Search

Given that radium-223 is a radiopharmaceutical that induces DNA damage, and olaparib is a PARP inhibitor that interferes with DNA repair mechanisms, we hypothesized their synergy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We sought to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of olaparib + radium-223. We conducted a multicenter phase I 3+3 dose escalation study of olaparib with fixed dose radium-223 in patients with mCRPC with bone metastases. The primary objective was to establish the RP2D of olaparib, with secondary objectives of safety, PSA response, alkaline phosphatase response, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival, and efficacy by homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene status. Twelve patients were enrolled; all patients received a prior androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI; 100%) and 3 patients (25%) prior docetaxel. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) included cytopenias, fatigue, and nausea. No DLTs were seen in the observation period however delayed toxicities guided the RP2D. The RP2D of olaparib was 200 mg orally twice daily with radium-223. The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (92%) and anemia (58%). The rPFS at 6 months was 58% (95% confidence interval, 27%–80%). Nine patients were evaluable for HRR gene status; 1 had a BRCA2 alteration (rPFS 11.8 months) and 1 had a CDK12 alteration (rPFS 3.1 months). Olaparib can be safely combined with radium-223 at the RP2D 200 mg orally twice daily with fixed dose radium-223. Early clinical benefit was observed and will be investigated in a phase II study.

Purpose: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 and IDH2 mutations (IDH1/2mt) are frequent in glioma. Preclinical studies suggest IDH1/2mts confer “BRCAness” phenotype, a vulnerability that can be targeted through PARP inhibition. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a multicenter study of olaparib monotherapy in patients with IDH1/2mt gliomas. Methods: Patients with recurrent, contrast-enhancing IDH1/2mt gliomas were enrolled in a two-step phase II trial; the primary endpoint was overall response rate per Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria. Olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily was given. Results: A total of 15 evaluable patients were enrolled. Histology was astrocytoma (N = 12) and oligodendroglioma (N = 3). Most toxicities were grade 1 or 2. Best response was stable disease (SD) in 9 (60%) patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.63 months and median overall survival was 20.7 months. For patients with SD, median PFS was 5.53 months; 4 patients had SD for >6 months. Among patients with best response progressive disease (N = 6), 5 had grade 4 tumor and 4 had known CDKN2A alteration. PFS was 5.23 months for grades 2 or 3 tumors (N = 10) versus 1.8 months for grade 4 (N = 5; P = 0.0013). Conclusion: The study did not meet the prespecified response-based activity threshold for moving to step 2. However, prolonged SD was observed in patients with grades 2 and 3 histologies, suggesting olaparib monotherapy could be of clinical benefit in select populations. Grade 4 tumors per 2021 World Health Organization classification defined by histology or CDKN2A alteration derived no benefit from this drug, highlighting the usefulness of this classification for future patient stratification and trial design. Significance: A single-arm phase II trial of olaparib in IDH-mutant glioma demonstrated clinically significant prolonged SD for select patients with grade 2/3 disease, suggesting potential benefit of olaparib in IDH-mutant gliomas.

Purpose: Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare, highly vascular tumor with few treatment options. We designed a phase II randomized trial to determine the activity and tolerability of single-agent cediranib or sunitinib in patients with advanced metastatic ASPS. Patients and Methods: Patients 16 years of age and older were randomized to receive cediranib (30 mg) or sunitinib (37.5 mg) in 28-day cycles. Patients could cross over to the other treatment arm at disease progression. The primary endpoint was to measure the objective response rate (ORR) for each agent. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) for the two arms was also determined. Results: Twenty-nine of 34 enrolled patients were evaluable for response. One patient on each of the initial two treatment arms had a partial response (ORR: 6.7% and 7.1% for cediranib and sunitinib, respectively). Twenty-four patients had a best response of stable disease (86.7% and 78.6% for cediranib and sunitinib, respectively). There were no significant differences in mPFS for the two treatment arms. Clinical benefit (i.e., objective response or stable disease for a minimum of four or six cycles of therapy) on the first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy did not predict benefit on the second-line TKI. Both drugs were well tolerated. As of August 2021, 1 patient (unevaluable for ORR) remains on study. Conclusions: The study did not meet its endpoints for ORR. Although both TKIs provided clinical benefit, the outcomes may have been attenuated in patients who had progressed ≤6 months before enrollment, potentially accounting for the low response rates. See related commentary by Wilky and Maleddu, p. 1163

The low expectation of clinical benefit from phase 1 cancer therapeutics trials might negatively affect patient and physician participation, study reimbursement, and slow the progress of oncology research. Advances in cancer drug development, meanwhile, might have favourably improved treatment responses; however, little comprehensive data exist describing the response and toxicity associated with phase 1 trials across solid tumours. The aim of the study is to evaluate the trend of toxicity and response in phase 1 trials for solid tumours over time.We analysed patient-level data from the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program of the National Cancer Institute-sponsored investigator-initiated phase 1 trials for solid tumours, from Jan 1, 2000, to May 31, 2019. We assessed risks of treatment-related death (grade 5 toxicity ratings possibly, probably, or definitely attributable to treatment), all on-treatment deaths (deaths during protocol treatment regardless of attribution), grade 3-4 toxicity, and proportion of overall response (complete response and partial response) and complete response rate in the study periods of 2000-05, 2006-12, and 2013-2019, and evaluated their trends over time. We also analysed cancer type-specific and investigational agent-specific response, and analysed the trend of response in each cancer type over time. Univariate associations of overall response rates with patients' baseline characteristics (age, sex, performance status, BMI, albumin concentration, and haemoglobin concentration), enrolment period, investigational agents, and trial design were assessed using risk ratio based on the modified Poisson regression model.We analysed 465 protocols that enrolled 13 847 patients using 261 agents. 144 (31%) trials used a monotherapy and 321 (69%) used combination therapies. The overall treatment-related death rate was 0·7% (95% CI 0·5-0·8) across all periods. Risks of treatment-related deaths did not change over time (p=0·52). All on-treatment death risk during the study period was 8·0% (95% CI 7·6-8·5). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological; grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 2336 (16·9%) of 13 847 patients, lymphopenia in 1230 (8·9%), anaemia in 894 (6·5%), and thrombocytopenia in 979 (7·1%). The overall response rate for all trials during the study period was 12·2% (95% CI 11·5-12·8; 1133 of 9325 patients) and complete response rate was 2·7% (2·4-3·0; 249 of 9325). Overall response increased from 9·6% (95% CI 8·7-10·6) in 2000-05 to 18·0% (15·7-20·5) in 2013-19, and complete response rates from 2·5% (2·0-3·0) to 4·3% (3·2-5·7). Overall response rates for combination therapy were substantially higher than for monotherapy (15·8% [15·0-16·8] vs 3·5% [2·8-4·2]). The overall response by class of agents differed across diseases. Anti-angiogenesis agents were associated with higher overall response rate for bladder, colon, kidney and ovarian cancer. DNA repair inhibitors were associated with higher overall response rate in ovarian and pancreatic cancer. The rates of overall response over time differed markedly by disease; there were notable improvements in bladder, breast, and kidney cancer and melanoma, but no change in the low response of pancreatic and colon cancer.During the past 20 years, the response rate in phase 1 trials nearly doubled without an increase in the treatment-related death rate. However, there is significant heterogeneity in overall response by various factors such as cancer type, investigational agent, and trial design. Therefore, informed decision making is crucial for patients before participating in phase 1 trials. This study provides updated encouraging outcomes of modern phase 1 trials in solid tumours.National Cancer Institute.

Representativeness of Study Participants

Definition of Progression, Tumor Classification, and Eligibility Criteria, retreatment criteria

Given that radium-223 is a radiopharmaceutical that induces DNA damage, and olaparib is a PARP inhibitor that interferes with DNA repair mechanisms, we hypothesized their synergy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We sought to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of olaparib + radium-223.We conducted a multicenter phase I 3+3 dose escalation study of olaparib with fixed dose radium-223 in patients with mCRPC with bone metastases. The primary objective was to establish the RP2D of olaparib, with secondary objectives of safety, PSA response, alkaline phosphatase response, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival, and efficacy by homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene status.Twelve patients were enrolled; all patients received a prior androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI; 100%) and 3 patients (25%) prior docetaxel. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) included cytopenias, fatigue, and nausea. No DLTs were seen in the observation period however delayed toxicities guided the RP2D. The RP2D of olaparib was 200 mg orally twice daily with radium-223. The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (92%) and anemia (58%). The rPFS at 6 months was 58% (95% confidence interval, 27%–80%). Nine patients were evaluable for HRR gene status; 1 had a BRCA2 alteration (rPFS 11.8 months) and 1 had a CDK12 alteration (rPFS 3.1 months).Olaparib can be safely combined with radium-223 at the RP2D 200 mg orally twice daily with fixed dose radium-223. Early clinical benefit was observed and will be investigated in a phase II study.

Legends to Supplemental Figures

Supp. Fig.1. CONSORT Flow Diagram Supp. Fig.2. MRI Perfusion Parameters Supp. Fig. 3. Immunohistochemistry Supp. Fig. 4. Gene Expression Profile Supp. Table 1. Adverse Events Supp. Table 2. Pharmacokinetic Data Supp. Table 3. Molar Drug Levels Supplemental Methods

The peak CTCAE of liver tests for HDCT subjects are shown above. Amongst HDCT, there were higher CTCAE grades for alkaline phosphatase (p

Legends for supplementary tables and figures.

PDF - 90K, Supplemental Table 1: Most Frequently Reported Adverse Events at Least Possibly Related to Pazopanib Supplemental Table 2: Steady-State Pazopanib Metabolite Pharmacokinetics Measured in All Patients at Week 3 (medians and ranges) Supplemental Table 3: Ratio of Metabolite AUC(0-6) to Pazopanib AUC(0-6) Measured at Steady-State in All Patients at Week 3 (medians and ranges) Supplemental Table 4: First-dose Pazopanib Metabolite Pharmacokinetics in Expanded Cohorts and the Maximum Tolerated Dose (medians and ranges)

Purpose: Pazopanib is a potent, multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor; however, there is limited information regarding the effects of liver function on pazopanib metabolism and pharmacokinetics. The objective of this study was to establish the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetic profile of pazopanib in patients with varying degrees of hepatic dysfunction.Experimental Design: Patients with any solid tumors or lymphoma were stratified into four groups based on the degree of hepatic dysfunction according to the National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group (NCI-ODWG) criteria. Pazopanib was given orally once a day on a 21-day cycle. A modified 3+3 design was used.Results: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled. Patients in the mild group tolerated 800 mg per day. The moderate and severe groups tolerated 200 mg per day. Pharmacokinetic data in the mild group were similar to the data in the normal group. Comparison of the median Cmax and area under the curve [AUC(0–24)] in the moderate or severe groups at 200 mg per day to the values in the normal and mild groups at 800 mg per day indicated less than dose–proportional systemic exposures in patients with moderate and severe hepatic impairment. This suggests that the lower maximum-tolerated dose in the moderate and severe group is not due to a decrease in drug clearance or alteration in the proportion of metabolites.Conclusions: In patients with mild liver dysfunction, pazopanib is well tolerated at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved dose of 800 mg per day. Patients with moderate and severe liver dysfunction tolerated 200 mg per day. Clin Cancer Res; 19(13); 3631–9. ©2013 AACR.

Supplementary Material: Case Studies of Recent Therapeutic Breakthroughs PDF file 98K, This describes four recent breakthroughs (3 in oncology and 1 in cystic fibrosis)

PDF - 36K, Structure of pazopanib and metabolites.

Purpose: Phase I studies rely on investigators to accurately attribute adverse events as related or unrelated to study drug. This information is ultimately used to help establish a safe dose. Attribution in the phase I setting has not been widely studied and assessing the accuracy of attribution is complicated by the lack of a gold standard. We examined dose–toxicity relationships as a function of attribution and toxicity category to evaluate for evidence of toxicity misattribution.Experimental Design: Individual patient records from 38 phase I studies activated between 2000 and 2010 were used. Dose was defined as a percentage of maximum dose administered on each study. Relationships between dose and patient-level toxicity were explored graphically and with logistic regression. All P values were two-sided.Results: 11,909 toxicities from 1,156 patients were analyzed. Unrelated toxicity was not associated with dose (P = 0.0920 for grade ≥3, P = 0.4194 for grade ≥1), whereas related toxicity increased with dose (P < 0.0001, both grade ≥3 and ≥1). Similar results were observed across toxicity categories. In the five-tier system, toxicities attributed as “possibly,” “probably,” or “definitely” related were associated with dose (all P < 0.0001), whereas toxicities attributed as “unlikely” or “unrelated” were not (all P > 0.1).Conclusions: Reassuringly, we did not observe an association between unrelated toxicity rate and dose, an association that could only have been explained by physician misattribution. Our findings also confirmed our expectation that related toxicity rate increases with dose. Our analysis supports simplifying attribution to a two-tier system by collapsing “possibly,” “probably,” and “definitely” related. Clin Cancer Res; 22(3); 553–9. ©2015 AACR.See related commentary by Sharma and Ratain, p. 527

Dose-toxicity curves by agent class (cytotoxic or molecular) and attribution (2-tier system). Black points represent the proportion of patients in a dose group experiencing grade {greater than or equal to}1 toxicity with the specified category and attribution. Red points represent the proportion of patients experiencing grade {greater than or equal to}3 toxicity within the specified category and attribution. Lines represent a fitted logistic regression curve with % of maximum administered dose (MAD) as a continuous covariate and p-values are from the same model.

Purpose: High-grade gliomas are associated with a dismal prognosis. Notch inhibition via the gamma-secretase inhibitor RO4929097 has emerged as a potential therapeutic option based on modulation of the cancer-initiating cell (CIS) population and a presumed antiangiogenic role.Experimental Design: In this phase 0/I trial, 21 patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma or anaplastic astrocytoma received RO4929097 combined with temozolomide and radiotherapy. In addition to establishing the MTD, the study design enabled exploratory studies evaluating tumor and brain drug penetration and neuroimaging parameters. We also determined functional effects on the Notch pathway and targeting of CISs through analysis of tumor tissue sampled from areas with and without blood–brain barrier disruption. Finally, recurrent tumors were also sampled and assessed for Notch pathway responses while on treatment.Results: Treatment was well tolerated and no dose-limiting toxicities were observed. IHC of treated tumors showed a significant decrease in proliferation and in the expression of the Notch intracellular domain (NICD) by tumor cells and blood vessels. Patient-specific organotypic tumor explants cultures revealed a specific decrease in the CD133+ CIS population upon treatment. Perfusion MRI demonstrated a significant decrease in relative plasma volume after drug exposure. Gene expression data in recurrent tumors suggested low Notch signaling activity, the upregulation of key mesenchymal genes, and an increase in VEGF-dependent angiogenic factors.Conclusions: The addition of RO4929097 to temozolomide and radiotherapy was well tolerated; the drug has a variable blood–brain barrier penetration. Evidence of target modulation was observed, but recurrence occurred, associated with alterations in angiogenesis signaling pathways. Clin Cancer Res; 22(19); 4786–96. ©2016 AACR.

Demonstrates hypothetically the effect that systematic misattribution of disease-related toxicities as drug-related could have on the observed rate of drug-related toxicity as well as its relationship with dose. In this example, the observed rate of drug-related toxicity increases by 10% across all dose levels but the relationship with dose (as demonstrated by the slope of the curve) remains unchanged.

Related Article from Developing Standards for Breakthrough Therapy Designation in Oncology

Histograms of physician attribution (5-tier scale) of all grade {greater than or equal to}3 toxicities by toxicity category. On the attribution scale (x axis), 1 represents 'unrelated', 2 represents 'unlikely related', 3 represents 'possibly related', 4 represents 'probably related', and 5 represents 'definitely related'.

Purpose: The NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program sponsors hepatic dysfunction phase I clinical trials (HDCT) and phase 1 clinical trials (P1CT) to determine safe doses and schedules of antineoplastic therapeutics. We sought to compare clinical outcomes between these trial types while stratifying by hepatotoxic agents.Experimental Design: Individual subject data were extracted from the records of 51 NCI-sponsored HDCT and P1CT. The NCI's Organ Dysfunction Working Group's hepatic impairment categorization and two drug-induced liver injury (DILI) scales (FDA R ratio and Hy's law) were used to classify subjects. The number of cycles administered and treatment discontinuation reason were also evaluated and compared between groups.Results: There were 513 and 1,328 subjects treated on HDCT (n = 9) and P1CT (n = 42), respectively. There were differing patterns of DILI with significant worsening of total bilirubin in subjects on HDCT, and worsening of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in subjects on P1CT. Cholestatic peak patterns of liver impairment (predominant increases in alkaline phosphatase rather than transaminases) were more frequent in HDCT. Criteria for Hy's law were met by 11 subjects on P1CT, but not by any subjects on HDCT. Disease progression was the most common reason for treatment discontinuation, followed by adverse events at similar frequencies in both HDCT and P1CT.Conclusions: The differential effects on hepatotoxicity suggest that underlying hepatic function may affect susceptibility to and patterns of DILI. The incorporation of additional measures of hepatic function may help identify those at highest risk of hepatotoxicity in future trials because baseline liver tests did not. Clin Cancer Res; 22(22); 5472–9. ©2016 AACR.

In July 2012, Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). The Advancing Breakthrough Therapies for Patients Act was incorporated into a Title of FDASIA to expedite clinical development of new, potential “breakthrough” drugs or treatments that show dramatic responses in early-phase studies. Using this regulatory pathway, once a promising new drug candidate is designated as a “Breakthrough Therapy”, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and sponsor would collaborate to determine the best path forward to abbreviate the traditional three-phase approach to drug development. The breakthrough legislation requires that an FDA guidance be drafted that details specific requirements of the bill to aid FDA in implementing requirements of the Act. In this article, we have proposed criteria to define a product as a Breakthrough Therapy, and discussed critical components of the development process that would require flexibility in order to enable expedited development of a Breakthrough Therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 19(16); 4297–304. ©2013 AACR.

The peak CTCAE of liver tests for P1CT subjects are shown above. Amongst P1CT, there were higher ALT CTCAEs amongst subjects receiving hepatotoxic agents than non-toxic agents (p

PDF file - 1.7MB, Figure S2: Changes in Imaging Parameters over Time. Based on the three patients groups from the microvessel tumor flow analysis, the plots show: (A) contrast-enhanced T1-weighted tumor volumes, (B) FLAIR tumor volumes and (C) permeability (Ktrans) of the tumor over time. Patients with an increase and decrease in flow showed the same changes in contrast-enhanced tumor volume and peritumoral vasogenic edema during treatment. Indeed, redefining PFS using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group criteria instead of Macdonald did not change the outcome of any test in our study. Numerical data show log-scaled averaged values (�SEM) and values at day -1 were set as 100% in all lesions. P-values show results of Mann-Whitney tests for the difference between patients with stable flow and increased or decreased flow (Holm-Bonferroni corrected).

PDF file - 5.2MB, Figure S1: Decreased Flow. Representative example of patient with flow decrease. (A) Anatomic MR imaging showing decrease in the contrast enhanced tumor area. (B) Flow maps showing decreasing flow. The blue ovals indicate region of tumor. (C) Histogram analysis of enhancing tumor showing decrease of flow compared to reference tissue.

PDF file - 894K, Figure S5: Arterial Spin Labeling (ASL) Flow and Response to Treatment. (A) Analysis of blood flow as measured by arterial spin labeling (ASL) when applying the patients groups from the macrovessel tumor flow analysis. (B) ASL blood flow when applying the patients groups from the microvessel tumor flow analysis. Figures show log-scaled averaged values (�SEM) and the day -1 values were set as 100% in all lesions. P-values show results of Mann-Whitney tests for the difference between patients with increase in flow and stable or decreased flow (Holm-Bonferroni corrected).

PDF file - 1.3MB, Figure S4: Macrovessel Flow and Response to Treatment. (A) Similar to microvessel flow, analysis of total (macrovessel) flow show three types of response to anti-angiogenic treatment: increase in flow (6 patients), stable flow (13 patients) or decrease in flow (11 patients). (B) Applying the patients groups from microvessel tumor flow analysis on the macrovessel tumor flow data. Figures show log-scaled averaged values (�SEM) and the day -1 values were set as 100% in all lesions. P-values show results of Kruskal-Wallis tests for the difference between the three patient groups at each study day (Holm-Bonferroni corrected).

PDF file - 382K, Figure S7: Relationship Between Increased Microvessel Flow and Metabolic Status of Tumors. Averaged changes in MRS ratios for patients with an increase in microvessel flow (n=5; 2 patients did not have MRS data). Relative to pretreatment values, metabolic ratios for NAA/norCre were significantly higher at days +28, +56 and at day +28 for Cho/norCre (*Wilcoxon signed-rank; P

PDF file - 680K, Figure S6: Reproducibility Analysis. Bland-Altman plots showing (A) the test-retest variability of measurement of microvessel flow (Pearson correlation; �=1.00) and (B) the variability of flow measurement between the day -5 scan and the day -1 scan (two baselines) (�=0.93).

PDF file - 89K

Remarkable improvements in outcomes for many haematological malignancies have been driven primarily by a proliferation of novel therapeutics over the past two decades. Targeted agents, immune and cellular therapies, and combination regimens have adverse event profiles distinct from conventional finite cytotoxic chemotherapies. In 2018, a Commission comprising patient advocates, clinicians, clinical investigators, regulators, biostatisticians, and pharmacists representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examined issues of adverse event evaluation in the context of both newer and existing therapies for haematological cancers. The Commission proposed immediate actions and long-term solutions in the current processes in adverse event assessment, patient-reported outcomes in haematological malignancies, toxicities in cellular therapies, long-term toxicity and survivorship in haematological malignancies, issues in regulatory approval from an international perspective, and toxicity reporting in haematological malignancies and the real-world setting. In this follow-up report, the Commission describes progress that has been made in these areas since the initial report.

BackgroundDisparities in cancer outcomes persist for underserved populations; one important aspect of this is limited access to promising early phase clinical trials. To address this, the National Cancer Institute–funded Create Access to Targeted Cancer Therapy for Underserved Populations (CATCH-UP.2020) was created. We report the tools developed and accrual metrics of the initial year of CATCH-UP.2020 with a focus on racial, ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomically underserved populations.MethodsCATCH-UP.2020 is a P30 supplement awarded to 8 National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers with existing resources to rapidly open and accrue to Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN) trials with emphasis on engaging patients from underserved populations. Sites used patient-based, community-based, investigator-based, and program-based tools to meet specific program goals.ResultsFrom September 2020 to August 2021, CATCH-UP.2020 sites opened 45 ETCTN trials. Weighted average trial activation time for the 7 sites reporting this was 107 days. In the initial year, sites enrolled 145 patients in CATCH-UP.2020 with 68 (46.9%) representing racial, ethnic, rural, and socioeconomically underserved populations using the broader definition of underserved encompassed in the grant charge. During the initial year of CATCH-UP.2020, a time impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, 15.8% (66 of 417) and 21.4% (31 of 145) of patients enrolled to ETCTN trials at network and at CATCH-UP sites, respectively, were from racial and ethnic minority groups, a more limited definition of underserved for which comparable data are available.ConclusionTargeted funding accelerated activation and accrual of early phase trials and expanded access to this therapeutic option for underserved populations.

PURPOSE: PARP inhibitor resistance may be overcome by combinatorial strategies with agents that disrupt homologous recombination repair (HRR). Multiple HRR pathway components are HSP90 clients, so that HSP90 inhibition leads to abrogation of HRR and sensitisation to PARP inhibition. We performed in vivo preclinical studies of the HSP90 inhibitor onalespib with olaparib and conducted a Phase 1 combination study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tolerability and efficacy studies were performed in patient-derived xenograft(PDX) models of ovarian cancer. Clinical safety, tolerability, steady-state pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of olaparib and onalespib were evaluated using a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design. RESULTS: Olaparib/onalespib exhibited anti-tumour activity against BRCA1-mutated PDX models with acquired PARPi resistance and PDX models with RB-pathway alterations(CDKN2A loss and CCNE1 overexpression). Phase 1 evaluation revealed that dose levels up to olaparib 300 mg/onalespib 40 mg and olaparib 200 mg/onalespib 80 mg were safe without dose-limiting toxicities. Coadministration of olaparib and onalespib did not appear to affect the steady-state pharmacokinetics of either agent. There were no objective responses, but disease stabilisation ≥24 weeks was observed in 7/22 (32%) evaluable patients including patients with BRCA-mutated ovarian cancers and acquired PARPi resistance and patients with tumours harbouring RB-pathway alterations. CONCLUSIONS: Combining onalespib and olaparib was feasible and demonstrated preliminary evidence of anti-tumour activity.

Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare, highly vascular tumor with few treatment options. We designed a phase 2 randomized trial to determine the activity and tolerability of single-agent cediranib or sunitinib in patients with advanced metastatic ASPS.Patients 16 years of age and older were randomized to receive cediranib (30 mg) or sunitinib (37.5 mg) in 28-day cycles. Patients could crossover to the other treatment arm at disease progression. The primary endpoint was to measure the objective response rate (ORR) for each agent. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) for the 2 arms was also determined.Results: Twenty-nine of 34 enrolled patients were evaluable for response. One patient on each of the initial 2 treatment arms had a partial response (ORR: 6.7% and 7.1% for cediranib and sunitinib, respectively). Twenty-four patients had a best response of stable disease (86.7% and 78.6% for cediranib and sunitinib, respectively). There were no significant differences in mPFS for the 2 treatment arms. Clinical benefit (i.e., objective response or stable disease for a minimum of 4 or 6 cycles of therapy) on the first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy did not predict benefit on the second-line TKI. Both drugs were well tolerated. As of August 2021, 1 patient (unevaluable for ORR) remains on study.The study did not meet its endpoints for ORR. Although both TKIs provided clinical benefit, the outcomes may have been attenuated in patients who had progressed ≤6 months before enrollment, potentially accounting for the low response rates.

PURPOSE Cediranib, a pan-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, suppresses expression of homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and increases sensitivity to poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition in preclinical models. We investigated whether cediranib combined with olaparib improves the clinical outcomes of patients with prostate cancer. METHODS Patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were randomly assigned 1:1 to arm A: cediranib 30 mg once daily plus olaparib 200 mg twice daily or arm B: olaparib 300 mg twice daily alone. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in the intention-to-treat patients. The secondary end points were rPFS in patients with HRR-deficient and HRR-proficient mCRPC. RESULTS In the intention-to-treat set of 90 patients, median rPFS was 8.5 (95% CI, 5.4 to 12.0) and 4.0 (95% CI, 3.2 to 8.5) months in arms A and B, respectively. Cediranib/olaparib significantly improved rPFS versus olaparib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.617; 95% CI, 0.392 to 0.969; P = .0359). Descriptive analyses showed a median rPFS of 10.6 (95% CI, 5.9 to not assessed [NA]) and 3.8 (95% CI, 2.33 to NA) months (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.272 to 1.504) among patients with HRR-deficient mCRPC, and 13.8 (95% CI, 3.3 to NA) and 11.3 (95% CI, 3.8 to NA) months (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.321 to 2.988) among patients with BRCA2-mutated mCRPC in arms A and B, respectively. The incidence of grades 3-4 adverse events was 61% and 18% in arms A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION Cediranib combined with olaparib improved rPFS compared with olaparib alone in men with mCRPC. This combination was associated with an increased incidence of grades 3-4 adverse events. BRCA2-mutated subgroups treated with olaparib with or without cediranib were associated with a numerically longer median rPFS.

In 2018, the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) at the US National Cancer Institute published new protocol template language that focused on organ function and prior and concurrent cancers in an effort to modernize eligibility criteria for cancer treatment trials. We conducted an analysis of CTEP-supported trials to evaluate the uptake and incorporation of the new language. The analysis included evaluation of 122 protocols approved in the years 2018-2020 for inclusion of the modernized eligibility criteria and consistency with new protocol template language related to 7 major eligibility criteria. These were cardiac function, liver function, kidney function, HIV status, prior and/or concurrent malignancies, treated and/or stable brain metastasis, and new and/or progressive brain metastases. Overall, CTEP trials evaluated in this period demonstrated that eligibility criteria were implemented to a relatively high degree ranging from a low of 54.1% for prior and/or concurrent malignancies to a high of 93.4% for eligibility criteria related to HIV infection. The findings demonstrate that modernized eligibility criteria can be successfully implemented but that consistent implementation requires sustained focused effort. As a result of these findings, CTEP began a new initiative in January 2022 that incorporates a specific review of eligibility criteria for new protocols to promote and improve consistency with the modernization effort.