Search

Purpose: Personalized vaccines targeting multiple neoantigens (nAgs) are a promising strategy for eliciting a diversified antitumor T-cell response to overcome tumor heterogeneity. NOUS-PEV is a vector-based personalized vaccine, expressing 60 nAgs and consists of priming with a nonhuman Great Ape Adenoviral vector (GAd20) followed by boosts with Modified Vaccinia Ankara. Here, we report data of a phase Ib trial of NOUS-PEV in combination with pembrolizumab in treatment-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma (NCT04990479)., Patients and Methods: The feasibility of this approach was demonstrated by producing, releasing, and administering to 6 patients 11 of 12 vaccines within 8 weeks from biopsy collection to GAd20 administration., Results: The regimen was safe, with no treatment-related serious adverse events observed and mild vaccine-related reactions. Vaccine immunogenicity was demonstrated in all evaluable patients receiving the prime/boost regimen, with detection of robust neoantigen-specific immune responses to multiple neoantigens comprising both CD4 and CD8 T cells. Expansion and diversification of vaccine-induced T-cell receptor (TCR) clonotypes was observed in the posttreatment biopsies of patients with clinical response, providing evidence of tumor infiltration by vaccine-induced neoantigen-specific T cells., Conclusions: These findings indicate the ability of NOUS-PEV to amplify and broaden the repertoire of tumor-reactive T cells to empower a diverse, potent, and durable antitumor immune response. Finally, a gene signature indicative of the reduced presence of activated T cells together with very poor expression of the antigen-processing machinery genes has been identified in pretreatment biopsies as a potential biomarker of resistance to the treatment., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: The arginase inhibitor INCB001158 was evaluated for safety (primary endpoint) in locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours; pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and efficacy were also assessed., Methods and Analysis: In this non-randomised, open-label, three-part phase 1 study, INCB001158 was orally administered two times per day as monotherapy or in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. Dose expansion was conducted in tumour-type cohorts (with or without prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 (programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1) therapy)., Results: A total of 107 patients received INCB001158 50-150 mg two times per day as monotherapy, and 153 patients, including 6 with moderate renal impairment, received INCB001158 50-100 mg two times per day combined with pembrolizumab. INCB001158 exposure was similar between groups (median, 56 days (monotherapy); 84 days (combination)). 49 patients (45.8%) on monotherapy and 76 (51.7%) on combination therapy experienced grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). The most common INCB001158-related AEs were fatigue (n=10/107 (9.3%)) and nausea (n=10/107 (9.3%)) with monotherapy and diarrhoea (n=24/147 (16.3%)) and fatigue (n=22/147 (15.0%)) with combination therapy. The highest response rate was seen in the anti-PD-1/PD-L1-naive combination therapy group with head/neck squamous cell carcinoma (overall response rate, 19.2%; 4/26 partial responses, 1/26 complete response). Consistent with arginase inhibition activity, plasma arginine dose-dependently increased. Arginase 1 expression in the tumour microenvironment did not correlate with response., Conclusions: INCB001158 was generally well tolerated. Response rates did not exceed background for given tumour types despite demonstrable pharmacodynamic activity. Overall, the limited antitumour activity of arginase inhibition observed suggests that the role of arginine depletion in cancer is multifaceted., Trial Registration Number: NCT02903914., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AN serves on advisory boards or receives consulting fees from CTI, Deka Biosciences, Janssen Biotech, NGM Bio, PsiOxus Therapeutics, Immune-Onc Therapeutics, STCube Pharmaceuticals, OncoSec KEYNOTE-695, Genome & Company, CytomX Therapeutics, Nouscom, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, Servier, Lynx Health, AbbVie, PsiOxus; receives research funding from NCI, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Healios Onc. Nutrition, Atterocor/Millendo, Amplimmune, ARMO BioSciences, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Novartis, Regeneron, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, CytomX Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, TopAlliance Biosciences, Eli Lilly, Kymab, PsiOxus, Arcus Biosciences, NeoImmuneTech, Immune-Onc Therapeutics, Surface Oncology, Monopteros Therapeutics, BioNTech SE, Seven & Eight Biopharma and SOTIO Biotech AG; receives travel and accommodation expenses from ARMO BioSciences, NeoImmuneTech, NGM Biopharmaceuticals; receives honoraria for speaking engagements from AKH Inc, The Lynx Group, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO), Scripps Cancer Care Symposium, ASCO Direct Oncology Highlights, European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), CME Outfitters; has a spouse with research funding, consultant/advisory board, or ad hoc consultancy speaker disclosures from: The Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center, Jeffery Modell Foundation, Immune Deficiency Foundation, Baxalta US Inc, Chao Physician-Scientist Foundation; Takeda, Pharming Healthcare Inc and Horizon Therapeutics USA, Inc.; Alfaisal University. MJP serves on ad hoc advisory boards for Astra Zeneca, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Ideaya, Seattle Genetics, Merus; and serves on steering committees for Astellas, Trisalus, Pionyr; has ownership or stock in Perthera, Tumor Board Tuesdays, TRICC; and has institutional funding from Seattle Genetics, Tesaro, Arcus Bio, Ideaya, Repare Tx, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Tizonia, Biomed Valley Discovories, Amgen, RenovoRx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hutchinson Medipharma, Takeda, Exelexis, Caris, Incyte, Ipsen, Natera, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Foundation Medicine, Taiho. GJH receives institutional research support from Actuate, Bicara, BMS, Exicure, Gateway for Cancer Research, Genentech, GSK, ImmunityBio, KSQ, Kura Oncology, Regeneron, Repertoire, Sanofi Genzyme and Secura Bio; serves in a consulting/advisory role for Bicara, Boxer Capital, BMS, Coherus, Exicure, KSQ, Kura Oncology, Merck, Naveris, Nextech, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme and SIRPant. SG, HK, LC, MS and XC are employees and shareholders of Incyte Corporation. KPP, OR, EG, EK and TB have no disclosures to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The hedgehog pathway inhibitor sonidegib demonstrated meaningful tumor shrinkage in more than 90% of patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or metastatic BCC in the BCC Outcomes with LDE225 Treatment study., Objective: This report provides long-term follow-up data collected up to 12 months after the last patient was randomized., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase II study, patients were randomized 1:2 to sonidegib 200 or 800 mg. The primary end point was objective response rate assessed by central review., Results: Objective response rates in the 200- and 800-mg arms were 57.6% and 43.8% in locally advanced BCC and 7.7% and 17.4% in metastatic BCC, respectively. Among the 94 patients with locally advanced BCC who responded, only 18 progressed or died and more than 50% had responses lasting longer than 6 months. In addition, 4 of 5 responders with metastatic BCC maintained an objective response. Grade 3/4 adverse events and those leading to discontinuation were less frequent with sonidegib 200 versus 800 mg (38.0% vs 59.3%; 27.8% vs 37.3%, respectively)., Limitations: No placebo or comparator arms were used because sonidegib demonstrated efficacy in advanced BCC in a phase I study, and the hedgehog pathway inhibitor vismodegib was not yet approved., Conclusion: With longer follow-up, sonidegib demonstrated sustained tumor responses in patients with advanced BCC., (Copyright © 2016 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Cross-talk between type I IGF receptor (IGF1R), insulin receptor (INSR), and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mediates resistance to individual receptor blockade. This study aimed to determine the MTD, safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary antitumor activity of linsitinib, a potent oral IGF1R/INSR inhibitor, with EGFR inhibitor erlotinib., Experimental Design: This open-label, dose-escalation study investigated linsitinib schedules S1: once daily intermittent (days 1-3 weekly); S2, once daily continuous; S3, twice-daily continuous; each with erlotinib 100-150 mg once daily; and a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) expansion cohort., Results: Ninety-five patients were enrolled (S1, 44; S2, 24; S3, 12; expansion cohort, 15) and 91 treated. Seven experienced dose-limiting toxicities: QTc prolongation (3), abnormal liver function (2), hyperglycemia (1), and anorexia (1). Common adverse events included drug eruption (84%), diarrhea (73%), fatigue (68%), nausea (58%), vomiting (40%). MTDs for linsitinib/erlotinib were 450/150 mg (S1), 400/100 mg (S2). On the basis of prior monotherapy data, S3 dosing at 150 mg twice daily/150 mg once daily was the recommended phase II dose for the expansion cohort. There was no evidence of drug-drug interaction. Pharmacodynamic data showed IGF-1 elevation and reduced IGF1R/INSR phosphorylation, suggesting pathway inhibition. Across schedules, 5/75 (7%) evaluable patients experienced partial responses: spinal chordoma (268+ weeks), rectal cancer (36 weeks), three NSCLCs including 2 adenocarcinomas (16, 72 weeks), 1 squamous wild-type EGFR NSCLC (36 weeks). Disease control (CR+PR+SD) occurred in 38 of 75 (51%), and 28 of 91 (31%) patients were on study >12 weeks., Conclusions: The linsitinib/erlotinib combination was tolerable with preliminary evidence of activity, including durable responses in cases unlikely to respond to erlotinib monotherapy. Clin Cancer Res; 22(12); 2897-907. ©2016 AACR., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Sonidegib (Odomzo) selectively inhibits smoothened and suppresses the growth of hedgehog pathway-dependent tumors. A population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis of sonidegib in healthy subjects and patients with advanced solid tumors was conducted to characterize PK, determine variability, and estimate covariate effects., Methods: PK data from five phase 1 or 2 studies (N = 436) in the dose range from 100 to 3000 mg were analyzed using NONMEM. A two-compartment base model with first-order absorption, lag time, linear elimination, and bioavailability that decreased with dose was updated to describe the PK of sonidegib. Covariate analyses were performed and were incorporated into the population PK full model., Results: The base and full models were robust with a good fit to the study data. Population-predicted geometric means (inter-individual variability, CV%) of apparent oral clearance, apparent volume of distribution at steady state, accumulation ratio, and elimination half-life were 9.5 L/h (71.4 %), 9163 L (74.9 %), 21 (131 %) and 29.6 days (109 %). Clinically relevant covariate effects were: A high-fat meal increased sonidegib bioavailability fivefold, healthy volunteers had threefold higher clearance, sonidegib bioavailability decreased with increasing dose levels, and PPI coadministration reduced sonidegib bioavailability by 30 %. Sonidegib PK was not significantly impacted by baseline age, weight, total bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase, albumin, creatinine clearance, gender, and ethnicity (Western countries versus Japanese)., Conclusion: No dose adjustment is needed for mild hepatic impairment, mild and moderate renal impairment, age, weight, gender, or ethnicity. This population PK model adequately characterizes sonidegib PK characteristics and can be used for various simulations and applications.

Background: Patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma have limited treatment options. Hedgehog pathway signalling is aberrantly activated in around 95% of tumours. We assessed the antitumour activity of sonidegib, a Hedgehog signalling inhibitor, in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma., Methods: BOLT is an ongoing multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial. Eligible patients had locally advanced basal cell carcinoma not amenable to curative surgery or radiation or metastatic basal cell carcinoma. Patients were randomised via an automated system in a 1:2 ratio to receive 200 mg or 800 mg oral sonidegib daily, stratified by disease, histological subtype, and geographical region. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, assessed in the primary efficacy analysis population (patients with fully assessable locally advanced disease and all those with metastatic disease) with data collected up to 6 months after randomisation of the last patient. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01327053., Findings: Between July 20, 2011, and Jan 10, 2013, we enrolled 230 patients, 79 in the 200 mg sonidegib group, and 151 in the 800 mg sonidegib group. Median follow-up was 13·9 months (IQR 10·1-17·3). In the primary efficacy analysis population, 20 (36%, 95% CI 24-50) of 55 patients receiving 200 mg sonidegib and 39 (34%, 25-43) of 116 receiving 800 mg sonidegib achieved an objective response. In the 200 mg sonidegib group, 18 (43%, 95% CI 28-59) patients who achieved an objective response, as assessed by central review, were noted among the 42 with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and two (15%, 2-45) among the 13 with metastatic disease. In the 800 mg group, 35 (38%, 95% CI 28-48) of 93 patients with locally advanced disease had an objective response, as assessed by central review, as did four (17%, 5-39) of 23 with metastatic disease. Fewer adverse events leading to dose interruptions or reductions (25 [32%] of 79 patients vs 90 [60%] of 150) or treatment discontinuation (17 [22%] vs 54 [36%]) occurred in patients in the 200 mg group than in the 800 mg group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were raised creatine kinase (five [6%] in the 200 mg group vs 19 [13%] in the 800 mg group) and lipase concentration (four [5%] vs eight [5%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 11 (14%) of 79 patients in the 200 mg group and 45 (30%) of 150 patients in the 800 mg group., Interpretation: The benefit-to-risk profile of 200 mg sonidegib might offer a new treatment option for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma, a population that is difficult to treat., Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: One standard of care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is paclitaxel plus carboplatin ± bevacizumab. This two-step phase I study evaluated the feasibility of adding everolimus to paclitaxel plus carboplatin ± bevacizumab for advanced NSCLC., Methods: Adults with advanced NSCLC naive to systemic therapy were enrolled. A Bayesian dose-escalation model was used to identify feasible daily or weekly everolimus doses given with paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2) q21 days) and carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min q21 days) (step 1) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2) q21 days), carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min q21 days), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg q21 days) (step 2). Primary endpoint was end-of-cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate. Secondary endpoints included safety; relative dose intensities of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bevacizumab; pharmacokinetics; and tumor response., Results: Fifty-two patients were enrolled and received everolimus 5 mg/day plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (step 1 daily; n = 13); everolimus 30 mg/week plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (step 1 weekly; n = 13); everolimus 5 mg/day plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (step 2 daily; n = 13); or everolimus 30 mg/week plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (step 2 weekly; n = 13). End-of-cycle 1 DLT rate was 16.7 % (step 1 daily), 30.8 % (step 1 weekly), 30.0 % (step 2 daily), and 16.7 % (step 2 weekly). Cycle 1 DLTs were grade 3 neutropenia, anal abscess, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia and grade 4 myalgia, cellulitis, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, pulmonary embolism, and thrombocytopenia. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. One patient (step 2 daily) experienced complete response, 10 patients partial response., Conclusions: The feasible everolimus doses given with carboplatin and paclitaxel ± bevacizumab were 5 mg/day and 30 mg/week. Neither schedule was very well tolerated in this unselected NSCLC population.

Background: In China, there are currently no approved therapies for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) following progression with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted agents. In the phase 3 RECORD-1 trial, the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus afforded clinical benefit with good tolerability in Western patients with mRCC whose disease had progressed despite VEGF receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFr-TKI) therapy. This phase 1b study was designed to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of everolimus in VEGFr-TKI-refractory Chinese patients with mRCC., Methods: An open-label, multicenter phase 1b study enrolled Chinese patients with mRCC who were intolerant to, or progressed on, previous VEGFr-TKI therapy (N = 64). Patients received everolimus 10 mg daily until objective tumor progression (according to RECIST, version 1.0), unacceptable toxicity, death, or study discontinuation for any other reason. The final data analysis cut-off date was November 30, 2011., Results: A total of 64 patients were included in the study. Median age was 52 years (range, 19-75 years) and 69% of patients were male. Median duration of everolimus therapy was 4.1 months (range, 0.0-16.1 months). Expected known class-effect toxicities related to mTOR inhibitor therapy were observed, including anemia (64%), hypertriglyceridemia (55%), mouth ulceration (53%), hyperglycemia (52%), hypercholesterolemia (50%), and pulmonary events (31%). Common grade 3/4 adverse events were anemia (20%), hyperglycemia (13%), increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (11%), hyponatremia (8%), dyspnea (8%), hypertriglyceridemia (6%), and lymphopenia (6%). Median PFS was 6.9 months (95% CI, 3.7-12.5 months) and the overall tumor response rate was 5% (95% CI, 1-13%). The majority of patients (61%) had stable disease as their best overall tumor response., Conclusions: Safety and efficacy results were comparable to those of the RECORD-1 trial. Everolimus is generally well tolerated and provides clinical benefit to Chinese patients with anti-VEGF-refractory mRCC., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01152801.

Purpose: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens., Patients and Methods: One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted., Results: There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively)., Conclusion: In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.

Increasing numbers of men with non-metastatic disease are receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for a variety of indications, some of which are supported by evidence from randomized trials. Balanced against possible survival benefits and better disease control are data that ADT adversely affects quality of life, particularly in the areas of sexual function, physical function, and energy. There is some evidence of worsening upper extremity physical strength but no clear evidence of decline in daily function with ADT. The impact of ADT on cognitive function is not clear at this time. ADT is associated with declines in bone mineral density within 6-12 months of commencing treatment, with increased fracture rates within 5 years of treatment. ADT use is also associated with a 10-15g/L decline in hemoglobin, although the clinical significance of this drop appears to be limited for most patients. It is reasonable for physicians who are about to start men on ADT to obtain a baseline bone mineral density, to counsel them about the impact on sexual function and possible treatments for sexual dysfunction, and to encourage regular exercise. Further insight into adverse effects of ADT and strategies to minimize these adverse effects await data from ongoing studies.

Objective: Low-intensity laser therapy (LILT) has been advocated for treatment of chronic pain disorders. Although the mechanism of pain relief is uncertain, this therapy has been suggested for relief of painful symptoms of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSP). The objective of this study was to determine whether LILT relieves the pain of DSP., Research Design and Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-masked, sham therapy-controlled clinical trial in 50 patients with painful DSP diagnosed with the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score. All patients received sham therapy over a 2-week baseline period and were then randomized to receive biweekly sessions of either sham or LILT for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy parameter was the difference in the weekly mean pain scores on a visual analog scale (VAS)., Results: The patients had similar baseline characteristics for pain intensity, HbA(1c), and duration of DSP. Both groups noted a decrease in weekly mean pain scores during sham treatment. After the 4-week intervention, the LILT group had an additional reduction in weekly mean pain scores of -1.0 +/- 0.4 compared with -0.0 +/- 0.4 for the sham group (P = 0.07). LILT had no effect on the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score, nerve conduction studies, sympathetic skin response, or quantitative sensory testing., Conclusions: Although an encouraging trend was observed with LILT, the study results do not provide sufficient evidence to recommend this treatment for painful symptoms of DSP.