Search

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.In the longest follow-up, to our knowledge, for a KRASG12C inhibitor, we assessed the long-term efficacy, safety, and biomarkers of sotorasib in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the CodeBreaK 100 clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03600883). This multicenter, single-group, open-label phase I/phase II trial enrolled 174 patients with KRAS G12C-mutated, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after progression on prior therapies. Patients (N = 174) received sotorasib 960 mg once daily with the primary end points for phase I of safety and tolerability and for phase II of objective response rate (ORR). Sotorasib produced an ORR of 41%, median duration of response of 12.3 months, progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.3 months, overall survival (OS) of 12.5 months, and 2-year OS rate of 33%. Long-term clinical benefit (PFS ≥ 12 months) was observed in 40 (23%) patients across PD-L1 expression levels, in a proportion of patients with somatic STK11 and/or KEAP1 alterations, and was associated with lower baseline circulating tumor DNA levels. Sotorasib was well tolerated, with few late-onset treatment-related toxicities, none of which led to treatment discontinuation. These results demonstrate the long-term benefit of sotorasib, including in subgroups with poor prognosis. ispartof: J Clin Oncol vol:41 issue:18 pages:3311-3317 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Purpose: To evaluate AZD4635, an adenosine A2A receptor antagonist, as monotherapy or in combination with durvalumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods: In phase Ia (dose escalation), patients had relapsed/refractory solid tumors; in phase Ib (dose expansion), patients had checkpoint inhibitor–naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) or colorectal carcinoma, non–small cell lung cancer with prior anti–PD-1/PD-L1 exposure, or other solid tumors (checkpoint-naïve or prior anti–PD-1/PD-L1 exposure). Patients received AZD4635 monotherapy (75–200 mg once daily or 125 mg twice daily) or in combination with durvalumab (AZD4635 75 or 100 mg once daily). The primary objective was safety; secondary objectives included antitumor activity and pharmacokinetics; exploratory objectives included evaluation of an adenosine gene signature in patients with mCRPC. Results: As of September 8, 2020, 250 patients were treated (AZD4635, n = 161; AZD4635+durvalumab, n = 89). In phase Ia, DLTs were observed with monotherapy (125 mg twice daily; n = 2) and with combination treatment (75 mg; n = 1) in patients receiving nanosuspension. The most common treatment-related adverse events included nausea, fatigue, vomiting, decreased appetite, dizziness, and diarrhea. The RP2D of the AZD4635 capsule formulation was 75 mg once daily, as monotherapy or in combination with durvalumab. The pharmacokinetic profile was dose-proportional, and exposure was adequate to cover target with 100 mg nanosuspension or 75 mg capsule once daily. In patients with mCRPC receiving monotherapy or combination treatment, tumor responses (2/39 and 6/37, respectively) and prostate-specific antigen responses (3/60 and 10/45, respectively) were observed. High versus low blood-based adenosine signature was associated with median progression-free survival of 21 weeks versus 8.7 weeks. Conclusions: AZD4635 monotherapy or combination therapy was well tolerated. Objective responses support additional phase II combination studies in patients with mCRPC.

Adavosertib selectively inhibits Wee1, which regulates intra-S and G2/M cell-cycle checkpoints. This study investigated dosing schedules for adavosertib monotherapy, determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) in patients with advanced solid tumors.Patients received oral adavosertib qd or bid on a 5/9 schedule (5 days on treatment, 9 days off) in 14-day cycles, or qd on one of two 5/2 schedules (weekly, or for 2 of 3 weeks) in 21-day cycles. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic analyses were performed.Sixty-two patients (female, 64.5%; median age, 61.5 years; most common primary tumors: lung [24.2%], ovary [21.0%]) received treatment (qd schedules, n = 50; bid schedules, n = 12) for 1.8 months (median). Median time to maximum adavosertib concentration was 2.2–4.1 h; mean half-life was 5–12 h. Adverse events (AEs) caused dose reductions, interruptions and discontinuations in 17 (27.4%), 25 (40.3%) and 4 (6.5%) patients, respectively. Most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were anemia, neutropenia (each n = 9, 14.5%) and diarrhea (n = 8, 12.9%). Seven (11.3%) patients experienced 10 treatment-related serious AEs (pneumonia n = 2 [3.2%], dehydration n = 2 [3.2%], anemia n = 1 [1.6%], febrile neutropenia n = 1 [1.6%], and thrombocytopenia n = 1 [1.6%]). Overall objective response rate was 3.4% (2/58); disease control rate was 48.4% (30/62); median progression-free survival was 2.7 months.MTDs were 125 mg (bid 5/9) and 300 mg (qd 5/9 and 5/2 for 2 of 3 weeks); RP2D was 300 mg (qd 5/2 for 2 of 3 weeks). The safety profile was manageable, acceptable, and generally concordant with the known safety profile.

Surufatinib, is a potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1–3; fibroblast growth factor receptor-1; colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor. This Phase 1/1b escalation/expansion study in US patients with solid tumors evaluated 5 once daily (QD) surufatinib doses (3 + 3 design) to identify maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D), and evaluate safety and efficacy at the RP2D in 4 disease-specific expansion cohorts including pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [pNET] and extrapancreatic NETs [epNET]. MTD and RP2D were 300 mg QD (escalation [n = 35]); 5 patients (15.6%) (Dose Limiting Toxicity [DLT] Evaluable Set [n = 32]) had DLTs. Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional. Estimated progression-free survival (PFS) rates at 11 months were 57.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.7, 78.2) and 51.1% (95% CI: 12.8, 80.3) for pNET and epNET expansion cohorts, respectively. Median PFS was 15.2 (95% CI: 5.2, not evaluable) and 11.5 (95% CI: 6.5,11.5) months. Response rates were 18.8% and 6.3%. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (both cohorts) were fatigue (46.9%), hypertension (43.8%), proteinuria (37.5%), diarrhea (34.4%). Pharmacokinetics, safety, and antitumor efficacy of 300 mg QD oral surufatinib in US patients with pNETs and epNETs are consistent with previously reported studies in China and may support applicability of earlier surufatinib studies in US patients. Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02549937.

PDF file - 66K, Target-matched therapy in patients with pik3ca mutations (n=17).

Cell-free (cf) DNA from plasma offers an easily obtainable material for BRAF mutation analysis for diagnostics and response monitoring. In this study, plasma-derived cfDNA samples from patients with progressing advanced cancers or malignant histiocytosis with known BRAFV600 status from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumors were tested using a prototype version of the Idylla BRAF Mutation Test, a fully integrated real-time PCR-based test with turnaround time about 90 minutes. Of 160 patients, BRAFV600 mutations were detected in 62 (39%) archival FFPE tumor samples and 47 (29%) plasma cfDNA samples. The two methods had overall agreement in 141 patients [88%; κ, 0.74; SE, 0.06; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63–0.85]. Idylla had a sensitivity of 73% (95% CI, 0.60–0.83) and specificity of 98% (95% CI, 0.93–1.00). A higher percentage, but not concentration, of BRAFV600 cfDNA in the wild-type background (>2% vs. ≤ 2%) was associated with shorter overall survival (OS; P = 0.005) and in patients with BRAF mutations in the tissue, who were receiving BRAF/MEK inhibitors, shorter time to treatment failure (TTF; P = 0.001). Longitudinal monitoring demonstrated that decreasing levels of BRAFV600 cfDNA were associated with longer TTF (P = 0.045). In conclusion, testing for BRAFV600 mutations in plasma cfDNA using the Idylla BRAF Mutation Test has acceptable concordance with standard testing of tumor tissue. A higher percentage of mutant BRAFV600 in cfDNA corresponded with shorter OS and in patients receiving BRAF/MEK inhibitors also with shorter TTF. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(6); 1397–404. ©2016 AACR.

Supplementary Figures 1-2 from PIK3CA Mutations in Patients with Advanced Cancers Treated with PI3K/AKT/mTOR Axis Inhibitors

Supplementary Table 1. Emergence of BRAF mutations in cfDNA; Supplementary Table 2. Patients with BRAF V600K mutations in FFPE tumor and plasma cfDNA samples; Supplementary Table 3. Experimental therapies in 34 patients with longitudinal collection of plasma cfDNA; Supplementary Figure 1. A. Among the 160 patients whose cfDNA samples were tested for BRAF mutations, the median overall survival duration of the 113 patients with a BRAF-mutant cfDNA percentage of 0% (10.0 months, 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2-12.8 months; blue) was longer than that of the 47 patients with a BRAF-mutant cfDNA percentage of >0% (7.0 months, 95% CI, 2.5-11.5 months; red), but this difference was not significant (P=0.09). B. Among these same 160 patients, the median overall survival duration of the 126 patients with a BRAF-mutant cfDNA percentage of 2% (4.4 months, 95% CI, 3.2-5.6 months; red), but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.05). D. Among the 62 patients whose formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples had BRAF mutations, the median overall survival duration of the 37 patients with a BRAF-mutant cfDNA percentage of less than or equal to 2% (14.6 months, 95% CI, 9.4-19.8 months; blue) was significantly longer than that of 25 patients with a BRAF-mutant cfDNA percentage of >2% (4.5 months, 95% CI, 3.0-6.0 months; P=0.001). Supplementary Figure 2. A. The median amount of cfDNA in plasma of the 160 patients whose cfDNA was tested for BRAF mutations was 60 ng/ml. The median overall survival duration of the 81 patients with a cfDNA amount in plasma less than or equal to 60 ng/ml (8.9 months, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-13.0 months; blue)was similar to that of the 79 patients with a cfDNA amount in plasma >60 ng/ml (8.7 months, 95% CI, 5.2-12.2 months; red; P=0.91). B. The median cfDNA concentration of these same 160 patients was 4.6 ng/μl. The median overall survival duration of the 82 patients with a cfDNA concentration

Target-matched treatment with PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors in patients with diverse advanced cancers with PIK3CA mutations have shown promise. Tumors from patients with colorectal cancer were analyzed for PIK3CA, KRAS, and BRAF mutations. PIK3CA-mutated tumors were treated, whenever feasible, with agents targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. Of 194 patients analyzed, 31 (16%) had PIK3CA mutations and 189 (97%) were assessed for KRAS mutations. Patients with PIK3CA mutations had a higher prevalence of simultaneous KRAS mutations than patients with wild-type PIK3CA (71%, 22/31 vs. 43%, 68/158; P = 0.006). Of 31 patients with PIK3CA mutations, 17 (55%) were treated with protocols containing PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors [median age, 57 years; median number of prior therapies, 4; mTORC1 inhibitors (11), phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors (5), or an AKT inhibitor (1)]. None (0/17) had a partial or complete response (PR/CR) and only 1 [6%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.01–0.27] had stable disease 6 months or more, which was not significantly different from a stable disease ≥6 month/PR/CR rate of 16% (11/67; 95% CI, 0.09–0.27) in patients with colorectal cancer without PIK3CA mutations treated with PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors (P = 0.44). Median progression-free survival was 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.5–2.3). In conclusion, our data provide preliminary evidence that in heavily pretreated patients with PIK3CA-mutant advanced colorectal cancer, protocols incorporating PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors have minimal activity. PIK3CA mutations are associated with simultaneous KRAS mutations, possibly accounting for therapeutic resistance. Mol Cancer Ther; 12(12); 2857–63. ©2013 AACR.

Tumor types in the study

Preclinical data suggest that PIK3CA mutations predict response to PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors. Concomitant KRAS or BRAF mutations may mediate resistance. Therefore, tumors from patients referred to the phase I program for targeted therapy starting in October 2008 were analyzed for PIK3CA mutations using PCR-based DNA sequencing of exons 9 and 20. Consecutive patients with diverse tumor types and PIK3CA mutation were treated whenever possible with agents targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. Overall, PIK3CA mutations were detected in 25 of 217 patients (11.5%; exon 9, n = 11; exon 20, n = 14). In tumor types with more than 10 patients tested, PIK3CA mutations were most frequent in endometrial (3 of 14, 21%), ovarian (5 of 30, 17%), colorectal (9 of 54, 17%), breast (2 of 14, 14%), cervical (2 of 15, 13%), and squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (1 of 11, 9%). Of the 25 patients with PIK3CA mutations, 17 (68%) were treated on a protocol that included a PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitor, and 6 (35%) achieved a partial response. In contrast, only 15 of 241 patients (6%) without documented PIK3CA mutations treated on the same protocols responded (P = 0.001). Of the 17 patients with PIK3CA mutations, 6 (35%) had simultaneous KRAS or BRAF mutations (colorectal, n = 4; ovarian, n = 2). Colorectal cancer patients with PIK3CA and KRAS mutations did not respond to therapy, whereas both ovarian cancer patients with PIK3CA and KRAS or BRAF mutations did. In conclusion, PIK3CA mutations were detected in 11.5% of patients with diverse solid tumors. The response rate was significantly higher for patients with PIK3CA mutations treated with PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors than for those without documented mutations. Mol Cancer Ther; 10(3); 558–65. ©2011 AACR.

Supplementary Table from Phase Ia/b, Open-Label, Multicenter Study of AZD4635 (an Adenosine A2A Receptor Antagonist) as Monotherapy or Combined with Durvalumab, in Patients with Solid Tumors

Purpose:To evaluate AZD4635, an adenosine A2A receptor antagonist, as monotherapy or in combination with durvalumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.Patients and Methods:In phase Ia (dose escalation), patients had relapsed/refractory solid tumors; in phase Ib (dose expansion), patients had checkpoint inhibitor–naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) or colorectal carcinoma, non–small cell lung cancer with prior anti–PD-1/PD-L1 exposure, or other solid tumors (checkpoint-naïve or prior anti–PD-1/PD-L1 exposure). Patients received AZD4635 monotherapy (75–200 mg once daily or 125 mg twice daily) or in combination with durvalumab (AZD4635 75 or 100 mg once daily). The primary objective was safety; secondary objectives included antitumor activity and pharmacokinetics; exploratory objectives included evaluation of an adenosine gene signature in patients with mCRPC.Results:As of September 8, 2020, 250 patients were treated (AZD4635, n = 161; AZD4635+durvalumab, n = 89). In phase Ia, DLTs were observed with monotherapy (125 mg twice daily; n = 2) and with combination treatment (75 mg; n = 1) in patients receiving nanosuspension. The most common treatment-related adverse events included nausea, fatigue, vomiting, decreased appetite, dizziness, and diarrhea. The RP2D of the AZD4635 capsule formulation was 75 mg once daily, as monotherapy or in combination with durvalumab. The pharmacokinetic profile was dose-proportional, and exposure was adequate to cover target with 100 mg nanosuspension or 75 mg capsule once daily. In patients with mCRPC receiving monotherapy or combination treatment, tumor responses (2/39 and 6/37, respectively) and prostate-specific antigen responses (3/60 and 10/45, respectively) were observed. High versus low blood-based adenosine signature was associated with median progression-free survival of 21 weeks versus 8.7 weeks.Conclusions:AZD4635 monotherapy or combination therapy was well tolerated. Objective responses support additional phase II combination studies in patients with mCRPC.

Supplementary Figure from Phase Ia/b, Open-Label, Multicenter Study of AZD4635 (an Adenosine A2A Receptor Antagonist) as Monotherapy or Combined with Durvalumab, in Patients with Solid Tumors

Innovative molecular diagnostics deployed in the clinic enable new ways to stratify patients into appropriate treatment regimens. These approaches may resolve a major challenge for early-phase clinical trials, which is to recruit patients who, while having failed previous treatments, may nevertheless respond to molecularly targeted drugs. We report the findings of a prospective, single-center study conducted in patients with diverse refractory cancers who underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP; next-generation sequencing, 236 genes). Of the 500 patients enrolled, 188 (37.6%) received either matched (N = 122/188, 65%) or unmatched therapy (N = 66/188, 35%). The most common reasons that patients were not evaluable for treatment included insufficient tissue, death, or hospice transfer. The median number of molecular alterations per patient was five (range, 1–14); median number of prior therapies, four. The most common diagnoses were ovarian cancer (18%), breast cancer (16%), sarcoma (13%), and renal cancer (7%). Of the 339 successfully profiled patients, 317 (93.5%) had at least one potentially actionable alteration. By calculating matching scores, based on the number of drug matches and genomic aberrations per patient, we found that high scores were independently associated with a greater frequency of stable disease ≥6 months/partial/complete remission [22% (high scores) vs. 9% (low scores), P = 0.024], longer time-to-treatment failure [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.36–0.74; P = 0.0003], and survival (HR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.43–1.0; P = 0.05). Collectively, this study offers a clinical proof of concept for the utility of CGP in assigning therapy to patients with refractory malignancies, especially in those patients with multiple genomic aberrations for whom combination therapies could be implemented. Cancer Res; 76(13); 3690–701. ©2016 AACR.

Supplementary Table 1 - PDF file 54K, Patient description with tumor PTEN status available

Suppementary Table 4 - PDF file 38K, Correlation analysis of selected genes from aCGH data

PDF file, 113K, Supplemental Table 1. List of clinical trials by ID number; Supplemental Table 2. Distribution of Molecular Aberrations by Diagnosis; Supplemental Table 3. Distribution of Molecular Aberrations by Diagnosis; Supplemental Table 4. Patient characteristics: tumor types by type of therapy; Supplemental Table 5 Response in patients with a RET mutation and in patients with a mutation other than RET by type of therapy (non-randomized).

Supplementary Data from First-in-Human Phase I/II ICONIC Trial of the ICOS Agonist Vopratelimab Alone and with Nivolumab: ICOS-High CD4 T-Cell Populations and Predictors of Response

Comparison of TTF1 between groups

Clinical Study Protocol: A Phase I Trial of Sirolimus or Everolimus or Temsirolimus (mTOR inhibitor) and Vorinostat (Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor) in Patients with Advanced Cancer

Combination of all supplementary materials

Representative images of selected patients with therapy response.

In patients treated with vorinostat and sirolimus, there was a trend towards a longer median progression-free survival in patients with ECOG performance status 0 compared to ECOG 1 or 2 (not reached vs. 4.6 months, 95% CI 1.5-7.7; P = 0.06).

Supplementary Table 2 - PDF file 42K, Correlation of PTEN immunohistochemistry and PTEN mutation/copy number status

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to confirm our previous results that targeted agents matched with tumor molecular alterations were associated with improved outcomes compared with nonmatched therapy in patients with advanced cancer.Experimental Design: Outcomes of patients who were referred for treatment on phase I clinical trials at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX) from March 2011 to January 2012 were compared between those who had received targeted therapy and those for whom no targeted therapy was available. Two-month landmark analyses for overall and progression-free survival (PFS) combining previously published and validation cohort patient data were performed.Results: In patients with one alteration, matched therapy (n = 143) compared with treatment without matching (n = 236) was associated with a higher objective response rate (12% vs. 5%; P < 0.0001), longer PFS (median, 3.9 vs. 2.2 months; P = 0.001), and longer survival (median, 11.4 vs. 8.6 months; P = 0.04). In multivariate analysis, matched therapy was an independent factor predicting response (P < 0.015) and PFS (P < 0.004). Two-month landmark analyses in the matched therapy group demonstrated that the median survival of responders was 30.5 months compared with 11.3 months for nonresponders (P = 0.01); and the median PFS was 38.7 months compared with 5.9 months, respectively (P < 0.0001). The respective values in the nonmatched therapy group were 9.8 and 9.4 months (P = 0.46) and 8.5 and 4.2 months (P = 0.18).Conclusion: This validation analysis confirms our previous observations. In the matched therapy group, 2-month landmark analyses demonstrated that responders have longer survival and PFS than nonresponders. Clin Cancer Res; 20(18); 4827–36. ©2014 AACR.

PDF file, 84KB.

Purpose:The first-in-human phase I/II ICONIC trial evaluated an investigational inducible costimulator (ICOS) agonist, vopratelimab, alone and in combination with nivolumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.Patients and Methods:In phase I, patients were treated with escalating doses of intravenous vopratelimab alone or with nivolumab. Primary objectives were safety, tolerability, MTD, and recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Phase II enriched for ICOS-positive (ICOS+) tumors; patients were treated with vopratelimab at the monotherapy RP2D alone or with nivolumab. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and predictive biomarkers of response to vopratelimab were assessed.Results:ICONIC enrolled 201 patients. Vopratelimab alone and with nivolumab was well tolerated; phase I established 0.3 mg/kg every 3 weeks as the vopratelimab RP2D. Vopratelimab resulted in modest objective response rates of 1.4% and with nivolumab of 2.3%. The prospective selection for ICOS+ tumors did not enrich for responses. A vopratelimab-specific peripheral blood pharmacodynamic biomarker, ICOS-high (ICOS-hi) CD4 T cells, was identified in a subset of patients who demonstrated greater clinical benefit versus those with no emergence of these cells [overall survival (OS), P = 0.0025]. A potential genomic predictive biomarker of ICOS-hi CD4 T-cell emergence was identified that demonstrated improvement in clinical outcomes, including OS (P = 0.0062).Conclusions:Vopratelimab demonstrated a favorable safety profile alone and in combination with nivolumab. Efficacy was observed only in a subset of patients with a vopratelimab-specific pharmacodynamic biomarker. A potential predictive biomarker of response was identified, which is being prospectively evaluated in a randomized phase II non–small cell lung cancer trial.See related commentary by Lee and Fong, p. 3633

PDF file, 70KB, Platelet P-AKT Inhibition.

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: We initiated a personalized medicine program in the context of early clinical trials, using targeted agents matched with tumor molecular aberrations. Herein, we report our observations.Patient and Methods: Patients with advanced cancer were treated in the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy. Molecular analysis was conducted in the MD Anderson Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–certified laboratory. Patients whose tumors had an aberration were treated with matched targeted therapy, when available. Treatment assignment was not randomized. The clinical outcomes of patients with molecular aberrations treated with matched targeted therapy were compared with those of consecutive patients who were not treated with matched targeted therapy.Results: Of 1,144 patients analyzed, 460 (40.2%) had 1 or more aberration. In patients with 1 molecular aberration, matched therapy (n = 175) compared with treatment without matching (n = 116) was associated with a higher overall response rate (27% vs. 5%; P < 0.0001), longer time-to-treatment failure (TTF; median, 5.2 vs. 2.2 months; P < 0.0001), and longer survival (median, 13.4 vs. 9.0 months; P = 0.017). Matched targeted therapy was associated with longer TTF compared with their prior systemic therapy in patients with 1 mutation (5.2 vs. 3.1 months, respectively; P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis in patients with 1 molecular aberration, matched therapy was an independent factor predicting response (P = 0.001) and TTF (P = 0.0001).Conclusion: Keeping in mind that the study was not randomized and patients had diverse tumor types and a median of 5 prior therapies, our results suggest that identifying specific molecular abnormalities and choosing therapy based on these abnormalities is relevant in phase I clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res; 18(22); 6373–83. ©2012 AACR.

PDF file, 36KB.

Purpose:Tepotinib is an oral, potent, highly selective MET inhibitor. This first-in-man phase I trial investigated the MTD of tepotinib to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D).Patients and Methods:Patients received tepotinib orally according to one of three dose escalation regimens (R) on a 21-day cycle: R1, 30–400 mg once daily for 14 days; R2, 30–315 mg once daily 3 times/week; or R3, 300–1,400 mg once daily. After two cycles, treatment could continue in patients with stable disease until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE). Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor effects.Results:One hundred and forty-nine patients received tepotinib (R1: n = 42; R2: n = 45; R3: n = 62). Although six patients reported DLTs [one patient in R1 (115 mg), three patients in R2 (60, 100, 130 mg), two patients in R3 (1,000, 1,400 mg)], the MTD was not reached at the highest tested dose of 1,400 mg daily. The RP2D of tepotinib was established as 500 mg once daily, supported by translational modeling data as sufficient to achieve ≥95% MET inhibition in ≥90% of patients. Treatment-related TEAEs were mostly grade 1 or 2 fatigue, peripheral edema, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, and lipase increase. The best overall response in R3 was partial response in two patients, both with MET overexpression.Conclusions:Tepotinib was well tolerated with clinical activity in MET-dysregulated tumors. The RP2D of tepotinib was established as 500 mg once daily. MET abnormalities can drive tumorigenesis. This first-in-man trial demonstrated that the potent, highly selective MET inhibitor tepotinib can reduce or stabilize tumor burden and is well tolerated at doses up to 1,400 mg once daily. An RP2D of 500 mg once daily, as determined from translational modeling and simulation integrating human population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data in tumor biopsies, is being used in ongoing clinical trials.

Purpose:This first-in-human study assessed the safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), antitumor activity, and pharmacokinetics of cemiplimab, a monoclonal anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1), as monotherapy and in combination with hypofractionated radiotherapy (hfRT) and/or cyclophosphamide (CPA) in patients with advanced solid tumors.Patients and Methods:Patients were enrolled in 1 of 10 dose escalation cohorts and received cemiplimab 1, 3, or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks intravenously for up to 48 weeks. Depending on the cohort, patients received hfRT and/or low-dose (200 mg/m2) CPA. Safety was evaluated. Antitumor activity was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.Results:Sixty patients were enrolled. The median duration of follow-up was 19.3 weeks (range, 2.3–84.3). There were no DLTs. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade were fatigue (45.0%), nausea (36.7%), and vomiting (25.0%). The most common immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade were arthralgia (10.0%), hypothyroidism (8.3%), and maculopapular rash (8.3%). Cemiplimab pharmacokinetic parameters increased in a close to dose-proportional manner and were similar regardless of combination therapy regimen. Two patients (one with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and one with cervical cancer) experienced a complete response; 7 had a partial response. Observed duration of response was ≥12 months in 6 patients.Conclusions:The safety profile of cemiplimab was comparable with other anti–PD-1 agents. Addition of hfRT and/or CPA did not appear to increase grade ≥3 irAEs, suggesting that cemiplimab can be safely administered with hfRT and/or CPA. Cemiplimab exhibited encouraging antitumor activity with 2 complete responses and 7 partial responses observed; responses were also durable.

Table S1 - Histologies and tumor grade by site according to MET amplification status. Table S2- Type of BRAF mutations by tumor site. Table S3 - List of phase I trials included as best trials for MET amplified patients.

Purpose: Dabrafenib is a selective, potent ATP-competitive inhibitor of the BRAFV600-mutant kinase that has demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials. We report the rationale for dose selection in the first-in-human study of dabrafenib, including pharmacokinetics, tissue pharmacodynamics, 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) pharmacodynamics, and dose–response relationship.Experimental Design: Dabrafenib was administered orally once, twice (BID), or three times daily (TID). Selected dose cohorts were expanded to collect adequate data on safety, pharmacokinetics, or pharmacodynamics. A recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was chosen based on safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and response data.Results: One hundred and eighty-four patients were enrolled and treated with doses ranging from 12 mg once daily to 300 mg BID in 10 cohorts. Pharmacokinetic assessment of dabrafenib demonstrated a less-than-dose-proportional increase in exposure after repeat dosing above 150 mg BID. Similar to parent drug concentrations, exposure for all metabolites demonstrated less-than-dose-proportional increases. Predicted target inhibition of pERK (>80%) was achieved at 150 mg BID, with a similar magnitude of inhibition at higher doses in BRAFV600 mutation melanoma biopsy samples. Although there was large variability between patients, FDG uptake decreased with higher daily doses in patients with BRAFV600 mutation–positive melanoma. A favorable activity and tolerability profile was demonstrated at 150 mg BID. There was no improvement with TID dosing compared with BID dosing, based on FDG-PET and tumor response analyses in patients with melanoma.Conclusion: The RP2D of dabrafenib was determined to be 150 mg BID after considering multiple factors, including pharmacokinetics, tissue pharmacodynamics, FDG-PET pharmacodynamics, and the dose–response relationship. A maximum tolerated dose for dabrafenib was not determined. Clin Cancer Res; 20(17); 4449–58. ©2014 AACR.

Protocol: Data Analysis of Patients Treated Off-protocol

Purpose: Dabrafenib is a selective inhibitor of V600-mutant BRAF kinase, which recently showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with dacarbazine, in metastatic melanoma patients. This study examined potential genetic markers associated with response and PFS in the phase I study of dabrafenib.Experimental Design: Baseline (pretreatment or archival) melanoma samples were evaluated in 41 patients using a custom genotyping melanoma-specific assay, sequencing of PTEN, and copy number analysis using multiplex ligation amplification and array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Nine patients had on-treatment and/or progression samples available.Results: All baseline patient samples had BRAFV600E/K confirmed. Baseline PTEN loss/mutation was not associated with best overall response to dabrafenib, but it showed a trend for shorter median PFS [18.3 (95% confidence interval, CI, 9.1–24.3) vs. 32.1 weeks (95% CI, 24.1–33), P = 0.059]. Higher copy number of CCND1 (P = 0.009) and lower copy number of CDKN2A (P = 0.012) at baseline were significantly associated with decreased PFS. Although no melanomas had high-level amplification of BRAF, the two patients with progressive disease as their best response had BRAF copy gain in their tumors.Conclusions: Copy number changes in CDKN2A, CCND1, and mutation/copy number changes in PTEN correlated with the duration of PFS in patients treated with dabrafenib. The results suggest that these markers should be considered in the design and interpretation of future trials with selective BRAF inhibitors in advanced melanoma patients. Clin Cancer Res; 19(17); 4868–78. ©2013 AACR.

PDF file, 54KB, Mutational Status for Arm 1.

Supplementary Figure 2 - PDF file 252K, Copy number in baseline samples comparing patients with V600E vs. V600K mutations