was 0.8% for ENZA + abi/P and 2.5% for PBO + abi/P ( P = 0.31). Median rPFS was 10.0 mo for ENZA + abi/P and 7.0 mo for PBO + abi/P (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47, 0.94; P = 0.02). The most common (≥ 15%) adverse events for ENZA + abi/P vs PBO + abi/P were back pain (21% vs 23%), hypertension (20% vs 7%), nausea (17% vs 9%), and fatigue (14% vs 15%). Conclusions: ENZA + abi/P post PSA progression on ENZA was associated with increased hypertension and nausea and did not result in a statistically significant improvement in composite PFS. The signal seen in rPFS needs further evaluation. Clinical trial information: NCT01995513.

Background Unresolved issues with propofol include whether the pharmacokinetics are linear with dose, are influenced by method of administration (bolus vs. infusion), or are influenced by age. Recently, a new formulation of propofol emulsion, containing disodium edetate (EDTA), was introduced in the United States. Addition of EDTA was found by the manufacturer to significantly reduce bacterial growth. This study investigated the influences of method of administration, infusion rate, patient covariates, and EDTA on the pharmacokinetics of propofol. Methods Twenty-four healthy volunteers aged 26-81 yr were given a bolus dose of propofol, followed 1 h later by a 60-min infusion. Each volunteer was randomly assigned to an infusion rate of 25, 50, 100, or 200 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Each volunteer was studied twice under otherwise identical circumstances: once receiving propofol without EDTA and once receiving propofol with EDTA. The influence of the method of administration and of the volunteer covariates was explored by fitting a three-compartment mamillary model to the data. The influence of EDTA was investigated by direct comparison of the measured concentrations in both sessions. Results The concentrations of propofol with and without EDTA were not significantly different. The concentration measurements after the bolus dose were significantly underpredicted by the parameters obtained just from the infusion data. The kinetics of propofol were linear within the infusion range of 25-200 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Age was a significant covariate for Volume2 and Clearance2, as were weight, height, and lean body mass for the metabolic clearance. Conclusions These results demonstrate that method of administration (bolus vs. infusion), but not EDTA, influences the pharmacokinetics of propofol. Within the clinically relevant range, the kinetics of propofol during infusions are linear regarding infusion rate.

Recombinant human albumin (rHA) is a highly purified animal-, virus-, and prion-free product developed as an alternative to human serum albumin (HSA), to which it is structurally equivalent. The present investigation compared the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of rHA with HSA. Two double-blind, randomized trials were performed in healthy volunteers using intramuscular (IM) and intravenous (IV) administration. The IM trial included 500 volunteers, each receiving 5 repeat doses of 5 mg (100 subjects), 15 mg (100 subjects), or 65 mg (300 subjects) of rHA or HSA. Thirty volunteers participated in the IV trial, each receiving ascending doses (10 g, 20 g, and 50 g) of either rHA or HSA. In both trials, all adverse events were recorded and conventionally classified; potential allergic responses were also monitored. Blood samples were taken in both studies to test for IgG or IgE antibodies against test products and potential impurities. For the IV study, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic assessments were performed, including measurement of serum albumin, colloid osmotic pressure, and hematocrit pre- and postinfusion. Nine subjects in the IM study (4 recipients of rHA and 5 of HSA) reported drug-related, potentially allergic events; all but 2 of these were skin related. No serious or potentially allergic events were reported with either product in the IV study. There was no immunological response to either product, and dose level did not influence the study outcomes. Serum albumin, colloid osmotic pressure changes, and hematocrit ratio were as expected, with no differences between rHA and HSA. rHA and HSA exhibited similar safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles, with no evidence of any immunological response.

Background Lenvatinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR1-3, FGFR1-4, RET, KIT and PDGFRb. In phase I studies of lenvatinib partial responses (PR) were observed in thyroid as well as melanoma, endometrial, and renal cancers. Methods Patients with unresectable MTC and disease progression demonstrated by RECIST during the prior 12 months were enrolled. They may have received prior VEGFR-targeted therapy and were treated with a starting dose of lenvatinib 24 mg once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression or development of unmanageable toxic effects. Primary end point was response rate (RR) by RECIST. Tumor genetic analysis and circulating cytokine and angiogenic factors (CAF) analysis were carried out. Results Fifty-nine patients were enrolled (med age: 52; male: 63%) and are evaluable for response. Fifty-four percent of patients required a dose reduction for management of toxicity, and 22% were withdrawn from therapy due to toxicity. The most common treatment-related adverse events were proteinuria 58% (gr 3: 2%), diarrhea 56% (gr 3: 5%), hypertension 48% (gr 3: 7%), fatigue 44% (gr 3: 5%), decreased appetite 41% (gr 3: 5%), nausea 34% (gr 3: 0), and weight decreased 32% (gr 3: 3%). No gr 4 events were reported for these event categories. Confirmed PRs were observed in 21 patients (RR: 36%, 95% CI: 24–49) based on independent imaging review (IIR) and 29 patients (RR: 49%, 95% CI: 36–62) based on investigator assessment. For patients who received prior VEGFR-directed treatment (n = 26) RR = 35% (IIR); with no prior VEGFR-directed treatment (n = 33) RR = 36 % (IIR). Median PFS by IRR is 9.0 months (95% CI: 7.0–) (based on minimum 8 months f/u, 46% events observed). There was no clear difference in the treatment response between RET-mutant (RET-mu) and RET-wild-type (RET-wt) patients. Low baseline levels of ANG2, sTie-2, HGF and IL-8 were associated with greater tumor shrinkage and prolonged PFS, whereas high baseline levels of VEGF and sVEGFR3 were associated with greater tumor shrinkage. Conclusions Lenvatinib administered orally at a dose of 24 mg once daily to patients with MTC is associated with manageable toxicity and an RR of 36%, identifying lenvatinib as a promising new potential therapeutic agent for treating patients affected with this disease.

9026 Background: Lenvatinib is an oral receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR1-3, FGFR1-4, RET, KIT, and PDGFRβ. Melanoma responses in the phase I study led to this multicenter phase II trial of lenvatinib in separate cohorts of BRAF mutant and BRAF wild-type (wt) melanoma to provide an estimate of efficacy and to identify molecular correlates of clinical benefit. Primary analyses of clinical outcomes for the BRAF wt cohort are reported here; the BRAF mutant cohort will be presented at a later date. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had stage IV or unresectable stage III BRAF wt melanoma with ≥1 prior treatment (26/96 [27%] pts received ≥3 treatments) and no prior VEGF-targeted therapy. Lenvatinib 24 mg once daily with dose reduction for toxicity was administered until disease progression or unmanageable toxicities. Primary endpoint was response rate by independent review (IRR) using RECIST 1.1. Archival tumor tissue and baseline and posttreatment serum samples were collected for molecular analysis. Results: 93 pts were treated (median [m] age: 64 y; male: 69%; 95% AJCC stage IV). Confirmed partial responses (PRs) were observed in 8 pts (9%) with a clinical benefit rate (CR+PR+durable SD ≥23 wks) of 32% by IRR. mPFS was 3.7 mos (95% CI, 2.5-4.0) by IRR and mOS was 9.5 mos (95% CI, 8.3-12.9); 46% pts required dose reduction for management of toxicity; 12% were withdrawn from therapy due to toxicity. Treatment-related adverse events reported in ≥20% pts included hypertension 59% (34% Gr 3/4), fatigue 58% (16% Gr 3/4), nausea 44% (3% Gr 3/4), diarrhea 43% (2% Gr 3/4), decreased appetite 38%, vomiting 29% (2% Gr 3), dysphonia 27%, and proteinuria and headache 26% each (4% and 1% Gr 3/4). Serum biomarker analysis showed baseline levels of serum angiogenic factors, such as angiopoietin-2, correlated with OS. More extensive biomarker analyses are reported in an accompanying abstract. Conclusions: Lenvatinib administered to pts with advanced BRAF wt melanoma was associated with frequent but manageable toxicity. Clinical benefit was seen in some pts. Predictive biomarkers for response to lenvatinib, such as the serum level of angiogenic factors, may be useful for future clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT01136967.

9058 Background: Lenvatinib is an oral receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR1-3, FGFR1-4, RET, KIT, and PDGFRβ. Phase I and II studies of lenvatinib demonstrate that a subset of advanced melanoma patients (pts) appears to derive benefit from lenvatinib treatment (tx), prompting a need to identify predictive biomarkers for response to lenvatinib. Methods: Serum and archival tumor samples were collected from 93 enrolled pts in the BRAF wild-type (wt) cohort of the lenvatinib phase II study of advanced melanoma. Concentrations of 50 factors were measured in pre- and post-tx serum samples; 58 archival tumor tissues were obtained and gene mutation (mut) (n=53) and gene expression profiling (GEP) (n=39) analyses were performed. For mut analysis, targeted resequencing was performed on a select panel of genes using the Ion PGM Sequencer and mut validation studies were performed. For GEP analysis, the nCounterAnalysis System was used to measure the expression level of 330 genes. Results: Clinical benefit rate (32%) and objective response rate (9%) by independent radiologic review were observed in the BRAF wt cohort. In serum biomarker analysis, lenvatinib tx resulted in a decrease in soluble VEGFR2 and increase in VEGF and PlGF levels consistent with target engagement. Correlation with clinical outcome demonstrated that baseline (BL) levels of Ang-2, IL8, PlGF, and PDGFBB associated with OS, but only pts with low BL Ang-2 levels also demonstrated improved response. High BL levels of FLT3LG and eotaxin associated with longer OS and improved response. In GEP analysis, expression levels of a set of genes including TARBP2, ZNF544, and NF1 (targets identified in phase I and preclinical studies) associated with OS. In gene mut analysis, NRAS mut showed a trend towards longer OS. Pts with NRAS mut along with wt PIK3CA status demonstrated longer OS. Conclusions: Lenvatinib demonstrated limited response in BRAF wt advanced melanoma pts. A subset of pts may derive extended clinical benefit. NRAS mut/PIK3CA wt status and low BL Ang-2 levels appear to associate with improved clinical outcome in this pt population and require further study to assess their predictive value. Clinical trial information: NCT01136967.

Background Lenvatinib (L) is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR1-3, FGFR 1-4, RET, KIT, and PDGFβ. Everolimus (E) is an oral mTOR inhibitor approved for RCC. This Phase (Ph) 1b/2 study investigates the combination of L plus E in RCC patients (pts) (NCT01136733). The Ph 1b component reported here assessed safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The 3-arm randomised Ph 2 comparing PFS of L plus E and L alone versus E alone is ongoing. Methods Pts with advanced unresectable or metastatic RCC, ECOG PS 0-1, age ≥18 y were eligible for Ph 1b. Pts received L plus E, daily, in 28-day cycles. A standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design with expansion cohort was used to identify the MTD. Results 20 pts (M/F: 14/6; median age: 59 y [range 46-72]; median of 2 prior therapeutic regimens [range 0-5]; 17/20 pts [85%] had received prior anti-VEGF treatment (tx); 7/20 pts [35%] had also received prior mTOR-targeted tx) were treated at 3 dose levels of L (12 mg [n = 7]; 18 mg [n = 11]; 24 mg [n = 2]) in combination with E 5 mg. 4 DLTs were observed: G3 nausea and vomiting (1 pt) and G2 mucositis (1 pt) at 24 mg; G3 elevated CPK at 18 mg; G3 abdominal pain at 12 mg. The MTD was L 18 mg plus E 5 mg. Median duration of tx was 14.5 wk (range 1-68, 7/20 (35%) pts ongoing). The most common tx-related adverse events (AEs), all grades were fatigue 45% (G3, 5%); mucosal inflammation 40%; proteinuria 35% (G3, 10%); diarrhoea 30% (G3, 5%); rash 30%; hypertension 25%; nausea, vomiting each 25% (each G3 5%); constipation, decreased appetite, epistaxis each 20%. There was 1 G4 related AE of hypercholesterolemia. PR was observed in 6/18 (33%) pts in the MTD and lower dosing cohorts. Durable stable disease (≥23 wk) or PR were achieved in 8/16 (50%) pts with postbaseline tumor assessments (and 3 pts ongoing with SD Conclusions Lenvatinib 18 mg in combination with everolimus 5 mg appeared to be safe when administered to multiply pretreated patients with advanced RCC in this Ph 1b part. The PRs observed and response durability warrant further evaluation in this refractory population during the ongoing Ph 2 part of the study. Disclosure A.M. Molina: A. Molina discloses research funding from EISAI and Novartis. J. Larkin: J. Larkin has received honoraria from EISAI. A. Gold: A. Gold is an employee of Eisai, Inc. C. Andresen: C. Andresen is an employee of Eisai, Inc. K. Wood: K. Wood is an employee of EISAI, Ltd. R.J. Motzer: R. Motzer discloses research funding from EISAI and Novartis, both >$10,000. M.D. Michaelson: Dr. Michaelson discloses institutional research funding from: EISAI, Pfizer, Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech Consultant or advisory role (UNCOMPENSATED): Pfizer, EISAI. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) has emerged as one of the major malignant tumors of the head and neck cancers. However, little is known about the molecular mechanism behind tumorigenesis of OSCC. The aim of this study was to identify cancer-associated proteins by comparing the proteomes of OSCC and adjacent non-cancerous-matched tissues (NCMTs). Methods We used two-dimensional electrophoresis coupled with mass spectrometry to identify differentially expressed proteins. Later we carried out MTT assay and transwell-based migration assay to study proliferation and migration of calreticulin knockdown OSCC cells, respectively. Finally, we conducted immunohistochemistry (IHC) to reveal calreticulin expression in OSCC and NCMT sections and analyze the correlations with multiple clinicopathological parameters. Results After identification of the candidate proteins by LC/MS/MS, calreticulin was found to be upregulated in OSCC specimens. Calreticulin was differentially expressed in fresh tumor samples and six OSCC cell lines but not in adjacent NCMTs. Functional characterization of calreticulin by siRNA knockdown revealed its requirement for oral cancer cell proliferation and migration. Furthermore, using oral tissue microarray and IHC, we demonstrated that the positive staining of calreticulin in tumor specimens (99 of 103) was significantly higher than that in NCMTs (29 of 92) (P Conclusions Together, our data suggest that calreticulin could play a key role in oral cancer development and could be a prognostic biomarker for OSCC patients.

Background Study results demonstrated that IFN augments BEV activity and improves median PFS in pts with mRCC. Thus, combination BEV + IFN is a standard first-line treatment option for mRCC. Combining BEV with the mTOR inhibitor EVE may be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option. The open-label, phase II RECORD-2 trial compared first-line EVE + BEV and IFN + BEV in mRCC. Patients and methods: Therapy-naive pts with clear cell mRCC and prior nephrectomy were randomized 1:1 to BEV 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks with either EVE 10 mg oral daily or IFN (9 MIU SC 3 times/week, if tolerated). Tumour assessments were every 12 weeks. Primary objective was treatment effect on progression-free survival (PFS) per central review based on an estimate of the chance of a subsequent phase III trial success (50% threshold for phase II success). Results In EVE + BEV (n = 182) and IFN + BEV (n = 183) arms, median age was 60/60 years, 76/72% of pts were men, MSKCC risk was favourable/intermediate/poor in 36/57/7% and 36/57/7% of pts, and 43/46% of pts had >2 organs involved, respectively. For EVE + BEV and IFN + BEV, median treatment duration was 8.5/8.3 months, respectively; 23/26% of pts discontinued due to AEs. In EVE + BEV and IFN + BEV arms, median PFS by central review was 9.3/10.0 months (HRIFN/EVE, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.69-1.19; P =0.485), respectively; probability of subsequent phase III success was 5.1%. Results of central and local PFS analysis were consistent. Objective response rate was 27/28% in EVE + BEV and IFN + BEV arms, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the EVE + BEV arm and was 25.9 months (95% CI: 21.1, 30.2) in the IFN + BEV arm. Most frequent AEs (%) were stomatitis (63), proteinuria (49), diarrhoea (39), hypertension (38), and epistaxis (35) in EVE + BEV arm and decreased appetite (45), fatigue (41), proteinuria (37), and pyrexia (35) in IFN + BEV arm. Conclusions In RECORD-2, PFS and tolerability were similar for first-line EVE + BEV and IFN + BEV. Final OS analysis will occur after 2-year follow-up. Disclosure A. Ravaud: Alain Ravaud is a member of global, European, and/or French boards on urological tumors for Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer-Schering, and Dendreon, and has received institutional grant support from Pfizer, Novartis, and Roche. O. Anak: Ozlem Anak is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG. D. Pelov: Diana Pelov is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. A. Louveau: Anne-Laure Louveau is an employee of Novartis Pharma S.A.S. T. M-H: Tay M-H is a speaker for an advisory board for Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. B. Melichar: Bohuslav Melichar has received honoraria from Novartis and Roche and served on an advisory board for Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

TPS4682 Background: Lenvatinib (E7080) is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) 1-3, fibroblast growth factor receptor 1-4, RET, KIT and platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta. Lenvatinib has demonstrated acceptable toxicity and antitumor activity in Phase I and II studies (Glen H et al. JCO 2008, 26;15S: 3526;Yamada K et. al. Clin Cancer Res 2011, 17:2528-2537; Sherman S I et al. JCO 2011, 29; 15S: 5503). Improved understanding of the molecular basis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has led to the development of targeted therapies (inhibitors of mTOR and of the VEGF pathway) that have shown clinical benefit in patients with metastatic RCC. However patients develop resistance and ultimately progress during treatment with available single agents. Combination therapy targeting different pathways have the potential to improve efficacy. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase Ib/II study is investigating everolimus (an oral mTOR inhibitor) in combination with lenvatinib in RCC patients with unresectable or metastatic disease (NCT01136733). The study is being conducted in two phases. The phase Ib dose-escalation component will determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination; starting doses are 12 mg/day lenvatinib and 5 mg/day everolimus. A cohort expansion will follow to confirm the MTD and establish a recommended phase II dose (RP2 dose). Approximately 150 patients will be enrolled in phase II and randomized 1:1:1 to receive: lenvatinib and everolimus at the RP2 dose (Arm A); lenvatinib 24 mg/day (Arm B); or everolimus 10 mg/day (Arm C). Patients with clear cell RCC, ECOG performance score

8594 Background: Lenvatinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR1-3, FGFR1-4, RET, KIT and PDGFRβ. In phase I studies of lenvatinib partial responses were observed in melanoma as well as thyroid, endometrial, and renal cancers. Methods: Patients (pts) with stage 4 or unresectable stage 3 melanoma were treated in sequential cohorts of escalating doses of lenvatinib by continuous once daily dosing and temozolomide (TMZ) days 1-5 every 28 days. Cohort 1: lenvatinib 20mg, TMZ 100 mg; cohort 2: lenvatinib 24 mg, TMZ 100 mg; cohort 3: lenvatinib 24 mg, TMZ 150 mg. Adverse events were recorded according to CTCAE v3.0 and tumor response assessed according to RECIST 1.0. Results: 32 pts were treated: cohort 1: 6 pts, cohort 2: 4 pts, cohort 3: 22 pts. Demographics: median age: 58; males: 63%. Dose limiting toxicities occurred in 0/6 pts in cohort 3 leading to cohort expansion to a total of 22 pts to enable more extensive assessment of toxicity and a preliminary estimate of efficacy. The most common treatment related adverse events in the cohort 3 were fatigue: 50% (gr3: 9%), hypertension: 50% (gr3: 9%), proteinuria: 50% (no gr3), vomiting: 46% (no gr3), hypothyroidism: 46% (no gr3), anorexia: 41% (no gr3), nausea: 41% (no gr3), diarrhea: 36% (gr3: 5%), thrombocytopenia: 32% (no gr3). No treatment-related gr4 events were reported in these categories. The best overall responses per RECIST were partial responses: 5/22 (23%) for cohort 3 pts and 6/32 (19%) for all pts treated at all dose levels. Six-month progression free survival (PFS) rate was 37% and median PFS was 5.4 months. PK/PD analysis and correlation of response with genetic mutational status (BRAF mutations in 31% pts; NRAS mutations in 19% pts) will be presented. Conclusions: Lenvatinib 24 mg once daily in combination with TMZ 150 mg days1-5 every 28 days was given without apparent worsening of either lenvatinib or TMZ related toxicities. Modest clinical efficacy for this combination was observed.

8527 Background: E7080 is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR1-3, FGFR1-4, RET, KIT and PDGFRβ. In phase I studies of E7080, DLTs were hypertension and proteinuria and common toxicities included grade 1-2 fatigue, anorexia, nausea, weight loss and diarrhea. MTD for E7080 once daily (QD) is 25 mg and for twice daily (BID) is 20 mg (i.e.10 mg BID). Methods: From 7/2005 to 10/2008, 82 patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors including 14 with advanced melanoma were enrolled into a phase I study of escalating doses of E7080 QD. From 7/2005 to 8/2009, 77 pts with advanced solid tumors including 29 with advanced melanoma were enrolled into a second phase I study of escalating doses of E7080 BID. 25/29 pts receiving E7080 BID underwent pretreatment biopsy for molecular analysis of tumor vascular and melanoma cell components. Those results are reported separately. Clinical outcomes for melanoma pts treated with E7080 in phase I trials are reported. Results: 35/43 pts received E7080 doses of ≥ 20 mg...