Explore the vast range of titles available.

Targeting of KIT and PDGFRA with imatinib revolutionised treatment in gastrointestinal stromal tumour; however, PDGFRA Asp842Val (D842V)-mutated gastrointestinal stromal tumour is highly resistant to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and antitumour activity of avapritinib, a novel KIT and PDGFRA inhibitor that potently inhibits PDGFRA D842V, in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours, including patients with KIT and PDGFRA D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumours (NAVIGATOR). NAVIGATOR is a two-part, open-label, dose-escalation and dose-expansion, phase 1 study done at 17 sites across nine countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Poland, Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, the UK, and the USA). Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, and with adequate end-organ function were eligible to participate. The dose-escalation part of the study included patients with unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumours. The dose-expansion part of the study included patients with an unresectable PDGFRA D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumour regardless of previous therapy or gastrointestinal stromal tumour with other mutations that either progressed on imatinib and one or more tyrosine kinase inhibitor, or only received imatinib previously. On the basis of enrolment trends, ongoing review of study data, and evolving knowledge regarding the gastrointestinal stromal tumour treatment paradigm, it was decided by the sponsor's medical director together with the investigators that patients with PDGFRA D842V mutations would be analysed separately; the results from this group of patients is reported in this Article. Oral avapritinib was administered once daily in the dose-escalation part (starting dose of 30 mg, with increasing dose levels once daily in continuous 28-day cycles until the maximum tolerated dose or recommended phase 2 dose was determined; in the dose-expansion part, the starting dose was the maximum tolerated dose from the dose-escalation part). Primary endpoints were maximum tolerated dose, recommended phase 2 dose, and safety in the dose-escalation part, and overall response and safety in the dose-expansion part. Safety was assessed in all patients from the dose-escalation part and all patients with PDGFRA D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumour in the dose-expansion part, and activity was assessed in all patients with PDGFRA D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumour who received avapritinib and who had at least one target lesion and at least one post-baseline disease assessment by central radiology. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02508532. Between Oct 26, 2015, and Nov 16, 2018 (data cutoff), 46 patients were enrolled in the dose-escalation part, including 20 patients with a PDGFRA D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumour, and 36 patients with a PDGFRA D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumour were enrolled in the dose-expansion part. At data cutoff (Nov 16, 2018), 38 (46%) of 82 patients in the safety population (median follow-up of 19·1 months [IQR 9·2–25·5]) and 37 (66%) of the 56 patients in the PDGFRA D842V population (median follow-up of 15·9 months [IQR 9·2–24·9]) remained on treatment. The maximum tolerated dose was 400 mg, and the recommended phase 2 dose was 300 mg. In the safety population (patients with PDGFRA D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumour from the dose-escalation and dose-expansion parts, all doses), treatment-related grade 3–4 events occurred in 47 (57%) of 82 patients, the most common being anaemia (14 [17%]); there were no treatment-related deaths. In the PDGFRA D842V-mutant population, 49 (88%; 95% CI 76–95) of 56 patients had an overall response, with five (9%) complete responses and 44 (79%) partial responses. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed at doses of 30–400 mg per day. At 600 mg, two patients had dose-limiting toxicities (grade 2 hypertension, dermatitis acneiform, and memory impairment in patient 1, and grade 2 hyperbilirubinaemia in patient 2). Avapritinib has a manageable safety profile and has preliminary antitumour activity in patients with advanced PDGFRA D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumours. Blueprint Medicines.

Purpose of ReviewTo highlight the new developments in the management of advanced giant cell tumor of bone, a rare locally aggressive benign tumor, which was traditionally managed with surgery alone by either curettage and local adjuvant therapy, wide resection, or marginal excision. Here, we review the current role of systemic therapy for management of locally advanced or metastatic giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB).Recent FindingsThe elucidation of the pathophysiology of giant cell tumor of bone, especially with regards to the role of nuclear factor kappa B ligand (RANKL), has led to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of denosumab in the management of locally advanced or metastatic GCTB.SummaryFor advanced giant cell tumor where surgical resection alone can cause severe morbidity, the paradigm has shifted from local treatment alone to multidisciplinary management with the consideration of use of denosumab.

Entrectinib is a potent inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) A, B, and C, which has been shown to have anti-tumour activity against NTRK gene fusion-positive solid tumours, including CNS activity due to its ability to penetrate the blood–brain barrier. We present an integrated efficacy and safety analysis of patients with metastatic or locally advanced solid tumours harbouring oncogenic NTRK1, NTRK2, and NTRK3 gene fusions treated in three ongoing, early-phase trials. An integrated database comprised the pivotal datasets of three, ongoing phase 1 or 2 clinical trials (ALKA-372-001, STARTRK-1, and STARTRK-2), which enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with metastatic or locally advanced NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours who received entrectinib orally at a dose of at least 600 mg once per day in a capsule. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 and could have received previous anti-cancer therapy (except previous TRK inhibitors). The primary endpoints, the proportion of patients with an objective response and median duration of response, were evaluated by blinded independent central review in the efficacy-evaluable population (ie, patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours who were TRK inhibitor-naive and had received at least one dose of entrectinib). Overall safety evaluable population included patients from STARTRK-1, STARTRK-2, ALKA-372-001, and STARTRK-NG (NCT02650401; treating young adult and paediatric patients [aged ≤21 years]), who received at least one dose of entrectinib, regardless of tumour type or gene rearrangement. NTRK fusion-positive safety evaluable population comprised all patients who have received at least one dose of entrectinib regardless of dose or follow-up. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02097810 (STARTRK-1) and NCT02568267 (STARTRK-2), and EudraCT, 2012–000148–88 (ALKA-372-001). Patients were enrolled in ALKA-372–001 from Oct 26, 2012, to March 27, 2018; in STARTRK-1 from Aug 7, 2014, to May 10, 2018; and in STARTRK-2 from Nov 19, 2015 (enrolment is ongoing). At the data cutoff date for this analysis (May 31, 2018) the efficacy-evaluable population comprised 54 adults with advanced or metastatic NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours comprising ten different tumour types and 19 different histologies. Median follow-up was 12.9 months (IQR 8·77–18·76). 31 (57%; 95% CI 43·2–70·8) of 54 patients had an objective response, of which four (7%) were complete responses and 27 (50%) partial reponses. Median duration of response was 10 months (95% CI 7·1 to not estimable). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events in both safety populations were increased weight (seven [10%] of 68 patients in the NTRK fusion-positive safety population and in 18 [5%] of 355 patients in the overall safety-evaluable population) and anaemia (8 [12%] and 16 [5%]). The most common serious treatment-related adverse events were nervous system disorders (three [4%] of 68 patients and ten [3%] of 355 patients). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Entrectinib induced durable and clinically meaningful responses in patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours, and was well tolerated with a manageable safety profile. These results show that entrectinib is a safe and active treatment option for patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours. These data highlight the need to routinely test for NTRK fusions to broaden the therapeutic options available for patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours. Ignyta/F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Giant-cell tumour of bone (GCTB) is a rare, locally aggressive osteoclastogenic stromal tumour of the bone. This phase 2 study aimed to assess the safety and activity of denosumab in patients with surgically salvageable or unsalvageable GCTB. In this multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done at 30 sites in 12 countries we enrolled adults and skeletally mature adolescents (aged ≥12 years) weighing at least 45 kg with histologically confirmed and radiographically measurable GCTB, Karnofsky performance status 50% or higher (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0, 1, or 2), and measurable active disease within 1 year of study enrolment. Patients had surgically unsalvageable GCTB (cohort 1), had surgically salvageable GCTB with planned surgery expected to result in severe morbidity (cohort 2), or were enrolled from a previous study of denosumab for GCTB (cohort 3). Patients received 120 mg subcutaneous denosumab once every 4 weeks during the treatment phase, with loading doses (120 mg subcutaneously) administered on study days 8 and 15 to patients in cohorts 1 and 2 (patients in cohort 3 did not receive loading doses). The primary endpoint was safety in terms of the type, frequency, and severity of adverse events; secondary endpoints included time to disease progression from cohort 1 and the proportion of patients without surgery at month 6 for cohort 2. The safety analysis set included all enrolled patients who received at least one dose of denosumab. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00680992, and has been completed. Between Sept 9, 2008, and Feb 25, 2016, 532 patients were enrolled: 267 in cohort 1, 253 in cohort 2, and 12 in cohort 3. At data cutoff on Feb 24, 2017, median follow-up was 58·1 months (IQR 34·0–74·4) in the overall patient population, and 65·8 months (40·9–82·4) in cohort 1, 53·4 months (28·2–64·1) in cohort 2, and 76·4 months (61·2–76·5) in cohort 3. During the treatment phase, the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypophosphataemia (24 [5%] of 526 patients), osteonecrosis of the jaw (17 [3%], pain in extremity (12 [2%]), and anaemia (11 [2%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 138 (26%) of 526 patients; the most common were osteonecrosis of the jaw (17 [3%]), anaemia (6 [1%]), bone giant cell tumour (6 [1%]), and back pain (5 [1%]). 28 (5%) patients had positively adjudicated osteonecrosis of the jaw, four (1%) had atypical femur fracture, and four (1%) had hypercalcaemia occurring 30 days after denosumab discontinuation. There were four cases (1%) of sarcomatous transformation, consistent with historical data. Ten (2%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred (two of which were considered treatment-related; bone sarcoma in cohort 2 and sarcoma in cohort 1). Median time to progression or recurrence for patients in cohort 1 during the first treatment phase was not reached (28 [11%] of 262 patients had progression or recurrence). 227 (92%; 95% CI 87–95) of 248 patients who received at least one dose of denosumab in cohort 2 had no surgery in the first 6 months of the study. The types and frequencies of adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of denosumab, which showed long-term disease control for patients with GCTB with unresectable and resectable tumours. Our results suggest that the overall risk to benefit ratio for denosumab treatment in patients with GCTB remains favourable. Amgen.

Few options exist for treatment of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of first-line therapy. Lurbinectedin is a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. In this phase 2 study, we evaluated the acti and safety of lurbinectedin in patients with SCLC after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. In this single-arm, open-label, phase 2 basket trial, we recruited patients from 26 hospitals in six European countries and the USA. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with a pathologically proven diagnosis of SCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, measurable disease as per Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, absence of brain metastasis, adequate organ function, and pre-treated with only one previous chemotherapy-containing line of treatment (minimum 3 weeks before study initiation) were eligible. Treatment consisted of 3·2 mg/m2 lurbinectedin administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an overall response (complete or partial response) as assessed by the investigators according to RECIST 1.1. All treated patients were analysed for activity and safety. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02454972. Between Oct 16, 2015, and Jan 15, 2019, 105 patients were enrolled and treated with lurbinectedin. Median follow-up was 17·1 months (IQR 6·5–25·3). Overall response by investigator assessment was seen in 37 patients (35·2%; 95% CI 26·2–45·2). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events (irrespective of causality) were haematological abnormalities—namely, anaemia (in nine [9%] patients), leucopenia (30 [29%]), neutropenia (48 [46%]), and thrombocytopenia (seven [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 11 (10%) patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (five [5%] patients for each). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Lurbinectedin was active as second-line therapy for SCLC in terms of overall response and had an acceptable and manageable safety profile. Lurbinectedin could represent a potential new treatment for patients with SCLC, who have few options especially in the event of a relapse, and is being investigated in combination with doxorubicin as second-line therapy in a randomised phase 3 trial. Pharma Mar.

A non-randomised, phase 2 study showed activity and tolerability of eribulin in advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. In this phase 3 study, we aimed to compare overall survival in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma who received eribulin with that in patients who received dacarbazine (an active control). We did this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study across 110 study sites in 22 countries. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with intermediate-grade or high-grade advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma who had received at least two previous systemic regimens for advanced disease (including an anthracycline). Using an interactive voice and web response system, an independent statistician randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive eribulin mesilate (1·4 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8) or dacarbazine (850 mg/m2, 1000 mg/m2, or 1200 mg/m2 [dose dependent on centre and clinician] intravenously on day 1) every 21 days until disease progression. Randomisation was stratified by disease type, geographical region, and number of previous regimens for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma and in blocks of six. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01327885, and is closed to recruitment, but treatment and follow-up continue. Between March 10, 2011 and May 22, 2013, we randomly assigned patients to eribulin (n=228) or dacarbazine (n=224). Overall survival was significantly improved in patients assigned to eribulin compared with those assigned to dacarbazine (median 13·5 months [95% CI 10·9–15·6] vs 11·5 months [9·6–13·0]; hazard ratio 0·77 [95% CI 0·62–0·95]; p=0·0169). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 224 (99%) of 226 patients who received eribulin and 218 (97%) of 224 who received dacarbazine. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common in patients who received eribulin (152 [67%]) than in those who received dacarbazine (126 [56%]), as were deaths (10 [4%] vs 3 [1%]); one death (in the eribulin group) was considered treatment-related by the investigators. Overall survival was improved in patients assigned to eribulin compared with those assigned to an active control, suggesting that eribulin could be a treatment option for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. Eisai.

Evofosfamide is a hypoxia-activated prodrug of bromo-isophosphoramide mustard. We aimed to assess the benefit of adding evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy for advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. We did this international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre trial (TH CR-406/SARC021) at 81 academic or community investigational sites in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 15 years or older with a diagnosis of an advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, of intermediate or high grade, for which no standard curative therapy was available, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m2 via bolus injection administered over 5–20 min or continuous intravenous infusion for 6–96 h on day 1 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles) or doxorubicin (given via the same dose procedure) plus evofosfamide (300 mg/m2 intravenously for 30–60 min on days 1 and 8 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles). After six cycles of treatment, patients in the single-drug doxorubicin group were followed up expectantly whereas patients with stable or responsive disease in the combination group were allowed to continue with evofosfamide monotherapy until documented disease progression. A web-based central randomisation with block sizes of two and four was stratified by extent of disease, doxorubicin administration method, and previous systemic therapy. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received any amount of study drug. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440088. Between Sept 26, 2011, and Jan 22, 2014, 640 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (317 to doxorubicin plus evofosfamide and 323 to doxorubicin alone), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall survival endpoint was not reached (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·88–1·29; p=0·527), with a median overall survival of 18·4 months (95% CI 15·6–22·1) with doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus 19·0 months (16·2–22·4) with doxorubicin alone. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups were haematological, including anaemia (150 [48%] of 313 patients in the doxorubicin plus evofosfamide group vs 65 [21%] of 308 in the doxorubicin group), neutropenia (47 [15%] vs 92 [30%]), febrile neutropenia (57 [18%] vs 34 [11%]), leucopenia (22 [7%] vs 17 [6%]), decreased neutrophil count (31 [10%] vs 41 [13%]), and decreased white blood cell count (39 [13%] vs 33 [11%]). Grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia was more common in the combination group (45 [14%]) than in the doxorubicin alone group (four [1%]), as was grade 3–4 stomatitis (26 [8%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 145 (46%) of 313 patients in the combination group and 99 (32%) of 308 in the doxorubicin alone group. Five (2%) patients died from treatment-related causes in the combination group (sepsis [n=2], septic shock [n=1], congestive cardiac failure [n=1], and unknown cause [n=1]) versus one (<1%) patient in the doxorubicin alone group (lactic acidosis [n=1]). The addition of evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy did not improve overall survival compared with single-drug doxorubicin in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas and so this combination cannot be recommended in this setting. Threshold Pharmaceuticals.

Emerging efficacy data have led to the emergency use authorization or approval of COVID-19 vaccines in several countries worldwide. Most trials of COVID-19 vaccines excluded patients with active malignancies, and thus data on the safety, tolerability and efficacy of the vaccines in patients with cancer are currently limited. Given the risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, decisions regarding the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in patients participating in trials of investigational anticancer therapies need to be addressed promptly. Patients should not have to choose between enrolling on oncology clinical trials and receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Clinical trial sponsors, investigators and treating physicians need operational guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer who are currently enrolled or might seek to enrol in clinical trials. Considering the high morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in patients with cancer, the benefits of vaccination are likely to far outweigh the risks of vaccine-related adverse events. Herein, we provide operational COVID-19 vaccine guidance for patients participating in oncology clinical trials. In our perspective, continued quality oncological care requires that patients with cancer, including those involved in trials, be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination, which should not affect trial eligibility.Patients with cancer have a high risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines has provided new hope of mitigating the disease. Herein, the COVID19 and Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group calls for prioritization of patients with cancer, importantly including those participating in oncology clinical trials, for COVID-19 vaccination. The authors also provide operational COVID-19 vaccine guidance for patients participating in oncology clinical trials.

Pazopanib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has single-agent activity in patients with advanced non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma. We investigated the effect of pazopanib on progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after failure of standard chemotherapy. This phase 3 study was done in 72 institutions, across 13 countries. Patients with angiogenesis inhibitor-naive, metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, progressing despite previous standard chemotherapy, were randomly assigned by an interactive voice randomisation system in a 2:1 ratio in permuted blocks (with block sizes of six) to receive either pazopanib 800 mg once daily or placebo, with no subsequent cross-over. Patients, investigators who gave the treatment, those assessing outcomes, and those who did the analysis were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753688. 372 patients were registered and 369 were randomly assigned to receive pazopanib (n=246) or placebo (n=123). Median progression-free survival was 4·6 months (95% CI 3·7–4·8) for pazopanib compared with 1·6 months (0·9–1·8) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·31, 95% CI 0·24–0·40; p<0·0001). Overall survival was 12·5 months (10·6–14·8) with pazopanib versus 10·7 months (8·7–12·8) with placebo (HR 0·86, 0·67–1·11; p=0·25). The most common adverse events were fatigue (60 in the placebo group [49%] vs 155 in the pazopanib group [65%]), diarrhoea (20 [16%] vs 138 [58%]), nausea (34 [28%] vs 129 [54%]), weight loss (25 [20%] vs 115 [48%]), and hypertension (8 [7%] vs 99 [41%]). The median relative dose intensity was 100% for placebo and 96% for pazopanib. Pazopanib is a new treatment option for patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after previous chemotherapy. GlaxoSmithKline.

Abstract Background NC-6300 is a novel epirubicin (EPI) drug conjugated polymeric micelle developed using cutting-edge micellar nanoparticle technology. The nanoparticle epirubicin conjugates EPI to a polymer via a pH-sensitive linker which enables the selective EPI release into tumor. Tumor activity was observed in a monotherapy phase Ib trial, where two of two patients with angiosarcoma achieved a partial response. To further explore the activity of NC-6300 in angiosarcoma, an expansion cohort was undertaken. Methods Ten patients with angiosarcoma were enrolled in the expansion cohort. Patients were dosed using the recommended dose of 150 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) once every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Results The most common adverse events (AEs) of any grade, regardless of the causal relationship with NC-6300, were neutropenia (90%), fatigue, and thrombocytopenia (60% each) and nausea (50%). The most common grades 3 and 4 AEs were neutropenia (80%), thrombocytopenia (40%), and anemia and leukopenia (20% each). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) for all subjects was 5.4 months. The mPFS was 3.8 months in subjects with prior anthracycline treatment and 8.2 months in subjects without prior anthracycline treatment. Conclusion NC-6300 was well tolerated, showing promising activity in angiosarcoma patients without prior anthracycline treatment. NC-6300 warrants further investigation (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03168061). To explore the activity of NC-6300 (nanoparticle epirubicin) in angiosarcoma, an expansion cohort was undertaken. The clinical trial results are reported here.